Queen Victoria & Prince Albert--Photos and Information

[Martyn]

Just as a point of interest, Edward Duke of Kent had lived with Mme de Saint Laurent for TWENTY SEVEN YEARS before he married Victoria's mother.
In spite of having a yearly income of £24,000 (a huge sum in those days) he was hopelessly in debt and hoped that he would benefit upon his marriage in such a way as to remedy this situation.  He also needed to pay off Mme de Saint Laurent, who in his own words "had never been an actress" and who had come to him in good faith with only a small income from him of £100 in the beginning (this later rose to £400, then £1000 and back to £400 when his debts became pressing - small pickings for a royal mistress!)
In the end he got an increase of £6000 per year (less than he hoped) and Mme de Saint Laurent retired into the shadows.

[jehan]

Edward Duke of Kent's mistress was called Mme de Saint Laurent, was she not?
I believe that he was sincerely attached to her; however this did not stop him from ditching her when the royal marriage race began.
Does anyone know if there were children from this relationship?

I do not believe that there were any children- none are recorded anyway.  Occasionally someone comes forward claiming to be a descendant of the relationship (one "Robert Wood" comes to mind, among others).  But if there were any, surely they would be mentioned in contemporary sources?  After all his brothers had illegitimate children, and they were not objects of shame and secrecy (re the FitzClarences and FitzGeorges).  Some say that Victoria had any mention of a child expunged from records once she succeeded to the throne, in case her legitimacy was questioned, but again this is highly unlikely- first of all there is no record of of a marriage, and if there were one, it would be in contravention of the royal marriages act anyways, so not legal.  Secondly, in a 27 year relationship, surely there would be a reference in a letter  or a court document somewhere which would mention a child of the Duke of Kent- the arm of a nineteenth century monarch could not reach everywhere!  And Mme St Laurent survived the Duke for years- if she had had a child, surely she would have mentioned it!  So any claim of a child, I would greet with skepticism.

[Anthony Chapman]

I've come across this interesting debate about Edward, Duke of Kent and his possible illegitimate offspring by Julie de St Laurent quite by chance. I don't know your website but I'll pitch in my contribution by relating that my great great grandmother, Mary Anne FitzEdward, is rumoured in my family to be Edward's daughter. We've been unable to trace her birth registration but from her marriage and death certificates know that she was born c. 1806, came from Clapham, Surrey and her parentage was unrecorded. If Julie was born (as I've read) in 1760 then it's most unlikely she could have borne Mary Anne, but if that date is inaccurate (after all, Edward was born 1767) then it might be more feasible. For a number of reasons I've a suspicion that our Mary Anne had an unknown mother. I also suspect that I'm not going to be able to prove or disprove our family legend. But the prefix of 'Fitz' in those days was indicative of royal bastardy.

[Marlene]

I think that it should be kept in mind that Edward, Duke of Kent did have a long-term mistress, Madame St. Vincent. Like a few other of the Hanover brothers, Edward is said to have had illegitimate children. The person who stated before about QV's half-sibling was correct. She has other siblings besides the Leiningen's.[/quote]


The Duke of Kent's mistress was Julie St. Laurent, and they probably did not have any children.  In fact, JUlie did not have children by any of her lovers.   It would have been unusual for Kent to not acknowledge an illegitimate child, as his brothers acknowledged theirs.  

[otmafan]

Another portrait of Princess Feodora

[Marlene]

[ For a number of reasons I've a suspicion that our Mary Anne had an unknown mother. I also suspect that I'm not going to be able to prove or disprove our family legend. But the prefix of 'Fitz' in those days was indicative of royal bastardy.[/quote]

It would have been unlikely for Edward and Julie to not have acknowledged children, as this would not have been the pattern in the family.  His brothers didn't hide their illegitimate issue.  Julie was the mistress of several men during her lifetime, and she had no children by any of these men.

[Martyn]

Nevertheless that is an interesting little tale about Mary Anne FitzEdward - one never knows.
Just out of interest, did anyone ever get to the bottom of what happened to Hannah Lightfoot, the Quakeress who was reputed to have married George III in secret?

[MarquisAnthony]

I have really been waiting for along time about information on Madame St. Laurent and the Duke of Kent. The likelihood of children was very high. I wonder if QV would have had any relationship with them and how she viewed illegitimate children. She was pretty open to morganic marriages with the aristocracy such as the Battenburgs and the Tecks, I wonder how she would have viewed her relatives like the FitzClarences, William IV's flock.

Excellent point Martyn on the lack of acknowledgement from Madame St. Laurent of any children. Surely she would have said something. Make an appeal for a pension

[Martyn]

As Marlene has previously pointed out, Julie de Saint Laurent had no children from any of her liaisons; had there been any issue from her involvement with the Duke of Kent, they would surely have been acknowledged, in the same way that his brothers acknowledged their progeny.
I really can't imagine how Victoria would have dealt with that; we do know that for a time the wife and family of her cousin the Duke of Cambridge 'did not exist', as this was another morganatic marriage.  But, having said that, if it had been her own half-brother or sister, it might have been a different matter.  Who knows?

[MarquisAnthony]

Thanks Martyn. I did not know that George of Cambridge was in a morganic marriage. Who did he marry?

Also I fixed my multiple typos in my previous posting. I hate typos and I must have been exhausted that day. :-/

[Martyn]

The Duke of Cambridge was married to Sarah Louisa Fairbrother, more often known as Louisa.  She had been an actress and they had three sons who were given the family name of Fitzgeorge, the 'Fitz' usually denoting royal illegitimacy.
Their sons were Col. George William Adolphus Fitzgeorge, 1843 - 1907, Sir (Rear Admiral) Adolphus Augustus Frederick Fitzgeorge 1846 - 1922 and Col. Augustus Charles Frederick Fitzgeorge, 1847 - 1933.  
They seemed to have a marked preference for certain names!

[MarquisAnthony]

Oh! Ok! Now I remember them. Sometimes I get real mixed up in regards to the Hanover brothers and their mistresses. I remember Louisa Fairbrother and such. And it seems as though the FitzGeorges went out to make a name and career for themselves.

[Martyn]

Oh! Ok! Now I remember them. Sometimes I get real mixed up in regards to the Hanover brothers and their mistresses. I remember Louisa Fairbrother and such. And it seems as though the FitzGeorges went out to make a name and career for themselves.

You may be right about the Fitzgeorges, MarquisAnthony.  I don't know an awful lot about them and am hoping that a new book that I have ordered will supply some pictures of and information about them.
Mind you, connections are all in this life and I am sure that having such an illustrious father probably opened doors for them.....

[MarquisAnthony]

Oh definitely Martyn I do know that. What book did you order that you think will provide info about them?

[Martyn]

Oh definitely Martyn I do know that. What book did you order that you think will provide info about them?

Do you know I am such an idiot, I've forgotten the title!  The book, along with some others, is being delivered to my work address; I will be back at work on the 4th Jan (hopefully they should have arrived by then) so I will let you know the title and whether it has the info about the Fitzgeorges.