Death of King William IV of the United Kingdom Of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover.

Tags

History, King William IV of the United Kingdom, Kings, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom

June 20, 1837: His Majesty King William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover died at Windsor Castle. He was 71 years old. Since The King died childless his niece Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandrina-Victoria of Kent ascended the British throne after him. After her proclamation as Queen she announced she wanted to simply be known as Victoria. The throne of Hanover governed by the Salic Law could only be held by a man, and so it went to the new Queen’s uncle HRH Prince Ernest Augustus, The Duke of Cumberland became King Ernst August of Hanover.

#KingWilliamIV #QueenVictoria #DukeofCumberland #TodayInHistory

Why the Queen cannot give the throne to the Duke of Cambridge.

Tags

Act of Settlement 1701, Edward VI, Elizabeth II, Henry IV, Kingdom of England, Louis XIV of France, Parliament, Prince Charles, Prince William of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge

Frequently on social media I will see posts by people that think the Queen should give the throne to the Duke of Cambridge bypassing the Prince of Wales. These people generally are not fans of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. The thing is the Queen has no power to give the crown to anyone. She cannot bypass the Prince of Wales and give the crown to the Duke of Cambridge. The succession to the throne is regulated by Parliament and this authority has been in the hands of Parliament for centuries. Therefore, it would take an Act of Parliament to alter the succession and to remove the Prince of Wales from his rightful place in the order of the succession. There is no plans to do so, nor is there any reason or need to alter the succession.

Even during the reigns of the Saxon kings the power to regulate or name your successor was not in the Hans of the monarch. That power was in the hands of the Witenagemot (Witan) a council of elders. At the time the English kingship was elective and semi-hereditary. The Witenagemot had the power to name and elect the king and although they limited their choices to the House of Wessex, they would often select a brother of the pervious King especially if the king left children too young to reign.

In 1066 when William I “the Conqueror” became king he abolished the Witenagemot
And he held the power and right to name his successor. Although the king did hold this power it was not always followed. Case in point was Henry I of England (1100-1134) who named his daughter, the Empress Matilda, as his successor. However, despite the Barons swearing an oath to uphold the succession of the Empress Matilda, this oath was ignored allowing the King’s nephew, Count Stephen of Blois, to usurp the throne and plunging England into many years of civil war.

Eventually the crown evolved into the male preferred primogeniture that remained up until recently and ended with the Crown Act of 2013 which left the succession to the eldest child regardless of gender. Also, concurrent with the settling into the tradition of male preferred primogeniture, came the rise of Parliament which also tried influence the crown in matters of succession. When Henry IV (1399-1412) usurped the crown from Richard II (1377-1399) he had his kingship sanctioned by Parliament to give his reign legal status.

Even when monarchs such as Henry VIII (1509-1547) and his son Edward VI (1547-1553) tried to alter the succession they were unable to assert their will without Parliamentary approval. Henry tried to exclude the descendants of the union of his sister Margaret to King James IV of Scotland and Edward tried to bypass his sister Mary and give the throne to his cousin, Lady Jane Grey. In each case Parliament either ignored the king’s will, as was the case with the union of Margaret to King James IV of Scotland, and Parliament did not sanction altering the succession that Edward VI attempted. This was another reason Lady Jane is considered a usurper.

Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) was the last monarch who had power to name her successor given the fact that she left no heir. This was a power she refused to use as she did not name her successor, although historians debate whether or not she did name her distant cousin, King James VI of Scotland, as her successor. In 1679 King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland actually stopped Parliament from removing his brother, James, Duke of York from the succession due to his Catholicism via the Exclusion Bill. The almost lead to another English civil war.

The Duke of York became King James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1685 and it was his abandonment of the throne in 1688 which lead to Parliament calling William III of Orange and Princess Mary, daughter of the deposed king, to the throne which they held jointly. This was made legal with the passing of the English Bill of Rights in 1689. With the Passing of the Act of Settlement in 1701, which regulated the throne to the Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, Parliament has held the power to regulate the succession to the crown ever since.

Although not England, even the great powerful Louis XIV of France and Navarre (1643-1715), an absolute monarch, was unable to alter the succession to the French throne when he wanted to give succession rights to his legitimized children after the Princes of the Blood. This demonstrates how difficult it is for a monarch to alter the succession to the crown.

I hope this short history lesson demonstrates why the Queen cannot alter the succession to the crown by giving the throne to the Duke of Cambridge bypassing the Prince of Wales.

What is in a name?

Tags

Edward VII, Henry IX of the United Kingdom, King Charles II of England, Queen Mary, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, Robert III of Scotland, the prince of Wales, William IV of the United Kingdom

In the majority monarchies a new monarch generally retains his given name upon succession. However, there are times when a monarch either changes his or her name completely or shortens the name they will be known by during their reign. For example, Emperor Friedrich III of Germany (1888), was known as Fritz to his family, and was officially known to the public as Friedrich-Wilhelm while he was Crown Prince.

In the English/British monarchy changing names has been a recent development and even then there are only a few example. Up until the time of William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover, I cannot find any King or Queen of England that changed their name when they wore the crown. There was one King of Scotland that did change his name. King Robert III of Scotland (1390-1406) was born with the name John. One month after his accession in April of 1390 the Scottish Parliament granted John permission to change his regnal name to Robert, to maintain the link back to Robert I the Bruce but also to disassociate himself from the unpopular and disastrous reign of King John Balliol.

When King George IV of the United Kingdom died in 1830 his brother, The Duke of Clarence, christened Prince William-Henry, wanted to call himself King Henry IX until it was pointed out to him that the Scottish Pretender, Henry Stuart, Cardinal Duke of York, also claimed to be Henry IX by himself and his supporters. Given that Henry Stuart died 30 years prior and many still remembered him the King was persuaded to be known by his first name, William.

King William IV’s niece, Queen Victoria, was christened with the double name Alexandrina-Victoria and was known as Drina within the family during her youth. The day she became queen she was actually proclaimed Queen Alexandrina-Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. However, the next day she let it be known that she simply wanted to be called Victoria.

In homage to her sainted husband, Prince Albert,*  Queen Victoria named her son, the Prince of Wales, Albert-Edward in hopes that he would become King Albert I of the United Kingdom. That did not happen and in an effort to forge his own identity he chose to reign as King Edward VII. Up until he succeeded his mother the Prince of Wales was known as Bertie within the family. Albert-Edward’s eldest son was christened Albert Victor Christian Edward and was known as Eddy within the family. Albert-Victor died of pneumonia in 1892 and never assumed the crown. Since he was known as Eddy within the family it is logical to concluded that had he lived he would have become King Edward VIII.

The next name change we find is with Queen Mary, the wife of King George V. Queen Mary was christened HSH Princess Victoria-Mary of Teck and known as May within the family, had to choose her regnal name when her husband came to the throne in 1910. As Princess of Wales she was known by her double name Victoria-Mary and since George V detested double names he told his wife to choose between which two she wanted be known by. She believed that to be called Queen Victoria was out of the question seeing that it was only 9 years ago that the great queen had passed, so the obvious choice was Queen Mary.

The son of King George V and Queen Mary, King Edward VIII, was christened Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David and although he was known as David within the family, his official public name was Edward and so when he became King Edward VIII for a short period in 1936 it cannot be considered a name change. However, his brother and next-in-line to the throne, Prince Albert The Duke of York, and known as Bertie in the family, did change his regnal name to George VI in order to show continuity with his father George V after the scandalous abdication crisis. It is understandable then, given this short tradition of name changes, to question the new Queen Elizabeth II in 1952 to ascertain what name she wanted to reign under. Without a question she chose her own name.

For years there have been rumors flying around that when the current Prince of Wales comes to the throne instead of being known as King Charles III he will be known as King George VII. The rumor is that King Charles I and II are unpopular and associated with bad reigns and it is well known that the Prince of Wales holds a great affection and admiration for his ancestor, King George III. First off, I do not put much faith in this rumor and I do not think King Charles II had such a bad reign or negative connotations are associated with him. However, if the Prince of Wales does choose to reign under a different name there is some precedence for it.

• Speaking of Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, his first name was actually Franz (Francis) and Albert was one of his many names. He was christened HSH Prince Francis Albert Augustus Charles Emmanuel of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

Limits of Power for Exiled Royal Families: Conclusion

Tags

Abdication, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, King Michael of Romania, Prince George Friedrich of Prussia, Prince Louis-Ferdinand of Prussia, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, The Kingdom of Portugal, The Prince of Prussia

On December 30, 2007, King Michael signed a new Statute of the Royal House, called Fundamental Rules of the Royal House of Romania. These new House Laws were implicitly based on European Union type of legislation, specifically those laws which addresses the European Convention on Human Rights, which, however, does not guarantee any right to reign as a monarch of any country, and also on the values of the Romanian society. The document clarifies the order of inheritance of King Michael’s fortune and rights to the Romanian throne. This new Statute, thought by some to be undemocratic because it was not approved by any Parliament, is mostly symbolic but it does attempt to replace the old 1884 Statute Law. According to this new Statute, the first in line of succession is King Michael’s eldest daughter, newly titled “Crown Princess of Romania” and “Custodian of the Romanian Crown,” Princess Margarita. In 1997 King Michael had already designated her as successor to “all” his “prerogatives and rights”, indicating his desires for a gender-blind succession to the throne.

The argument has been made that Crown Princess Margarita will only become head of the royal family because King Michael, as a constitutional monarch, is unable to alter the old and inoperative succession laws which had excluded females and their descendants. King Michael was not and is not an absolute monarch who could rule via the strength of his will. It is only the Romanian Parliament that could ameliorate these laws along with the Constitution where these precepts had been included. Also, the Romanian Parliament will not alter the succession to a monarchy that no longer exists. In order to legally alter the succession the monarchy would need to be restored. There is however, an alternative view which finds that Michael is able to alter these succession laws alone, effectively making him an absolute monarch. This view stems from the rreality of the fact that during his second reign, Michael neither was sworn into office by any Parliament, nor did he take any oath to any Constitution. Instead King Michael was instead anointed king by the Romanian Orthodox Church. The second opinion ignores the fact that Michael never personally claimed to be an absolute monarch, nor had he acted as such, and he always supporting democracy and the constitutional monarchy.

During the week this came in over the news….This is copied from Royal Central…

“In a statement released yesterday, Romania’s King Michael has withdrawn his grandson’s royal title. The former Prince Nicolae of Romania, once third in succession to the throne, and only grandson of the ninety-three-year-old king will now be known as Mr. Nicholas Medforth-Mills. He became third in line to the throne on April 1st, 2010 at the age of twenty-five.

King Michael reached this conclusion by observing his grandson’s behavior in public and in private. Ioan Luca Vlad explained further, “When you are in public, you must have a certain attitude, you must comply with certain norms. If you do this, but you are not happy with it, this won’t last long, so you must make a preventive step,”

The king is merely thinking of the future, stated the Royal House’s representatives. It isn’t a punishment for the former prince, who was in agreement with his grandfather’s decision. Mr. Methford-Mills issued his statement, “The royal life means leading my life in a way I find hard to accept,” he said. “For this reason, I accept with a lot of pain in my heart the decision of His Majesty King Michael for me.”

I have given it some great thought. One problem, as I already stated it, is that these House Laws/Constitutions were written at a time when these thrones were extant. This forever sets them in stone and there is no legal means to change them. If these families were still reigning there would be a legal means of altering the House Laws.

In the majority of these former ruling families, most holding their titles in pretense, there is still considerable wealth and estates to consider and who should inherit these vast holdings are some of the problems the heads of these former ruling families face. In the past these issues were decided legally and while the courts today can rule on these issues they do not have jurisdiction over the claims of titles and thrones that no longer exist. There are limits.

Many of these former ruling families had strict marriages laws/requirements and rules on who was and was not a dynast. Why does this still matter? As I mentioned there is still wealth and land to be inherited but more than that, some of these former reigning families still hold places of privilege and high profile levels of service to their country. The heirs to the thrones of Romania, Serbia, Germany and Portugal all have some relationships with the government either on a national level or local level. For instance, the wedding of the pretender to the Portuguese throne was televised and attended by the Prime Minister and the President of Portugal as well as other foreign dignitaries. When the Prince of Prussia, heir to the German Empire, married in 2011 the religious wedding was broadcast live by local public television. The formal dinner, which many members of German and European royal families attended, was held in the Orangery Palace at Sanssouci Park.

There still is a lot at stake. For instance, the Prince of Prussia (Prince Georg-Friedrich) was under a lot of pressure to marry someone of equal status after his great-great grandfather, Kaiser Wilhelm II, placed a stipulation in his will that only those of equal marriage were eligible to inherit his vast wealth and headship of the Royal House. The eldest children of Prince Georg-Friedrich’s grandfather, Prince Louis-Ferdinand (1907-1994), did not marry equally so Prince Louis-Ferdinand named his grandson (born of an equal marriage) as heir to the estate and the Headship of the Royal House. This was contested in the courts by Prince Georg-Friedrich’s uncles and although he eventually won, he too, had to marry equally. His wife, the current Princess of Prussia, was born Her Serene Highness Princess Sophie of Isenburg. Although the court could rule on the inheritance it could not rule on the Headship of the Royal House because the monarchy was no longer existing so it had no jurisdiction over pretense to titles.

Times have changed and monarchies in order to survive also need to change with the times. In 1936 King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain had to abdicate in order to marry the woman he loved. This caused great scandal. Today, attitudes on divorce and equal marriage have changed. When the Prince of Wales married his former mistress in 2005 it was accepted by most. When Crown Prince Haakon of Norway married a woman that had had a child from a previous relationship, it was accepted although it did cause a minor uproar. If these former ruling families want to stay relevant and not disappear into the dust bins of history I think they need to be allowed to change and adapt.

I don’t think old House Laws and Constitutions need to tie the hands of these Heads of former reigning Houses. For practical reasons they should not. As we have seen issues and problems do come up in these families and they do need to be addressed and I think the Heads of former reigning Houses need to have some freedom to address these problems and change the Laws as the times change.

The limits of power of monarchs in exile

Tags

Albertine Branch, Alexander of Saxe-Gessaphe, German Empire, House of Wettin, Kingdom of Saxony, Margrave of Meissen, Maria Emanuel of Saxony, Monarchs in exile, vacant thrones

One of the problems in royal families that no longer rule, surrounds the ability to change the house laws that governed the family. Often, though not always, these house laws also formed parts of the constitution of the State. The problem becomes that when the house laws are no longer functional or realistic yet amending the constitution is impossible for the throne is gone and the constitution which governed the country is frozen in time and not amenable.

The old Royal House of Saxony is a prime example of this problem. HRH Prince Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen became head of the Royal House of Saxony upon the death of his father, HRH Prince Friedrich Christian, Margrave of Meissen on August 9th, 1968. Since Prince Maria Emanuel fathered no legitimate children, he chose as his eventual heir Prince Alexander of Saxe-Gessaphe, the son of his eldest sister Princess Anna and her late husband Prince Robert of Gessaphe a descendants of a Lebanese Christian family which ruled a province north of Beirut). On June 1st, 1999 Prince Maria Emanuel formally adopted Alexander who had married Princess Gisela of Bavaria in 1987. In 1997 the surviving male dynasts of the Albertine line of Wettins (House of Saxony) consented to the Margrave’s decision. On July 23rd, 2012 HRH Prince Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen passed away at the age of 86 having been head of the Royal House of Saxony for 44 years.

Immediately after Maria Emanuel’s death, his brother, Prince Albert of Saxony, ignored the 1997 agreement and assumed headship of the House of Saxony with the title Margrave of Meissen. Prince Alexander of Saxe-Gessaphe also assumed the headship to the Royal House of Saxony with the title Margrave of Meissen. However, Prince Albert’s claim were short lived for he died a few months after his brother dying on October, 6 20112. Since this time the claims to the headship of the house have been disputed.

Recently as a joint statement was issued by the three heads of the Ernestine branch of the House of Wettin: Prince Michael of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Duke of Saxony, Count of Wettin, Prince Andreas of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Duke of Saxony, Duke Conrad of Saxe-Meiningen, Duke of Saxony: The statement makes three announcements in reference to Alexander Prinz von Sachsen:

1. as an adopted Prinz von Sachsen he does not belong to the nobility, but is a non-noble bearer of the name; 2. he is not a blood member of the House of Wettin; 3. he is not the head of the Albertine branch of the House of Wettin, nor the bearer of the customary title Margrave of Meissen.

This statement places another throne and the headship of the House in dispute. However, not only is the headship of the House in dispute, but the power and ability to alter the succession is in question. There are other cases I could site but the Royal House of Saxony is a prime example of the problem. Next week I will discuss my opinion on these problems and discuss other examples and why I think the way I do.

Until then, I would like to hear from readers what your thoughts on this issue is. You may leave your comments below.

Succession: Act of Settlement of 1701

Tags

Act of Settlement 1701, Electress Sophia of Hanover, King James II-VII of England and Scotland, Mary II of England, Prince William Duke of Gloucester, Queen Anne of Great Britain, William III of England

When William III and Mary II ruled jointly any of their offspring would have inherited the throne. After William and Mary the next in line was Mary’s sister the Princess Anne, Duchess of Cumberland. In 1700 Princess Anne was married to Prince George of Denmark who was the younger son of King Frederick III of Denmark and Norway and Sophie Amalie of Brunswick-Lüneburg. His mother was the sister of Ernst-August, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg, later Elector of Hanover. Prince George was therefore first cousin to King George I of Great Britain, Elector of Hanover his wife’s successor!

George and Anne were married on July 28, 1683 in the Chapel Royal at St James’s Palace, London, by Henry Compton, Bishop of London. The guests included King Charles II, Queen Catherine, and the Duke and Duchess of York. In England George remained HRH Prince George of Denmark and Nowray until April 10, 1689 when King William III raised his brother-in-law to the peerage by granting him the title Duke of Cumberland. Throughout their marriage they had 17 pregnancies with the majority of them being stillbirths or miscarriages. Two daughters, Mary and Anne-Sophia both lived for a year or so. Another daughter named Mary and a son named George lived only a short while after birth. The longest lived child of The Duke and Duchess of Cumberland, was HRH Prince William, Duke of Gloucester. His death in 1700 age of 11 created a crisis for the succession. Just prior to his death this was the succession to the Crown.

HM King William III of England and Scotland.

1. HRH Princess Anne, The Duchess of Cumberland
2. HRH Prince William, The Duke of Gloucester
3. HRH Prince James, The Prince of Wales *
4. HM Queen Anne Marie d’Orléans, Queen of Savoy *
5. HRH Prince Victor Amadeus of Savoy, Prince of Piedmont *

I only listed the first five. Those with the asterisk were not even in the line of succession at this time. Although the Act of Settlement was not the law of the land at this time all those would not have been acceptable due to being Catholic. I included them to show what the succession may have looked like had Catholics been allowed, and also to demonstrate that after the future Queen Anne and her son, the rest in line to the throne were Catholic. That is why Prince William, Duke of Gloucester’s death created a crisis for the throne. Although Prince James was technically still Prince of Wales, his title would not be attained until March 2, 1702 and his presence on the throne was not desired. If Catholics had been allowed to succeed to the throne the line of succession would have looked more like this:

1. HRH Prince James, the Prince of Wales
2. HRH Princess Anne, The Duchess of Cumberland
3. HRH Prince William, The Duke of Gloucester
4. HM Queen Anne Marie d’Orléans, Queen of Savoy
5. HRH Prince Victor Amadeus of Savoy, Prince of Piedmont

HSH Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover was the closest Protestant and just prior to the Act becoming law she was around 150th in line to the throne.

On the day of William III’s death, March 8 1702, the line of succession to the English throne was determined by the Act of Settlement 1701 and his sister-in-law, Anne, second daughter of the deposed King James II-VII of England and Scotland (who had died September 16, 1701), assumed the throne as Queen Anne. Electress Sophia (age 70), five of her children (ages 35 to 41), and three legitimate grandchildren (ages 14 to 18) were alive. Although Sophia was in her seventy-first year, older than Anne by thirty-five years, she was very fit and healthy, and invested time and energy in securing the succession either for herself or her son.

1. HRH Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover
2. HRH Prince George Louis, Elector of Hanover
3. HRH Prince George Augustus, Electoral Prince of Hanover
4. HRH Princess Sophia Dorothea of Hanover
5. HRH Prince Maximilian Wilhelm of Hanover
6. HRH Prince Christian Henry of Hanover
7. HRH Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover
8. HRH Princess Sophia, Queen in Prussia
9. HRH Prince Frederick William of Prussia, Crown Prince of Prussia

The electress was eager to move to London, however, the proposal was denied, as such action would mortally offend Anne who was strongly opposed to a rival court in her kingdom. Anne might have been aware that Sophia, who was active and lively despite her old age, could cut a better figure than herself.

Although considerably older than Queen Anne, Sophia enjoyed much better health. According to the Countess of Bückeburg in a letter to Sophia’s niece, the Raugravine Luise, on the 5th of June 1714 Sophia felt ill after receiving an angry letter from Queen Anne. Two days later she was walking in the gardens of Herrenhausen when she ran to shelter from a sudden downpour of rain and collapsed and died, aged 83 a considerable advanced age for the era. Shortly, a little over a month later, in August, Queen Anne died at the age of 49. Had Anne died before June 1714, Sophia would have been the oldest person to ascend the British throne.

Upon Sophia’s death, her eldest son Elector Georg-Ludwig of Brunswick-Lüneburg (1660-1727) became heir presumptive in her place, and weeks later, succeeded Anne as King George I.

January 30, 1649

Tags

2012. Parliament, Act of Settlement 1701, Charles II of England and Scotland, King James II-VII of England and Scotland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Louis XIV of France, William III and Mary II

On January 30, 1649 King Charles I of England, Scotland, France and Ireland was beheaded at the end of the English Civil War. In normal times when the monarchy was extant The Prince of Wales would automatically be King. “The King is Dead, Long Live the King.” To monarchists HRH The Prince of Wales did become HM The King (Charles II of England, Scotland, France and Ireland ) on that fateful and dreadful day. Just before and after the execution of King Charles I on 30 January 1649, the Rump Parliament passed a number of acts of Parliament creating the legal basis for the republic. With the Monarchy officially abolished Charles II was king in name only. Here is the succession to the crown at the moment Charles II became king.

Charles II King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland

1. HRH Prince James, Duke of York
2. HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester
3. HRH Princess Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange
4. HRH Princess Elizabeth
5. HRH Princess Henrietta, Duchess of Orléans
6. HM Queen Elizabeth of Bohemia, Electress Palatine of the Rhine
7. HSH Prince Charles Louis, Elector Palatine
8. HSH Prince Rupert of the Rhine of the Rhine, Duke of Cumberland
9. HSH Prince Maurice of the Palatinate
10. HSH Prince Edward, Count Palatine of Simmern
11. HSH Princess Luise Marie of the Palatinate
12. HSH Princess Anne of the Palatinate
13. HSH Prince Philip Frederick of the Palatinate
14. HSH Princess Elisabeth of the Palatinate
15. HSH Princess Louise Hollandine of the Palatinate
16. HSH Princess Henriette Marie of the Palatinate
17. HSH Princess Sophia of the Palatinate

The first five in line to the throne are all of the new king’s siblings. Number 6, is HM Queen Elizabeth of Bohemia, Electress Palatine of the Rhine and she was the aunt of King Charles II and the only surviving sibling of King Charles I. Number 7-17 are her descendants and are members of the German royal House of Wittelsbach. Members of this illustrious family reigned as Dukes, Electors and Kings of Bavaria (1180-1918), Counts Palatine of the Rhine (1214-1803 and 1816-1918), Margraves of Brandenburg (1323-1373), Counts of Holland, Hainaut and Zeeland (1345-1432), Elector-Archbishops of Cologne (1583-1761), Dukes of Jülich and Berg (1614-1794/1806), Kings of Sweden (1441-1448 and 1654-1720) and Dukes of Bremen-Verden (1654-1719). This noble dynasty even produced two Holy Roman Emperors, Louis IV (1314–1347) and Charles VII (1742–1745),

Incidentally, number 17, was HSH Princess Sophia of the Palatinate. She was the daughter of Friedrich V, King of Bohemia, Elector Palatine, and HRH Princess Elizabeth Stuart of England and born in 1630. Sophia married Ernst-August of Brunswick-Lüneburg in 1658. Sophia, Ernst-August became Elector of Hanover in 1692. His wife, Sophia, the Electress of Hanover became heiress presumptive to crowns of the Kingdom of England, Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland under the Act of Settlement 1701. After the Act of Union, 1707 unified the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland, she became heiress to the throne of Kingdom of Great Britain. In 1701 she was bumped up to first in line after Princess Anne (later Queen Anne). (more on this next week).

On April 4, 1660, Charles II issued the Declaration of Breda, in which he made several promises in relation to the reclamation of the crown of England. General Monck organized the Convention Parliament, which met for the first time on April 25. On May 8, 1660 the Convention Parliament proclaimed that King Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the execution of Charles I on 30 January 1649. Charles II entered London on May 29, his 30th birthday. He was crowned at Westminster Abbey on April 23, 1661.

Here is the succession to the throne May of 1660 on the Restoration of King Charles II.

1. HRH Prince James, The Duke of York
2. HRH Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange
3. HRH Prince Willem III of Orange
4. HRH Princess Elizabeth
5. HRH Princess Henrietta, Duchess of Orléans
6. HM Queen Elizabeth of Bohemia, Electress Palatine of the Rhine
7. HSH Prince Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine
8. HSH Prince Charles II, Elector Palatine
9. HSH Princess Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine
10. HSH Prince Rupert of the Rhine of the Rhine, Duke of Cumberland

Not too much has changed in the 11 years of exile. Neither Charles II nor his brother, Prince James, The Duke of York, sired an legitimate issue. The future James II-VII of England and Scotland would remain the heir to the throne through the reign of his brother who, despite marrying Catherine of Braganza of Portugal in 1661, would not have any legitimate children. The children of Prince James, The Duke of York; the future Queen Mary II and Queen Anne would not be born until 1662 and 1665 respectively. However, the future King William III of England and Scotland was 3rd in line to the throne in 1660 behind his mother, HRH Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, who would died on Christmas Eve 1660, the year of her brother’s restoration.

After his mother’s death the future William III was dumped up to second-in-line to the throne until the birth of his cousins would bump him down the line. Incidentally in 1688 when James II-VII was deposed the first five in-line to the throne were:

1. HRH The Prince of Wales. (Prince James Francis Edward)
2. HRH Princess Mary, the Princess of Orange
3. HRH Princess Anne, Duchess of Cumberland
4. HH Prince Willem III, The Prince of Orange, Stadtholder of the Netherlands.

After James II-VII was deposed due to the invasion of England by his son-in-law, William III, his eldest son, Prince James, the Prince of Wales, was deemed ineligible for the throne due to being Catholic. This left HRH Princess Mary, the Princess of Orange as heir to the throne. However, many in Parliament wanted William to be king. William summoned a Convention Parliament in England, which met on January 22, 1689 to discuss the appropriate course of action following James’s flight. William felt insecure about his position; his wife ranked first in the line of succession to the throne, and was merely third in-line to the throne and he wished to reign as King in his own right, rather than as a mere consort. A majority of Tory Lords proposed to acclaim Mary as sole rule.

This angered William who threatened to leave the country immediately. Mary remained loyal to her husband and refused the crown unless her husband could rule by her side. A compromise was reached and as joint sovereigns the crown was offered to both William III and Mary II. Parliament stipulated the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the names of the said Prince and Princess during their joint lives”. William III and Mary II were crowned together at Westminster Abbey on April 11, 1689 by the Bishop of London, Henry Compton.

When Queen Mary II died of smallpox in 1694, King William III continued to reign alone. Princess Anne became his heir apparent, since any children he might have by another wife were assigned to a lower place in the line of succession, and the two reconciled any animosity between them.

A couple of interesting titbits before I close. In May of 1660 Princess Elisabeth Charlotte, Princess Palatine, was 9th in line to the English and Scottish thrones. She was the eldest daughter of Charles I Louis, Elector Palatine of the Simmern branch of the House of Wittelsbach, and Landgravine Charlotte of Hesse-Kassel. In her youth Princess Elisabeth Charlotte lived with her aunt, Sophia, Electress of Hanover, mother the future King George I of Great Britain, and she had purportedly desired to marry her cousin, Willem III of Orange, who would later become King William III of England and Scotland.

Although the very pretty Wittelsbach princess did not marry William III of Orange, she did make a beneficial marriage with English connections. On November 16, 1671, Princess Elisabeth Charlotte married HRH Prince Philippe I, Duke of Orléans, the brother of the King Louis XIV of France. The recently widowed Duke of Orléans was formerly married to her father’s first cousin (and his own first cousin), Princess Henrietta Anne of England, 5th in line to the English and Scottish thrones in May of 1660!

Prince James, the Prince of Wales who was bypassed in 1689 for the crown, proclaimed himself King James III-VIII of England and Scotland on the death of his father, King James II-VII of England and Scotland, in 1701. This began a long series of claims to the throne by the heirs of the House of Stuart and began a political movement known as the Jacobites. When the last Stuart male heir, Henry Stuart, Cardinal Duke of York (King Henry IX of England and Scotland to his supporters) died in 1807, the Stuart claim would wind through other European royal houses to where it rests today on the shoulders of Duke Franz of Bavaria, a scion of the noble house of Wittelsbach whose family occupied many places in the succession to the English and Scottish crowns during the time of the Stuarts.

Lines of Succession to the Throne.

Tags

Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Andrew, Prince Charles, Prince Edward, Prince Philip, Princess Anne, Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, the prince of Wales, The Princess Royal

Today will begin a new series on how the line of succession has changed over the years. I will pick random and important dates and will examine who was in line for the throne at that time. Although my main focus will be the British line of succession I will also include other monarchies from time to time. Although this is a new series I won’t be doing it week-to-week, it will reoccur randomly.

At first there was just four. It was mid 1977 when I began to research the royal family and the Kings and Queens of Britain. At that time there were just four descendants of HM. The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. These four were also the top four in line to the succession to the throne:

1. HRH The Prince of Wales
2. HRH The Prince Andrew
3. HRH The Prince Edward
4. HRH The Princess Anne

Except for the Prince Charles, none of the Queen’s children had any titles yet. Princess Anne would not be given her title, The Princess Royal, until ten years later in 1987. Prince Andrew and Prince Edward would not be given their titles until they married. In 1977 the Queen had been on the throne 25 years and it was also the year of her Silver Jubilee. Her Majesty was 51 years old (the same age as I am now) and would be a first time grandmother that November when Princess Anne would give birth to her first child Peter Philips.

Flash forward 38 years and a lot has changed! Her Majesty is now 89 and has celebrated her Golden Jubilee celebrating 50 years on the throne in 2002 and her Diamond Jubilee in 2012 celebrating 60 years on the throne. This September The Queen will be on the throne one day longer than Queen Victoria and will be come Britain’s longest reigning monarch at 63 years, 217 days. Instead of her descendents occupying the first four places in the succession they now occupy the first 17 places in line for the succession! Here they are in order.

1. HRH The Prince of Wales
2. HRH The Duke of Cambridge
3. HRH Prince George of Cambridge
4. HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
5. HRH Prince Henry of Wales
6. HRH The Duke of York
7. HRH Princess Beatrice of York
8. HRH Princess Eugenie of York
9. HRH The Earl of Wessex
10. Lord Severn
11. Lady Louise Windsor
12. HRH The Princess Royal
13. Peter Philips
14. Savannah Phillips
15. Isla Phillips
16. Zara Tindall
17. Mia Tindall

It is very interesting to see how the line of succession changes over the years. It is fascinating to compare today’s line of succession to February, 1952 just prior to the death of HM King George VI.

1. HRH The Prince Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh
2. HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh
3. HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh
4. HRH The Princess Margaret
5. HRH The Duke of Gloucester (Prince Henry)
6. HRH Prince William of Gloucester
7. HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester
8. HRH The Duke of Kent (Prince Edward)
9. HRH Prince Michael of Kent
10. HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
11. The Princess Royal, Mary, Countess of Harewood
12. The Rt Hon The Earl of Harewood
13. David Viscount Lascelles
14. Gerald Lascelles
15. HH Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife
16. James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife
17. HM King Olav V of Norway

Today, 63 years later only the top two remain in the top twenty inline for the throne. The Prince of Wales (HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh at the time) moved up one place and has remained. His sister, The Princess Royal (HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh at the time) has gone from 3 (she was actually at number 2 until the birth of the Duke of York in 1960) to number 12. The next living member on the list is number 7, HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester, the current HRH The Duke of Gloucester who moved to his current 24th inline to the throne. Incidentally, the Duke of Gloucester is the youngest grandchild of King George V and Queen Mary. He is the first inline to the throne who is not descended from King George VI. He is also the senior male line descendant of Queen Victoria.