[62]. A message was sent from the Prince Regent to each House of Parliament on the 14th of March, announcing the forthcoming marriage of his daughter, Princess Charlotte Augusta, with his Serene Highness Leopold George Frederick Prince of Coburg of Saalfeld. The Commons granted the illustrious pair the annual sum of 60,000l., of which 10,000l. were for the exclusive use of the Princess. They also voted the sums of 40,000l. to purchase furniture, plate, equipages, &c., 10,000l. for the Princess’s dresses, and 10,000l. for jewels.
[63]. “Notwithstanding some disadvantages, the Princess (Charlotte) had grown up to womanhood with many attractions, both mental and personal. Her Royal Highness possessed, also, a nature susceptible of every generous impression; unsuspicious and trusting, she readily became the dupe of persons who sought for their own objects to influence her through her sympathies, but when the influence was removed, the natural good sense of the Princess suggested a line of conduct becoming her sex and position. During the period when the society of her mother was least restricted, there is nothing to prove that her Royal Highness testified for it a very decided partiality; and it was scarcely possible for her to have been a frequent visitor at Blackheath and Kensington, without obtaining a knowledge that must have circumscribed her affection. Her disposition was extremely amiable, notwithstanding an impulsiveness that, under peculiar provocation, may have led her on one or two occasions into error; a pleasing proof of which was exhibited in her conduct to Lord Eldon, after he had brought her home, subsequently to her elopement from Warwick House. In her communications with, or observations on her mother, after the latter had left England, there are quite sufficient evidences of filial interest, tempered with a reserve naturally arising out of a sense of her objectionable conduct.”—Duke of Buckingham’s Memoirs of the Court of the Regency, vol. ii. p. 156.
[64]. The Princess Charlotte in 1811. “She is grown excessively, and has all the fulness of a person of five-and-twenty. She is neither graceful nor elegant; yet she has a peculiar air et tous les prestiges de la royauté et du pouvoir. The Princess is above the middle height, extremely spread for her age; her bosom full, but finely shaped; her shoulders large, and her whole person voluptuous, but of a nature to become soon spoiled; and without much care and exercise, she will shortly lose all beauty in fat and clumsiness. Her skin is white, but not a transparent white. There is little or no shade in her face, but her features are very fine. Their expression, like that of her general demeanour, is noble. Her feet are rather small, and her hands and arms are finely moulded. She has a hesitation in her speech amounting almost to a stammer—an additional proof, if any were wanting, of her being her father’s own child; but in everything she is his very image. Her voice is flexible, and its tones dulcet, except when she laughs, then it becomes too loud, but is never unmusical. She seems to wish to be admired more as a lovely woman than as a Queen. Yet she has quickness both of penetration and fancy, and would fain reign despotically, or I am much mistaken. I fear she is capricious, self-willed, and obstinate. I think she is kind-hearted, clever, and enthusiastic. Her faults have evidently never been checked, nor her virtues fostered.”—Lady C. Campbell’s Diary, vol. i. p. 65.
[65]. “I received a visit from Miss Knight. Her presence recalled Kensington and the poor Princess to my mind. She conversed with sense and kindliness on these topics, but her exceeding prudence always restrains the expression of her feelings, and she appeared averse to dwelling on the subject. The only remark she made which struck me as singular was that, in speaking of the King’s illness and probable decease, she said she conceived it would be a fortunate event for the country. Miss Knight has a very refined mind, and takes delight in every subject connected with literature and the arts. She is exceedingly well read, and has an excellent judgment in these matters.... I alluded once to the poor Princess Charlotte’s death, but Miss Knight only replied, ‘Ah, that was a melancholy event!’ and passed on to other subjects. She did not impress me with the idea of lamenting the Princess so much as I should have supposed she would have done. But perhaps she may, in reality, mourn her melancholy fate, and that she only forbears speaking of her lest she should say too much. Certainly Miss Knight was very ill-used by the Queen and the Regent, and I do not think Princess Charlotte liked, although she esteemed her. Miss Knight was not sufficiently gay, or of a style of character suited to her Royal Highness.”—Lady C. Campbell’s Diary, vol. iii. p. 7.
[66]. Louis Philippe, son of Philippe l’Egalité, Duke of Orleans: afterwards King of the French.
[67]. George Hammond, Esq., and David R. Morier, Esq., his Majesty’s Consul-General in France, were gazetted December 20, 1815, as his Majesty’s Commissioners of Arbitration.
[68]. Probably wife of M. de Fontanes, who translated into French Pope’s “Essay on Man.” By the Emperor he was created Count of the Empire, Commandant of the Legion of Honour, and Grand Master of the Imperial University; and by Louis XVIII. he was subsequently created Peer of France and Officer of the Legion of Honour.
[69]. Lady Morgan’s “chef d’un magasin de blanchissage” was willing to “pardon the King much for giving ‘la nation une princesse blanche comme la neige.’”—Lady Morgan’s France in 1816, vol. i. p. 105.
[70]. The Duke of Wellington occupied the Hôtel de la Regnière. “It was in this hotel that his Grace gave a splendid ball, on the occasion of the marriage of the Duc de Berri, which, from the circumstance of all the guests coming fresh from the grand couvert at the Tuileries in their splendid court dresses, together with the illuminations of the hotel and gardens in honour of the event, produced an effect of brilliancy and magnificence to which description can do no possible justice.... It was curious to see in this congress of beauty and fashion, to which so many countries lent some of their lovely representatives, the belles of Berlin, Petersburg, Rome, London, Paris, Edinburgh, and Dublin, all assembled under the same roof; Bonapartist generals waltzing in close embrace with pretty royalistes enragées, and revolutionary senators linked in a chaîne-entière with ultra partners, formed the best illustration of the ‘Holy Alliance’ that could possibly be given.”—Lady Morgan’s France in 1816, vol. ii. p. 81.
[71]. “The arrangements of this comparatively small theatre combine all that is chaste, elegant, light, and splendid in architecture and decoration. Illuminated with its thousand lights reflected from their crystal branches, it appears some fairy palace of Parian marble and burnished gold, at once noble and simple, magnificent and tasteful. To this splendid theatre no one was admitted who had not been presented at Court, and received a special invitation through the ‘premier gentilhomme de la chambre,’ or through their own ambassador. Every one appeared in full court dress, and the boxes, or rather the gallery which was round the theatre, is so constructed that every individual is distinctly seen. The King and the Royal Family occupy a centre box on one side; the ministers and ambassadors occupied a box on the left-hand of the King, the French Duchesses on the right, for the women do not mingle with the men under the present régime in the Court of the most gallant country in the world. The ‘parterre’ was exclusively occupied by the male part of the audience,” &c. &c.—Lady Morgan’s France in 1816, vol. i. p. 221.