A Labour in Vain – The Tragic Death of Princess Charlotte Augusta

A Labour in Vain – The Tragic Death of Princess Charlotte Augusta

Princess Charlotte Augusta

Princess Charlotte August was in labour for more than two days before she died on 6th November 1817.

Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales (1796 – 1817) was the only child of George, Prince of Wales (later King George IV) and Caroline of Brunswick. If she had lived Charlotte would have become Queen of the United Kingdom.

Before her marriage, Charlotte was what we might call a ‘wild child’. She was a good horsewoman and a bit of a ‘tomboy.’

Charlotte’s parents loathed the sight of each other and separated soon after she was born. Her father debauched himself with every form of excess except fatherly love and attention. Her mother lived the lonely life of an abandoned woman. As an only child, Charlotte’s welfare was left in the hands of palace staff and her estranged mother whom she visited regularly at her house in Blackheath.

As Charlotte entered her teenage years, members of the Court considered her behaviour undignified. Lady de Clifford complained about her ankle-length underdrawers that showed. Lady Charlotte Bury, a lady-in-waiting to her mother Caroline described the Princess as a “fine piece of flesh and blood” who had a candid manner and rarely chose to “put on dignity”. Her father, however, was proud of her horsemanship and her tolerably good piano playing.

By the time she was age 15, the curvey Charlotte looked and dressed like a woman; she developed a liking for opera and men and soon became infatuated with her first cousin, George FitzClarence, the illegitimate son of the Duke of Clarence.

To put an end to the budding romance FitzClarence was called to Brighton to join his regiment, and Charlotte’s gaze fell on Lieutenant Charles Hesse of the Light Dragoons, reputedly the illegitimate son of Charlotte’s uncle, Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany.

Her mother colluded with Charlotte as far as Hesse was concerned not because she approved of the romance but to peeve her husband who did not. Caroline allowed the pair to meet in her apartments but the liaison was shortlived. Britain was at war with France and Hesse was called to duty in Spain.

Her father’s plan was to marry Charlotte to William Prince of Orange, the Dutch king. Neither her mother nor the British public wanted Charlotte to leave the country to pursue such a match.  Charlotte, therefore, informed the Prince of Orange that if they wed, her mother would have to live with them at their home in the Netherlands. This was a condition sure to be unacceptable to the Prince of Orange and their engagement was broken before it was started.

Charlotte finally settled on the dashing young Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, Leopold had a commission in the Imperial Russian Army and fought against Napoleon after French troops overran Saxe-Coburg until Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo.

The Marriage

The marriage ceremony was set for 2 May 1816. The war with France was over and the people of London were in the mood to celebrate. On the wedding day, huge crowds filled the streets and at nine o’clock in the evening in the Crimson Drawing Room at Carlton House, with Leopold dressing for the first time as a British General (the Prince Regent wore the uniform of a Field Marshal), the couple were married. Charlotte’s wedding dress cost over ₤10,000, an enormous sum of money – the average doctor earned less than £300 per year. The only mishap was during the ceremony happened when Charlotte was heard to giggle when the impoverished Leopold promised to endow her with all his worldly goods.

At the end of April 1817, Leopold informed the Prince Regent that Charlotte was pregnant and that there was every prospect of the Princess carrying the baby to term.

Charlotte’s pregnancy was the subject of the most intense public interest. Betting shops quickly set up a book on what sex the child would be. Economists calculated that the birth of a princess would raise the stock market by 2.5%; the birth of a prince would raise it 6%.

The mum to be Charlotte spent her time quietly, however, spending much time sitting for a portrait by Sir Thomas Lawrence. She ate heavily and got little exercise; when her medical team began prenatal care in August 1817, they put her on a strict diet, hoping to reduce the size of the child she was carrying. The diet and occasional bleeding they subjected her to seemed to weaken Charlotte and did little to reduce her weight.

The Pregnancy

Much of Charlotte’s day to daycare was undertaken by Sir Richard Croft. Croft was not a physician, but an accoucheur, or male midwife. Male midwives were much in fashion among the well-to-do. In, ‘The Princess Charlotte of Wales: A triple obstetric tragedy’ Sir Edward Holland (J Obst & Gynaec Brit Emp 58:905-919, 1951) describes Sir Richard Croft as a diffident, sensitive man without much self-confidence despite his skill and experience. “He was not the sort of man to deviate from the rules of practice by doing something unconventional or risky. He played it by the book, but his library was small.”

Charlotte was believed to be due to deliver on 19 October, but as October ended, she had shown no signs of giving birth and drove out as usual with Leopold on Sunday 2 November. On the evening of 3 November, her contractions began. Sir Richard encouraged her to exercise, but would not let her eat: late that evening, he sent for the officials who were to witness the birth of the third in line to the throne.

A Labour in Vain

The first stage of labour lasted 26 hours, which is not uncommon for a first child. With the cervix fully dilated, Croft sent for Dr. Sims, perhaps because the uterus was acting inertly and irregularly, and also because, should a forceps delivery be necessary, Sims had been chosen consultant on that point. Sims was the “odd man out” among the four doctors; his principal work was as a botanist and editor, but he was also physician to the Surrey Dispensary and Charity for Delivering Poor Women in their Homes.

Almost certainly the outcome would have been better had the second stage of labour not lasted as long as the first. The optimal time the second stage is around two hours. Dr. Sims arrived at 2:00 am on November 5 after the second stage had been in progress for about seven hours.

Thirty-three hours after Charlotte’s labour had began Dr. Sims was ready with the forceps, but his assistance was not called for. Croft continued to let nature take its course. After 15 hours of second-stage labour, about noon on November 5, meconium-stained amniotic fluid appeared. Three hours after that, the baby’s head appeared. At nine o’clock in the evening of 5 November, Charlotte finally gave birth to a stillborn boy weighing nine pounds. Efforts to resuscitate the child proved fruitless. Onlookers commented that the dead child was a handsome boy, resembling the Royal Family.

The third stage of labour was no less distressing. Croft informed Sims that he suspected an hourglass contraction of the uterus. This happens when the placenta gets trapped in the upper part of the womb as it contracts  Croft removed the placenta manually with some difficulty, and it seemed to do the trick. Soon after midnight, Charlotte began vomiting violently and complaining of pains in her stomach. Croft returned to Charlotte’s bedside to find her cold to the touch, breathing with difficulty, and bleeding profusely. He placed hot compresses on her, the accepted treatment at the time for postpartum bleeding, but the bleeding did not stop. Charlotte died an hour and a half later.

The Aftermath

Charlotte had been Britain’s hope: George III and Queen Charlotte, had had thirteen children but only Charlotte survived. She was the sole legitimate heir to the throne of Great Britain and Ireland. Her father, with his spendthrift behaviour and penchant for womanising, was already unpopular with the public and his brothers were viewed in much the same light. The Prince of Wales’s girth and reputation for gluttony prompted his critics to dub him the “Prince of Whales.” The people were devasted by Charlotte’s tragic death.

Post-mortems on Charlotte and her stillborn son exonerated the Croft from any wrong-doing. The postmortem results showed Charlotte died because she lost too much blood, her baby because of lack of oxygen. In 1817 there were no blood transfusions for Croft to call on when Charlotte began to lose blood but he could have done things differently and she may not have died. Croft decided not to use forceps, had he Charlotte and her baby might have been saved. Croft was following fashion and the dictum of Dr. Denman an authority of midwifery and childbirth at the time. Since the death of the hugely influential Scottish obstetrician William Smellie’s in 1760, the use of forceps had fallen into disfavour because of the injuries that could be caused by the instrument when used by unskilled accoucheurs. Hundreds of unskilled or partially trained doctors were operating in Britain’s unregulated medical market at the time. The late Dr. Denman had overreacted to these injuries and had advocated a policy of “Let nature do the work. …The use of forceps ought not to be allowed from any motives of eligibility (i.e. of choice, election, or expediency). Consider the possible mistakes and lack of skill in younger practitioners.”

Denman had however hedged his position with a qualification: “Care is also to be taken that we do not, through an aversion to the use of instruments, too long delay that assistance we have the power of affording. In the last edition of his book (1816, posthumously) he wrote: “But if we compare the general good done with instruments, however cautiously used, with the evils arising from the unnecessary and improper use, we might doubt whether it would not have been happier for the world if no instrument of any kind had ever been contrived for, or recommended in the practice of midwifery.”

Croft had relied on Denman’s ultraconservative precepts, his passive obstetrics was just as dangerous as meddlesome obstetrics. The adroit accoucheur steered a middle course, but Croft was not adroit. Three months later, Croft was involved in a similar case, and, when the patient died, he shot himself with a pistol he found in the house. What happened in the wake of Princess Charlotte’s death was too much for Croft to bear.

By today’s standards, the first and second stages of Charlotte’s labour were far too long. Modern obstetricians would use forceps to extract the baby and drugs would be given to speed-up and strengthen the contractions.The most recent CEMD report indicates that in 2009-12, 357 women died during or within 6 weeks of the end of their pregnancy. This represents a decrease in the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) from 11 (2006-8) to 10.12 per 100,000 live births (2010-12), mainly due to a decrease in deaths due to direct obstetric causes. However, there has been no change in the MMR for indirect maternal deaths in the last 10 years; the current ratio (6.87 per 100,000 live births) is almost twice that of direct deaths (3.25 per 100,000 live births).

Sources:

THE YALE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 65 (1992), 201-210
Obstetrical Events That Shaped Western European History
WILLIAM B. OBER, M.D.
Bergen County Medical Examiners Office, Paramus, New Jersey
Received March 26, 1991

http://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/epidemiology/maternal-death-surveillance/case-studies/united-kingdom/en/

 

Semmelweis and Gordon’s Work on Childbed Fever

Semmelweis and Gordon’s Work on Childbed Fever

Semmelweis and Gordon’s Work on Childbed Fever

Maternity wards, once plagued by a deadly fever known as puerperal fever or Childbed fever, underwent a remarkable transformation thanks to the groundbreaking work of Ignaz Semmelweis and Alexander Gordon.

While Semmelweis faced rejection and tragic circumstances, Gordon’s discoveries were largely overlooked in his lifetime.

This blog post delves into the stories of these two remarkable individuals and their contributions to modern obstetrics.

Childbed or Puerperal Fever

Puerperal fever, historically known as childbed fever or postpartum infection, is a severe and often life-threatening bacterial infection that can occur in women shortly after childbirth, typically within the first few days to weeks after delivery. This infection primarily affects the reproductive and pelvic organs, including the uterus (womb) and surrounding tissues.

Puerperal fever is usually caused by bacteria entering the woman’s body through the genital tract during childbirth or postpartum. Common causative bacteria include Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus), Streptococcus agalactiae (Group B Streptococcus), Escherichia coli (E. coli), and various other bacteria. These bacteria can lead to localized uterine infections (endometritis) or spread to other body parts, causing more severe systemic infections.

Symptoms of puerperal fever can vary in severity but may include:

  • Fever and chills
  • Abdominal pain or tenderness, especially in the lower abdomen.
  • Vaginal discharge that may be foul-smelling.
  • Increased heart rate.
  • Fatigue and weakness.
  • Elevated white blood cell count, indicating an infection.

Puerperal fever can progress rapidly, and if left untreated, it can lead to severe complications, including septic shock, organ failure, and death. Prompt diagnosis and appropriate medical treatment with antibiotics are essential to manage the infection effectively.

Historically, puerperal fever was a major cause of maternal mortality, especially without proper hygiene practices during childbirth. The work of medical pioneers like Ignaz Semmelweis and Alexander Gordon played a crucial role in recognizing the importance of hygiene in preventing puerperal fever and improving maternal outcomes. In modern healthcare, the risk of puerperal fever has significantly decreased due to better hygiene, aseptic techniques, and the use of antibiotics when necessary.

Hospitals for Childbirth

Hospitals for childbirth became common in the 17th century in many European cities. These “lying-in” hospitals were established at a time when there was no knowledge of antisepsis, and patients were subjected to crowding, frequent vaginal examinations, and the use of contaminated instruments, dressings, and bedding.

The first recorded epidemic of puerperal fever occurred at the Hôtel-Dieu de Paris in 1646. Hospitals throughout Europe and America consistently reported death rates between 20% to 25% of all women giving birth with intermittent epidemics with up to 100% fatalities of women giving birth in childbirth wards

Ignaz Semmelweis:

Ignaz Semmelweis: A Hungarian Obstetrician and Whistle-blower

The Doctor Who Championed Hand-Washing And Briefly Saved Lives : Shots - Health News : NPR

Pioneering Discoveries on Puerperal Fever Met with Scepticism and Resistance

In the 19th century, a silent killer haunted maternity wards across the globe. Puerperal fever, or childbed fever, was an insidious infection that claimed the lives of countless mothers after childbirth. During this perilous era, two remarkable individuals, Ignaz Semmelweis and Alexander Gordon, emerged as champions of maternal health, armed with groundbreaking discoveries and unwavering determination. However, their pioneering work was met with scepticism and resistance, painting a tragic yet inspiring chapter in medical history.

Born in 1818 in Buda, Hungary, Ignaz Semmelweis dedicated his life to improving the conditions of maternity wards. Childbed fever was a formidable adversary, inflicting devastating mortality rates due to unhygienic practices and a lack of understanding about disease transmission. Semmelweis’s commitment to changing the status quo set him on a transformative path within obstetrics.

Semmelweis joined the Vienna General Hospital in 1844, where he made a startling observation. Maternity wards attended by doctors exhibited significantly higher childbed fever mortality rates than wards managed by midwives. This disparity ignited his quest for answers. His meticulous investigation led him to a groundbreaking theory – the post-mortem room, visited by doctors who conducted autopsies, might unknowingly carry harmful substances to labouring women.

Driven by this revelation, Semmelweis implemented a simple yet revolutionary protocol. He mandated that all medical staff wash their hands thoroughly with chlorinated lime before attending to patients, and the wards were cleaned with calcium chloride to minimize contamination. The impact was immediate, leading to a substantial reduction in childbed fever deaths.

However, Semmelweis’s findings faced formidable resistance from the medical establishment. In the mid-19th century, the prevailing belief attributed childbed fever to “poison air” or miasma, deeply entrenched despite a lack of scientific evidence. Semmelweis’s emphasis on hand hygiene and cleanliness challenged these ingrained notions. Despite compelling evidence and statistical support, his groundbreaking ideas were ridiculed and dismissed by many.

Semmelweis’s unwavering commitment to patient safety inspired future generations of medical professionals, eventually leading to his acceptance of his ideas and modern hygiene practices.

Semmelweis Monument, Budapest | National Infectious Disease Prevention Initiative

 

Alexander Gordon – Obstetrician 1752-1799

Pioneering Discoveries on Puerperal Fever Met with Scepticism and Resistance

The Scottish physician Alexander Gordon embarked on a journey to revolutionize the understanding and prevention of childbed fever. His upbringing and education laid the foundation for his future endeavours. After studying in Leiden, Gordon attended physicians’ ward rounds at the Aberdeen Infirmary, enriching his medical knowledge despite the absence of a formal medical school in the city.

Gordon’s naval career provided adventure and financial support for further medical training. Upon retiring from the Royal Navy, he immersed himself in medical practice, becoming a physician at the city Dispensary in Aberdeen. His meticulous record-keeping skills allowed him to observe and document cases thoroughly.

Gordon’s observations revealed a significant pattern – mothers attended by midwives from the city, where childbed fever was rampant, were more likely to develop the disease. Conversely, those attended by midwives from rural areas, unaffected by the infection, had a lower risk. This observation led him to implicate midwives in transmitting the infection.

Despite his compelling evidence, Gordon’s discoveries faced rejection from the medical community. The prevailing belief in “poison air” and the hierarchical nature of the profession contributed to the resistance. Personal biases and rivalries further hindered acceptance. Gordon’s ideas, implicating doctors and midwives, challenged the established order.

The rejection of Gordon’s work had significant consequences. It was only in subsequent decades, with the work of pioneers like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Ignaz Semmelweis, that hygiene practices gained acceptance. Gordon’s pioneering contributions were finally acknowledged, emphasizing the tragedy of his rejection and the missed opportunities to save lives.

 

Pioneering Discoveries on Puerperal Fever Met with Scepticism and Resistance

 

Pioneering Discoveries on Puerperal Fever Met with Scepticism and Resistance

Pioneering Discoveries on Puerperal Fever Met with Scepticism and Resistance

Conclusions:

The rejection of Alexander Gordon’s discoveries serves as a sobering reminder of the resistance that can accompany paradigm-shifting ideas, even in the face of compelling evidence. It underscores the importance of open-mindedness, scientific inquiry, and the willingness to challenge established beliefs to pursue improved healthcare practices. Gordon’s work is a testament to medical pioneers’ resilience and the lasting impact they can have, even in the face of adversity.

The tireless efforts of Ignaz Semmelweis and Alexander Gordon revolutionized the practices in maternity wards and saved countless lives. While Semmelweis’s tragic fate and subsequent recognition highlight the challenges faced by early medical pioneers, Gordon’s pioneering work deserves greater acknowledgement. Their stories serve as reminders of the importance of embracing new ideas and the significant impact one individual can make in transforming medical practices for the better.

Sources:http://www.med-chi.co.uk/heritage/people/alexander-gordon.html#nav

 

Pioneering Discoveries on Puerperal Fever Met with Scepticism and Resistance

 

 

 

Women and Sex in the 18th Century

Women and Sex in the 18th Century

DEATH OF WOMEN

Women, Sex and the Age of Marriage

  • In the 18th century, marriage was based on puberty onset. Girls as young as 12 and boys around 14 could marry. Childhood was virtually nonexistent; children were seen as “little adults,” born sinful and prone to fleshly temptations.
  • The Statute of Westminster in 1275 was the first age-of-consent law. It criminalized relations with a “maiden within age,” like 9-year-old Mary Hathaway in Virginia in 1689.
  • Similar practices existed in American colonies and Europe. The French Revolution set the age of consent at just 11 in 1791, showing disregard for children’s rights.
  • Marriage was seen as protection against prostitution or destitution for girls. Yet, many girls were forced into early marriages.

Women and Sex in 18th-Century France

The Women Of The French Revolution Who Had A Weirdly Morbid Pastime

  • Despite the ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity brought about by the French Revolution, it failed to protect women’s rights.
  • In 1791, the age of consent for girls was shockingly set at 11 years, showing a lack of empathy for young girls.
  • Children were viewed as miniature adults, vulnerable to exploitation. Young girls were forced into marriages, disregarding their well-being.
  • Despite some women’s active participation, progress for women’s rights was slow during the revolution.
  • Women were confined to domestic roles, and their voices were overshadowed by male dominance.
  • Sadly, the French Revolution did not bring significant advancements in women’s rights.
  • Only in later centuries, with feminist movements and evolving norms, did progress take shape.

 

Women, Sex and the Job Market

Lichfield Storytellers bringing tales of historical characters to life at city museum - Lichfield Live®

  • In the 18th century, women’s job opportunities were severely limited. Laws and conventions barred them from most professions, forcing many into the sex trade for survival.
  • Independence was a distant dream for most women. They relied on family or husbands for financial support, losing ownership of inherited property upon marriage.
  • With few viable options, sex work became a means of sustenance for thousands of women. Prostitution thrived in bustling cities like London and Paris, offering anonymous encounters to passersby.
  • Charlotte Hayes was among the few who controlled their assets in the sex trade. Her successful brothel provided elite clients with well-trained women.
  • Despite some women finding advantages, many faced exploitation. The infamous Harris’ List detailed London prostitutes’ attributes, exposing their harsh reality.
  • While the Victorian era brought changes in societal attitudes, underground sex work persisted.

Women, Sex and Hogarth

The Harlots Progress ensnared by a procuress, from The Works of Hogarth published London 1833 (bw engraving)

  • In 1732, William Hogarth’s “The Harlot’s Progress,” a series of six paintings, vividly depicts the tragic life of Moll Hackabout, a young woman descending into prostitution. This series marked a turning point in British visual culture and Hogarth’s career.
  • Moll’s journey unfolds with poignant realism, from an innocent country girl arriving in London to a destitute harlot. Each plate exposes her struggles in the city’s dark alleys – poverty, exploitation, and emotional turmoil.
  • Hogarth’s masterpiece reflects the harsh realities faced by women in 18th-century London. Moll’s tragic fate mirrored countless others ensnared in poverty and desperation.
  • Yet, despite the powerful message, “The Harlot’s Progress” couldn’t change the prevailing conditions. Prostitution persisted in Georgian London, trapping many young girls and women in its grip.

Women, Sex, Charlotte Hayes and Her “Nuns”

French Revolution Hygiene: Just How Poor Was It?

  • Charlotte Hayes, an exceptional woman within the sex trade, ran a thriving brothel, dubbed a “nunnery.” She amassed wealth and trained her girls in etiquette to attract elite clients.
  • Sadly, many girls like Emily Warren, muse to Sir Joshua Reynolds, entered prostitution at tragically young ages. Emily, an “exquisite beauty,” began at 12, reflecting countless others forced into this life for survival.
  • “The Harlot’s Progress” and Charlotte Hayes’ story reveal women navigating an exploitative system. Despite their resilience, they faced a dangerous reality.
  • The Georgian sex trade’s legacy and stories like Moll Hackabout and Emily Warren’s are stark reminders of women’s hardships in the 18th century.

 

The Harris List of Covent Garden Ladies

  • During the 18th century, the infamous Harris’s List of Covent Garden Ladies circulated, detailing London prostitutes’ charms and services. Although meant to titillate readers, it revealed the harsh realities faced by these women.
  • Being listed in Harris’s List was a double-edged sword. It increased visibility and potential income but also exposed women to danger and exploitation.
  • The publication’s popularity mirrored the booming demand for sexual services in London. Lavishly adorned women roamed Covent Garden, attracting clients from locals to travellers.
  • The List showcased the diverse backgrounds of women in prostitution, some forced into it by desperation, others hoping to escape poverty.
  • A German visitor expressed dismay at the prevalence of very young girls in the trade. It highlighted the tragic fate of those trapped at such tender ages.
  • The Victorian era brought changes in societal attitudes, and prostitution became less visible. The Harris’s List eventually stopped publication, but the underground sex trade persisted.

The legacy of Harris’s List is a reminder of the economic hardships faced by women in 18th-century London and the exploitation they endured in the sex trade for survival.

Sources:

 

Princess Sophia Dorothea the Uncrowned Queen of Britain

Princess Sophia Dorothea the Uncrowned Queen of Britain

Jacob Ferdinand Voet (1639-1689) — Portrait of Sophia Dorothea of Celle 2

Princess Sophia Dorothea of Celle

This is the history of the shocking case of a Princess who was married against her will, spurned by her husband, divorced, and then imprisoned for 33 years.

Princess Sophia Dorothea of Brunswick- Lüneburg did not have a good start in life; she was born illegitimately; the daughter of her father’s long-term mistress, Eleonore d’Esmier d’Olbreuse, Countess of Williamsburg (1639–1722) on 15 September 1666.

Her father, Prince George William, Duke of Brunswick Lüneburg, eventually did the right thing and married his mistress which had the effect of legitimising his only child.

Sophia Dorothea was ten years old when she became heir to her father’s kingdom, the Principality of Lüneburg in Lower Saxony and this made her a highly attractive marriage prospect.

 

Like her mother, Princess Sophia-Dorothea was attractive and lively. At the age of sixteen, she has married her cousin, George Louis of Hanover, the future king of Great Britain and Ireland, in 1705. When she was told of the match Princess Sophia Dorothea shouted, “I will not marry the pig snout!”

George 1

George I of Britain

Twenty-two-year-old George Louis was not keen on the match either; he already had a mistress and was happy with his life as a soldier.

Although he was a prince he was ugly and boring, even his mother didn’t like him.

For his pains, George Louis received a handsome dowry and was granted his father-in-law’s kingdom upon his death; Princess Sophia-Dorothea was left penniless.

The unhappy couple set up home in Leine Palace in Hanover where Princess Sophia Dorothea was under the supervision of her odious aunt, the Duchess Sophia, and spied on by her husband’s spies when he was away on campaign.

Despite their unhappiness, the pair produced two children; George Augustus, born 1683, who later became King George II of Great Britain and a daughter born 1686 when Princess Sophia Dorothea was twenty.

Sophia von Kielmansegg, Countess of Darlington

Sophia Charlotte von Keilmannsegg.

 

 

Having produced two children George became increasingly distant from his wife spending more time with his dogs and horses and his nights with his mistress, the married daughter of his father’s mistress, a woman called Sophia Charlotte von Keilmannsegg, who was rumoured to be George Louis’ half-sister.

Aggrieved, lonely, and unhappy Princess Sophia Dorothea found a friend in the Swedish count Philip Christoph von Königsmarck, (1665-1694) who was a soldier in the Hanoverian army. Philip was a year older than Princess Sophia Dorothea and the antithesis of her ugly, boorish husband.

Princess Sophia Dorothea was no saint. She was quick-tempered and rarely discrete. Her choice of Von Königsmarck as a lover was not the best. Königsmarck was a dashing handsome gigolo and the former lover of her father-in-law’s mistress, the Countess of Platen and the Countess had a jealous nature.

Königsmarck and Princess Sophia Dorothea began a love affair of clandestine trysts and physical love facilitated by coded correspondence through a trusted go-between. Their love affair did not stay secret for long. In 1692  the Duchess of Platen presented a collection of their correspondence to Princess Sophia Dorothea’s father-in-law, the Elector of Hanover.

Countess Platen

Countess of Platen

Von Königsmarck was banished from the Hanoverian court but soon found a position in the neighbouring court of Saxony where one night when he was deep in his cups he let slip the state of affairs in the royal bedchamber of the house of Hanover. George Louis got wind of what had been said and on the morning of 2 July 1694, after a meeting with Sophia at Leine Palace, Königsmark was seized and taken away.

Princess Sophia-Dorothea never saw her lover again. George Louis divorced her in December and early the following year she was confined her to Schloss Ahlden a stately home on the Lüneburg Heath in Lower Saxony. She stayed there for the rest of her life. Her children were taken away from her and she was forced to live alone. She was probably one of the most unlucky royal women in history.

In August 2016, a human skeleton was found under the Leineschloss (Leine Palace, Hanover) during a renovation project; the remains are believed to be those of Swedish count, Philip Christoph von Königsmarck, (1665-1694).

Sophia Dorothea in 1686. Philip Christoph von Königsmarck 5

Philip Christoph von Königsmarck (1665-1694)

History shows that when Princess Sophia Dorothea died in 1726 she had spent 33 years in her prison. Before she died she wrote a letter to her husband, cursing him for his treatment of her. A furious George forbade any mourning of her in Hanover and in London. George I died shortly after.

The Countess of Platen and George I were suspected of Von Königsmarck’s murder by both Princess Sophia-Dorothea and her children. The Countess was exonerated from any involvement in Von Königsmark’s death by the deathbed confessions of two of her henchmen so on whose orders Von Königsmarck met his death remains one of history’s mysteries.

What we do know is that his son George II never forgave his father for his treatment of his mother.

 

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophia_Dorothea_of_Celle
Notorious Royal Marriages: A Juicy Journey Through Nine Centuries of Dynasty By Leslie Carroll
The Georgian Princesses By John Van der Kiste

Princess Dorothea von Lieven and Metternich – The Prince and the Swan

Princess Dorothea von Lieven and Metternich – The Prince and the Swan

Princess Dorothea von Lieven (1785 – 1857) was the lover of Klemens von Metternich. She was the wife of Prince Khristofor Andreyevich Lieven, Russian ambassador to London from 1812 to 1834.

Considered cold and snobbish by London Society Dorothea was not an instant success when she arrived fresh from the Russian court. Her destiny was however to become the lover of one of greatest men in European history.

Her long elegant neck earned her the nickname, “the swan” by those who loved. She was called“the giraffe” by those who did not. Reputation did not bother her. Dorothea was not after friendship she was after power and she used all her intelligence, charisma, and social skills to get it. Her aim was to influence others to support the Tsar and the Holy Alliance. She was passionate about defeating Napoleon and reestablishment of absolutist monarchy in Europe. Not only did she become the Austrian Chancellor, Prince Metternich’s lover she was also reputed to have had affairs or at least very close friendships with Lord Palmerston, Lord Castlereagh and Lord Grey while she was in London.

Her hard work paid off and soon invitations to Dorothea’s home became the most sought after in capital. She was the first foreigner to be elected a patroness of Almack’s where she is said to have introduced the waltz in 1814. The waltz was a dance considered riotous and indecent. It was first danced when Tsar Alexander came to town in 1814. This was when Dorothea first met Metternich. It seems they took an instant dislike to one another. She thought he was cold and intimidating and far too self- important. He dismissed her as just a pretty woman travelling in the Tsar’s wake and treated her with complete indifference.

Some four years later, the pair met again at the Dutch Ambassador’s party at Aix-La-Chappelle. Sitting next to each other they found they had much in common – they both hated Napoleon. Their notorious liaison began a few days later when Dorothea entered the Prince’s apartment incognito.

Metternich

Prince of Metternich-Winneburg-Beilstein; (1773 – 1859)

In Metternich, Dorothea had found her equal. The Prince was a man who could satisfy her physically, emotionally and intellectually. She wrote, “Good God! My love, I know how to rejoice in so few things, do you understand what makes me feel true happiness, it is you, only you! My Clement, if you cease to love me what will become of me? … My dear friend promise to love me as much as I love you; our lives are pledged in this promise.”

In Dorothea, Metternich had met the woman of his dreams; she could match his intellect and his passion. He wrote, “My happiness today is you. Your soul is full of common sense your heart is full of warmth … You are as a woman what I am as a man.”

Their heated, clandestine affair soon succumbed to the requirements state. They met occasionally but corresponded frequently. Like many illicit lovers, they were tortured by their separation and the knowledge they could never be together.

Dorothea was well aware of Metternich’s reputation as a libertine seducer. She knew he had a string of women following him and in his bed. She continued the relationship for eight years. Finally, she heard that he had thrown her over for a younger woman. Desolate, she broke off their relationship in 1826. By the end, references to Metternich in her letters were cold and spiteful. Time did not heal her broken heart. She had nothing good to say about him or his third wife when she saw him in Brighton in 1849. she describes him as “slow and tedious” and his wife as “stout and well-mannered.”

She ended her days in Paris as the ‘wife’ of the French politician Guizot. It was said that although she was a widow she refused to marry Guizot because it would mean giving up her title ‘Serene Highness’. This was something the proud and regal woman was never going to do. Like her former lover, she was ancient regime through and through.

Dorothea died peacefully at her home in Paris, aged 71, in January 1857. She is a recurring minor figure in many historical novels, notably those of Georgette Heyer. Heyer portrays her as a haughty, formidable, and unapproachable leader of society. In The Grand Sophy she is described as “clever and amusing”, and there is a passing reference in that book to her role in political intrigues. Metternich died in Vienna two years later aged 86. He was the last guardian of the ancient regime, which had long since passed into history.

Dorothea

Princess Dorothea von Lieven (1785 – 1857)

Sources:
Dorothea Lieven: A Russian Princess in London and Paris, 1785-1857 By Judith Lissauer Cromwell
The Congress of Vienna: Power and Politics After Napoleon By Brian E. Vick
1815: The Roads to Waterloo By Gregor Dallas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klemens_von_Metternich
http://www.eurozine.com/articles/2015-01-28-sluga-en.html