HM the King returns to Buckingham Palace

Tags

Buckingham Palace, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Queen Camilla

King Charles III traveled from Balmoral Castle in Scotland to Buckingham Palace in London marking his first arrival as king to the administrative center of the monarchy. He greeted cheering crowds gathered outside the palace as some sang “God save the king.”

At 6:00pm his Majesty will address the nation.

Thier Majesties King Charles III and Queen Camilla

A statement from HM the King on the death of his mother.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

King Charles releases a statement.

July 25, 1846: Baptism of Princess Helena of the United Kingdom.

Tags

Baptism, Buckingham Palace, Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, King Edward VII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Princess Helena of the United Kingdom, Private Chapel, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

Princess Helena of the United Kingdom (Helena Augusta Victoria; May 24, 1846 – June 9, 1923) was the third daughter and fifth child of Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

As the daughter of the sovereign, Helena was styled Her Royal Highness The Princess Helena from birth. Helena was baptised on July 25, 1846 at the private chapel at Buckingham Palace. Her godparents were the Prince Friedrich-Wilhelm, Hereditary Grand Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (the husband of Queen’s cousin); Helene of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, the Duchess of Orléans (for whom the Queen’s mother the Duchess of Kent stood proxy); and Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel, the Duchess of Cambridge (the Queen’s aunt).

Helena was educated by private tutors chosen by her father and his close friend and adviser, Baron Stockmar. Her childhood was spent with her parents, travelling between a variety of royal residences in Britain. The intimate atmosphere of the royal court came to an end on December 14, 1861, when her father died and her mother entered a period of intense mourning.

Princess Helena of the United Kingdom

Afterwards, in the early 1860s, Helena began a flirtation with Prince Albert’s German librarian, Carl Ruland. Although the nature of the relationship is largely unknown, Helena’s romantic letters to Ruland survive. After the Queen found out in 1863, she dismissed Ruland, who returned to his native Germany. Three years later, on July 5, 1866, Helena married the impoverished Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein.

The couple remained in Britain, in calling distance of the Queen, who liked to have her daughters nearby. Helena, along with her youngest sister, Princess Beatrice, became the Queen’s unofficial secretary. However, after Queen Victoria’s death on January 22, 1901, Helena saw relatively little of her surviving siblings, including King Edward VII.

Prince and Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein

Helena was the most active member of the royal family, carrying out an extensive programme of royal engagements. She was also an active patron of charities, and was one of the founding members of the British Red Cross. She was founding president of the Royal School of Needlework, and president of the Workhouse Infirmary Nursing Association and the Royal British Nurses’ Association.

As president of the latter, she was a strong supporter of nurse registration against the advice of Florence Nightingale. In 1916 she became the first member of her family to celebrate her 50th wedding anniversary, but her husband died a year later. Helena outlived him by six years, and died aged 77 at Schomberg House on June 9, 1923.

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.

 

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.

Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner?

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Commoner, Elizabeth II, HRH The Prince of Wales, King George VI, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Peerage, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Prince William, Queen Elizabeth II, Scotland, The Duke of Cambridge, titles

When the Duchess of Cambridge married Prince William of Wales the media spoke about her being a commoner. They were correct. Until her marriage she was indeed a commoner. However, did you know that prior to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, creating her grandson Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus, that he too was a commoner?

What may be even lesser known is that the queen herself, as young Princess Elizabeth, heiress presumptive to the throne, was a commoner when she married Lt. Philip Mountbatten, former Prince of Greece and Denmark; and that he was not a commoner? You may think I have gone mad! Let me explain.

In the British system, a society historically divided by class,  there are three legal standings, or classes, people can hold and belong to. These positions/Classes are: The Sovereign, Titled Peers/Nobility and Commoners. Therefore technically and legally speaking if you are a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom and you do not hold a peerage title, and you are not the sovereign, you are in fact… a commoner.

The style His or Her Royal Highness and the title Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom is a courtesy title held at the behest of the sovereign but does not bestow a legal position. Do not confuse this legal and class status with rank or precedence which are different subjects all together. A person may hold a princely title and have more precedence and out rank a peer. 

Therefore only members of the royal family that also hold peerage titles are not, technically speaking,  commoners. The sons of Queen Elizabeth II are all Peers: The Prince of Wales, The Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex. Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, is a commoner because the title Princess Royal is a courtesy title and not a peerage title.

In the next generation, only Prince William, as Duke of Cambridge, is a peer and all of his cousins (his children and brother) are commoners. (at the time of this writing) The queens cousins, The Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent are also peers of the realm but their children are neither peers or royal. Two of the queen’s other cousins, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent, are royal, but they are commoners.

Interesting fact is that when the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent pass on their titles to their children these Dukedoms will cease to be Royal Dukedoms because their children are not eligible for a Royal title. The title of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom is limited via the 1917 Letters Patent to the male-line grandchildren of the sovereign. The children of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent will be great-great-grandchildren of the sovereign, in this case the closest sovereign they are descended from is King George V. Though the next Dukes of Gloucester and Kent will not be royal, the will be peers and not commoners.

There are actually five types of peerages. The Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. These represent those titles that were created at the various times in the history of the country. The hierarchy, or rank, of these peerage titles is as follows: (highest to lowest) Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron. There is also the hereditary title of Baronet but Baronets are not peers but fit into the social class of the Landed Gentry. It gets confusing doesn’t it? 

I will end my post by keeping it simple. Unless you are the sovereign or a titled peer, even if you hold the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you are technically a commoner.

On November 20, 1947 HM King George VI created his future son-in-law HRH Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich. This made the former Prince Philip of Greece a Peer of the Realm. When he married the king’s daughter, Princess Elizabeth, the very next day, she was a commoner because she didn’t possess any Peerage titles, while her husband was not a commoner any longer. 

The New Royal Baby

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Duchess of Cambridge, Elizabeth II, England, Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II, King James III of England, King Louis XIV of France and Navarre, King Louis XV of France, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales, Wilhelm II of Germany, Winston Churchill

Yesterday was an historic moment. The Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a royal prince yesterday. This was the first time since Queen Victoria had three direct heirs to the throne. First in line was The Prince of Wales (Edward VII), then came her grandson The Duke of York (George V) and her great-grandson Prince Edward of York (Edward VIII). Queen Victoria actually lived to see George VI, Edward VIII’s brother, but there are not any pictures of her with her son, grandson and both great-grandsons.

There has not been too many monarchs who have lived to see an heir in the third generation. Louis XIV of France and Navarre was one such monarch. He lived to see his great-grandchildren. However, he also outlived most of them and his successor, Louis XV, was one of his great-grandchildren.  Wilhelm I, German Emperor & King of Prussia also lived to see three generations of successors. In 1882 his grandson, Prince Wilhelm, future German Emperor Wilhelm II, gave birth to the future Crown Prince Wilhelm. Sadly, Crown Prince Wilhelm was not able to inherit the Royal and Imperial thrones due to the monarchy in Germany being abolished in 1918 at the end of World War I.

It seemed like we waited for a long time for the Duchess of Cambridge to give birth to the new little prince. Now the wait begins to see what the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will name the future King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

So what will the name be? George and James seem to be popular choices right now. Both names have historical precedence in British history. George is the name Elizabeth II’s father chose to reign under, although he was named Albert after having the bad luck of being born on December 14, 1895, the 34 anniversary of the death of his great-grandfather, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, husband of Queen Victoria. James is the name of Catherine’s brother (as well as the Duke of Cambridge’s cousin, James Viscount Severn, son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex).

If the name James is chosen we will see if Winston Churchill’s suggestion that the highest ordinal between England and Scotland should be used. When England and Scotland shared a monarch they used an ordinal, or regnal number, for both crowns. For example, James VI of Scotland was also James I of England. His grandson was James VII of Scotland and James II of England. This is the only name affected. When Charles I came to both the English and Scottish thrones neither England or Scotland had had a king by that name before. William III of England was William II of Scotland. His wife, Mary II, was also Mary II of England and Scotland, with Mary Stuart being the first queen named Mary in Scotland and Mary Tudor being the first queen named Mary in England.

When the countries were united in 1707 the monarchs were settled in England and Scotland was often ignored by the monarchs. They have followed the English system of numbering kings. The first thee kings of the House of Hanover did not have a problem with their regnal number since neither England or Scotland had kings named George before. There seems to be no controversy in Scotland with William IV and his regnal umber. The first time we begin to see some conflict is with the reigns of both Edward VII and Edward VIII. In Scotland there were times thier regnal numbers were omitted even in the Scottish Church. This issue did become more prominent with the reign of Elizabeth II. Since Elizabeth I of England never ruled over Scotland many in Scotland did not think she should be called Elizabeth II in Scotland. Many things such as mailboxes carrying the II in the royal cypher were defaced or destroyed. This is what prompted Winston Churchill to offer the solution that he did.

If the new baby prince is named James he will be called James VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain instead of James III. The name also carries a little controversy seeing that the pretender to the throne, James Francis, son of deposed king James II-VII of England and Scotland was also called James III-VIII by himself and his supporters. But that was centuries ago I am sure there wouldn’t be a problem now. It also follows that if the prince is named Richard, he will be Richard IV since there was not one named Richard who was king of Scotland. However, if he is named Robert or Alexander he would be Robert IV or Alexander IV since there have been three kings of Scotland with that name respectively.

Although we cannot predict the future the new little prince will not sit on the throne for a very long long time. Her Majesty the Queen is still going strong at the age of 87. Her son, the Prince of Wales is also healthy at the age of 64 and at the age of 31 the Duke of Cambridge will also likely see a long life. So it is possible that the new royal prince will not sit on the throne until he is in his 50s or 60s.

It will be interesting to see what the new baby will be named. Whatever the name shall be I wish the new baby prince a long healthy and happy life!

Naming the Royal Baby

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, England, King Richard III of England, King Robert III of Sctoland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria of Great Britain, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales

I have been on a few royalty related sites and message boards as people are guessing what the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will name their child. From my research it seems that George is the front-runner for the name of a boy and Elizabeth is the popular guess for the name of a girl. These names are very traditional. If these are the names selected then in time this new royal scion of the House of Windsor would be either King George VII or Queen Elizabeth III depending on the gender of the child.

Will the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge select a traditional name? I have a hunch, and it is only a hunch, that the royal couple will select a name that they like and it that will also be proper and within the bonds of tradition. Yet I think it will be a name that might not be among the kings and queens of Britain from the past. The Duke of Cambridge has demonstrated an independent nature most of his life. He did not even want a royal title until Her Majesty the Queen pointed out to him that without a royal title his wife would be known as Princess William of Wales.

Even the queen herself was a bit of a non-traditionalist when it came to selecting names. Charles and Anne, names more associated with the House of Stuart than the House of Hanover/Coburg/Windsor, was traditional and refreshingly new at the same time since those names had not been used in the royal family for quite some time. Even naming Princes Andrew after the Duke of Edinburgh’s father, Prince Andreas of Greece and Denmark, walked that fine line between tradition and something new.

Another break with tradition that I feel will continue is not naming a child after a living member of the royal family. During the Victorian era, for example, there were many princesses named after Queen Victoria all living at the same time. The future Edward VII was originally named Albert-Edward and his eldest son, The Duke of Clarence, was named Albert-Victor. Edward VII’s brothers, Alfred and Arthur, each had their eldest sons named after them. In our media saturated culture it may be deemed confusing for there to be two or more royal princes and princesses with the same first name. That doesn’t mean this child won’t be named William, Charles, Henry or Philip if it is a boy; or Elizabeth, Catherine or Anne if it is a girl, it just makes it less likely.

Myself, I have many guesses for the name of the child. I would like to see the name George used or either Victoria or Elizabeth for a girl. I am also open to names from the past that have not been used in a while, such as, Richard, Robert, Alexander, Alexandra, Charlotte and Mary.

In a short while all our questions will be answered and I do want to close with saying that what we all can agree on is that the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge be healthy and happy.

Diana, Princess of Wales: A Perspective

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Camilla Parker Bowles, Diana Spencer, Duke of Cambridge, Duke of Edinburgh, Elizabeth II, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, the prince of Wales, The Princess of Wales

I was on a Facebook page that was dedicated to English royalty. The page displayed pictures of HRH The Prince of Wales with HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. I was surprised to read the hate toward the Duchess in the name of Diana, Princess of Wales. There are still some die-hard Diana fans who can be very rigid and venomous in their attacks on The Duchess of Cornwall. The responses surprised me because I thought this type of behavior was in the past. Apparently it is not. Today I wanted to write about Diana, Princess of Wales, a person I seldom write about, and see if I can put some things into perspective.

I understand that many people are royalty watchers, or interested in the British monarchy, because of Diana, Princess of Wales. The wedding of Lady Diana Spencer to HRH The Prince of Wales back in 1981 was the doorway into their fascination with not only the British Monarchy, but Diana herself. I have observed that it is these people who are often most vocal in their praises of Diana and their criticisms of The Duchess of Cornwall. Then there are those, like myself, who were interested in British royalty prior to the royal wedding. This group tends to follow the royal family for other motives. I state this as fact with no judgment implied.

I actually did, and do, admire Diana, Princess of Wales. However, I do not do it at the expense of The Duchess of Cornwall and I also recognize that Diana brought both positive and negative changes to the royal family. Those are the things that i want to write about today.

I think Diana brought a breath of fresh air into the royal family. Her warmth and kindness and willing to be open was a message to the rest of the royal family that they too need to be more down to earth and show their warmth. I think they have followed suit and I think that is one of the biggest influences that Diana brought. I also think she was a wonderful Mom. She did work very hard to give her two boys as normal a life possible given the circumstances of their lives. This was not only beneficial to the boys, it also helped to modernize the royal family and bring it closer to the people.

Although the royal family has been a patron of charities for many many years, Diana brought a style to her charity work that again emphasized her down to earth spirit and care for other people. In a day when AIDS was a frightening unknown entity and people with AIDS were demonized and shunned the attitude that Diana had toward people with this affliction helped to not only reduce the stigma it helped educate people and brought them out of ignorance.

When any marriage ends both parties often share responsibility. There is rarely a one-sided relationship. I really do not wish to rehash what went on in their marriage and who is to blame. First of all I wasn’t there so anything I do know might not be an accurate.

I think my major point in all of this is about moving on. In August of 2013 it will be 16 years since Diana passed away. The problem seems to be that many have not yet moved on and are stuck in some type of anger phases toward the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. I do think it is time to move on, to celebrate and always honor the life of Diana, Princess of Wales and to also recognize that the Duchess of Cornwall is also a very good person that has brought many good qualities and hard work to the royal family. I do think it is time to move on, to forgive and accept what is and has come to be.

The British Monarchy and the Future.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Charles Prince of Wales, Elizabeth II, England, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Scotland, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales, United Kingdom of Great Britain

There were two blog posts on Royal Central that I read recently. One remarked about when Charles becomes king his coronation service will be more ecumenical and will not be a service just for those of The Church of England. Another article was about the Scottish referendum for independence that will be voted on next year. Both of these articles demonstrate that, as with all of life, things will not remain the same and things will change. The British monarchy, and all extant monarchies, have survived because of thei ability to change and adapt to the times. Today I will examine the two issues brough up by the articles on the Royal Central website.

The Coronation of King Charles III

I do think that changing the coronation service to allow the participation of others faiths is a good idea. Charles has gone on record saying that he hopes to be the Defender of Faiths (plural) and not just the defender of the Church of England. I think this is forward thinking. It represents the changing demographics in British society. Although a large percentage of people in the United Kingdom do label themselves as Christian (71.6%) that leaves 28. 4% of the population that identify themselves as Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, no-specific faith or any number of other religious beliefs. In a constitutional monarchy the monarch needs to be a representative of all faiths and all people. I for one do someday see the need for the Monarchy and the Church of England to part ways, but that may not happen for a long long while. The new Succession laws have made a large step in removing anti-Catholic bias from the monarchy, it just didn’t go far enough in this writers opinion. As of the writing the heir to the monarch still has to be in communion with the Church of England.

Devolution of the United Kingdom

In the fall of 2014 Scotland will vote on whether or not to remain a member of the United Kingdom or to become a separate sovereign state once again. Years ago if you had asked me I would have been against such an action. However, as I have learned more about Scottish history and the strong sense of identity and national spirit that the Scots have it saddens me to see they have lost some of that identity in the shadow of England. I guess that is one of the reasons I am bothered that people still call Elizabeth II “Queen of England.” It is not just the fact that it is not her proper title, it is the fact that it ignores Scotland completely.

Another reason I have changed my mind about Scottish independence is that I have learned that if independence is achieved Scotland would retain Elizabeth II as Head of State and become a member of the Commonwealth. To me this is acceptable compromise. I have said this before, but it bears repeating. I do miss the days when the monarch was simply the King or Queen of England. I also miss the traditions and the days when the monarch was called the King or Queen of Scots.  If Scotland does become independent and Elizabeth II (or simply Queen Elizabeth in Scotland) is retained as the Head of State, I do hope we see the return of those classic titles. This will place things as they were prior to 1707 with England and Scotland sharing a joint monarch.

Now, I have to ask the question, is it possible that Scotland could return to how things were prior to 1603 when James VI, King of Scots succeeded to the English throne? Could we see Scotland having its own monarch once again and not sharing one with England? Personally, I would love to see it. My dream scenario would be that the Earl of Wessex become Edward IV, King of Scots* and his son would be the future James VIII**. I know this will not happen but that doesn’t stop me from dreaming! I don’t know how much the Scots are monarchists and would want their own monarch.

It is interesting to watch the future and to see the changes.

* Many consider Edward Balliol as the rightful King of Scots between 1332-1336. King Edward VII would be considered Edward II, King of Scots, while his grandson, Edward VIII, would be considered Edward III.

** If James Francis Edward Stuart, Princes of Wales (1688-1766), son of James II-VII of England and Scotland, who’s pretence to the Scottish throne was from 1701 to 1766, is counted as James VIII (as most Jacobites do) then a future James of Scotland could be called James IX, King of Scots.