The Fate of Queen Anne's Son, William of Gloucester
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
I have finally managed to settle the sometimes-benevolent
small dictator of my household into his swing, with a full
tummy, a clean nappy and into a nap... uff. I wonder
what kind of causal connection there is between karma
and colic? ;)
Anyway...
I mentioned the sad fate of young Prince William, the
Duke of Gloucester, the sole product of the incredible
seventeen pregnancies of the last Stuart monarch, Queen
Anne to survive infancy or toddlerhood.
For Dev's benefit, the shortest answer is: "No one
can say, absolutely, positively and for certain of what
HRH Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, son of Queen
Anne and Prince George of Denmark, died."
Now, those who are inclined can read the broader
explanation which includes what is known and what *can*
be inferred from what is known both of Prince William,
certain influences and the age in which he lived.
The jury could be said to be still "out" on the final
verdict for a cause of death. Alison Weir definitively
states it as hydroencephaly, but then Mme Weir has come
to many conclusions that are not always supported with
evidence. Suffice to say she *could* be right.
To be blunt, I am betting that HRH Prince William was
a strange-looking little kid. One of the most famous
portraits of Queen Anne shows her with her ill-fated
son, it was done by the studio of Sir Godfrey Kneller
around 1694 (it's currently on display at Beningbrough
Hall.) Let's remember that Court painters often
flattered their subjects - not all Royalty was attractive,
neither then nor now, but a clever and talented artist
could make the most unprepossessing princess into a
beauty, the most unlikely prince dashing.
Most people are immediately going to think of the
problems Hans Holbein the Younger "caused" with his
"too-flattering" portrait of Anne of Cleves (which led
to Henry VIII's shortest marriage of record ;) but there
is evidence that that debacle was completely unintentional.
Usually, the "fudging" had more to do with showing the
"sitter" to his or her best advantage. An example of
this was the short-legged Charles V, King of Spain and
Holy Roman Emperor. The best portraits of the King
show him on horseback, making him look dashing and
heroic, minimizing his short legs and showing his long
body to advantage. Anna of Cleves was another example.
By depicting her directly face-on, Holbein, whether or
not it was intentional, minimized one of Anne's least
successful features - her very long nose with its
somewhat bulbous tip. Another portrait, done in "3/4s
face" (by another artist) shows the nose in all its...
glory... ;)
A prime example of out and out, beyond-the-Pale, "gilding
of the lily" are the portraits of Carlos II of Spain,
who was an outright, hands-down, inarguable FREAK of
Nature, the personification of everything that can go
wrong when a gene pool is reduced to a puddle. While
his portraits are not terribly attractive, this was a
guy who could frighten the horses, and he looks passable
in his portraits. (An article that details all that
went wrong with Carlos II appears at:
http://www.hom.net/~walkuere/news-AGR/carlosii.html )
So, given that Court painters routinely made their
Royal patrons look better than they did, and they managed
to transform Anne's bulk into stately majesty, one can
easily imagine that poor little Prince William looked
considerable more odd than he does in his paintings,
which don't make him look much different (if not
terribly attractive) at all.
All of the portraits I have seen show the young prince
with a broad, wide, high forehead. In some of them, it
is distinctly disproportiate to the rest of his features.
Again, bearing in mind the "minimizing of flaws," one
can imagine the kid had quite a noggin on him.
These portraits are probably the basis of the latter
diagnosis of hydropencephaly ("water on the brain") that
many people accept today - of course this diagnosis
would have been largely unknown in Stuart England of
the time.
Statistically, "special" children are, unfortunately,
abused. In ages past, they were especially seen as
Divine judgement against a parent, or even evil themselves.
There were absolutely no allowances for "special children"
hundreds of years ago. The best that could be said of
most of their fates is that, if their parents had the
wherewithal, they often found themselves shuttled into
monasteries and convents, and it was said that "Princess
X had a vocation, took the veil" or "Prince Y devoted his
life to prayer..."
Anne Stuart desperately needed an heir and dearly desired
a child. That being said, it didn't mean either she, nor
her advisors, were necessarily "enlightened" as to the
limitations or abilities of a "special child." William
of Gloucester was given a Dukedom by his maternal aunt,
the new Queen, Mary II. Unfortunately, it was not a
position the young prince was likely to "grow into," there's
fair odds that Prince William never learned how to spell
"dukedom" much less have any concept of what a duke should,
or could, do.
There were two things to do with a "special child" in
Prince William's circumstances, and it appears that Anne
went with both: a) publicly pretend that nothing was
wrong, and b) try to force the child into some kind of
"breakthrough" - if a child is kept at something long
enough and strenuously enough, he will progress. Sure,
the latter can work, up to a point. But keeping a
hydroencephalytic child at the books forever will never
produce an astrophysicist.
"Spare the rod and spoil the child," the quotation runs,
and corporal punishment was meted out, even to those with
blue blood. Perhaps Prince William was not "progressing"
as quickly or consistently as hoped, and so frustrated
his keepers, his tutors or even his Royal mother. I
would like to think of Queen Anne, who lost so many babies,
that she would not have the cruelty in her that it would
take to beat a child to death.
More likely, the Princess (for Anne was not yet Queen
during William's lifetime) was not involved directly
enough with her son to know that he was being mistreated,
even though, possibly, it was done in her name, or even
with her tacit approval (one man's idea of "admonishment"
is another man's torture. Jane Grey had the snot slapped
out of her on a regular basis and it was not considered
by most of her era to be abuse, though it certainly was.)
I believe the "official word" at Prince William's death
was that he died of scarlet fever. Certainly, his death
closed the hopes that the 35 year old Princess Anne was
going to have a child that would thrive (her last
pregnancy had resulted in a final, stillborn daughter
who was not named in January of that same year - 1700.)
The "Complete Peerage" gives his death as being from
"either scarlet fever or as the result of bleeding after
the frequent whippings he was given." It is entirely
possible that the unhappy little boy, who died six days
after his eleventh birthday, suffered from all three.
~ C.
--
- CEM-L-G
Personal Homepage: http://www.hom.net/~walkuere/
"Bis Ihre Lebensdauer beendet wird, haben Sie gerade genug
erlernt, es gut anzufangen." - Eleanore Marx
"Who can refute a sneer?" - William Paley (1743-1805):
Moral Philosophy. Vol. ii. Book v. Chap. 9.
"Se desiderassi sentire il vostro parere, Vi darei uno."
Italian common sense ;)
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
DeadeyeDev
>For Dev's benefit, the shortest answer is: "No one
>can say, absolutely, positively and for certain of what
>HRH Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, son of Queen
>Anne and Prince George of Denmark, died."
---------
There you go! Now that wasn't too painful, was it?
I noticed and appreciate that you mentioned that within the first 10
sentences, BTW.
You know, Candice, if you continue to be so thoughtful, we just might end up
friends...
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> You know, Candice, if you continue to be so thoughtful,
> we just might end up friends...
Dev, dahlin', we just might be able to, but I must
insist on you spelling my name correctly... no "i,"
should be an "a." ;)
For your pleasure, I send the following synopses, which
break down some of the bigger Royal stories to brass
tacks. Will continue to elaborate for the pleasure of
others who enjoy reading all the dizzying details.
10 ROYAL SYNOPSES:
1) Henry VIII and his six wives:
Narcissistic perennial adolescent marries older
Spanish prude. No baby boys survive, he gets
younger woman. Ambitious younger woman fails
to deliver promised boy. Gets the axe. Place
taken by opportunistic wallflower. She dies
after Grand Slam. Henry marries quintessential
"yuck" (too low to kick, too wet to step on)
gets buyer's remorse and Royal equivalent of
Las Vegas quickie divorce. Marries teenage
featherhead on whom more men have been down
than on the Titanic. She gets the axe. Marries
wannabe intellect with feminist leanings.
Headed to the scaffold when saved by the bell.
2) Hannoverians come to the Throne:
The Stuarts are fabulous in producing children.
Too bad the "illegitimates" outnumber the
"legitimates" at 50 to 1, and the "legitimates"
go Roman. Legacy goes to German Protestant
cousins.
3) Victoria comes to the Throne:
George III has fifteen legitimate children.
Sons prefer mistresses to wives. Death of
Charlotte starts marital and reproducing race.
Edward's filly, Victoria of Kent, wins.
4) George IV and Caroline of Brunswick:
Narcissistic Mama's boy bigamously marries
ugly, odiferous cousin, who gives him quid pro
quo on almost every front of bad behaviour.
Living proof that "it only takes once" to
produce a pregnancy. The resultant scandals
sent editors' descendants to Eton for the next
100 years.
5) "House of Mountbatten" nixed:
Ambitious uncle of Royal consort crows about
the ultimate FuF. Royal consort pays price.
6) Henry II and his four sons:
A King needs an heir. Henry's story typifies
what happens when a King has too many sons
who survive to adulthood.
7) The reign of "Gloriana":
Narcissistic chick outwits half-brother and
half-sister, survives to espouse a country,
has technical virginity bronzed.
8) Victoria and Albert:
A hard man is good to find. ;)
9) Aliaenor d'Aquitaine:
Proof that a wimple can't stop an intelligent,
resourceful woman.
10) Mary, Queen of Scots:
Heroine to fans of romance novels everywhere.
Proof that "style over substance" can result
in losing one's head - literally.
REDHAND1
scathingly witty (oops! that's the sound of my English grammar teacher
spinning in his grave..).
Candace E. Metz-Longinette-Gahring
>
> Have you written a book? If so, I'd love to buy it!
Thanks, and no, but it's on my "list of things to do."
This keyboard for hire - anyone know a good publisher? ;)
> Your synopses are scathingly witty (oops! that's the
> sound of my English grammar teacher spinning in his
> grave..).
Again, thanks. :)
I really turn loose when the subject is Royalty in
movies. Good God, they really went all-out for the
recent fiasco "Elizabeth." LOVED that scene where the
Catholic priest floats like a great bat with his cape
flowing at Elizabeth in a corridor. ;)
DeadeyeDev
>scathingly witty (oops! that's the sound of my English grammar teacher
>spinning in his grave..).
------------
Hello Redhand. Want a number?