Royal Marriage Secrets
Page 1
In memory of my friend and colleague,
Dr Karen Tracy Yates-Sabren,
who read bits of it while I was working on it in Turkey,
and who had been looking forward to reading the whole thing.
Oh, ’tis a glorious thing, I ween,
To be a regular Royal Queen!
W.S. Gilbert, The Gondoliers
Such a lot of things are such rot.
History, for instance.
Why, it’s quite different out of different books!
Agatha Christie, The Moving Finger
CONTENTS
Title Page
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Author’s Note
Introduction
One: The Background
1 The Evolution of Marriage
2 Medieval Marriage Practice
3 Royal Marriages 1050–1330
4 Suitable Status
5 Irregular Royal Affairs
6 Summary of the Background Information
Two: Secret And Bigamous Medieval Royal Marriages
7 The Love-Matches of Edward III’s Children
8 Secret Weddings and Witchcraft in the House of Lancaster
9 Talbot’s Daughter and the Grey Mare
10 The Infanta and the Nyght Crowe
11 Review of Secret and Bigamous Medieval Royal Marriages
Three: Reformation, Registration, Cohabitation
12 The Virgin Queen
13 Old Rowley and Mrs Barlow
14 Dr and Mrs Thomson
15 Review of Alleged ‘Tudor’ and Stuart Secret Royal Marriages
Four: The Act Of Settlement, The Marriage Act And The Royal Marriages Act
16 Queen Hannah and Princess Olive
17 Princess Fitz
18 Mrs Brown
19 Murders in Whitechapel and Mysteries in Malta
20 Review of Secret Marriage Allegations in the Modern Monarchy
21 Conclusions: The Queens-That-Might-Have-Been
Appendix 1: Monarchs of England and their Consorts
Appendix 2: List of Royal Extramarital Affairs
Appendix 3: Original Documents
Appendix 4: The Mystery of Laura Culme-Seymour’s Death Certificate
Notes
Bibliography
Plate Section
Copyright
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I should like to thank Annette Carson and Dave Perry for reading and commenting upon draft versions of parts of the text. I am also grateful to Dr Alison Rowland for her advice on medieval love magic, and to Robert Galea-Naudi for his kind assistance with my researches in Malta.
AUTHOR’S NOTE
There are three practical points to draw to the attention of my readers concerning the way in which names have been written. First, in the days before her marriage to the Prince of Wales, it always struck me as a little bizarre when the media referred to HRH the Duchess of Cornwall by the surname of her first husband, rather than calling her by her birth surname – Camilla Shand. The practice of previous historians has often been inconsistent on this point. Some royal consorts, such as Elizabeth Woodville and Catherine Parr, are generally known by their maiden surnames, despite the fact that they had previous husbands. Others, such as Mrs Fitzherbert and Mrs Simpson, are generally called by their married surnames. But in genealogy and family history the normal practice is to refer to women by their maiden names. Therefore throughout this book women’s maiden surnames are used consistently if these are known. Where their married surnames are more familiar, these are sometimes added in brackets in the text and they are cross-referenced in the index.
The second point is that in historical documents some first names occur in many variant spellings. ‘Catherine’, ‘Catharine’ and ‘Katheryn’ are good examples of this. Likewise ‘Eleanor’ in medieval documents is often ‘Alianore’. I have tried to spell first names in one consistent way throughout. One exception is Isabel(le)/Isabella. Where this name refers to ladies of French origin the French spelling, Isabelle is used; for Spanish ladies, the Spanish form, Isabel. Isabella is only used for English ladies who were baptised with that form of the name. Of course, my selections reflect my personal choice and my spellings may not be everyone’s favourites.
Finally, sometimes royal names and/or numbers are given in square brackets – as for example George [IV]. This is simply to show that at the date in question the monarch had not yet succeeded to the throne.
INTRODUCTION
Some historians argue that personal relationships are of little or no real importance in the course of history. I believe that they are wrong. Private emotions certainly affect people and when they are the emotions of people in power they can change the course of events. Moreover, royal sexual activity and royal marriage have always exerted a certain popular fascination, and they continue to do so to the present day. The ménage à trois between the present Prince of Wales, his first wife Diana, and his mistress (later his second wife) Camilla, at times generated huge amounts of publicity. The marriage history of the prince’s siblings – likewise that of his aunt, Princess Margaret – also engaged considerable media attention at key periods.
Modern media interest in royal marriages – particularly questionable royal marriages – is often perceived to date back to the 1930s, and the relationship of the then Prince of Wales (Edward VIII) with his American divorcee, Bessie Wallis Warfield (Mrs Simpson) – a drama which ended in marriage only after the king’s abdication. However, eighteenth- and nineteenth-century press reports about George [IV]’s relationship with the Catholic widow, ‘Princess Fitz’ (Maria Smythe, Mrs Fitzherbert), and about ‘Mrs Brown’ (referring to Queen Victoria’s reputed relationship with her highland ghillie, John Brown) show that there is a much longer history of public interest in such matters.
With only four or five (possible) exceptions1 all English monarchs since the Norman Conquest in 1066 have married at some stage in their careers. Even those whose sexual proclivities may have led them to prefer partners of their own sex did usually marry – constrained to outward conformity by dynastic necessity.2 Some kings married more than once. Many also had sexual partners outside their marriages. However, the number of English monarchs whose marriages have been a matter of dispute can be counted on two hands. Situations in which the identity of a sovereign’s marriage partner was unknown or uncertain were normally ruled out by a natural concern for the succession to the throne.
Nevertheless, secret marriages have been reported or alleged in the case of eight English monarchs and one would-be monarch: Edward IV (reigned 1460–83), Henry VIII (reigned 1509–47), Elizabeth I (reigned 1558–1603), Charles II (reigned 1660–85), ‘Charles III’ (never quite a monarch, but a famous royal figure, and the Stuart pretender to the throne 1766–88), George III (reigned 1760–1820), George IV (reigned 1820–30), Queen Victoria (reigned 1837–1901) and George V (reigned 1910–36). In addition to these nine cases, there have also been allegations of secret royal marriage relating to two heirs to the throne who died before they could succeed. One of these allegations is linked with a celebrated case of serial murder. It relates to George V’s elder brother, Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. The other alleged secret marriage of an heir apparent relates to Edward III’s son, the ‘Black Prince’.
Although we shall focus chiefly on these eleven cases, alleged secret marriage within the royal family as a whole is a more widespread phenomenon. The secret marriages of princes and princesses will provide a background and context for our exploration.3 Moreover, one case in the wider royal family – the alleged secret second marriage of the queen mother, Catherine of France (widow of Henry V) – is significant so it will be explored in s
ome detail, focusing on possible new evidence.
In some of these allegations, religious issues are important. In particular the stories of the secret marriages of George [IV] and of Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence, to Catholic partners confront us with the discriminatory nature of the 1701 Act of Settlement. The provisions of this act still apply at the moment of writing. Recently it had seemed that things were about to change. In the Queen’s Speech at the opening of Parliament in May 2012 it was announced that the prohibition which prevents British royalty from marrying Catholics would soon be lifted. However, it now seems that the coalition government of Britain has dropped its plans for repealing the Act of Settlement. But for this act, of course, and other legislation affecting the royal succession, one of our cases of disputed royal marriage – that of the Prince of Wales [George IV] with Maria Smythe (Mrs Fitzherbert) would undoubtedly have been legal. But this merely serves to reinforce the point that it is essential for us to be aware of precisely which marriage legislation was in force at the time when each of our disputed royal weddings is alleged to have taken place.
Six of the allegations against sovereigns involve the imputation of bigamy. This is most famously the case in respect of the future George IV. Another instance of bigamy can be detected (albeit heavily disguised by his own propaganda machine) involving Henry VIII. Further cases involving bigamy – largely overlooked by posterity – have been alleged in the cases of Edward IV, ‘Charles III’, George III and George V. These six instances of possible royal bigamy will all be examined and evaluated here.
We shall also consider the quite well-known secret royal marriage allegation involving Charles II. This was certainly not a case of bigamy, for Charles’ two unions (whatever the nature of the first of them) did not overlap chronologically. Nevertheless, there are features which link his case with some of the bigamy allegations.
The remaining two cases of reigning monarchs that we shall explore involved two of England’s queens regnant. These, like the case of Charles II, contain no element of bigamy as far as the monarch is concerned, though in the case of Elizabeth I the complicated story does involve the accusation of bigamy against at least one of the queen’s alleged partners. It also impinges upon the true identity of William Shakespeare!
Of course, whole books have been written about each of these royal personages, and the stories of their alleged marriages have been recounted elsewhere. However, they have never previously been examined together to explore how the different cases can shed light on one another. This present study seeks to take an overview of the phenomenon of disputed English royal marriage as a whole, offering some new evidence, highlighting common features and points of contrast, and suggesting possible explanations.
In the case of Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot, the present writer himself has previously published a detailed exploration of the relevant surviving evidence.4 It was interesting that subsequent discussion of this material and of its interpretation revealed that even some well-known historians apparently had little understanding of how marriage evolved over the past thousand years. Yet the changes in this key social institution have been enormous, and are ongoing. This serves to remind us that when we try to explore historical situations it is absolutely essential to try, as far as possible, to put ourselves back into the context of the period we are studying. Failure to do so is almost bound to lead to anachronisms and errors.
Before we can attempt to understand and interpret the evidence in our cases of disputed royal marriage, we must first try to understand the evolution of marriage practices in England.5 Therefore we shall begin by tracing the overall development of English marriage practice in general over roughly the past one thousand years. We shall also consider the particular evidence relating to the history of royal marriages during this period.
Moreover, since the cases that we shall examine in detail relate to disputed marriages, we should consider what might have been the nature of these nine royal relationships if they were NOT marriages. This means that we shall also review background information relating to England’s many illicit royal love affairs. And since it is important to define all our terms of reference as precisely as we can, as part of our background exploration we shall also consider the interesting question of what was, or is, a ‘mistress’.
Even without reference to wider material on the history of marriage, the disputed royal marriage cases themselves, when considered together, highlight the important point that the form and nature of marriage has not been something fixed and immutable in English history. For example it is easy to see that the marriage legislation which impinged upon George IV made his matrimonial playing field very different from the one upon which Henry VIII had manoeuvred 250 years earlier.
Over the centuries there have been many changes in how marriage is perceived, and how it is carried out. Fifty years ago the majority of English marriages took place in churches. Now this is no longer the case – nor was it the case five hundred years ago. The wording of marriage vows has recently become somewhat flexible – as it was also in the distant past. Nowadays one essential component of any marriage is the marriage certificate. But, in general, prior to the sixteenth century no written records of marriages were kept. Even the history of wedding rings shows that what is now, in popular perception, a key feature of the wedding ceremony has witnessed changes. In the seventeenth century Puritans even attempted to ban wedding rings.
Some of the changes in practice and attitude have been quite huge. Modern rules about marriage are very clear, but in the medieval and early modern period marriage was a kind of minefield. It was only too easy to thoughtlessly utter the wrong words which, when coupled with subsequent sexual intercourse, might leave one tied up in an unintended but almost indissoluble bond. At the same time there is no doubt that this situation could be – and at times was – exploited by infatuated, cynical and powerful men to overcome the moral scruples of reluctant girlfriends. In another way, however, the situation was equally open to manipulation by clever women for their own advantage.
Looking at alleged secret royal marriages over nearly 700 years – from the case of the Black Prince in the mid-fourteenth century to that of George [V] in the late nineteenth century – will help us to understand the evolution of English marriage legislation in general, exposing the differences underlying the individual cases. At the same time, however, common features will be revealed. Hopefully both points will help us to understand each of the individual cases rather better.
Looking at the royal marriage disputes together is interesting in several respects. First, we shall see that in six of the nine cases the disputed marriage of the monarch was set in the wider context of other secret and disputed marriages within the royal family as a whole at the period in question. For example, the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries had witnessed several unusual Plantagenet and Lancastrian royal marriages prior to the key Yorkist marriage case of Edward IV. The marital manoeuvres of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I occurred in the broader context of several mésalliances in the Tudor dynasty as a whole. For contemporaries, the alleged marriage of Charles [II] and Lucy Walter was set against the background of an acknowledged – but initially secret – non-royal marriage on the part of the king’s younger brother, coupled with the alleged secret marriages of some of his cousins. And the stories of the marriages of George III and his beautiful Quaker, and of George [IV] and his Catholic widow – while each was exceptional in respect of the lady’s religion – were both, in other ways, very similar to the independent and unauthorised matrimonial conduct of the younger brothers of the respective bridegrooms. In several of our cases we must also take account of the fact that it was an outside party who brought the alleged secret wedding into the public domain. An examination of the motivation behind this revelation will therefore form part of our assessment. Another important point, which we shall encounter in several instances, concerns the avowed religious or moral scruples of at least one of the female partners involved.
In several of the disputed cases, the disbelief of historical writers seems to be founded mainly on the lack of any direct proof of a marriage, coupled with the existence of what has been perceived to be an ulterior motive on someone’s part in claiming that a secret marriage had existed. The logic of both of these arguments seems questionable, and in attempting to determine whether or not the disputed secret marriages really took place, we should ideally try to seek firmer ground. As we have already seen, prior to the sixteenth century there was rarely any formal written evidence of a marriage, so that for most, if not all, medieval marriages the available evidence is bound to be circumstantial. Moreover, lack of evidence that an event occurred can never be construed as proof that the event did not take place. If possible, clearer evidence against an alleged union should be sought before dismissing the allegation out of hand. Likewise, the fact that a third party may later have benefited from a secret marriage allegation does not, by itself, prove that allegation to be false.6