Once again, I’m turning to your questions to explore history. This week’s episode seems to embrace all three areas: Royals, Rebels, and Romantics. I’ll leave it to you to decide who goes where!
The first thing I want to say is that history is complicated. We don’t know everything. Contemporary records were made by people with flawed understanding and their own agendas. As I’m recording this, it’s the second week of January 2021. Think about someone approaching piles of news reports 200-250 years from now. The events of the past days and the past weeks have been described in diametrically opposed ways, depending on who is reporting. How will historians in 2221 know which accounts are most “real”?
We face the same questions as we approach what happened during the reign of Queen Charlotte, which spans the active reign of George III and the time of the Regency, when the king was too ill to reign and the Prince Regent took control of the monarchy. I want to especially thank my friend Jeri Mae for helping me start the ball rolling in jumping into this fascinating question.
The Regency was a time of war and social upheaval. The power of the monarchy was being challenged from within the country and by those upstart colonies in America. The French Revolution resulted in the execution of the royal family. A small slice of the country controlled a vast majority of money and land and power, while much of the country struggled and some starved.
At the same time, arts and culture were thriving. The court was full of music, including a young Mozart. Beau Brummel introduced a new focus on fashion. There were advances in architecture and building. Literature reached a new pinnacle, with Sir Walter Scott, Fanny Burney, Maria Edgeworth, Mary Shelley, William Godwin, and, of course, Jane Austen.
So what was the Regency really like? That’s a question we can answer only in parts. We can learn something from the music and literature, something from the architecture. We can know something of the elite and powerful. We can learn from reports that praise national leaders and from caricatures that poke fun of those in power. Because this time is full of people, the Regency (like today) is complicated. That’s true of the people who filled the streets and shops of London. It’s true of the people who farmed and harvested and never saw a city. We can’t know everything. If we keep an open mind and stay curious, we can learn something.
And the same is true about Queen Charlotte. With the splashy new Netflix drama Bridgerton hitting the airwaves in the last couple of weeks, the questions surrounding Queen Charlotte are bubbling to the surface once more. Here are a few I’ve received:
What was she really like?
Where was she from?
Why did she have all those children if she hated being pregnant?
How did she become Queen of England?
Is Charlotte, North Carolina really named for her?
What did she do after George III became too ill to rule?
Was she a gossip?
And…was she really Black?
All the questions matter, and most have their own complications. My belief is that we can learn from history, with all its complications. As we do, we’ll be more able to successfully navigate our own complicated lives and prepare for a complicated future. We don’t know all the answers, but we can start by asking some of the right questions. So that’s where we are going today. We are asking what we can learn about Queen Charlotte. Even if we don’t have definitive answers, we can certainly learn something.
Why Now?
Why all the interest in Queen Charlotte right now? It’s because of Bridgerton. Love it or hate it or haven’t ever heard of it, the Netflix drama (and you’ll notice I’m not calling it a history program or documentary) has stirred up questions regarding the often forgotten wife of George III and mother of the Prince Regent/George IV, the men who ruled England during this time period.
The TV series is based on a series of novels by Julia Quinn which, interestingly enough, don’t include Queen Charlotte. Bridgerton’s showrunner, Chris Van Dusen, explains the benefits of adding the character. “Adding Queen Charlotte afforded us an opportunity to see what true excess and decadence looked like at the time. She brings real import to the world as we get to be in some amazing spaces with her—from Buckingham Home to St. Regis Palace.”
In fact, they even filmed one scene in Lancaster House, which is a royal residence and still used by the Royal family. It’s a scene where two fictious characters, Simon and Daphne, ask Queen Charlotte for permission to marry quickly. A few weeks before the scene was filmed, Queen Elizabeth II had used that same room to host a dinner party for guests from around the world. So certainly the inclusion of Queen Charlotte gave the show the opportunity to move the action into royal grounds.
Van Dusen also turned to the Queen to heighten the stakes of the marriage-making atmosphere. “She was definitely very much a part of the social scene during Regency times,” he said. It’s thought that King George III established the first debutante ball in 1870 in honor of his wife’s birthday. This became known as “Queen Charlotte’s Ball,” and was held at Buckingham Palace every year until the 1950s.
But the most significant thing that adding Queen Charlotte allowed the show to do was make race part of the theme. The casting is not color-blind but color-conscious, as the show’s creators explain that they wanted to make questions about race one of the defining features of the program, along with questions about gender and sexuality. Van Dusen said, “It’s something that really resonated with me, because it made me wonder what could that have really looked like. And what would have happened? What could she have done? Could the queen have elevated other people of color in society and granted them titles and lands and dukedoms?” In the world of Bridgerton, the choice to make Queen Charlotte visibly Black opened doors. “That’s really how our Simon Bassett, our Duke of Hastings, came to be. We get to explore it in a really interesting way. And it goes to the idea of what the show does—we’re marrying history and fantasy in a really exciting, fascinating way.”
Or, for some people, in a way that’s too heavy-handed. For example, Washington Post television critic Hank Stuever maintains that the Bridgerton construct doesn’t quite work. “A Black character stops to explain, grandly, how and why this society came to be integrated. (Answer: because the Queen is a person of color.) Not only does it not make much sense, but it seems like an unnecessary wrench thrown into a completely sensible and revisionary romp: People of color are here because they should have been here all along. Isn’t that reason enough?”
Most scholars think that the Regency period was, historically, more diverse than we typically see in movies or television productions. Adjoa Andoh, who plays Lady Danbury, said, “People of color existed in this country right back to Roman times and Regency London had 20,000 Black people.” Bridgerton also (and less self-consciously) addresses this with the character of Will Mondrich, who is inspired by Bill Richmond. Richmond was a slave for fought for the British in the American War of Independence. He was brought to England by his commanding officer and became a successful boxer. At age 41, he opened his own gym and trained people like Lord Byron. But that doesn’t mean diversity reached the upper levels of society.
So who is this Queen that Bridgerton decided to pull into the story?
Charlotte’s Life and Marriage
Charlotte was born in Mecklenburg-Strelitz in 1744. She grew up in what is now Germany. She was educated as most young women were and spoke French (but no English). She was especially fond of and excelled in music. In her youth, she was described as lively and having an even temper. In 1761, at age 17, her life changed as she prepared to go to England to meet her future husband, King George III. She was chosen as a wife for George III either by this King’s mother or the King himself. She didn’t have much say in the matter.
Lord Harcourt was sent to bring her to England. He described her as having pretty eyes, nice teeth but being no “regular” beauty. We’re not sure what he meant by that, but it is later used in questioning her background. She was very sick on the journey to England and lost quite a bit of weight. As a result, her wedding dress, heavy because of the diamond embellishments, nearly fell off during the wedding.
Although the marriage was arranged for political and religious rather than personal reasons, George and Charlotte had a close and happy marriage for the first 25 years of their lives together. Charlotte quickly learned English and adapted to the British court. George III was determined to overcome the negative image his father and grandfather had experienced and to make the monarchy more popular in a time when revolutionary fever was growing. Although he was not successful with the American colonies, he did present a more positive image of the monarchy in Britain. George and Charlotte had 15 children together. They both loved music and oversaw a musical and artistic court.
A few of the letters between the King and Queen survive, and they demonstrate an affectionate relationship. A letter Charlotte wrote to her husband in 1778 ends with these words:
You will have the benefit by your voyages to put spirit in every body, to be more known by the world, and if possible more beloved by the people in general. That must be the case, but not equal to the love of her who subscribes herself, your very affectionate friend and wife, Charlotte
The King and Queen were dedicated to their children. They spent time together at Windsor and Kew where they could be less formal than at Buckingham Palace. The King was determined that his children be as dedicated and serious in their pursuits as he himself had been. This strict upbringing worked reasonably well while the children were younger, but as they grew, some began to rebel. In particular, the couple’s eldest son George pushed back against his father’s high expectations. The King responded by pushing even harder. At age 17, the Prince himself admitted to drinking too much and being too fond of women. His own marriage to Caroline of Brunswick was a disaster, and some feel his dissolute lifestyle was a reaction to his strict upbringing.
Charlotte was considered one of the most scientifically-minded Queens. She was interested in botany and was a key figure in the establishment of Kew Gardens. She drew and catalogued the plants that grew in the gardens. She brought botanists Joseph Banks, Daniel Solander, and John Lightfoot to Court, as well as geologist Jean Andre de Luc. She also surrounded herself with a network of intelligent and vibrant women, including novelist Fanny Burney and naturalists Elizabeth Harcourt and Margaret Cavendish. Charlotte is reported to have said, “I am of the opinion that if a woman had the same advantages as men in their education they might do as well.”
But Charlotte’s happy times were not to last. The King’s early bouts of illness were kept from her, but as the episodes continued they could not be hidden from her or the court. The King’s illness led to suffering for his family as well. According to Mrs. Philip Lybbe Poyse, who had witnessed the coronation, “Surely never was anyone to be more pitied than her Majesty, as no couple had ever been happier than they were before this greatest of all misfortunes.” The King’s illness lingered for years, eventually becoming so debilitating that a Regency was declared. In 1811, the Prince of Wales became Regent and Queen Charlotte became the King’s guardian.
Charlotte did continue to be active in court life during the early years of the Regency. After the Prince Regent’s marriage to Caroline of Brunswick failed and she left, Charlotte effectively took her place at court.
As time went on, the King had bouts of violence and Charlotte had to stay away from him completely. They lived apart in her final years. In 1818, as the King languished at Windsor Castle, Charlotte’s health began to fail. She was confined to Kew Palace, forcing the weddings of her two sons to be held there. The Palace set up an altar in the Drawing Room for the double ceremony, which Charlotte attended. By the fall, she mostly stayed in her room, where she died 17 November 1818.
King George probably didn’t understand that his once beloved wife had died. He himself died little more than two years later, 29 January 1820. After nine years of being Prince Regent, George and Charlotte’s son became King George IV.
The Big Question: Was Queen Charlotte Black?
Historians are divided on this question. It’s complicated. Let’s take a look.
The questions about Queen Charlotte’s race seem to have started with Joel Augustus Rogers in 1940 when he wrote that portraits and contemporary descriptions of Charlotte clearly show a Black strain (Sex and Race, volume 1). In 1967, Mario de Valdes y Cocom began researching the Queen’s ancestry. This is when the theory began to draw attention.
According to Valdes, Charlotte’s physician described her as “mulatto,” and Sir Walter Scott described her as “ill-colored.” Valdes said then he started a systematic genealogical search which led him to conclude that Charlotte was directly descended from a Black branch of the Portuguese royal family. According to his claim, Alfonso III had a mistress who was from a Moorish down, and one of their sons married into the de Souse family, which also had Black roots. Charlotte’s ancestry, according to Valdes, has Black members in both lines.
Valdes also turns to the portraits of Sir Allan Ramsay, which include features that he says indicate a mixed race background or, in his words, “the Queen’s unmistakable African appearance.” Ramsay himself was a well-known court portraitist who was commissioned to do the royal coronation portraits for George III and Queen Charlotte. Ramsay was also known to be anti-slavery. Copies of Ramsay’s coronation portrait were sent to the colonies. Some see this as a form of anti-slavery propaganda.
Valdes is not the only historian who pursued this line. Dr. Joyce Hemlow of McGill University offers several quotations that describe Charlotte in terms that indicate a mixed race heritage. She reinforces the description of the Queen’s personal physician, Baron Stockmar.
In 1996, the PBS series Frontline leaned heavily into the conclusion that Queen Charlotte had Black ancestry. According to the PBS website, “Queen Charlotte, wife of the English King George III (1738-1820), was directly descended from Margarita de Castro y Sousa, a Black branch of the Portuguese Royal House. The riddle of Queen Charlotte’s African Ancestry is solved.” In addition to the work of Valdes and others, this discussion includes support from art historians. The historians concluded paintings of the Magi as Black figures must have been based on actual people because they so successfully captured specifics in skin tone and bone structure. The thought is that the models for the Black magi were members of the Portuguese family that had traveled to the Netherlands in the 15th century. This is used to support the notion that the family was Black. Queen Charlotte’s ancestry is traced to this family.
There are certainly those who dispute this theory. It’s not clear that Baron Stockmar was Charlotte’s physician; in fact, he is listed as the physician to Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The portraits of Ramsay do have a style that could indicate a mixed race background, especially if you compare his portrayal of Charlotte to his other subjects. On the other hand, most other portraits of Charlotte don’t include these characteristics. And perhaps more tellingly, the caricatures that were so popular during this time and that pulled no punches in portraying the idiosyncrasies of the royals include no sense of Charlotte having anything other than traditional features.
The genealogical evidence is also questioned. For one thing, the relationship between Alfonso III and his mistress (who has different names in different accounts) is unclear. Also, the term “Moor,” which is used to describe her, is taken by Valdes to mean African, but that is not always the case. Sometimes “Moor” is used as a more general term referring to people from North Africa and Spain. And the nine generations between Alfonso and Charlotte would have significantly diluted any connection.
Even so, the story continues to hold our attention. In 1999, the London Sunday Times published an article with the headline: REVEALED: THE QUEEN’S BLACK ANCESTORS. The story itself acknowledges that the connection has not been proven, but also claims that “An American genealogist has established that Queen Charlotte, the wife of George III, was directly descended from the illegitimate son of an African mistress in the Portuguese royal house” (emphasis mine). The American genealogist was Valdes. After the Times story, the Boston Globe hailed the research as ground-breaking.
But still, people disagree. Kate Williams, a current popular historian, says that the story raises “important suggestions about not only our royal family but those of most of Europe, considering that Queen Victoria’s descendants are spread across most of the royal families of Europe.” But she is skeptical about the theory, as are other historians. David Williamson, former co-editor of Debrett’s Peerage said, “In any case, all European royal families somewhere are linked to the kings of Castile. There is a lot of Moorish blood in the Portuguese royal family and it has diffused over the rest of Europe. The question is who cares?”
And there’s the problem. A healthy and respectful debate, including calling into question the notion of genealogical claims and which physician was there when and what was behind a particular portraitist’s style is the way to learning. Dismissing the question with “who cares?” is what leads to the perpetuation of minimizing questions and history and people. All kinds of people.
Before Bridgerton, the most recent time this question was raised was in 2019 when Prince Harry married Meghan Markle. Is the Duchess of Sussex the first mixed race member of the British royal family? Back when the Times and follow-up Globe articles were published, the Palace spokesperson was said to have responded to the questions about Queen Charlotte’s ancestry by saying “This has been rumored for years and years. It is a matter of history, and frankly, we’ve got far more important things to talk about.” To dismiss a question because it’s about history seems unfathomable for a person associated with the monarchy, which depends on history. And to insult the significance of exploring the possibility of a Queen having Black ancestry is unconscionable. Whatever you think of the royal family or the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to step away from it, the blatant racism of the media coverage of Ms. Markle proves that this is exactly what we should be talking about.
History. It’s complicated. The answers aren’t easy, and they often are not clear. But we need to keep asking the questions.
Thank you for joining me to explore the history and questions about Bridgerton and Queen Charlotte! Speaking of questions, next week we have another to explore: How and When did the British monarchy get started? Well, that should be easy. Not!