64 Years on the Throne

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, England, George VI, King George VI of the United Kingdom, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II

Today HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland marks the 64^th year on the throne. Her father, King George VI, died on this date, February 6, 1952. Last September 2015, Her Majesty became Britain’s longest ruling monarch when she surpassed her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria (1837-1901) who reigned for 63 years and seven months.

Her Majesty is also the oldest sovereign to reign. Queen Victoria also held that record. She was 82 when she passed away in 1901. At age 89 Her Majesty broke that record seven years ago. This April 21, Her Majesty will turn 90 and many celebrations are planned in Britain for this momentous milestone.

Almost 90 and having been queen for 64 years Her Majesty shows no sign of slowing down. Her calendar is full, although maybe not as full as years past for the Prince of Wales has taken over some of her work. Still, unless some heath crisis appears Her Majesty will continue to press forward.

Although today we mark the 64^th year Her Majesty came to the throne, within the Royal Family itself these dates are rarely acknowledged publicly. For royal historians such as my self and other royal enthusiasts this is a special day, for Her Majesty this is the day her father died and that is something to be noted but not celebrated. What we will celebrate is the dedication and the long life of service to her country and long may she continue to reign.

 

Advertisements

January, the Gloomy Month

Tags

Death, January, King Edward VII, King George III, King George V, Kings and Queens of England, Prince Edward Duke of Kent, Queen Victoria

Yesterday, January 22nd, was the 115th anniversary of the Death of Queen Victoria. But did you know that January has been a month where many British royals have died? We start with King George III who died January 29, 1820. His son, HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, predeceased his father and died 6 days prior on January 23, 1820. His anniversary is today. His daughter, Queen Victoria, died on January 22, 1901. Her grandsons also died in January. The eldest son of the then Prince of Wales (future King Edward VII), Prince Albert-Victor, Duke of Clarence, died January 14, 1892. His brother, King George V, died on January 20, 1936. King George V’s sister, Princess Louise, The Princess Royal, died on January 10, 1931. HRH Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught, son of Queen Victoria and brother of King Edward VII, died on January 16, 1942. The Duke of Connaught’s youngest daughter, HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught (Lady Patricia Ramsay) died on January 12, 1974. Lastly, HRH Princess Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, longest surviving grandchild of Queen Victoria died on January 3, 1981. I may have missed some But January is a gloomy month for the royal family.

HM Queen Elizabeth II, Britain’s Longest Ruling Monarch!!

Tags

Elizabeth II, Longest Ruling Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria, Silver Jubilee

When I began my interest in British and European Royalty back in 1977 Queen Victoria had been Britain’s longest ruling monarch. Her Majesty, the Queen, had celebrated her Silver Jubilee, 25 years on the throne, and the thought of her becoming Britain’s longest ruling monarch and breaking her great-great-grandmother’s record was not on my mind. In 1989 Her Majesty passed Henry VIII of England’s 37 years on the throne and it was then I thought that maybe someday, in 2015 I calculated, she could become Britain’s longest ruling monarch. In 1989 the year 2015 seemed like a life-time away. In 1997 the Queen passed her name sake, Queen Elizabeth I’s 44 year reign and seeing how good her health was and the fact that her mother, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was 97 at the time and still going strong, lead me to believe this historic event could be achieved.

It has been a long time coming and now it is here. I do have to say that because the Victorian Era has been one of my favorite eras to study I do greet this day with a little sadness but I am happy to see the queen reach this historic milestone in her reign.

During her reign Her Majesty has shown herself to be the very picture of a dedicated, hardworking, constitutional monarch. Congratulations your majesty on reaching this historical milestone! May her majesty continue to reign for a long long time.

Historically speaking, since she is the longest ruling monarch in British history she has five more years to beat HIM Emperor Franz-Joseph of Austria-Hungary’s 68 years and nine more to beat Louis XIV of France and Navarre’s 72 years on the throne.

Who was the First King of Sweden.

Tags

Constitutional Monarchy, Eric the Victorious, First King of Sweden, House of Fairhair, House of Ynglings, King Eric XIV of Sweden, Kingdom of Sweden

The kingdom of Sweden is another European kingdom who’s origins are shrouded in mystery. Many historians believe there has been kingdoms within Sweden since prehistoric times. However, the order of succession to the Swedish crown is also shrouded in mystery and legend.

It is not known when and how the kingdom of Sweden came into existence and although it is believed that there were kings stretching far into antiquity, the majority of historians believe that the kingdom begins with the merging of two separate kingdoms, Svealand (Sweden) and Götaland (Gothia). Both the nation of Sweden and Gothia were two separate nations long before their unification. It is not known how long they existed as separate entities. The epic poem Beowulf describes semi-legendary Swedish-Geatish wars that occurred in the 6th century.

Götaland mainly included the provinces of Östergötland (East Gothia) and Västergötland (West Gothia). The island of Gotland was disputed by other than Swedes. There were times when Danish, Hanseatic, and Gotland-domestic were warring factions amongst one another. Småland was at that time of little interest to any party due to the deep pine forests, and only the city of Kalmar was of importance due to its strategically placed castles.

We also must remember during these ancient times that a king was not the strong rukler of a nation state that they were later to become. At this juncture of history a Swedish king had combined powers limited to that of a war chief, a judge and a priest at the Temple at Uppsala. There were two notable Swedish dynasties The Ynglings and the Skioldungs. The Ynglings were the oldest known Scandinavian dynasty and were from the clans of the Scylfings (Old Norse Skilfingar). Ynglings also refers to the Fairhair dynasty, who were descended from the kings of Oppland, Norway. According to surviving early sources, such as the Ynglingatal and Íslendingabók, the Fairhair kings were descended from the Swedish Scylfings of Uppland, Sweden.

The earliest kings of this dynasty that historians generally agree are historical are Erik the Victorious and Olof Skötkonung. Eric the Victorious (945?-c. 995) was the first Swedish king (reign c. 970-995) about whom anything definite is known. Now whether he actually qualifies as the first King of Sweden has been debated by historians for it was his son, Olof Skötkonung was the first ruler documented to have been king over a unified Sweden.

The numbering of Eric the Victorious creates some problems. As my old post on numbering Swedish kings suggests, many of the ordinal numbers for Swedish kings were the invention of a dreamy eyed chronicler. https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/2012/05/18/97/

Sometimes, Eric the Victorious is referred to as either King Eric V or VI, and this is a modern inventions based on counting backwards from Eric XIV (1560–68). King Eric XIV adopted his numeral according to a fictitious history of Sweden. Whether or not there were any Swedish monarchs named Eric before Eric the Victorious is disputed, with some historians claiming that there were several earlier Erics.

That concludes this series!! It is interesting to see that the First king of many nations is lost to history and those kings we can point to with some certainty may not have been the first king after all.

Who was the first king of Scotland? Part I

Tags

Alba, Áedán mac Gabráin, Briton, Dál Riata, Dumbarton Castle, Hen Ogledd, King of Scots, Kingdom of Alba, Kingdom of Strathclyde, Kingdom of the Picts, kings and queens of Scotland, Ptolemy's Geography, Scotland

Like it’s neighbor to the south, Scotland has a long history of monarchy that is partly clouded in myth and legend and it is only as you progress during the centuries do you come upon more credible and documented history. Similar to England the country was divided into many kingdoms and sub-kingdoms. The main and warring kingdoms were the Kingdom of the Picts, Kingdom of Del Riata and the Kingdom of Strathclyde. Each of these regions have a rich and vast history that I could never do justice in this simple post. Many of these regions began as tribal clans that grew to take over certain regions. The early history of Scotland is that of clans becoming regional kings that were later absorbed by much larger and more powerful regional kings from other clans. A series on each of these kingdoms is warranted!

An example of some thriving sub-kingdoms othjer than the larger main three kingdoms is the kingdom of Cait, which is now Caithness in northern Scotland. Cait was, according to Pictish legend, founded by Caitt (or Cat), one of the seven sons of the ancestor figure named Cruithne. After the death of its last king, Taran mac Entifidich, in 697, it was absorbed into the larger Kingdom of the Picts. There were at least seven other small sub-kingdoms within the the broader Pictish kingdom. These sub-kingdoms are…

Ce, situated in modern Mar and Buchan, Circinn, perhaps situated in modern Angus and the Mearns.
Fib, the modern Fife, known to this day as ‘the Kingdom of Fife.’ Fidach, location unknown, but possibly near Inverness. Fotla, modern Atholl. Fortriu, cognate with the Verturiones of the Romans; recently shown to be centred around Moray. More small kingdoms may have existed. Some evidence suggests that a Pictish kingdom also existed in Orkney.

Here is some information on the three main Scottish kingdoms:

Kingdom of the Picts: A Pictish confederation was formed in Late Antiquity consisting of a number of f tribes. It is not known how and why this Confederation was formed but some scholars have speculated that it was partly in response to the growth of the Roman Empire. Succession to the kingship of the Picts was confusing and complex. Kings who had fathered sons were not frequently succeeded by their sons, not because the Picts practised matrilineal succession, but because they were normally followed by either their own brothers or cousins, more likely to be experienced men with the authority and the support necessary to be king. The tradition of monarchy had not yet adopted the concept of primogeniture. So instead of leaving the crown to your son a king would leave the crown to the best able male to support the kingdom. In these days when wars between tribes was a common occurrence you needed a king who could rise to the task.

The style of kingship changed considerably during the centuries of Pictish monarchy. Earlier kings had to be successful war leaders to maintain their authority. This lead to a style of kingship that became rather less personalized and more institutionalized during this time. Bureaucratic kingship, where the king was concerned with laws and justice was still far in the future and it would not commence until Pictland transformed into the Kingdom of Alba.

Kingdom of Strathclyde: Strathclyde was originally known as either Cumbric: Ystrad Clud or Alclud, was one of the early medieval kingdoms of the Britons in the Hen Ogledd. (Hen Ogledd is a Welsh term used by scholars to refer to those parts of what is now northern England and southern Scotland in the years between 500 and the Viking invasions of c. 800, with particular interest in the Brittonic-speaking peoples who lived there). The kingdom developed during the post-Roman period. It is also known as Alt Clut, a Brittonic term for Dumbarton Castle, the medieval capital of the region. It may have had its origins with the Damnonii people of Ptolemy’s Geography.

Kingdom of Dál Riata (also Dalriada or Dalriata) was a Gaelic kingdom that included parts of western Scotland and stretched to northeastern Ulster in Ireland, across the North Channel. In the late 6thearly 7th century it encompassed roughly what is now Argyll and Lochaber in Scotland and also County Antrim in Ulster. To its east and north was Pictland, with whom it was often in conflict. The inhabitants of Dál Riata were often referred to as Scots (Scoti in Latin). Scots was a name originally used by Roman and Greek writers as a name for the Irish who raided Roman Britain. As time passed the name Scots came to refer to any Gaelic-speakers, whether from Ireland or elsewhere. They are referred herein as Gaels, an unambiguous term, or as Dál Riatans.

The kingdom reached its height under Áedán mac Gabráin (r. 574-608), but its growth was checked at the Battle of Degsastan in 603 by King Æthelfrith of Northumbria. Serious defeats in Ireland and Scotland in the time of Domnall Brecc (d. 642) ended Dál Riata’s “golden age”, and the kingdom became a client of Northumbria, then subject to the Picts.

Next week we will examine the Kingdom of Alba and unifying the Kingdom of Scotland. 

The Music of Michael Tomlinson

Tags

Michael Tomlinson, Music

No, this is not Spam. This is blog owner Bill Foley here with an important message. Please forgive me for this one indulgence. I would like to take a break for a moment for discussing royalty and speak about something important to me.  Michael Tomlinson is one of the best singer-songwriters in the business these days. He is in the process of creating a beautiful new album and if his past work is any indication this new CD will fill your soul and make you smile and make life just that much enjoyable. So, let’s all support Michael Tomlinson in any way you feel moved. Financially, emotionally, pass this on to a thousand friends, what ever you can do. In a world that can be difficult Michael’s music shines through and lets us all know how positive and joyous life truly is.

https://www.kickstarter.com/…/michael-tomlinsons-beautiful-

http://www.michaeltomlinson.com

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

Tags

Charles the Bald, Charles the Simple, Hugh Capet, Kingdom of France, Kingdom of the Franks, Louis II The German, Louis Philippe, Louis the Pious, Louis XIV of France, Louis XVI of France

We had last discussed the the first two kingdoms of the three that were created when the Empire of Louis I The Pious was divided in 843 by the Treaty of Verdun.

That leads us to West Francia which was the land under the control of Charles the Bald. It is the forerunner of modern France. It was divided into the following great fiefs: Aquitaine, Brittany, Burgundy, Catalonia, Flanders, Gascony, Gothia, the Île-de-France, and Toulouse. The Capitian dynasty came to rule the Île-de-France as Duke of the Île-de-France. The fact that these territories were fiefs of the Kingdom instead of sovereign sub-kingdoms of their own helped West Francia become a unified kingdom…eventually.

As with the Merovingians the Carolingians also began to falter with weak rulers that were not up to the task of ruling. In 888 Odo, Count of Paris and Duke of the Île-de-France, was elected king temporarily supplanting the Carolingian Dynasty. The Carolingians were restored next year under Charles III the Simple in West Francia, and ruled until 987, when the last Frankish king of that dynasty, Louis V, died. Hugh Capét Count of Paris and Duke of the Île-de-France was then elected king of West Francia and his direct descendants would rule until 1792 when King Louis XVI of France and Navarre was deposed. The monarchy was restored in 1814 and the last Capetian king of France, Louis-Philippe, was deposed in 1848.

That is a lot of history to cover! So who just was the last King of the Franks and the first King of France? Well, like Wessex and England this is up for debate! When did the Kingdom of the Franks end and the Kingdom of France come into existence? It is difficult to tell by the titles of the monarchs. The Latin term Francorum Rex (sometimes the title took the form of Rex Francorum) was the official Latin title of the “King of the Franks” from the founding of the kingdom in 496 and remained as such even after after the accession of the Carolingian and Capetian Dynasties. This title was used in official documents until French replaced Latin as the formal language of legal documents, and this title remained used on coins until the 18th century. However, it was King Philippe II “Augustus” changed the official title in 1990 to the form Franciae Rex (“King of France”) was also used.

Even though the title King of the Franks lasted until it was changed by King Philippe II in 1190, and remained on coins until the 1700s, there seem to be two choices of who was the last King of the Franks and the first King of France. Many historians cite the treaty of Verdun of 843 and the creation of West Francia as the end of the old Frankish Kingdom and the birth of the Kingdom of France. That would make Louis I, the Pious the last King of the Franks and his son Charles I The Bald as the first King of France. If you support the election of Hugh Capét, Count of Paris and Duke of the Île-de-France as King of France in 987 (as many historians also do) then Louis V would be the last King of the Franks.

My choice is for Louis I, the Pious as the last King of the Franks and his son Charles I The Bald as the first King of France via the Treaty of Verdun in 843. Why? By the time of that treaty was established there were already cultural shifts between France and Germany, the domain of Louis II, the German. As time went on these differences were solidified and by the time Hugh Capét was elected King, that which we see as French culture had already taken shape.

Is Royalty a Controversial and Complicated subject?

Tags

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

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

https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanRoyalHistory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who as the first King of ……?

Tags

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

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

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

Today I will start with England.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags

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

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

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

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

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

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