Wedding of Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom and Prince Henry of Battenberg.

Tags

Emperor Napoleon III of France, Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hesse and By Rhine, Hesse and By Rhine, House of Battenberg, King Edward VII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Louis Napoleon, Osborne House, Parliament, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Prince Henry of Battenberg, Prince Louis of Battenberg, Prince of Wales, Princess Alice of the United Kingdom, Princess Beatrice, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, royal wedding

My note: although the wedding of Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom and Prince Henry of Battenberg occurred on July 23 1885, and I’m about a month late, I would still like to present the information today.

Background on the Bride.

Princess Beatrice of the United Kingdom, (Beatrice Mary Victoria Feodore; April 14, 1857 – October 26, 1944) was born at Buckingham Palace, the fifth daughter and youngest of the nine children of the reigning British monarch, Queen Victoria, and her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (later the Prince Consort).

Beatrice’s childhood coincided with Queen Victoria’s grief following the death of her husband on December 14, 1861. As her elder sisters married and left their mother, the Queen came to rely on the company of her youngest daughter, whom she called “Baby” for most of her childhood. Beatrice was brought up to stay with her mother always and she soon resigned herself to her fate. The Queen was so set against her youngest daughter marrying that she refused to discuss the possibility.

Background on the Groom.

Prince Henry of Battenberg (Henry Maurice; October 5, 1858 – January 20, 1896) was a morganaticdescendant of the Grand Ducal House of Hesse and By Rhine. Henry was born on October 5, 1858 in Milan, Lombardy–Venetia. His father was Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine, the third son and fourth child of Grand Duke Ludwig II of Hesse and By Rhine and Princess Wilhelmina of Baden. His mother was Countess Julia von Hauke. He was known as “Liko” to his family.

His parents’ marriage was morganatic, as Julia was not considered a proper wife for a prince of a reigning dynasty, being only a countess. As such, at the time of his birth, Henry could not bear his father’s title or name, and was styled His Illustrious Highness Count Henry (Heinrich) Maurice of Battenberg. When Henry’s mother was raised to Princess von Battenberg and given the higher style of Her Serene Highnessby Alexander’s older brother, Ludwig III, Grand Duke of Hesse of and By Rhine, Henry and his siblings shared in their mother’s new rank. He became His Serene Highness Prince Henry of Battenberg, although he remained ineligible to inherit the Grand Ducal throne of Hesse and By Rhine or to receive a civil list stipend.

Marriage

Possible suitors for Princess Beatrice

Although the Queen was set against Beatrice marrying anyone in the expectation that she would always stay at home with her, a number of possible suitors were put forward before Beatrice’s marriage to Prince Henry of Battenberg. One of these was Napoléon Eugéne, the French Prince Imperial, son and heir of the exiled Emperor Napoleon III of France and his wife, Empress Eugénie.

After Prussia defeated France in the Franco-Prussian War, Napoleon was deposed and moved his family to England in 1870. After the Emperor’s death in 1873, Queen Victoria and Empress Eugénie formed a close attachment, and the newspapers reported the imminent engagement of Beatrice to the Prince Imperial. These rumours ended with the death of the Prince Imperial in the Anglo-Zulu War on June 1, 1879. Queen Victoria’s journal records their grief: “Dear Beatrice, crying very much as I did too, gave me the telegram … It was dawning and little sleep did I get … Beatrice is so distressed; everyone quite stunned.”

Louis Napoléon, Prince Imperial

After the death of the Prince Imperial, the Prince of Wales suggested that Beatrice marry their sister Alice’s widower, Ludwig IV, Grand Duke of Hesse. Alice had died in 1878, and the Prince argued that Beatrice could act as replacement mother for Ludwig’s young children and spend most of her time in England looking after her mother. He further suggested the Queen could oversee the upbringing of her Hessian grandchildren with greater ease.

However, at the time, it was forbidden by law for Beatrice to marry her sister’s widower. This was countered by the Prince of Wales, who vehemently supported passage by the Houses of Parliament of the Deceased Wife’s Sister Bill, which would have removed the obstacle. Despite popular support for this measure and although it passed in the House of Commons, it was rejected by the House of Lords because of opposition from the Lords Spiritual. Although the Queen was disappointed that the bill had failed, she was happy to keep her daughter at her side.

Other candidates, including two of Prince Henry’s brothers, Prince Alexander (“Sandro”) and Prince Louis of Battenberg, were put forward to be Beatrice’s husband, but they did not succeed. Although Alexander never formally pursued Beatrice, merely claiming that he “might even at one time have become engaged to the friend of my childhood, Beatrice of England”, Louis was more interested. Queen Victoria invited him to dinner but sat between him and Beatrice, who had been told by the Queen to ignore Louis to discourage his suit.

Louis, not realising for several years the reasons for this silence, married Beatrice’s niece, Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, the eldest daughter of Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hesse and By Rhine and Beatrice’s sister, Princess Alice of the United Kingdom” Although her marriage hopes had been dealt another blow, while attending Louis’s wedding at Darmstadt, Beatrice fell in love with Prince Henry, who returned her affections.

When Beatrice, after returning from Darmstadt, told her mother she planned to marry, the Queen reacted with frightening silence. Although they remained side by side, the Queen did not talk to her for seven months, instead communicating by note. Queen Victoria’s behaviour, unexpected even by her family, seemed prompted by the threatened loss of her daughter. The Queen regarded Beatrice as her “Baby” – her innocent child – and viewed the physical sex that would come with marriage as an end to innocence.

Princess Beatrice in her wedding dress, Osborne, 1885. Beatrice wore her mother’s wedding veil of Honiton lace.

Subtle persuasions by the Princess of Wales and the Crown Princess of Prussia, who reminded her mother of the happiness that Beatrice had brought the Prince Consort, induced the Queen to resume talking to Beatrice. Queen Victoria consented to the marriage on condition that Henry give up his German commitments and live permanently with Beatrice and the Queen.

Beatrice and Henry were married at Saint Mildred’s Church at Whippingham, near Osborne, on July 23, 1885. Beatrice, who wore her mother’s wedding veil of Honiton lace, was escorted by the Queen and Beatrice’s eldest brother, the Prince of Wales. Princess Beatrice was attended by ten royal bridesmaids from among her nieces: (see picture below)

(Back row left to right) Prince Alexander of Battenberg, Princess Louise of Wales, Princess Irene of Hesse, Princess Victoria of Wales, Prince Franz Josef of Battenberg, (middle row, left to right) Princess Maud of Wales, Princess Alix of Hesse, Princesses Marie Louise and Helena Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein, (front row, left to right) Princesses Victoria Melita, Marie and Alexandra of Edinburgh, Princess Beatrice and Prince Henry of Battenberg. Photograph taken at Osborne.

The bridegroom’s supporters were his brothers, Prince Alexander of Bulgaria and Prince Francis Joseph of Battenberg.

The ceremony – which was not attended by her eldest sister and brother-in-law, the Crown Prince and Princess of Prussia, who were detained in Germany; William Ewart Gladstone; or Beatrice’s cousin, Princess Mary Adelaide, Duchess of Teck, who was in mourning for her father-in-law – ended with the couple’s departure for their honeymoon at Quarr Abbey House, a few miles from Osborne. The Queen, taking leave of them, “bore up bravely till the departure and then fairly gave way”, as she later admitted to the Crown Princess.

The Grand Duke of Hesse with his children, 23 Jul 1885.

Princess Alix of Hesse, Ernst Ludwig, Hereditary Grand Duke of Hesse, Victoria, Princess Louis of Battenberg, Princess Irene of Hesse and Ludwig IV, Grand Duke of Hesse. The group are dressed for the wedding of Prince Henry of Battenberg and Princess Beatrice. Photograph taken at Osborne.

After a short honeymoon, Beatrice and her husband fulfilled their promise and returned to the Queen’s side. The Queen made it clear that she could not cope on her own and that the couple could not travel without her. Although the Queen relaxed this restriction shortly after the marriage, Beatrice and Henry travelled only to make short visits with his family. Beatrice’s love for Henry, like that of the Queen’s for the Prince Consort, seemed to increase the longer they were married. When Henry travelled without Beatrice, she appeared happier when he returned.

Advertisements

On this date in History: April 29, 2011. The wedding of Prince William of Wales and Catherine Middleton.

Tags

Archbishop of Canterbury, Dean of Westminster, Duchess of Cambridge, Duke of Cambridge, Kate Middleton, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince William and Catherine Middleton, Princess Diana, Queen Elizabeth II, royal wedding, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the prince of Wales, Westminster Abbey

The Kiss

The wedding of Prince William of Wales and Catherine Middleton took place on April 29, 2011 at Westminster Abbey in London, United Kingdom. The groom, Prince William of Wales (now the Duke of Cambridge) is second in the line of succession to the British throne. The bride, Catherine Middleton, had been his girlfriend since 2003.

HRH The Duke of Cambridge

Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, KG, KT, PC, ADC. (Born June 21, 1982) He is the eldest son of Charles, Prince of Wales, and Diana, Princess of Wales. Since birth, he has been second in the line to succeed his grandmother Elizabeth II, who is the Queen of the United Kingdom and 15 other Commonwealth realms.

On the morning of his wedding Her Majesty the Queen bestowed upon Prince William of Wales the hereditary titles of Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus. These titles were formally patented on May 26 that year.

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge.

Catherine Elizabeth Middleton was born at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading on January 9, 1982 into an upper-middle-class family. She is the eldest of three children born to Michael Middleton (b. 1949),and his wife, Carole (née Goldsmith; b. 1955), Catherine was baptised at St Andrew’s Bradfield, Berkshire, on June 20, 1982.

On November 16, 2010, Clarence House stated that Prince William of Wales was to marry Catherine Middleton “in the Spring or Summer of 2011, in London.” They were engaged in October 2010, while on a private holiday in Kenya; Prince William gave Middleton the same engagement ring that his father had given to William’s mother, Diana, Princess of Wales an 18-karat white gold ring with a 12-carat oval Ceylon (Sri Lankan) sapphire and 14 round diamonds.

Engagement Ring

The Dean of Westminster, John Hall, presided at the service; the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, conducted the marriage; Richard Chartres, the Bishop of London, preached the sermon; and a reading was given by the bride’s brother, James. William’s best man was his brother, Prince Harry, (now the Duke of Sussex) while the bride’s sister, Pippa, was maid of honor.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

The ceremony was attended by the bride’s and groom’s families, as well as members of foreign royal dynasties, diplomats, and the couple’s chosen personal guests. After the ceremony, the couple made the traditional appearance on the balcony of Buckingham Palace. As Prince William was not the heir apparent to the throne, the wedding was not a full state occasion and many details were left to the couple to decide, such as much of the guest list of about 1,900.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge

The build-up to the wedding and the occasion itself attracted much media attention, being compared in many ways with the 1981 marriage of William’s parents. The occasion was a public holiday in the United Kingdom and featured many ceremonial aspects, including use of the state carriages and roles for the Foot Guards and Household Cavalry.

Events were held around the Commonwealth to mark the wedding; organisations and hotels held events across Canada, over 5,000 street parties were held throughout the United Kingdom, and one million people lined the route between Westminster Abbey and Buckingham Palace. The ceremony was viewed live by tens of millions more around the world, including 72 million live streams on YouTube. In the United Kingdom, television audiences peaked at 26.3 million viewers, with a total of 36.7 million watching part of the coverage.

In accordance with the settled general rule that a wife takes the status of her husband Catherine is a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, and Baroness Carrickfergus.

On this date in History: April 15, 1912. Sinking of RMS Titanic.

Tags

April 14 -1912, Earl of Rothes, John Jacob Astor IV, King George V of the United Kingdom, Madeleine Astor, Queen Mary, RMS Titanic

RMS The Titanic

RMS Titanic sank in the early morning of 15 April 1912 in the North Atlantic Ocean, four days into the ship’s maiden voyage from Southampton to New York City. The largest ocean liner in service at the time, Titanic had an estimated 2,224 people on board when she struck an iceberg at around 23:40 (ship’s time) on Sunday, 14 April 1912. Her sinking two hours and forty minutes later at 02:20 (ship’s time; 05:18 GMT) on Monday, 15 April, resulted in the deaths of more than 1,500 people, making it one of history’s deadliest marine disasters during peacetime.

King George V responded to the situation by issuing a statement of condolence:

“The Queen and I are horrified at the appalling disaster which has happened to the Titanic and at the terrible loss of life. We deeply sympathise with the bereaved relations and feel for them in their great sorrow with all our heart.”

With many men, as head of households died upon the “Ship of Dreams” many families were left financially devastated. The Titanic Relief Fund was created to alleviate the financial burdens. The Titanic Relief Fund was an amalgam of the appeals launched by the lord mayors of Southampton and London, The Daily Telegraph, and some unlikely fund-raising ventures on both sides of the Atlantic. Enrico Caruso gave a benefit concert, the FA Charity Shield match between League champions Blackburn Rovers and Southern League champ Queens Park Rangers was brought forward, and there was a charity record of a song based on the Titanic captain’s alleged final order to his crew: “Be British!”. The Shipping Federation gave £10,500, King George V gave 500gns, Queen Mary 250gns, and Queen Alexandra £200. Eventually, £450,000 – the equivalent to about £21m in today’s money – was raised. Trustees invested it in such reliable stock as Canadian Northern (Ontario) Railway 3 per cent debentures, and the fund was still making payments in the late 1950s.

George V, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Emperor of India.

Members of the British aristocracy made the trip: The Countess of Rothes, wife of the 19th Earl of Rothes, embarked at Southampton with her parents, Thomas and Clementina Dyer-Edwardes, and cousin Gladys Cherry. Sir Cosmo Duff-Gordon, 5th Baronet of Halkin, and his wife, Lucy, Lady Duff-Gordon were on board, as well. Sir Cosmo was a wealthy Scottish landowner and Olympic fencing medalist, while Lady Duff-Gordon, known professionally as Lucile, was a leading fashion designer, who served a wealthy and exclusive clientele including the British royal family.

Here is some biographical information on the Countess of Rothes.

The Countess of Rothes

Lucy Noël Martha Leslie, Countess of Rothes (née Dyer-Edwardes; December 25, 1878 – September 12, 1956) was the wife of Norman Leslie, 19th Earl of Rothes. A noted philanthropist and social leader, she was a heroine of the Titanic disaster, famous for taking the tiller of her lifeboat and later helping row the craft to the safety of the rescue ship Carpathia The countess was for many years a popular figure in London society, known for her blonde beauty, bright personality, graceful dancing and the diligence with which she helped organize lavish entertainments patronized by English royalty and members of the nobility. She was long involved in charity work throughout the U.K., most notably assisting the Red Cross with fundraising and as a nurse for the Coulter Hospital in London during World War I. The Countess’s success as a patroness of philanthropic causes owed to her energetic personality and organizational skills but also to her popularity as a hostess, her beauty and her friendships with members of the British Royal Family and aristocracy, including HRH Princess Louise, Duchess of Argyll, (sixth child and fourth daughter of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert) and the Duchess of Wellington. Rothes was also a leading benefactor of the Queen Victoria School and The Chelsea Hospital for Women, known today as Queen Charlotte’s and Chelsea Hospital. Noël, Countess of Rothes died in her home in Hove, Sussex, on September 12, 1956, aged 77 having suffered for some time from heart disease.

Background on the Earls of Rothes.

Arms of Leslie family, Earls of Rothes, Chief of Clan Leslie

Earl of Rothes (pronounced “Roth-is”) is a title in the Peerage of Scotland. It was created in 1458 for George Leslie, 1st Lord Leslie. He had already been created Lord Leslie in 1445, also in the Peerage of Scotland by James II of Scotland (1437-1460).

His grandson, the third Earl, having only succeeded his elder brother in March 1513, was killed at the Battle of Flodden on 9 September of the same year. His son, the fourth Earl, served as an Extraordinary Lord of Session. Lord Rothes was also tried for the murder of Cardinal Beaton but was acquitted.

Another prominent member of the Leslie family was John Leslie, 7th Earl of Rothes (c. 1630–1681). The seventh Earl, was a prominent statesman. He was notably Lord High Treasurer of Scotland from 1663 to 1667 and Lord Chancellor of Scotland from 1667 to 1681. In 1663 he obtained a new charter conferring the earldom of Rothes and lordship of Leslie (which was regranted as Lord Leslie and Ballenbreich), in default of male issue of his own, on his eldest daughter Margaret, wife of Charles Hamilton, 5th Earl of Haddington, and her descendants male and female. It was stipulated in the charter that the earldoms of Rothes and Haddington should never be allowed to merge. In 1680 Lord Rothes was further honoured when he was made Lord Auchmotie and Caskieberry, Viscount of Lugtoun, Earl of Leslie, Marquess of Bambreich and Duke of Rothes, by King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland (1660-1685) with normal remainder to the heirs male of his body. These titles were also in the Peerage of Scotland.

The Duke had no sons and on his death in 1681 the creations of his 1680 dukedom became extinct. He was succeeded in the earldom of Rothes and the lordship of Leslie and Ballinbreich according to the charter of 1663 by his daughter Margaret, the eighth holder. Her husband Lord Haddington was succeeded by their second son Thomas while Margaret was succeeded by their eldest son John, the ninth Earl. He assumed the additional surname of Leslie and sat in the British House of Lords as a Scottish Representative Peerbetween 1708 and 1710. His son, the tenth Earl, was a Lieutenant-General in the Army and notably served as Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland. From 1723 to 1734 and from 1747 to 1767 he was a Scottish Representative Peer in the House of Lords.

Norman Leslie, 19th Earl of Rothes.

The current holder of the title is James Malcolm David Leslie, 22nd Earl of Rothes (b.1958) the great-grandson of Noël Leslie, Countess of Rothes.

Some of the most prominent members of the American social elite made the trip: real estate builder, businessman, and multimillionaire Colonel John Jacob Astor IV and his 18-year-old pregnant wife Madeleine (née Force) were returning to the United States for their child’s birth. Astor was the wealthiest passenger aboard the ship and one of the richest men in the world; his great-grandfather John Jacob Astor was the first multimillionaire in America.

Madeleine Astor

Will the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have titles?

Tags

Elizabeth II, House of Windsor, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Meghan Markle, Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince Harry, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of Sussex

This past October Kensington Palace announced that HRH The Duchess of Sussex was pregnant. Seeing that she is due to deliver her child anytime from mid-April to early May I’d like to discuss and clear up any confusion to what titles the baby will have…if any.

Their Royal Hignesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex

Under the provisions of the 1917 Letter’s Patent any children born to the Royal Couple during the life time of the Queen will NOT have a royal title. Under the provisions of the 1917 Letter’s Patent the royal title is limited to the grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line. The Duke and Duchess’ child will be great-grandchildren in the male line of the sovereign thus making them ineligible for a title.

However, if the child is a boy he will be called the Earl of Dumbarton since the Earldom of Dumbarton is a secondary title of the Duke of Sussex. The eldest son of a duke, marquess or earl almost always uses one of his father’s subsidiary titles as a courtesy title; for instance, the eldest son of the Earl of Wessex is called Viscount Severn. Generally, the practice of using a secondary title as a courtesy title for the heir to a noble title is applied to non-royal nobles. Since the eldest son of the Earl of Wessex does not have a title he is granted the use of a courtesy title. This will be the case if the son of the Duke of Sussex remains non-royal. In the case of Royals with a dukedom (the Duke of Cambridge for example) the heir to the title, Prince George in this case, uses “of Cambridge” as a territorial designation instead of Earl of Strathearn his father’s secondary title.

A male child will also be in line to inherit his father’s dukedom. Royal dukedoms are hereditary, according to the terms of the letters patent that created them, which usually contain the standard remainder to the “heirs male of his body”. However, if a male child of the Duke of Sussex remains without a royal title then the Dukedom of Sussex will cease to be a royal Dukedom once this child succeeds to the title.

The original 1917 Act only provided a title for a great-grandchild in the male line of the sovereign when that child is the eldest son, of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In this instance, Prince George of Cambridge is again a good example.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and family.

The Queen issued new Letters Patent on December 31, 2012 declaring that all of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children will have the title of Royal Highness and be styled Princes and Princesses. The document states, “The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated December 31, 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.” This is how the siblings of Prince George of Cambridge, Charlotte and Louis, were able to be granted the style Royal Highness and Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom.

It is my understanding that this amendment of the 1917 Letters Patent wasn’t just for the children of the Duke of Cambridge but also for any children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales in the future, if ever the same circumstances arises.

The Queen could do something similar with the children of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. As the font of all honors Her Majesty is allowed to further amend the 1917 Act. However, in the long run it won’t be necessary when the Prince of Wales come to the throne. Any children born to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that are born during the reign of Queen Elizabeth II will automatically gain the style Royal Highness and the title Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the Queen passes away; for they will no longer be great-grandchildren of the sovereign, they will be the grandchildren of the new sovereign, King Charles III.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex

That is how things stand of today but they could change. I have encountered some people that believe the Queen will create Letters Patent granting the Royal Style and Title to the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The Queen issued Letters Patent granting that all of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s children will have the title of Royal Highness and be styled Princes and Princess on December 31, 2012, a full seven months before the birth of Prince George of Cambridge. It is of my opinion that if the Queen was going to create Letters Patent granting the Royal style and title to the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex she would have done it by now. It is possible she will create new Letters Patent for the Sussex baby and I could be wrong.

What I report next are rumors that haven’t been verified but are worth mentioning. There has been talk that when the Prince of Wales becomes king he desires to trim down the numbers of working royals. Also, I have heard that the Duke of Sussex, similar to the Earl of Wessex, desires that their children not be given a Royal title so they can be raised away from the limelight in order for them to have as normal of a life as possible. If any of that is true the Prince of Wales, as King, my create his own Letters Patent that replaces the 1917 Letters Patent restructuring the Royal Family and limiting titles.

HM The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

One thing is certain, whether boy or girl, the Baby of the Duke & Duchess of Sussex will be the FIRST to be officially surnamed Mountbatten-Windsor, per the Letters Patent of 1960. Under a declaration made in Privy Council in 1960, the surname Mountbatten-Windsor will be applied to male-line descendants of the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh who are without royal styles and titles. Individuals with royal styles do not usually use a surname, but some descendants of the Queen with royal styles have used Mountbatten-Windsor when a surname was required.

Kaiser Wilhelm II Dismisse Chancellor Bismarck: March 18, 1890.

Tags

German Chancellor, Imperial German Chancellor, Kaiser, Kaiser Friedrich III, Kaiser Friedrich III of Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm I, Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, Otto von Bismark, World War I

Otto Eduard Leopold, Prince of Bismarck, Duke of Lauenburg (Born von Bismarck-Schönhausen; (April 1, 1815 – July 30, 1898), known as Otto von Bismarck he was a conservative Prussian statesman who dominated German and European affairs from the 1860s until 1890 and was the first Chancellor of the German Empire between 1871 and 1890.

Otto von Bismarck, Chancellor of the German Empire.

In 1862, King Wilhelm I of Prussia appointed Bismarck as Minister President of Prussia, a position he would hold until 1890, with the exception of a short break in 1873. He provoked three short, decisive wars against Denmark, Austria, and France. Following the victory against Austria, he abolished the supranational German Confederation and instead formed the North German Confederation as the first German national state in 1867, leading it as Federal Chancellor.

This aligned the smaller North German states behind Prussia. Later receiving the support of the independent South German states in the Confederation’s defeat of France, he formed the German Empire in 1871, unifying Germany with himself as Imperial Chancellor, while retaining control of Prussia at the same time. The new German nation excluded Austria, which had been Prussia’s main opponent for predominance among the German states.

Wilhelm I, German Emperor and King of Prussia

With that accomplished by 1871, he skillfully used balance of power diplomacy to maintain Germany’s position in a Europe which, despite many disputes and war scares, remained at peace. For historian Eric Hobsbawm, it was Bismarck who “remained undisputed world champion at the game of multilateral diplomatic chess for almost twenty years after 1871, [and] devoted himself exclusively, and successfully, to maintaining peace between the powers”. However, his annexation of Alsace-Lorraine gave new fuel to French nationalism and promoted Germanophobia in France.This helped set the stage for the First World War.

In 1888 Kaiser Wilhelm I died, leaving the throne to his son, Friedrich III. The new monarch was already suffering from cancer of the larynx and died after reigning for only 99 days. He was succeeded by his son, Wilhelm II, who opposed Bismarck’s cautious foreign policy, preferring vigorous and rapid expansion to enlarge Germany’s “place in the sun.”

Friedrich III, German Emperor and King of Prussia

Bismarck was sixteen years older than Friedrich III; before the latter became terminally ill, therefore Bismarck did not expect he would live to see Wilhelm II ascend to the throne and thus had no strategy to deal with him. Conflicts between Wilhelm II and Bismarck soon poisoned their relationship. Their final split occurred after Bismarck tried to implement far-reaching anti-socialist laws in early 1890. The Kartell majority in the Reichstag, including the Conservative Party and the National Liberal Party, was willing to make most of the laws permanent. However, it was split about the law granting the police the power to expel socialist agitators from their homes, a power that had been used excessively at times against political opponents. The National Liberals refused to make this law permanent, while the Conservatives supported only the entirety of the bill, threatening to and eventually vetoing the entire bill in session because Bismarck would not agree to a modified bill.

As the debate continued, Wilhelm II became increasingly interested in social problems, especially the treatment of mine workers during their strike in 1889. Keeping with his active policy in government, he routinely interrupted Bismarck in Council to make clear his social views. Bismarck sharply disagreed with Wilhelm’s policies and worked to circumvent them. Even though Wilhelm II supported the altered anti-socialist bill, Bismarck pushed for his support to veto the bill in its entirety. When his arguments could not convince Wilhelm, Bismarck became excited and agitated until uncharacteristically blurting out his motive to see the bill fail: to have the socialists agitate until a violent clash occurred that could be used as a pretext to crush them.

Wilhelm countered that he was not willing to open his reign with a bloody campaign against his own subjects. The next day, after realizing his blunder, Bismarck attempted to reach a compromise with Wilhelm by agreeing to his social policy towards industrial workers and even suggested a European council to discuss working conditions, presided over by the Emperor.

Wilhelm II, German Emperor and King of Prussia

Still, a turn of events eventually led to his breaking with Wilhelm. Bismarck, feeling pressured and unappreciated by the Emperor and undermined by ambitious advisers, refused to sign a proclamation regarding the protection of workers along with Wilhelm, as was required by the German constitution. His refusal to sign was apparently to protest Wilhelm’s ever increasing interference with Bismarck’s previously unquestioned authority. Bismarck also worked behind the scenes to break the Continental labour council on which Wilhelm had set his heart.

The final break came as Bismarck searched for a new parliamentary majority, as his Kartell was voted from power as a consequence of the anti-socialist bill fiasco, the remaining forces in the Reichstag were the Catholic Centre Party and the Conservative Party. Bismarck wished to form a new block with the Centre Party and invited Ludwig Windthorst, the parliamentary leader, to discuss an alliance. That would be Bismarck’s last political maneuver. Upon hearing about Windthorst’s visit, Wilhelm was furious.

In a parliamentary state, the head of government depends on the confidence of the parliamentary majority and has the right to form coalitions to ensure their policies have majority support. However, in Germany, the Chancellor depended on the confidence of the Emperor alone, and Wilhelm believed that the Emperor had the right to be informed before his minister’s meeting.

After a heated argument in Bismarck’s office, Wilhelm—to whom Bismarck had shown a letter from Tsar Alexander III describing Wilhelm as a “badly brought-up boy”—stormed out, after first ordering the rescinding of the Cabinet Order of 1851, which had forbidden Prussian Cabinet Ministers from reporting directly to the King of Prussia and required them instead to report via the Chancellor. Bismarck, forced for the first time into a situation that he could not use to his advantage, wrote a blistering letter of resignation, decrying Wilhelm’s interference in foreign and domestic policy. The letter, however, was published only after Bismarck’s death.

“Dropping the Pilot”, a famous caricature by Sir John Tenniel (1820–1914), first published in the British magazine Punch, March 29, 1890.

Bismarck resigned at Wilhelm II’s insistence on March 18, 1890, at the age of seventy-five.

HRH Prince Henri d’Orléans, The Count of Paris, Duke of France, pretender to the throne of France has died at the age of 85.

Tags

French pretenders, Henri Count of Paris, House of Orléans, King of France, Louis-Philippe of France

HRH Prince Henri d’Orléans, The Count of Paris, Duke of France (Henri Philippe Pierre Marie d’Orléans; June 14, 1933 – January 21, 2019), was head of the House of Orléans as the Orléanist pretender to the defunct French throne as King Henri VII of France.

Prince Henri was descendant in the male-line of France’s “Citizen-King” Louis-Philippe I (ruled 1830–1848), he was also recognized as the legitimate claimant to the throne by those French royalists, called Unionists, who regard him as the rightful heir of Prince Henri de Bourbon, Count of Chambord, the last patrilineal descendant of King Louis XV. Henri was a retired military officer as well as an author and painter.

He was the first son of Henri, Count of Paris (1908–1999), and his wife Princess Isabelle of Orléans-Braganza, and was born in Woluwe-Saint-Pierre. From October 1959 to April 1962, Prince Henri worked at the Secretariat-General for National Defence and Security as a member of the French Foreign Legion. He transferred from there to a garrison in Germany, he took up a new assignment as military instructor at Bonifacio in Corsica, where his wife and children joined him early in 1963.

HRH Prince Henri d’Orléans, The Count of Paris, Duke of France

Returning to civilian life in 1967, Prince Henri and his family briefly occupied the Blanche Neige pavilion on his father’s Manoir du Coeur-Volant estate at Louveciennes before renting an apartment of their own in the XVe arrondissement. In the early 1970s Prince Henri managed public relations for the Geneva office of a Swiss investment firm while dwelling in Corly.

Marriages and children

On July 5, 1957, Henri married Duchess Marie Therese of Württemberg (born 1934). Marie Therese was the fifth child and fourth daughter of Philipp Albrecht, Duke of Württemberg, and his second wife, Archduchess Rosa of Austria, Princess of Tuscany. She was born at Altshausen Castle, Baden-Württemberg, Germany.

Five children were born from this union:

1. Princess Marie Isabelle Marguerite Anne Geneviève d’Orléans of France (born 3 January 1959 in Boulogne-sur-Seine)
2. Prince François, Count of Clermont (7 February 1961 in Boulogne-sur-Seine – December 30, 2017)
3. Princess Blanche Elisabeth Rose Marie d’Orléans of France (born 10 September 1963 in Ravensburg).
4. Prince Jean Charles Pierre Marie d’Orléans of France, (born 19 May 1965, Boulogne-sur-Seine), Duke of Vendôme.
5. Prince Eudes Thibaut Joseph Marie d’Orléans of France (born 18 March 1968, Paris), Duke of Angoulême.

In 1984, Prince Henri and Princess Marie-Thérèse were divorced. On October 31, 1984 Prince Henri entered a civil marriage with Micaëla Anna María Cousiño y Quiñones de León (born on 30 April 1938), daughter of Luis Cousiño y Sebire and his wife Antonia Maria Quiñones de Léon y Bañuelos, 4th Marquesa de San Carlos. For remarrying without consent Henri’s father initially declared him disinherited.

Tensions lessened over the years and on March 7, 1991 the Count of Paris reinstated Henri as heir apparent and Count of Clermont, simultaneously giving Micaëla the title “Princesse de Joinville”.

Head of house

Until he succeeded his father as royal claimant, Prince Henri and his second wife occupied an apartment in Paris. On June 19, 1999, Prince Henri’s father died and Henri became the new head of the House of Orléans. He took the traditional title, Count of Paris, adding an ancient one, Duke of France, which had not borne by his Orléans or Bourbon forebears, but used a thousand years ago by his ancestors before Hugh Capet took the title of King of France. His wife assumed the title “Duchess of France”, deferring to the continued use of “Countess of Paris” by Henri’s widowed mother until her death on July 5, 2003, whereupon Micaela started to use the title Countess of Paris.

Prince Henri recognised his disabled eldest son François as heir, with the title Count of Clermont. He was the Dauphin of France in Orleanist reckoning. However, his mother had been infected with toxoplasmosis during her second and third pregnancies, and the pre-natal exposure left both Prince François and his younger sister, Princess Blanche, developmentally disabled.

HRH Prince Jean, Duke of Vendôme

Prince Henri maintained that his eldest son would exercise his prerogatives as head of the dynasty under a “regency” of his middle son, Prince Jean, Duke of Vendôme. However, with François’ death on December 30, 2017, Prince Jean became the Dauphin of France within the family’s claim to the throne. Prince Jean succeeds to the claim of King of France and Monarchists recognize him as King Jean IV of France.

Abdication and what to call former Monarchs? Part I

Tags

Abdication, Deposed, Deposition, Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII, European Monarchy, European Royalty, James II-VII of England, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Stuart

On December 11, 1936 King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland abdicated the throne for the woman he loved. His abdication created something unique within the context of former sovereigns.

HRH The Duke of Windsor, former King Edward VIII

Abdication, although relatively rare, has occurred through the history of the various European monarchies. Abdication is different from when a monarch is deposed although there are times when the differences are are a bit fuzzy.

Deposed vs Abdication

The word abdication is derived from the Latin abdicatio meaning to disown or renounce (from ab, away from, and dicare, to dedicate or relinquish). In its broadest sense abdication is the act of renouncing and resigning from any formal office, but it is applied especially to the supreme office of state.

Deposition by political means concerns the removal of a politician or monarch. It may be done by coup, impeachment, invasion, or forced abdication. The term may also refer to the official removal of a clergyman, especially a bishop, from ecclesiastical office.

It would be easy to differentiate between the two terms if abdication was simply defined as a monarchs willingness to relinquish their thrones and power. However, the terms become somewhat muddied and synonymous when a deposition occurs as a forced abdication. Mary I, Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate in favour of her one-year-old son James. For myself, in the name of simplicity, I view abdication as a willing or unwilling relinquishment of power through official and legal means by signing a document that is acknowledged by the government.

Edward VIII is a classic example of that. Mary I, Queen of Scots is an example of a forced abdication and yet at the same also meets the definition of a deposition. James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland is a prime example of being deposed. Troops were at his door and he fled the country. Of course being assassinated or murdered in a coup fits the definition of a deposition.

Haven gotten that out of the way, the real topic is what to call or title a monarch that has abdicated and/or been deposed? This is where the uniqueness of Edward VIII comes into play. When Edward VIII abdicated he lost his Royal style and title and was downgraded. This was an unusual occurrence for prior to his abdication the majority of former monarchs retained their titles.

Over the next few postings we will examine the abdication of several monarchs and what they were called after their reign was over. We will start with Edward VIII with the next post.

European Royal History and the Weather: Part I

Tags

1812, Alexander I of Russia, Cold Frint, Emperor of France, Emperors of Russia, France, Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleonic Wars, Robert FirzRoy, Russia, Weather and History, Wilhelm I of Wurttemberg, Winter

Another passion of mine besides European Royalty and it’s history has been the study of the weather. Today I begin a new series where I combine two of my passions: European Royal History and Meteorology. Weather has helped shaped historical events and the course of history itself. In this series I will look at how weather impacted significant events in European History.

Accurate and detailed weather forecasts can save lives. The lack of an accurate and detailed forecast, and it’s resulting loss of life, is evident in one of the most well known historical events in which weather was a significant player; Napoleon’s war on Russia in 1812.

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Napoleon of France

In 1812, Emperor Napoleon of France gathered the largest army Europe had ever seen at the point, more than 600,000 strong. His plan was to march boldly into Moscow to attack the forces of Emperor Alexander I of Russia. Napoleon was not at all concerned that winter was approaching. Napoleons’s non concern about the coming winter was not due to having foreknowledge that Russia would be experiencing a mild winter, his overconfidence was primarily due to his obstinance and hubris.

His Imperial Majesty Emperor Alexander I of Russia

In truth, in 1812 Napoleon would not have had a long term forecast about the winter. Today we have many tools to predict the weather as we can scientifically measure the temperature, air pressure and windspeed etc. We also have many computer models, known as Numerical Weather Prediction Models which uses mathematical computations of the atmospheric and oceanic conditions to predict weather patterns based on current weather conditions. However, before these tools and technologies, the weather was predicted by the appearance of clouds or the behaviour of animals. There were also primitive thermometers and barometers that aided in forecasting the weather.

Admiral Robert FitzRoy

The term forecast wasn’t even part of the weather vernacular in 1812. The word ‘forecast’ was invented by Admiral Robert FitzRoy in the mid 1800s. FitzRoy was a pioneering meteorologist who made accurate daily weather predictions, which he called by a new name of his own invention: “forecasts” and he defined it as such: “the term forecast is strictly applicable to such an opinion as is the result of scientific combination and calculation.” Incidentally, Admiral Robert FitRoy had royal connections. Through his father, General Lord Charles FitzRoy, Robert was a fourth great-grandson of King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland through his mistress, Barbara Palmer-Villiers, 1st Duchess of Cleveland. Born on the wrong side of the sheets as they say.

Back to Napoleon. Napoleon could not foresee his campaign lasting into the winter, believing his war would be swift and decisive. Without a long term forecast for the coming winter, coupled with Napoleon’s overconfidence, this left him unprepared for the difficulties that were ahead.

It was not just winter weather that made an impact on Napoleon’s troops. On June 24th Napoleon entered and attacked Vilnius, Lithuanian. That same afternoon severe thunderstorms and accompanying torrential downpours had a devastating impact on the siege. Since there were no discernible roads in this area of Lithuania, the ruts of the wagons on the soft and saturated ground were turned into bottomless mires. Wagon sank up to their hubs; horses dropped from exhaustion; men lost their boots.

After the storms, the sun reemerged bringing along with it oppressive heat and humidity which would bake the deep ruts into canyons of concrete, where horses would break their legs and wagons their wheels. With the numerous dead horses blocking any forward movements, the troops were left with living in swamp-like conditions with dysentery and influenza raging though the ranks with hundreds laying sick in a field hospital. The Crown Prince of Wurttemberg (future King Wilhelm I of Wurttemberg) reported 21 men dead in bivouacs from sunstroke and a further 345 soldiers were sick.

There are four types of weather fronts that cause thunderstorms: cold front, warm front, stationary front and occluded front. Thunderstorms can become extremely severe and can appear seemingly out of nowhere along any of these front lines. Cold fronts tend to move faster than the other types of fronts and are associated with the most violent types of weather such as severe and super cell thunderstorms, although any type of front can produce these same storms. Since the historical records indicate that severe thunderstorms were followed by oppressive heat and humidity on June 28th 1812 in Vilnius, Lithuanian, it is safe to conclude that these storms were part of a warm front that moved through the region.

Napoleon reached Moscow in mid September. By mid October with the French having set fire to large portions of Moscow, the French were holding onto a tenuous victory. An official French Imperial Delegation was sent to negotiate an armistice and a permanent peace with the Russian Emperor. The French were received with all civility, and we’re encouraged that the Russian soldiers wanted peace. On October 19th, after 35 days in the city, the French began to leave Moscow.

The Retreat from Moscow

Napoleon left Moscow at the head of 95,000 men, with 500 cannons and an uncertain number of wagons (estimates range from 4,000 up to 40,000, with around 20,000 perhaps most likely). The wagon train included the Imperial HQ, the pontoon train, thousands of wagons filled with food and just as many filled with the loot of Moscow. Although Napoleon was victorious in his siege of Moscow, it was with his retreat from Moscow that the Russians delivered the French Army its crushing blow…with help from the weather.

Although the Russian campaign was over by mid-October, the encroaching winter weather was heavy on the minds of Napoleon’s closest advisers. The return to France would take several months. Early on November 5th Napoleon reached Smorgoni. That evening he held a conference with his marshals – Murat, Prince Eugene of Savoy, Berthier, Lefebvre, Bessières, Ney and Davout all attended. At this meeting Napoleon announced that he was going to leave the remnants of the army and return to Paris.

At 10pm Napoleon left with a small party and a small escort of Polish cavalry. Napoleon’s decision to leave the army was probably correct, although his enemies did portray it as a cowardly betrayal of his army. Napoleon had left Marshal Murat in charge of the army. He proved to be a poor choice. Around 20,000 men (mainly stragglers) were lost between Smorgoni and Vilna due to the harsh weather conditions. This was the period of severe frosts, with the temperature dropping to -20c (-4F) on December 5th and -26c (-32.2F) December 9th.

The army was equipped with summer clothing only, and they did not have the means to protect themselves from the cold. In addition, the army lacked the ability to forge caulkined shoes for the horses to enable them to walk over roads that had become iced over. As Napoleon’s army marched further from Vilna temperatures fell further to -40 degrees C. (-40F) The soldiers fell to frostbite and starvation. In one 24-hour period, 50,000 horses died from the cold.

In his memoir, Napoleon’s close adviser, Armand de Caulaincourt, recounted scenes of massive loss, and offered a vivid description of mass death through hypothermia.

“The cold was so intense that bivouacking was no longer supportable. If the soldiers resisted the craving for sleep it would prolong their agony for a short while, but not saving them, for in this condition the drowsiness engendered by cold was irresistibly strong. Sleep comes inevitably, and to sleep is to die. This kind of death by freezing happened to thousands of individuals. The road was covered with their corpses.”

Of the 600,000 men who marched into Russia, only 150,000 would limp home. It was the beginning of the end for Napoleon’s empire, and heralded the emergence of Russia as a power in Europe.

Following the Russian campaign a saying arose that the Generals, along with Janvier and Février (January and February) defeated Napoleon. This demonstrates that without knowledge of the weather Napoleon’s troops were ill prepared to safely navigate the land and keeping their troops and animals safe.

History of the Titles of the Prince of Wales. Conclusion.

Tags

Earl of Chester, Henry IV of England, King Edward I of England, King Edward II of England, King John of England, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, titles

The Earl of Chester

The County of Cheshire was the seat from which powerful Earls (or “Counts” from the Norman-French) of Chester rose from the late eleventh century. The Earls held land all over England, comprising ‘the honour of Chester’ and by the late twelfth century the earls had established a position of power as quasi-princely rulers of Cheshire that led to the later establishment of the County Palatine of Chester and Flint. The Earls of Chester held so much power that the Magna Carta set down by King John did not apply to Cheshire and the sixth earl was compelled to issue his own versions.

HRH The Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester

The earldom passed to the Crown by escheat in 1237 on the death of John the Scot, Earl of Huntingdon, seventh and last of the Earls. William III de Forz, 4th Earl of Albemarle, claimed the earldom as husband of Christina, the senior co-heir, but the king persuaded them to quitclaim their rights in 1241 in exchange for modest lands elsewhere. The other co-heiresses did likewise. It was annexed to the Crown in 1246. King Henry III then passed the Lordship of Chester, but not the title of Earl, to his son, the Lord Edward, in 1254; and as King Edward I, this son in turn conferred the title and lands of the Earldom on his son, Edward, the first English Prince of Wales (future Edward II of England).

Earldom of Chester

The establishment of royal control of the Earldom of Chester made possible King Edward I’s conquest of north Wales, and Chester played a vital part as a supply base during the Welsh Wars (1275–84), so the separate organisation of a county palatine was preserved. This continued until the time of King Henry VIII. Since 1301, the Earldom of Chester has always been conferred jointly with the title Prince of Wales.

Chester was Briefly promoted to a principality in 1398 by King Richard II, who titled himself “Prince of Chester.” It was reduced to an earldom again in 1399 by King Henry IV. Whereas the Sovereign’s eldest son is born Duke of Cornwall, he must be made or created Earl of Chester it is not an hereditary title similarly to the title Prince of Wales; which also is not hereditary.

Prince of Wales

For most of the post-Roman period, Wales was divided into several smaller states. Before the Norman conquest of England, the most powerful Welsh ruler at any given time was generally known as King of the Britons. In the 12th and 13th centuries, this title evolved into Prince of Wales (see Brut y Tywysogion). In Latin, the new title was Princeps Walliae, and in Welsh it was Tywysog Cymru. The literal translation of Tywysog is “leader”. (The verb tywys means “to lead”.)

Only a handful of native princes had their claim to the overlordship of Wales recognised by the English Crown. The first known to have used such a title was Owain Gwynedd, adopting the title Prince of the Welsh around 1165 after earlier using rex Waliae (“King of Wales”). His grandson Llywelyn the Great is not known to have used the title “Prince of Wales” as such, although his use, from around 1230, of the style “Prince of Aberffraw, Lord of Snowdon” was tantamount to a proclamation of authority over most of Wales, and he did use the title “Prince of North Wales” as did his predecessor Dafydd ab Owain Gwynedd.

In 1240, the title was theoretically inherited by his son Dafydd ap Llywelyn, though he is not known to have used it. Instead he styled himself as “Prince of Wales” around 1244, the first Welsh prince to do so. In 1246, his nephew Llywelyn ap Gruffudd succeeded to the throne of Gwynedd, and used the style as early as 1258. In 1267, with the signing of the Treaty of Montgomery, he was recognised by both King Henry III of England and the representative of the Papacy as Prince of Wales. In 1282, Llywelyn was killed during Edward I of England’s invasion of Wales and although his brother Dafydd ap Gruffudd succeeded to the Welsh princeship, issuing documents as prince, his principality was not recognised by the English Crown.

Three Welshmen, however, claimed the title of Prince of Wales after 1283.

The first was Madog ap Llywelyn, a member of the House of Gwynedd, who led a nationwide revolt in 1294-5, defeating English forces in battle near Denbigh and seizing Caernarfon Castle. His revolt was suppressed, however, after the Battle of Maes Moydog in March 1295, and the prince was imprisoned in London.

In the 1370s, Owain Lawgoch (“Red Hand”), an English-born descendant of one of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’s brothers, claimed the title of Prince of Wales, but was assassinated in France in 1378 before he could return to Wales to claim his inheritance.

It is Owain Glyndŵr, however, whom many Welsh people regard as having been the last native Prince. On 16 September 1400, he was proclaimed Prince of Wales by his supporters, and held parliaments at Harlech Castle and elsewhere during his revolt, which encompassed all of Wales. It was not until 1409 that his revolt in quest of Welsh independence was suppressed by Henry IV.

As title of heir apparent

The tradition of conferring the title “Prince of Wales” on the heir apparent of the monarch is usually considered to have begun in 1301, when King Edward I of England invested his son Edward of Caernarfon with the title at a Parliament held in Lincoln. According to legend, the king had promised the Welsh that he would name “a prince born in Wales, who did not speak a word of English” and then produced his infant son, who had been born at Caernarfon, to their surprise. However, the story may well be apocryphal, as it can only be traced to the 16th century, and, in the time of Edward I, the English aristocracy spoke Norman French, not English (some versions of the legend include lack of knowledge in both languages as a requirement, and one reported version has the very specific phrase “born on Welsh soil and speaking no other language”).

William Camden wrote in his 1607 work Britannia that originally the title “Prince of Wales” was not conferred automatically upon the eldest living son of the King of England because Edward II (who had been the first English Prince of Wales) neglected to invest his eldest son, the future Edward III, with that title. It was Edward III who revived the practice of naming the eldest son Prince of Wales, which was then maintained by his successors:

Nevertheless, according to conventional wisdom, since 1301 the Prince of Wales has usually been the eldest living son (if and only if he is also the heir apparent) of the King or Queen Regnant of England (subsequently of Great Britain, 1707, and of the United Kingdom, 1801). That he is also the heir apparent is important. Following the death of Prince Arthur, the Prince of Wales, Henry VII invested his second son, the future Henry VIII, with the title—although only after it was clear that Arthur’s wife, Catherine of Aragon, was not pregnant; when Frederick, Prince of Wales died while his father reigned, George II created Frederick’s son George (the king’s grandson and new heir apparent) Prince of Wales. The title is not automatic and is not heritable; it merges into the Crown when a prince accedes to the throne, or lapses on his death leaving the sovereign free to re-grant it to the new heir apparent (such as the late prince’s son or brother). Prince Charles was created Prince of Wales on 26 July 1958, some six years after he became heir apparent, and had to wait another 11 years for his investiture, on 1 July 1969.

The title Prince of Wales is always conferred along with the Earldom of Chester. The convention began in 1399; all previous Princes of Wales also received the earldom, but separately from the title of Prince. Prior to 1272 a hereditary and not necessarily royal Earldom of Chester had already been created several times, eventually merging in the Crown each time. The earldom was recreated, merging in the Crown in 1307 and again in 1327. Its creations since have been associated with the creations of the Prince of Wales.

History of the Titles of the Prince of Wales: Part X

Tags

David Stewart, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, Edward III of England, George III of Great Britain, Kingdom of England, Kingdom of Scots, Prince of Wales, Robert III of Scotland, Robert the Bruce

Dukes of Rothesay

David Stewart, son of Robert III of Scotland, King of Scots, was first to be granted the Dukedom of Rothesay from its creation in 1398. After his death, his brother James, later King James I of Scotland received the dukedom. Thereafter, the heir-apparent to the Scottish Crown held the dukedom; an Act of the Scottish Parliament passed in 1469 confirmed this pattern of succession.

HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Rothesay

The Earldom of Carrick as we previously noted was created as early as the twelfth century. In 1306, Robert de Bruce, Earl of Carrick, became King Robert I of Scotland, with the earldom merging in the Crown. In the following years, successive Kings of Scots created several heirs-apparent Earl of Carrick. The Act of 1469 also finally settled the earldom on the eldest son of the Scottish monarch. The other titles we have discussed thus far, Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, were also officially attached to the heir of the Scottish Crown with the Act of 1469.

Between the 1603 Union and Edward VII’s time as heir apparent, the style “Duke of Rothesay” appears to have dropped out of usage in favour of “Prince of Wales”. It was Queen Victoria who mandated the title for use to refer to the eldest son and heir apparent when in Scotland, and this usage has continued since. This may have been as a result, direct or indirect, of the 1822 visit of King George IV to Scotland.

Duke of Rothesay and its adjoined titles became linked with the heir to the English throne and his titles Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, between 1603-1707. During this time the Kingdoms of England and Scotland were not politically united and the titles the heir held were for each kingdom separately.

The titles were unified to the heir of the throne when England and Scotland were united in 1707 as the Kingdom of Great Britain from 1707 to 1801, and now of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is the title mandated for use by the heir apparent when in Scotland, in preference to the titles Duke of Cornwall (which also belongs to the eldest living son of the monarch, when and only when he is also heir apparent, by right) and Prince of Wales (traditionally granted to the heir apparent), which are used in the rest of the United Kingdom and overseas. The Duke of Rothesay also holds other Scottish titles, including those of Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland. The title is named after Rothesay on the Isle of Bute, Argyll and Bute, but is not associated with any legal entity or landed property, unlike the Duchy of Cornwall

The Duchy of Cornwall

The Duke of Cornwall holds both the dukedom (title) and duchy (estate holdings), the latter being the source of his personal income; those living on the ducal estates are subjects of the British sovereign and owe neither fealty nor services to the duke per se.[citation needed] In Scotland the male heir apparent to the British crown is always the Duke of Rothesay as well, but this is a dukedom (title) without a duchy. Similarly, the British monarch rules and owns the Duchy of Lancaster as Duke of Lancaster, but it is held separately from the Crown, with the income of the duchy estates providing the Sovereign’s Privy Purse.

History

The historical record suggests that, following the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain, Cornwall formed part of the separate Kingdom of Dumnonia, which included Devon, although there is evidence that it may have had its own rulers at times. The southwest of Britain was gradually incorporated into the emerging Kingdom of England, and after the Norman Conquest in 1066 the new rulers of England appointed their own men as Earl of Cornwall, the first of whom was in fact a Breton of ‘Cornwall’ in Brittany. Edward, the Black Prince, the eldest son of Edward III, was made the first Duke of Cornwall in 1337, after Edward III had lost the title of Duke of Normandy After Edward the Black Prince predeceased the King, the duchy was recreated for his son, the future Richard II. In 1421 a Charter designated that the duchy passes to the sovereign’s eldest son.

Succession

The dukedom of Cornwall can only be held by the oldest living son of the monarch who is also heir apparent. In the event of a Duke of Cornwall’s death, the title merges with the Crown even if he left surviving descendants. George III of the United Kingdom was an example of this rule. The monarch’s grandson, even if he is the heir apparent, does not succeed to the dukedom. When his father, Frederick-Louis, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall died in 1751 his son, George, did not inherit either the title Prince of Wales or Duke of Cornwall. Similarly, no female may ever be Duke of Cornwall, even if she is heir presumptive or heir apparent (that being a distinct and even likely possibility in the future after the passage of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013) to the throne. However, if a Duke of Cornwall should die without descendants and has no sister older than his next brother, his next brother obtains the duchy, this brother being both oldest living son and heir apparent.

It is possible for an individual to be Prince of Wales and heir apparent without being Duke of Cornwall. The title “Prince of Wales” is the traditional title of the heir apparent to the throne, granted at the discretion of the Sovereign, and is not restricted to the eldest son. George IIII was again and example of this rule. Though both titles, Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall merged with the Crown on the death of his father, King George II created the future George III, Prince of Wales, but not Duke of Cornwall, because he was the King’s grandson rather than the King’s son. When the Sovereign has no legitimate son, the estates of the Duchy of Cornwall revert to the Crown until a legitimate son is born to the Sovereign or until the accession of a new Sovereign who has a son (e.g. between 1547 and 1603.

James Francis Edward Stuart, son of James II, was born Duke of Cornwall in 1688. Although his father lost the throne, James Francis Edward was not deprived of his own honours. On a Jacobite perspective, on his father’s death in 1701 the duchy of Cornwall was merged in the Crown. On a Hanoverian perspective, it was as a result of his claiming his father’s lost thrones that James was attainted for treason on 2 March 1702, and his titles were thus forfeited under English law.

Rights of the duke

The Duchy includes over 570 square kilometres of land, more than half of which lies in Devon. The Duke has some rights over the territory of Cornwall, the county, and for this and other reasons there is debate as to the constitutional status of Cornwall. The High Sheriff of Cornwall is appointed by the Duke, not the monarch, in contrast to the other counties of England and Wales. The Duke has the right to the estates of all those who die without named heirs (bona vacantia) in the whole of Cornwall. In 2013, the Duchy had a revenue surplus of £19 million, a sum that was exempt from income tax, though the Prince of Wales chose to pay the tax voluntarily.

Until 2011, if there was no Duke of Cornwall at any time, then the income of the Duchy went to the Crown. Since the passing into law of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall. In the event that the heir is a minor, 10% of the revenues pass to the heir, with the balance passing to the Crown (and the Sovereign Grant is reduced by the same amount).

.