Caroline of Brunswick & George IV: The Royal Divorce That Was Tried in Parliament
He tried to prove her an adulteress in Parliament. She showed up at his coronation and was turned away at the door.
Key Facts
What Happened
The marriage of George, Prince of Wales, and Caroline of Brunswick in 1795 was a disaster from the first moment. George reportedly took one look at his bride and called for a glass of brandy. Caroline later said that on their wedding night, he was so drunk he fell into the fireplace. They conceived a daughter, Princess Charlotte, almost immediately, but separated within a year. George went back to his mistresses; Caroline, humiliated and marginalized, eventually left England in 1814 to travel the continent.
When George became King George IV in January 1820, Caroline returned to England to claim her rights as Queen. George was appalled. He instructed his government to introduce the Pains and Penalties Bill 1820 in the House of Lords — essentially a public divorce trial conducted in Parliament. The bill sought to strip Caroline of her title as Queen and dissolve the marriage by proving that she had committed adultery with an Italian servant named Bartolomeo Pergami during her continental travels. Witnesses were brought from Italy to testify about allegedly scandalous behavior.
The trial was a sensation that gripped the nation for months. Public sympathy ran overwhelmingly in Caroline's favor — she was seen as the wronged wife of a debauched and hypocritical king. Crowds cheered her carriage; mobs threatened pro-government witnesses. Her lawyers, Henry Brougham and Thomas Denman, mounted a devastating defense, essentially arguing that George's own flagrant adultery made his accusations against Caroline absurd. The bill passed the House of Lords by a margin of only nine votes — far too slim to survive the House of Commons. The government abandoned it.
Caroline had won the legal battle but lost the war. When George was crowned at Westminster Abbey on July 19, 1821, Caroline arrived at the doors and demanded entry. She was turned away at every entrance — the doors were slammed in her face. The public humiliation was total. Less than three weeks later, on August 7, 1821, Caroline died suddenly at age 53, reportedly of a bowel obstruction — though many suspected poison. Her funeral procession through London turned into a riot. The case of Queen Caroline demonstrated that even kings cannot always weaponize the legal system against their wives when public sympathy lies elsewhere.
Legal Breakdown: Royal Divorce
Parliamentary Divorce
Before England's Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, divorce for the aristocracy required a literal Act of Parliament. The Pains and Penalties Bill was a specialized form of this — a legislative proceeding that functioned as a trial. This is an extreme example of how the wealthy and powerful had access to divorce remedies that ordinary people did not. The case helped build public support for reforming divorce law and making it accessible through the courts rather than Parliament.
The Double Standard in Adultery
George IV sought to divorce Caroline for adultery while openly maintaining multiple mistresses himself. Caroline's defense effectively put the King's own behavior on trial. This double standard — where a husband's adultery was tolerated but a wife's was grounds for dissolution — persisted in English law for decades. Even after the 1857 reforms, a wife had to prove not just adultery but additional aggravating factors (such as cruelty or desertion) to obtain a divorce, while a husband needed only prove adultery. This gender disparity was not fully eliminated in English law until 1923.
Public Opinion as a Legal Force
Caroline's case succeeded not because of legal technicalities but because public opinion made it politically impossible for the government to proceed. Massive public sympathy for the Queen, expressed through demonstrations, petitions, and the threat of violence, forced the government to abandon the bill. This demonstrates that in high-profile divorce cases, the court of public opinion can be as powerful as the court of law — a dynamic that remains true in celebrity and political divorces today.
What This Means for Your Divorce
- →Weaponizing the legal system against a spouse can backfire spectacularly if public sympathy lies with the other party.
- →A spouse's own misconduct (like George's adultery) undermines their credibility when accusing the other of the same behavior. Courts notice hypocrisy.
- →Gender-based double standards in divorce law have a long and ugly history. Modern no-fault divorce eliminates much (but not all) of this disparity.
- →Winning a legal battle does not guarantee a fair outcome. Caroline won the trial but was still excluded from the coronation and died weeks later.
Going Through a Divorce?
Get confidential guidance tailored to your situation — free, private, and available 24/7.
Related Cases
Princess Margaret & Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon
United Kingdom · 1978
Queen Elizabeth's sister shattered a royal taboo that had stood since the 1540s
OtherWallis Simpson & Ernest Aldrich Simpson
United Kingdom · 1937
A Baltimore socialite divorced her husband to marry a king — who gave up his throne for her
OtherSir Paul McCartney & Heather Mills
United Kingdom · 2008
She asked for £125 million — the judge awarded a fifth of that
Other¿Te fue útil? Ayúdanos a mantenerlo gratis.
divorce911.ai se financia completamente con donaciones. Cada dólar mantiene al asistente IA y las 1,700+ guías gratis para personas en crisis.
Know someone going through a divorce? This could help them.
This article is based on publicly available court records, news reports, and legal analysis. It is provided for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content.
Divorce laws vary by jurisdiction. Always consult a licensed attorney in your area before making legal decisions.