Who’s Your Daddy?

Tags

Caroline Matilda of Great Britain, Christian VII of Denmark, Denmark, Johann Struensee, King George III of Great Britain, Kingdom of Denmark, Louise Augusta of Denmark, Queen Victoria of Great Britain, Royal Geneaology

When I began my interest in European Royalty one of my great pleasures, and still is to this day, is perusing genealogy charts and trying to memorize who all these people are and how many different ways they are connected to one another. However, at one point the thought occurred to me that these charts may not accurately reflect what actually happened. In other words, was the parentage of each royal accurate or was someone else, in reality, the father of certain children. I have discovered there are times when who the actual father of a royal really is.

In legal terms as long as the legal spouse acknowledges the paternity of the child then that child is said to be the legal offspring of the marriage. In all or royal circles this has been the majority practice. I know of only one case, Princess Louise-Auguste of Denmark (1771-1843), where paternity was well known not to be that of the queen’s legal husband, King Christian VII of Denmark, but he acknowledged the child as his anyway. It is broadly accepted that her real biological father was Johann Friedrich Struensee, the king’s royal physician and de facto regent of Denmark at the time of her birth. It was also known at the time that the mentally unstable king was estranged from his queen, Caroline-Matilda of Great Britain. After the affair the king and queen were divorced in 1772.

Struensee, who had initiated many modernizing and emancipating reforms, was arrested and executed for high treason for his affair with the queen that the same year. Christian VII reluctantly signed Struensee’s arrest and execution warrant under pressure from his stepmother, Queen Juliane-Marie, the power hungry queen led the movement to end the marriage and hopefully advance her son (Hereditary Prince Frederick of Denmark and Norway) in his claims to the Danish throne.  Caroline Matilda, retained her title of Queen but her children were taken away from her. She was eventually exiled from Denmark and passed her remaining days at Celle Castle in her brother, King George III of Great Britain’s German territory, the Electorate of Hanover. Her life was tragic. She died there of scarlet fever on May 10, 1775, at the age of 23.

Princess Louise Auguste of Denmark, though officially regarded as the daughter of King Christian VII, was, in fact, the daughter of Queen Caroline Matilda and Johann Friedrich Struensee. Their daughter had a better life than her mother and her actual illigitimacy did not affect her position in society. She was married to a Danish cousin, Frederick Christian II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg. He was born the eldest son of Friedrich Christian I, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg (1721–1794), and his cousin Princess Charlotte of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plön (1744–1770). Until his father’s death, he was styled “Hereditary Prince of Augustenborg”.

This marriage was arraigned by Danish Chief Minister Andreas Peter Bernstorff, because he theorized that since a son of Louise Auguste could ascend the throne some day, it would be beneficial to arrange a marry to the “half-royal” and to keep her in the family. The result of this plan closely re-connected the Danish royal house’s two lines, the ruling House of Oldenburg and the offshoot House of Augustenburg. The marriage took place on May 27, 1786 and the 14-year-old Louise Augusta was married to the 20 year old Frederick Christian II, Duke of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg at Christiansborg Palace.

The couple lived at the Danish court in Copenhagen for many years until the Christiansborg Palace fire of 1794 and the death of the elder Duke of Augustenborg, Frederik Christian I, 1721-1794, when her husband inherited his father’s the estate, title and the Duchy. The new radiant Duchess of Augustenburg was often the center of court activities, and was proclaimed the “Venus of Denmark”; she was the real female center of the Danish royal court even after her brother, King Frederik VI, married in 1790 to Princess Marie of Hesse-Kassel. Sadly the union was a mismatch for the spouses were different: Louise Augusta was extrovert, lively, beautiful and pleasure-loving, Frederik-Christian II was homely, serious, and only interested in philosophy and politics. This is where history repeated itself. Louise Auguste was said to have had many lovers, and the most notably among them was the doctor Carl Ferdinand Suadacini, who treated her for infertility and was believed to have fathered her three children. Unlike the situation with her mother and Friedrich Struensee, this rumor cannot be proven. Despite being a great-granddaughter of King George II of Great Britain and having many British royal cousins, Louise Auguste felt sympathy for the French Revolution and from 1789 onward held anti-British views.

Frederik-Christian II died on June 14, 1814. He was succeeded by his eldest son, Christian-August II, who was only sixteen years old. Duchess Louise Auguste took control of the Augustenborg estates and the children’s upbringing. However, the estate was turned over to Christian-August II, on his return from an extended foreign tour in 1820. After her short period as a regent for her son, Louise-Aguste then resided in the Augustenborg Castle, where she established an eccentric court. She had a close and warm relationship with her daughter, Caroline Amalie (September 28, 1796-March 9, 1881), who would become Queen of Denmark as consort to Christian VIII, but her relationship to her sons was tense. Louise-Aguste died at Augustenborg in 1843, when her brother’s reign in Denmark had already ended (Frederik VI 1808-1839) and Christian VIII (1839-1848)*, her son-in-law, ascended – she thus died as the mother of the then Queen of Denmark.

* Christian VIII (September 18, 1786-January 20, 1848) was the King of Denmark from 1839 to 1848 and, as Christian-Frederick, King of Norway in 1814. He was the eldest son of Hereditary Prince Frederick of Denmark and Norway and Duchess Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, born in 1786 at Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen. His paternal grandparents were King Frederik V of Denmark and his second wife, Duchess Juliane-Marie of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel.

This will be a relatively short series. The parentage of the following monarchs will be looked at: King Edward III of England, King Alfonso XII of Spain, Archduke Maximilian of Austria (Emperor of Mexico), Emperor Pavel of Russia.

Oh, here is another interesting bit of trivia. Princess Louise Auguste of Denmark was the grandmother of Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg who was married to Princess Helena of Great Britain, daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.

Advertisements

HM Queen Elizabeth II, Britain’s Longest Ruling Monarch!!

Tags

Elizabeth II, Longest Ruling Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria, Silver Jubilee

When I began my interest in British and European Royalty back in 1977 Queen Victoria had been Britain’s longest ruling monarch. Her Majesty, the Queen, had celebrated her Silver Jubilee, 25 years on the throne, and the thought of her becoming Britain’s longest ruling monarch and breaking her great-great-grandmother’s record was not on my mind. In 1989 Her Majesty passed Henry VIII of England’s 37 years on the throne and it was then I thought that maybe someday, in 2015 I calculated, she could become Britain’s longest ruling monarch. In 1989 the year 2015 seemed like a life-time away. In 1997 the Queen passed her name sake, Queen Elizabeth I’s 44 year reign and seeing how good her health was and the fact that her mother, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was 97 at the time and still going strong, lead me to believe this historic event could be achieved.

It has been a long time coming and now it is here. I do have to say that because the Victorian Era has been one of my favorite eras to study I do greet this day with a little sadness but I am happy to see the queen reach this historic milestone in her reign.

During her reign Her Majesty has shown herself to be the very picture of a dedicated, hardworking, constitutional monarch. Congratulations your majesty on reaching this historical milestone! May her majesty continue to reign for a long long time.

Historically speaking, since she is the longest ruling monarch in British history she has five more years to beat HIM Emperor Franz-Joseph of Austria-Hungary’s 68 years and nine more to beat Louis XIV of France and Navarre’s 72 years on the throne.

When Monarchs ruled.

Tags

2012. Parliament, Absolute Monarchy, Age of Enlightenment, Charlemagne, Classical Liberalism, Constitutional Monarchy, Edward I of England, Louis XIV of France and Navarre, William the Conqueror

When I began my interest in royalty I was at first solely concerned in learning their particular genealogies. As I delved into the history of each country I began to be interested in the reigns of each monarch. I learned how monarchies survived going from periods of absolute power to the constitutional form we have today. Somewhere in the process I became a monarchist myself. With all the political infighting that occurs among politicians I think it is beneficial to have a figurehead as the Head of State. A Head of State that is symbolic of the nation and is above the petty partisan politics of the day. I think there are many beneficial aspects of having a Head of State being politically impartial for that gives them the opportunity of serving all the people and not just members of a particular party.

I need to be honest though, I do miss the days when Monarchs actually ruled and held some power. It is one of the things I enjoy about reading the history of these countries that were or are monarchies. For me it is an issue of power. In life some people have power and some do not. It is fascinating to read how those that held power used that power. So I find that the days when monarchs actually held power to be fascinating. Those times are even more interesting when a larger-than-life figure such as when Charlemagne or William the Conqueror or Louis XIV held power. I am sure I am romanticizing things because I know life was not all puppies, rainbows and roses under these monarchs. Yet things were not always terrible for there were monarchs that held power that did good for their country.

I look at King Edward I of England (1272-1307) as a good example. Historians report that the king could be a frightening individual and that he had a reputation because of his intimidating fierce temper also with a domineering physical presences. There is an anecdotal story about when the Dean of St Paul’s, who desired to confront the king about his broad level of taxation, was so intimidated by the king that he collapsed and died instantly the moment he was brought into the King’s presence. That sounds crazy to our modern scientific minds but it could be plausible that the stress of meeting this intimidating King could lead to sudden cardiac arrest. There was also a report that when the Prince of Wales (future Edward II) petitioned and pressured his father to grant an earldom for his personal favorite and friend, Piers Gaveston, the King grew impatient with his sons demands and the King exploded in anger and purportedly tore out handfuls of his son’s hair!

Edward is also known for the establishment of the Model Parliament. Parliament gathered on a fairly regular basis during his reign. In 1295 the king brought about some significant changes. At this point in history the English Parliament contained the secular (the nobility) and ecclesiastical lords (Priests and Bishops). In 1295 Edward also summoned two knights from each county and two representatives from each borough. These two representatives from the boroughs planted the seed for what eventual lead to the development of the House of Commons. Although having commoners sit in Parliament was not exactly new, the precedent setting status of these commoners was the fact that they were given, by the king, authority (plena potestas) of their communities, to give assent to the decisions made in Parliament. No longer were these commoner representatives there to give a rubber stamp and to simply assent to decisions already made by the upper magnates, they now met in Parliament with the full authority nobility and ecclesiastical lords had. This structure eventually became the standardized formation for later Parliaments.

Edward I was a mixture of being a good king with some bad personality issues. Now I do support Classical Liberal ideals of the democratic principles that came of age during the Enlightenment period where we have a right to select those that rule over us. However, I do enjoy reading about these monarchs such as Edward I who did hold power and also, with his creation of a more egalitarian Parliament, demonstrated that many times they could be effective and efficient rulers. While it is best to now have the monarchs as being above partisan politics you really cannot blame a monarchist for missing the good old days when they held actual power.