Clementina Walkinshaw was also a religious lady. She came from a gentry background and seems to have been able to cope even with rather difficult situations, and to have been a kind person. She bore a daughter and heiress who also seems to have had good qualities in terms of character, though she suffered from ill health. Perhaps Clementina could have made a good queen. We know from her conduct during her lifetime that she would have wished to be remembered by history as a wife, and not as a mistress. But in her case, of course, to have become a queen she would have needed to overcome not only questions about her marriage, but also the exclusion of the Catholic Stuart dynasty from the British throne.
Maria Smythe also seems to have been a promising candidate for a consort’s Crown, and at least some contemporaries so described her. She too was a moral and religious lady, and we know from her behaviour that she objected very much to any suggestion that she was not married to George [IV]. She was admired by many in her day for her upright character and her charm, and she tried to curb her husband’s expenditure. In Maria’s case there is no possible question about the fact of her royal marriage. The only problem is that on several grounds that marriage contravened the British succession law as then enacted. If we are considering Maria as a potential queen, we are also left with some uncertainty about her capacity to produce heirs to the throne. Although it has been suggested that she did produce a child or children by George [IV], this remains open to dispute, and it is certain that her first two marriages had remained childless.
Little information is available about Laura Culme-Seymour. Like several of our other contenders she had an ancestral relative who had previously worn the consort’s Crown, and her family background may have meant that she would have been able to take on a public role without too much difficulty. But in her case, despite some new evidence which has now been revealed, a great deal of uncertainty about the facts remains. It must now be considered possible that she had a relationship with the future George V, just as a widespread contemporary rumour suggested, even though both Laura’s family and the king later publicly denied this in a court of law. I have suggested that the confused state of the evidence today recalls, in some ways, the official action on the part of the government of Edward IV to hide evidence of his relationship with Eleanor Talbot at the time of that lady’s demise. Unlike the case of Edward IV and Eleanor, however, it is by no means certain that there was ever any form of marriage between George [V] and Laura. Moreover, Laura, like Eleanor Talbot and perhaps Maria Smythe, may not have been well equipped to produce heirs to the throne. In addition, her early death (if true) means that she might not, in any case, have survived long enough to wear the consort’s Crown which her distant cousin, Jane, had briefly assumed in the reign of Henry VIII.
Anne Boleyn was officially demoted by Henry VIII, but history has treated her more kindly than he did. Whatever the truth about the technicalities of her marriage, she has consistently been remembered by history as a Queen of England. Also, despite her lack of living sons, she did produce an heir to the throne – an heir, moreover, who, despite the questions about her birth, ultimately became one of England’s most celebrated monarchs.
As for Lucy Walter, her relationship with the future King Charles II is beyond doubt, and by him she produced a son, and a line of descendants of whom she could have been proud. However, Charles himself consistently denied that he had ever been married to her, and no real evidence has been found to undermine his official statements. Fortunately, perhaps, Lucy died before the Restoration of the Monarchy, so there was never any question of her making a bid for the role of queen – a role for which her suitability seems in some respects to have been questionable.
Finally we come to Hannah Lightfoot, a mystery figure about whom so little is known that her suitability for a consort’s Crown is impossible to evaluate. In the past Hannah’s very existence was questioned, but recent research has shown that this was unjustified. Nevertheless, the question of a marriage between her and George [III] remains very open. Although it now appears possible that there really was a relationship between them, on balance it seems improbable that they ever married.
APPENDIX 1
MONARCHS OF ENGLAND
AND THEIR CONSORTS
Controversial consorts examined in this book are included, with question marks.
‘Foreign’ royal consorts (children or grandchildren of a foreign monarch) are marked in bold. Only nineteen out of forty-nine monarchs or heirs listed here (abut 39 per cent) married such ‘foreign’ royal consorts. Most of the Lancastrian and Stuart sovereigns did so, but since the Hanoverian accession there have only been two such ‘foreign’ royal marriages.
William I Matilda of Flanders
William II [none]
Henry I Matilda (Edith) of Scotland; Adeliza of Louvain
Stephen/Matilda (civil war) Matilda of Boulogne
Emperor Henry V; Geoffrey, Count of Anjou
Henry II Eleanor of Aquitaine
[Henry the Young King Margaret of France]
Richard I Berengaria of Navarre
John Isabel (Hawise) of Gloucester; Isabelle of Angoulême
Henry III Eleanor of Provence
Edward I Eleanor of Castile; Margaret of France
Edward II Isabelle of France
Edward III Philippa of Hainaut
[Edward the Black Prince Joan of Kent]
Richard II Anne of Bohemia; Isabelle of France
Henry IV Mary de Bohun; Joanna of Navarre
Henry V Catherine of France
Henry VI Margaret of Anjou
Edward IV ?Eleanor Talbot; ?Elizabeth Woodville
Edward V [?none]
Richard III Anne Neville
Henry VII Elizabeth of York
Henry VIII ?Catherine of Aragon; ?Anne Boleyn; Jane Seymour; ?Anne of Cleves; ?Catherine Howard; Catherine Parr
Edward VI [none]
[Jane Guildford Dudley]
Mary I Philip II of Spain
Elizabeth I ?none; ?Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester
James I Anne of Denmark
Charles I Henrietta Maria of France
interregnum
Charles II ?Lucy Walter; Catherine of Bragança
James II Anne Hyde; Mary of Modena
William III and Mary II (married couple)
Anne George of Denmark
[James III Maria Clementina Sobieska]
[Charles III ?Clementina Walkinshaw; ?Louise of Stolberg]
[Henry IX none]
George I Sophia Dorothea of Celle
George II Caroline of Ansbach
[Frederick, Prince of Wales Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg]
George III ?Hannah Lightfoot; ?Charlotte of Mecklenburg
William IV Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen
Victoria Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha; ?John Brown
Edward VII Alexandra of Denmark
[Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence ?Annie Elizabeth Crook]
George V ?Laura Culme-Seymour; ?Mary of ?Teck
Edward VIII Bessie Wallis Warfield
George VI Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
Elizabeth II Philip of Greece and Denmark
APPENDIX 2
LIST OF ROYAL
EXTRAMARITAL AFFAIRS
For marriage partners and alleged marriage partners see Appendix 1.
William I
No recorded mistress
William II
No recorded mistress
Henry I
Gieva de Tracy
Ansfride …
Sybil (or Adela or Lucia) Corbet
Edith Fitzforne
Nest ferch Rhys, daughter of Rhys ap Tewdwr, last King of South Wales
Isabel de Beaumont.
Stephen
No recorded mistress
Henry II
Ykenai (or Hikenai), described as a ‘prostitute’
Ida de Toesny, Countess of Norfolk, was ver
y likely a daughter of Ralph V de Tosny (died 1162) and his wife Margaret (born circa 1125 and living in 1185), a daughter of Robert de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Leicester.
Nest(?), wife of Ralph Bloet
Alys of France, Countess of the Vexin
Rosamund Clifford
Richard I
No recorded mistress
John
Clemence d’Arcy [Pinel] – mother of Joan of Wales
… de Warenne
Henry III
No recorded mistress
Edward I
No recorded mistress
Edward II
Male lovers: Piers Gaveston; Hugh Despenser – no recorded mistress, but one illegitimate son
Edward III
Alice Salisbury (Perrers; Windsor), lady-in-waiting to Queen Philippa
?Catherine Montacute (or Montagu), Countess of Salisbury
John of Gaunt
Catherine de Roët (Swynford)
Richard II
No recorded mistress
Henry IV
No recorded mistress
Henry V
No recorded mistress
Henry VI
No recorded mistress
Edward IV
Elizabeth Wayte (Lucy)
Elizabeth Lambert
Richard III
No mistress as king, but ?Catherine Haute before his marriage
Henry VII
No recorded mistress as king, but unnamed mother of Sir Roland de Velville before his marriage
Henry VIII
Ann Stafford [Hastings] Countess of Huntingdon (niece of Elizabeth Woodville)
Elizabeth Blount
Mary Boleyn
Elizabeth Bryce
Anne Bassett
Elizabeth Bryan (Carew)
Elizabeth Browne (Somerset) Countess of Worcester
Margaret Shelton
[Mary Shelton]
Edward VI
No recorded mistress
Mary I
No recorded lovers
Elizabeth I
?Thomas Seymour, ?Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
James I
Male lovers but no recorded mistress
Charles I
No recorded mistress
Charles II
Barbara Palmer
Moll Davis
Nell Gwynn
Hortense Mancini
Catherine Pegge
Louise De Kerouaille
Elizabeth Killigrew, Viscountess Shannon
Lucy Walter
Winnifred Wells
James II
Arabella Churchill
+ 10 other short-lived affairs
Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester, Countess of Portmore
William III
Elizabeth Villiers
Elizabeth Hamilton, Countess of Orkney
Mary II
None
Anne
None but relationships with
Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough
Abigail, Baroness Masham
[James III
None
Charles III
Marie-Louise de la Tour d’Auvergne and others
Henry IX
None]
George I
Ehrengard Melusine Baroness von der Schulenburg, Duchess of Kendal and Duchess of Munster
George II
Henrietta Howard
Amalie Sophie Marianne von Wallmoden, 1st Countess of Yarmouth
Frederick, Prince of Wales
None
George III
None
George IV
Mary Robinson
Grace Elliot
Frances Countess of Jersey
Marchioness of Hertford
Marchioness Conyngham
William IV
Dorothea Bland [Mrs Jordan]
Victoria
None
Edward VII
Alice Keppel and others
George V
Several prior to his marriage – names unknown
Edward VIII
Thelma, Lady Furness and others
George VI
None
APPENDIX 3
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
1. Text of the ‘Remarriage of Widowed Queens’ statute of 1427.1
Original in French.
Item, it is ordered and established by the authority of this parliament for the preservation of the honour of the most noble estate of queens of England that no man of whatever estate or condition make contract of betrothal or matrimony to marry himself to the queen of England without the special licence and assent of the king, when the latter is of the age of discretion, and he who acts to the contrary and is duly convicted will forfeit for his whole life all his lands and tenements, even those which are or which will be in his own hands as well as those which are or which will be in the hands of others to his use, and also all his goods and chattels in whosoever’s hands they are, considering that by the disparagement of the queen the estate and honour of the king will be most greatly damaged, and it will give the greatest comfort and example to other ladies of rank who are of the blood royal that they might not be so lightly disparaged.
2. Extract from the Petition to Richard, Duke of Gloucester, 26 June 1483 (as quoted in the Act of Parliament (titulus regius) of January 1484.2
Over this, amonges other thinges, more specially we consider howe that the tyme of the raigne of Kyng Edward IV, late-decessed, — after the ungracious, pretensed marriage (as all England hath cause so say) made betwixt the said King Edward and Elizabeth (sometyme wife to Sir John Grey, Knight), late nameing herself (and many years heretofore) “Queene of England”, — the ordre of all politeque rule was perverted … unto the grete sorrowe and heavynesse of all true Englishmen.
And here also we considre howe the said pretensed marriage betwixt the above-named King Edward and Elizabeth Grey was made of grete presumption, without the knowyng or assent of the lordes of this lond, and alsoe by sorcerie and wichecrafte committed by the said Elizabeth and her moder, Jaquett, Duchess of Bedford (as the common opinion of the people and the publique voice and fame is through all this land; and hereafter — if, and as, the case shall require — shall bee proved suffyciently, in tyme and place convenient).
And here also we considre how that the said pretensed marriage was made privatly and secretly, without edition of banns, in a private chamber, a profane place, and not openly, in the face of church, aftre the lawe of Godds churche, but contrarie thereunto, and the laudable custome of the churche of England. And howe also that at the tyme of contract of the same pretensed marriage (and bifore, and longe tyme after) the said King Edward was, and stoode, marryed, and trouth-plyght, to oone Dame Elianore Butteler (doughter of the old Earl of Shrewesbury) with whom the saide King Edward had made a precontracte of matrimonie longe tyme bifore he made the said pretensed mariage with the said Elizabeth Grey in manner and fourme aforesaide.
Which premises being true (as in veray trouth they been true), it appeareth and followeth evidently that the said King Edward (duryng his lyfe) and the said Elizabeth lived togather sinfully and dampnably in adultery, against the lawe of God and his church. And therefore noe marvaile that (the souverain lord and head of this londe being of such ungodly disposicion and provokyng the ire and indignation of oure Lorde God) such haynous mischiefs and inconvenients as is above remembered were used and committed in the reame amongst the subjects.
Also it appeareth evidently, and followeth, that all th’issue and children of the said king beene bastards, and unable to inherite or to clayme anything by inheritance, by the lawe and custome of England.
3. Title to the throne (titulus regius) – Act of Henry VII, November 1485.3
To the pleasure of Almyghty God, the welthe, prosperitie and suertie of this realme of Englond, to the synguler comforth of all the kynges subgettes of the same, and in avoydyng of all ambiguyties and quescions, be it ordeyned, esta
blisshed and enacted, by auctorite of this present parliament, that thenheritaunce of the corounez of the realmes of England and of Fraunce, with all the preemynence and dignytie roiall to the same perteynyng, and all other seignuriez to the kyng belongyng beyond the see, with thappurtenaunces therto in eny wise due or perteynyng, be, rest, remayne and abyde in the most royall person of our nowe soverain lord Kyng Henry the .vij.th, and in the heires of his body laufully comyng, perpetuelly with the grace of God so to endure, and in noon other.
4. Henry VII’s unquoted repeal of Richard III’s Act naming Eleanor Talbot as Edward IV’s true wife – November 1485.4