George III permenantly mad in 1789; long term consequences?

So I've been reading Janice Hadlow's excellent A Royal Experiment, a biography on the marriages of the Hanoverian Royal line,just finished the chapter on George III's 1788-89 madness and its got me thinking; what if, instead of recovering, George III went permanently mad in 1789? How would Britain deal with thirty-two years of a regency (or less if George III's physical health deteriorates) under the spoiled, decadent arch-dandy that was the Prince Regent? Assuming that the Regency Act 1789 has the same provisions as the Regency Act 1811 (with sunset clauses on the limitations of the Regent's power),
would the Whigs be able to properly respond to the French Revolution and the accompanying Revolutionary wars? Would the party still dissolve over the French Revolution, with a split between the Radical Whigs under Charles James Fox and the Conservatives under Edmund Burke and the Grandees? If so which would form the government, or would the Prince Regent turn to the Tories?

More personally for the Royal family, what about the possibility of marriages for George III's daughters? OTL George IV was very sympathetic to his sisters, so could we see them at last allowed to marry? Would the Regent himself still marry Caroline of Brunswick, someone else or perhaps simply remain single if he doesn't need the income increase from a marriage? Basically I want to discuss the long-term repercussions of a decades long Regency on Britain and the World.
 
More personally for the Royal family, what about the possibility of marriages for George III's daughters? OTL George IV was very sympathetic to his sisters, so could we see them at last allowed to marry?

Something I'd like to see after all, though what kept up the princesses' marriage was Charlotte's possessiveness, though she wanted her daughters at home. George was not against her daughters getting married, Charlotte was. A kind of Alix of the 18th century hahaha
However, if Charlotte had been too busy with George's health, the girls would surely have married. Which princes do you have in mind? For the prince regent perhaps Louise Augusta of denmark could be a good candidate I believe
 
I think Catholic emancipation would happen earlier. IIRC, George IV was more amenable to Catholics (he married one, after all) than his father was.

I wonder, would the Act of Union happen under this situation?
 
One thing is for certain. Pitt is out and Fox is in. We’ll see Fox as PM so long as he holds the regent’s favor. During that time a king could still appoint a PM without a Commons majority (like Pitt in 1783) and dismiss a ministry with majority support (like Pitt in 1801 and the Talents ministry in 1807). And the king and his appointed ministry can call an election and use Treasury resources to win any election ( because of rotten boroughs etc.).
 
Something I'd like to see after all, though what kept up the princesses' marriage was Charlotte's possessiveness, though she wanted her daughters at home. George was not against her daughters getting married, Charlotte was. A kind of Alix of the 18th century hahaha
However, if Charlotte had been too busy with George's health, the girls would surely have married. Which princes do you have in mind? For the prince regent perhaps Louise Augusta of denmark could be a good candidate I believe

IT was both really. George III refused to seriously consider any matches for his daughters in the 1780s, despite some tentative suggestions at Court and feelers from the German Courts (along with Denmark). Then in November 1788, at the onset of his illness, George III told his eldest daughters Charlotte and Augusta that he intended to take them to Hanover the next year, hold a brilliant court there and attract the German Princes so they could chose husbands. Unfortunately the timing meant that this plan was associated with his madness, and even when he returned to the idea of going to Hanover while recovering in 1789 his attendants and doctors feared it was a continued sign of his irrationality, talking him down from it. Afterwards Charlotte refused to hear any talk of marriage from her daughters, more or less suggesting that if they brought it up to their father it could trigger another period of madness. Whether or not there was any actual substance to this is debatable, but the Queen was effectively able to hold this over their heads (you leave you kill your father or something) for a decade. Charlotte was more like a combo of Victoria and Alix of Hesse in that regards.

As for bridegrooms, well I know that the Prince of Wales had the idea of the Princess Royal marrying Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm of Prussia in the early 1790s; the Prussian King was for a British daughter-in-law but was supposedly concerned over the four year age difference and ultimately preferred Mary, so whether or not he would accept Royal in TTL is hard to say. For Augusta, I know that she was wanted by her cousin Frederik VI of Denmark, but George III vetoed it because of the way his sister (Frederiks mother) was repudiated by Christian VII, so that match could be pursued. For the others though, there were no princes whose names were tied to them. For Elizabeth I think August of Saxe-Gotha would work OK, a two year age difference sure, but that's not much. Plus it was the House of Elizabeth's grandmother Augusta, so there's a familial relationship there. Or her cousin Friedrich Wilhelm of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel; a year her junior and a traditional Hanoverian marriage. Now Mary, Sophia and Amelia are much harder in my opinion. Mary could end up with her OTL husband the Duke of Gloucester & Edinburgh or possibly Louis XI of Hesse-Darmstadt/II of Hesse while Sophia could make a match with Wilhelm X of Hesse-Kassel/II of Hesse. For Amelia I had the idea of Gustav IV of Sweden. Finally I did have a vague idea of a Anglo-Russian marriage, with either Sophia or Amelia marrying Alexander I, but it's pretty out there.

Now for George IV, my idea was Luisa of Orange-Nassau. It's a traditional marriage, would bring a decent dowry and help smooth over relations after the Fourth Anglo-Dutch war. Now OTL she didn't have children but I think the fault laid with her husband, who was disabled.

I think Catholic emancipation would happen earlier. IIRC, George IV was more amenable to Catholics (he married one, after all) than his father was.

I wonder, would the Act of Union happen under this situation?

Most likely yes. George IV didn't become opposed to Catholic Emancipation until the early-mid 1800s, after the death of Charles James Fox. As for the Act of Union, harder to say. It was basically Pitt's response to the 1798 uprising and was to be paired with full Catholic Emancipation. From what I remember, Ireland was ruled by the Protestant Ascendancy before then, which was dominated by the Whig grandees. The Whigs were thus heavily opposed to the Union, so in my opinion I don't think we'd see one TTL if the Whigs are (still) in power by 1800.
 
One thing is for certain. Pitt is out and Fox is in. We’ll see Fox as PM so long as he holds the regent’s favor. During that time a king could still appoint a PM without a Commons majority (like Pitt in 1783) and dismiss a ministry with majority support (like Pitt in 1801 and the Talents ministry in 1807). And the king and his appointed ministry can call an election and use Treasury resources to win any election ( because of rotten boroughs etc.).

I wonder if Fox would be the official First Lord of the Treasury/First Minister (as that office was called then) or would he leave it to Portland, like the Whigs did in the Fox-North Coalition? After all, he seemed mainly interested in foreign affairs, though on the flip side he became a radical reformer in the 1790s, so that's up in the air. Second, the earliest the Whigs would come to power is 1790, as the Regency act limited the Regent's right to appoint ministers for a year (at least the 1811 act did, not sure what the sunset clauses were in the 1789 act). Depending on how Pitt can get along with the Regent, we might just see the Tories continue in power, like they did after the OTL regency limitations in 1812.
 
I wonder if Fox would be the official First Lord of the Treasury/First Minister (as that office was called then) or would he leave it to Portland, like the Whigs did in the Fox-North Coalition? After all, he seemed mainly interested in foreign affairs, though on the flip side he became a radical reformer in the 1790s, so that's up in the air. Second, the earliest the Whigs would come to power is 1790, as the Regency act limited the Regent's right to appoint ministers for a year (at least the 1811 act did, not sure what the sunset clauses were in the 1789 act). Depending on how Pitt can get along with the Regent, we might just see the Tories continue in power, like they did after the OTL regency limitations in 1812.

Well, Prince George was drinking buddies and best friends with Fox and Fox's cohorts during the 1780s. The Prince had a feud with his father and viewed Pitt as his father's tool.

It's not enough that Pitt could get along with the Prince. It must be that Pitt should replace Fox in his affections enough so that he could retain being PM.

Pitt and George III got along splendidly. I don't think Pitt would get along with Prince George like Fox did. And that would decide their fates.
 
Top