Wilhelmine Britain?

King William IV and Queen Adelaide (of Saxe-Meiningen) had seven children carried to term:

1) Pss Charlotte Augusta Louisa of Clarence (b. 1819)
2) A Stillborn child (b. 1819)
3) Pss Elizabeth Georgiana Adelaide of Clarence (1820-1821)
4) A Stillborn child (b.1822)
5) Stillborn Twin Boys (b. 1824)

Now, I was wondering what would the reign of one of William's children have turned out? Said children would not be like Victoria or Charlotte of Wales (too late for Charlotte, for one). And they would hardly be a continuation of the Georgian or Regency era.

That said, unlike the Duchess of Kent, Adelaide would have no real reason for keeping any of her children isolated from the court as Conroy attempted to do with Victoria. Also, William IV was hardly George IV as far as tastes went. George was extravagant, William was a bluff, hearty sailor (so any son I could probably see going into the navy if William's lifespan allows it.)

Also, Adelaide has earned the reputation as being the "first of the Victorians" but unlike Victoria herself, William is not Albert, and in the formative years, their children would be brought up at George's Regency court, and later at William's, compared to Victoria who was brought up under the "Kensington System". So, even if Adelaide was perhaps "Victorian" in viewpoint, William would counteract this.

So, what would say a King William "V" and his siblings look like? Victorian and prim-and-proper? Or Regency rake?
 
King William IV and Queen Adelaide (of Saxe-Meiningen) had seven children carried to term:

1) Pss Charlotte Augusta Louisa of Clarence (b. 1819)
2) A Stillborn child (b. 1819)
3) Pss Elizabeth Georgiana Adelaide of Clarence (1820-1821)
4) A Stillborn child (b.1822)
5) Stillborn Twin Boys (b. 1824)

Now, I was wondering what would the reign of one of William's children have turned out? Said children would not be like Victoria or Charlotte of Wales (too late for Charlotte, for one). And they would hardly be a continuation of the Georgian or Regency era.

That said, unlike the Duchess of Kent, Adelaide would have no real reason for keeping any of her children isolated from the court as Conroy attempted to do with Victoria. Also, William IV was hardly George IV as far as tastes went. George was extravagant, William was a bluff, hearty sailor

Ever hear of "Victoria's wicked uncles"? William was definitely one of them.

While William was not the flaming playboy that George was, he spent lots of money and was indebted much of the time.

Also, while he was not the inveterate womanizer that George was, he had a very public relationship with his mistress Dorothy Jordan, who bore him ten bastard children (the Fitzclarences).

Though he settled down after his marriage to Adelaide, breaking off contact with Mrs. Jordan.

Also, Adelaide has earned the reputation as being the "first of the Victorians" but unlike Victoria herself, William is not Albert...
That's putting it mildly.
So, what would say a King William "V"...

Note though that this assumes Frederick, the brother between him and George, still dies without offspring. That however is probable, as he was estranged from his wife, who died in 1820, by which time he was 57. And unlike William and Edward of Kent, he didn't try to remarry and beget an heir.

and his siblings look like? Victorian and prim-and-proper? Or Regency rake?
The Fitzclarences:

George Augustus (1794-1842) a rakehell, eventually went mad and shot himself
Henry (1795-1817) died in India
Sophia (1796-1837) married respectably
Mary (1798-1864) married; wrote a utopian feminist novel
Frederick (1799-1854) served in the Army (Lt Gen)
Elizabeth (1801-1856) married an Earl
Adolphus (Rear-Admiral) (1802-1856) served in the Navy, commanded the Royal Yacht
Augusta (1803-1865) ???
Augustus (1805-1854) ???
Amelia (1807-1858) married a Viscount

So, a little edgy but not all-out.

I'd say on the respectable side. The Regency was over. However, it does create somewhat of a breach in the respectable front of the Royal Family for the King to have a herd of bastard siblings.

William V would be at most 16 or 17 years old, and perhaps younger - therefore a regency (Victoria was just barely 18). Adelaide was mostly apolitical, but tended conservative.

King William V is likely to be much like his father - an amiable buffer.

Other knock-ons.

The Salic Law split with Hanover is delayed at least another generation.

Ernest Augustus doesn't inherit there, and so remains in Britain, I think.

When William V gets older, he is much more likely than Victoria to assert royal prerogatives; though William and George didn't much, so it may not matter.

Victoria's niece by her older half-sister was briefly courted by Napoleon III; the family turned down the match in part because of thundering silence from London. ITTL, the girl isn't related to King William, so either Nap isn't interested, but possibly it goes through.
 
Last edited:
WHAT? NO Empress Eugenie?:eek:D

If William were to have legitimate children, those by Mrs Jordan were always treated with kindness by Adelaide, hence, the Queen might still do the same and have an extended royal family (the FitzClarences and the Hanovers).

Many queens uncomplainingly accepted their husbands bastards (without the histrionics of Marie de' Medici) - eg Catherine of Braganza stayed silent about Charles II's, pnd he liked her for that, even defending her when he felt her honor had been infringed or she was not duely respected.
 
If William were to have legitimate children, those by Mrs Jordan were always treated with kindness by Adelaide, hence, the Queen might still do the same and have an extended royal family (the FitzClarences and the Hanovers).

They were all born long before he married Adelaide, and he had completely broken off with their mother, so there was no reason for her not to accept them.
 
Top