Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Caroline (1683-1737)
CAROLINE (1683–1737), queen of Great Britain and Ireland, was born 1 March 1683, and baptised by the names of Wilhelmina Caroline. Her father, John Frederick, margrave of Brandenburg-Ansbach, died when she was four years of age, and his margravate was for seven years afterwards under the rule of minors. Thus, on the marriage in 1692 of his widow, Eleonora Erdmuthe Louisa, daughter of John George, duke of Saxe-Eisenach, to the elector John George IV of Saxony, Caroline accompanied her mother to Dresden. The extraordinary condition of manners and morals at the Saxon court had very nearly culminated in open bigamy on the part of Caroline's stepfather (see Bottiger-Flathe, Geschichte von Sachsen, 1870, ii. 265-70). After the death of the elector, in 1694, Caroline seems to have remained with her mother at Dresden or at Pretzsch, on the Elbe above Wittenberg, the estate settled on the electress in jointure, where she was visited by her daughter's guardian, the Elector Frederick III of Brandenburg (afterwards King Frederick I of Prussia), and his charming wife, Sophia Charlotte, daughter of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (Varnhagen, 'Sophia Charlotte,' in Biographische Denkmäler, 3rd edit. 1872, iv. 278). In 1696 Caroline was left an orphan by the death of her mother, and after this event she seems to have spent some years under the care of her guardian and his consort at Berlin, though doubtless paying occasional visits to Ansbach and other courts. It must have been near the time of her mother's death that, if there be any truth in the story retailed by Horace Walpole (Memoirs of the Last Ten Years of George II, 4to, 1822, 158-9), Caroline fell in love with Frederick II, duke of Saxe-Gotha, who married in 1696, and whose daughter was afterwards married to Caroline's eldest son.
Caroline's sojourn with her guardian's wife, the Electress Sophia Charlotte (queen of Prussia from 1701), largely helped to mould her mind and character. Sophia Charlotte was a woman of unusual intellectual gifts, which had been fostered by the training given to her 1 by her mother, and more especially by the influence of her mother's faithful friend, Leibniz, who during these years was a constant visitor at Berlin and at Lützenburg, the new château since famous under the name of Charlottenburg (Varnhagen and Klopp, Correspondance, vol. iii. passim. See ib. iii. 104-5 Leibniz's tribute to Caroline's vocal powers). Sophia Charlotte entertained a warm affection for the young Ansbach princess, without whom Berlin seemed to her 'a desert' (see Leibniz's letter to the queen, 17 Nov. 1703, in Kemble, 322); and this affection was shared by the old Electress Sophia, who made Carolines acquaintance at Berlin (Correspondance, iii. 100). Already, in October 1704, the old lady is found manifesting a wish that by marrying her grandson, the Electoral Prince of Hanover, Caroline might have been saved the trouble inflicted upon her in connection with a proposal of more brilliant promise. The scheme of marrying the Ansbach princess to the Archduke Charles, afterwards titular king of Spain and emperor under the designation of Charles VI, appears to have been entertained as early as 1698 (see Leibniz's letter to the Duchess Benedicta in Kemble, 322); but negotiations were not actually opened on the subject till about 1704, when the Elector Palatine, John William, solicited Caroline's hand for the archduke. As her conversion to the church of Rome was an indispensable preliminary for such a marriage, the jesuit father, Orbanus, a personage highly praised by Leibniz, was permitted to instruct her in the faith, and the Electress Sophia very graphically describes the intelligent girl's disputations with her tutor, and her tears when the arguing had unsettled her mind (Correspondance, iii. 108). The old electress and Leibniz were supposed to have encouraged Caroline in her resistance (ib. iii. Introd. 39), and Leibniz certainly drafted for her the letter to the elector palatine, in which she declined further negotiations (ib. iii. 108-9). But 'Providence,' as Addison afterwards put it (see extract from the 'Freeholder,' No.21, in Coxe's Memoirs of Sir Robert Walpole, ii. 270), 'kept a reward in store for such an exalted virtue,' and her 'pious firmness,' as it was styled by Burnet (Own Times, 1833 edit. v. 322), was not to go unrequited, 'even in this life.' After a decent interval the Hanoverian family and their relations resumed the project of a match between Caroline and the electoral prince, and by the close of the year she considered the Spanish project at an end (Correspondance, iii. 113; Kemble, 383), though it seems to have been transitorily resumed about March 1705 (Correspondance, iii. 119). Late in 1704 she had returned to Ansbach, and it was here that she learnt with the deepest sorrow of the death of her kind friend and protectress, Queen Sophia Charlotte of Prussia (see her letter to Leibniz, in Kemble, 435). Her stay at her native place was soon to come to an end; but she seems always to have retained a warm interest in the family from which she sprang (see the statement, probably true in substance, though certainly inaccurate, as to her kindness in her later years towards the infant margrave of Ansbach, in the Memoirs of the Margravine of Ansbach, 1826, i. 177-8).
On 2 Sept. 1705 Caroline was married to George Augustus, electoral prince of Hanover, who had visited Ansbach incognito a few weeks before, and had been captivated by the charms of her person and conversation (Coxe, ii. 270, from the 'Marlborough Papers'). The ensuing nine years, which she spent as electoral princess at Hanover and its neighbourhood, were probably among the happiest in her life. Soon after her marriage she had an attack of the small-pox, from which she was in 1707 thought to have just escaped (Kemble, 448); but it neither altogether destroyed her personal charms (see Walpole's Reminiscences, 304), nor put an end to their power over her husband. Their eldest son, Frederick, afterwards prince of Wales, was born on 6 Jan. 1707, and their eldest daughter, Anne, afterwards princess of Orange, in 1709. Two other daughters were born, in 1711 and in 1713; and afterwards in England, between 1721 and 1724, three more children, who survived to maturity, the eldest of these, afterwards known as the Duke of Cumberland, being the favourite of his parents. The Duke of Gloucester, whose birth in 1717 'transported' his father with joy (Suffolk Letters, i. 17), and gave rise to the family quarrel noticed below, died in infancy; another boy, born in the previous year, did not survive his birth.
Between the electoral princess and her grandmother, the old Electress Sophia, to whom she must largely have supplied the place of Sophia Charlotte, a warm esteem and affection continued to prevail, and her intimacy with Leibniz continued, though he was at this time much away from Hanover. Even in times of political anxiety she took comfort in the preface to his 'Deodyces' (sic, Kemble, 504; for other examples of her spelling, phenomenal even in that age, see her letters in the same collection, passim). But she was not absorbed in moral philosophy or in other literature. The electoral prince was far more eager for the British succession than his father, or probably even than his grandmother; and Caroline had already learned how to flatter her husband's foibles. She was, moreover, herself of an ambitious nature, and may be supposed to have been conscious of her capacity for the royal station to which, in common with the prince, she aspired. Towards this end her conduct seems to have been consistently shaped. Her progress in the English tongue was slow; for though as early as 1706 she had expressed a wish to study it (Correspondance, iii. 220-1), and in 1713 actually engaged an Englishwoman born in Hanover to read English to her (ib. iii. 411), she never seems to have learned to speak it with any degree of correctness. But to the political situation and its needs she was wide awake. In September 1712 she is found assuring Queen Anne of her gratitude (Ellis's Original Letters, 2nd ser. iv. 267-8); but in December 1713 she writes to Leibniz very gloomily concerning the prospects of the succession. She may he concluded to have agreed with the step taken on her husband's behalf in England in May 1714, when his writ of summons to the House of Lords was demanded and granted. At all events, she shared in the excitement created at Hanover by the queen's irate letters to the Electress Sophia and the electoral prince, and declared that she had never experienced so intolerable an annoyance (see her letter in Kemble, 503-4, and in Correspondance, iii. 452-3). On 8 June, in consequence, as was widely believed, of her agitation from the same cause, the Electress Sophia died at Herrenhausen, in Caroline's arms (see the narrative in Correspondance, iii. 457-62). The request of Leibniz, that she would accept him as a poor legacy from his old mistress (ib. 462-5), was not overlooked; she is found corresponding with him from England in 1715, when she attempted to obtain for him from George I the payment of arrears of salary due to him (Kemble, 528 seq.) But her most confidential correspondent after the death of the old electress seems to have been the favourite niece of the latter, the vivacious and warm-hearted Elisabeth Charlotte, duchess of Orleans, who declared Caroline to be possessed of a heart, 'a rare thing as times go' (Vehse, 251).
Alter the death of the Electress Sophia, Caroline's active interest in the British succession did not abate (Memoirs of Ker of Kersland, 3rd ed. 1727, i. 88 seq.); and her hopes had not long to wait for fulfilment. Before the close of 1714 the Princess of Wales had followed her husband and George I to England; already in November Addison rapturously commends his 'Cato' to her notice (see the lines in Addison's Miscellaneous Works, 1736, ii. 124-6; and about the same time her first household appointments are sharply censured by Lady Mary Wortley Montagu (Letters and Works, 2nd ed. 1837, i. 225). And likewise at a very early date in her English life her name was mixed up in a factious dispute concerning the religious beliefs of the new royal family, in the course of which she was branded as a Calvinist and a presbyterian, and declared to have refused to receive the sacrament according to the rites of the church of England. These reports, though contradicted, may have contributed to the animosity with which she afterwards came to be regarded by the high church party (see R. Pauli, Aufsätze zur englischen Geschichte, neue (third) Folge (1833), 383-91). The first occasion, however, on which, after the accession of the house of Hanover in England, the Princess of Wales was called upon to take a side, was that of the open rupture between her husband and the king, his father, towards the close of 1717. George I did not love his daughter-in-law, whom to confidential ears he termed 'cette diablesse madame la princesse' (Reminiscences, 283), and she had shown herself as irreconcilable as had her husband, and carried her display of animosity against the king's party even into the neutral ground of a masquerade (Lady M. W. Montagu, i. 381). When the prince was banished from St. James's Palace, the princess, though in consideration of her condition leave was granted her to remain, preferred to accompany her husband; and the night from 2-3 Dec. was spent by both in the house of Lord Grantham, the princess's great chamberlain (see the account, based upon a contemporary official narrative, in Lord Hervey's Memoirs, iii. 279-282; also Walpole's Reminiscences, 290). Ten years afterwards, on the death of George I, it was Queen Caroline herself who, if Walpole is to be believed, discovered in the late king's cabinet Lord Berkeley's atrocious proposal to transport the Prince of Wales to America (Reminiscences, 289).
After his quarrel with the king, the Prince of Wales in 1718 hired, and in 1719 bought, as a summer residence, Richmond Lodge in Richmond Gardens, on the riverside near Kew. The villa had formerly been the Duke of Ormonde's (Suffolk Letters, i. 23 note; Hervey, iii. 118). Ultimately both Richmond Lodge and Gardens became Queen Caroline's separate property (Hervey, iii. 312 note); and it was here that in 1735 she caused to be constructed, in the absurd fashion of the times, the famous 'Merlin's Cave,' a grotto adorned with figures of Merlin and others, and supplied with a collection of books, of which Stephen Duck was librarian (ib. ii. 222 and note). As a town residence the prince and princess took Leicester House in Leicester Fields (Reminiscences, 295 and note). But Richmond was associated with Caroline's Court more than any other place—more even than Kensington Gardens, whence was derived the title of the poem in which Tickell paid a tribute to 'England's daughter' and her virgin band.' Even after her accession to the throne her and her husband's life here was 'so much in private that they saw nobody but their servants' (Hervey, i. 249); but this household and its immediate intimates included, besides a bevy of fair ladies, the most accomplished of the younger whig nobility, and not a few of such great wits of the day as were within reach. Pope himself, in 1717, celebrated the princess's 'maids' in his 'court ballad' entitled 'The Challenge;' but a more complete picture of 'Bellenden, Lepell, and Griffin,' and of the lively ways of these and other ladies around the princess, will be found in their own contributions to the 'Suffolk Letters' (see also Reminiscences, 300 seqq., for a general survey of this court). Among the ladies attached to the court were Mrs. Selwyn and Lady Walpole; but the most influential personage there after the princess was her bedchamber-woman, Mrs. Howard, afterwards Lady Suffolk and mistress of the robes, and mistress en titre to George II both before and after his accession. With her the princess prudently established a modus vivendi, and though a species of party inevitably formed round the mistress, the controlling influence over her husband remained with the wife. According to Lord Hervey (Memoirs, ii. 89-93), when in 1734 a rupture between the king and Lady Suffolk at last took place, Queen Caroline was 'both glad and sorry;' indeed, at one time she had been rather desirous to keep Lady Suffolk about the king than to leave a chance for a successor. Mrs. Clayton (afterwards Lady Sundon), another of the bedchamber-women, acquired great influence over the queen in later days, and was thought in especial to be the agent who introduced low church or 'heterodox' divines to her favour (Suffolk Letters, i. 62-3; Reminiscences, 307). Among the male members of the young court the most prominent were Lord Stanhope, from 1726 Lord Chesterfield, whose opposition to Walpole, coupled, it was said, with the discovery of his trust in Mrs. Howard by the queen, entailed upon him her lasting resentment (ib. 297: Walpoliana, i. 83-4; Hervey, i. 322—4; and see Croker's refutation of Coxe in a note to Suffolk Letters); Lords Bathurst and Scarborough; Colonel, afterwards General, Charles Churchill; Carr, lord Hervey, and above all his younger brother John, who succeeded to the title in 1723. Lord Hervey was the most devoted of Queen Caroline's servants and friends; he says (ii. 46) that she called him always 'her child, her pupil, and her charge;' he was of the utmost use to her in her dealings with the king and with Walpole; he reported the debates to her; his society was the relief of her life; and he was even allowed to laugh at her without offence being taken (see his jeux d'esprit, ii. 323-46). After her death he wrote her epitaph (ib. iii. 334 note). Among the neighbours of the court at Richmond Lodge who at different times came into contact with it were Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Pope; Bolingbroke too was from 1725 intriguing close at hand. Gay had the entrée, though he thought it beneath him to accept the office of gentleman-usher to the Princess Louisa and Arbuthnot. Swift in his exile flattered himself with hopes founded on the interest shown in him and in Irish affairs by the princess on his visits to England in 1726 and 1727, but more especially on the supposed influence of Mrs. Howard (Suffolk Letters). Finally, it may be presumed that even in the earlier years of Caroline's English life the literary representatives of those opinions on religious matters which chiefly found favour there were occasionally admitted to her society.
The hopes of the 'Howard party,' which had thought that the ascendency of the mistress would be firmly established on the accession to the throne of George II, were altogether disappointed when that event was brought about by the sudden death of his father on 9 June 1727. Not only was Lord Bathurst disappointed of a coronet by the veto of Queen Caroline (Reminiscences, 296); but another friend of Mrs. Howard, Sir Spencer Compton, was, at the direct suggestion of the queen, deposed from the height of prime-minister-designate. At the reception held by the king and queen at Leicester House on the day after the notice of their accession had reached them, the queen carefully distinguished Lady Walpole, and the imbecility of Sir Spencer made it easy for her to give effect to her wish. Beyond a doubt she was strongly influenced by Walpole's offer, carried out by a parliamentary vote on 9 July following, to obtain for her from parliament a jointure of 100,000l. a year, in lieu of 50,000l. as proposed by Sir Spencer Compton. But there were other reasons which had long made her favourable to Walpole; she was fully capable of recognising his merits, she was on good terms with his supporter the Duke of Devonshire, and, while always respectful to her, he had never paid court to Mrs. Howard (Coxe, ii. 284 seqq.; cf. Walpoliana, i. 86-7). From this time onward the part played by the queen in the political affairs of Great Britain may be said to have determined itself. Her support of Walpole was all but unfaltering. In 1730, as she observed the growing misunderstanding between Walpole and Townshend, she steadily adhered to the former, and helped to secure his victory (Coxe, ii. 382—4; cf. Reminiscences, 306). In 1733 she not only supported the minister in his excise scheme so courageously as on its withdrawal to have the honour of being burnt in effigy with him by the London mob (Hervey, i. 206), but she inspired the king with a steadfast resolution not to drop the author of the scheme with the scheme itself (ib. 193-5). In the South Sea Company inquiry which ensued in the lords, she eagerly strove, by private persuasions addressed to several peers, to avert a ministerial defeat (ib. 233). In the same and in the following year her action in the Polish succession question was affected by the arguments of Walpole and Hervey to such a degree that, though still in favour of war, she contrived to convince the king of the expediency of peace (ib. i. 262, 271-2, ii. 61; cf. Coxe, ii. 207). It would seem, however, that before the election of 1734 the queen shared the king's temporary distrust in the prospects of the ministry (Hervey, i. 339). During her later regencies the queen and Walpole did everything by themselves (ib. ii. 181), and in 1736 the queen aided the minister in inducing the king to abandon his scheme of a northern league (Coxe, iii. 260). Such was the political intimacy between 'the king's two ears,' as Lord Hervey called them (ii. 107), that Walpole was jealous even of the confidence she reposed in the faithful Lord Hervey (Hervey, iii. 234), and such her trust in the minister, that shortly before her death she recommended the king to his care instead of asking for him the favour of the king (Coxe, iii. 386-7; Reminiscences, 307). The general character of the relations between the king and the queen were more paradoxical. It was said that the alkali of her temper sweetened the acid of his (Hervey, iii. 85). She governed him primarily by his admiration for her person (Reminiscences, 304; Hervey, i. 293-300), but almost equally by her complaisance, which knew no bounds (see, to quote but one instance, Lord Hervey's account, ii. 168, of her treatment of his passion for Madame de Walmoden, afterwards countess of Yarmouth). Lastly, she governed him by means of the tact which enabled her to appear not to govern the vainest of men (Hervey, i. 334; Reminiscences, 305). In return he treated her, on the whole, as well as his essentially selfish nature and his vaingloriousness in matters of gallantry would allow. About 1735 a change for the worse was thought observable in his behaviour towards her (Hervey, ii. 205), but she manifested much emotion when in December 1736 he was thought to have imperilled his life in a storm at sea (ib. iii. 6 seqq.); and when he lost her in the following year, there was no doubt as to the genuineness of his grief. In no sentiment was she more entirely at one with him than in her detestation of their eldest son, Frederick, prince of Wales. Even Croker cannot account for the early beginning or for the intensity of the queen's animosity against the prince (Hervey, iii. 54 note; see, however, ib. 276 and ii. 370); nor does she seem ever to have heartily entered into the notable scheme in favour of her second son for severing Hanover from Great Britain, though it might in the event of her husband's death have secured her a convenient retreat (ib. iii. 220 seqq.) At the time of her death the popular imagination was greatly occupied with the fact that she refused an interview to her hated first-born, and Pope was at pains to preserve her refusal from oblivion in a classic sneer; but though she must be held personally responsible for the decision (ib. 307-8), there is something little short of hypocrisy in treating it as inexcusable. Her second son was beloved by both his parents; of the daughters, the Princess Caroline was devoted to the queen (ib. iii. 209). Towards the princess royal her affection appears to have been warm rather than deep (ib. 334).
As a rule, the political opinions of Queen Caroline were in complete accord with those of her husband. Though at times eloquent in her praise of English institutions, she was a German princess at heart, 'always partial to the emperor' (ib. i. 273), jealous of the prerogative, and as fond of troops as was the king himself (ib. ii. 253). Walpole declared that she was in the habit of accusing him of 'partiality to England' (ib. ii. 63), and it is certain that 'the militant flame in her was blown' by such counsellors as the Hanoverian minister Hattorf (ib. ii. 38-9). Though true to the whig leader in the main, she had no love for the whigs as a party (ib. iii. 65), and had a strong dislike of the minister's brother Horace, of Newcastle (iii. 134-5), and of Carteret (iii. 161). She was liberal in sentiment towards Jacobites and Roman catholics, and promised Swift to use her best endeavours for Ireland (Suffolk Letters, i. 700-1). Though she was at all times active in influencing appointments (Coxe, ii. 268), her interest in politics most fully exhibited itself when she acted as regent during the king's absence in Hanover in 1729, 1732, 1735, and 1736-7. From first to last, much to the chagrin of the Prince of Wales, the king invariably appointed her to this office, and an act of parliament was passed for the express purpose of exempting her from taking the oaths (ib. ii. 296). More especially during his last absence she took an active part in the conduct of affairs, and showed great vigour in dealing with the troubles which arose during this period, and with the Edinburgh Porteous riots, and their consequences in particular. At the same time she conciliated the king's weakness by avoiding any display of state during his absence, and by residing out of town at Kensington, notwithstanding his pretended wishes to the contrary (Hervey, ii. 362). Towards the church Queen Caroline's position was peculiar. The bench of bishops as a whole she treated de haut en bas (see her rebuke of them for their opposition to the Quakers' Tithe Bill in 1736, Hervey, ii. 276); but for several members of it, such as Sherlocke, Secker, Butler, and Pearce, she entertained a strong regard. Her relations with Hoadly, whom Hervey maintains she hated, but whom she helped to promote to the see of Winchester, must have been of a more complex nature. She would gladly have placed on the bench Dr. Clarke, for whose learning and character she had the deepest respect, but he repeatedly declined (see as to her relations with Clarke, and her 'arbitration' between him and Leibniz, Coxe, ii. 273-4). It pleased the world and the wits who set it talking (see especially Croker's note to Hervey, ii. 140) to impugn the orthodoxy of her creed. That she thought soberly on the highest subjects is shown by her letter to Leibniz concerning his 'Theodicee' (Kemble, 533-4); it was not her fault that she could not help, as he had hoped, to incline the church of England in the direction of a reunion of the protestant churches (ib. 541-5).
The health of Queen Caroline was seriously affected in the autumn of 1734 (the report of her death in 1731 was a mere stockjobber's invention; see Wentworth Papers, 474); and in August 1737, after receiving a letter offensive in form from the Prince of Wales, she fell ill of a violent fit of the gout (Hervey, iii. 227). But the fatal illness which began on 9 Nov. of the same year had its origin in a rupture which she had for years carefully kept concealed, and for which a painful operation was performed, it is said, only two days too late. She died on 20 Nov. quite peacefully. Not long before her death she made a simple and touching declaration of her endeavours on behalf of the king and nation. There was much gossip as to her having declined to receive the sacrament; her last words were a request for prayer. The king lamented her with loud and half-selfish passionateness, but he scrupulously provided for her servants, declaring that he would have nobody feel her loss but himself. He was afterwards buried by her side in Henry VII's chapel in Westminster Abbey (Coxe, iii. 377-80, chiefly from Dr. Alured Clarke's Essay towards the Character of Queen Caroline; Hervey, iii. 294-348; Reminiscences). By her will she left all her property to the king, including the seat at Richmond, on which she had spent so much money (his, according to Reminiscences, 305), but it seems to have been an idle invention that she died rich. 'Caroline the Good' was a genuinely able and, notwithstanding her power of dissembling, a true-hearted woman. Her learning was not deep, but she was able to appreciate some of the best thought of her times, and she made some attempt to encourage poets and other men of letters by her patronage. She was not ill-read in French history, and took some interest in English literature, though she never learnt to speak English correctly, and conversed with her family in French. Of eminent men of science, Newton and Halley had her active goodwill; and she was a benefactress of Queen's College, Oxford. Of course she was for Handel with the king, and against the prince. Though she was a stickler for etiquette, her conversation was as unrefined as her spelling was incorrect, but for these defects she need not be held responsible. She had a broad wit of her own, which she exercised freely on both friend and foe. She was not averse to the ordinary amusements of her times, and it was the king's taste which condemned her to spend most of her evenings 'knotting' and listening to his objurgatory talk. But she learnt to study other characters besides her husband's, and became, as Sir Robert Walpole phrased it, 'main good at pumping.' She was a good hater, as Chesterfield and others found; she was a faithful friend, and full of active sympathy for the unprotected. Her greatest error, as Horace Walpole truly observes, was that she cherished too high an opinion of her own power of dealing with others, so that her designs were more often seen through than she thought. Her greatest merit, and the source of the power which she wielded during a hard and joyless reign for the benefit of her husband and of the British nation, was her patience—the patience of a strong and not ungenerous mind.
The National Portrait Gallery contains a portrait of Caroline as Princess of Wales by Jervas, and another of her as queen by Enoch Seeman.
[Hervey's Memoirs of the Reign of George II from his Accession to the Death of Queen Caroline (ed. Croker), 3 vols. 1848, reprinted 1884; Coxe's Momoirs of the Life and Administration of Sir Robert Walpole, new ed. 4 vols. 1816; Lord Stanhope's History of England from the Peace of Utrecht, 5th ed. 1858, vols. i. and ii.; Reminiscences, written in 1788, in the Works of Horatio Walpole, earl of Orford, 5 vols. 1798; Wentworth Papers (1705-39), edited by J. J. Cartwright, 1883; vol. i. of Dr. Doran's Lives of the Queens of England of the House of Hanover, 4th ed. 2 vols. 1875; vol. xviii. of Vehse's Geschichte der deutschen Höfe, &c., Hamburg, 1853. For the earlier years of Queen Caroline see also vol. iii. of the Correspondance de Leibniz avec l'électrice Sophie de Brunswick-Lüneburg, 3 vols. Hanover, 1874; and Kemble's State Papers and Correspondence, &c, from the Revolution to the Accession of the House of Hanover, 1857.]
Dictionary of National Biography, Errata (1904), p.55
N.B.— f.e. stands for from end and l.l. for last line
| Page | Col. | Line | |
| 144 | ii | 21 f.e. | Caroline, Queen (1683-1737): after will insert (Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 35349, f. 1). |