Yahoo Search Busca da Web

Resultado da Busca

  1. Cecília Underwood, 1.ª Duquesa de Inverness (nascida Cecilia Letitia Gore), (c. 1785 — Palácio de Kensington, 1 de agosto de 1873) foi a segunda esposa do Príncipe Augusto Frederico, Duque de Sussex, sexto filho de Jorge III do Reino Unido.

  2. Cecilia Underwood, Duchess of Inverness (née Gore and formerly Buggin; c. 1789 – 1 August 1873) was the second wife of Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (sixth son of King George III). Despite marrying, like the Prince's first marriage, their union was in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and as such was ...

  3. Cecília Underwood, 1.ª Duquesa de Inverness (nascida Cecilia Letitia Gore), (c. 1785 — Palácio de Kensington, 1 de agosto de 1873) foi a segunda esposa do príncipe Augusto Frederico, Duque de Sussex, sexto filho do rei Jorge III do Reino Unido.

  4. Cecil Harland Underwood (November 5, 1922 – November 24, 2008) was an American Republican Party politician from West Virginia, known for the length of his career. He was the 25th and 32nd Governor of West Virginia from 1957 to 1961, and from 1997 to 2001. He ran for re-election in 2000 but was defeated by Democrat Bob Wise.

  5. On the same day, Lady Cecilia assumed the surname Underwood by Royal Licence. She was never titled or recognized as the Duchess of Sussex. However, she was created Duchess of Inverness in her own right by Queen Victoria in 1840.

  6. Cecilia Underwood, Duchess of Inverness. Cecilia Underwood, Duchess of Inverness (née Gore, later Buggin, ; c. 1789 – 1 August 1873) was a mistress of Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (sixth son of King George III). Despite marrying, their union was in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and as such was considered legally ...

  7. 27 de abr. de 2023 · Cecilia Underwood, 1st Duchess of Inverness (born Lady Cecilia Letitia Gore; c. 1789 – 1 August 1873) was a mistress of Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex (sixth son of King George III). Despite marrying, their union was in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and as such was considered legally void.