British Kings "Bullet Book," George IV, 1820 - 1830
BillJones
Posts: 33,486 ✭✭✭✭✭
1826 George IV Sovereign
A contemporary George IV cartoon
• George IV was a fat, overindulgent monarch who was more interested in enjoying the extravagant lifestyle of a king than in performing the duties of governance.
• His actual time as king was at least 10 years longer than his official dates because his father, George III, was mentally incapacitated for the last decade of his reign.
• George secretly married the love of his life, Maria Fitzherbert, who was a Catholic widow, in 1785. The marriage was not sanctioned by the royal family and was not supported by British law. Kings were forbidden to marry Catholics at that time.
• George committed bigamy when he was forced to marry his cousin, Caroline, a German princess, in 1785. The marriage was forced upon him in order to get Parliament to pay his debts. Caroline was probably mentally ill.
- For George the match was repulsion at first sight. It has been reported that Caroline practiced poor hygiene and stank most of the time.
• On their wedding night, George passed out drunk on the floor of their bridal chamber. He did do his royal duty and produced one heir to the crown.
• The couple quickly parted company after George produced a daughter with Caroline. George fathered many other children, all of them illegitimate. George was never able to obtain a divorce from Caroline.
• George blew £ 243,000 on his coronation. His gold embroidered robe was so long and heavy that it took nine pages to carry it. In the mean time, his estranged wife, Caroline banged on the door of Westminster Abby to be admitted to the ceremony. She was not allowed to enter. Caroline died three weeks later.
• The greatest sadness in George’s life occurred in 1817 when his royal daughter, Princess Charlotte, died at age 21 from childbirth. She was a very popular figure, and George was grief stricken at her death. Since George had no legitimate heirs, the crown passed to his younger brother, William
Comments
Many things I could say, I am a very big supporter of George IV.
While he was a bad spendthrift, the principal buildings, furnishings and furniture, art and style that the Royal Family is known for today were gathered up and put in place by George IV and his servants.
George substantially remodeled Windsor Castle into its present form and style, and he had the present Buckingham Palace built out of a property formerly owned by his parents. He presented his father's well-crafted and substantial Library to the nation and that was the founding core of the present-day British Library.
George had a very great and accurate sense of just what he could get away with, and he would edge right up to the line time after time - in politics and personal excess and spending, - but he never crossed it. This personal sense of what the monarch could and could not do contributed a lot to the creation of the present constitutional monarchy.
George IV did as much as any other single man to create the sensible modern England that existed from 1810 to 1960.
But he did cross the line when he ran up gambling debts he couldn’t pay, and he really crossed the line when he married Catholic Maria Fitzherbert without any sanction from the government or royal family. Yes, he had a good eye for art and architecture, but his personal life was a mess.
I have two decent coins of George IV and many others too. My very very nice 1826 penny (brown) is not at hand right now. This half-sovereign is. It is just an average coin, but it has a great provenance!
Both incredibly high gambling, and clandestine marriages later dishonored were nothing new among the English aristocracy of the Eighteenth Century.
There were always vague rumors that George III had contracted a clandestine marriage a few years before Charlotte showed up in England.
The Prince of Wales' union with Mrs. Fitzherbert was a bit more documented and their relationship did continue off and on until about 1820. She did send him a letter in his last illness, and her portrait was in a minature that he was wearing on a cord about his neck when he died in 1830.
The Royal Marriages Act was recently amended so that it applies to only the first six grown persons in the line of succession!
I personally agree that gambling is stupid, but if the sovereign is God's Elect, hey, Who I am to argue? I can lose a lot of money collecting coins too!
Nice coin!
My YouTube Channel
Thank you for the coin compliment, but it was simply bought as a representative gold piece for a King that I have read a great deal about. The ticket from an interesting foreign auction sale was just a bonus.
George IV had to have known what a marriage to a Catholic met to the British nation, given the long period of religious strife that had existed prior to his reign. Given the fact that he had so many mistresses, was this one that important?
Add to that the fact that his disinterest in executing the king’s duties handed more power to parliament, there is no way you could say that that this guy was a good king, despite his artistic talents. George IV took a big step toward making the king or queen into a figure head.
George IV’s Visit to Ireland and the events leading up to the visit as described on the Turtle Bunbury site.
http://www.turtlebunbury.com/history/history_irish/history_irish_georgeiv.htm
Conder Token Gallery https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMCiunai6NjOxoo3zREkCsAnNm4vONzieO3u7tHyhm8peZmRD_A0MXmnWT2dzJ-nw?key=Rlo2YklUSWtEY1NWc3BfVm90ZEUwU25jLUZueG9n
You would have preferred a strong Monarch in conflict with his ministers and Parliament? Most historians and political theorists and practical politicians would say that George's gradual handing over power(s) without strife was the very best thing that could have happened to the British nation. Paying the bills for George's personal interests and excesses was cheap as long as the King was not thwarting his ministers and as long as he was agreeable to the gradual, practical transfer of power(s).
Mrs. Fitzherbert apparently got a wedding ring because without it, she would not grant the Prince her "favors".
You admire him; I don’t. Would you be happy if I falsely acquiesced? Can’t we just disagree?
We can disagree, but one needs to recognize that there are "fashions" in history. History is rarely a set of exact, immutable facts.
What was fashionable thought when we were first introduced to a subject often gets reassessed with the passage of time and as scholars uncover new information. George III's illness and the assessments of the character and importance of George IV have both evolved quite a bit.
How true.
Back when the late Arthur Schlesinger held a near monopoly on the rating of U.S. presidents, Ulysses S. Grant and Warren G. Harding were at the bottom of the pile as “failures.” Schlesinger was a Democrat who served in the Kennedy administration and he allowed party loyal to color his surveys. Two the presidents who rank at or near the bottom today, Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan, got “below average” ratings in the Schlesinger surveys.
Today some liberal historians are pushing Grant up to “average” because of his actions against the KKK during the Reconstruction period. When you chide them about the many scandals that occurred under Grant’s watch, their response is, “It doesn’t matter.”
There are a few conservative observers who try to rehabilitate Harding by saying that he was an advocate for capitalism and free markets. His scandals similarly “Don’t matter.”
I would say that rating Grant and Harding as the worst is off the mark. As is true in the making of a truly great president, the events of the time have to provide a leader were difficult choices to show that they are great or very bad. Buchanan presided over the period just before the beginning of the Civil War and failed miserably. He was the perfect storm of incompetence and catastrophic events. Therefore he now gets the nod for “worst president.”
As for Grant and Harding, Grant did oppose the KKK, and there was a navel treaty during Harding’s term that was a great success. Neither of them had what it takes to be an effective president, but they didn’t almost run the nation over cliff the way Buchanan did.