GEORGE, Prince of Denmark (1653-1708)

Before the Revolution, 1683–8

Prince George’s first visit to England seems to have been in 1669 when he was described as ‘a very fair young prince’. HMC Le Fleming, 65. Whether he was even then considered to be a suitable match for the young Princess Anne is unclear. During the 1670s James, duke of York, was almost certainly exploring the possibility of finding her a Catholic husband and at one stage seems to have been interested in marrying her to the ‘prince of Florence’, presumably Ferdinando, son and heir apparent to the despotic Cosimo III of Tuscany. HMC 13th Rep. vi, 100; G. Treby, A Collection of Letters and Other Writings Relating to the Horrid Popish Plot (1681), 95. Another candidate for her hand was Prince George of Hanover (later George I). In the autumn of 1682 Anne herself seems to had a somewhat indiscreet relationship with John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham). Quite how indiscreet remains a matter for speculation. Some whispered that ‘his proceedings … spoil her marrying to anybody else’; some that he had written her a letter; some ‘will have his crime only ogling’; while yet others blamed rivalries at court. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 236; Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 6 Nov. 1682; J. to Sir R. Verney, 9 Nov. 1682; Denton to Sir R. Verney, 13 Nov. 1682; J. to Sir R. Verney, 16 Nov. 1682. Mulgrave was stripped of his offices and forbidden the court. HMC Kenyon, 143; Add 28053, ff. 291–2.

The news that George and Anne were to be married spread rapidly in May 1683. The marriage was a diplomatic triumph for the French, who were then in alliance with Denmark and whose interests required a counter-balance to the marriage of Anne’s older sister Mary (later Mary II) to William of Orange (later William III). Criticisms of the marriage were somewhat muted by George’s Protestantism and his reputation for bravery but the obvious French interest and the generalized distrust of York’s military pretensions and the danger posed by his acquisition of a potential general as a son-in-law created considerable suspicion. HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 22; Verney ms mic. M636/37, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 9 May 1683. York did nothing to dispel such anxieties, smugly declaring that ‘I am the better pleased with it because I find the loyal party here do like it, and the Whigs are as much troubled at it.’ HMC Drumlanrig, i. 189. The pro-French context led first to a rumour that Parliament was to be asked to disinherit the Princess Mary in favour of Anne and then, when the marriage was delayed, to suggestions that Anne would marry the newly widowed Louis XIV instead. HMC Portland, iii. 375; Verney ms mic. M636/37, J. to Sir R. Verney, 31 May 1683; Sir R. to J. Verney, 4 June 1683.

It was agreed from the outset that George and Anne would live in England. The existence of many Danish surnames in the list of his servants suggests that the prince never forgot his origins but he nevertheless became ‘so hearty an Englishman that it was visible to all who were about him’. Add. 34223, f. 14v. The success of the marriage was attributed by Roger Morrice to Prince George’s sexual prowess and Anne’s lust, but it is clear that the couple soon formed a close and devoted relationship. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 450–1. So close were they that it is difficult to treat them as other than a single entity. They were given residences at the Cockpit in Whitehall and at Wandsworth in Surrey. They were also ranked at the same level as York and his duchess, thus having precedency over the prince and princess of Orange. Rumours that George was to be made duke of Gloucester, lord high admiral, and general of all the forces proved to be unfounded. The prince’s income was variously said to be £40,000 or £45,000 a year and Anne was said to receive a further £20,000 in her own right; it was further said that Prince George would live better than his brother the king of Denmark. HMC Ormonde, n.s. vii. 22; HMC Laing, i. 434; NLW, Clenenau 820; HMC Ormonde, vii. 22; Verney ms mic. M636/37, Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 21 May 1683; C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 11 June 1683. Like that of Anne’s older sister, the marriage treaty was a conventional one, focused on the couple’s future financial security. It did not include any reference to the constitutional position of Prince George in the event that Anne became queen.

Neither Charles II nor James II offered Prince George an opportunity of sitting in the House of Lords. He was kept at a distance from the centre of power – perhaps because he was a foreigner, perhaps because of his own lack of ability and ambition, or perhaps because he and his wife were known to be committed Protestants. James made a number of attempts to convert his daughter and son-in-law. In March 1686 Anne seems to have given the French envoy Bonrepaux some indication of vacillation, leading him to speculate on the possibility of cutting her older sister Mary out of the succession. TNA, PRO 31/3/165, Bonrepaux to Seignelay, 28 Mar. 1686. In May, following the birth of his granddaughter, Anne Sophia, James took at least one and possibly more Catholic priests to see (and presumably baptize) the baby. Variant accounts of the incident leave it impossible to know whether James removed the priest(s) himself on viewing his daughter’s distress or whether they were expelled by Prince George. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 129; HMC Rutland, ii. 109. James also told Princess Mary that he was considering legitimating his Catholic younger son by Arabella Churchill, Henry FitzJames, by act of Parliament. The ostensible reason was to remove the canon law bar on his admission to orders, but the potential of a threat to the succession was nevertheless implicit. Bramston Autobiog. 283. In December 1687 there was even a rumour that both Mary and Anne would be declared illegitimate. Morrice Ent’ring Bk, iv. 195.

George and Anne not only felt increasingly insecure but found the ostentatious Catholicism of James II’s court so distasteful that they preferred to withdraw from court life rather than to endure its active pro-Catholic proselytizing. They became the focus of the as yet somewhat amorphous Protestant opposition, forming a close circle of friends, including John Churchill, Baron Churchill (later duke of Marlborough), his wife, Sarah (who came to exercise considerable influence over Anne), George Churchill^‡, and Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin. Despite their shared commitment to the Anglican Church, the couple did not get on well with Anne’s uncles, Henry Hyde, 2nd earl of Clarendon, and Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, and regarded both with considerable suspicion.

It is not clear whether or not Prince George resented the lack of an English peerage. He does not at this stage appear to have sought naturalization and his reputation as a somewhat indolent and rather stupid, if congenial, character suggests that he may well have been happy with the other, albeit relatively empty, honours that were conferred on him. He was made a knight of the garter in 1684 and on York’s accession as king in 1685 he was added to the privy council. Anne’s resentment of her father and his Catholic advisers led to a virtually complete estrangement by the spring of 1687, yet James II seems never to have suspected his daughter and son-in-law of disloyalty to his regime. On the contrary, the deterioration in Prince George’s health led instead to considerable speculation about the possibly imminent chances of persuading a widowed Anne to remarry, this time to a Catholic prince. Ellis Corresp. i. 269; TNA, PRO 31/3/169, Barillon to Louis XIV, 11 May 1687.

In the summer of 1687 Prince George returned to Denmark, ostensibly on account of his health. His willingness to undertake the expense of such a journey surprised Roger Morrice and it may be significant that his brother Christian V was to support the invasion of William of Orange the following year. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iv. 74, 86. Superficially at least, the prince and princess showed little sign of opposition to the policies of James II. In December 1687 Prince George complied with the king’s wishes and dismissed Robert Leke, 3rd earl of Scarsdale, from his service though he was said to have remarked that he would have no other servant foisted upon him. Scarsdale had already been removed from his other offices for his failure to return satisfactory answers to the three questions. Ibid. iv. 195; Add. 34510, ff. 65, 67v. Yet by July 1688 (if not before) George and Anne, and their friends the Churchills, almost certainly knew that William of Orange had been invited to intervene in English political affairs, with armed force if necessary. Anne had been conducting a secret correspondence with her sister for several months and was in close contact with at least three of the seven signatories to the invitation: Henry Compton, bishop of London, Edward Russell, the future earl of Orford, and Henry Sydney, later Viscount Sydney. She and her husband were probably also in touch with two others, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), and William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, both of whom later helped ensure her safety.

Revolution and its aftermath, 1689–1702

Anne was appalled at the prospect of a Catholic heir and cast doubts on the reality of her stepmother’s pregnancy long before the birth of her half-brother and the invention of the myth of the warming pan. Letters and Diplomatic Instructions of Queen Anne, ed. B. Curtis Brown, 34, 35. The couple continued to dissemble. In October 1688 Prince George was present at the meeting of the privy council which drew up the proclamation to restore corporations; he was also present to hear the testimony of witnesses to the birth of the prince of Wales. Prince George refused to accept a commission in James II’s army, believing that the Dutch invasion would provoke widespread desertion and/or mutiny. On 18 Nov. Anne assured her brother-in-law of her and her husband’s support ‘in this so just an undertaking’. Dalrymple Mems. ii. 249–50. Six days later George went over to William of Orange; Anne soon followed. George defended his conduct by reference to the need to defend the Protestant religion from its enemies ‘backed by the cruel zeal and prevailing power of France’. HMC Le Fleming, 223. In his memoirs James II affected to have been unconcerned at this defection but, given the pivotal position that George and Anne occupied in Protestant circles, the loss of their support must have been a crippling blow to his confidence, and the Danish ambassador reported that it left him in total consternation. Life of James II, ii. 225; Gregg, Queen Anne (2001 edn.), 64.

Since he did not possess an English peerage Prince George was unable to play a direct role in the deliberations of the House of Lords concerning the decision to offer the crown to William and Mary. William’s claim to rule had some justification in English and European marriage law whereby a wife’s inheritance became part and parcel of the husband’s estate. His claim was not only accepted but encouraged by his wife: Danby reported that ‘she would take it extremely unkindly, if any, under a pretence of care for her, would set up a divided interest between her and the Prince’. Mary herself declared she had always believed ‘that women should not meddle in government’. A. Strickland and [E. Strickland], Lives of the Queens of England, v. 521; Queen Mary Mems. 23. Anne’s view of the succession was very different: she believed that William had usurped her place in the succession. She and her husband were active behind the scenes in a somewhat botched attempt to protect that place. Clarendon Corresp. ii. 254–5, 260; Gregg, Queen Anne, 70–71. What they did not do was to campaign for the rights that Prince George had gained by his marriage and for his future political status, perhaps because to do so would have amounted to a tacit justification of William’s claim.

On 6 April 1689 Prince George was created duke of Cumberland. A bill for his naturalization was rushed through Parliament and received the royal assent on 9 April. He took his seat on 20 Apr. and was then present on approximately a quarter of sitting days, being named to three committees. His commitment both to the new regime and to settling peace between the northern Protestant states was further demonstrated by his part in facilitating the Treaty of Altona in June 1689. The duke of Gottorp (in his capacity as duke of Holstein) refused to sign the treaty unless lands in Holstein that had been seized by Denmark were returned free of encumbrances. The lands in question, valued at £25,000 a year, had been granted to George and Anne on their marriage with the proviso that they would descend to Anne if widowed and thereafter to any surviving children. Prince George willingly acquiesced in a request that he should forego possession when William of Orange promised either to secure financial compensation from Holland and its allies or to pay the sum owing himself. Trusting to William’s honour, George failed to insist on a detailed agreement that would include an agreed valuation and specify what proportion of the debt would be borne by each of the allies. Add. 61101, ff. 25, 32–34, 38. He also appears to have been instrumental in promoting a treaty between England and Denmark which ensured that Danish troops would be available to assist the new regime either in France or Ireland. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, v. 170. In July he voted to adhere to the Lords’ amendments to the bill for reversing Titus Oates’ conviction for perjury.

Prince George attended the brief session of 1689–90 on nearly 85 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the committees for privileges and petitions and to three select committees. His high attendance over this session may have been linked as much to his quarrels with the new king and queen as to the business before Parliament. His relationship with William and Mary deteriorated rapidly, partly because of Anne’s resentment over changes to her position in the succession and partly because of quarrels over money. The failure of negotiations over his wife’s financial settlement was part of the problem. According to a pamphlet published in 1693 William had promised Anne £100,000 a year on condition that she gave up her right to the crown for the term of his life even if he outlived Queen Mary, but had then reneged on his promise. Anne also expected to receive half of her father’s extensive and profitable Irish lands. HMC Finch, v. 16–17; Gregg, Queen Anne, 77. The commencement of a dispute over the value of the lands which Prince George had sacrificed to secure the passage of the Treaty of Altona soured relations still further. To the prince and princess it seemed that William, jealous that Anne’s claim to the throne was so much stronger than his own, was determined to keep them in subjection ‘by endeavouring to make them both depend upon him for bread’. Add. 61101, f. 42. The quarrel was carried into the Commons and resulted in an address to the crown in December 1689 asking that a pension of £50,000 a year be settled on the couple. CJ, x. 312. The king’s decision the following month to grant the title of ‘highness’ to Prince George was perhaps meant to mollify the couple but suspicions remained deep on both sides. CSP Dom. 1689–90, p. 430. Mary suspected that her sister was trying to build a political interest of her own and it seems likely that William, acutely aware of his own unpopularity, similarly feared Prince George’s intentions.

During the first session of the 1690 Parliament Prince George was present on a third of sitting days and was named to the committees for privileges and petitions. His absences between the end of March and early May were probably caused by illness and then by preparations to join William’s forces in Ireland. Parliament was adjourned on 23 May and on 3 June Prince George left for Ireland. Verney ms mic. M636/44, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 3 June 1690. He served at the battle of the Boyne in July but was upset and disappointed by William’s indifference to his help, especially as it seems that his presence was instrumental in preventing a mutiny by William’s Danish troops. Burnet, ii. 49; An Account of the Conduct of the Dowager Duchess of Marlborough, 38; CSP Dom. 1689–90, pp. 381–2. When Parliament resumed for the second session in October 1690 Prince George’s attendance rose to over three-quarters of sitting days and he was again appointed to the committees for privileges and petitions. He was also appointed to three select committees. On 6 Oct. Carmarthen (as Danby had become) recorded that ‘I hope the prince will attend a business which so much concerns the crown, and on him will depend, or must otherwise be spoken to’, Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton, master of the horse to the prince and John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, groom of the stole to the prince.

Shortly after Parliament adjourned on 5 Jan. 1691 Prince George was appointed as one of the commissioners to act in the king’s absence but that compliment to his status was more than offset by William’s refusal to allow Prince George to go to sea as a naval volunteer. HMC Le Fleming, 310; HMC Portland, iii. 464, 465; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 182, 219, 225. There was also the matter of the king’s continuing failure to settle compensation for the Holstein lands. Prince George’s consent to the arrangement had been secured by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, and it was to a somewhat embarrassed Nottingham that he turned for help. Nottingham found himself cast as honest broker, ‘which I do the more willingly because the King promised to see this debt paid and ’twill not be for his majesty’s advantage that this matter should grow cold, but be determined while the parties are willing to pay their quota’. Nottingham’s intervention secured a settlement for 340,000 rix dollars or crowns (£85,000), half of which was to be paid by William himself and the remainder by his allies. Prince George, who professed considerable respect for Nottingham’s upright and honest character and who appreciated his friendship, reluctantly accepted the settlement on condition of receiving prompt payment. William acknowledged the debt (and an obligation to pay 6 per cent interest until it was paid) by a privy seal issued in July 1691. HMC Finch, v. 5, 177, 181, 206–7; Add 61101, ff. 27, 32–34.

Achieving agreement perhaps emboldened Prince George to test his standing still further. In August 1691 he asked the king to bestow one of the vacant garters on Marlborough (as Churchill had become). His request was echoed by the princess. Both phrased their letters in such a way as to make it clear that they would interpret a refusal as a personal slight. CSP Dom. 1690–1, p. 468. It is not clear whether William even bothered to reply. He had always been suspicious of Marlborough, suspected that he was in correspondence with the exiled king, resented his denigration of Dutch favourites, and blamed him for the alienation of the prince and princess.

During the 1691–2 session Prince George was present on 69 per cent of sitting days and was named to the committee for privileges. His close friendship with Marlborough ensured that his attendance was far more consistent after Marlborough was dismissed from office on 20 Jan. 1692 and forbidden the court. Marlborough’s dismissal was associated with ‘great intrigues’ at the prince and princess’s Cockpit residence and an illicit correspondence with the Jacobite court. HMC Portland, iii. 488. Anne’s determination to defy the king and queen by retaining Lady Marlborough in her service and her subsequent withdrawal to Sion House created further problems. Prince George continued to attend meetings of the privy council and worked hard on keeping lines of communication open although it is clear that he backed his wife’s decision. Gregg, Queen Anne, 89–90.

Parliament was prorogued in April 1692 amid fears of a Jacobite invasion sponsored by the French. Although it is extremely unlikely that the prince and princess were actively involved in plotting against William and Mary, many Jacobites anticipated their support: one intercepted letter declared that Prince George had actually seized the Tower of London and it was reported that he had also received money from the king of France. The death of Anne’s newborn son provided an opportunity for the queen to attempt a reconciliation but the resulting interview left both sisters feeling slighted and the queen’s resolution never to return to ‘proud Sion’. After Marlborough’s arrest on a charge of treason the following month the prince and princess expected to follow him to the Tower. In a blatant attempt to capture public sympathy they used Carmarthen and Edward Stillingfleet, bishop of Worcester, as go-betweens. HMC Finch, v. 718; Verney ms mic. M636/45, J. to Sir R. Verney, 22 and 28 Apr., 28 May 1692.

Prince George appeared at court on the king’s return in October 1692, having first checked that his presence could be welcome. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 601. He and his wife were by now acutely aware that their household had been infiltrated by court spies but were perhaps less aware that Richard Kingston, who was posing as a Jacobite agent, was actually reporting back to Nottingham. HMC Finch, iv. 196, 342, 438; v. 73. They also faced social humiliation. Acting on instructions from the queen, Henry Compton, bishop of London, told the minister of St James’s church that ‘considering the terms the princess is upon with the king and her majesty he should not bow to her royal highness from the pulpit, nor say prayers for, nor use those public respects that are practised towards the royal family at Whitehall’. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 2, folder 105, Yard to E. Poley, 28 Oct. 1692.

During the 1692–3 session, Prince George was present on two-thirds of the sitting days. Although he was listed as present on 10 Nov. 1692 when Marlborough’s detention was debated he was not named to the committee to draw up an order on the debate and it is difficult to know what role he played when he was present on subsequent days. Nevertheless he was by now edging cautiously into open opposition. He voted consistently in favour of the bill for free proceedings in Parliament and on 3 Jan. 1693 registered his protest at its rejection. He also opposed the attempt of the court supporter Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk, to obtain a divorce from his Catholic, Tory, and suspected Jacobite wife. The circulation at this time of the now lost Vindication of the Princess of Denmark – the ‘scandalous pamphlet’ mentioned above concerning an allegation that William had promised £100,000 a year to the princess in return for foregoing her right to the crown during his life – underlines the intensification of the prince and princess’s opposition to the court. Remarks in the pamphlet were said to border on treason. HMC Finch, v. 16–17; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 15–16. The royal quarrels naturally affected their entourage: Prince George’s master of the horse, Robert Sutton, 2nd Baron Lexinton, and his groom of the stole, John Berkeley, 3rd Baron Berkeley of Stratton, were reluctant to follow the prince and princess into obscurity and both urged the dismissal of Lady Marlborough. In January 1693 Lexinton was variously reported either to have resigned or to have been dismissed. He was promptly appointed to William’s bedchamber. It was now openly said that Prince George was ruled by his wife and that she increasingly resembled her father, in that her obstinate favour for Lady Marlborough paralleled the way in which James II loved Father Petre more than those of his own blood. SOAS, Paget pprs. PP ms 4, box 9, bundle 44; Bodl. Carte 79, f. 473.

Prince George was present for only half the sitting days of the 1693–4 session and there is little evidence of his activities. The dispute over Lady Marlborough continued, as did its effect on the prince’s household. In March 1694 Lexinton’s successor, Basil Fielding, 4th earl of Denbigh, also resigned and went over to the court. TNA, SP 105/60, ff. 123v–126. Despite reminders, the king still made no attempt to pay the Holstein debt. HMC Buccleugh, ii. 88, 93, 143; Add 61101, f. 28. Prince George’s attendance over the 1694–5 session plummeted still further: he was present on only a third of sitting days. His absences were concentrated in the period between 22 Dec. 1694 and 11 Feb. 1695, which suggests that they were linked to the death of the queen on 28 Dec. 1694 and the prince and princess’s subsequent reconciliation with William III. A number of senior courtiers, including John Somers, later Baron Somers, Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, and Thomas Tenison, newly appointed archbishop of Canterbury, seem to have been instrumental in securing the rapprochement, though given William’s somewhat shaky claim to rule and the more general problem of the succession it was scarcely possible for the estrangement to continue. On 8 Jan. 1695 Prince George was ‘kindly received’ by the king and by the end of March Marlborough too was reconciled to the court. The reconciliation was of necessity somewhat superficial. William continued to be jealous of Anne’s superior claim to the throne. For her part Anne despised her brother-in-law, dubbing him Caliban in her letters to Lady Marlborough, and resented his continuing failure to recognize her claim to her father’s Irish properties or to make any attempt to pay the debt due on the Holstein properties. In the unsettled state of affairs following Mary’s death, Jacobite sympathizers speculated that the king’s departure on campaign in the spring might be deemed an abdication and predicted that he would have to take Prince George with him to prevent a possible coup d’état in his absence. Lexington pprs. 60–61. Perhaps it was this nascent fear that lay behind William’s refusal to appoint Prince George to the council of regency that ruled in his absence.

During the first session of the 1695 Parliament George was present on just under 39 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the committee for privileges – the first committee to which he had been named since November 1691 – and signed the Association, acknowledging William as the right and lawful king on 28 Feb. 1696. He missed the opening days of the 1696–7 session, arriving on 30 October; overall he was present on just over 55 per cent of sitting days. While it is difficult to match all his attendances to subject matter it is clear that one of the issues that interested him was the trial of Sir John Fenwick; on 23 Dec. 1696 he voted in favour of Fenwick’s attainder. He was also interested in the subsequent furore about the role of Charles Mordaunt, earl of Monmouth (and later 3rd earl of Peterborough), in the case.

Outside the public world of Parliament and the court the fragile relationship between the prince and princess and the king remained strained throughout 1697. Personal jealousies apart, the king’s continuing failure to accede to the prince and princess’s financial demands was enough in itself to create considerable ill will. Negotiations over what was to become the Peace of Ryswick prompted Prince George to agitate for payment of the Holstein debt (which with arrears of interest now amounted to nearly £120,000). His wife, still anxious to obtain her father’s Irish lands, attempted to dissuade members of the Irish Parliament from passing the bill to confirm outlawries in the belief that it effectively confirmed William’s grant of those lands to Elizabeth Villiers, now Lady Orkney. Although she failed to carry her point, her campaign did worry those charged with managing Irish affairs as they had not anticipated any opposition. A direct appeal to the king to prevent the bill receiving privy council confirmation also failed. UNL, Pw A 1366; HMC Buccleugh, ii. 534; CSP Dom. 1697, p. 325; Gregg, Queen Anne, 113–14. William’s refusal to pay over the whole of the parliamentary grant intended for the upkeep of the young duke of Gloucester and his interference in the choice of officials for Gloucester’s household also enraged the prince and princess. Gregg, Queen Anne, 113–15.

Prince George was present for the opening of the new session of Parliament on 3 Dec. 1697 and was appointed to the committee for privileges. He was then absent until 13 December. His attendance during the session was sporadic, amounting overall to just over a third of sitting days. Neither his attendance nor his absences necessarily related to political issues: his absence in early December was probably linked to Anne’s miscarriage on 7 Dec. and a two-week absence in April 1698 was caused by his attendance on the king at Newmarket. CSP Dom. 1698, p. 173.

Prince George took his seat again at the opening of the 1698 Parliament on 6 December. He was named to the committee of privileges but was subsequently present for only a quarter of sitting days. Over the winter and early spring of 1698–9 the issue that most appears to have caught his attention was that of prohibiting the export or distilling of corn but it is also possible that he was interested in a number of cases relating to the navy. He was present on 24 Mar. 1699 for discussions on the method of trial for Charles Mohun, 4^th Baron Mohun (on an indictment for killing Captain Coote) but although he was reported to have watched the procession bringing Mohun to Westminster he was not present for the trial. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 499.

During the 1699–1700 session Prince George was present for just 28 per cent of sitting days. He attended the opening of Parliament on 16 Nov. when he was again named to the committee for privileges. He was then absent for much of the remainder of the year, even though the Commons had the payment of his Holstein debt under consideration and used the occasion to attack the arrangements for the education of the young duke of Gloucester. HMC Hope-Johnstone, 114. He did attend on 4 Dec. 1699 to hear the preliminary arguments in the case concerning Thomas Watson, bishop of St Davids, but was not named to the subsequent committee and was not present when the bishop’s application for parliamentary privilege was turned down on 6 December. It seems likely that he may have been influenced by the attorney general’s declaration of the king’s interest in the issue.

The prince’s subsequent sporadic attendances appear to have been largely issue-related. He was present for most of the debates on the Darien settlement (although he was absent on 12 Feb. when the king replied to the address on that subject). His attendances also appear to be linked to the revival of the Norfolk divorce bill and the question of union with Scotland. Prince George was thought to be in favour of continuing the East India Company as a corporation but according to the attendance list was not present at any of the readings of the relevant bill. Although the session did not end until 11 Apr. 1700 he ceased his attendances on 19 March. In July 1700 his only surviving child, the duke of Gloucester, died of smallpox, precipitating a potential succession crisis. Although he and Anne almost certainly reassured the exiled King James that they would somehow ensure the succession of Anne’s young half-brother, there is little doubt that in reality both supported the Hanoverian option, with its inbuilt guarantees for continuing the line of Protestant monarchs. Gregg, Queen Anne, 121–2.

Prince George was present for the formal opening of the first 1701 Parliament on 12 Feb. 1701 but, like Princess Anne, seems to have spent much of the year in seclusion and mourning. He was present on only eight days of the four-month session and there is little evidence to suggest reasons for his attendance on those days. It was said that he and his wife were instrumental in concealing the countess of Anglesey from her thuggish husband, James Annesley, 3rd earl of Anglesey, yet Prince George took no part in the debates over her bill to secure a separation. Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 4 Mar. 1701. Nor does he seem to have played any part in parliamentary discussions of the major political issues of the day, such as the impeachment of the Whig lords or the passage of the Act of Settlement, although in the case of the Act of Settlement Princess Anne’s approval of the measure is well documented. Gregg, Queen Anne, 122–3. There is no indication that Prince George was consulted by William over his plans for the Grand Alliance: the assumption appears to have been that neither the prince nor his wife would ever play an active part in strategic political or military decision-making and that at the king’s death the ministry would effectively fall under the dominance of Marlborough. During the second 1701 Parliament Prince George was present on just one day, 9 Jan. 1702.

Consort to the queen, 1702–8

The death of William III on 8 Mar. 1702 opened up speculation about Prince George’s role in government and the concept of the crown matrimonial. The precedent supplied by three previous consorts of queens regnant (Philip of Spain and William of Orange in England and Henry Darnley in Scotland) suggested that he should be declared king, either as king consort or with full regal powers. The precise status of consorts was uncertain and obscured still further by legal conceits that applied to the inheritance of estates in the two kingdoms, such as the courtesy of England and the courtesy of Scotland. This was almost certainly why Philip of Spain’s role as monarch had been defined by statute. There is evidence that a proposal to make George king was under discussion in some elite circles. An anonymous pamphlet declared that it was both unprecedented and unnatural for a husband to be subject to his wife and went on to suggest that declaring George to be king would block Jacobite pretensions. The proposal outlined in the pamphlet was that during Anne’s lifetime he would be king consort but that he would possess full regal powers after her death. Somewhat disingenuously, considering the state of Anne’s health, the author of the pamphlet also suggested that she would outlive both the Electress Sophia and Sophia’s son, the future George I. There would therefore be no effect on the eventual succession of the House of Hanover. A Letter to a Member of Parliament in Reference to His Royal Highness Prince George of Denmark (1702).

Within days of the king’s death it had been suggested that Prince George might take charge of the allied troops and that he would need the status of kingship for such a post to be viable. Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 10 March 1702. Rumours were also said to have reached the court of Hanover to the effect that such a proposal would be introduced during the session that opened in October 1702. Letter … in Reference to … Prince George of Denmark; Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 10 Mar. 1702; T Lediard, The Life of John, Duke of Marlborough, Prince of the Roman Empire(1743), 1, 136–7. The proposal was never debated in Parliament. This may have been because of the visible deterioration in Prince George’s health, caused by a serious pulmonary illness in August 1702 that was ascribed to asthma. A course of the waters at Bath did little to alleviate his condition and he was again gravely ill in October. A more likely explanation is that the decision to grant Prince George an annuity of £100,000 a year for life and to exempt him from those clauses of the Act of Settlement prohibiting foreigners from holding public office were sufficiently controversial in themselves without going into issues that would almost certainly have been seen as a Tory attempt to overthrow the Act of Settlement. There are hints of a complex series of negotiations behind the scenes involving Prince George’s claim to kingship, his projected annuity, and Tory attempts to penalize occasional conformity. Burnet, ii. 339. It was perhaps as some compensation for the lack of a formal constitutional position that Anne loaded her husband with high offices, underlining that in her eyes at least he played an important role in the public life of the nation. It has been argued that the failure to recognize Prince George as king represented a significant, albeit unremarked, development in consitutional thought, in that it rested on the concept of kingship as an office rather than as an estate. Canadian Jnl. of Hist. xxxix. 457–88.

Although Prince George seems never to have made a concerted attempt to build a parliamentary grouping, his appointment as warden of the Cinque Ports enabled him to exercise (or attempt to exercise) influence over the 1702 elections in the Cinque Port constituencies in favour of Tories, through his deputy, Charles Finch, 4th earl of Winchilsea. His many offices and the size of his household also ensured influence over several Members of the Commons. They included Sir Benjamin Bathurst^‡, John Berkeley^‡ (4th Viscount Fitzhardinge [I]), Hugh Boscawen^‡, Anthony Carey^‡ (5th Viscount Falkland [S]), Walter Chetwynd^‡, Charles Churchill^‡, George Churchill^‡, George Clarke^‡, Spencer Compton^†, (later earl of Wilmington) Thomas Conyers^‡, William Ettrick^‡, Francis Godfrey^‡, Francis Godlophin^‡, Henry Grahme^‡, Edward Nicholas^‡, Charles Seymour^‡, Edmund Webb^‡, Thomas Richmond Webb^‡, and John Richmond Webb^‡. His election in 1703 as high steward of Colchester also gave him influence in that constituency.

Prince George was present for the opening of Parliament on 20 Oct. 1702. He was absent for the queen’s speech the following day but attended again on 22 Oct. when he took the oaths. He was again ill in November, so ill that he was reported dead. Verney ms mic. M636/52, C Gardiner to Sir J Verney, 7 Nov. 1702. He next attended Parliament on 4 and 7 Dec., when the bill to prevent occasional conformity was debated in a committee of the whole House. As a Lutheran and occasional conformist himself he was known to have personal qualms about the bill. It is said that although he voted for it he told Thomas Wharton, 5th Baron (later marquess of) Wharton, the teller for the non-contents, that ‘My heart is vid you’. The story has been related since at least the mid-eighteenth century but no original manuscript source has yet been traced. Nicholas Tindal, The continuation of Mr Rapin de Thoyras’s History of England (1758), iii. 452. It is at least in part apocryphal since Prince George was not present to vote at any of the readings of the bill. If it has any basis in truth then it probably refers to a vote taken in the committee of the whole House on 4 Dec. when Wharton acted as teller for the contents on a resolution to amend the bill. However in an entry that appears to refer to Somers’ unsuccessful motion on 3 Dec. that the committee on the bill be instructed ‘that this bill extend to no other persons than the Test Acts’. William Nicolson, of Carlisle, recorded that ‘Prince George came into the House to countenance the Bill and divided with the Not Contents’. Nicolson, London Diaries, 137-8. It seems highly likely therefore that he did, at the queen’s bidding, speak in favour of it; in January 1703 Nottingham certainly listed him as one of the supporters of the bill.

Prince George’s next attendance, on 16 Jan. 1703, was also related to the issue of occasional conformity. On that day the two Houses met in a free conference to discuss the amendments that had been proposed by both sides. The surviving division list shows that Prince George voted against insisting on the (Whig) peers’ amendment to the penalty clause. As indicated above, it seems likely that the occasional conformity bill was being used by the queen as a lever to obtain concessions for her husband. Cary Gardiner reported that Parliament was ‘hot’ about occasional conformity,

but are finding out a way to keep Prince George in without taking oaths, and ’tis further said the Queen will desire the Parliament to make some settlement for a maintenance for the Prince during his life, and ’tis believed she will gain both these points, but will keep her word that she will let the Dissenters enjoy the liberty of conscience, tho’ not preferments. Verney ms mic. M636/52, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 24 Nov. 1702.

Prince George’s ninth and final attendance of the session was on 17 Feb. 1703, when the main business related to the attack on Charles Montagu, earl of Halifax, and the debate over Sir George Rooke’s conduct during the Cadiz expedition.

In October 1703 Godolphin predicted ‘great clamours’ in the ensuing Parliament about the mismanagement of naval affairs which would prove to be ‘particularly uneasy’ to Prince George. HMC Portland, iv. 74–75. Despite this prediction George’s attendance fell still lower. He was present on only four days of the 1703–4 session: 10 Nov. and 17 Dec. 1703 and 13 and 20 Mar. 1704. Thus he was not present when the occasional conformity bill was lost on 14 Dec., even though Sunderland had listed him as a supporter of the bill. His attendance on 17 Dec. and 20 Mar. may have been linked to debates over the Scotch Plot, but the variety of business discussed on 10 Nov. and 13 Mar. makes it more difficult to identify the issues that attracted his attention.

Despite his low parliamentary profile, Prince George seems to have taken an active interest in foreign affairs and in November 1704 was promoting a marriage between his niece, the princess of Denmark, and Frederick I of Prussia. Add. 61101, f. 89. His only attendances during the 1704–5 session were on 7 and 10 Feb. 1705, which coincided with the second and third readings of the place bill; the suggestion that he would support the tack seems to have been entirely misplaced. In March Prince George replaced Winchilsea with the Whig Thomas Fane, 6th earl of Westmorland, as his deputy in the Cinque Ports in order to manage the elections there. Add. 34223, f.14. The prince was ill once more in March 1705, this time with gout. Verney, ms mic. M636/52, Lady Fermanagh to R. Verney, 16 Mar. 1705. His health continued to be so precarious that rumours of his death again circulated in September 1705. HMC Roxburgh, 156.

Prince George was present for the opening of the new Parliament on 25 Oct. 1705. Despite his apparent disengagement from everyday politics, behind the scenes he was active in lobbying for the election of John Smith as Speaker of the Commons and dismissed his secretary, George Clarke^‡, for refusing to promise his vote for Smith. HMC Popham, 282–3. In all he was present for ten days over the course of the session. He attended the House on 12 Nov. when the question of a union with Scotland was debated, and again on 15 Nov. when the issues before the House concerned a possible invitation to Princess Sophia and the Protestant succession. Further attendances on 19, 20, 21, and 30 Nov., 6 Dec. 1705, and 29 and 31 Jan. 1706 also coincided with debates on the Protestant succession. He was sufficiently in touch with events to learn of, and then to prevent, a duel between Halifax and Carmarthen in December 1705 but his health continued to deteriorate. In May 1706 Anne told Marlborough that the prince was unable to write to congratulate him on his victories because of a cold and ‘shortness of breath’. Verney ms mic. M636/53, R. Palmer to Fermanagh, 19 Dec. 1705; Add. 61101, f. 91. The letter that the prince wrote on his recovery a fortnight later is suggestive of a continuing interest in foreign affairs. He expressed his satisfaction with Marlborough’s praise of the Danish troops and went on to assure him that ‘nothing shall be wanting on my part to persuade their master to follow the interest of England in everything’. Add. 61101, f. 94.

Prince George attended the House just twice more before his death: on 3 Feb. 1707 and for the opening of the first British Parliament on 23 Oct. 1707. He was thus present for the assault by John Thompson, Baron Haversham, on the ministry. Perhaps he took some pleasure in the way in which Haversham specifically exempted him from criticism, declaring that Prince George ‘owes not his commission to the favour of any great minister whatsoever, nor is he within reach of their power; he stands upon a much more unshaken and firm foundation’. Timberland, 182. He was, however, incensed by the Whig attack on his management of the navy, although, since in practice he was in the habit of delegating almost all responsibility, the real target was George Churchill. In the crisis of February 1708, Prince George emerged from the shadows for once and played a crucial role in persuading the queen to dismiss Harley and to support her in resisting Junto demands. Wentworth Pprs. 105–6; Gregg, Queen Anne, 259–60. Had more papers of the period survived it is possible that they would illuminate similar activities at other times, for according to Westmorland it was Prince George’s role to keep his wife ‘from being beguiled to her dishonour by sycophants that were about her all the time of his life’. Add. 34223, ff. 12–14.

Prince George died later that year, on 28 Oct. 1708, after a week’s sickness and ‘a very tedious life of illness for some years’. Spitting blood, dropsy, and asthma all played a part in his demise. HMC Egmont, ii. 232. For those, like Westmorland, who supported the rule of the duumvirs, his death explained the political crises of the next few years for now there was no one to protect the queen from ‘whisperers’ and to help her ‘to stand by those who had so successfully carried on her affairs’. Westmorland declared that ‘no sooner was he dead but she sullied the great glory she had gained during her reign before, by bringing in a party not able to support her and to go on with the war she was engaged in for the liberties of Europe’. Add. 34223, ff. 12–14.

Although his health had been in decline for several years, Prince George had not made a will. The queen had to obtain the advice of the 12 judges, who agreed that Prince George’s estate should be distributed in accordance with the provisions of the intestacy statute, with half his estate going to the queen and the remainder to be divided between his next of kin. 22 & 23 Chas II c. 10. After payment of his debts the residue of his estate amounted to £39,000. These calculations excluded the old question of the Holstein debt, about which the administrators professed themselves baffled. Despite the Commons vote of 1698 it was not clear whether the debt had ever been paid. If the debt remained then it ought to be paid by the queen, yet the lands in question had been settled on her in jointure. The administrators sought legal advice but whether the problem was ever settled remains a mystery. Eg. 3809, ff. 93, 97, 114.