Abdication of the Queen of the Netherlands

Tags

Abdication, King Willem IIII of the Nethlands, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands., Prince of Orange, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Willem-Alexander of the netherlands

Reading responses from people on some royalty related message boards they are evenly divided about the name of the new king. There are those, like myself, disappointed that he will not be calling himself King Willem IV of the Netherlands. One thing I have learned is that privately among his family and close friends he is known by the name Alexander, or even Alex. I guess I will just have to get used to it. I do like double names so this certainly isn’t the end of the world.

Here is more information on the abdication of the Queen of the Netherlands and the succession of the prince of Orange.

This is from the website of the Dutch royal house.

Prince of Orange to become King Willem-Alexander

When Queen Beatrix abdicates, His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange will become King Willem-Alexander, and Her Royal Highness Princess Máxima of the Netherlands will become Queen Máxima. They will both be addressed as ‘Your Majesty’. After abdicating, Queen Beatrix will be called Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, etc. As soon as the Prince of Orange ascends the throne, his eldest child, Her Royal Highness Princess Catharina-Amalia, will be the first in line to the throne. She will then become the Princess of Orange (under section 7 of the Membership of the Royal House Act). The titles and names of the other members of the Royal Family will not change after Queen Beatrix’s abdication.

The membership of the Royal House and the line of succession will however change under the above Act. After the abdication, the line of succession will begin with the children of His Majesty the King: Her Royal Highness the Princess of Orange, Her Royal Highness Princess Alexia, and Her Royal Highness Princess Ariane. The next in line will be His Royal Highness Prince Constantijn, his children and finally Her Royal Highness Princess Margriet. After the abdication, the children of Her Royal Highness Princess Margriet of the Netherlands and Professor Pieter van Vollenhoven will no longer be eligible for the throne. They will also cease to be members of the Royal House.

Advertisements

Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands to abdicate April 30, 2013.

Tags

Abdication, King Willem IIII of the Nethlands, Prince of Orange, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Willem-Alexander of the netherlands

Her Majesty Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands announced today that after a reign of almost 33 years she will abdicate the throne in favor of her eldest son, HRH The Prince of Orange, on April 30, 2013.

Although there is a strong tradition of abdication in the Netherlands it is not mandatory so in some ways this comes as a bit of a shock. I had thought she would hold onto the throne until her death. She seemed to enjoy and relish her role/job as Queen. She is very popular in the Netherlands and excelled in performing her duties.

It was also announced that her son will be known as King Willem-Alexander. While I do like double names I also like Roman numerals after royal names so I had thought (and hoped) that he would be called King Willem IV. There was also some speculation that his wife, Princess Maxima, would not have the title of Queen but the prime minister mentioned her future title as Queen specifically.

Willem-Alexander will be the first King of the Netherlands since the death of King Willem III in 1890. Ever since then the Netherlands has had women serve as queens. Williem-Alexander’s heir is his eldest daughter Catherina-Amalia.

Legal Succession: Henry VI & Edward IV: Part Two.

Tags

3rd Duke of York, 4th Earl of Cambridge, 6th Earl of March, Act of Accord, and 7th Earl of Ulster., Battle of Blore Heath, Battle of St. Albans, Cecily Neville, Duchess of York, Earl of Warwick, King Henry VI of England, Parliament, Richard Neville, Richard Plantagenet, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier, Wars of the Roses

To understand how the House of York wrestled the throne from the House of Lancaster let me back track the claims of the House of York. By the reign of Henry VI the claimant to the throne from the House of York was Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, 6th Earl of March, 4th Earl of Cambridge, and 7th Earl of Ulster.

The House of York was descended in the male line from Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, the fourth surviving son of Edward III. The House of York also represented Edward III’s senior line, as heir general of Edward III through cognatic descent from Lionel, Duke of Clarence, Edward III’s second surviving son. Being descended from two sons of Edward III gave the house of York the superior claim to the throne over the House of Lancaster, although according to cognatic primogeniture the House of York had the senior claim and junior claim according to the agnatic primogeniture.

As I stated last week Richard, Duke of York was made Lord Protector of the realm during the incapacity of Henry VI. However, once Henry recovered the Duke of York lost that position and John Beaufort, Duke of Sommerset (another descendant of Edward III) and Queen Margaret of Anjou had many of his statues and reforms overturned.

By 1455 the conflicts between the Houses of York and Lancaster reached fever pitch and with the First Battle of St. Albans the Wars of the Roses had commenced. The Yorkists were victorious in this first salvo of the war. The Duke of York, along with his ally, Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick killed Edmund, Duke of Somerset and captured King Henry VI. What is interesting to note is that Henry VI had been under control of Somerset and the Queen. Instead of taking the throne for himself at this point, the Duke of York restored King Henry VI to full power and authority.

With Henry VI in full power and the Yorkists in control, the Lancastrian faction still plotted to take back control of the king. Despite  Thomas Bourchier, the Archbishop of Canterbury‘s attempts to reconcile both parties conflicts arose once more in 1459. The Lancastrians got the upper had in the Battle of Blore Heath but after a Yorkist victory in 1460 at the Battle of Northampton a strange even occurred.

Richard, Duke of York, along with his wife Cecily Neville, Duchess of York (aunt of York’s ally The Earl of Warwick) marched on London and was well received with all the pomp and circumstance due a reigning monarch. Parliament was in session and when The Duke of York declared that he was the rightful and legal king based on primogeniture he was met with stunned silence. Even the Earl of Warwick did not support the Duke of York taking the throne and even Parliament, who agreed that Richard had the best hereditary claim, did not want to over thrown the king. What Warwick wanted, at this time, was to remove the Lancastrian control over the king.

This tense moment was resolved peacefully with the Act of Accord which recognized the Duke of York as heir to King Henry VI even though this displaced the 6-year-old Edward, Prince of Wales in the line of the succession.

I will continue this examination of the rivalry for the throne between the Houses of York and Lancaster in my next post on Wednesday.

What I want to focus on is the issue of legality. Henry IV was a usurper as we mentioned recently. Does that mean the entire House of Lancaster which reigned from 1399 to 1461 was also illegally on the throne? Apparently not. Once in power his rule was accepted by Parliament, a body itself that was gaining in power and authority, and this established the legality of the Lancastrian line. The 1460 Act of Accord also demonstrates the growing role Parliament was playing in regulating the legal succession to the throne.

Legal Succession: Henry VI & Edward IV Part one.

Tags

Henry V of England, King Henry VI of England, Legal succession, Margaret of Anjou, Richard Plantaganet Duke of York

In the last part of this series we read that Henry IV was a usurper. He deposed Richard II and that there were many other members of the royal family that held a better claim to the throne than Henry. However, it seems that the majority of the descendants of Edward III were either content with being King or powerless to challenge him. Henry IV died in 1413 was succeded by his eldest son as King Henry V of England. Henry, a very tall king at 6 foot 3 is remembered for his battles during the 100 years war with France. He even was able to secure the French succession for his eldest son. But that topic is for another series. This is a complex episode in English history. I will cover this period in a couple of blog entries.

Henry V died in 1421 and his eldest son inherited the throne as King Hnery VI of England. It is with his reign we see the repercussion of the usurpation of Henry IV as the descendants of Edward III that held a better claim, began to fight with the descendants of Henry IV. These battles for the throne is known in history as the Wars of the Roses.

Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, 6th Earl of March, 4th Earl of Cambridge, and 7th Earl of Ulster was descended from two older son of Edward III and had a better claim to the throne than Henry VI. The Duke of York rose to power and eventually became Lord Protector during the times when Henry VI became metally ill. The Duke of York had no desire to usurp the throne but did want to be recognized as Henry’s legal heir. During his bout with mental illness Henry VI wife, Margaret of Anjou, gave birth to their only son, Edward, Prince of Wales. This event still did not deter Richard, Duke of York from obtaining the throne.

Part 2 will be on Monday….

Historical Fiction

Tags

A Royal Affair, Caroline Matilda of Great Britain, Historical fiction, Johann Friedrich Struensee, King Christian VII of Denmark, King George III of Great Britain, King Henry VIII of England, King John of England, King Richard I of England, Queen Elizabeth I of England, William I of England, William the Conqueror, William Wallace

I enjoy writing short stories. I have written several short stories in the science-fiction genre. After viewing several royalty related movies I began to long for certain stories to be made into feature films. One story I wish Hollywood would make is a story on William the Conqueror. Yet one of the reasons I realize why this probably never would happen is the fact that William the Conqueror is not as well known as other English royals.

The American population is familiar with the present royal family, Queen Victoria and the Tudors, specifically Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. King Richard the Lion Heart and King John are well known as long as they are tied to a story about Robin Hood. Beyond that I am not sure there would be a big interest in a film about William the Conqueror in this country. On the other hand, If Mel Gibson can make Braveheart, about William Wallace who was obscure to many Americans prior to the film, then I guess any story about European royals may be open. There is a foreign film, A Royal Affair, that is up for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. That is the story about King Christian VII of Denmark and Norway and the affair his wife, Queen Caroline Matilda (sister to King George III of Great Britain) had with Johann Friedrich Struensee a royal physician. So maybe it is possible other films will be made about Englisdh and other royals?

In the meantime I have decided to write some historical fisction, in the form of short stoiries. I am beginning with the story of William the Conqueror. I will cover his life in three self-contained stories. One story about his youth and how he withstood tests to his rule of the Duchy of Normandy. The second story will cover his conquest of England and the third will cover the end of his life.

I am in the research mode right now and as I complete these stories I will share them on this blog.

Two Boys For the Prince and Princess of Prussia!!!

Tags

Carl-Friedrich of Prussia, Georg-Friedrich, German Empire, Imperial Germany, Prince Louis-Ferdinand of Prussia, Prussia, Twins

Their Royal and Imperial Highnesses, Prince Georg-Friedrich and Princess Sophie of Prussia are the proud parents of twin boys! The boys names are Carl-Friedrich and Louis Ferdinand. Little Prince Carl-Friedrich is the eldest and will be the heir to his father’s claims as German Emperor and King of Prussia.

congratulations to the happy couple!!

http://www.swp.de/hechingen/lokales/hechingen/Zwei-Buben-fuer-das-Preussen-Paar;art1158605,1814451

 

Legal Succession: Henry IV

With the accession of Henry III in 1216 the succession to the English throne passed smoothly in the preceding generations until 1399. Henry III was succeeded by his eldest son Edward Longshanks, Edward I, in 1272. Edward I passed the crown uncontested to his son, Edward II in 1307. It was during this relative stability that the principle of male primogeniture took hold.

The movie Braveheart depicted Edward II as a timid indecisive homosexual. While historians agree that Edward II was bi-sexual he also had a strong intimidating presence like his father. However, he did lack confidence and was an inept king. The movie depicts William Wallace as the true father of the future King Edward III of England and this is nothing but pure Hollywood fiction. Wallace died in 1305 and Isabella, who was never Princess of Wales, did not marry Edward until 1308 a year after he had become king. Historians are certain that Edward was the father of their children. The movie is very sympathetic toward Isabelle of France yet in England she was known as the She-Wolf of France. She eventually did take a lover, Roger Mortimer, and eventually had her husband deposed and replaced with their son, Edward III. Edward II was then imprisoned in the Berkeley Castle and brutally murdered. Despite Edward III coming to the throne via his father being deposed, I cannot consider him a usurper given that he was the legal heir to the throne.

Edward III claimed the throne of France, but that is a topic for another blog entry. Edward also had a son named Edward, later called the Black Prince, who was turning out to be a strong and capable warrior himself and had the potential to be a great king. sadly he died the year prior to his father. When Edward III died in 1377 with the principle of male primogeniture was set and instead of one of Edward’s other sons succeeding to the throne, the Crown went to the Black Prince’s grandson, who became King Richard II of England.

Richard II married twice. His first wife was Anne of Bohemia, daughter of Holy Roman Emperor Karl IV, one of the most powerful monarchs in Europe at the time. They were married for 12 years and she was much-loved in England despite the fact that the marriage did not produce any children. In 1394 Queen Anne died from the plague.

The second marriage for Richard II was a political move. He married Princess Isabella of France, the daughter of King Charles VI of France and Princess Isabeau of Bavaria. At the time of the marriage Isabella was only 6 years of age and Richard was 29. The marriage was never consummated.

In 1399 Richard’s uncle, John of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, died. John of Gaunt’s son, Henry Bolingbroke, and first cousin of the king, was denied the succession to his fathers titles unless he formally requested his lands from the king. While Richard was in Ireland Henry, along with Thomas Arundel Archbishop of Canterbury, gathered forces to oppose the king. Henry gained support through England and confiscated the lands of those who opposed him. Henry declared himself as King Henry IV of England. This is a clear usurpation. Richard’s legal heir was his 7-year-old nephew, Edmund Mortimer.

Richard was imprisoned in Pontefract Castle and it seems Henry was going to allow the former king to live. However, once the earls of Huntingdon, Kent, Somerset and Rutland, and Thomas Despenser planned to kill Henry IV and replace him with Richard, Henry allowed Richard to die of starvation on February 14, 1400 at the age of 33.

The interesting fact about Henry usurping the throne is that he actually claimed to not be a usurper and that he was the legitimate male heir to the throne, even though there were about 8 people ahead of him in the line of succession. Henry claimed his descent through his mother, Blanche of Lancaster, a direct descendant of Edmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Leicester and Lancaster, the second son of King Henry III of England. Henry IV put forth the ridiculous claim that the marriage between Edward I and Eleanor of Castile was illegal and therefore all kings after Edward I were illegitimate and therefore had no legal claim to the throne. This was a grand conspiracy theory that existed only in his mind.

To conclude: Henry IV was a usurper and although he did have a blood claim to the throne, he was way down the list. Here are those that came before Henry in the line of succession.

• Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence (1338–1368)

• Philippa of Clarence, 5th Countess of Ulster (1355–1382)

• Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March (1391–1425)

• Roger Mortimer (died young c. 1411)
• Anne de Mortimer (1390–1411) (Anne was King Edward IV‘s grandmother.)
• Eleanor (d. 1418)

• Edmund Mortimer (1376–1409?)
• Lady Elizabeth de Mortimer (1370/1371-1417)
• Lady Philippa de Mortimer (1375–1401)

• Henry IV of England (1367–1413)

Portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, Kate Middleton, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Paul Emsley, Portrait, The Duchess of Cambridge, UnCanny Valley, United Kingdom of Great Britain, Wikipedia

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o306/WmHohenzollern/537991_10151428856877502_604833870_n.jpg

Last week the first official portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge was unveiled in London. I have to be honest and say my heart sank when I first saw the portrait. My initial reaction was one of repulsion and sadness. I was repulsed, I understand that is a strong word, and sad that the first official portrait of the Duchess of Cambridge was so awful that I fell bad for her. Award-winning artist Paul Emsley, spent three-and-a-half months painting the Duchess’s portrait and he is said to have wanted to capture the her warmth and personality.

The positive aspect of the portrait is its warmth. The color and hues of the flesh tones and the entire ambiance of the portrait do convey a sense of warmth. However, what is so off-putting and aversion inspiring is that there is no spark of life in the picture. They eyes and over all expression seem flat, dead and lifeless to me. The artist also made her look older than 31 years of age and he also succeeded in making her look masculine.

All of these qualities of the picture lead to what is called a sense of the Uncanny Valley. I will copy the definition from wikipedia:

The uncanny valley is a hypothesis in the field of robotics^[ and 3D computer animation, which holds that when human replicas look and act almost, but not perfectly, like actual human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers. The “valley” refers to the dip in a graph of the comfort level of humans as a function of a robot‘s human likeness.

 We can look at a cartoon of a person from Disney or Pixar and think it is cute. But the closer you get to actually looking human…yet there is something isn’t quite right…will cause an emotional response of aversion. As an artist myself who is working very hard at creating realistic portraits I understand this phenomenon. I can draw a portrait and if the mouth is a little large or the nose is out of proportion and if the eyes look dead then I have entered the Uncanny Valley.

I know I am being harsh but I was disappointed in the portrait. News reports say that the Duchess of Cambridge was happy with the results although the general public and art critics were also not happy with the results. I am glad the Duchess was happy with the results, although I wonder if those are her true feelings, is she in a position to be critical?

On a better note, Buckingham Palace announced earlier this week confirming that the Duchess of Cambridge will give birth in July and her symptoms of nausea continue to improve.

The Prince of Wales and the Succession Crown Bill Revisited.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Duke of Cornwall, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Succession Crown Bill

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/9797480/Messing-with-the-monarchy-the-proposed-reforms-reflect-politicians-arrogance.html

HRH The Prince of Wales has some concerns that the new Succession Crown Bill may have negative repercussions that he doesn’t think politicians have thought all the way through. From my reading of his complaints it doesn’t sound like he is against changing some of these laws, it seems that his major complaint is that these new Laws are being rushed through without consideration for their long term results.

In many ways I agree with him. One of the issues is the removal of the prohibition toward marrying Catholics. The problem with the Succession Bill is not that it removes the outdated prohibition toward members of the Royal Family marrying Catholics, the problem is that it does not address the situation about whether or not the monarch themselves has to remain in communion with the Church of England? In other words the prince asks, can the monarch be Catholic and still be the head of the Church of England?

England/Britain has a long and bloody history over this very question. As the article states wars and lives were lost over this issue and the throne itself has been fought over this issue. This brings up the issue does the union between the Crown and the Anglican Church needs to be dissolved? The Church of England has been linked to the monarchy ever since the days and times of Henry VIII 1509-1547.

It is this writers opinion that it is time to separate the monarchy from the Headship of the Church of England. Being an American, I do see the wisdom, especially in this day and age, of the separation between Church and State. I think religion should be a private affair even for the monarch. How many monarchs since the times of Henry VIII have actually, inwardly, supported the beliefs and tenets of the Church of England?

As the Monarchy has evolved to be above partisan politics maybe it is time for the monarchy to be above a specific religious faith. After all Britain is a realm of many faiths and the monarchy should, in my opinion, represent all of the people and not just one select group.

The other concerns the Prince of Wales has is over the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy of Cornwall has been associated with the heir to the Crown for many centuries. Right now it is inherited by the male heir to the throne. If the Bill passes and if a female heir can now inherit the Duchy of Cornwall, then what will this do for the rest of the peerages? This law will not effect Peerage titles (other than the Duchy of Cornwall) so it may be a short time before Peers call for changes in the inheritance of their titles. So may be for a gender neutral succession for peerage titles, others may not feel so benevolent.

The Prince…nor anyone….has said a word about the Title of Prince of Wales yet! So I agree with the Prince of Wales. While the Succession Crown Bill is a step in the right direction it does not resolve all the issues.

Legal Succession: John and Louis

Where I left off last in this series, we saw the struggle for the throne between King John and his nephew, Arthur of Brittany. It really wasn’t much of a struggle. John had the upper hand and had been named successor by his older brother, King Richard I.

The focus of this series is not to give a detailed examination of the reigns of these monarchs so I don’t need to delve deeply into the fact that King John is generally considered one of the worst English kings, if not the very worst, to ever sit on the throne. John married twice and also had a string of mistresses, many were married noble women. Although a king having a mistress was acceptable at the time, or at least understandable, the taking of mistresses from the married nobility was not an acceptable practice. John’s first wife was  Isabelle of Gloucester a cousin from the wrong side of the sheets. Isabel a great granddaughter of King Henry I. Her father was William FitzRobert, 2nd Earl of Gloucester who himself was the son of Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester an illegitimate son of  Henry I of England. This marriage ended in annulment around the time John came to the throne. There was no issue to this union.

John chose as his second wife, the 12 year old Isabella of Angoulême (John was 34 at the time). Isabella was the daughter of Aymer of Angoulême and Alice of Courtenay a granddaughter of King Louis VII of France. John and Isabella had five children. Henry, heir to the throne and named after John’s father, King Henry II, came first, followed by Richard and then three daughters,  Joan, Isabel, and Eleanor. A rarity in that day and age, when infant mortality was high, all five children lived to adulthood.

During the reign of King John he seemed to be in constant war with rebellious barons. These battles even impacted the succession to the crown. Although it was clear that Prince Henry, John’s eldest son, was the heir to the throne, the barons in rebellion supported Prince Louis of France, the Future King Louis VIII of France. In 1216 Louis invaded England and due to violent weather he came ashore unopposed. Swiftly, along with the help of the barons, Louis gained control of much of the south-east of England and parts of the north.

John held back attacks from King Alexander II of Scotland who was trying to march south to give homage to Louis whom he saw as England’s new king. In October of 1216 John died of dysentery. His nine-year old son was swiftly crowned King Henry III of England in a ceremony consisting of only a handful of noblemen and three bishops at St. Peter’s Abbey in Gloucester. Since John had lost the crown jewels a simple gold band was used for a crown. Regents, ruling in the name of King Henry said they would support the provisions of the Magna Carta, an issue which lead to the rebellion of the barons. This lead to the barons to  quickly abandon Louis and by 1217 all of England was under the control of Henry III and his regents.

Louis, never having been a true King of England, was a potential usurper and is not counted among the kings and queens of England despite being in control of the country for a period of time.

The succession of Henry III in 1216 saw an end to the battles over the crown and there would not be another contested succession or usurpation until 1399.