Who is entitled to a Princess title?

Tags

7th Duke of Buccleuch, Diana Spencer, Elector of Hanover, George I of Great Britain, John Montagu Douglas Scott, King George I of the Hellenes, King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands., Princess Alice of Gloucester, Princess Diana, Princess Marina of Greece, Princess Mary of Teck, The Duke of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent

There has been a lot of discussion concerning who is entitled to call themselves a Princess followed by their first name in the British system. Many people get it wrong including the press, or shall I say, frequently the press. Many know by now, for example, that when Diana was Princess of Wales she was wrongly called Princess Diana by the media. Although she was a Princess of the United Kingdom via her marriage to HRH The Princes of Wales this did not entitle her to be called “Princess Diana” as that is reserved for British princesses born into the royal family. Princess Anne; The Princess Royal, Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York are prime examples. The correct title for Diana was, simply, HRH The Princess of Wales. The press, being sloppy, just called her Princess Diana, and they also sloppily call the Prince of Wales, simply Prince Charles. This may sound pedantic but the way to address royalty in the media is to call them by their correct styles and titles. For example it is correct to call Princess Beatrice of York “Princess Beatrice” because that is her correct title. It is not correct to call Princes Anne by her name in the press, it is correct to call her The Princess Royal

This system is unique to Britain among the existing monarchies in Europe. The German monarchies, when they existed, used the British system. Well, to be more honest it was Britain that adopted the German system of how they titled the wives of princes when George I of Great Britain, originally the Elector of Hanover and Duke of Brunswick, came to the British throne in 1714. In places like Denmark and the Netherlands for example when a woman married into those royal families they are often created Princesses in their own right. For example when Marie Cavallier married HRH Prince Joachim of Denmark in 2008 she became Her Royal Highness Princess Marie of Denmark, Countess of Monpezat. When Máxima Zorreguieta Cerruti married the Prince of Orange (king Willem-Alexander) in 2002 she was created a Princess of the Netherlands in her own right and was styled HRH Princess Máxima of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau.

What is interesting to note is that even when foreign royals married into the British Royal family they were not entitled to be styled as if they were a British princess in their own right. For example, when Princess Alexandra of Denmark, a Danish Princess in her own right, married HRH The Prince of Wales (Prince Albert-Edward, future king Edward VII) in March of 1863 she ceased to be a Danish Princess and was only a British Princess by marriage and this did not allow her to be called Princess Alexandra. In other words, even though she was born a Princess in her own right, she was not born a British Princess in her own right, and she was in the same boat that Diana Spencer would be over a century later; only entitled to be called HRH The Princess of Wales. You know what? The press got it wrong back in the day, for they also called her Princess Alexandra.

There have been exceptions to when a member of the British royal family, who is not entitled to be called Princess and use their first names, has been allowed to stlye themselves as if they were born a British princess. One example is Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark. She was born a Greek and Danish Princess the daughter of Prince Nicholas of Greece and Denmark (a son of King George I of the Hellenes) and his wife Grand Duchess Elena Vladimirovna of Russia the daughter of Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich of Russia and Duchess Marie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin. In November of 1934 Princess Marina married HRH The Duke of Kent (Prince George) the fourth son and fifth child of King George V and Princess Mary of Teck (Queen Mary).

Sadly, the Duke of Kent died in 1942 when the military plane he was riding in crashed in Scotland. His eldest son, Prince Edward became the current Duke of Kent. Marina remained styled as HRH The Duchess of Kent until her son’s marriage to Katherine Worsley in 1961. This meant that Katherine was now legally HRH The Duchess of Kent. This mean that Marina now had to be called something different. She could have chosen to be called HRH The Dowager Duchess of Kent but instead petitioned the Queen to allow herself to be called Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, despite not being born a British Princess. The queen did grant her this permission.

This seems to have set a precedence. In 1974 with the death of HRH The Duke of Gloucester (Prince Henry) son of King George V and Princess Mary of Teck (Queen Mary), his widow, Alice, daughter of John Montagu Douglas Scott, 7th Duke of Buccleuch, petitioned the queen to be allowed to style herself Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. This permission was also granted. The significant difference between the sister-in-laws Marina and Alice was that Marina was born a Greek and Danish Princess in her own right while Alice was never born a princess in her own right. Under the British system this did not matter, for to be called a Princess and to be allowed to use your first name is a right reserved only to those women born into the British royal family. All others must seek permission from the queen to do so.

Queen Camilla? The Woman Who Should Be Queen.

Tags

Camilla Parker Bowles, James, Lady Louise Windsor, Louise of Wessex, Prince Charles, Prince James of Wessex, Queen Elizabeth II, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Earl of Wessex, the prince of Wales, Viscount Severn

This is a controversial topic. When The Prince of Wales married the present Duchess of Cornwall in April of 2005 it was decided that instead of being called HRH The Princess of Wales (a title that is legally hers) she would instead use one of the Prince of Wales’ other titles, Duke of Cornwall, and that she would be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. It was also announced at the time that when Charles becomes king the Duchess of Cornwall will beknown as HRH The Princess Consort instead of Her Majesty the Queen.

There has been great debate whether or not Her Majesty the Queen needs to issue new letters patent for these titles to be legal. Some argue that as the Font of all Honours the queen’s word is just as legally binding as any official decree or letters patent. Camilla is the Princess of Wales even though she does not use that title. However, I have read that in the situation with the Duchess of Cornwall not being queen when her husband becomes king, it would actually take and Act of Parliament to strip her of her title. This is something I do not think will be done.

It seems as if the queen is doing the same thing with the Duchess of Cornwall that was done with the Children of TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex. Allowing her to use a lesser title despite legally holding a higher title. The children of The Earl and Countess of Wessex are legally entitled, per the 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V, to be styled and titled HRH Prince or Princess of Great Britain as grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line. In this case their eldest daughter is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and their son is HRH Prince James of Wessex. These titles have not been legally stripped from them, it was simply announced they just would not use their royal styles and titles.

Therefore, despite the agreement made when the Prince of Wales married the Duchess of Cornwall she will, in fact, be Queen of the United Kingdom when her husband becomes king, she just will not use that title. The question I am asking is should she be allowed to be called queen, her rightful title?

I have mixed feelings on the subject. On the one hand I say yes. I think the Duchess of Cornwall has led a fine example of being a supportive consort to the Prince of Wales and would make an excellent Queen Consort. On the other hand I also know that constitutional monarchies need the support of the people. From my understanding is that although the Duchess of Cornwall has risen greatly in poularity since her marriage to the Prince of Wales there is still considerable objections by a number of people who do not support the Duchess of Cornwall becoming queen. So in this instance, despite my feelings, I need to bow to public opinion as it is today. Will that opinion change? I certainly hope so. I still think there is enough time for the Duchess of Cornwall to win over the hearts of the people and to take her righful position by her husbands side on the throne.

Legal Succession Part IV: Henry the Young King, Richard I & John

Tags

Angevin Empire, Conspiracy Theories, Eleanore of Aquitane, England, Henry II of England, Henry the Young King, King John of England, King Richard I of England, Kings and Queens of England, Philippe II of France, Plantaganet

Note: I failed to post this when I was doing this series. So in order for it all to be complete and online I will post this today.

The reign of Henry II (1154-1189) saw many battles for power amongst his sons. If you have ever seen the 1967 classic the Lion in Winter then you will understand what I mean. Also, for the first time, maybe the only time, we see a king crown his successor in his life time. It is also during this period that we see the succession of male prefered primogeniture start taking hold.

Henry married the formidable Eleanor of Aquitaine, the former wife of king Louis VII of France (1137-1180). Eleanor married Henry 1152 when she was about 30 years of age and he was 19. They had a large family, with Eleanor bearing Henry 5 sons and 3 daughters. The eldest son, William, died when he was only three leaving the next son, Henry, as heir to the English throne.

Henry has come down through history known as the Young King. Henry II crowned his son King of England in 1170. The practice was carried out in the Capetian Dynasty in France and Henry adopted this practice as a formal manner in establishing his heir. In 1172 Henry, called the Young King to distinguish him from his father, was crowned once more when he married Margaret d’Anjou, daughter of King Louis VII of france and his second wife, Constance of Castile.

Henry the Young King held his position for 11 more years but had a falling out with his father in 1182. The battles between Henry II and his sons have become the tales of legends and although these are not the focus of this blog entry they do play a role in the battle for the crown. Henry The Young King often struggled financially and had just raided a few monasteries to raise money for his campaign against his brothers when he died from dysentery at the age of 28. Although the Young King was crowned and anointed King of England but since he never ruled in his own right he is not counted or numbered among the kings of England.

When Henry II died in 1189 the throne passed to his eldest son who became Richard I of England known as famously as Richard the Lion Heart. Richard spent the majority of his time on Crusades and was rarely home in England. He married Berengaria of Navarre but had no issue leaving the succession in question once again. Historians claim that Richard was a homosexual although he did have one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac, by an unidentified mother. In March of 1199 Richard had attacked the Castle of Chalus-Chabrol when he was shot in the neck by an arrow from a crossbow. The doctor mangled the surgery and the wound became gangrenous and Richard died on April 6, 1199. Before his death he had bequeathed all his lands, including the English Crown, to his brother John, a prince who was in constant rebellion toward his brother.

This would seem like a cut-and-dried legal succession but during these times the laws covering succession were not always clear. Richard did grant John his titles and this was in accordance of Norman Law. However, in the rest of the Angevin Empire which Henry II had established, the Law of Primogeniture was more in force and this left Arthur of Brittany as heir to the English throne. Arthur was the eldest son of Geoffery II, Duke of Brittany, who was the younger brother of Richard I, yet the older brother of John.

Phillippe II of France (1180-1223) placed his support behind Arthur for the English throne. Arthur, who was only 16 at the time (this was the reason he was by-passed for the throne, Richard considered Arthur too young) led forces into Maine and Anjou. However, nothing came of this and within a year Philippe II changed sides and signed a treaty recognizing John as the rightful ruler over the Angevin lands. Arthur was reconciled to John but in time grew suspicious of the English King. John never trusted his nephew and in time Arthur was captured by the Barons and imprisoned. By 1203 Arthur disappeared from history. No one knows what happened to Arthur but legend has it that he was murdered by King John himself and his body was tied to a rock and tossed into the Seine.

Was John a usurper? I guess it depends on the laws you adhere to. Richard did leave the Crown to him and in that manner his rule is legitimate in England. In the other French territories of the Angevin Empire, that were governed by the laws of male primogeniture, John could be considered a usurper. But one thing historians are unanimous over: John was a bad king.

Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner?

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Commoner, Elizabeth II, HRH The Prince of Wales, King George VI, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Peerage, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Prince William, Queen Elizabeth II, Scotland, The Duke of Cambridge, titles

When the Duchess of Cambridge married Prince William of Wales the media spoke about her being a commoner. They were correct. Until her marriage she was indeed a commoner. However, did you know that prior to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, creating her grandson Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus, that he too was a commoner?

What may be even lesser known is that the queen herself, as young Princess Elizabeth, heiress presumptive to the throne, was a commoner when she married Lt. Philip Mountbatten, former Prince of Greece and Denmark; and that he was not a commoner? You may think I have gone mad! Let me explain.

In the British system, a society historically divided by class,  there are three legal standings, or classes, people can hold and belong to. These positions/Classes are: The Sovereign, Titled Peers/Nobility and Commoners. Therefore technically and legally speaking if you are a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom and you do not hold a peerage title, and you are not the sovereign, you are in fact… a commoner.

The style His or Her Royal Highness and the title Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom is a courtesy title held at the behest of the sovereign but does not bestow a legal position. Do not confuse this legal and class status with rank or precedence which are different subjects all together. A person may hold a princely title and have more precedence and out rank a peer. 

Therefore only members of the royal family that also hold peerage titles are not, technically speaking,  commoners. The sons of Queen Elizabeth II are all Peers: The Prince of Wales, The Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex. Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, is a commoner because the title Princess Royal is a courtesy title and not a peerage title.

In the next generation, only Prince William, as Duke of Cambridge, is a peer and all of his cousins (his children and brother) are commoners. (at the time of this writing) The queens cousins, The Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent are also peers of the realm but their children are neither peers or royal. Two of the queen’s other cousins, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent, are royal, but they are commoners.

Interesting fact is that when the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent pass on their titles to their children these Dukedoms will cease to be Royal Dukedoms because their children are not eligible for a Royal title. The title of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom is limited via the 1917 Letters Patent to the male-line grandchildren of the sovereign. The children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent will be great-great-grandchildren of the sovereign, in this case the closest sovereign they are descended from is King George V. Though the next Dukes of Gloucester and Kent will not be royal, the will be peers and not commoners.

There are actually five types of peerages. The Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. These represent those titles that were created at the various times in the history of the country. The hierarchy, or rank, of these peerage titles is as follows: (highest to lowest) Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron. There is also the hereditary title of Baronet but Baronets are not peers but fit into the social class of the Landed Gentry. It gets confusing doesn’t it? 

I will end my post by keeping it simple. Unless you are the sovereign or a titled peer, even if you hold the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you are technically a commoner.

On November 20, 1947 HM King George VI created his future son-in-law HRH Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich. This made the former Prince Philip of Greece a Peer of the Realm. When he married the king’s daughter, Princess Elizabeth, the very next day, she was a commoner because she didn’t possess any Peerage titles, while her husband was not a commoner any longer. 

Legal Succession: Conclusion

Tags

Elizabeth II, England, King George III of Great Britain, King Leopold I of Belgium, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince George of Cambridge, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Prince of Wales, Princess Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Princess Charlotte of Wales, Queen Victoria of Great Britain

Well, it has been along series. I cannot even remember when I began this series. I just checked….I began this series on December 6, 2012. 9 months!!! We have seen the legal succession to the throne snake its way through a number of branches and have had seen that not all kings and queens that have sat upon the throne always were the legal successor to their predecessor.

With the accession of the House of Hanover the throne has been pretty stable ever since that time with the exception of the Jacobite rebellions of 1715 and 1745. King George I reigned until 1727 and because of the language difficulties and George’s disinterest in matters of State, the office of Prime Minister began to develop. George was succeeded by his eldest son, George-Augustus, who reigned as King George II. The crown then skipped a generation as Frederick, Prince of Wales, died in 1751, nine years before his father. George II was legally succeeded by his eldest grandson who became King George III.

There was at least one time when their was a scramble to beget an hier in the last few years of the nearly 60 year reign of King George III. His eldest son, The Prince of Wales, and after 1811 he was the Prince Regant, only had one daughter during his tumultuous relationship with his wife, Princess Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Their daughter, Princess Charlotte of Wales was much loved in Britain. In 1816 Princess Charlotte married Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld and despite the arranged marriage the couple was happy. Sadly, wedded bliss for the couple did not last long. The next year Charlotte was pregnant and during her pregnancy she eat heavily and got very little exercise. On the night of November 5th, 1817 after many hours of a difficult labor Princess Charlotte delivered a still-born son. Shortly thereafter other complications set in and as a result Princess Charlotte passed away.

This left the George III without any legitimate heirs in the third generation. There were plenty of illegitimate offsprings though. Many of the aging bachelor princes, most of them in their late 40s or early 50s, began leaving their mistresses to find legal wives to beget an hier. Prince Frederick, Duke of York, next in line after the prince Regent, was married to a Prussian Princess but there were no children for this union. The next in line after Frederick was Prince William, Duke of Clarence, married Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen, 27 years younger than the duke. They had two daughters, Charlotte and Elizabeth, who did not live long. Adelaide also delivered still-born twin sons.

The next brother, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, married Princess Victoria, the sister of Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, the widower of Princess Charlotte of Wales. This union produced a daughter, Princess Alexandrina Victoria, who became Queen of the United Kingdom in 1837 after the reigns of her uncles, George IV and William IV. In 1840, Victoria married her maternal first cousin Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. They had nine children and many descendants who populated many European thrones.

Queen Victoria died on January 22, 1901 after a reign of 63 years. She was succeeded by her eldest son who became King Edward VII. He reigned until his death in 1910. Edward VII was followed on the throne by his eldest son, King George V who reigned until his death in 1936. With his death his eldest son began his reign as King Edward VIII and with him we saw one of the most recent struggles for the crown.

Edward was in love with a twice divorced American woman. In 1936 this was unacceptable to many Britons and those in power. Edward refused to give her up and was determined to marry her. After much deliberation Edward VII abdicated the throne to his brother, Prince Albert, Duke of York. This was the first, and so far the only, time when a British/English/Scottish monarch voluntarily gave up the throne.

Prince Albert chose to reign as King George VI and he successfully navigated World War II and was a popular monarch until his death in 1952. This brings us up to the current monarch, HM Queen Elizabeth II who has reigned for 61 years. The legal succession is secure. Next in line is her eldest son, Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales. After him comes Prince William the Duke of Cambridge, and then the newest member of the British Royal Family, Prince George of Cambridge.

Legal Succession: The House of Stuart, Part VI

Tags

Act of Settlement, Electress of Hanover, English Civil War, King William III, The Bill of Rights

At the time of the succession of William III and Mary II Parliament passed the Bill of Rights that limited the power of the monarch/crown and officially barred Catholics from sitting on the throne. This ended over a century of religious battles over the throne. The Bill of Rights of 1689 established the powers of the Crown as well as its limit. “it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a papist prince“; It was also established that William III and Mary II were named as the legal successors of James II-VII and it established the succession based on that fact. The throne would pass to the issue of William III and Mary II, then to her sister, Princess Anne of Denmark and her heirs and then finally, to any heirs of William III by a later marriage. The monarch was further required to swear a coronation oath to maintain the Protestant religion.

The Bill of Rights completed a process that had begun with the English Civil War of the 1640s which was a conflict over who would hold power, the Crown or Parliament. With the Bill of Rights it showed that Parliament held the majority of the power. The Crown still held some power and it would take many more years until it just became a ceremonial position. But that is the topic for another series. The major point in the theme of this series is that the monarch no longer controlled the legal succession to the crown and that power was now invested in Parliament.

Within 12 years Parliament would have to act once more to regulate and control the legal succession to the crown. In 1694 Queen Mary II died of smallpox at the age of 32. She did not have any issue. According to the Bill of Rights the next in line was her sister, Princess Anne, married to Prince George of Denmark. The pregnancies of Princess Anne is very sad. She had up to 18 miscarriages and of the births that lived only Prince William, Duke of Gloucester at the age of 11 caused a crisis in the succession. It would seem that Princess Anne would not have any more children, King William III was still unmarried after the death of Queen Mary II and this left the Catholic Prince of Wales, James Francis as the only hier to the throne. Since Catholics were barred from the throne by the Bill of Rights this made the Prince of Wales unacceptable.

To answer this problem Parliament issued the Act of Settlement which settled the throne of England and Scotland on a cousin of King James II-VII, Sophia, Electress of Hanover the closest Protestant relative, and her Protestant heirs. The Act bypassed not only the Prince of Wales and his future descendants but also the descendants of Princess Henriette-Anne, daughter of King Charles I of England and Scotland.

Anne succeeded King William III in 1702, and reigned until her death on 1 August 1714. Sophia of Hanover predeceased her by a few weeks, and so Sophia’s son, Georg-Ludwig, ascended the throne as the first British monarch of the House of Hanover. Although according to Parliament George I of Hanover was the legal successor to Queen Anne, there were supporters of the Prince of Wales, called Jacobites, who would not be silenced.

Legal Succession: The House of Hanover & Jacobite resistance

Tags

George IV, King George I of Great Britain, king James I-VI of England and Scotland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Sophia of the Rhine (Electress Sophia), United Kingdom of Great Britain, William III and Mary II

With the succession now legally in the hands of William III and Mary II and with the death of the future Queen Anne’s son, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, it necessitated the Act of Settlement of 1701 that placed the succession on the nearest Protestant heir, the Electress Sophia of Hanover. She was a granddaughter of King James I-VI of England and Scotland. The Electress Sophia was married to the Ernst August, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Imperial Elector of Hanover.

Ernst August of Hanover died January 23, 1698 and his son, Georg Ludwig became Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Imperial Elector of Hanover. He was also 2nd in line to the English and Scottish thrones throne via the Act of Settlement. Although not the topic of this series, in 1707 the Parliaments of England and Scotland were united to form the kingdom of Great Britain. The titles of King and Queen of England and the Scots passed into history. Georg-Ludwig’s mother, the Electress Sophia, did not live long enough to inherit the British throne she died June 8, 1714 a few weeks before the death of Queen Anne on August 1, 1714. Upon the death of Queen Anne the legal succession passed to Elector Georg-Ludwig of Hanover who became King George I of Great Britain. Although George was Elector of Hanover that country was not politically united with Great Britain.

The deposed king, James II-VII, died in 1701 and the Stuart claim passed to his son, James Francis, Prince of Wales who then claimed the throne as King James III-VIII of England and Scotland. The followers of James, known as Jacobites, did not recognize the union of England and Scotland so you will often see the Jacobite claimants call themselves Kings of England and Scotland rather than Great Britain. When James claimed the titles to his father’s thrones these claims were recognised as by France, Spain, the Papal States and Modena. These states refused to recognise William III, Mary II or Queen Anne as legitimate sovereigns. Another consequence of James claims to the throne was that the British government charged him with treason and his title, Prince of Wales, was attainted March 2, 1702, and were considered forfeited under English law. For the rest of this post James will be called The Old Pretender.

It is not the scope of this series to delve in-depth with he Jacobite uprisings but I will give a brief synopsis. James had support in France from King Louis XIV who had been the first cousin to both Charles II and James II-VII. Also, at this time France was at war against Britain as the War of the Spanish Succession raged throughout Europe as Louis XIV’s grandson, Felipe V, became the new King of Spain. In 1715 the year after the accession of George I, John Erskine, 22nd Earl of Mar, began a rebellion with the aim of placing James, the Old Pretender on the throne. This rebellion failed.

In 1745 another rebellion occurred under the Old Pretender’s son, Charles Edward, known to his supporters as King Charles III and to history as Bonnie Prince Charlie. This uprising moved as far into England as Derby and culminated in the Battle of Culloden. The armies of Field Marshal George Wade and of William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, son of King George II of Great Britain led the British forces to victory. Bonnie Prince Charlie fled to Europe with a large price on his head.

After the Battle of Culloden the Jacobite movement dwindled considerably. Charles Edward married Princess Louise of Stolberg-Gedern but had no legitimate offspring. He left a natural daughter, Charlotte Stuart, created Duchess of Albany by her father but this title had no legal standing in Britain. When Charles Edward died in 1788 the Jacobite claim to the throne went to his brother, Henry Benedict Stuart, Cardinal Duke of York. He was a Catholic Priest and to his supporters he was Known as King Henry IX of England, Scotland, Ireland and France.

After the French Revolution, Henry lost his French Royal benefices and sacrificed many other resources to assist Pope Pius VI. He also lost all of his French property which caused him to descend into poverty. Ironically, the British Minister in Venice arranged for Henry to receive an annuity of £4,000 from King George III of Great Britain. In his will,  which he signed as “Henry R”, he was succeeded his claim to the British/English/Scottish throne to his nearest blood-relative, King Charles Emmanuel IV of Sardinia. However, Charles never asserted nor renounced his Jacobite claims, nor have any of his successors to this day.

In the near future I will do a post about Jacobitism and the succession of those claimants. My next entry in the Legal Succession series will be the last as I bring it up to date with current times.

King Philippe of the Belgians

Tags

California, Duchess of Brabant, King Albert II of the Belgians, King Leopold I of Belgium, King Leopold III, King Philippe of the Belgians, Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Oxford, Princess Elisabeth Thérèse Marie Hélène, Salic Law, Stanford University, Trinity College

Edit: I was going to post this last week but with all the news surrounding the birth of Prince George of Cambridge this got bumped.

On Sunday, July 21, 2013 HM King Albert II of the Belgians abdicated, due to health reasons, and his eldest son, HRH The Duke of Brabant, took the throne as King Philippe of the Belgians. He is the 7th King of the Belgians since that country became independent in 1830. This is Belgium’s second abdication of one of their kings. In 1951 King Leopold III abdicated under pressure due to his actions during World War II.

Prior to the accession of Albert II in 1993 many thought that Philippe would be king after the death of his uncle, King Baudouin, (Albert’s elder brother) and that he was being groomed for the throne. Instead Prince Albert, Philippe’s father, took the throne as King Albert II of the Belgians.

King Philippe attended the Belgian Royal Military Academy appointed the rank of second lieutenant. He continued his education at Trinity College, Oxford and did his graduate studies at Stanford University, California, where he graduated in 1985 with an Master’s Degree in Political Science. In 1999 Philippe  married Mathilde d’Udekem d’Acoz, daughter of a was Count Patrick d’Udekem d’Acoz and Polish Countess Anna Maria Komorowska. Through both her parents the new Queen of the Belgians is a descendant of Belgian nobility and Polish nobility such as the Princes Sapieha and Counts Komorowski.

They have four children.

• Princess Elisabeth Thérèse Marie Hélène, Duchess of Brabant, born 25 October 2001
• Prince Gabriel Baudouin Charles Marie, born 20 August 2003
• Prince Emmanuel Léopold Guillaume François Marie, born 4 October 2005
• Princess Eléonore Fabiola Victoria Anne Marie, born 16 April 2008

The Belgian Royal Family descends from the German House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (Leopold I, the first King of the Belgians, was the uncle of both Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and her consort, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) This makes King Philippe and Queen Elizabeth II of the UK 3rd cousins once removed. German royal houses often had agnatic primogeniture (the Lex Salica, or Salic law) which gave rights to the throne to males only and women could not even inherit the throne they could not pass on succession right to their children. In 1991 the succession laws were changed to  absolute primogeniture (in which the eldest child is always heir apparent).

With Philippe now the king his eldest child, Princess Elisabeth, is next in the line of succession after her father, followed by her younger brothers, Prince Gabriel and Prince Emmanuel, and her younger sister Princess Eléonore. Upon his mounting the throne Princess Elisabeth became the new Duchess of Brabant and in due course, when she takes the throne she will be Belgium’s first Queen Regnant. The Duchess of Brabant is the third female heir to the throne currently in Europe along with Crown Princess Victoria of Sweden and Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange of the Netherlands.

I wish the new king a long and prosperous reign with good health!