Author Topic: queen anne and king george 1st  (Read 41497 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2007, 11:51:44 AM »
does anyone know who was next in line after the hanoverians according to the act of settlement?


Frederick William of Prussia.

Oh! Sophia Charlotte's son? I never took that into account!

IA, I don't George Hanover and George Denmark were that similar - people just tend to think they were both boring. George Denmark certainy didn't have George Hanover's cruel, malicious streak. I'm not sure whether or not he was unfaithful to Anne - perhaps you do, palatine?

That is true. But, they were both boring, I can't see that either was an interesting person. Of course, Anne's husband would never have treated her the way George treated his wife when he divorced her and locked her away. That was his cruel streak coming out. Anne was a seemingly docile person, but I think she pretty much wanted her way, and that might really have made a marriage between her and George not work out, thinking about it. Anne was dull, but stubborn. He might not have wanted to be merely a king consort either, if she had become Queen. But, maybe he might not have cared, given the fact when he was king, he let his ministers run the goverment, although that is partly because he was totally uncomfortable in England, whereas, if he had married Anne, he would have become comfortable with England. Still, he was pretty German, and he didn't seem to want to change.

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2007, 05:39:12 PM »
I'm not sure whether or not he was unfaithful to Anne - perhaps you do, palatine?

He was faithful to her.

I didn't read this before I posted last time, but that is a further argument that Anna was better off married to George of Denmark, dull though he was. It was highly unusual in that era for royal husbands to be faithful, and she certainly would not have found that with George of Hanover. ;)

palatine

  • Guest
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #17 on: January 17, 2007, 09:59:09 AM »
That is true. But, they were both boring, I can't see that either was an interesting person.

George of Denmark was a younger son.  He was financially dependent on Anne and forced to live in her country as her subject.  He had some influence with her, but it only went so far.  If he’d had real clout, he would have made her end her intimate friendships with Sarah Churchill and Abigail Masham after gossip started circulating about them at the English and Continental courts.

George of Hanover was rich and a ruler in his own right, so he would have had no need to tolerate her aforementioned friendships.  He would have been a better protector than GD, for he would not have allowed the Churchills and other jackals to prey on her.  It’s probable that he would have cheated on her, but her father, brother-in-law, and Uncle Charles cheated on their wives, as did many of their courtiers, so it’s highly unlikely that she would have made scenes over it, etc.  I don’t think they would have been happy, but they might have made a go of their marriage anyway. 

You described Anne as dull; you’re entitled to your opinion.  I think that she was a sympathetic figure and far more likeable than Mary.  Anne was a poor little rich girl who was often preyed upon by people who knew how little she thought of herself.   She was surrounded by users and takers, not real friends.  It must have been unbelievably painful for her to have lost all of her children and to have found so little sincere sympathy from anyone.  After William of Gloucester’s death, she underlined her alienation from the English court by contacting her father – a dangerous political step - in order to weep on his shoulder, so to speak, over her dead children.  That's not dull, in my opinion, but tragic.

As for your opinion that George of Hanover was boring, etc., generations of English historians certainly back you up on that.  I recently read a book by one of them, John Brown, called Anecdotes and Characters of the House of Brunswick.  Here are two brief excerpts:

George the first was a prince of no extraordinary depth or acuteness of understanding…his character was radically coarse, and wholly unsusceptible of grace, delicacy, or refinement: his passions, when roused, were violent, and they were neither associated with generous sympathies, nor ennobled by magnanimous sentiments.  By his conduct to his unhappy wife, he manifested a vindictive spirit, and a brutal insensibility to the feelings of compassion or the claims of justice.  His malignant antipathy to his son betrayed a callousness of heart, revolting to nature, and a groveling suspicion, disgraceful to a manly character.”     

On the fatal day when Count Konigsmark was murdered, I was made a prisoner of state, a guard was stationed at my chamber-door, and the infamous women, van Platen and Meissenbourg, obtruded their hateful presence to enjoy the spectacle of my ruin, and mock the misery they had caused.  Just after the bloody deed was finished, the Elector…entered to announce the murder, and my speedy removal.  ‘The sooner the better,’ said I.  ‘Send me where you may, you cannot fix upon a residence so infamous as your palace or so loathsome to me.’  … I did not fear death, it would have been welcome; but, my children! ...  As I leaned over the innocents, the cruel fiends laughed at me, and said, ‘See!  How she mourns the death of their father!”  “Wretches!’ said I, ‘their father lives; and the God that knows my innocence will avenge our wrongs!” … I saw nor thought of any one but my infants, -from them I was to be torn, to leave them in the power of wolves and tigers!”

Brown’s book is chock-full of misinformation meant to make the Hanoverians in general and George in particular look like the scum of the earth.   Books like his were so common in the 19th century that some of the ridiculous claims made in them found their way into a lot of history books, i.e. the myth of Sophia Dorothea’s last letter to George, which allegedly triggered his death. Brown et al wrote this malicious bibble babble because Jacobite books had become fashionable and sold very well.  They also wrote this garbage as a means of griping about the fact that the rulers of Great Britain were of German ancestry and proud of it (it was not until World War I that the royal family’s positive attitude towards their German ancestry changed).  Most people chose to put their faith in the tripe spewed forth by Brown et al because it's always easier to follow the herd than to seek out and stand up for the truth. 

George was a skilled commander, a brilliant politician, a believer in religious tolerance, and a patron of musicians.  He divorced and imprisoned his wife because she'd cheated on him and had caused a scandal in the process.  His action seems cruel in this day and age, but back then many thought he'd been more merciful than she deserved: he would have been within his rights to behead her for treason.

« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 10:24:22 AM by palatine »

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #18 on: January 17, 2007, 01:03:32 PM »
The one thing that stands out to me about George was that perhaps he was seen badly later on or even then, because he was fine in Germany, but that he never fit in in England. He wasn't to blame for that, but I don't the English saw him as a sympathetic figure because of that. He seemed foreign. He never got himself involved in goverment, which he perhaps didn't understand all that well in England, although I think it was more that it was a language barrier. This allowed Parliament and ministers to gain more power, and thus his reign strengthened constitional monarchy. If he had come to the throne earlier, things might have been different.

Anne was tragic in some respects, and I think she was thought of as dull at the time, because she was not as beautiful or witty as her sister. She had no sparkle in public anyway. Having read about her, and her sister, I think her sister was more interesting, although more docile and conventional. Anne had more spirit. Her image is what I believe prevented her from receiving sympathy.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #19 on: January 17, 2007, 04:11:00 PM »
I wouldn't say that Anne had more spirit than Mary - the other way round, I think. I tend to agree with Palatine (except that I prefer Mary of the two) in that I used to find Anne quite unsympathetic (perhaps because of my liking for Queen Mary Beatrice) but recently I've become more sympathetic to her, and I now see she was an interesting character in her own right. She didn't have Mary's charm and public manner, but she had great dignity and was fundamentally kind hearted.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

ilyala

  • Guest
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #20 on: January 18, 2007, 02:43:05 AM »
i think george was thought of as dull by his english subjects because he didn't speak english - i believe he never even bothered to learn it - and because he paid more attention to the hannover ruling than to the english ruling. i'm sure that his government enjoyed the liberty that came with that but i'm sure that they also despised him for that (who would prefer a small german state to the mighty england?)

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #21 on: January 18, 2007, 08:24:10 AM »
To me Anne had more spirit in the way she insisted on what she wanted, although her husband was certainly more willing to give it to her than William would have to Mary. She certainly didn't have a very good public image, but she made up for that in various ways. Her life wasn't what she deserved. I don't dislike her, but Mary would have been easier to be around. Anne seems never to have been very happy. I agree with the last post about George.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2007, 09:12:01 AM »
I don't understand what you mean about Anne insiting on getting 'what she wanted' and that her husband was 'more willing to give it to her'. What exactly do you mean?  ???
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #23 on: January 18, 2007, 09:17:03 AM »
I just mean in general, that George of Hanover and William, husband of Mary would not have been pushovers, as much as George of Denmark was. Anne had a husband who was rather more of a pushover than most royal husbands would have been. I wasn't refering to anything specifically.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #24 on: January 18, 2007, 09:28:12 AM »
Why do you think George was a pushover though?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #25 on: January 18, 2007, 03:20:43 PM »
Just because from what I've read of him, he seems like he was pretty laid back. As well, as noted by someone earlier on this thread, he tolerated things with her George of Hanover wouldn't of. I thought that was a good point. Although George of Hanover was a bit more strong than some royals in that era.

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #26 on: January 18, 2007, 03:50:18 PM »
What things did he tolerate? Anne was a perfect wife by the standards of the period, apart from her childlessness. What was there to 'tolerate'?
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

Offline Romanov_fan

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4611
    • View Profile
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #27 on: January 19, 2007, 04:23:57 PM »
Okay, maybe I was overstating that. It was just my opinion. I think an earlier poster mentioned George of Hanover would not have put up with those friendships of hers, so maybe it was unusual that George of Denmark did?

Offline Prince_Lieven

  • Moderator
  • Velikye Knyaz
  • *****
  • Posts: 6570
  • To Be Useful In All That I Do
    • View Profile
    • Edward III's Descendants
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2007, 04:30:21 PM »
George Denmark was just as much under the Churchills' thumbs as Anne was, I believe.
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
-Sherlock Holmes

"Men forget, but never forgive; women forgive, but never forget."

bell_the_cat

  • Guest
Re: queen anne and king george 1st
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2007, 02:33:42 PM »
George of Denmark.....

It seems though, doesn't it that he was highly unconfrontational, and that if there was an easy way out he took it? This was his course of action in 1688, and he seems to have been the same until his death! It's quite exceptional that he was such a zero, and I would guess that it had maybe less to do with his abilities (which were above average) than with some self-abnegating trait of character. Does anyone know anything about his parents and family background which would help to explain.

I well remember my history teacher describing him (unfairly) as "an utter buffoon"!