cr. 9 Dec. 1706 duke of CAMBRIDGE; cr. 27 Sept. 1714 Prince of Wales; suc. fa. 11 June 1727 as king of Great Britain and Ireland
First sat 17 Mar. 1715; last sat 15 May 1727
b. 10 Nov. 1683 [NS], o.s. of Georg Ludwig von Braunschweig-Lüneburg, prince of Calenberg (later elector of Hanover and King of Great Britain) and Sophia Dorothea of Celle. educ. privately (Johann Hilmar Holsten, Phillip Adam von Eltz). m. 2 Sept. 1705 [NS] Wilhemine Caroline von Ansbach-Bayreuth (als. Brandenburg-Ansbach, Brandenburg-Ansbach-Bayreuth) (d.1737), da. of Johann Friederich, margrave of Ansbach, and Eleonore von Sachsen-Eisenach, 3s. (2 d.v.p.), 5da. (3 d.v.p.); ?1da. illegit. with Henrietta Howard, countess of Suffolk; 1s. illegit. with Amalie Sophie Marianne von Wallmoden, countess of Yarmouth. KG 4 Apr. 1706. d. 25 Oct. 1760.
PC 1714;1 guardian of the kingdom 1716-17.2
Capt.-gen. Artillery co. of the City of London 1715.3
High steward of Scotland, 1714-27; freeman Glasgow 1714;4 high steward, Exeter 1715.5
Gov. S. Sea Co. 1715-18, 1727-60.6
FRS 15 May 1727.
Associated with: Hanover; Richmond Lodge, Surr.; Leicester House, Westminster; St James’s Palace, Westminster; Kensington Palace; and Hampton Court, Surr.
Likenesses: (as prince of Wales) enamel, by Christian Friedrich Zinke, 1717, Royal Collection, RCIN 421777; (as prince of Hanover) mezzotint, by William Faithorne jr after Georg Wilhelm Lafontaine, c.1700-10, NPG D 7906.
The only son of the future King George I, Georg August was brought up between his family’s principal residences in Hanover and nearby Herrenhausen. His childhood was blighted by the scandalous circumstances of his parents’ separation following his mother’s affair with Count Philipp Christoph von Königsmarck: the latter’s mysterious disappearance and Sophia Dorothea’s immurement in the castle of Ahlden. News of the scandal was current in England.7 Prince Georg August’s subsequent poor relations with his father may have stemmed in part from this traumatizing event. He also resented his lack of involvement in the management of the electorate once he had attained adulthood and his father’s refusal to allow him a military career until he had produced an heir. In 1705 the electoral prince, as he was known after his father’s accession as elector of Hanover, married the Protestant heroine, Caroline of Ansbach. The new electoral princess had achieved fame as an upholder of the faith after her refusal to convert to Catholicism to marry the future Holy Roman Emperor, Charles VI.8 That year, Prince Georg was also included in speculation that he might accompany his grandmother, Dowager Electress Sophia, to England to help secure her claim to the throne as part of the Act of Settlement. Sir Rowland Gwynne‡, though, advised that should Sophia come over the prince should remain in Hanover:
it would be advisable to let him live here in quiet, till he has issue. He is bred up here in great virtue and sobriety, but if he came into England, might be exposed to many temptations, which a young prince of a gay temper, who has a great deal of fire might not, perhaps, resist, where he would see a quite different world from what he sees here.9
In the event the motion for summoning over the heir presumptive failed to be carried and Sophia herself made plain her disinclination to travel without the queen’s consent.10
Relations between the courts of Hanover and St James remained awkward for the ensuing few years. In March 1706 the Hanoverians took umbrage at the proposed method of conveying the naturalization bill to them and the offer of a garter (available by the death of the prince’s maternal grandfather, the duke of Celle) to the electoral prince as ‘paying them with trifles instead of calling them over’. The elector proposed instead that the bill should be presented without ceremony while a herald should travel to Hanover with his son’s garter.11 In the event the prince was invested with the garter in June during the diplomatic mission headed by Charles Montagu, Baron (later earl of) Halifax, though he was not installed formally for another four years (by proxy).12 There were similar difficulties over the proposal to promote Prince Georg to the peerage later that year. There seems to have been initially some thoughts of him being created duke of Clarence, but Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, dismissed this as a ‘snivelling project’. He claimed to have ‘stifled that at birth and hindered it being offered’, probably in response to objections raised by John Holles, duke of Newcastle.13 By the beginning of October Harley was able to advise the English resident in Hanover, Emanuel Scrope Howe‡, husband of the natural daughter of Prince Rupert, duke of Cumberland, that the letters patent had passed; but it was not until December that the prince was elevated to the peerage as duke of Cambridge and not until the beginning of 1707 that Harley wrote to Howe again with the patent of creation to be presented to the prince.14
The following year Cambridge played a conspicuous part in the opening action of the battle of Oudenarde, serving under John Churchill, duke of Marlborough, in command of a squadron of Hanoverian dragoons.15 It was almost immediately after this that there were renewed manoeuvrings to have a member of the Hanoverian family summoned over to England to settle in advance of the Hanoverian succession to the throne, whether it was in the person of his grandmother, his father or (as the first heir of the Hanoverian line to be younger than Queen Anne) himself. The queen, who had herself effectively run a reversionary interest before her own accession, made plain her extreme displeasure at the notion. She warned Marlborough that whoever might propose such a course of action in Parliament, Whigs or Tories, she would ‘look upon neither of them as my friends, nor would never make any invitation neither to the young man, nor his father, nor grandmother’. Having heard that Cambridge intended to make a visit at the close of the campaigning season, she requested that Marlborough would find a way to discourage it so that she would not need to refuse him permission.16
During the final years of the queen’s reign, Cambridge increasingly became a focus for political point-scoring, particularly for those eager to see him granted his writ of summons to the Lords. In January 1712 Oxford (as Harley had become) presented a bill to the House for granting Cambridge precedence above all other peers.17 The bill for settling the precedence of Cambridge, the dowager electress and the elector was given the royal assent the following month.18 The next year it was mooted that Cambridge’s son, Prince Frederick Louis†, later Prince of Wales, could be sent for as ‘a sure and present pledge for the security of that succession’, which it was thought could not ‘be reasonably objected against’.19 In the spring of 1714 Cambridge’s anomalous position as a duke thus far denied his seat in the House was brought to a head when the Hanoverian resident, Baron Schütz, demanded of the lord chancellor, Simon Harcourt, Baron (later Viscount) Harcourt, a writ of summons for the duke for the forthcoming session of Parliament. Harcourt responded that a writ had never been denied, nor as yet demanded, and referred the matter to the queen for her approval.20 Writing of the affair to Thomas Harley in Hanover, Oxford expatiated on the queen’s annoyance at the proceeding, which she conceived was intended ‘to insinuate to all her subjects that though she has often declared to her people the friendship she has for the House of Hanover, yet they will not accept it’. He also underlined that Schütz had now shot his bolt and was no longer in a position to do anything for the heir presumptive. Thus, while a writ was despatched along with Oxford’s diatribe it was made patently clear that Cambridge was not expected to act on it.21 To make matters doubly sure, it was reported that Henry Paget, 4th Baron Paget (later earl of Uxbridge), was to travel to Hanover to prevent Cambridge from responding to the summons.22 Personal letters from the queen to the dowager electress and the elector also made plain her disquiet at the notion of Cambridge appearing in England.23 The controversy sparked discussion in London over whether or not Cambridge would come over, though as one commentator put it ‘I believe the one that says he is to come knows as little as the other that is of the contrary opinion’.24
Once it was apparent that Cambridge would not come in time to take his seat in the Lords, the parties began to make what capital out of the affair they could. Both the Whigs and Oxford’s enemies within the administration put it about that the scheme had all along been the lord treasurer’s. Others suggested that although it had been a Whig device they had backed away from the notion fearful that once in England, Cambridge might not espouse their interests.25 Oxford’s heir reported in early May that some Whigs were still confidently reporting Cambridge’s imminent arrival, but he concluded that ‘his father and grandmother are both wiser than to let him come’.26 A message from Hanover from the dowager electress and elector disavowing any knowledge of the affair was accounted ‘the best cordial’ that could be given the queen who by then was suffering from poor health allegedly brought on in part by the strain of the business.27 Once the queen’s condition improved, a compromise arrangement was put about in mid-May by which Cambridge might be permitted to come over but not before Parliament had risen.28 Further schemes and stratagems continued to circulate into the early summer amid mutual recriminations, not least among certain Whigs who were dismayed that the prince had not been, as expected, en route when the writ was despatched which they had hoped might wrong-foot their opponents.29
The court at Hanover was undoubtedly offended by the response from Britain. Schütz’s actions stemmed in part from pressure from the Whigs but he was also responding to an instruction from the dowager electress. The elector played a more cautious hand. He was more intent on securing confirmation of the succession and confined himself to voicing the desire that some member of his house might be permitted to attend the queen, which according to Samuel Molyneux‡ was ‘the only step made to support the demand of the prince’s writ’.30 The prince’s own response is not known but attention was soon after distracted by the death of Dowager Electress Sophie, relegating to second place concerns about Cambridge travelling to England.31
Communications relating to Cambridge’s writ as a peer continued to feature in despatches until shortly before the queen’s death, which at last put an end to the business. When the new king set out to claim his throne, Cambridge accompanied him. They arrived at Greenwich on 17 Sept. at a rather low key ceremony. Ten days later the prince was elevated prince of Wales, as the first of a number of notables to receive coronation honours. His wife and daughters joined him over the ensuing months but his only son (next heir but one to the throne), Prince Frederick, was left behind in Hanover to act as a symbol to the electorate of the family’s continuing commitment there. Once in England, the prince of Wales, conversant in French and English, was quick to capitalize on his position to build up a political following.32 Details of his role as head of a significant opposition grouping and his later role in Parliament as king will be dealt with in the second part of this work.
R.D.E.E.- 1 British Mercury, 22-29 Sept. 1714.
- 2 London Gazette, 3-7 July 1716.
- 3 London Gazette, 7-10 May 1715.
- 4 NAS, Campbell of Shawfield corresp. (microfilm), NLS 15526, f. 688.
- 5 London Gazette, 12-15 Nov. 1715.
- 6 J. Carswell, The South Sea Bubble, 278; Weekly Packet, 29 Jan.-5 Feb. 1715.
- 7 Bodl. Carte 79, ff. 564, 582.
- 8 A.C. Thompson, George II, 29.
- 9 LPL, ms 930, no. 222, Sir R. Gwynne to Tenison, 6 Oct. 1705.
- 10 Cowper Diary, 13.
- 11 Add. 61458, ff. 114-15; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 163, box 1, Biscoe to Maunsell, 6 Apr. 1706.
- 12 Thompson, George II, 35; Shaw, Knights of Eng. 40.
- 13 HMC Portland, ii. 196-8.
- 14 Add. 70295, Harley to Howe, 24 Jan. -4 Feb. 1707.
- 15 Thompson, George II, 32.
- 16 Add. 61101, ff. 129-31.
- 17 Add. 72491, ff. 71-2.
- 18 Evening Post, 7-9 Feb. 1712.
- 19 Add. 72496, ff. 66-9.
- 20 Add. 70230, Harcourt memo, 12 Apr. 1714.
- 21 HMC Portland, v. 417, 421; Haddington mss, Mellerstain letters vi, 2 July 1713-17 Nov. 1715), Baillie to his wife, 15 Apr. 1714.
- 22 Add. 72501, f. 111.
- 23 Add. 70295, draft letters of Queen Anne, n.d.
- 24 Add. 72493, ff. 19-20; Add. 72501, f. 119; Add. 70273, M. Decker to T. Harley, 30 Apr. 1714.
- 25 Verney ms mic. M636/55, letter in Fermanagh’s hand, 1 May 1714; Add. 72501, f. 124.
- 26 Add. 70144, Lord Harley to A. Harley, 6 May 1714.
- 27 Add. 70144, Lord Harley to A. Harley, 8 May 1714.
- 28 Add. 72501, f. 122.
- 29 HMC Portland, v. 439; Add. 72488, ff. 81-2.
- 30 R. Hatton, George I, 107-8; Gregg, Queen Anne (2001 edn), 381; Add. 61465, ff. 9-10.
- 31 Add. 70247, E. Lewis to Oxford, 8 June 1714.
- 32 Cowper Diary, 58.