December 18, 1626: Birth of Christina, Queen of Sweden. Part III.

Tags

Abdication, Axel Oxenstierna, Carl Gustaf of Zweibrücken-Kleeburg, King Carl X Gustaf of Sweden, King Felipe IV of Spain, King Gustaf II Adolph of Sweden, Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg, Queen Christina of Sweden

Coronation

Queen Christina’s delayed coronation finally took place on October 22, 1650. Christina went to the castle of Jacobsdal where she entered in a coronation carriage draped in black velvet embroidered in gold and pulled by three white horses. The procession to Storkyrkan was so long that when the first carriages arrived, the last ones had not yet left Jacobsdal (a distance of roughly 10.5 km or 6.5 miles).

All four estates were invited to dine at the castle. Fountains at the marketplace splashed out wine for three days, a whole roast ox was served, and illuminations sparkled, followed by a themed parade (The Illustrious Splendors of Felicity) on October 24.

The Crown used by Queen Christina for her coronation was originally made for her mother Maria Eleonora of Brandenburg as the queen consort of Gustaf II Adolph. It was made in Stockholm in 1620 by German goldsmith Rupprecht Miller and originally had two arches in a very fine foliage design in gold with black enameling and set with rubies and diamonds (a reference to the colors of the arms of her father Johann Sigmund of Brandenburg), with a small blue enameled monde and a cross, both set with diamonds.

Queen Christina had two more arches added to her mother’s crown matching the first two and had more diamonds and rubies added to it to enhance the crown’s appearance as the crown of a Queen Regnant. She also added a cap of purple satin, embroidered in gold and set with more diamonds, to the inside of the crown.

The circlet of the crown has eight large cabochon rubies set beneath each of the eight arches of the crown and diamonds in large rosette patterns in the intervening spaces of the circlet. Queen Christina’s crown was the crown chosen to be displayed with other items of the Swedish regalia and artifacts from the Swedish royal collections in a 1988-1989 exhibition at the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C. and the Minneapolis Institute of Art commemorating the founding of Delaware as a Swedish colony in 1638.

Religion and health

Her tutor, Johannes Matthiae, influenced by John Dury and Comenius, who since 1638 had been working on a new Swedish school system, represented a gentler attitude than most Lutherans. In 1644, he suggested a new church order, but it was voted down as this was interpreted as Crypto-Calvinism.

Queen Christina defended him against the advice of Chancellor Oxenstierna, but three years later, the proposal had to be withdrawn. In 1647, the clergy wanted to introduce the Book of Concord – a book defining correct Lutheranism versus heresy, making some aspects of free theological thinking impossible. Matthiae was strongly opposed to this and was again backed by Christina. The Book of Concord was not introduced.

In 1651, after reigning almost twenty years, working at least ten hours a day, Christina had what some have interpreted as a nervous breakdown. For an hour she seemed to be dead. She suffered from high blood pressure, complained about bad eyesight and a crooked back.

She had seen already many court physicians. In February 1652, the French doctor Pierre Bourdelot arrived in Stockholm. Unlike most doctors of that time, he held no faith in blood-letting; instead, he ordered sufficient sleep, warm baths, and healthy meals, as opposed to Christina’s hitherto ascetic way of life.

She was only twenty-five and advising that she should take more pleasure in life, Bourdelot asked her to stop studying and working so hard and to remove the books from her apartments. For years, Christina knew by heart all the sonnets from the Ars Amatoria and was keen on the works by Martial and Petronius.

The physician showed her the 16 erotic sonnets of Pietro Aretino, which he kept secretly in his luggage. By subtle means Bourdelot undermined her principles. Having been stoic, she now became an Epicurean. Her mother and de la Gardie were very much against the activities of Bourdelot and tried to convince her to change her attitude towards him; Bourdelot returned to France in 1653 “laden in riches and curses”.

The Queen had long conversations about Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Francis Bacon, and Kepler with Antonio Macedo, secretary, and interpreter for Portugal’s ambassador. Macedo was a Jesuit, and in August 1651, smuggled on his person a letter from Christina to his general in Rome.

In reply, Paolo Casati and Francesco Malines came to Sweden in the spring of 1652, trained in both natural sciences and theology. She had more conversations with them, being interested in Catholic views on sin, the immortality of the soul, rationality, and free will.

The two scholars revealed her plans to Cardinal Fabio Chigi. Around May 1652 Christina, raised in the Lutheran Church of Sweden, decided to become Catholic. She sent Matthias Palbitzki to Madrid and King Felipe IV of Spain sent the diplomat Antonio Pimentel de Prado to Stockholm in August.

Abdication

On February 26, 1649, was when Christina announced that she had decided not to marry and instead wanted her first cousin Carl Gustaf of Zweibrücken-Kleeburg to be heir to the throne. While the nobility objected to this, the three other estates – clergy, burghers, and peasants – accepted it. She agreed to stay on the throne on the condition the councils never again asked her to marry.

In 1651, Christina lost much of her popularity after the beheading of Arnold Johan Messenius, together with his 17-year-old son, who had accused her of serious misbehavior and of being a “Jezebel”. According to them “Christina was bringing everything to ruin, and that she cared for nothing but sport and pleasure.”

In 1653, she founded the Amaranten order. Antonio Pimentel was appointed as its first knight; all members had to promise not to marry (again). In the same year, she ordered Vossius (and Heinsius) to make a list of about 6,000 books and manuscripts to be packed and shipped to Antwerp.

In February 1654, she plainly told the Council of her plans to abdicate. Axel Oxenstierna told her she would regret her decision within a few months. In May, the Riksdag discussed her proposals. She had asked for 200,000 rikstalers a year, but received dominions instead.

Financially she was secured through a pension and revenue from the town of Norrköping, the isles of Gotland, Öland, Ösel, and Poel, Wolgast and Neukloster in Mecklenburg, and estates in Pomerania.

Her plan to convert to Catholicism was not the only reason for her abdication, as there was increasing discontent with her arbitrary and wasteful ways. Within ten years, she and Oxenstierna had created 17 counts, 46 barons, and 428 lesser nobles. To provide these new peers with adequate appanages, they had sold or mortgaged crown property representing an annual income of 1,200,000 rikstalers.

During the ten years of her reign, the number of noble families increased from 300 to about 600, rewarding people such as Lennart Torstenson, Louis De Geer and Johan Palmstruch for their efforts. These donations took place with such haste that they were not always registered, and on some occasions, the same piece of land was given away twice.

Queen Christina abdicated her throne on June 6, 1654 in favor of Carl Gustaf. During the abdication ceremony at Uppsala Castle, Christina wore her regalia, which were ceremonially removed from her, one by one. Per Brahe, who was supposed to remove the crown, did not move, so she had to take the crown off herself.

Dressed in a simple white taffeta dress, she gave her farewell speech with a faltering voice, thanked everyone, and left the throne to King Carl X Gustaf, who was dressed in black. Per Brahe felt that she “stood there as pretty as an angel.” King Carl X Gustaf was crowned later on that day. Christina left the country within a few days.

History of the Title Archduke

Tags

Archduke of Austria, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Emperor Friedrich III, Emperor Maximilian I, Empress Maria Theresa, Golden Bull of 1356, House of Habsburg, House of Habsburg-Lorraine, Otto von Habsburg-Lothringen, Privilegium maius

Archduke (feminine: Archduchess) was the title borne from 1358 by the Habsburg rulers of the Archduchy of Austria, and later by all senior members of that dynasty. It denotes a rank within the former Holy Roman Empire (962–1806), which was below that of Emperor and King, roughly equal to Grand Duke, but above that of a Prince and Duke.

The territory ruled by an Archduke or Archduchess was called an Archduchy. All remaining Archduchies ceased to exist in 1918. The current head of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine is Archduke Karl von Habsburg.

TerminologyThe English word is first recorded in 1530, derived from Middle French archeduc, a 15th-century derivation from Medieval Latin archidux, from Latin archi- (Greek ἀρχι-) meaning “authority” or “primary” (see arch-) and dux “duke” (literally “leader”).

Coronet of an Archduke

“Archduke” is a title distinct from “Grand Duke” a later monarchic title borne by the rulers of other European countries, such as Luxembourg for example.

History

The Latin title archidux is first attested in reference to Bruno the Great, who ruled simultaneously as Archbishop of Cologne and Duke of Lotharingia in the 10th century, in the work of his biographer Ruotger. In Ruotger, the title served as an honorific denoting Bruno’s unusual position rather than a formal office.

The title was not used systematically until the 14th century, when the title “Archduke of Austria” was invented in the forged Privilegium Maius (1358–1359) by Duke Rudolph IV of Austria. Rudolph originally claimed the title in the form palatinus archidux (“palatine archduke”).

The title was intended to emphasize the claimed precedence (thus “Arch-“) of the Duchy of Austria, in an effort to put the Habsburgs on an even level with the Prince-Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, as Austria had been passed over when the Golden Bull of 1356 assigned that dignity to the four highest-ranking secular Imperial princes and three Archbishops.

Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV refused to recognize the title, as did all the other ruling dynasties of the member countries of the Empire. But Duke Ernst the Iron and his descendants unilaterally assumed the title of Archduke.

The Archducal title was only officially recognized in 1453 by Emperor Friedrich III, when the Habsburgs had solidified their grip on the throne of the de jure elected Holy Roman Emperor, making it de facto hereditary.

Despite that imperial authorization of the title, which showed a Holy Roman Emperor from the Habsburg dynasty deciding over a title claim of the Habsburg dynasty, many ruling dynasties of the countries which formed the Empire refused to recognize the title “Archduke”.

Emperor Maximilian I, Archduke of Austria

Ladislaus the Posthumous, Duke of Austria, who died in 1457, never in his lifetime had the imperial authorization to use it, and accordingly, neither he nor anyone in his branch of the dynasty ever used the title.

Emperor Friedrich III himself simply used the title “Duke of Austria”, never Archduke, until his death in 1493. The title was first granted to Friedrich’s younger brother, Albrecht VI of Austria (d. 1463), who used it at least from 1458.

In 1477, Friedrich III also granted the title of Archduke to his first cousin, Sigismund of Austria, ruler of Further Austria. Friedrich III’s son and heir, the future Emperor Maximilian I, started to use the title, but apparently only after the death of his wife Mary of Burgundy (d. 1482), as Archduke never appears in documents issued jointly by Maximilian and Mary as rulers in the Low Countries (where Maximilian is still titled “Duke of Austria”).

The title appears first in documents issued under the joint rule of Maximilian and his son Philipp of Burgundy (Felipe I of Castile) in the Low Countries.

Archduke was initially borne by those dynasts who ruled a Habsburg territory—i.e., only by males and their consorts, appanages being commonly distributed to cadets. But these “junior” archdukes did not thereby become sovereign hereditary rulers, since all territories remained vested in the Austrian crown. Occasionally a territory might be combined with a separate gubernatorial mandate ruled by an archducal cadet.

Usage

Empress Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria

From the 16th century onward, “Archduke” and its female form, “Archduchess”, came to be used by all the members of the House of Habsburg (e.g. Queen Marie Antoinette of France was born Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria).

Upon extinction of the male line of the Habsburgs and the marriage of their heiress, the Holy Roman Empress-Consort Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungary, Bohemia and Croatia and Archduchess of Austria, to Franz Stefan, Duke of Lorraine, who was elected Holy Roman Emperor, their descendants formed the House of Habsburg-Lorraine.

After the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire this usage was retained in the Austrian Empire (1804–1867) and the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867–1918).

The official use of titles of nobility and of all other hereditary titles, including Archduke, has been illegal in the Republic of Austria for Austrian citizens since the Law on the Abolition of Nobility (April 3, 1919).

Thus those members of the Habsburg family who are residents of the Republic of Austria are simply known by their first name(s) and their surname Habsburg-Lothringen. However, members of the family who reside in other countries may or may not use the title, in accordance with laws and customs in those nations.

For example, Otto Habsburg-Lothringen (1912–2011), the eldest son of the last Habsburg Emperor, was an Austrian, Hungarian and German citizen. As he lived in Germany, where it is permitted to use hereditary titles as part of the civil surname (including indications of origin, such as von or zu), his official civil name was Otto von Habsburg (literally: Otto of Habsburg), whereas in Austria he was registered as Otto Habsburg.

The King of Spain also bears the nominal title of Archduke of Austria as part of his full list of titles, as the Bourbon dynasty adopted all the titles previously held by the Spanish Habsburgs when they took over the Spanish throne.

However, “Archduke” was never considered by the Spanish Bourbons as a substantial dignity of their own dynasty, but rather as a traditional supplementary title of the Spanish Kings since the days of the Habsburg dynasty on the royal throne (1516–1700).

Hence, no member of the royal family other than the King of Spain bears the (additional) title of “Archduke”.

St. Edward’s Crown Removed From The Tower of London For Modifications.

Tags

coronation, Imperial State Crown., King Charles III of the United Kingdom, St. Edward's Crown, Tower of London

Buckingham Palace: St Edward’s Crown, the historic centrepiece of the Crown Jewels, has been removed from the Tower of London to allow for modification work to begin ahead of the Coronation on Saturday 6th May 2023.

I was wondering if King Charles III would use the St. Edward’s Crown. I had been thinking it was too large. I had forgotten that it could be modified just like the Imperial State Crown!

Modification of the Imperial State Crown: The arches were lowered for Queen Elizabeth II

Titles of Royalty and Nobility within the British Monarchy: Baron

Tags

Baron, Coronet, English Peerage, House of Lords, HRH The Prince of Wales, Norman Conquest, The Baron of Renfrew and The Baron Carrickfergus

The word baron comes from the Old French baron, from a Late Latin barō “man; servant, soldier, mercenary” (so used in Salic law; Alemannic law has barus in the same sense). The scholar Isidore of Seville in the 7th century thought the word was from Greek βᾰρῠ́ς “heavy” (because of the “heavy work” done by mercenaries), but the word is presumably of Old Frankish origin, cognate with Old English beorn meaning “warrior, nobleman”.

Cornutus in the first century already reports a word barones which he took to be of Gaulish origin. He glosses it as meaning servos militum and explains it as meaning “stupid”, by reference to classical Latin bārō “simpleton, dunce”; because of this early reference, the word has also been suggested to derive from an otherwise unknown Celtic *bar, but the Oxford English Dictionary takes this to be “a figment”.

Britain and Ireland

In the Peerage of England, the Peerage of Great Britain, the Peerage of Ireland and the Peerage of the United Kingdom (but not in the Peerage of Scotland), barons form the lowest rank, placed immediately below viscounts. A woman of baronial rank has the title baroness.

In the Kingdom of England, the medieval Latin word barō (genitive singular barōnis) was used originally to denote a tenant-in-chief of the early Norman kings who held his lands by the feudal tenure of “barony” (in Latin per barōniam), and who was entitled to attend the Great Council (Magnum Concilium) which by the 13th century had developed into the Parliament of England.

Feudal baronies (or “baronies by tenure”) are now obsolete in England and without any legal force, but any such historical titles are held in gross, that is to say are deemed to be enveloped within a more modern extant peerage title also held by the holder, sometimes along with vestigial manorial rights and tenures by grand serjeanty.

History

After the Norman Conquest in 1066, the Norman dynasty introduced an adaptation of the French feudal system to the Kingdom of England. Initially, the term “baron” on its own was not a title or rank, but the “barons of the King” were the men of the king.

HRH The Prince of Wales, The Baron of Renfrew and The Baron Carrickfergus

Previously, in the Anglo-Saxon kingdom of England, the king’s companions held the title of earl and in Scotland, the title of thane. All who held their feudal barony “in-chief of the king”, that is with the king as his immediate overlord, became alike barones regis (“barons of the king”), bound to perform a stipulated annual military service and obliged to attend his council.

The greatest of the nobles, especially those in the Marches, such as the Earls of Chester and the Bishops of Durham, whose territories were often deemed palatine, that is to say “worthy of a prince”, might refer to their own tenants as “barons”, where lesser magnates spoke simply of their “men” (homines) and lords of the manor might reference “bondmen”.

Baron (from the Old German baro, freeman). Always referred to and addressed as ‘Lord’; Baron is rarely used. The wife of a baron is a baroness and all children are ‘Honorables’.

Initially those who held land directly from the king by military service, from earls downwards, all bore alike the title of baron, which was thus the factor uniting all members of the ancient baronage as peers one of another. Under King Henry II, the Dialogus de Scaccario already distinguished between greater barons, who held per baroniam by knight’s service, and lesser barons, who held manors.

Thus in this historical sense, Lords of Manors are barons, or freemen; however they are not entitled to be styled as such. John Selden writes in Titles of Honour, “The word Baro (Latin for Baron) hath been also so much communicated, that not only all Lords of Mannors have been from ancient time, and are at this day called sometimes Barons (as in the stile of their Court Barons, which is Curia Baronis, &c. And I have read hors de son Barony in a barr to an Avowry for hors de son fee) But also the Judges of the Exchequer have it from antient time fixed on them.”

Within a century of the Norman Conquest of 1066, as in the case of Thomas Becket in 1164, there arose the practice of sending to each greater baron a personal summons demanding his attendance at the King’s Council, which evolved into the Parliament and later into the House of Lords, while as was stipulated in Magna Carta of 1215, the lesser barons of each county would receive a single summons as a group through the sheriff, and representatives only from their number would be elected to attend on behalf of the group.

These representatives developed into the Knights of the Shire, elected by the County Court presided over by the sheriff, who themselves formed the precursor of the House of Commons. Thus appeared a definite distinction, which eventually had the effect of restricting to the greater barons alone the privileges and duties of peerage.

Later, the king started to create new baronies in one of two ways: by a writ of summons directing a chosen man to attend Parliament, and in an even later development by letters patent. Writs of summons became the normal method in medieval times, displacing the method of feudal barony, but creation of baronies by letters patent is the sole method adopted in modern times.

Since the adoption of summons by writ, baronies thus no longer relate directly to land-holding, and thus no more feudal baronies needed to be created from then on. Following the Modus Tenendi Parliamenta of 1419, the Tenures Abolition Act 1660, the Feudal Tenure Act (1662), and the Fines and Recoveries Act of 1834, titles of feudal barony became obsolete and without legal force.

The Abolition Act 1660 specifically states: baronies by tenure were converted into baronies by writ. The rest ceased to exist as feudal baronies by tenure, becoming baronies in free socage, that is to say under a “free” (hereditable) contract requiring payment of monetary rents.

In the 20th century, Britain introduced the concept of non-hereditary life peers. All appointees to this distinction have (thus far) been at the rank of baron. In accordance with the tradition applied to hereditary peers, they too are formally addressed in parliament by their peers as “The Noble Lord”.

In addition, baronies are often used by their holders as subsidiary titles, for example as courtesy titles for the son and heir of an Earl or higher-ranked peer. The Scottish baronial title tends to be used when a landed family is not in possession of any United Kingdom peerage title of higher rank, subsequently granted, or has been created a knight of the realm.

Several members of the royal family with the style of Royal Highness are also titled Barons. For example, William, Prince of Wales is also The Baron of Renfrew and The Baron Carrickfergus. Some non-royal Barons are somehow related to the royal family; for example, Maurice Roche, 6th Baron Fermoy is William’s first cousin once removed, through William’s late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, who was the 4th Baron Fermoy’s granddaughter.

Coronet

A person holding a peerage in the rank of baron is entitled to a coronet bearing six silver balls (called pearls) around the rim, equally spaced and all of equal size and height. The rim itself is neither jeweled nor “chased” (which is the case for the coronets of peers of higher degree).

The actual coronet is worn only for the coronation of a new monarch, but a baron can bear his coronet of rank on his coat of arms above the shield. In heraldry, the baron’s coronet is shown with four of the balls visible.

Style of address

Formally, barons are styled The Right Honourable The Lord [Barony] and barons’ wives are styled The Right Honourable The Lady [Barony]. Baronesses in their own right, whether hereditary or for life, are either styled The Right Honourable The Baroness [Barony] or The Right Honourable The Lady [Barony], mainly based on personal preference (e.g. Lady Thatcher and Baroness Warsi, both life baronesses in their own right). Less formally, one refers to or addresses a baron as Lord [Barony] and his wife as Lady [Barony], and baronesses in their own right as Baroness [X] or Lady [X]. In direct address, barons and baronesses can also be referred to as My Lord, Your Lordship, or Your Ladyship or My Lady. The husband of a baroness in her own right gains no title or style from his wife.

The Right Honourable is frequently abbreviated to The Rt Hon. or Rt Hon. When referred to by the Sovereign in public instruments, The Right Honourable is changed to Our right trusty and well-beloved, with Counsellor attached if they are a Privy Counsellor.

Children of barons and baronesses in their own right, whether hereditary or for life, have the style The Honourable [Forename] [Surname]. After the death of the father or mother, the child may continue to use this style.

Courtesy barons are styled Lord [Barony], and their wives Lady [Barony]; the article “The” is always absent. If the courtesy baron is not a Privy Counsellor, the style The Right Honourable will also be absent.

The title ‘Baronet’ was originally introduced in England in the 14th century and was used by King James I-VI in 1611 to raise funds for a war in Ireland. James sold the title, which lies below baron but above knight in the hierarchy, for £1000 to anyone whose annual income was at least that sum and whose paternal grandfather had been entitled to a coat of arms.

Seeing this as an excellent way to raise funds, later monarchs also sold baronetcies. It is the only hereditary honour that is not a peerage.

Peerages are created by the Monarch. New hereditary peerages are only granted to members of the Royal Family; for example on his wedding day, Prince William was given a dukedom by Queen Elizabeth II and became the Duke of Cambridge. The day after the death Queen Elizabeth II, King Charles III created his eldest son Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester.

The Monarch cannot hold a peerage him or herself, although is also the Duke of Lancaster.

As well as hereditary titles, the British peerage also includes life peerages, part of the British honours system. Life peerages are granted by the Government to honour individuals and give the recipient the right to sit and vote in the House of Lords. Today, most of those who sit in the House of Lords are life peers: only 90 of the 790 or so members are hereditary peers.

Titles of Royalty and Nobility within the British Monarchy: Earl

Tags

1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma, Anglo-Saxon, Count, Earl, Earldom, England, Louis Mountbatten, Peerage, Scotland, Sheriff

Earl is a rank of the nobility in the United Kingdom. The title originates in the Old English word eorl, meaning “a man of noble birth or rank”. The word is cognate with the Scandinavian form jarl, and meant “chieftain”, particularly a chieftain set to rule a territory in a king’s stead. After the Norman Conquest, it became the equivalent of the continental count (in England in the earlier period, it was more akin to a duke; in Scotland, it assimilated the concept of mormaer).

In modern Britain, an earl is a member of the peerage, ranking below a marquess and above a viscount. A feminine form of earl never developed; instead, countess is used.

It is important to distinguish between the land controlled directly by the earl, in a landlord-like sense, and the region over which he could exercise his office. Scottish use of Latin terms provincia and comitatus makes the difference clear.

Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten of Burma

Initially these terms were synonymous, as in England, but by the 12th century they were seen as distinct concepts, with comitatus referring to the land under direct control of the earl, and provincia referring to the province; hence, the comitatus might now only be a small region of the provincia. Thus, unlike England, the term county, which ultimately evolved from the Latin comitatus, was not historically used for Scotland’s main political subdivisions.

Sheriffs were introduced at a similar time to earls, but unlike England, where sheriffs were officers who implemented the decisions of the shire court, in Scotland they were specifically charged with upholding the king’s interests in the region, thus being more like a coroner.

As such, a parallel system of justice arose, between that provided by magnates (represented by the earls), and that by the king (represented by sheriffs), in a similar way to England having both Courts Baron and Magistrates, respectively. Inevitably, this led to a degree of forum shopping, with the king’s offering – the Sheriff – gradually winning.

As in England, as the centuries wore on, the term earl came to be disassociated from the office, and later kings started granting the title of earl without it, and gradually without even an associated comitatus. By the 16th century there started to be earls of towns, of villages, and even of isolated houses; it had simply become a label for marking status, rather than an office of intrinsic power.

In 1746, in the aftermath of the Jacobite rising, the Heritable Jurisdictions Act brought the powers of the remaining ancient earldoms under the control of the sheriffs; earl is now simply a noble rank.

An Earl will wear a coronet especially during the coronation of a Monarch.

Coronet of an earl (as worn by the 17th Earl of Devon at the Coronation of Elizabeth II and now on display at Powderham Castle)

A coronet is a small crown consisting of ornaments fixed on a metal ring. By one definition, a coronet differs from other kinds of crowns in that a coronet never has arches, and from a tiara in that a coronet completely encircles the head, while a tiara does not. By a slightly different definition, a crown is worn by an emperor, empress, king or queen; a coronet by a nobleman or lady.

Speculating About The Coronation

Tags

coronation, Crown of Queen Mary, Cullinan II, Gold State Coach, Imperial State Crown., King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Koh-i-Noor Diamond, St. Edward's Crown, Star of Africa

I hope it’s not too soon to talk about the Coronation of King Charles III.
So far the date for the Coronation has not been set but it will be sometime next year.
I heard that this will be more low key than his mother’s coronation.

HM The King

With that in mind I have some questions…

1. Do you think the gold State Coach of George III will be used? I hear it’s a rather bumpy ride and that might be too much for the King who will be 74 by then.

Golden State Coach

The Gold State Coach is an enclosed, eight-horse-drawn carriage used by the British Royal Family. Commissioned in 1760 by King George III, it was built in the London workshops of Samuel Butler. It was commissioned for £7,562 (£3.54 million = US$4.188 million in 2022, adjusted for inflation). It was completed in 1762.

This coach has been used at the coronation of every British monarch since George IV. The coach’s great age, weight, and lack of manoeuvrability have limited its use to grand state occasions such as coronations, royal weddings, and the jubilees of a monarch. Until the Second World War, the coach was the monarch’s usual transport to and from State Opening of Parliament.

2. Because of his age do you think the Crown of St. Edward may be too large and he’ll use the Imperial State Crown instead?

Crown of St. Edward

St Edward’s Crown is the centrepiece of the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom. Named after Saint Edward the Confessor, versions of the crown have been traditionally used to crown English and British monarchs at their coronations since the 13th century.

The original crown was a holy relic kept at Westminster Abbey, Edward’s burial place, until the regalia was either sold or melted down when Parliament abolished the monarchy in 1649, during the English Civil War.

This St Edward’s Crown was made for Charles II in 1661. It is solid gold, 30 centimetres (12 in) tall, weighs 2.23 kilograms (4.9 lb), and is decorated with 444 precious and semi-precious stones. The crown is similar in weight and overall appearance to the original, but its arches are Baroque.

After 1689, it was not used to crown a monarch for over 200 years. In 1911, the tradition was revived by George V, and subsequent monarchs (except Edward VIII, who was not crowned at all) have been crowned using St Edward’s Crown. A stylised image of this crown is used on coats of arms, badges, logos and various other insignia in the Commonwealth realms to symbolise the royal authority of the monarch.

When not in use, St Edward’s Crown is on public display in the Jewel House at the Tower of London.

Imperial State Crown

3. Speaking of the Imperial State Crown… Do you think the Imperial State Crown will be modified for the King other than size?

The Imperial State Crown made for Queen Victoria in 1838 is the basis for today’s crown. Made by Rundell and Bridge in 1838 using old and new jewels, it had a crimson velvet cap with ermine border and a lining of white silk. It weighed 39.25 troy ounces (43.06 oz; 1,221 g) and was decorated with 1,363 brilliant-cut, 1,273 rose-cut and 147 table-cut diamonds, 277 pearls, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds, 4 rubies, and the Black Prince’s Ruby (a spinel).

At the State Opening of Parliament in 1845, the Duke of Argyll was carrying the crown before Queen Victoria when it fell off the cushion and broke. Victoria wrote in her diary, “it was all crushed and squashed like a pudding that had sat down”. The empty frame of Victoria’s imperial state crown survives in the Royal Collection.

A new crown was made for the coronation of George VI in 1937 by Garrard & Co. The crown was adjusted for Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953, with the head size reduced and the arches lowered by 25 mm (1 inch) to give it a more feminine appearance.

King George VI wearing the Imperial State Crown with the higher arches.

Queen Elizabeth II wearing the Imperial State Crown with the lowered arches.

4. What crown will be used for Queen Camilla?

Consort crowns

After the Restoration, wives of kings – queens consort – traditionally wore the State Crown of Mary of Modena, wife of James II-VII who first wore it at their coronation in 1685. Originally set with 561 hired diamonds and 129 pearls, it is now set with crystals and cultured pearls for display in the Jewel House along with a matching diadem that consorts wore in procession to the Abbey. The diadem once held 177 diamonds, 1 ruby, 1 sapphire, and 1 emerald. By the 19th century, that crown was judged to be too theatrical and in a poor state of repair, so in 1831 the Crown of Queen Adelaide was made for Queen Adelaide, wife of William IV, using gemstones from her private jewellery.

Queen Mary’s Crown

Thus began a tradition of each queen consort having a crown made specially for their use. In 1902 the Crown of Queen Alexandra, a European-style crown – flatter and with eight half-arches instead of the typical four – was made for Queen Alexandra, wife of Edward VII, to wear at their coronation. Set with over 3,000 diamonds, it was the first consort crown to include the Koh-i-Noor diamond presented to Queen Victoria in 1850 following the British conquest of the Punjab. Originally 191 carats (38 g) and set in an armlet, it was cut down to an oval brilliant weighing 105 carats (21 g), which Victoria mounted in a brooch and circlet.

The second was the Crown of Queen Mary; also unusual for a British crown owing to its eight half-arches, it was made in 1911 for Queen Mary, wife of George V. Mary paid for the Art Deco-inspired crown out of her own pocket and had originally hoped it would become the one traditionally used by future consorts. Altogether, it is adorned with 2,200 diamonds, and once contained the 94.4-carat (19 g) Cullinan III and 63.4-carat (13 g) Cullinan IV diamonds. Its arches were made detachable in 1914 allowing it to be worn as an open crown or circlet.

After George V’s death, Mary continued wearing the crown (without its arches) as a queen mother, so the Crown of Queen Elizabeth was created for Queen Elizabeth, wife of George VI, and later known as the Queen Mother, to wear at their coronation in 1937. It is the only British crown made entirely out of platinum, and was modelled on Queen Mary’s Crown, but has four half-arches instead of eight.

The crown is decorated with about 2,800 diamonds, most notably the Koh-i-Noor in the middle of the front cross. It also contains a replica of the 22.5-carat (5 g) Lahore Diamond given to Queen Victoria by the East India Company in 1851, and a 17.3-carat (3 g) diamond given to her by Abdülmecid I, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, in 1856. The crown was laid on top of the Queen Mother’s coffin in 2002 during her lying in state and funeral. The crowns of Queen Alexandra and Queen Mary now feature crystal replicas of the Koh-i-Noor, which has been the subject of repeated controversy, with governments of both India and Pakistan claiming to be the diamond’s rightful owners and demanding its return ever since gaining independence from the UK.

Love to hear your thoughts!

The Dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire. Part VII: The Creation of Two New Empires

Tags

Bishop of Rome, Emperor Alexander I of Russia, Emperor Franz II, Emperor of the French, Imperial Crown of Austria, King George III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Napoleon Bonaparte, Pope Pius VII, The Holy Roman Empire

The head of the French Republic, Napoleon, assumed the title “Emperor of the French” in 1804. Among others, one of the important figures attending the coronation was Pope Pius VII, probably fearing that Napoleon planned to conquer the Papal States.

Pope Pius VII was aware that Napoleon symbolically linked his imperial coronation with the imperial coronation of Charlemagne and would most likely have caught the similarity between Napoleon’s title and Emperor of the Romans, the title used by Franz II and all Holy Roman emperors before him. Through his presence at the ceremony, Pius VII symbolically approved of the transfer of imperial power (translatio imperii) from the Romans (and thus the Franks and Germans) to the French.

Napoleon’s coronation received a mixed reaction in the Holy Roman Empire. Although a return to monarchy in France was welcomed (though unfortunate in so far that the monarch was Napoleon), the imperial title (instead of a royal one) was not.

In the empire, Napoleon’s title raised fears that it might inspire the Russian Emperor to insist that he was equal to the Holy Roman Emperor and might encourage other monarchs, such as King George III of the United Kingdom, to also proclaim themselves emperors.

Napoleon I, Emperor of the French

Relations between the Habsburgs and George III were complicated; in diplomacy, the court at Vienna had for many years refused to refer to the British king as “His Majesty” since he was only a king, not an emperor. The Habsburg diplomat Ludwig von Cobenzl, fearing the consequences of Napoleon’s coronation, is quoted as having advised Holy Roman Emperor Franz II that “‘as Roman Emperor, Your Majesty has enjoyed till now precedence ahead of all European potentates, including the Russian Emperor”.

Though Napoleon’s imperial title was viewed with distaste, Austrian officials immediately realized that if they were to refuse to accept him as an Emperor, war with France would be renewed. Instead, the focus became on how to accept Napoleon as an Emperor while still maintaining the pre-eminence of their own emperor and empire.

France had officially accepted parity with Austria as a distinct state in 1757, 1797 and 1801 and in the same settlements accepted that the Holy Roman Empire outranked both Austria and France. Thus, it was decided that Austria would be raised to the rank of an empire in order to maintain the parity between Austria and France while still preserving the Roman Imperial title as pre-eminent, outranking both.

Empire of Austria

The Imperial Crown of Austria, used until the end of the Habsburg monarchy in Austria and originally made for Rudolph II, Holy Roman Emperor.

Franz II proclaimed himself as Emperor of Austria (without the need of a new coronation, as he had already had an imperial coronation) on August 11, 1804, in addition to already being the Holy Roman Emperor. Cobenzl advised that a separate hereditary Austrian title would also allow the Habsburg to maintain parity with other rulers (since the Holy Roman title was viewed by Cobenzl as merely honorific) and ensure elections to the position of Holy Roman Emperor in the future.

A myriad of reasons were used to justify the Austrian Empire’s creation, including the number of subjects under the Habsburg Monarchy, the vast extent of his crown lands and the long association between the Habsburg family and the elective Holy Roman imperial title.

Another important point used to justify its creation was that Emperor Franz II was, in the traditional sense, the supreme Christian monarch and he was thus entitled to award himself with any dignities he wished. The title “Emperor of Austria” was meant to associate with all of Franz II’s personal domains (not just Austria, but also lands such as Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia), regardless of their current position within or outside the Holy Roman Empire. “Austria” in this sense referred to the dynasty (often officially called the “House of Austria” instead of the “House of Habsburg”), not the geographical location.

The title of Holy Roman Emperor remained pre-eminent to both “Emperor of the French” and “Emperor of Austria” as it embodied the traditional ideal of the universal Christian empire. Neither the Austrian nor the French title made claims to govern this universal empire and thus did not disturb the traditional and established world order.

The imperial titles of Austria and France were seen as more or less royal titles (as they were hereditary) and in the minds of the Austrians, there still remained only one true empire and one true emperor in Europe. To illustrate this, Francis II’s official imperial title read “elected Roman Emperor, ever Augustus, hereditary Emperor of Austria”, placing the Austrian title behind the Roman title.

Franz, Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, Hungary and Croatia

Though Napoleon was reluctant to tie his own imperial title to any concessions, he needed recognition from Austria to secure wider recognition and thus agreed to recognize Franz II’s new title. Prior to his own coronation, he sent a personal letter of congratulations to Francis. George III of the United Kingdom recognized the new title in October and although Russian Emperor Alexander I objected to Franz II “lowering himself to the level of the usurper Napoleon”, he recognized the title in November.

The only significant objections to Franz II’s title were raised by Sweden, which through holding Swedish Pomerania, an Imperial Estate, had a place in the Reichstag. The Swedes saw the title as a “clear breach” of the imperial constitution and, invoking their prerogative as a guarantor of the imperial constitution, demanded a formal debate in the Reichstag, a threat that was neutralized by the other parties of the Reichstag agreeing to an extended summer recess until November.

To defend the title, imperial representatives argued that it did not infringe on the imperial constitution as there were already other examples of dual monarchies within the empire, states such as Prussia and Sweden were not part of the empire, but their possessions within the empire were.

From the period of August 11, 1804 to August 6, 1806 Franz II was the only double Emperor in recorded history.

c. August 11, 1081 or 1086: Birth of Heinrich V, Holy Roman Emperor

Tags

Bertha of Savoy, Henry I of England, Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor Henry V, Investiture Controversy, Matilda of England, Pope Gregory VII, Pope Paschal II

Heinrich V. (c. August 11, 1081 or 1086 – May 23, 1125) was King of the Romans (from 1099 to 1125) and Holy Roman Emperor (from 1111 to 1125), as the fourth and last ruler of the Salian dynasty. He was made co-ruler by his father, Heinrich IV, in 1098.

Heinrich V was probably born on August 11 in 1081 or 1086. However, only the date of his accolade (Schwertleite) at Easter 1101 can be confirmed. This ceremony usually took place at the age of 15.

There were three children born of Emperor Heinrich IV and his wife Bertha of Savoy (died in 1087).

Bertha of Savoy was a daughter of Count Otto I of Savoy (also called Eudes or Odo; c. 1023 – c. 1057/1060) and his wife Adelaide of Susa (c. 1014/1020 – 1091) from the Arduinici noble family, and as such a member of the Burgundian House of Savoy. She thereby was the sister of Count Peter I of Savoy (d. 1078), Count Amadeus II of Savoy (d. 1080), and Adelaide (d. 1079), consort of the German anti-king Rudolf of Rheinfelden.

Heinrich and his two older siblings, Conrad and Agnes, survived childhood; two other siblings had died early. Heinrich seems to have spent the first years of his life primarily in Regensburg. His mentor was Conrad Bishop of Utrecht.

At the time of Heinrich’s birth, his father, Emperor Heinrich IV, had already been engaged in many years of drawn out conflicts with the pope, the imperial bishops, and secular princes for the preservation of his rule.

Henry IV had never paid much attention to the advice, or the rights and privileges of the landed nobility. Saxony, as the centre of resistance, was joined by the southern duchies of Bavaria, Swabia and Carinthia.

These southern duchies again sought the support of Pope Gregory VII, the chief advocate of church reform ideas. Gregory’s central demand was that the emperor must refrain from investing abbots and bishops, a practice that had been essential for the Imperial Church System since Emperor Otto I.

Gregory VII excommunicated Heinrich IV in 1077. By repenting at Canossa, Heinrich managed to get absolved. In 1080 and 1094, however, Heinrich IV was excommunicated again. In 1102, the church ban was again declared over him and his party, including his son, Heinrich V. The conflict divided the empire from the church.

Heinrich IV therefore sought to strengthen his influence in the south. His daughter, Agnes, was engaged to Friedrich I of Swabia, who in 1079 obtained the Duchy of Swabia.

Friedrich I (c. 1050 – c. July 21, 1105) was Duke of Swabia from 1079 to his death, the first ruler from the House of Hohenstaufen.

The emperor also sought to secure his royal succession. Heinrich IV chose his eldest son, Conrad, to be his heir and arranged to have Conrad crowned king of the Romans in Aachen in 1087. After Conrad defected to the Church Reform Party in Italy in 1093, his royalty and inheritance were revoked at a court in Mainz and transferred to his younger brother, Heinrich V in May 1098.

The latter had to take an oath never to rule over the father. On January 6, 1099, Heinrich V was crowned king of the Romans in Aachen, where he was required to repeat the oath. His brother, Conrad, died in Florence on July 27, 1101.

The continued existence of the Salian dynasty now depended on Heinrich V, the only living son of the emperor. The co-regency of son and father proceeded without obvious problems for six years. Contrary to previous ruling sons, Heinrich V was not involved in government affairs.

In Emperor Heinrich IV’s conflicts with the imperial princes and the struggle against the reform papacy during the Investiture Controversy, young Heinrich V allied himself with the opponents of his father.

He forced Heinrich IV to abdicate on December 31, 1105 and ruled for five years in compliance with the imperial princes. He tried, unsuccessfully, to withdraw the regalia from the bishops and in order to at least preserve the previous right to invest he captured Pope Paschal II and forced him to perform his imperial coronation in 1111.

Once crowned emperor, Heinrich V departed from joint rule with the princes and resorted to earlier Salian autocratic rule. After he had failed to increase control over the church, the princes in Saxony and on the Middle and Lower Rhine, in 1121 the imperial princes forced Heinrich V to consent with the papacy.

Investiture Controversy was an important issues in the reign of Heinrich V and will be addressed in another blog post.

From 1108 on Heinrich V made official proposals for a marriage with a princess of the English royal family, seeking to increase the authority of the Salian king and secure his throne. His engagement with the eight-year-old princess Matilda took place in Utrecht at Easter of 1110.

The Anglo-Norman King Henry I of England paid the extraordinarily high sum of 10,000 or 15,000 pounds of silver as dowry. In return, his daughter’s marriage to Heinrich V enormously increased his prestige.

On July 25, 1110 Matilda was crowned Roman-German Queen in Mainz by the Archbishop of Cologne. Four years later the wedding celebrations also took place in Mainz on January 7, 1114 amid great splendor and the attention of princes from all over the empire.

The Salians appropriated the occasion to reaffirm unanimity with the imperial nobles after the conflicts in recent years. Duke Lothair of Supplinburg appeared barefoot and in penitent clothing at the wedding. He was forgiven for his participation in the inheritance disputes of Carniola after performing a Deditio (submission).

This occasion is the only known case of a Deditio during Heinrich V’s reign, which historians have compared to the amicable set of rules and conflict management and settlement of the Ottonian dynasty.

On the other hand, Heinrich had Count Ludwig of Thuringia captured and imprisoned for his participation in the Saxon rebellion, which upset many princes. Heinrich V’s impertinent demonstrations of power greatly diminished the overall atmosphere of the festivity. Some princes left the festival without permission, as others used the opportunity for conspiracies.

The marriage to Matilda produced no male heirs. The chronicler Hériman of Tournai mentions a child of Heinrich and Matilda that died soon after birth. A single source mentions a daughter of Heinrich named Bertha, who was probably illegitimate. She married Count Ptolemy II of Tusculum in 1117. The emperor’s bond with the nobility of Rome through marriage was unique. In his conflict with the Pope and the struggle for domination in Italy, the Tusculan marriages of imperial partisans would receive particular honor.

Eventually, affairs in Italy compelled Heinrich V to leave and appoint duke Friedrich II of Hohenstaufen and his brother Conrad, the future king Conrad III as administrators.

August 9, 1902: Coronation of Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions, and Emperor of India

Tags

Alexandra of Denmark, and Emperor of India, Archbishop of Canterbury, Archbishop Temple, coronation, Edward VII, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions, Koh-i-Noor Diamond, perityphlitis, Westminster Abbey

Edward VII (Albert Edward; November 9, 1841 – May 6, 1910) was King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the British Dominions, and Emperor of India, from January 22, 1901 until his death in 1910.

The eldest son of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and nicknamed “Bertie”, Edward was related to royalty throughout Europe. He was Prince of Wales and heir apparent to the British throne for almost 60 years.

During the long reign of his mother, he was largely excluded from political influence and came to personify the fashionable, leisured elite. He travelled throughout Britain performing ceremonial public duties and represented Britain on visits abroad. His tours of North America in 1860 and of the Indian subcontinent in 1875 proved popular successes, but despite public approval, his reputation as a playboy prince soured his relationship with his mother.

When Queen Victoria died on 22 January 1901, Edward became King of the United Kingdom, Emperor of India and, in an innovation, King of the British Dominions. He chose to reign under the name of Edward VII, instead of Albert Edward—the name his mother had intended for him to use—declaring that he did not wish to “undervalue the name of Albert” and diminish the status of his father with whom the “name should stand alone”.

The numeral VII was occasionally omitted in Scotland, even by the national church, in deference to protests that the previous Edwards were English kings who had “been excluded from Scotland by battle”. J. B. Priestley recalled, “I was only a child when he succeeded Victoria in 1901, but I can testify to his extraordinary popularity. He was in fact the most popular king England had known since the earlier 1660s.”

Preparations

The 1838 coronation of Queen Victoria, Edward VII’s mother and predecessor, had been an unrehearsed and somewhat lacklustre event in the Abbey, though the newly extended street procession and celebrations around the country had been a great popular success.

The success of Victoria’s Golden and Diamond Jubilees had created the expectation that Edward’s coronation would be an expression of the nation’s status as a great imperial power. In December 1901, an Executive Coronation Committee was formed, whose leading member, Viscount Esher, worked closely with the King to set the agenda for the event.

Esher had been responsible for organising the Diamond Jubilee in 1897 and was one of the driving forces behind the renewed enthusiasm for royal ceremonial. The position of Director of Music was given to Sir Frederick Bridge, the organist and choirmaster at Westminster Abbey; the first Abbey organist since Henry Purcell to be given that role. Bridge had successfully transformed the quality of music at the Abbey and had directed the music at the Golden Jubilee, for which he had been made a Member of the Royal Victorian Order.

Illness and postponement

By the time of his accession, the 59-year-old Edward was overweight and fond of large meals and cigars. He launched himself into his new role, but his first busy months on the throne were bedevilled by a succession of illnesses and injuries. On June 23, three days before the date set for the coronation, Edward and his wife, Alexandra of Denmark, returned from Windsor Castle to Buckingham Palace in preparation.

Foreign journalists noted that he appeared “worn and pale” and was leaning heavily on his cane. That evening, the King and Queen hosted a formal dinner for seventy British and overseas royal guests.

On the following day at noon, a telegram marked “OFFICIAL” was dispatched around the Empire, with the news that the coronation was postponed and that the King was undergoing an operation. Shortly afterwards, a bulletin was released from Edward’s medical team, stating that “The King is suffering from perityphlitis.

The condition on Saturday was so satisfactory that it was hoped that with care His Majesty would be able to go through the Coronation ceremonies. On Monday evening a recrudescence became manifest, rendering a surgical operation necessary today”. It was undersigned by, among others, Lord Lister and Sir Frederick Treves, who actually carried out the operation on a table in the Music Room at Buckingham Palace, to drain his abdominal cyst.

On June 26 itself, a “solemn service of intercession” was held at St Paul’s Cathedral, which was attended by many of the British and foreign dignitaries who were in London for the coronation. Although workmen immediately received instructions to begin dismantling the wooden stands that had been erected along the route of the procession, Edward was insistent that regional celebrations and a planned “Coronation Dinner for the Poor of London” should go ahead.

Organized by Sir Thomas Lipton, 500,000 dinners were served to Londoners on July 5 at 800 locations around the capital. The King personally contributed £30,000 towards the cost and there were donations by commercial companies and wealthy individuals. The confectionery maker Rowntree’s provided each diner with a tin of chocolate and a rather better one for the 60,000 people who had acted as stewards, on the grounds that they would “be of greater influence socially than the poor”.

Many people had intended to watch the coronation procession, and rooms along the planned route had been rented out at high rates for the expected day of the coronation. The postponement of the coronation led to many demands for refunds on the rental contracts, resulting in the “Coronation cases”, which set an important precedent in the doctrine of frustration of purpose in the English common law of contract.

The service

he contents of the service itself had been carefully selected to ensure that its spiritual character was maintained, while keeping the ceremony as brief as possible. The draft was mainly the work of Randall Davidson, the Bishop of Winchester.

The service was conducted by the elderly and infirm Archbishop of Canterbury, Frederick Temple, who died before the end of the year. He steadfastly refused to delegate any part of his duties and had to be supported throughout by two other bishops. Because of his failing eyesight, the text of the service had to be printed in gigantic type onto rolls of paper called “prompt scrolls”; they are preserved in the Lambeth Palace Library.

Archbishop Temple provided most of the upsets in an otherwise splendid ceremony; he was unable to rise after kneeling to pay homage and had to be helped up by the King himself and several bishops, he placed the crown back-to-front on the King’s head, and when a colleague enquired after his well-being, he was told to “go away!” in a loud voice that was plainly heard by the congregation.

The King also deviated from the order of service; when the Prince of Wales touched the Crown and kissed his father’s left cheek in the traditional gesture of homage, the King rose to his feet and threw his arms around his son’s neck in an unusual display of affection. Another disruption came from the King’s sister, Princess Beatrice, who noisily, albeit accidentally, dropped her service book from the royal gallery onto a gold-plate table.

Because he was still convalescing, Edward had been crowned with the Imperial State Crown instead of the heavier St Edward’s Crown. Alexandra was crowned immediately after her husband by William Dalrymple Maclagan, Archbishop of York, with a new crown containing the Koh-i-Noor diamond.

June 22, 1948: King George VI formally gives up the title “Emperor of India” Part II.

Tags

Delhi Sugar, Dominion of India, Empire of India, Imperial Crown of India, Indian Independence Act 1947, King George V of the United Kingdom, King George VI of the United Kingdom, Pakistan

When Edward VII ascended to the throne on January 22, 1901, he continued the imperial tradition laid down by his mother, Queen Victoria, by adopting the title Emperor of India. Three subsequent British monarchs followed in his footsteps.

The first emperor to visit India was George V. For his imperial coronation ceremony at the Delhi Durbar, the Imperial Crown of India was created. The Crown weighs 920 g (2.03 lb) and is set with 6,170 diamonds, 9 emeralds, 4 rubies, and 4 sapphires. At the front is a very fine emerald weighing 32 carats (6.4 g). The king wrote in his diary that it was heavy and uncomfortable to wear: “Rather tired after wearing my crown for 3+1⁄2 hours; it hurt my head, as it is pretty heavy.”

The title “Emperor of India” did not disappear when British India became the Dominion of India (1947–1950) and Dominion of Pakistan (1947–1952) after independence in 1947.

George VI retained the title until June 22, 1948, the date of a Royal Proclamation made in accordance with Section 7 (2) of the Indian Independence Act 1947, reading: “The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the omission from the Royal Style and Titles of the words “Indiae Imperator” and the words “Emperor of India” and to the issue by His Majesty for that purpose of His Royal Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm.”

Thereafter, George VI remained monarch of Pakistan until his death in 1952 and of India until it became the Republic of India in 1950.