My Thoughts On The Coronation

Tags

Archbishop of Canterbury, coronation, Crown of St. Edward, Gold State Coach, Imperial State Crown., King Charles III of the United Kingdom, the prince of Wales, Westminster Abbey

From The Emperor’s Desk:

I really needed a day or two to process my thoughts and feelings on this week’s coronation of King Charles III.

First of all, I was overwhelmed with the sense of the magnitude and grandeur of it all and how I was witnessing a ceremony that has been performed in that exact location gong back many centuries! It could have been King Edward I or Richard III or Charles II sitting there! Continuity and how it connects us to the past is, for me, one of cornerstones of the concept of monarchy.

For example, the Crown of St. Edward that was used to crown King Charles II and was specifically made for his coronation. This crown sat on the heads of seven monarchs (including King Charles). After King Charles II James II-VII (1685), William III (1689), George V (1911), George VI (1937) and Elizabeth II (1953) have all been crowned with this historic relic.

Mary II and Anne were crowned with small diamond crowns of their own; George I, George II, George III and William IV were crowned with the State Crown of George I. King George IV was crowned with a new large diamond crown made specially for the occasion; and Queen Victoria and Edward VII chose not to use St. Edward’s Crown because of its weight and instead used the lighter 1838 version of the Imperial State Crown.

One of the things that surprised me about St Edward’s Crown was that to me it looked dull and not shiny gold like I thought it was!

Yes I hope the king will continue to wear the Imperial State Crown at the opening of Parliament. What is interesting to me is that the arches were not altered for the coronation.

If you look at pictures of the Imperial State Crown from Queen Victoria to George sixth The arches were raised, or at least up higher. I’ve read where the arches were lowered for Queen Elizabeth II to give it a more feminine look.

So I was thinking that the arches would have been returned to a little more higher position for the king. Although I love that crown it does seem a little odd on Charles and it may take a little bit to getting used to. I hate to say it but it did seem a little bit feminine in my opinion.

Here is a link to my blog entry. If you scroll down a bit you can see the picture of king Edward VII George VI and Queen Elizabeth II wearing the Imperial State Crown and see how the arches are set.

https://wp.me/p2pver-3Ds

I’ve also heard some people say that Queen Camilla should have worn a smaller crown and that this one seemed a bit too big for her head and in that case I do agree. So I do hope she wears it without the arches for the state opening of Parliament.

The British do pomp extremely well and the coronation was very evident of that. I really appreciated seeing The Jubilee Coach used to bring the king and queen to Westminster Abbey. I was especially amazed to see The Return of the newly crowned king and queen back to Buckingham Palace in the 1761 gold coach built during the reign of King George III. With the massive amount of soldiers and guards along the way it was quite an impressive spectacle!

Although a spectacular as it was I need to take into account the fact that this was a trim down coronation. For example there were not a massive group of peers wearing their coronation robes and dining they’re coronets. I have to be honest and say I really did not miss this aspect of the coronation. This is now getting into the territory of modernizing the coronation.

I did spend a lot of time online reading other people’s perspective and opinions on the coronation. I’m not taking into account the anti-monarcus and people who absolutely were against the coronation. I’m speaking of people that support the monarchy and the coronation yet also realize that the moniker needs to be cognizant of the times in which we live and continually needs to be updated to stay relevant.

I have read some opinions that felt that much of the coronation is to archaic for our day and age. I’m not sure I agree with that. I sincerely hope in the future there will be more coronation of British monarchs. However, as I said I do understand the need for the monarchy to stay relevant. I believe this can be a topic all on the song which I will address in a future blog entry.

Another aspect that I liked was the use of the regalia during the ceremony. The spurs , armills and rings were only presented to the King. Traditionally, when a King is crowned, the spurs are supposed to touch his heels. It did not happen. And the King did not wear the armills and the ring.

The Spurs are now very fragile and it was decided that the King would just touch them. The Armills and both rings would have needed to be adjusted to fit the King and Queen. Rather than adjusting them and possibly causing damage they were just presented to Their Majesties.

By being presented to His Majesty where he touched them, I thought that was a nice way to honor the old but also bringing something new.

The coronation ring needs to be modified for each person. On a ring this old fragile that is not always practical so this time it was rightfully chosen not to alter the ring. In reading about the coronation of Queen Victoria she stated that the Archbishop forced the ring on her finger and it was quite painful.

The liked the part of the ceremony where the Prince of Wales was prominent was in paying homage to the king. In the past this part of the coronation would have taken up a lot of time with each peer of the realm coming up to the king and paying their homage and loyalty to him. To me it seems practical to only have the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prince of Wales pay homage to the king. I did think it was a nice gesture that a pledge of homage and loyalty to the king, which was completely voluntary, was offered for all to participate in. For me that very much personalized this aspect of the coronation.

The next area, the clothes that people wore, seem to be an area of controversy and mixed opinions. I’m not sure how to categorize the way women were dressed back in other coronations, or even how men were dressed if they were not dressed in the robes of the period, the majority of people were dressed in formal day wear. I’d seen some people express that they wished the people were dressed in more formal evening wear with white ties and formal gowns and tiaras would have been better was the opinion of some people.

I’m actually mixed about that. I was absolutely fine with the way people dressed and I didn’t lament the lack of tiaras or other accoutrements generally worn at a coronation. However, I certainly wouldn’t have complained if the dress for the coronation was more traditional

I did like how men of the royal family were dressed. The King asked most of the Royal Ladies to wear the Robe of the Royal Victorian Order. The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Gloucester also wore the Robe of the Royal Victorian Order. The only odd one out was the Princess Royal who wore the Robe of the Order of the Thistle. I personally think that was so Scotland was represented. As the Duke of York and other royal males wore their Order of the Garter Robe (English Order).

I am not sure what the Princess of Wales and her daughter princess Charlotte of Wales was wearing on their head. To me it looked like some Romanesque laurel wreaths. I like what they were wearing although I read where some did not.

All in all I was very moved and even at times choked up and in tears about this coordination. I think I’ll close right now I rambled on a bit and I’m sure I will write more in the days to come!

God Save the King!

May 6: King Edward VII of the United Kingdom, Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany and Prussia, Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin

Tags

Charles III of the United Kingdom, Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany and Prussia, Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, German Emperor Friedrich III, German Emperor Wilhelm II, King Edward VII of the United Kingdom, May 6, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom

From the Emperor’s Desk: Along with today’s coronation of King Charles III, May 6th was the birthday of Crown Prince Wilhelm of Germany and Prussia, the date of the death of his wife, Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, and the date of the death of King Charles III’s great-great grandfather King Edward VII of the United Kingdom.

Also, on Monday I will post my thoughts and feelings about the coronation.

~~~~~~

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

Prince Albert Edward was born at 10:48 a.m. on November 9, 1841 in Buckingham Palace. He was the eldest son and second child of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and her husband, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. He was christened Albert Edward at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, on January 25, 1842. He was named Albert after his father and Edward after his maternal grandfather, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Strathearn. He was known as Bertie to the royal family throughout his life.

As the eldest son of the British sovereign, he was automatically Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay at birth. As a son of Prince Albert, he also held the titles of Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Duke of Saxony. He was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester on December 8, 1841, Earl of Dublin on January 17, 1850.

Albert Edward married Princess Alexandra of Denmark at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, on March 10, 1863. He was 21; she was 18. Her father was Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg (later King Christian IX of Denmark) and her mother was Princess Louise of Hesse-Cassel.

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.

As king, Edward VII played a role in the modernisation of the British Home Fleet and the reorganisation of the British Army after the Second Boer War of 1899–1902. He re-instituted traditional ceremonies as public displays and broadened the range of people with whom royalty socialised.

He fostered good relations between Britain and other European countries, especially France, for which he was popularly called “Peacemaker”, but his relationship with his nephew, the German Emperor Wilhelm II, was poor. The Edwardian era, which covered Edward’s reign and was named after him, coincided with the start of a new century and heralded significant changes in technology and society, including steam turbine propulsion and the rise of socialism.

He died on May 6, 1910 in the midst of a constitutional crisis that was resolved the following year by the Parliament Act 1911, which restricted the power of the unelected House of Lords. King Edward VII was succeeded by his only surviving son, King George V.

Edward VII’s great-nephew was…

Wilhelm, German Crown Prince, Crown Prince of Prussia (May 6, 1882 – 20 July 1951)

Wilhelm was born on May 6, 1882 as the eldest son of the then Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, and his first wife, Princess Augusta Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein. He was born in the Marmorpalais of Potsdam in the Province of Brandenburg, where his parents resided until his father acceded to the throne. When he was born, his great-grandfather Wilhelm I was the German Emperor and his grandfather Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm was the heir apparent, making Wilhelm third in line to the throne.

As Emperor Wilhelm II’s heir, he was the last Crown Prince of the German Empire and the Kingdom of Prussia.

Wilhelm became crown prince at the age of six in 1888, when his grandfather German Emperor Friedrich III died and his father became Emperor. He was Crown Prince for 30 years until the fall of the empire on November 9, 1918. During World War I, he commanded the 5th Army from 1914 to 1916 and was commander of the Army Group German Crown Prince for the remainder of the war.

Wilhelm married Duchess Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (September 20, 1886 – May 6, 1954) in Berlin on 6 June 1905. After their marriage, the couple lived at the Crown Prince’s Palace in Berlin in the winter and at the Marmorpalais in Potsdam, later on at Cecilienhof in Potsdam. Cecilie was the daughter of Friedrich Franz III, Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1851–1897) and his wife, Grand Duchess Anastasia Mikhailovna of Russia (1860–1922). Their eldest son, Prince Wilhelm of Prussia, was killed fighting for the German Army in France in 1940.

After his return to Germany in 1923, he fought the Weimar Republic and campaigned for the reintroduction of the monarchy in Germany. After his plans to become president had been blocked by his father, Wilhelm supported Adolf Hitler’s rise to power, but when Wilhelm realised that Hitler had no intention of restoring the monarchy, their relationship soured.

Wilhelm became head of the House of Hohenzollern on June 4, 1941 following the death of his father and held the position until his own death on July 20, 1951.

Was He A Usurper? King Richard III. Part IV

Tags

1st Duke of Clarence, Bishop Stillington, George Plantagenet, King Edward IV, King Edward V, King Richard III, Lady Eleanor Butler, Lady Eleanor Talbot, Parliament of England, Philippe de Commines, Titulus Regius, Usurper

From the Emperor’s Desk: As I focus on the issues surrounding Richard III becoming King I will not be addressing the fate of the Princes in the Tower. Although it is a related topic, I view it as a separate issue, for their fate was a result of Richard taking the throne, therefore I will address that in another blog entry in the near future.

King Richard III succeeded to the English throne based on the claims of Titulus Regius. Titulus Regius (“royal title” in Latin) is a statute of the Parliament of England issued in 1484 by which the title of King of England was given to Richard III.

The act ratified the declaration of the Lords and the members of the House of Commons a year earlier that the marriage of King Edward IV of England to Elizabeth Woodville had been invalid and so their children, including King Edward V, Richard and Elizabeth, were illegitimate and thus debarred from the throne.

Richard III had been proclaimed the rightful king. Since the Lords and the Commons had not been officially convened as a parliament, doubts had arisen as to its validity and so when Parliament convened, it enacted the declaration as a law.

Edward’s marriage was invalidated because Bishop Robert Stillington testified that the king had precontracted a marriage to Lady Eleanor Butler. The document also claimed that Elizabeth Woodville and her mother had used witchcraft to get the king to marry her.

Since Richard’s brother George, Duke of Clarence, had been executed and attainted, his descendants forfeited all rights to the throne, leaving Richard the true heir. For good measure, the document also hinted that George and Edward (born in Ireland and Normandy, respectively) were themselves illegitimate and stated Richard, “born within this land” was the “undoubted son and heir of Richard, late Duke of York”.

If Bishop Robert Stillington was correct and King Edward IV had pre-contract with Lady Eleanor Butler (Talbot) then his marriage to Elizabeth Woodville would have been invalid.

After the overthrow and death of King Richard III at the hands of Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, the precontract alleged by Richard was presented as a fiction to justify Richard’s usurpation of power and to cover his murder of the princes. Some historians have agreed with this view. Supporters of Richard, however, have argued that the precontract was real and that it legitimised his accession to the throne.

What do we know of Lady Eleanor Butler (Talbot)?

Lady Eleanor Talbot (c. 1436 – June 1468), also known by her married name Eleanor Butler (or Boteler), was an English noblewoman. She was a daughter of John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury.

In 1449, 13-year-old Eleanor married Sir Thomas Butler (or Boteler), son of Ralph Boteler, Lord Sudeley. Thomas died at an unknown date before Edward IV of England’s overthrow of the House of Lancaster on 4 March 1461. Her father-in-law Lord Sudeley took back one of the two manors he had settled on her and her husband when they married, even though he did not have a license for the transfer. Edward seized both properties after he became king.

Eleanor died in June 1468. She was buried on 30 June in Norwich.

Because author Philippe de Commines does not name the “beautiful young lady”, and the official copy of Titulus Regius in parliament had been destroyed, Tudor historians confused Talbot with Edward’s long-standing mistress Elizabeth Lucy (also known as Elizabeth Wayte). Elizabeth Lucy was probably the mother of Edward IV’s bastard son, Arthur Plantagenet, 1st Viscount Lisle.

Thomas More in his life of Richard III states that Lucy was interrogated at the time of Edward’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville, because Edward’s mother was strongly opposed to the marriage and had suggested that Edward was pre-contracted to Lucy. But Lucy denied that any contract had been made. He says that Richard revived the claim of Lucy after Edward’s death.

This threw further doubt on the case, but later historians correctly identified her. George Buck, who found the only surviving copy of Titulus Regius, was the first to identify Eleanor Talbot as the woman in question. Buck, a defender of Richard, accepted the validity of the precontract. His view has been followed by many defenders of Richard since, including Horace Walpole and Clements Markham.

Later Ricardians have also either accepted it as fact, or argued that Richard sincerely believed it to be true. It is also commonly argued by Ricardians that Stillington was imprisoned by Edward IV in 1478 because he incautiously spoke of the precontract to George, Duke of Clarence.

Part V will come next week.

Happy Easter 🐰🐣

Tags

Easter

From the Emperor’s Desk:

Hello Everyone,

I would like to wish all who celebrate a very Happy Easter! 🐰🐣

Peace and Love

Liam 👑 🌷

UPDATE

Tags

European Royal History Blog

From the Emperor’s Desk:

Hello 👋 everyone!

I hope everyone is doing well today.

I will be taking some time off until Monday April 3rd.

I have reached my limit with media storage and i cannot upload any more pictures.

My options are to upgrade this site from Free to Pro but unfortunately im disabled and i cannot afford to upgrade at this time.

My other options are to move this blog to another platform or just continue here without any pictures.

I’m leaning towards just continuing to post here without any pictures until I can upgrade my blog.

I would appreciate any feedback!

I also want to thank you for your continued support!

Sincerely,

Liam the Grateful. 👑

History of the Kingdom of Greece: Part XI. Restoration of King George II

Tags

Elisabeth of Romania, Exile, Ferdinand of Romania, General Georgios Kondylis, King Alexander of Yugoslavia, king George II of the Hellenes, Plebiscite, Restoration

From the Emperor’s Desk: for some reason I am unable to post with pictures. I am looking into it and hopefully pictures will be back soon!

First exile

Exiled in Romania since December 1923, the former Greek King and his wife settled in Bucharest, where King Ferdinand and Queen Marie of Romania put at their disposal a wing of the Cotroceni palace for some time. After several weeks, however, the couple moved and established their residence in a more modest villa on Victory Avenue.

Regular guests of the Romanian sovereigns, George and Elizabeth took part in the ceremonies which punctuated the life of the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family. Despite the kindness with which his mother-in-law treated him, the ex-King of the Hellenes felt idle in Bucharest and struggled to hide the boredom he felt from the splendors of the Romanian court.

Tried by the humiliations of exile, financial difficulties and the absence of descendants, relations between George and Elisabeth deteriorated. After having first assuaged her weariness in too rich food and gambling, the ex-queen of the Hellenes then carried on extra-marital affairs with various married men.

She took advantage of a visit to her sick sister, in Belgrade, to flirt with her own brother-in-law, Alexander, the King of Yugoslavia. Later, she began an affair with her husband’s banker, a Greek named Alexandros Scavani, whom she made her chamberlain to cover up the scandal.

In the United Kingdom

Restoration of monarchy and the Metaxas regime

After the abolition of the monarchy, in 1924, the anti-Venizelist leaders, except for Metaxas, refused to recognise the new regime. This “regime issue”, that arose just after the proclamation of the Republic, haunted Greek politics for more than a decade and eventually led to the restoration of monarchy.

Was the referendum to restore the Greek Monarchy in 1935 rigged?

In October 1935 General Georgios Kondylis, a former Venizelist who had suddenly decided to throw in his lot with the monarchist forces, overthrew the government and appointed himself prime minister. He then arranged a plebiscite both to approve his government and to bring an end to the republic.

In 1935, Prime Minister Georgios Kondylis, a former pro-Venizelos military officer, became the most powerful political figure in Greece. He compelled Panagis Tsaldaris to resign as Prime Minister and took over the government, suspending many constitutional provisions in the process. Kondylis, who had now joined the Conservatives, decided to hold a referendum in order to re-establish the monarchy, despite the fact that he used to be a supporter of the anti-monarchist wing of Greek politics.

Conduct

Observers of the time expressed serious doubts about the vote’s legitimacy. Besides the implausibly high “yes” vote, the vote was held in far-from-secret circumstances. Voters dropped a blue piece of paper into the ballot box if they supported the king’s return, or a red paper to retain the republic. Anyone who cast a red ballot risked being beaten up.

On November 3, 1935, almost 98% of the reported votes supported restoration of the monarchy. The balloting was not secret, and participation was compulsory.

George, who had been living at Brown’s Hotel in London, returned to Greek soil on November 25. Almost immediately he and Kondylis disagreed over the terms of a general amnesty the King wanted to declare, and George appointed an interim prime minister, Konstantinos Demertzis.

New elections were held in January, which resulted in a hung parliament with the Communists (who were naturally anti-monarchist) holding the balance of power. A series of unexpected deaths amongst the better-known politicians (including Kondylis and Demertzis), as well as the uncertain political situation, led to the rise to power of politician and veteran army officer Ioannis Metaxas.

One Million Hits!

Tags

European Royal History Blog, Liam Foley

Wow! I’ve reached over a million readers visiting my Europe Royal History blog!!! Thanks to all who read and support my blog you’re much appreciated!!!! Thank You!

I had well over 24k readers over the weekend! The most in a 48 hour period!

It took me 8 years to reach 500,000 readers visiting my blog. But it only took 3 years to reach another 500,000+ readers!!

So Thank You 💕 so very much!

Liam the Grateful 👑🤴

I am going to gloat a little!!

Tags

Duke of Edinburgh, Liam Foley, Prince Charles, Prince Edward, Prince Philip

From the Emperor’s Desk:

I’m going to gloat a little. When Prince Philip died in 2021 I had reported on the Facebook page connected to this blog that Prince Charles had become the new Duke of Edinburgh. I had more than 75+ people angrily tell me how wrong I was and that Prince Edward was then the new Duke of Edinburgh.

No matter how I tried to explain the situation about how the Dukedom was to be inherited, people kept telling me and attacking me for being wrong. Some attacks were harsh and personal.

I gave up trying to defend my position and explaining things, knowing in time I’d be proven right.

Yesterday I was proven right!

The Duke of Edinburgh is still the Earl of Wessex

Tags

courtesy title, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Fofar, Earl of Wessex, Prince Edward

From the Emperor’s Desk:

The Duke of Edinburgh is still the Earl of Wessex, Earl of Fofar and Viscount Severn.

His son James Mountbatten-Windsor is Earl of Wessex as a courtesy title only. Similar to how the sons of the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent use their father’s secondary titles as courtesy titles. James used his father’s secondary title Viscount Severn but now since his father is a Duke the title Earl of Wessex is used as a secondary title because that has now become the Dukes higher secondary title.

Titles For The Children of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Tags

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Duchess of Sussex, Her Royal Highness, His Royal Highness, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Letters Patent of 1917, Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, Megan Markle, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex

From the Emperor’s Desk:

Ever since the accession of King Charles III on the British throne the question of the titles of the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has been raised. The question wasn’t what their titles would be, the question was did they even have titles?

Prior to the accession of the King, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not eligible to have the style of His or Her Royal Highness and the title of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom because according to the Letters Patent of 1917 issued by King George V, which stipulated that only grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line were eligible for these styles and titles.

From their birth until the accession of the King, when Queen Elizabeth II was the reigning monarch, the Sussex children were ineligible for the titles and styles because they were great-grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line..

The original 1917 Letters Patent granted the style of Royal Highness and title of Prince or Princess to the children of the sovereign and the grand children of the sovereign in the male line. The Letters Patent extended this courtesy to the son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth II that extension applied to Prince George only.

On December 31, 2012 Queen Elizabeth II made an amendment to the 1917 Letters Patent by issuing Letters Patent which gave the title and style His/Her Royal Highness and Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom to all the children of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son.

Therefore at birth Charlotte and Louis they were thus styled “Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte of Cambridge” and “His Royal Highness Prince Louis of Cambridge” respectively.

It has been announced that the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will begin to use the style Royal Highness and the Prince and Princess titles afforded to them by the Letters Patent of 1917.

The news was revealed when it was announced that Princess Lilibet had been christened on Friday in California.

Buckingham Palace has said that the Royal Website will be updated to reflect the change in due course.

They will now be known as: His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex and Her Royal Highness Princess Lilibet of Sussex.