made a choice necessary; princes and princesses must either marry the partner chosen for them or not at all; and if no partner was offered they must either live in celibacy or in sin.
What could men – lusty Hanoverians at that – be expected to do?
If they were young and romantic they married secretly andmorganatically as the Prince of Wales had married Mrs Fitzherbert, or openly as Augustus Duke of Sussex had married Lady Augusta Murray. The Fitzherbert marriage had caused endless conflict and few people were sure whether or not it had taken place; it was one of the reasons for the unpopularity of the Regent at this time; and had caused suffering and humiliation to Mrs Fitzherbert. As for Augustus, when he had married the Lady Augusta the King and Queen had refused to acknowledge the marriage and there had been a case to decide whether or not the marriage was legal, although it had been celebrated before an English priest in Italy and later in St George’s, Hanover Square. The verdict, however, was that although the Duke of Sussex might have been married in the eyes of the Church this was no true marriage in the eyes of the State because it flouted the Royal Marriage Act which was a law of the land. So Sussex and his Augusta set up house together, supported by his brothers who deplored the Act as much as he did. Sussex had since left her as the Regent had left Mrs Fitzherbert, but both believed that if life had been made less difficult for them, if the women they looked upon as their wives had been able to share their social as well as their private lives, they would have been happily married to this day.
The Duke of Kent, the serious military man, cared passionately for his career; twenty years before he had met in Canada and fallen in love with Mademoiselle Alphonsine Thérèse Bernardine Julie de Montgenet, a beautiful young refugee from the French revolution.
He would have married her but he knew that the King would never have given his consent to his marriage with any but a princess – preferably German and certainly Protestant – of his choosing. So they too set up house together, and had lived a life of great happiness and devotion to each other for more than twenty-five years.
Edward Duke of Kent was a martinet in the Army; he was a man without humour and in every way different from his brother the Prince Regent. He had suffered acutely when he had been recalled from the Governorship of Gibraltar where his stern methods had not been appreciated; he had been jealous of theDuke of York’s Command of the Army, considering him to be but an indifferent soldier; it was said he had played some part in bringing the Mary Anne Clarke scandal to light and had hoped – in vain – to become Commander-in-Chief of the Army when York was forced to resign. But through all his troubles Julie, who had taken the name of Madame de St Laurent after the St Lawrence River on whose banks they had met, had remained with him, to comfort him, to love him, to nurse him when he was sick and to restore his belief in himself when he felt himself to be unappreciated and overlooked.
When they had come to England the Regent with his usual charm and sympathy had received Julie as though she were the Duchess of Kent; and they had bought Castle Hill Lodge at Ealing from Maria Fitzherbert who, being a Catholic like Julie, was drawn to her; they acquired a house in Knightsbridge for Julie, and Edward had his apartments in Kensington Palace. These establishments were costly to keep up and Edward, like all his brothers, was soon deeply in debt.
He and Julie lived in a pleasantly domestic atmosphere. There were young people constantly in and out of the houses. Julie was fond of children and had become godmother to several when she was in Canada and these paid frequent visits. It had been an exceptionally happy household – more domesticated than that enjoyed by Dorothy Jordan and the Duke of Clarence because Dorothy’s frequent absences at
Arnold Nelson, Jouko Kokkonen