Is Royalty a Controversial and Complicated subject?

Tags

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Chester, High Steward of Scotland, King George VI, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Merge with the crown, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, Prince of Wales, Prince Philip, Princess Beatrice, Princess Elizabeth of York, Proper usage of titles, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Queen, titles

You would think this was harmless and fun without much controversy… but you’d be wrong!! You wouldn’t know it from reading the comments on this blog because they are 99% very positive. However, I also run my own royal history page on Facebook (link below) and while that page is also pretty civil you will see some squabbling from time to time. If you’re on Facebook you can follow that page if you’d like.

https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanRoyalHistory

I would to mention a few of my observations to why discussing royalty can be controversial.

1. First of all not everyone is following royalty for the same reasons. Plus, some peoples interest in the topic may not be as deep or as intense as others which lead me to this observation. Before I relate what it is I want to say, I imply no judgment at all. It seems there are two groups of people that are interested in royalty. One group, I call royalty watchers, follow royalty like they would follow any celebrity, be they an actor or an actress, singer or musician or sports figure. Often, as I have observed, many of these types of royalty watchers began watching royalty due to the influence of Diana, Princess of Wales. Therefore, there interest may be limited to The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry of Wales, and may be extended to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and other immediate members of the British Royal Family. But there is a limited focus and interest.

2. The other group that are interested in royalty are like myself, they are more of an historian than royalty as celebrity watcher. That means often our knowledge and interest is not just with the British Monarchy (although it may be our favorite) or the current British Royal Family; our interests stretch far back into history and across all monarchies of Europe and even the world. Again, both groups are fine. If you’re interest is not that deep, whatever level you enjoy royalty is fine!

The problem, as I have observed, these two groups often clash.

3. It seems as if they clash over two areas. These two areas are Diana, Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) and the knowledge and usage of titles and correctly addressing the members of the royal family. I apologize for generalizing the situation so if you don’t fit in these categories I understand. It seems the more historical minded people have no problem accepting the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) into the royal family and seeing her one day being queen along side her husband, future King Charles III. The more casual royalty watcher, those that began watching royalty due to the influence of Diana, Princess of Wales, tend to still hold Diana in very high esteem and cannot stand either the Prince of Wales or the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) very much. With some there is outright hated. So that can be a controversial topic and an area of conflict.

Another topic that is surprisingly controversial is the usage of titles. Now, I must admit the proper usage of styles and titles is a bit confusing and can take a while to learn, but it can be done. I have found that the more historically minded the royalty watcher they generally do know this information. What I see in the casual royalty enthusiasts can be divided into three categories: a) There are those who do not understand the proper usage of titles or the laws governing how titles are created and inherited and what happens to some of them when the heir to the throne becomes the sovereign or the title becomes extinct. This group is eager to learn about these things. b) The second group may have some knowledge on the subject but they are grossly misinformed and are often wrong. I find this group to be a challenge to deal with because they often do not like to be corrected when they’re wrong and will often stubbornly cling to their misinformation. c) That last group are the very casual royalty watcher who could care less about this topic!

The proper usage of titles and the rules and laws governing them was a big interest of mine so I don’t think I am being too pedantic about this topic considering how much misinformation there is and given the fact that there are people that do want to understand how the system works. Someone has to set an example or all we get is this misinformation! Even keep in mind often the American media and even the British media gets this stuff wrong!!! (even a King got it wrong once)*

Here is a quick run down about how to refer to the members of the royal family. One thing many royalty watchers get upset about is the fact that the press on both sides of the pond still call the wife of Prince William (HRH The Duke of Cambridge) Kate Middleton!! The proper way to refer to the wife of HRH The Duke of Cambridge is, simply, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. It is not Princess Catherine or Duchess Catherine. You do not call members of royalty by their first name if they have a peerage title. For example, its not proper to say “Prince Charles” he is to be called HRH The Prince of Wales. It is alright to drop the HRH and call him the Prince of Wales.

We do not call the Queen, Queen Elizabeth or just Elizabeth, it is proper to refer to her as Her Majesty, The Queen or simply The Queen. Her husband is not to be called “Prince Philip”, he is to be referred by his title, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. Now if members of the royal family are not the sovereign and they do not have a peerage title, you refer to them by their style Prince of Princess, their first name and the territorial designation they would inherit from their father. For example, Prince Harry is officially, HRH Prince Henry of Wales because he is the son of the Prince of Wales. The Duke of Cambridge was HRH Prince William of Wales until he received his peerage title.

Princess Beatrice is HRH Princess Beatrice of York because her father is HRH The Duke of York. The Queen, incidentally, was born HRH Princess Elizabeth of York for at the time of her birth her father, future King George VI, was HRH The Duke of York.

For those Princes or Princess without a peerage title to be able to use the predicate “The” in front of their name is reserved only for the sons and daughters of the sovereign. For example, if tomorrow the Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne as king, HRH Prince Henry of Wales would then become HRH The Prince Henry. He would be known as that until he is given a peerage title. Also, if the Prince of Wales were to be king tomorrow, the Duke of Cambridge would automatically inherit the titles Duke of Cornwall in the Peerage of England and the titles Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, and High Stewardship of Scotland, which are the Heir Apparent’s titles in the Peerage of Scotland. The titles Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester are not hereditary and would merge with the crown when the current Prince of Wales becomes king. King Charles III would then be able to re-create his son Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester whenever he sees fit. Until then he known by his double peerage titles while in England, HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. I am sure I will type more about this in the future. Suffice it to say whenever the question of titles and its rules and regulations come up there is often some misinformation which leads to debate and conflict. I don’t claim to be the font of all knowledge on this topic for I am still learning myself. I know a few royal authors that know quite a bit more than I.

Even sometimes the sovereign himself doesn’t know the rules! * In 1947, Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark renounced his Greek and Danish titles to become a British subject (something he already was, but that is another story) in order to marry the heiress presumptive to the throne, HRH Princess Elizabeth of York. He became Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten (taking the Anglicized name of the Princely House of Battenberg that his mother was from). The day before the wedding King George VI endowed Philip with the style His Royal Highness and the titles, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. However, this did not create him a Prince of the United Kingdom as many, including the King, thought! Despite renouncing his Greek and Danish titles (not legally recognized in Britain anyway) HRH The Duke of Edinburgh was not a Prince! But that didn’t stop the press from continuing to refer to him as Prince Philip. I have a book on the royal family from 1951, a year HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh became queen, and it refers incorrectly to the Duke of Edinburgh as “Prince Philip.”

Some say King George VI did this intentionally and that is the point of debate. However, the matter was left unsettled for ten years. Various dignitaries of State suggested titles for the Duke of Edinburgh. They ranged from Prince Consort, the title Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria held, to the unusual, Prince of the Commonwealth or  Prince of the Realm. The Duke of Edinburgh himself did not want any elevation of his titles. In the end The Queen, issued Letters Patent on February 22, 1957 giving her husband the style and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He has henceforth been known as His Royal Highness, The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, with the capitalized definite article “The”normally restricted to the children of the Sovereign.

I guess it can get complicated and no wonder titles can be quite the controversial subject!!!

Who was the last King of the Franks? Who was the first King of France?

Tags

Austrasia, Charlemagne, Charles the Bald, Charles the Great, Clovis, Clovis I, Holy Roman Empire, Lothair I, Lothair II, Louis the german, Mayor of the Palace, Pippin the Younger, Pope Leo III, Roman Empire, Treaty of Verdun

I have touched on this before so I may be repeating some of myself here. The subject of France and the Kingdom of France/Kingdom of the Franks is complex and doesn’t fit into a tidy box of starts and stops as one may want it to. Just like we have a specific date for the founding of the Kingdom of Wessex in England, we have a specific date for the founding of the Kingdom of the Franks. And just like the transformation from the Kingdom of Wessex in to the Kingdom of England is open to interpretation, so is the transformation from the Kingdom of the Franks into the Kingdom of France. So who was the last King of the franks? Who was the first King of France?

Here is a little background information.

The Kingdom of the Franks or Frankish Kingdom (Latin: Regnum Francorum), Frankish Empire, Frankish Realm or occasionally Frankland, Francia or Frankia was a territory inhabited and ruled by the Franks, who were a coalition of Germanic tribes. The kingdom was founded by Clovis I, crowned first King of the Franks in 496. Clovis’ title in Latin was Francorum Rex. My intent is not to do a complete history of the Frankish Kingdom for this topic but I will summarize some important aspects.

At first the kingdom was small, the kingdom originally consisted of the area called Austrasia which was centered on the Middle Rhine and included the basins the Moselle, Main and Meuse rivers. It bordered on Frisia and Saxony to the north, Thuringia to the east, Swabia and Burgundy to the south and to Neustria and Flanders to the west. Under Charlemagne the territory of of the Frankish kingdom, or empire at this time, included all of modern France, the Low Countries, Germany and Northern Italy.

However, prior to Charlemagne unity of the Frankish Kingdom was not its trademark. The dynasty Clovis belonged to, the Merovingians, had the habit of dividing the kingdom among all the sons of the king. This mean Francia was often divided into sub-kingdoms such as the kingdom of Austrasia and Neustria for example. There were times when the kingdom was united but it was rare.

Eventually the Merovingians became weak monarchs and were supplanted by the Mayors of the Palace (often chief advisory to the king). In 751 Pippin the Younger, Mayor of the Palace, supplanted the Merovingians and became King of the Franks. This dynasty would become known as the Carolingians named after Pipin’s most famous son, Charles the Great, known to history as Charlemagne. Under Charlemagne the Kingdom of the Franks reached its zenith in both power and geographical extent. With Charlemagne’s support of the papacy in times of war and invasion, Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne Emperor on Christmas Day, 800, with the notion he had restored the old Roman Empire in the West (topic of another blog post).

Charlemagne expressed his desire to separate and divide his kingdom among his three sons but with the death of all of them except Louis, the point was moot. Louis inherited the entire Frankish empire including the titles Francorum Rex and Imperator Romanorum “Emperor of the Romans.” It was Louis I called the Pious, who divided his empire in 840. However, civil war broke out among the three sons and it was with the Treaty of Verdun in 843 that settled the division.

These are the three divisions of the empire decided by the Treaty of Verdun in 843: East and West Francia and Middle Francia.

Middle Francia was the territory ruled by Lothair I, eldest son of Louis I, and the kingdom was wedged between East and West Francia. Lothair I took the Imperial title but only the ruled the Middle Frankish Kingdom. His three sons in turn divided this kingdom between them into Lotharingia (centered on Lorraine), Burgundy, and (Northern) Italy, known as Lombardy. These areas had different cultures, ethnicity, language and traditions which did not allow unity to take hold. This kingdom was would later vanish as separate kingdoms, (although Charles the Fat would briefly re-unite the entire Carolingian Empire in 888). Middle Francia would eventually become Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Lorraine, Switzerland, Lombardy and the various.

East Francia was the land of Louis II the German. It was divided into four duchies: Swabia (Alamannia), Franconia, Saxony and Bavaria; to which after the death of Lothair II were added the eastern parts of Lotharingia. This kingdom eventually evolved into the Holy Roman Empire which is slated for a future blog in this topic.

In wanting to keep these blogs readable, I don’t like to read through a lot of text online, and many also feel that way, I will conclude the section on France, next Friday. However, look for other blog posts during the week!

Happy 89th Birthday to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II!

Tags

Constitutional Monarchy, Elizabeth II, Happy Birthday, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Today Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II turns 89! Happy birthday!

In a few short months Her Majesty will become the longest reigning monarch in British history when she will beat, by one day, the 63 years, 216 days, that her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria reigned. So I want to take a moment and recognize what a great monarch Elizabeth has been over the years. During the 1990s when her children were causing so many negative stories in the paper Her Majesty never missed a step. It has been a pretty flawless reign where she has maintained the dignity of the crown. At 89 Her Majesty is still going strong and I hope she can continue for many more years.

I have said this before but it bears repeating. Here in the US in 2016 we will have an election for President, our Head of State and Head of the Government, so as candidates have already started running I have 20 months of mudslinging and attacks and hatred being spewed by both parties to look forward to. One of the reasons I admire the British system is that it has evolved to where the Head of State and Head of the Government are separate. Leaving the mud slinging to the politicians gives the chance for the Head of State to be the Symbol of the Nation for all people not just those of a specific political party. So I think the British people are fortunate to have a Head of State that embodies all that is good about Britain and I hope the British people do appreciate her hard work, service and dedication to her people. You are fortunate to have her. Happy Birthday your Majesty and long may you reign and God Save the Queen!

Who was the first King of England ?

Tags

Bretwalda, Cerdic of Wessex, East Anglia, Egbert of Wessex, Essex, Heptarchy, Kent, King Alfred the Great, King Athelstan, King John of England, King of Bavaria, King of the Anglo-Saxons, King of the English, Kingdom of Prussia, Kings and Queens of England, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, Wessex, William the Conqueror

Figuring out who was the first King of Prussia or the first King of Bavaria was, is pretty easy given the fact that these kingdoms developed late in European history, early 18th and 19th to be precise. However, there are other kingdoms that stretch way back into history and figuring out who the first king of that nation or kingdom was, is rather difficult and subject to opinion. I am beginning a short series where I will identify the first king of England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I’m going to do something special with France and also ask who was the last King of the Franks? I may have touched on this before but I will also examine who was the first Holy Roman Emperor?

Alfred the Great: King of the West Saxons & King of the Angles and Saxons.

The reason why it can be hard for historians to determine who was the first king of these nations were because the idea of a unified nation-state came long after these monarchies began to develop. At first the king was more like a tribal chief over a people rather than a nation. All of these nations had many kings ruling over these territories and as time went on these smaller kingdoms either died off or were absorbed or defeated until one singular king remained. There are also other complexities special for each kingdom that I will address separately.

Today I will start with England.

Most books or lists of the Kings and Queens of England begin with William the Conqueror in 1066. Some may briefly mention the Saxon period but all-in-all a wide majority of books on this subject begin with William. However, there was far more royal history before him. After the fall of the Roman Empire there began a rise of small petty kingdoms in the British Isle. These small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were known as the Heptarchy and they consisted of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. It was from the gradual unification of these early medieval kingdoms that the kingdom of England emerged. During the 9th century Vikings upset the balance of power between the English kingdoms, and native Anglo-Saxon life in general. One of the effects of the Viking invasions was that it slowed down English unification.

During the period of the Heptarchy, the most powerful king among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms might be acknowledged as Bretwalda, which translates to High King, over the other kings. However, the tendency for one of the kings of the Heptarchy to become the Bretwalda was short lived as the decline of the other Saxon kingdoms allowed Wessex to become more powerful. Wessex soon came to be the most powerful kingdom on English soil as it absorbed the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex in 825. In 827, Northumbria submitted to King Egbert of Wessex (802-839) Thus Egbert briefly became the first king to reign over a united England. Most sources that list Egbert as the first King of England use either 827 or 828 as the starting point of his reign as Bretwalda even though his reign as king of Wessex began in 802. 

Was Egbert of Wessex the first King of England? He often is considered as such by some historians for his reign signaled that Wessex had indeed become the most powerful kingdom within England and would eventually subsume the position as the dominant kingdom over all others. Egbert was given the title Bretwalda and instead of viewing him as the first king of England I tend to view him as the last Anglo-Saxon king to hold the title Bretwalda. Incidentally, as mentioned at the start, most books or encyclopedias list William I as the starting point of the Kings and Queens of England, but those that do list or mention the Kingdom of Wessex often start with Egbert of Wessex as its first king, even though Cerdic of Wessex was actually the First King of Wessex in 519.

In 886, King Alfred the Great (871-899) retook London from the Danes and some historians mark this as the point when all of England came under one monarch. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that “all of the English people (all Angelcyn) not subject to the Danes, submitted themselves to King Alfred.” After retaking London he began massive reconstruction of the city and making it habitable once again. Historians cite that it may have been at this point that Alfred assumed the new royal style ‘King of the Anglo-Saxons.’ Alfred’s son, Ædward the Elder (899-924), was also titled King of the Anglo-Saxons, however during his reign the Danes still held York.

It would be a few more years until England was completely united. On July 12, 927 the remaining monarchs of Britain gathered at Eamont in Cumbria to recognize Æthelstan (924-927) as “King of the English.” This has be considered by some historians as England’s ‘foundation date’, although the process of unification had taken almost 100 years. Even after 927 England was not completely united as Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Danish and Norwegian invaders. Northumbria was definitively brought under English control by King Ædred (945-955) in 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria (Roman Bernicia), was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland. England has remained in political unity ever since.

It is interesting to note that from the time of King Æthelstan until the reign of King John (1199-1216) the title which the monarch used was “King of the English,” in Latin, Rex Anglorum . In 1199 King John changed the title to Rex Anglia, “King of England” and this remained in effect until the unification of England and Scotland as the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.

It is difficult to pin down the first king of England. Egbert is often chosen because he was the king that brought Wessex to prominence over the other English Kingdoms. Alfred the Great is often chosen because he brought most of England under his rule but his grandson, Æthelstan as “King of the English,” finalized English unification. Any of these could be considered the first King of England. Personally, I tend to view Alfred the Great as the first King of England because his unifying of the nation was the one that stuck and lasted. What is your choice?

Titles, Titles Titles! HRH The Earl of Wessex and his title and his children’s titles. Part Deux

Tags

Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, King George VI, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Letters Patent 1947, Prince Edward, Prince Philip, Queen Elizabeth II, Royal Prerogative

Part II of this topic on the titles of the Wessex family now turns to the Earl himself and his inheritance of the title Duke of Edinburgh the title his father, Prince Philip, currently holds. There are two camps concerning this issue.

Camp I: This group believes that the titles must follow the 1947 Letter Patent (LP) wherein when HRH The Duke of Edinburgh dies while the Queen is still alive the title will pass to his eldest son, The Prince of Wales. The Prince of Wales will hold this title along with the others he holds until he becomes king. At that time these titles will merge with the crown making them available to be created anew. In the case of the title Prince of Wales, Charles, as king, can create his son, The Duke of Cambridge (the Duke of Cambridge will automatically inherit the hereditary title of Duke of Cornwall), The Prince of Wales any time he desires. Charles will also be able to create his brother, The Earl of Wessex, the new Duke of Edinburgh. If the Queen should die before the Duke of Edinburgh then Charles will be king and when Philip dies his title will automatically merge with the crown. 

Camp II: This group believes that in 1999 Her Majesty bestowed on Prince Edward the title of the Earl of Wessex with the intent he would directly inherit the Duke of Edinburgh’s title upon his father’s death. This was the sole reason why Prince Edward was created an Earl and not a Duke when he married in 1999. Therefore when Philip dies his titles will go directly to Prince Edward instead of the Prince of Wales. This goes against the Letters Patent of 1947 that was issued when King George VI created Philip Mountbatten (ne Prince Philipos of Greece and Denmark) which leaves the title to the eldest son as is traditionally done. However, this camp believes that Her Majesty, as the Font of All Honors, doesn’t always have to issue Letter’s Patent to change things and that her word and will are sufficient to override the 1947 LP. If that is true then Edward will directly inherit the 1947 creation of the Duke of Edinburgh title.

What will actually happen remains to be seen. For a long time I was firmly in the first camp and felt that the 1947 Letters Patent will be followed and that the Prince of Wales will inherit his fathers titles and will not be able to create his brother the Duke of Edinburgh until that title merges with the crown. Now, however, I am questioning this position and I do think that since the creation and governing of titles is part of her Majesty’s Royal Prerogative which remains at her discretion, then her will may be sufficient and Letter’s Patent are not required.

But we shall see how this actually plays out. I personally hope the Duke of Edinburgh lives for many many more years in excellent health and that we do not have this question answered for many years to come.

Titles, Titles Titles! HRH The Earl of Wessex and his title and his children’s titles.

Tags

1917 Letter's Patent, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Duke of Cambridge, James Windsor, King George V of Great Britain, Kings and Queens of England, Lady Louise Windsor, Prince Edward, Queen Elizabeth II, The Earl of Wessex

I have been having some lively debates on this topic on Facebook and another Royal message board. Things seem a little cloudy when it comes to the future title of HRH The Earl of Wessex and the titles of his children. The debate hinges around how Her Majesty the Queen conducts her royal prerogative as the font of all honors. 

Let’s take the children of TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex. According to the 1917 Letters Patent (LP) issued by King George V the title of Prince or Princess of the UK is held by the sons and daughters of the sovereign, the male line grandchildren of the sovereign, and the eldest son of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son. Prince George of Cambridge is an example of the last condition of the LP. Incidentally, with HRH the Duchess of Cambridge due pretty soon with their second child, this child would not hold a royal title under the rules of the 1917 LP. However, on December 31, 2012 Letters Patent were issued by Queen Elizabeth II which extended the 1917 patent so that all children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are Princes or Princesses of the UK with the style Royal Highness.  

I think her actions on the Cambridge children and their titles is important to this debate. Let me explain further. According to the 1917 LP the Children of the Earl of Wessex are entitled to be Princes or Princesses of the UK with the style Royal Highness, but they are just not currently using those titles.  Or, do they not even have them? There are some that believe that the agreement in 1999 between Her Majesty the Queen and the Earl of Wessex that his children be styled as the son or daughter of a non-royal Earl was enough to deny them their titles. Is her wish and word enough or does she have to issue Letters Patent to override the 1917 LP? That is the question. 

There are two camps. One camp believes their children, James Windsor, Viscount Severn, and, Lady Louise Windsor, are, in fact, Princes or Princesses of the UK with the style Royal Highness.  They cite the 1917 LP as evidence and feel that Her Majesty’s agreement with the Earl of Wessex did not override or negate the 1917 LP. The other camp believes that Her Majesty, as the Font of All Honors, doesn’t always have to issue LPs to state her will and that her word and will is just as sufficient as LPs in this area. In that case, then the agreement  between Her Majesty the Queen and the Earl of Wessex that his children be styled as the son of a non-royal Earl was enough to deny them their titles. Plus, it has been pointed out, that if the Wessex children wanted to use the titles the 1917 LP allows them to have, they would need permission from the sovereign to start using them, giving weight to the argument that they do not have the titles. 

I can see both sides of this issue so I am neutral on this issue. 

I want to keep this to a digestible amount so part II, dealing with the Earl of Wessex title and his inheriting his father’s title “Duke of Edinburgh,” will be posted tomorrow. 

King Felipe VI of Spain & The Kaisers Daughter: Did they Meet, Part II.

Tags

Duke of Kent, Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany, George III, Juan Carlos of Spain, King Felipe VI of Spain, rince Edward

In 2012 I did a post about royals from different eras who actually did meet. As I look at genealogy charts it is easy to associate a particular person with one era. However, since many of these royals have lived long lives they often overlap with royals from other eras. I think of Queen Victoria who died in the arms of her son, Edward VII, and her grandson, Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1901, yet also remember she was born in the last years of the reign of her grandfather King George III who died in 1820! No, Queen Victoria was never presented to her grandfather who was blind and suffering from dementia at the time.

Incidentally, George III, who was born in 1738, was a third cousin to King Friedrich-Wilhelm II of Prussia. This made Kaiser Wilhelm II a great-great grandson to both King George III of Great Britain and King Friedrich-Wilhelm II of Prussia. Continuing this theme of royals that knew each other and overlap, the Kaiser’s daughter, Princess Victoria-Louise, Duchess of Brunswick, has a unique connection to the knew king of Spain, Felipe VI. First of all, the Duchess of Brunswick is the Spanish king’s great grandmother. Princess Victoria-Louise married her Hanoverian cousin, Ernst-August of Hanover, in 1913 when the last gathering of European royals occurred before World War I.

Husband and wife were cousins through their descent from King George III of Great Britain. Victoria-Louise was descended from George III through her father, the Kaiser, whose grandmother, Queen Victoria, was the granddaughter of King George III, via George III’s 4th son, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.  Ernst-August of Hanover traces his lineage to George III via George’s 5th son, King Ernst-August I of Hanover (1837-1851). The king of Hanover had a son, Georg V (1851-1866), who lost his throne in the war between Austria and Prussia in 1866. Georg V had a son, Ernst-August, Crown Prince of Hanover, who resumed his British title, Duke of Cumberland, and married Princess Thyra of Denmark (sister to Edward VII’s spouse, Alexandra of Denmark) and it was their son, Ernst-August, who married the Kaiser’s daughter in 1913. Ernst-August was given the Duchy of Brunswick to repair the rift between the two families when Hanover lost its throne in the Prussian war.

Ernst-August, Duke of Brunswick and Princess Victoria-Louise had one daughter, Fredericka of Hanover, who married King Pavlos of Greece in 1938. They had three children. The eldest son is Constantine II, who was King of Greece from 1964-1973 and now lives in exile in Britain. Their eldest child was Princess Sophia who married Juan Carlos de Bourbon in 1962. Juan-Carlos was the King of Spain from 1975 until June of last year, 2014. His son, King Felipe VI, was born in 1968. Princess Victoria-Louise of Prussia was therefore the great-grandmother of Spain’s current king, Felipe VI. Since Victoria Louise lived till 1980 and was the longest surviving child of Kaiser Wilhelm II, she did meet and get to know her great-grandson. In her memoir, The Kaiser’s Daughter, there is a picture of Victoria Louise with her grandchildren (Sophia of Spain and Constantine II of Greece) and great grand children…including Spain’s new king, Felipe VI.

It is amazing how we can span the doors of time to our modern Spanish king and the old German Empire of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Happy Tenth Wedding Anniversary to the Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall: Time to Heal

Tags

Diana, Diana Princess of Wales, HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Charles, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, the prince of Wales

It has been 10 years since the Prince of Wales married Camilla Parker-Bowles at Windsor Guildhall.  After 10 years the marriage seems as strong as ever and I personally think that HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is an excellent companion and spouse for her husband. This marriage was not without controversy and many were not only against this marriage they are against the Duchess of Cornwall becoming queen upon the succession to the throne by the Prince of Wales.

Although the Duchess of Cornwall is legally the Princess of Wales it is a title she doesn’t use out of deference to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Clarence House announced at the time of the marriage that when the Prince of Wales becomes king the Duchess of Cornwall will be called HRH The Princess Consort instead of Queen. Now the truth is the Duchess will legally be Queen and that it will take an Act of Parliament to remove the title Queen from the Duchess. Despite a growing attitude that more people want the Duchess to be queen it still seems like a controversial topic.

http://royalcentral.co.uk/charlesandcamilla/half-of-brits-want-camilla-to-be-queen-new-poll-shows-47011

I am an American and most of my observation on this topic comes from social media. I belong to several groups and pages dedicated to royalty (I even run one myself) and this is still a hot topic for both sides. There seems to be an equal mix of those that support the Duchess and those that…well, there is no other way to put it….they hate her! The hatred comes from what I call overzealous Diana supporters. The sad thing to me about all of this is the fact that it has been eighteen years since Diana, Princess of Wales died and there are some who have not, or will not, let go of their hatred. I just don’t think holding onto that much anger or resentment is healthy. My thought is, if Diana had lived she would have forgiven the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall and moved on with her life, possibly even remarried. So I wonder why those that still love and support her do not let go of their anger like she would have?

Her sons, The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Henry of Wales, have accepted the Duchess of Cornwall as have Her Majesty the Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and the rest of the royal family. They all know her more intimately than any of us, so I trust their judgment. From all accounts that I have read the Duchess of Cornwall is a kind and caring woman. She is much better suited for the Prince of Wales than Diana was. That is a sad truth and that takes nothing away from the good heart and loving caring ways in which Diana, Princess of Wales lived her life. I also loved and admired Diana, Princess of Wales and that leads me to my closing point.

There is enough love to go around for both of them. In my life one of the things that gives me meaning is seeking healing. I long for people to heal on the inside and I long to help heal the discord between people. A lot of time has passed and it is time to heal the rift between those that support the Duchess of Cornwall and those that still remember fondly Diana, Princess of Wales. For me the bigger picture is the future of the monarchy. And as I said at the conclusion of my series, Survival of Monarchies, the monarch rules by the will of the people and if the divide continues and is very vocal it could have a negative affect on the monarchy.

The Duchess of Cornwall is a great support for the Prince of Wales and I think she has shown herself to be an important member of the royal family. It is time to heal and let us all show support for the entire royal family and be grateful they are still around providing welcome service to their country. Here is wishing the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall a happy tenth wedding anniversary and praying for more happy years to come!

Survival of Monarchies: Part X, Conclusions.

Tags

Charles of Austria, Constitutional Monarchy, Emperor Carl of Austria, France, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King Louis XVI of France, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013, United Kingdom

This has been a very long series. Here is the conclusion. As stated in the beginning my premise for the survival of the monarchies that are extant is due to a more Liberal political view that allowed these systems to adapt and change with the times. These are also the reasons why these systems are continuing to survive. For example, the United Kingdom followed the direction the Scandinavian and Benelux monarchies have gone in regards to gender neutrality for the succession to the crown. In the future the eldest child will inherit the throne regardless of gender. For a further example, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s new baby is a girl, she will follow Prince George and become fourth in line to the throne as she would have under the old laws. However, she will not be moved down in the succession by any future younger brothers. The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 has finally gone into affect once Australia finally approved it. Other more Liberal provisions of the Act was to repeal the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 so now only the first 6th in line to the throne have to ask permission of the sovereign to marry. The Act also restored to the order of succession those who had married Catholics. So as long as a Prince or Princess married a Catholic they will no longer lose their place in the succession. However, if a British Prince or Prince converts to the Catholic faith or is baptized into the faith they will lose their place in the succession.

We have seen that in Britain they went from an almost absolute monarchy under the Tudors to the Constitutional Monarchy they have today. Although it was a very rough road to get to where we are today the monarchy did survive because it was able to adapt to the changing political philosophies of the day. We saw the same thing in Denmark although with much less bloodshed. In Denmark the king took over the power and when the people desired a Constitution with a monarch that had lesser power it was granted easily. When King Christian IX (1863-1906) tried to wield more power than he had he was very unpopular for it and almost lost his crown. His ability to adapt to how things were helped save that crown.

Russia, Austria-Hungary and the German Empire (and France) all fell during times of war but the staunch Conservatism and the inability to change lead to the downfall of each. Both Czar Nicholas II of Russia and King Louis XVI lost their thrones and lives during revolutions. Brief periods of Constitutional Monarchy were attempted but each monarch were used to centuries of personal autocracy and the sharing of power was seen as being beneath them. Plus, these bodies (Parliaments) were not very trusting of their sovereigns either. Kaiser’s Wilhelm II and Carl I-IV lost their thrones because the people no longer wanted them. I think this point cannot be over stressed. Both Germany and Austria-Hungry clung to a type of autocracy that had fallen out of favor over a century.

I think it brings up a good point to close with. It is important that monarchies bend to the changing times for the most important lesson learned with the collapse of these more Conservative regimes is that the monarchs govern by the will of the people and if and when the people no longer desire them they will be gone. I think today’s monarchs realize this very important fact. In that context I think these monarchies do provide their countries with something the people do need. I have gone over this briefly and I will restate it here: Symbolism and Patriotism are important to any country and having a head of state that is above the partisan game playing and bickering and who is a symbol and unifying factor can be of great value to the people. As long as they can find ways to remain meaningful in the lives of their country and adapt to the changing needs of the country and remaining an anchor for stability then the people will desire to keep them around.