The Other Prince George of Cambridge…

Tags

Duke of Cambridge, George III of Great Britain, Louise Fairbrother, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Prince George Duke of Camdridge, Queen Victoria, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, Royal Marriages Act of 1772

The new Prince George of Cambridge, son of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and currently third in line to the British Throne was not the only Prince George of Cambridge. The first prince of that name was the Grandson of King George III and son of Adolphus-Frederick, Duke of Cambridge and his wife, Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel. Prince George of Cambridge was also the uncle to Queen Mary, consort to King George V of Great Britain. He was also first Cousin to Queen Victoria.

George became Duke of Cambridge in 1850 with the death of his father. The Duke was an army officer by profession and served as served as Commander-in-Chief of the Forces (military head of the British Army) from 1856 to 1895. He became Duke of Cambridge in 1850 and field marshal in 1862. At one point in his life his uncle, King William IV and his father  Adolphus-Frederick, Duke of Cambridge, wanted to see him marry the future Queen Victoria. Both Prince George and Queen Victoria were born in 1819 with George being a few months older. However, the Coburg side of the family, especially Victoria’s maternal uncle, King Leopold I of the Belgians, had other plans for her marriage. It was the plans of the Belgian king that won out as Victoria fell in love and married her maternal first cousin, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

Prince George seemed to have inherited the love of the ladies like his father and other Hanoverian uncles. He seemed to have a string of mistresses and lovers even after his marriage which was not in accord with the 1772 Royal Marriages Act. According to the Act permission from the monarch was necessary for the marriage to be legal. George did not seek such permission. George did not believe in arranged marriages and felt that they were doomed to failure. Even though his marriage was not legally recognized he did marry at St. John’s Church, Sarah Fairbrother (1816–12 January 1890), the daughter of John Fairbrother, a servant in Westminster.

Sarah Fairbrother

George and Sarah had three children but because the marriage was in violation of the 1772 Royal Marriages Act none of the children were able to succeed to the Duke’s titles. Indeed, Sarah’s very existence was ignored by the Queen Victoria.  Instead, Sarah called herself “Mrs. Fairbrother” and eventually “Mrs. FitzGeorge.” FitzGeorge was the name the children also took. Despite this “marriage” George had many other affairs during his life time.

His prominent military career that ended in 1895 after George criticised the administration of the War Office. He was then asked to resign. He outlived Queen Victoria but rode in a carriage in her funeral due to his own poor health. He visited Germany for the last time in 1903 and in 1904 he died of a haemorrhage of the stomach. His remains were buried five days later next to those of Mrs. FitzGeorge in Kensal Green Cemetery London.

His title, Duke of Cambridge, became extinct until it was recreated 107 years later for Prince William of Wales, George’s great-great-great-great nephew.

HRH Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge

As I type this on Wednesday, July 24, 2013 the name of the new royal prince has been announced. his name and title are…His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge. Here are my thoughts. First of all I am very happy with the names! They are all very royal and traditional names. His first name, George, was after the Queens father, George VI, and the name Alexander is the masculine form of Alexandra, one of the middle names of Queen Elizabeth II. Louis is for Lord Louis Mountbatten (born HSH Prince Louis of Battenberg) uncle of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. I would have been happy if the prince had been named Alexander for that was one of my guesses. I like that the continued to honor Lord Mountbatten by giving him the name Louis.

I am happy and also relived that they did select a very traditional name. I know the Duke of Cambridge likes to be more independent and may not always want to adhere to tradition so I have to be honest and say that I was a bit worried that they would really go in a different direction. But George was the name I was rooting for and I am happy it was chosen. God willing in the due corse of time, he will become HM King George VII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. But as I said before probably will not happen for 50-60 years in time.

There was another Prince George of Cambridge, who later also became the Duke of Cambridge, and I will write about him nest week. That Prince George of Cambridge was a grandson of King George III and a first cousin to Queen Victoria. His father was HRH Prince Adolphus Frederick, 1774-1850, was the tenth child and seventh son of King George III and Queen Charlotte. The new Prince George of Cambridge is a direct descendant of Prince Adolphus Frederick, Duke of Cambridge.

Adolphus Frederick was married to Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel and had three children. George, Augusta and Mary Adelaide. I will speak more about George in his own blog post. His sister Augusta married Friedrich-Wilhelm, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. The youngest child, Mary Adelaide, married Prince (later Duke) Franz of Teck, a morganatic scion of the Wurttemberg royal family. Mary Adelaide and Franz had a daughter, Princess Mary of Teck who married the future King George V of the United Kingdom. Their son was King George VI, father of Queen Elizabeth II, who is the great-grand mother of the new Prince George of Cambridge.

As of Today, here is the line of succession to the British throne:

• Charles, Prince of Wales (b 1948), eldest son of Queen Elizabeth II
• Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (b 1982), elder son of Charles, Prince of Wales
• Prince George of Cambridge (b 2013), son of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
• Prince Henry of Wales (b 1984), younger son of Charles, Prince of Wales
• Prince Andrew, Duke of York (b 1960), second son of Queen Elizabeth II
• Princess Beatrice of York (b 1988), elder daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York
• Princess Eugenie of York (b 1990), younger daughter of Prince Andrew, Duke of York
• Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex (b 1964), youngest son of Queen Elizabeth II
• James, Viscount Severn (b 2007), son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
• Lady Louise Windsor (b 2003), daughter of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex

The New Royal Baby

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Duchess of Cambridge, Elizabeth II, England, Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II, King James III of England, King Louis XIV of France and Navarre, King Louis XV of France, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales, Wilhelm II of Germany, Winston Churchill

Yesterday was an historic moment. The Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a royal prince yesterday. This was the first time since Queen Victoria had three direct heirs to the throne. First in line was The Prince of Wales (Edward VII), then came her grandson The Duke of York (George V) and her great-grandson Prince Edward of York (Edward VIII). Queen Victoria actually lived to see George VI, Edward VIII’s brother, but there are not any pictures of her with her son, grandson and both great-grandsons.

There has not been too many monarchs who have lived to see an heir in the third generation. Louis XIV of France and Navarre was one such monarch. He lived to see his great-grandchildren. However, he also outlived most of them and his successor, Louis XV, was one of his great-grandchildren.  Wilhelm I, German Emperor & King of Prussia also lived to see three generations of successors. In 1882 his grandson, Prince Wilhelm, future German Emperor Wilhelm II, gave birth to the future Crown Prince Wilhelm. Sadly, Crown Prince Wilhelm was not able to inherit the Royal and Imperial thrones due to the monarchy in Germany being abolished in 1918 at the end of World War I.

It seemed like we waited for a long time for the Duchess of Cambridge to give birth to the new little prince. Now the wait begins to see what the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will name the future King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

So what will the name be? George and James seem to be popular choices right now. Both names have historical precedence in British history. George is the name Elizabeth II’s father chose to reign under, although he was named Albert after having the bad luck of being born on December 14, 1895, the 34 anniversary of the death of his great-grandfather, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, husband of Queen Victoria. James is the name of Catherine’s brother (as well as the Duke of Cambridge’s cousin, James Viscount Severn, son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex).

If the name James is chosen we will see if Winston Churchill’s suggestion that the highest ordinal between England and Scotland should be used. When England and Scotland shared a monarch they used an ordinal, or regnal number, for both crowns. For example, James VI of Scotland was also James I of England. His grandson was James VII of Scotland and James II of England. This is the only name affected. When Charles I came to both the English and Scottish thrones neither England or Scotland had had a king by that name before. William III of England was William II of Scotland. His wife, Mary II, was also Mary II of England and Scotland, with Mary Stuart being the first queen named Mary in Scotland and Mary Tudor being the first queen named Mary in England.

When the countries were united in 1707 the monarchs were settled in England and Scotland was often ignored by the monarchs. They have followed the English system of numbering kings. The first thee kings of the House of Hanover did not have a problem with their regnal number since neither England or Scotland had kings named George before. There seems to be no controversy in Scotland with William IV and his regnal umber. The first time we begin to see some conflict is with the reigns of both Edward VII and Edward VIII. In Scotland there were times thier regnal numbers were omitted even in the Scottish Church. This issue did become more prominent with the reign of Elizabeth II. Since Elizabeth I of England never ruled over Scotland many in Scotland did not think she should be called Elizabeth II in Scotland. Many things such as mailboxes carrying the II in the royal cypher were defaced or destroyed. This is what prompted Winston Churchill to offer the solution that he did.

If the new baby prince is named James he will be called James VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain instead of James III. The name also carries a little controversy seeing that the pretender to the throne, James Francis, son of deposed king James II-VII of England and Scotland was also called James III-VIII by himself and his supporters. But that was centuries ago I am sure there wouldn’t be a problem now. It also follows that if the prince is named Richard, he will be Richard IV since there was not one named Richard who was king of Scotland. However, if he is named Robert or Alexander he would be Robert IV or Alexander IV since there have been three kings of Scotland with that name respectively.

Although we cannot predict the future the new little prince will not sit on the throne for a very long long time. Her Majesty the Queen is still going strong at the age of 87. Her son, the Prince of Wales is also healthy at the age of 64 and at the age of 31 the Duke of Cambridge will also likely see a long life. So it is possible that the new royal prince will not sit on the throne until he is in his 50s or 60s.

It will be interesting to see what the new baby will be named. Whatever the name shall be I wish the new baby prince a long healthy and happy life!

Legal Succession: The House of Stuart, Part V

Tags

Act of Succession of 1701, Glorious Revolution, Holyrood Abbey, King James II-VII of England and Scotland, Mary II, Pope Innocent XI, the Bill of Rights of 1689, The Scottish Privy Council, William III and Mary II, William III of England and Scotland, William of Orange

Where I left off in this series was with William III and Mary II having granted joint rule by Parliament after James II was forcecd to leave the country. Although the English Parliament gave the throne jointly to William and Mary, their rule in Scotland also needed to be legalized for at this time in history the governments of England and Scotland were still separate.

When William landed in England there was also trouble brewing in Scotland. Rumors of plots against the Scots wer rampent. Riots broke out and as rioters approached Holyrood Abbey soldiers responded with gun fire making the Glorious Revolution not so bloodless in Scotland. The Abbey was stormed by a large mob and Catholic furnishings were torn down and the tombs of the Stuart kings there desecrated. Students even burned an efficgy of Pope Innocent XI and the heads of executed Covenanters that were hanging above the city gates. The crisis was soothed after James VII officially fled from England that December. Although there was not any Scottish involvement in bringing William of Orange over to England the  majority members of the Scottish Privy Council did go to London to offer their services to William. The Scottish Privy Council asked William to take over the responsibilities of government as they were certain William would be the next King of England as well as Scotland.

This makes the succession of William III and Mary II legal. In the next section I want to examine the Bill of Rights of 1689 and the Act of Succession of 1701 and how the impacted the legal succession to the crown.

The question I asked when examining the Glorious Revolution was can William III and Mary II be classified as usrpers? The dictionary definition of a usrper is: to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne. Persoanlly I do not see William III as a usurper by that definition. I have always seen it as an unpopular king, James II-VII, being deposed. Unlike Henry IV who took it upon himself to depose Richard II, William III was part of a larger revolution than the stealing of the throne by one individual. William was welcomed with open arms by many people, subjects and the government including, in getting rid of an unpopular king. James fleeing the country does give the sign that he abdicated and aboandoned the throne leaving it vacant. Had William taken the throne by force and then, by force, had Parliament sanction his taking of the throne then I could see calling him a usurper. However, since this was a bloodless revolution and William was practically invited to invade and take the throne, he doesn’t deserve the label of usurper.

Naming the Royal Baby

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, England, King Richard III of England, King Robert III of Sctoland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria of Great Britain, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales

I have been on a few royalty related sites and message boards as people are guessing what the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will name their child. From my research it seems that George is the front-runner for the name of a boy and Elizabeth is the popular guess for the name of a girl. These names are very traditional. If these are the names selected then in time this new royal scion of the House of Windsor would be either King George VII or Queen Elizabeth III depending on the gender of the child.

Will the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge select a traditional name? I have a hunch, and it is only a hunch, that the royal couple will select a name that they like and it that will also be proper and within the bonds of tradition. Yet I think it will be a name that might not be among the kings and queens of Britain from the past. The Duke of Cambridge has demonstrated an independent nature most of his life. He did not even want a royal title until Her Majesty the Queen pointed out to him that without a royal title his wife would be known as Princess William of Wales.

Even the queen herself was a bit of a non-traditionalist when it came to selecting names. Charles and Anne, names more associated with the House of Stuart than the House of Hanover/Coburg/Windsor, was traditional and refreshingly new at the same time since those names had not been used in the royal family for quite some time. Even naming Princes Andrew after the Duke of Edinburgh’s father, Prince Andreas of Greece and Denmark, walked that fine line between tradition and something new.

Another break with tradition that I feel will continue is not naming a child after a living member of the royal family. During the Victorian era, for example, there were many princesses named after Queen Victoria all living at the same time. The future Edward VII was originally named Albert-Edward and his eldest son, The Duke of Clarence, was named Albert-Victor. Edward VII’s brothers, Alfred and Arthur, each had their eldest sons named after them. In our media saturated culture it may be deemed confusing for there to be two or more royal princes and princesses with the same first name. That doesn’t mean this child won’t be named William, Charles, Henry or Philip if it is a boy; or Elizabeth, Catherine or Anne if it is a girl, it just makes it less likely.

Myself, I have many guesses for the name of the child. I would like to see the name George used or either Victoria or Elizabeth for a girl. I am also open to names from the past that have not been used in a while, such as, Richard, Robert, Alexander, Alexandra, Charlotte and Mary.

In a short while all our questions will be answered and I do want to close with saying that what we all can agree on is that the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge be healthy and happy.

Prince Ernst-August II of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland

Tags

Austria, Christian IX of Denmark, Duke of Cumberland, Emperor Alexander III of Russia, German Empire, Gmunden, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King Edward VII of Great Britain, King Frederik VIII of Denmark, King George I of Greece, Prince Ernst-August II of Hanover, Prussia, Queen Victoria, Titles Deprivation Act, World War I

I wanted to revive an old feature, where I would focus on one monarch or prince/princess. The problem with that in the past was that it was difficult for me to keep it brief. I ended up writing way too much for a blog post. So, I will revive this feature and see if I can keep it brief!!

HRH Prince Ernst-August II of Hanover, Duke of Cumberland. He was born in 21 September 1845 the eldest son of King Georg V of Hanover and Marie of Saxe-Altenburg. He was the grandson of Queen Victoria’s uncle, King Ernst-August I of Hanover. Prince Ernst-August’s father, Georg V of Hanover, lost the throne when it was annexed to Prussia in the 1866 war against Austria. As a descendant of King George III of Great Britain, Elector of Hanover, Prince Enrst-August II was heir to the vacant throne of Hanover and the Duchy of Brunswick as well as a British Prince and as Duke of Cumberland he was a British Peer.

Because of Hanover’s annexation to Prussia Ernst-August had long deep-seated prejudice and hatred toward all things Prussian and the House of Hohenzollern. For that reason he took Princess Thyra of Denmark as his wife. Thyra was the youngest daughter of  Christian IX of Denmark and Louise of Hesse-Kassel. The Danish Royal Family lost a war against Prussia in 1864 so they all shared a common hatred of Prussia. This marriage also made him the brother-in-law to King Frederik VIII of Denmark, King Edward VII of Great Britain, Emperor Alexander III of Russia and King George I of Greece.

Queen Victoria appointed the Duke of Cumberland a colonel in the British Army in 1876 and promoted him to major-general in 1886, lieutenant-general in 1892 and general in 1898. After his time in the British Army he lived in Gmunden, Upper Austria. Although he never renounced the succession to the thrones of Hanover and Brunswick Ernst-August II was eventually reconciled to Prussia when his eldest surviving son, Ernst-August III, married Princess Victoria-Luise of Prussia, the only daughter of German Emperor Wilhelm II in 1913. That same year his son was created the reigning Duke of Brunswick by Wilhelm II.

As a British and German Prince, Ernst-August II lost his British peerage in 1917 when all German relatives of the British Royal Family lost their British titles during World War I when King George V issued the Titles Deprivation Act. Prince Ernst August, the former Crown Prince of Hanover and former Duke of Cumberland, died of a stroke on his estate at Gmunden in November 1923. He was 78 years old.

King Albert II and Abdication. My thoughts.

Tags

Albert II of Belgium, King George IV of the United Kingdom, King Leopold III of Belgium, Kingdom of Belgium, Philippe Duke of Brabant, Pope Benedict XVI, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands

As I write this post it was announced that HM King Albert II of Belgium will abdicate the throne on July 21 due to health. The king is 79 years old and his 53 year old son, Prince Philippe, the Duke of Brabant will take the throne.  I wonder if the abdication by the Dutch monarch in April is what started Albert II to think of abdication?

Albert came to the throne 20 years ago in 1993 when his brother, King Baudouin died at the age of 62. Many were surprised that Albert to the throne because it has been assumed for years that Prince Philippe, the Duke of Brabant, would succeed his childless uncle, King Baudouin. Albert did become king and it has been a difficult 20 years on the throne.

Belgium has seen political crises and ethnic and cultural strife. Like all of the constitutional monarchs Albert doesn’t have any real political power and his role is mostly ceremonial, he did, at one point in his reign exercised some political authority. In 2010-2011 the Belgian Parliament was at a stalemate unable to form a government for 541 days after  elections failed to find a clear winner. The king took an advisory role with the political leaders helping to resolve the stalemate. Although it was a difficult time for him he demonstrated the positive role a neutral head of state can play in the daily running of the government.

Respect for the royal family seems to be one of the forces holding the country together. There has often been tensions between the two main language communities of Flemish and French in Belgium. This issue divisive issue has brought down several governments, creating frequent political instability.

This will be the second abdication of a Belgian monarch. Albert II was the 6th Belgian monarch since the creation of that throne in 1831. In 1830 a revolution in the Netherlands happened and the Southern Provinces separated from the Netherlands forming the state of Belgium. In 1831 they selected Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as their king. Leopold was the uncle to both Queen Victoria of Great Britain and her husband Prince Albert. For a time Prince Leopold was married to Princess Charlotte of Wales who was second in line to the British throne until her death in childbirth in 1817.

In 1951, King Leopold III abdicated shortly after his return from exile which occurred during World War II. Many in Belgium felt his actions during the war were treasonous so in an effort to avoid tearing the country apart, and to preserve the monarchy, Leopold decided on August 1, 1950 to withdraw in favour of his 20-year-old son Baudouin. The abdication went into effect on July 16, 1951.

This will be the third abdication this year following Pope Benedict XVI and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. I have softened my view on abdication. I f you look at the list of any monarchy in Europe you will see that people are living much longer than they used to. With that in mind I am beginning to see that there is no valid reason why a monarch should carry the burdens of state when their health declines. Now some may prefer that the monarch retire, keep the title, and allow the hier to take the throne as regent. This is similar to how the future George IV took over for his ailing father. This makes the regent king…or queen…in all but name.

I still like that arrangement and prefer it actually, but I do not feel so rigidly attached to it as I have in the past. I have no problem when a monarch feels the need to step down and pass the crown to the next in line.

Be back next week….

I am dealing with some health issues (nothing fatal) so I am going to take this week off as I wrestle with new meds. I will be back next Monday with new posts.

 

Bill