When Monarchs ruled.

Tags

2012. Parliament, Absolute Monarchy, Age of Enlightenment, Charlemagne, Classical Liberalism, Constitutional Monarchy, Edward I of England, Louis XIV of France and Navarre, William the Conqueror

When I began my interest in royalty I was at first solely concerned in learning their particular genealogies. As I delved into the history of each country I began to be interested in the reigns of each monarch. I learned how monarchies survived going from periods of absolute power to the constitutional form we have today. Somewhere in the process I became a monarchist myself. With all the political infighting that occurs among politicians I think it is beneficial to have a figurehead as the Head of State. A Head of State that is symbolic of the nation and is above the petty partisan politics of the day. I think there are many beneficial aspects of having a Head of State being politically impartial for that gives them the opportunity of serving all the people and not just members of a particular party.

I need to be honest though, I do miss the days when Monarchs actually ruled and held some power. It is one of the things I enjoy about reading the history of these countries that were or are monarchies. For me it is an issue of power. In life some people have power and some do not. It is fascinating to read how those that held power used that power. So I find that the days when monarchs actually held power to be fascinating. Those times are even more interesting when a larger-than-life figure such as when Charlemagne or William the Conqueror or Louis XIV held power. I am sure I am romanticizing things because I know life was not all puppies, rainbows and roses under these monarchs. Yet things were not always terrible for there were monarchs that held power that did good for their country.

I look at King Edward I of England (1272-1307) as a good example. Historians report that the king could be a frightening individual and that he had a reputation because of his intimidating fierce temper also with a domineering physical presences. There is an anecdotal story about when the Dean of St Paul’s, who desired to confront the king about his broad level of taxation, was so intimidated by the king that he collapsed and died instantly the moment he was brought into the King’s presence. That sounds crazy to our modern scientific minds but it could be plausible that the stress of meeting this intimidating King could lead to sudden cardiac arrest. There was also a report that when the Prince of Wales (future Edward II) petitioned and pressured his father to grant an earldom for his personal favorite and friend, Piers Gaveston, the King grew impatient with his sons demands and the King exploded in anger and purportedly tore out handfuls of his son’s hair!

Edward is also known for the establishment of the Model Parliament. Parliament gathered on a fairly regular basis during his reign. In 1295 the king brought about some significant changes. At this point in history the English Parliament contained the secular (the nobility) and ecclesiastical lords (Priests and Bishops). In 1295 Edward also summoned two knights from each county and two representatives from each borough. These two representatives from the boroughs planted the seed for what eventual lead to the development of the House of Commons. Although having commoners sit in Parliament was not exactly new, the precedent setting status of these commoners was the fact that they were given, by the king, authority (plena potestas) of their communities, to give assent to the decisions made in Parliament. No longer were these commoner representatives there to give a rubber stamp and to simply assent to decisions already made by the upper magnates, they now met in Parliament with the full authority nobility and ecclesiastical lords had. This structure eventually became the standardized formation for later Parliaments.

Edward I was a mixture of being a good king with some bad personality issues. Now I do support Classical Liberal ideals of the democratic principles that came of age during the Enlightenment period where we have a right to select those that rule over us. However, I do enjoy reading about these monarchs such as Edward I who did hold power and also, with his creation of a more egalitarian Parliament, demonstrated that many times they could be effective and efficient rulers. While it is best to now have the monarchs as being above partisan politics you really cannot blame a monarchist for missing the good old days when they held actual power.

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.

Survival of Monarchies: England Part V

Tags

2012. Parliament, Buckingham Palace, King George I of Great Britain, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Parliament, Prime Minister, Queen Victoria, Queen Victoria of Great Britain

On August 1, 1714 Queen Anne died at the age of 42. Her successor, as designated in the Act of Settlement of 1701 was Princess Sophia of Hanover, who was married to Elector Ernst-August of Hanover. However, The Electress Sophia died in June of 1714 before she could take the throne herself. Therefore it was her son, Elector Georg-Ludwig of Hanover, who mounted the throne as King George I of Great Britain. With him we begin to see the monarchy move even more closer to the constitutional form it has taken today.

George I was actually 52^nd in-line to the throne when he succeeded. All those that were ahead of him were of the Catholic faith. George was 54 years old at the time of his accession and he spoke little English. It was during his reign that the power of the crown was further diminished. One way his power was diminished was though the rise of the office of the Prime Minister. The office is not established by any constitution or law but exists only by long-established convention. In other words the office arose over time and out of necessity.

Let me back track a bit. In 1625 under Charles I a Cabinet style government was created with ministers serving the monarch as a council in matters of state. With the accession of George I the power of those in the Cabinet rose as George I had very little interest in governing. Soon, by 1722, Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford was essentially the First Prime Minister under King George I. Even today the office of Prime Minister does not exist Constitutionally, for the any of the Prime Minister’s executive and legislative powers are actually royal prerogatives which are still formally vested in the Sovereign, who remains the Head of State. Those who hold the office of Prime Minister are, in actuality, First Lord of the Treasury, the position they hold as a member of the sovereign’s cabinet.

Prior to 1902 the position was held by a member from the House of Lords, provided that his government could form a majority in the Commons. However, as the power of the aristocracy waned during the 19th century the convention developed that the Prime Minister should always sit in the lower house (House of Commons). During the reign of the first 4 Hanoverian kings the position of Prime Minister could be changed on the whim of the monarch. As time progressed those who were appointed to the office of First Lord of the Treasury, were those whose party had a majority in the lower house.

As we saw last week the Bill of Rights limited the power of the Crown but since then no official law has been instated to further limit the crown is why many of the Sovereign’s prerogative powers are still legally intact but the evolution of the office of Prime Minister has removed the monarch from day-to-day governance, with ministers exercising the royal prerogatives, leaving the monarch in practice with three constitutional rights: to be kept informed, to advise, and to warn.

Under this arrangement Britain might appear to have two chief executives: the Prime Minister and the Monarch. The concept of “the Crown” resolves this apparent paradox. The Crown is considered to be the cabinet which is the state’s authority to govern: to make laws and execute them, impose taxes and collect them, declare war and make peace. Prior to the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 the monarch solely and exclusively wielded the powers of the Crown. As we have seen, Parliament gradually forced monarchs to assume a neutral political position as Parliament has effectively distributed the powers of the Crown and gave its authority to the Prime Minister and Cabinet. During times when the monarchy was near absolute the king was accountable to no one. Today, the Prime Minister and Cabinet, as representing “The Crown,” are accountable for their policies and actions to Parliament, in particular the elected House of Commons.

During the reign of the Hanoverians they often favored one party over another. As often happened when monarch and his heir were at odds, rival courts were established with one party trying to court favor with the monarch while the other party courted favor with the heir. It was under Queen Victoria (1837-1901) that this began to change. Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, was instrumental in steering the Monarch in the direction of neutrality and not favoring one party over the other.

It was along and difficult road but all of these events and evolving traditions helped steer the monarchy through the changing times. Its willingness to adapt has allowed it to remain.

Legal Succession: The House of Stuart, Part III

Tags

2012. Parliament, Declaration of Indulgence, James Francis Stuart, King James II-VII of England and Scotland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Mary of Modena, Prince of Wales

With James II-VII of England and Scotland on the throne both nations now had a Catholic king. After almost being excluded from the throne by Parliament because of his religion, the first Parliament to sit under James’ rule was known as the Loyal Parliament. The first months of the reign of James II-VII found him having a high level of popularity among the people and Parliament. The large issue that did dominate his short reign was religion. He was a Catholic king ruling a Protestant country. For many years Catholics were persona non-grata in elected offices. When James began to fill the standing army and high offices with Catholics this alarmed both the public and the Parliament.

James was not like Mary I where she tried to restore Catholicism as the official religion through bloody means. James was more like his brother, Charles II, who wanted to give Catholics equal standing in the realm. Charles faced many prejudices and an egalitarian approach toward religion was too far ahead of its time. For James, his attempts to repeal the penal laws that were in place against Catholics. In 1687 he issued the Declaration of Indulgence which was supposed to offset the penal laws. This alienated him more from Parliament and the people. James II-VII was tolerated for these behaviors knowing that in time the throne would pass to his eldest daughter, Princess Mary, a Protestant, who was married to her cousin, and a staunch supporter of Protestantism, Prince Willem III of Orange, stadtholder of the Netherlands.

However, back in 1673 James married, as his second wife, the Italian-Catholic Princess, Marie-Beatrice of Modena. For more than 10 years the marriage did not produce heirs that lived for very long. On June 10, 1688 the queen gave birth to a healthy thriving son, Princes James Francis Edward, shortly thereafter created Prince of Wales. The birth of a healthy male heir, who would be raised Catholic and supplant his protestant half-sister’s place in the succession, was not seen as a positive event. Many people and Parliament felt that this was the start of a long line of Catholic kings on the English and Scottish thrones.

In Part IV I will look at how James II-VII was deposed and discuss whether or not William III was a usurper.  

Crown Bill expected to pass both Houses of Parliament

Tags

1.The Prince of Wales (eldest son of The Queen), 2012. Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Crown Bill, Duke of Cambridge, Elizabeth II, England, Houses of Parliament, Kings and Queens of England, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince William, Princess of Wales

Crown Bill expected to pass both Houses of Parliament. Right now the Bill is in the House of Commons and should be passed onto Her Majesty for Royal Assent which will make the United Kingdom a monarchy with absolute primogeniture. I still have not heard any mention of what will happen to the titles of Prince of Wales. Will a female heir apparent be titled Princess of Wales? I think one of the reasons it has not been mentioned is that Her Majesty, as the Font of All Honors, is in control of how this title is bestowed. The title Prince of Wales is not a hereditary title and it is created for the heir to the throne at the sovereigns discretion. Therefore it is entirely possible that should the Duke of Cambridge have a daughter first, she may, as heir to the throne someday be granted the title Princess of Wales in her own right.

Once the Crown Bill passes both houses and is signed by the queen those that had lost their place in succession due to being married to a Catholic or converting to Catholicism will be restored to their place in the succession. Here is a list of the 50 people in line for the Crown once the Bill passes.

• The Prince of Wales (eldest son of The Queen)
• Prince William, Duke of Cambridge (eldest son of The Prince of Wales)
• Prince Henry of Wales (second son of The Prince of Wales)
• The Duke of York (second son of The Queen)
• Princess Beatrice of York (eldest daughter of The Duke of York)
• Princess Eugenie of York (second daughter of The Duke of York)
• The Earl of Wessex (third son of The Queen)
• Viscount Severn (son of The Earl of Wessex)
• Lady Louise Windsor (daughter of The Earl of Wessex)
• The Princess Royal (only daughter of The Queen)
• Peter Phillips (only son of The Princess Royal)
• Savannah Phillips (elder daughter of Peter Phillips)
• Isla Phillips (second daughter of Peter Phillips)
• Zara Phillips (only daughter of The Princess Royal)
• Viscount Linley (nephew of The Queen; only son of the late Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon)
• The Hon Charles Armstrong-Jones (only son of Viscount Linley)
• The Hon Margarita Armstrong-Jones (only daughter of Viscount Linley)
• Lady Sarah Chatto (niece of The Queen; only daughter of the late Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon)
• Samuel Chatto (elder son of Lady Sarah Chatto)
• Arthur Chatto (second son of Lady Sarah Chatto)
• The Duke of Gloucester (first cousin of The Queen)
• Earl of Ulster (only son of The Duke of Gloucester)
• Baron Culloden (only son of Earl of Ulster)
• Lady Cosima Windsor (only daughter of Earl of Ulster)
• Lady Davina Lewis (elder daughter of The Duke of Gloucester)
• Senna Lewis (only child of Lady Davina Lewis)
• Tāne Lewis (child of Lady Davina Lewis)
• Lady Rose Gilman (second daughter of The Duke of Gloucester)
• Lyla Gilman (daughter of Lady Rose Gilman)
• Rufus Gilman (son of Lady Rose Gilman)
• The Duke of Kent (first cousin of The Queen)
• George, Earl of St Andrews (son of the Duke of Kent)
• Lord Downpatrick (son of George, Earl of St Andrews)
• Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor (daughter of George, Earl of St Andrews)
• Lady Amelia Windsor (younger granddaughter of The Duke of Kent)
• Lord Nicholas Windsor (son of the Duke of Kent)
• Albert Windsor (son of Lord Nicholas Windsor)
• Leopold Windsor (son of Lord Nicholas Windsor)
• Lady Helen Taylor (daughter of the Duke of Kent)
• Columbus Taylor (son of Lady Helen Taylor)
• Cassius Taylor (son of Lady Helen Taylor)
• Eloise Taylor (daughter of Lady Helen Taylor)
• Estella Taylor (daughter of Lady Helen Taylor)
• HRH Prince Michael of Kent (cousin of HM The Queen)
• Lord Frederick Windsor (son of Prince Michael of Kent)
• Lady Gabriella Windsor (daughter of Prince Michael of Kent)
• HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (cousin of HM The Queen)
• James Ogilvy (son of Princess Alexandra)
• Alexander Ogilvy (son of James Ogilvy)
• Flora Ogilvy (daughter of Alexander Ogilvy)

Crown Bill debated in the House of Lords

Tags

2012. Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Duchess of Gloucester, Duke of Gloucester, Elizabeth II, England, House of Lords, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Pope Francis, Succession Crown Bill

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2013/march/lords-succession-to-the-crown-report-stage/

This week an inaugural Mass was held for Pope Francis (this has replaced the old Papal Coronation) and many European Monarchies either went themselves or sent representatives. For the UK The Duke and
Duchess of Gloucester represented Her Majesty the Queen. I thought this would be a good time to examine the Crown Bill that is being debated in the House of Lords this month. (see article in the link)

As stated in the Bill there are three major changes that are being voted on…

• removing the first born son preference and allowing an older daughter over a younger brother to become a monarch
• allowing anyone who marries a Roman Catholic to remain in line
• limiting the requirement that all descendants of George II must obtain the monarch’s permission to marry to the six people nearest in line to the crown. If the monarch’s approval is not given then the married couple and their descendants lose their place in the line of succession.

The focus of this blog is the abolition of the requirement in the 1701 Act of Settlement that those in line to the throne would lose their place in succession upon marrying a Catholic. While I think this is along over due change it does create a problem and that is the source of the debate in the House of Lords.

The problem is that the sovereign is also the Head of the Church of England and must be in communion with that Church. That does make sense. I don’t think the UK would be happy with a monarch that is Head of the Church of England but also a Roman Catholic. So where does one draw the line? That is the issue at hand.

I think disestablished the monarch from the Church of England is not an option…at least at this time…so there must be a point where the monarch must remain Catholic. In my opinion, the monarch should be allowed to marry a Catholic as long as they raise their children in the Anglican faith.

2012 A Royal Year in Review

Tags

2012. Parliament, Act of Settlement 1701, Cathedral of Our Lady of Luxembourg, Claire Lademacher, Countess Stéphanie de Lannoy, Diamond Jubilee, Duke of Edinburgh, Elizabeth II, Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume, King Harald V of Norway, King Juan Carlos of Spain, Kings and Queens of England, Margrave of Meissen, Mrs. Lorentzen, Prince Albert of Saxony, Prince Alexander of Saxe-Gessaphe, Prince Félix of Luxembourg, Prince Maria Emanuel, Prince Philip, Prince William, Princess Ragnhild of Norway, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Margarethe II of Denmark, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, The Duchess of Cambridge

I am back posting! I had some computer problems so that explains my absence. It has been quite a royal year! It seems like it was one of the busiest royal years in my recent memory.

We had two jubilees. Her Majesty Queen Margarethe II of Denmark celebrated 40 years on the Danish throne and of course Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II celebrated her diamond jubilee as she celebrated 60 years on the British throne and moves ever so closer to being Britain’s longest reigning monarch. There were many celebrations throughout the year culminating in the regatta sailing along the Themes. HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, age 91, gave a scare a few times as he was in and out of the hospital with a bladder infection. The Olympics were also held in London and Her Majesty opened the ceremony and even participated in a fun little filmed skit with Daniel Craig as James Bond. Toward the end of the year Her Majesty missed the Christmas service due to a lingering cold. I hope Her Majesty gets some rest because she was looking a bit tired and worn out toward the end of the year.

As the Queen of the United Kingdom was basking in her popularity, His Majesty, King Juan Carlos of Spain, had a not so stellar year. He broke his hip in a hunting accident while he was with his mistress and at a time when Spain is suffering severe economic hardships. He is still trying to recover his image.

There were also losses this past year. Princess Ragnhild of Norway, Mrs. Lorentzen, died in September at the age of 82. She was the sister to His Majesty King Harald V of Norway.

HRH Prince Maria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen pretender to the throne of Saxony died in July. The claims to the vacant throne are contested between his brother, Prince Albert of Saxony and his nephew, Prince Alexander of Saxe-Gessaphe. However, Prince Albert died a few months after his brother died this October. The claims to the throne are still be contested by other branches of the Wettin Family.

There was a royal wedding in Luxumbourg when the HRH The Hereditary Grand Duke Guillaume married Countess Stéphanie de Lannoy on October 20, 2012 at the Cathedral of Our Lady of Luxembourg. Guillaume’s brother, Prince Félix of Luxembourg, announced his engagement to the German-born Claire Lademacher on December 13.

Another big story of 2012 was the announcement of the pregnancy of HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. This announcement also required pushing through changes of the succession laws to a gender neutral succession and getting rid of the ban against marrying Catholics along with the requirement for seeking the monarch’s consent to marry. All of these are very historical changes in the succession to the British monarchy!

All in all a very busy year with many changes. I am really looking forward to the events of 2013 and wait with anticipation for the birth of the 3rd in line to the British throne.

Royal succession laws set to be changed

Tags

2012. Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Charles, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Elizabeth II, England, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Prince Philip

With the announcement that HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant the need to change the succession laws to absolute primogeniture have been kicked into gear. Her Majesty has spoken out in favor of this meassure. This will give the descendents of HRH The Prince of Wales right to the throne in order of birth regardless of gender. That means when the law is passed if the new baby is a girl she will have rights to the throne directly after her father, HRH The Duke of Cambridge, even if she has a brother born at a later date.

Although I have to be honest I feel twinges of sadness to see the centuries old Male  Preferred Primogeniture dismantled, but the progressive and pragmatic side of me does view this as a step in the right direction. Since all European monarchies are symbolic and governed by a Constitution the need for a “males only” club is gone. Even history has demonstrated that there have been very capable women to rule in the past. Eleanore of Aquitaine, Elizabeth I of England, Catherine II the Great of Russia and Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom are a few examples or women who ruled wisely and who also were very popular.

As most of my readers know I am a bity of a stickler for the correct usage of titles. As I mentioned in a previous blog post these change in succession laws will also require some changes in titles: Here are the two main issues.

1. The 1917 Letters Pattent limit the style  of His or Her Royal Highness to and Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line. An exception is made for a male line great-grandson when it is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In this case that would mean if the Duke of Cambridge’s son is a boy then he will fall under the provisions of the 1917 Letters Pattent, but a daughter would nopt. However, the Palace has announced that a daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be a Royal Highness and a Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That should mean the issuing of a new Letters Pattent but with the way the titles of both the children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex and the Duchess of Cornwall have been handled, it remains to be seen what will happen.

2. Prince of Wales. This title has been traditionally held, since 1284, for the male heir apprarent to the throne. It is a title that is not hereditary and must becreated anew for each holder. The wife of the Prince of Wales has been traditionally been called the Princess of Wales.  Now with the likelyhood that hier to the throne will be a female in the future I wonder if the title will be changed to allow gender nuetrality? If the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge has a daughter will she become a Princess of Wales in her own right?

There is also a double standard to be addressed. For example, in Britain the tradition is that wives will share in their husband’s title, which is why Kate Middleton became HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, when she married Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge. However, husbands have not shared in their wives titles which is why when Her Majesty the Queen mounted the throne in 1952 her husband, HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, did not be come King.

I am not ready to see a change in that part of the double standard. I would be alright with the title of Prince or princess of Wales being limited to the hier to the throne only, while their spouse holds a different title. The current Prince of Wales and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, are a good example of this. Even though legally the Duchess of Cornwall is by right HRH The Princess of Wales she just chosses not to use the title out of respect for the late Diana, Princess of Wales.

I also propose another solution. There is talk of the United Kingdom becoming less united and if Scotland does vote for independence, but still retaining the queen as head of state, this could give an opportunity to send the title Prince of Wales back to Wales. Let me explain. Even if Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom the title of Prince of Wales could become one of the titles for the monarch his or her self instead of keeping it for the hier. This would demonstrate the reality that the British monarch is also head of state in Wales. Then the title of Duke or Duchess of Cornwall could be used for the hier when in England and Duke or Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland (as it is now).

There is much more to this topic! Changing the succession laws also has to be done in all 15 Commonwealth countries of which the British monarch is head of state. Also, changes would have to be made to several key constitutional documents, including the Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act of 1688, the 1701 Act of Settlement and the 1706 Act of Union with Scotland. At the heart of one of these dicussions is removing the bar against Roman Catholics.

I will discuss that on Wednesday.

Rights to the Throne.

Tags

2012. Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Duke of Anjou, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Legal succession, Louis Philippe, Louis-Alphonse, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, William the Conqueror

The topic of the Prince of Wales and his impatience for the throne reminded me of a topic that I had been thinking about for a while. It involves the succession to the throne, but to be more percise it surrounds the legality of the succession to the throne. In civilized societies there are laws governing the succession to thrones and presidential offices.

However, throughout history society was not as civil as most would want it to be and there were times when power did not transition smoothly or even according to law. For instance, many that support Louis-Alphonse, Duke of Anjou’s claim to the French throne often cite that the reign of Louis-Philippe (1830-1848) occurred illegally and that he was a usurper and that his line does not, or should not, have rights to the French throne. The reality of the situation is that when monarchs came to the throne via violent means (or left the throne in such manners) such as rthrough evolutions or war, the victors get to re-write the rules.

It still is a fascinating topic. I will be sticking with the Kings and Queens of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. I will start with the Norman Conquest and the succession of William I the Conqueror and then on through the ages.

I appologize that this is only a teaser but I want to do futher research into this topic as I present the information. On the long weeks where I post Mon-Wed-Fri, this topic will be posted on Fridays. On the short weeks where I post only Tues-Thurs this topic will be covered on Thursdays.

Impatient Charles?

Tags

2012. Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Diamond Jubilee, Duchess of Cornwall, Elizabeth II, England, George IV, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Queen Elizabeth II, United Kingdom of Great Britain, William IV of the United Kingdom

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o306/WmHohenzollern/441px-Prince_Charles_2012.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9700402/Prince-Charles-Im-running-out-of-time.html

Yesterday it was reported in the news that the Prince of Wales is impatient waiting for the throne. In an interview about two years ago he spoke about not wanting to think about being King because it meant the loss of his mother. His latest comments seem to indicate that he is a bit impatient waiting for the throne and that the older he gets he many never be king.

I think that is understandable. He is the hier to the British throne that has waited the longest to be king. Although he is not the longest serving Prince of Wales. King Edward VII waited for 59 years to be King. Edward VII had been Prince of Wales since he was one month old and he served in that capacity until he begame king at the age of 59. Charles, on the other hand, is now 64 and didn’t become Prince of Wales until he was 10 which means he has been Prince of Wales for 54 years, 5 years shy of Edward VII, making him the second longest serving Prince of Wales. He has been hier to the throne since his mother succeeded in 1952 and as hier to the throne for 60 years he has been waiting one year longer than han his great-great grandfather, Edward VII.

King William IV became king at the age of 64, succeeding his brother, King George IV, in 1830. If Charles should outlive his mother he will be the oldest monarch to mount the British throne. Many British monarchs did not even live to see their 60s, Charles’s grandfather, King George VI, died at the age of 56 after a reign of 16 years.

I have great admiration for both Her Majesty the Queen and HRH the Prince of Wales. I would hate to see the Queen pass away. She had been the role model of a great Constitutional monarch. I do not support abdication within the British monarchy and although I think Chalres will make an excellent king and I do want to see him enjoy that role…he just needs to find a little more patience.