Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796-1817)


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

iowabelle

Royal Highness , Royal Blogger, TRF Author
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
2,403
City
Des Moines
Country
United States
I was surprised to see no previous comments about Princess Charlotte!

My last issue of Majesty has an interesting article about this forgotten princess. The author states that her last, and fatal, pregnancy was mishandled by the doctors throughout her term. My question is, what were these doctors doing to this poor girl for the period of her pregnancy? And what ultimately killed her?
 
I don't know how much truth there is to it, but I've read that she might have had porphyria and that it could have complicated her pregnancy.

Considering the state of medical science back then, it's a wonder more royal ladies didn't die in childbirth, to be honest. I think part of the problem with Princess Charlotte might be that there were different doctors with different opinions and nobody wanted to take responsibility.
 
Princess Charlotte had a short, and for the major part of it, a sad life. Apparently Queen Victoria looked like her physically, according to King Leopold of Belgium, her husband.

From what I've read of her, mostly through bigraphies of Queen Victoria, the physician who took care of her during her pregnancy was partly responsible for her death. He killed himself some days after Charlotte passed away.
 
I guess it would be likely that Charlotte and Queen Victoria looked similar, given that their fathers were siblings.

Just think... if Charlotte had survived with children, and Queen Victoria had also been born, how similar their offspring would have looked, with Prince Leopold and the Duchess of Kent also being siblings. But thinking about that contorted family tree gives me a headache!

It's rather touching that Leopold named his daughter Charlotte... and how that poor young lady became Mexico's Empress Carlotta.
 
It's rather touching that Leopold named his daughter Charlotte... and how that poor young lady became Mexico's Empress Carlotta.
A nice gesture towards his first wife. Though one may wonders how the second wife, Louise-Marie of Orleans, felt about it!

Would have Charlotte lived, Leopold and her would probably have ended as happy as Victoria and Albert.
But Belgium probably wouldn't be ruled by the Saxe-Coburg today...There's no way the Consort of Queen Charlotte could have been King of the Belgians then.
 
She was very Hanoverian looking, a bit more so than Victoria- she looks like the Georges. Had she and esp her son (or a future son) lived it's unlikely Victoria would ever have been born. It was Charlotte's death that set off all George IV's brothers trying to marry and have heirs.Otherwise, Victoria's father the Duke of Kent might just have stayed with his long time ( many years) mistress Julie St. Laurent.
 
I recently read an account of the last pregnancy and death of Princess Charlotte. It answers some of my questions, so I should probably summarize it here if anyone cares.

Charlotte seems to have been very popular, despite the variable popularity of her parents.
 
Yes, her father and mother basically both had bad reputations. It can't be said it wasn't deserved in their cases. Charlotte was young and despite these parents was a different person in a good way. As a rare female heir to the throne who was young and had promise it isn't surprising she was popular- she was forgotten fairly fast, but in her lifetime was really the only legitimate grandchild George III had by his sons- a fact that helped her be popular I'm sure.
 
I wrote this up and forgot about it... By the way, there's a new book coming out about Princess Charlotte and the ensuing race to breed an heir for Britain.

From Carolly Erickson's Our Tempestuous Day


Early in her marriage to Prince Leopold, Charlotte had two miscarriages. Finally her pregnancy was announced in February 1817. Things seemed to go very well at first. Charlotte was in good spirits and put on a lot of weight, which caused the obstetrician, Sir Richard Croft, to try to calm her down by putting her on a very restrictive diet and letting her blood. Charlotte became worried and depressed, and her condition weakened.


Dr. Croft believed that the baby would be born about October 18 or 19. The last month was torturous for Charlotte, with more dieting and bloodletting. Queen Charlotte, who had undergone childbirth 15 times, was concerned that something was wrong about the shape and size of Charlotte's bump.


Char lotte finally went into labor on November 3. Although Doctor Croft was assisted by two other doctors, he refused to allow the others to see Charlotte and he even banished Prince Leopold and other relatives. Doctor Croft reported that Charlotte was well and things were going normally but slowly. By the time Charlotte had been in labor 2 days it was obvious that he should perform a forceps delivery. The common practice however was to allow nature to follow its course. Unfortunately the baby was in a transverse position [which means what].


After 50 hours of labor the baby prince was born dead. Charlotte had eaten nothing this whole time and was seriously weakened. Erickson thought that porphyria had set in and her weakness made her even more vulnerable to the effects of this disease (don't know what this means). The doctors dosed Charlotte with brandy and tried to keep her worm, but her pulse failed and she had chest and stomach pains. She was confusd, lost sensation and had continued problems breathing. This was followed by convulsions and death.
 
I've never read that book, or the book about George IV's wife ( Charlotte's mother) either. Most of what I know comes from bios of Queen Victoria. As for the thing about porphyria that was a disease that could lead to madness that it is said George III had and it could have been passed on to some of his descendents. This was something Charlotte would have had prior to pregnancy, but if you look up the symptoms of porphyria, they do not seem to have been reflected in Charlotte ( at least not what we know of her, granted she didn't live very long). The passage is saying she may have had porphyria prior to pregnancy and then her weakness during the birth etc made her more vulnerable to the disease.
 
I was surprised to see no previous comments about Princess Charlotte!

My last issue of Majesty has an interesting article about this forgotten princess. The author states that her last, and fatal, pregnancy was mishandled by the doctors throughout her term. My question is, what were these doctors doing to this poor girl for the period of her pregnancy? And what ultimately killed her?
7 April 2009
You may wish to consult my latest book, Royal Maladies: Inherited Illnesses in the Ruling Houses of Europe, trafford.com/08-0070, in which I argue that Charlotte died of an attack of porphyria, which affected her father George IV and grandfather George III.
arrdoc
 
Can you imagine what the British Royal Family would be like today if Charlotte hadn't died? The Duke of Kent wouldn't have married, Victoria would have been born. Thus we wouldn't have had Victoria, Edward VII, King George V, Edward VIII, George VI or Elizabeth II!

Amazing how the death of one person could truly alter the dynastic line.
 
Just wonder if it wouldve been for better or worse
 
Nobody knows, if it would have been better or worse, although actually, it's been quite good. I had never realized that Princess Charlotte china was made, even. But the broken saucer reminds me of how Charlotte's line of descent to the British throne was broken when her son died at birth and then she too. Nothing remained to carry on, except the aging brothers of her father, determined to have heirs. I wonder what it would have been like had Charlotte died, but her son lived.
 
All of history is made up of "what ifs?" Suffice it to say, whether one believes in God or not, that destiny and fate determine the outcome of people and events. What is certain is the death of the heir to the throne, along with her child, influenced Leopold who in turn influenced his young niece who ascended to the throne once intended for Charlotte to occupy.
 
And it freed Leopold up to become King of Belgium...
 
Warren tells me I obviously meant to say that Leopold became King of the Belgians. :lol:

Once again, my attempt to be a knowitall has failed. :eek:
 
So after Charlotte's death, Leopold was offered the opportunity to become King of the Belgians.

I wonder if this opportunity would have been presented if Charlotte didn't die so young. I can't imagine the English excited about having another foreign prince who could have dragged them into the affairs of Europe. (i.e. Mary I and Phillip of Spain;
Mary II and William III).

And props to Leopolds second wife, it takes a strong woman (or a woman who had no choice I guess) to name your daughter have your husbands dead first wife.
 
My guess is that if Charlotte had survived and succeeded to the throne, that Leopold would have served as a consort a la Prince Albert, and never gotten a throne of his own. Instead, he had to get his own kingdom and be the meddlesome uncle in the UK.
 
So after Charlotte's death, Leopold was offered the opportunity to become King of the Belgians.
He appears to have been well liked by the members of the House of Hanover and may have been offered the throne as a way of extending a sphere of influence from both the United Kingdom and the German Hanoverian province.
I wonder if this opportunity would have been presented if Charlotte didn't die so young. I can't imagine the English excited about having another foreign prince who could have dragged them into the affairs of Europe. (i.e. Mary I and Phillip of Spain; Mary II and William III).
I concur with your views. It is unlikely that a consort to the Sovereign would ever be allowed to take a foreign throne by invitation. Leopold by all accounts was a superb statesman and I believe that he, like Albert, would have relished being the power (to some extent) behind the throne of England and thus would probably not be interested in being a foreign ruler. As it was, he guided his young niece until Albert arrived to continue her schooling in statesmanship and leading the country.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Princess Charlotte survived, there was no way Leopold would have been offered the Belgian Throne. It was not a matter of tolerance - the biggest and most influential party that backed Leopold’s candidacy during The National Congress of 1830 (when the future of Belgium was decided) was Britain. If Charlotte were still alive, Britain would certainly choose someone other than the spouse of the future Monarch of their country. Moreover, other countries, especially France and the Netherlands, would have never supported Leopold’s candidacy as it would mean too much British influence in Belgium: indeed, Leopold and Charlotte’s son would one day become King of both countries.

King George IV was always very fond of his son-in-law, even after Charlotte’s death: a token of the affection can be seen in the fact that King George (then Prince Regent) granted Prince Leopold the style of Royal Highness a year after Princess Charlotte’s death.
Although George IV died months before the National Congress started, his successor, King William IV, knew and appreciated Leopold as well: he was also well-aware of Leopold’s pro-British views and spirit, so his representatives actively supported Leopold’s candidacy.

It should be noted, however, that Britain was not the only major power that supported Leopold: Russia was also ‘fighting’ for Leopold’s case (who had ties with Russia, was a Lieutenant General in the Imperial Russian Army and had fought on the Russian side during Napoleon Russian Campaign), the Netherlands viewed Leopold as the most acceptable among the candidates (their candidate, Auguste de Beauharnais, 2nd Duke of Leuchtenberg, was deemed ‘unacceptable’ by both British and French), and even France withdrew its initial opposition and supported Leopold during the later stages of the Congress (it is often rumoured that this was done only after his engagement to Marie-Louise of France, the eldest daughter of King Louis-Philippe of France, was agreed on – even though Leopold was in a morganatic at the time).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks all for the information especially you Marsel! Awesome!

It does make sense that if Charlotte had lived, Leopold most likely wouldn't have been offered the throne.

Again, the What If's are amazing. If Charlotte had lived most likely Elizabeth II woudln't be on the throne...but then again...Victoria was her cousin...but as mentioned before......Victoria only came to be because Charlotte no longer was.
 
Last edited:
You are most welcome, Zonk and Vasillisos Markos! :flowers:
I've always been greatly interested in the short and tragic life of Prince Charlotte: as Zonk said, there are so many What If's connected with her life, and especially her untimely death, you just can't stop wondering how little things sometimes change the course of History.
 
I think sometimes it's the what ifs that make history so very fascinating. We think everything might have been better perhaps had such and such not happened. It's true though that Queen Victoria was a good ruler for England, however, when people die young and tragically with much ahead of them as Charlotte did, it's always easy to see unrealized potential, although certainly she had some.
 
Charlotte might have wound up as mercurial and goofy as her father and other Hanoverian relatives, we really don't have much to measure her potential against.
 
Very true. Mercurial and goofy are both good words to describe that generation of the RF. Queen Victoria finally gave the throne some respectability. Perhaps Charlotte would have done the same, we just don't know.
 
Back
Top Bottom