Illegitimate children of British kings

[Graham Truesdale]

What titles or other marks of recognition have they received?
Working backwards: -

George VI - I know of no claimed illegitimates

Edward VIII -
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00000489&tree=LEO
mentions 2 reputed sons. The second was born on 10th June 1935, so
would have been conceived in about September 1934, by which time Mrs
Simpson was in the ascendant.

George V - I know of no claimed illegitimates

Edward VII - did not acknowledge any illegitimates, although there were
rumours about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Cubitt,_Baroness_Ashcombe
(grandmother of the Duchess of Cornwall)

William IV - created his eldest illegitimate son Earl of Munster
(a title which he had held before his accession). The title remained
in existence until 2000 - though
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00270520&tree=LEO
says 2002

George IV -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom#Marriage_and_mistresses
lists a number of claimed illegitimates - although, unlike his younger
brother and successor, he does not seem to have acknowledged any
of them.
http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/scotland/page31h.aspx
'George IV also had an illegitimate son,
1a George Seymour Crole, Ensign 21st Dragoons (1817), Lieut. 11th
Dragoons (1820), ADC to Marquess of Hastings Gov. of Bengal, and
subsequently Earl Amherst, Capt. 41st Foot (1823), Major (1826),
born 23 Aug. 1799, educ RMC Sandhurst, died unmarried 13 June 1863.'
So even if GIV had gien him a peerage, it would have died with him.

George III - I know of no claimed illegitimates other than those
referred to in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Lightfoot#Theory

George II -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_II_of_Great_Britain#Family_problems
'Amalie von Wallmoden, later Countess of Yarmouth, with whom
George had an illegitimate son, Johann Ludwig von Wallmoden. Johann
Ludwig was born while Amalie was still married to her husband, and so
George did not acknowledge him publicly as his own son.'
Is it possible to imagine a scenario where George confers the Earldom of
Yarmouth on Amalie, with a special remainder to Johann Ludwig?
(After all, George had been born in the lifetime of Charles II, who had
done something similar with the Dukedom of Cleveland)
On her death in 1765, he would become 2nd holder of the Earldom.
He died in 1811. His first son seems to have predeceased him, so
the next Earl (3rd holder of the Earldom) would have been his 2nd son
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Wallmoden-Gimborn
who died childless in 1863. Johann Ludwig's 3rd son
Karl August Ludwig , who would have become the 4th holder of the
Earldom) lived to 1883. Wiki states
'From him is descended the Oberhaus Wallmoden line.'
However, the equivalent German page
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Ludwig_von_Wallmoden-Gimborn
(from which the English page is translated) says
'mit ihm erlosch die gräfliche Linie Oberhaus Wallmoden.'
I.e. the line was extinguished with him, as opposed to descending
from him.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallmoden_(Adelsgeschlecht)#Geschichte
also calls Karl August Ludwig 'letzter Graf' - last Count.
I propose to amend wiki accordingly.

George I -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Great_Britain#Issue
lists 3 illegitimate daughters by Ehrengard Melusine von der Schulenburg
See also
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00000192&tree=LEO
Each of them was created a Countess/Gräfin - two in Hanover,
one in Britain.
The British one - Countess of Walsingham - was a life peerage and
she had no legitimate issue, so it died with her for two reasons.

William III - I know of no claimed illegitimates

James II -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descendants_of_James_II_of_England
lists 2 illegitimate sons -
James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick was so created in 1687,
when his father was reigning as King of England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_FitzJames,_1st_Duke_of_Berwick#History
says that he 'was attainted in 1695, and his British peerages forfeit.'
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/a3565bc31e1b190f?hl=en
(WAR) 'see the article by Geoffrey W. Iredell in *Genealogists' Magazine*,
vol. 20, no. 5 (March 1981), pp. 147-151. Iredell presents the evidence
that
Berwick was outlawed. Since attainder can occur as a result of either an
explicit Parliamentary Act or by outlawry, and Berwick's outlawry has never
been reversed, it would appear that the Berwick title has been extinguished
by attainder.'
If he had not been, then Jacobo FitzJames Stuart, born 1947, would be
the 12th duke to-day.
Henry FitzJames, 1st Duke of Albemarle was so created in 1696, after
his father had lost the English crown. He left no sons, so the title would
have died with him even if it had been created while his father was still
reigning.

Charles II - conferred peerages on 7 of his illegitimate sons
The Earl of Plymouth died without heirs in his father's lifetime
The Duke of Northumberland died without heirs.
The Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch was attainted (but
his wife was created Duchess of Buccleuch, and her descendant holds
the title to-day).
The Duke of Southampton (who inherited the Dukedom of
Cleveland from his mother) passed both titles to his son, but they
became extinct at his death.
The Dukedoms of Grafton, St Albans and Richmond and Lennox
are extant.

Thoughts so far?

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

On Sep 11, 9:38 am, "Graham Truesdale"

Post by Graham Truesdale
What titles or other marks of recognition have they received?
Working backwards: -
George VI - I know of no claimed illegitimates
Edward VIII -http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00000489&tree=LEO
mentions 2 reputed sons.  The second was born on 10th June 1935, so
would have been conceived in about September 1934, by which time Mrs
Simpson was in the ascendant.
George V - I know of no claimed illegitimates
Edward VII - did not acknowledge any illegitimates, although there were
rumours abouthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Cubitt,_Baroness_Ashcombe
(grandmother of the Duchess of Cornwall)
William IV - created his eldest illegitimate son Earl of Munster
(a title which he had held before his accession).  The title remained
in existence until 2000 - thoughhttp://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00270520&tree=LEO
says 2002
George IV -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom#Marriage...
lists a number of claimed illegitimates - although, unlike his younger
brother and successor, he does not seem to have acknowledged any
of them.http://www.burkespeerage.com/articles/scotland/page31h.aspx
'George IV also had an illegitimate son,
1a George Seymour Crole, Ensign 21st Dragoons (1817), Lieut. 11th
Dragoons (1820), ADC to Marquess of Hastings Gov. of Bengal, and
subsequently Earl Amherst, Capt. 41st Foot (1823), Major (1826),
born 23 Aug. 1799, educ RMC Sandhurst, died unmarried 13 June 1863.'
So even if GIV had gien him a peerage, it would have died with him.
George III - I know of no claimed illegitimates other than those
referred to inhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Lightfoot#Theory
George II -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_II_of_Great_Britain#Family_problems
'Amalie von Wallmoden, later Countess of Yarmouth, with whom
George had an illegitimate son, Johann Ludwig von Wallmoden. Johann
Ludwig was born while Amalie was still married to her husband, and so
George did not acknowledge him publicly as his own son.'
Is it possible to imagine a scenario where George confers the Earldom of
Yarmouth on Amalie, with a special  remainder to Johann Ludwig?
(After all, George had been born in the lifetime of Charles II, who had
done something similar with the Dukedom of Cleveland)
On her death in 1765, he would become 2nd holder of the Earldom.
He died in 1811.  His first son seems to have predeceased him, so
the next Earl (3rd holder of the Earldom) would have been his 2nd sonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_Wallmoden-Gimborn
who died childless in 1863.  Johann Ludwig's 3rd son
Karl August Ludwig , who would have become the 4th holder of the
Earldom) lived to 1883.  Wiki states
'From him is descended the Oberhaus Wallmoden line.'
However, the equivalent German pagehttp://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Ludwig_von_Wallmoden-Gimborn
(from which the English page is translated) says
'mit ihm erlosch die gräfliche Linie Oberhaus Wallmoden.'
I.e. the line was extinguished with him, as opposed to descending
from him.http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallmoden_(Adelsgeschlecht)#Geschichte
also calls Karl August Ludwig 'letzter Graf' - last Count.
I propose to amend wiki accordingly.
George I -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_I_of_Great_Britain#Issue
lists 3 illegitimate daughters by Ehrengard Melusine von der Schulenburg
See alsohttp://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00000192&tree=LEO
Each of them was created a Countess/Gräfin - two in Hanover,
one in Britain.
The British one - Countess of Walsingham - was a life peerage and
she had no legitimate issue, so it died with her for two reasons.
William III - I know of no claimed illegitimates
James II -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descendants_of_James_II_of_England
lists 2 illegitimate sons -
James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick was so created in 1687,
when his father was reigning as King of Englandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_FitzJames,_1st_Duke_of_Berwick#His...
says that he 'was attainted in 1695, and his British peerages forfeit.'https://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/a3565bc31e1b190f...
(WAR) 'see the article by Geoffrey W. Iredell in *Genealogists' Magazine*,
vol. 20, no. 5 (March 1981), pp. 147-151.  Iredell presents the evidence
that
Berwick was outlawed.  Since attainder can occur as a result of either an
explicit Parliamentary Act or by outlawry, and Berwick's outlawry has never
been reversed, it would appear that the Berwick title has been extinguished
by attainder.'
If he had not been, then Jacobo FitzJames Stuart, born 1947, would be
the 12th duke to-day.
Henry FitzJames, 1st Duke of Albemarle was so created in 1696, after
his father had lost the English crown.  He left no sons, so the title would
have died with him even if it had been created while his father was still
reigning.
Charles II - conferred peerages on 7 of his illegitimate sons
The Earl of Plymouth died without heirs in his father's lifetime
The Duke of Northumberland died without heirs.
The Duke of Monmouth and Buccleuch was attainted (but
his wife was created Duchess of Buccleuch, and her descendant holds
the title to-day).
The Duke of Southampton (who inherited the Dukedom of
Cleveland from his mother) passed both titles to his son, but they
became extinct at his death.
The Dukedoms of Grafton, St Albans and Richmond and Lennox
are extant.
Thoughts so far?
--
Treasure in Heaven is exempt from Death Duties.

Here is my link to a Maltese connection for Edward VII, though there
are still rumours to this day regarding George V. I am still looking
into this.

http://www.maltagenealogy.com/Libro%20d'Oro%20della%20Mediterranean/unitedkingdom.html


C.

[Hovite]

On Sep 11, 12:38 am, "Graham Truesdale"

Post by Graham Truesdale
George IV -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom#Marriage...
lists a number of claimed illegitimates - although, unlike his younger
brother and successor, he does not seem to have acknowledged any
of them.

King George IV had one son, George Seymour Crole. See Genealogists'
Magazine, volume 21, pages 228 to 235. He did not get any title, but
he did receive a pension of £300 each year until his death in 1863.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by Hovite
On Sep 11, 12:38 am, "Graham Truesdale"

Post by Graham Truesdale
George IV -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom#Marriage...
lists a number of claimed illegitimates - although, unlike his younger
brother and successor, he does not seem to have acknowledged any
of them.

King George IV had one son, George Seymour Crole. See Genealogists'
Magazine, volume 21, pages 228 to 235. He did not get any title, but
he did receive a pension of £300 each year until his death in 1863.

If there is so much certainty about the father, could we be told who
the mother was?

Or, as one suspects, is that question going to be met by a deathly
silence?

[Turenne]

Post by CJ Buyers
If there is so much certainty about the father, could we be told who
the mother was?

Supposedly, Elizabeth Fox, Mrs. Crole, b. 1770 d. 1840, though the
evidence of George's paternity is somewhat thin.

RL

[CJ Buyers]

Post by CJ Buyers
If there is so much certainty about the father, could we be told who
the mother was?

Supposedly, Elizabeth Fox, Mrs. Crole, b. 1770  d. 1840, though the
evidence of George's paternity is somewhat thin.

Indeed. I believe the evidence is not just thin, it is more aptly
described as "none".

[Chris Pitt Lewis]

This post might be inappropriate. Click to display it.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by CJ Buyers
If there is so much certainty about the father, could we be told who
the mother was?

Supposedly, Elizabeth Fox, Mrs. Crole, b. 1770  d. 1840, though the
evidence of George's paternity is somewhat thin.

Indeed. I believe the evidence is not just thin, it is more aptly
described as "none".

Actually, the evidence that George Seymour Crole was the son of George
IV is about as good as it gets in the absence of formal public
recognition.
Prince George's liaison with Elizabeth Fox otherwise Crole (who had been
the mistress of Lord Egremont by whom she had four children) was
recorded by contemporary gossip and in the press in August 1798. Her son
George Seymour Crole was born 23 aug 1799. Elizabeth was granted a
pension of 500 pounds from the Privy Purse for life. Her son's fees at
the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, 1814-1816, were paid out of the
Privy Purse. In 1823, discussing his will with the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Eldon, the King said that he had "a natural son, an officer in the East
Indies" to whom he felt obliged to leave a legacy. Crole was aide de
camp to the Governor of Bengal at the time. In 1828 his mother wrote to
the King's private secretary that he had "been all his life accustomed
to consider himself as the natural son of the King". Crole was paid
10,000 pounds by the King's executors in 1831 and also received a
pension of 300 pounds for life from the Privy Purse. A list of pensions
transferred from the Privy Purse of William IV to that of Victoria in
1837 describes him as "natural son of George the Fourth". He died
unmarried and with no known issue in 1863.
See the article in the Genealogists' Magazine cited earlier by Hovite.
All this is very strong evidence that all persons concerned believed him
to be the King's son.

Well, if the mother was writing that he had "been all his life
accustomed to consider himself as the natural son of the King" to the
man who was charged with the private affairs of the King, that does
not exactly suggest that the Private Secretary was one of the "all
persons concerned". Rather, it suggests that either he did not know or
was not convinced. Odd that he should have to be told or convinced at
this late stage, given his intimate connection with George IV for many
years.

What she fails to mention is that this son of hers was known to her
and her firends as "Prince". But of course we would not assume by such
a statement that he was one. Any more than we would go down a pension
roll and assume that everyone in receipt of a pension constituted
progeny.

No. "Accustomed to consider" is a form of words which is suggestive of
doubt, not conclusive belief or certainty. And this by the mother
herself!

As for the bequest, Hibbert's full quotation from the Eldon manuscript
papers says that George IV "mentioned that he had a natural son, an
officer in the East Indies, to whom he thought himself bound to give a
legacy £30,000". The amounts do not match. So what happened? Are we to
assume that certainty of parentage had diminished by 66% percent!

Given the naming styles of Mrs Crole's other children, I would think
that the likely father of George Seymour Crole is perhaps a person
surnamed Seymour.

[Chris Pitt Lewis]

In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by CJ Buyers
If there is so much certainty about the father, could we be told who
the mother was?

Supposedly, Elizabeth Fox, Mrs. Crole, b. 1770  d. 1840, though the
evidence of George's paternity is somewhat thin.

Indeed. I believe the evidence is not just thin, it is more aptly
described as "none".

Actually, the evidence that George Seymour Crole was the son of George
IV is about as good as it gets in the absence of formal public
recognition.
Prince George's liaison with Elizabeth Fox otherwise Crole (who had been
the mistress of Lord Egremont by whom she had four children) was
recorded by contemporary gossip and in the press in August 1798. Her son
George Seymour Crole was born 23 aug 1799. Elizabeth was granted a
pension of 500 pounds from the Privy Purse for life. Her son's fees at
the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, 1814-1816, were paid out of the
Privy Purse. In 1823, discussing his will with the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Eldon, the King said that he had "a natural son, an officer in the East
Indies" to whom he felt obliged to leave a legacy. Crole was aide de
camp to the Governor of Bengal at the time. In 1828 his mother wrote to
the King's private secretary that he had "been all his life accustomed
to consider himself as the natural son of the King". Crole was paid
10,000 pounds by the King's executors in 1831 and also received a
pension of 300 pounds for life from the Privy Purse. A list of pensions
transferred from the Privy Purse of William IV to that of Victoria in
1837 describes him as "natural son of George the Fourth". He died
unmarried and with no known issue in 1863.
See the article in the Genealogists' Magazine cited earlier by Hovite.
All this is very strong evidence that all persons concerned believed him
to be the King's son.

Well, if the mother was writing that he had "been all his life
accustomed to consider himself as the natural son of the King" to the
man who was charged with the private affairs of the King, that does
not exactly suggest that the Private Secretary was one of the "all
persons concerned". Rather, it suggests that either he did not know or
was not convinced. Odd that he should have to be told or convinced at
this late stage, given his intimate connection with George IV for many
years.
What she fails to mention is that this son of hers was known to her
and her firends as "Prince". But of course we would not assume by such
a statement that he was one. Any more than we would go down a pension
roll and assume that everyone in receipt of a pension constituted
progeny.
No. "Accustomed to consider" is a form of words which is suggestive of
doubt, not conclusive belief or certainty. And this by the mother
herself!
As for the bequest, Hibbert's full quotation from the Eldon manuscript
papers says that George IV "mentioned that he had a natural son, an
officer in the East Indies, to whom he thought himself bound to give a
legacy £30,000". The amounts do not match. So what happened? Are we to
assume that certainty of parentage had diminished by 66% percent!
Given the naming styles of Mrs Crole's other children, I would think
that the likely father of George Seymour Crole is perhaps a person
surnamed Seymour.

I was answering your post, quoted above, in which you described the
evidence that George IV was Crole's father as "none".

I summarised the most salient of the evidence in the 1984 Genealogists'
Magazine article. I think it is clear that this cannot reasonably be
described as "none".

Taken as a whole, it is enough to convince me that it is more likely
than not that George IV was his father. I note that it also convinces
the very distinguished genealogist Anthony Camp, who says in his book
(p.132) that Crole is the only illegitimate child of whom George IV
"can...be said with confidence to have been the father".

You are of course perfectly entitled to assess the evidence differently,
but if the rather feeble debating points above are the best you can come
up with, we will have to agree to disagree. Who was the son in the East
Indies that the King believed he had, if not Crole?

But my main concern was to counter your patently incorrect assertion
that there was no evidence.

[e***@yahoo.fr]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by CJ Buyers
If there is so much certainty about the father, could we be told who
the mother was?

Supposedly, Elizabeth Fox, Mrs. Crole, b. 1770 d. 1840, though the
evidence of George's paternity is somewhat thin.

Indeed. I believe the evidence is not just thin, it is more aptly
described as "none".

Actually, the evidence that George Seymour Crole was the son of George
IV is about as good as it gets in the absence of formal public
recognition.
Prince George's liaison with Elizabeth Fox otherwise Crole (who had been
the mistress of Lord Egremont by whom she had four children) was
recorded by contemporary gossip and in the press in August 1798. Her son
George Seymour Crole was born 23 aug 1799. Elizabeth was granted a
pension of 500 pounds from the Privy Purse for life. Her son's fees at
the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, 1814-1816, were paid out of the
Privy Purse. In 1823, discussing his will with the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Eldon, the King said that he had "a natural son, an officer in the East
Indies" to whom he felt obliged to leave a legacy. Crole was aide de
camp to the Governor of Bengal at the time. In 1828 his mother wrote to
the King's private secretary that he had "been all his life accustomed
to consider himself as the natural son of the King". Crole was paid
10,000 pounds by the King's executors in 1831 and also received a
pension of 300 pounds for life from the Privy Purse. A list of pensions
transferred from the Privy Purse of William IV to that of Victoria in
1837 describes him as "natural son of George the Fourth". He died
unmarried and with no known issue in 1863.
See the article in the Genealogists' Magazine cited earlier by Hovite.
All this is very strong evidence that all persons concerned believed him
to be the King's son.

Well, if the mother was writing that he had "been all his life
accustomed to consider himself as the natural son of the King" to the
man who was charged with the private affairs of the King, that does
not exactly suggest that the Private Secretary was one of the "all
persons concerned". Rather, it suggests that either he did not know or
was not convinced. Odd that he should have to be told or convinced at
this late stage, given his intimate connection with George IV for many
years.
What she fails to mention is that this son of hers was known to her
and her firends as "Prince". But of course we would not assume by such
a statement that he was one. Any more than we would go down a pension
roll and assume that everyone in receipt of a pension constituted
progeny.
No. "Accustomed to consider" is a form of words which is suggestive of
doubt, not conclusive belief or certainty. And this by the mother
herself!
As for the bequest, Hibbert's full quotation from the Eldon manuscript
papers says that George IV "mentioned that he had a natural son, an
officer in the East Indies, to whom he thought himself bound to give a
legacy 30,000". The amounts do not match. So what happened? Are we to
assume that certainty of parentage had diminished by 66% percent!
Given the naming styles of Mrs Crole's other children, I would think
that the likely father of George Seymour Crole is perhaps a person
surnamed Seymour.

I was answering your post, quoted above, in which you described the
evidence that George IV was Crole's father as "none".
I summarised the most salient of the evidence in the 1984 Genealogists'
Magazine article. I think it is clear that this cannot reasonably be
described as "none".
Taken as a whole, it is enough to convince me that it is more likely
than not that George IV was his father. I note that it also convinces
the very distinguished genealogist Anthony Camp, who says in his book
(p.132) that Crole is the only illegitimate child of whom George IV
"can...be said with confidence to have been the father".
You are of course perfectly entitled to assess the evidence differently,
but if the rather feeble debating points above are the best you can come
up with, we will have to agree to disagree. Who was the son in the East
Indies that the King believed he had, if not Crole?
But my main concern was to counter your patently incorrect assertion
that there was no evidence.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis

These children grand-bâtards, if father not King: spurius, spurii

[CJ Buyers]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by CJ Buyers
If there is so much certainty about the father, could we be told who
the mother was?

Supposedly, Elizabeth Fox, Mrs. Crole, b. 1770 d. 1840, though the
evidence of George's paternity is somewhat thin.

Indeed. I believe the evidence is not just thin, it is more aptly
described as "none".

Actually, the evidence that George Seymour Crole was the son of George
IV is about as good as it gets in the absence of formal public
recognition.
Prince George's liaison with Elizabeth Fox otherwise Crole (who had been
the mistress of Lord Egremont by whom she had four children) was
recorded by contemporary gossip and in the press in August 1798. Her son
George Seymour Crole was born 23 aug 1799. Elizabeth was granted a
pension of 500 pounds from the Privy Purse for life. Her son's fees at
the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, 1814-1816, were paid out of the
Privy Purse. In 1823, discussing his will with the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Eldon, the King said that he had "a natural son, an officer in the East
Indies" to whom he felt obliged to leave a legacy. Crole was aide de
camp to the Governor of Bengal at the time. In 1828 his mother wrote to
the King's private secretary that he had "been all his life accustomed
to consider himself as the natural son of the King". Crole was paid
10,000 pounds by the King's executors in 1831 and also received a
pension of 300 pounds for life from the Privy Purse. A list of pensions
transferred from the Privy Purse of William IV to that of Victoria in
1837 describes him as "natural son of George the Fourth". He died
unmarried and with no known issue in 1863.
See the article in the Genealogists' Magazine cited earlier by Hovite.
All this is very strong evidence that all persons concerned believed him
to be the King's son.

Well, if the mother was writing that he had "been all his life
accustomed to consider himself as the natural son of the King" to the
man who was charged with the private affairs of the King, that does
not exactly suggest that the Private Secretary was one of the "all
persons concerned". Rather, it suggests that either he did not know or
was not convinced. Odd that he should have to be told or convinced at
this late stage, given his intimate connection with George IV for many
years.
What she fails to mention is that this son of hers was known to her
and her firends as "Prince". But of course we would not assume by such
a statement that he was one. Any more than we would go down a pension
roll and assume that everyone in receipt of a pension constituted
progeny.
No. "Accustomed to consider" is a form of words which is suggestive of
doubt, not conclusive belief or certainty. And this by the mother
herself!
As for the bequest, Hibbert's full quotation from the Eldon manuscript
papers says that George IV "mentioned that he had a natural son, an
officer in the East Indies, to whom he thought himself bound to give a
legacy 30,000". The amounts do not match. So what happened? Are we to
assume that certainty of parentage had diminished by 66% percent!
Given the naming styles of Mrs Crole's other children, I would think
that the likely father of George Seymour Crole is perhaps a person
surnamed Seymour.

I was answering your post, quoted above, in which you described the
evidence that George IV was Crole's father as "none".
I summarised the most salient of the evidence in the 1984 Genealogists'
Magazine article. I think it is clear that this cannot reasonably be
described as "none".
Taken as a whole, it is enough to convince me that it is more likely
than not that George IV was his father. I note that it also convinces
the very distinguished genealogist Anthony Camp, who says in his book
(p.132) that Crole is the only illegitimate child of whom George IV
"can...be said with confidence to have been the father".
You are of course perfectly entitled to assess the evidence differently,
but if the rather feeble debating points above are the best you can come
up with, we will have to agree to disagree. Who was the son in the East
Indies that the King believed he had, if not Crole?
But my main concern was to counter your patently incorrect assertion
that there was no evidence.
--
Chris Pitt Lewis

These children grand-bâtards, if father not King: spurius, spurii- Hide quoted text -

Indeed, that is the best that can be said. At least in the cases of
those served up as belonging to George IV.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
In message

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by CJ Buyers
If there is so much certainty about the father, could we be told who
the mother was?

Supposedly, Elizabeth Fox, Mrs. Crole, b. 1770  d. 1840, though the
evidence of George's paternity is somewhat thin.

Indeed. I believe the evidence is not just thin, it is more aptly
described as "none".

Actually, the evidence that George Seymour Crole was the son of George
IV is about as good as it gets in the absence of formal public
recognition.
Prince George's liaison with Elizabeth Fox otherwise Crole (who had been
the mistress of Lord Egremont by whom she had four children) was
recorded by contemporary gossip and in the press in August 1798. Her son
George Seymour Crole was born 23 aug 1799. Elizabeth was granted a
pension of 500 pounds from the Privy Purse for life. Her son's fees at
the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, 1814-1816, were paid out of the
Privy Purse. In 1823, discussing his will with the Lord Chancellor, Lord
Eldon, the King said that he had "a natural son, an officer in the East
Indies" to whom he felt obliged to leave a legacy. Crole was aide de
camp to the Governor of Bengal at the time. In 1828 his mother wrote to
the King's private secretary that he had "been all his life accustomed
to consider himself as the natural son of the King". Crole was paid
10,000 pounds by the King's executors in 1831 and also received a
pension of 300 pounds for life from the Privy Purse. A list of pensions
transferred from the Privy Purse of William IV to that of Victoria in
1837 describes him as "natural son of George the Fourth". He died
unmarried and with no known issue in 1863.
See the article in the Genealogists' Magazine cited earlier by Hovite.
All this is very strong evidence that all persons concerned believed him
to be the King's son.

Well, if the mother was writing that he had "been all his life
accustomed to consider himself as the natural son of the King" to the
man who was charged with the private affairs of the King, that does
not exactly suggest that the Private Secretary was one of the "all
persons concerned". Rather, it suggests that either he did not know or
was not convinced. Odd that he should have to be told or convinced at
this late stage, given his intimate connection with George IV for many
years.
What she fails to mention is that this son of hers was known to her
and her firends as "Prince". But of course we would not assume by such
a statement that he was one. Any more than we would go down a pension
roll and assume that everyone in receipt of a pension constituted
progeny.
No. "Accustomed to consider" is a form of words which is suggestive of
doubt, not conclusive belief or certainty. And this by the mother
herself!
As for the bequest, Hibbert's full quotation from the Eldon manuscript
papers says that George IV "mentioned that he had a natural son, an
officer in the East Indies, to whom he thought himself bound to give a
legacy £30,000". The amounts do not match. So what happened? Are we to
assume that certainty of parentage had diminished by 66% percent!
Given the naming styles of Mrs Crole's other children, I would think
that the likely father of George Seymour Crole is perhaps a person
surnamed Seymour.

I was answering your post, quoted above, in which you described the
evidence that George IV was Crole's father as "none".
I summarised the most salient of the evidence in the 1984 Genealogists'
Magazine article. I think it is clear that this cannot reasonably be
described as "none".
Taken as a whole, it is enough to convince me that it is more likely
than not that George IV was his father. I note that it also convinces
the very distinguished genealogist Anthony Camp, who says in his book
(p.132) that Crole is the only illegitimate child of whom George IV
"can...be said with confidence to have been the father".
You are of course perfectly entitled to assess the evidence differently,
but if the rather feeble debating points above are the best you can come
up with, we will have to agree to disagree.

No more, no less than the feeble evidence presented here by you.

Post by Chris Pitt Lewis
Who was the son in the East
Indies that the King believed he had, if not Crole?

I have not got the slightest idea. He could be another person. He
could have died inbetween. The king could have changed his mind. All
sorts of possibilities. Nor do I need to know. In the same way as if
someone asked me what the moon is made of, if it isn't Green cheese?
Because I do not know the answer, does not mean that it IS made of
Green cheese!

[Katipo]

Don't forget Henry I.

He is supposed to have had 20 - 22 illegitimate kids by 5 or 6 different
women.