Announcing a new series: A History of Styles & Titles

Tags

Charles II of England and Scotland, Constitutional Monarchy, Franz Joseph of Austria-Hungary, German Emperor, German Empire, Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Empire, Kings and Queens of Great Britain, Kings of france, Monarchy, styles, titles

After doing my post on the styles of the Dutch monarch I’ve decided to do a history of titles and styles for the following monarchies.

The United Kingdom
(England, Scotland & Ireland)
France
Germany
(Holy Roman Empire, German Empire)

Before I commence with the histories of the titles and styles for each country I’d like to distinguish between a styles and a title.

His Majesty King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Styles

A style of office, honorific or manner/form of address, is an official or legally recognized form of address, and may often be used in conjunction with a title. A style, by tradition or law, precedes a reference to a person who holds a post or political office, and is sometimes used to refer to the office itself. An honorificcan also be awarded to an individual in a personal capacity. Such styles are particularly associated with monarchies, where they may be used by a wife of an office holder or of a prince of the blood, for the duration of their marriage. They are also almost universally used for presidents in republics and in many countries for members of legislative bodies, higher-ranking judges and senior constitutional office holders. Leading religious figures also have styles.

His Imperial and Royal Apostolic Majesty, Franz-Joseph I, The Emperor of Austria, Apostolic King of Hungary and Bohemia, King of Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria and Illyria; King of Jerusalem etc., Archduke of Austria; Grand Duke of Tuscany and Cracow, Duke of Lorraine, of Salzburg, Styria, Carinthia, Carniola and of Bukovina; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Upper and Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Oświęcim, Zator and Ćeszyn, Friuli, Ragusa (Dubrovnik) and Zara (Zadar); Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Gorizia and Gradisca; Prince of Trent (Trento) and Brixen; Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria; Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, etc.; Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro (Kotor), and over the Windic march; Grand Voivode of the Voivodship of Serbia.”

Titles

Title
Prefix or suffix added to someone’s name in certain contexts

A title is one or more words used before or after a person’s name, in certain contexts. It may signify either veneration, an official position, or a professional or academic qualification. In some languages, titles may be inserted between the first and last name (for example, Graf in German, Cardinal in Catholic usage (Richard Cardinal Cushing) or clerical titles such as Archbishop). Some titles are hereditary.
For other uses, see Title (disambiguation).

Types

Titles include:
* Honorific titles or styles of address, a phrase used to convey respect to the recipient of a communication, or to recognize an attribute such as:
* Imperial, royal and noble ranks
* Academic degree
* Other accomplishment, as with a title of honor
* Title of authority, an identifier that specifies the office or position held by an official

Traditional rank amongst European royalty, peers, and nobility is rooted in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Although they vary over time and among geographic regions(for example, one region’s prince might be equal to another’s grand duke), the following is a reasonably comprehensive list that provides information on both general ranks and specific differences.

Sweden: The Instrument of Government was adopted on June 6, 1809

Tags

Absolute Monarchy, Constitutional Monarchy, Instrument of Government 1809, King Carl XIII of Sweden, King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden, King Gustaf III of Sweden, King Gustaf VI Adolph of Sweden, Kingdom of Sweden, Riksdag

Also on this date in Swedish history. The Instrument of Government (Swedish: 1809 års regeringsform) was adopted on June 6, 1809 by the Riksdag of the Estates and King Carl XIII, was one of the fundamental laws that made up the constitution of Sweden from 1809 to the end of 1974.

King Carl XIII of Sweden and Norway

The Instrument of Government came about after the Coup of 1809, when the disastrous outcome in the Finnish War led Swedish nobles and parts of the Army to revolt, forcing King Gustav IV Adolf to involuntarily abdicate and go into exile.

For half a century, starting with the Instrument of Government of 1719, often referred to as the Age of Liberty, Sweden had enjoyed parliamentary rule under the Riksdag of the Estates, but in 1772 that was ended by a coup d’état perpetrated by Gustav III. The coup enabled Gustav III to rule as an enlightened despot, in other words, an absolute monarch. Gustav III’s son, Gustav IV Adolf, succeeded him but proved a less charismatic ruler, and the change of sides of Russia in the Napoleonic wars prompted the disastrous Finnish War and the loss of Finland, settled in the Treaty of Fredrikshamn. This provided momentum for the Swedish nobility and other forces to depose the king and restore political power to the Estates.

The aged and childless brother of Gustav III, Carl XIII was made king in 1809, but he was a mere puppet in the hands of the Estates and the question of his successor had to be solved. The election, by the Riksdag of the Estates, of the French Marshal and Prince of Pontecorvo Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte in 1810, provided not only a successor, but also a vital regent and a new dynasty. The rights of Bernadotte’s successors to accede to the Swedish throne were codified in an amendment to the constitution in the form of the Act of Succession (1810).

The Instrument of Government of 1809 replaced the Instrument of Government of 1772. It established a separation of powers between the executive branch (the king) and the legislative branch (the Riksdag of the Estates). The King and Riksdag possessed joint power over legislation (article 87, constitutional law in articles 81-86), while the Riksdag had sole power over the budget and state incomes and expenses (articles 57-77) including military burdens (article 73). While the king’s power was somewhat reduced compared to the enlightened absolutism of Gustav III, the new document enabled the king to take a more active role in politics than during the Age of Liberty.

The liberals won a decisive victory in 1917, but Gustaf tried to appoint another conservative ministry. However, it could not garner nearly enough support in the Riksdag. It was now obvious that the king could no longer pick a government entirely of his choosing, nor could he keep it in office against the will of the Riksdag. Gustaf yielded and appointed a liberal-social democratic coalition that effectively arrogated most of the crown’s political powers to itself. At that time, it was definitively established that ministers were politically responsible (not just legally) to the Riksdag. From then on, while ministers were still formally appointed by the king, convention required him to ensure they had the support of a majority in the Riksdag and to act on his ministers’ advice. Although the Instrument’s statement that “the King alone shall govern the realm” (article 4) remained unchanged, it was understood that he was to exercise his powers through the ministers, who did most of the actual work of governing.

King Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden

During the period when it was in force several important reforms took place without affecting its status. In 1866 the Four Estates were replaced by a bicameral parliament, and in 1876 the office of the Prime Minister of Sweden was introduced. In the early 20th century universal suffrage was introduced and the country became a de facto parliamentary monarchy. In 1970 the parliament was transformed from a bicameral legislature to a unicameral one.

In 1975, it was replaced by a new Instrument of Government, which stripped the king of even nominal political power and made Sweden a de facto crowned republic.

On this date in History: May 17, 1814. The signing of the Norwegian Constitution and the brief reign of King Christian-Frederik of Norway.

Tags

Carl XIII of Sweden, Christian VIII of Denmark, Christian-Frederik of Norway, Constitution, Constitutional Monarchy, Haakon VII, Haakon VII of Norway, King Edward VII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Norway, Norway

Christian VIII and his consort Caroline Amalie of Augustenborg during his anointing on June 28, 1840 in Frederiksborg Palace Chapel.

On this date in History: May 17, 1814. The signing of the Norwegian Constitution and the brief reign of King Christian-Frederik of Norway who would later ascend the throne of Denmark as King Christian VIII on December 8, 1839.

King Christian-Frederik of Norway

Christian VIII (September 18, 1786 – January 20, 1848) was born at Christiansborg Palace in Copenhagen. He was the eldest son of Hereditary Prince Frederik of Denmark and Norway and Duchess Sophia Frederica of Mecklenburg-Schwerin (only daughter of Duke Ludwig of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Princess Charlotte Sophie of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld). His paternal grandparents were King Frederik V of Denmark-Norway and his second wife, Duchess Juliana Maria of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (daughter of Ferdinand-Albert II, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and Antoinette of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel).

Since 1397, with the The Kalmar Union which United the three Scandinavian Kingdoms of Denmark, Norway and Sweden (Sweden left the union in 1523, when Gustav Vasa was elected as king of Sweden), Norway remained united to the Kingdom of Denmark. Then in 1814 a crack in the union occurred.

In May 1813, as the heir presumptive of the kingdoms of Denmark and Norway, Christian-Frederik was sent as stattholder (the king’s highest representative in Norway) to Norway to promote the loyalty of the Norwegians to the House of Oldenburg, which had been very badly shaken by the disastrous results of Frederik VI’s adhesion to the falling fortunes of Napoleon I of France.

Christian-Frederik did all he could personally to strengthen the bonds between the Norwegian people and the royal house of Denmark. Though his endeavours were opposed by the so-called Swedish party, which desired a dynastic union with Sweden, he placed himself at the head of the Norwegian party of independence folowing the defeat of Napoleon’s troops at the Battle of Leipzig in October 1813, the Treaty of Kiel had forced King Frederik VI to cede Norway to King Carl XIII of Sweden. The most likely goal of the young Crown Prince was reunification with Denmark. His initiative was successful, and a national assembly at Eidsvoll was called. The assembled representatives were elected by the congregations of the state churches throughout Norway, and by military units.

The Norwegian Constituent Assembly

The election of Christian-Frederik as King of Norway (Kristian Frederik in Norwegian) was confirmed by the Norwegian Constituent Assembly convoked at Eidsvoll on April 10. During five weeks in the the spring of 1814, the constitution was written. The constitution was ratified by the assembly on May 16, and on May 17 the constitution was signed by Christian-Frederik. The date of the signing is now celebrated as the Norwegian Constitution Day.

The Norwegian constitution was inspired by the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the French revolutionin 1789 and the subsequent U.S. and French constitutions. The authors Christian Magnus Falsen and Johan Gunder Adler were also influenced by the Spanish Constitution of 1812. A deviation from the republican constitutions of France and the USA was the retention of the Monarchy. Importing republicanism was seen as an attempt to emulate the French and Americans directly in a country that had over a thousand years of the tradition of a monarchy. Emulating the United States or France was something the lawmakers at Eidsvoll sought to avoid. The choice of monarchy as state form would also facilitate reunification of Denmark-Norway, something the Crown Prince Christian-Frederik was not alone in seeking.

King Christian-Frederik of Norway (King Christian VIII of Denmark)

The new Norwegian King Christian-Frederik next attempted to interest the great powers in Norway’s cause, but without success. On being pressed by the commissioners of the allied powers to bring about a union between Norway and Sweden in accordance with the terms of the treaty of Kiel, and then return to Denmark, he replied that, as a constitutional king, he could do nothing without the consent of the parliament (Storting), which would not be convoked until there was a suspension of hostilities on the part of Sweden. In the Constitution the king’s power was however severely curtailed. His absolute veto over laws was removed. In a Europe where almost all countries were ruled by absolute monarchy, a Constitutional Monarchy was still seen as extremely radical.

Sweden refused Christian-Frederik’s conditions and a short military campaign ensued in which the Norwegian army was defeated by the forces of the Swedish crown prince Carl-Johann. The brief war concluded with the Convention of Moss on August 14, 1814. By the terms of this treaty, King Christian-Frederik transferred executive power to the Storting, then abdicated and returned to Denmark. The Storting in its turn adopted the constitutional amendments necessary to allow for a personal union with Sweden and on November 4 elected Carl XIII of Sweden as the new King Carl II of Norway.

King Carl XIII-I of Sweden and Norway

It wouldn’t be until 1905 when Norway gained independence and Prince Carl of Denmark was elected King of Norway taking the name Haakon VII. Former King Christian-Frederik was a great-grand-uncle to Haakon VII. He was the second son of (the future) King Frederik VIII of Denmark and his wife Louise of Sweden. He was also a younger brother of Christian X, a paternal grandson of King Christian IX of Denmark, and a maternal grandson of King Carl XV of Sweden (who was also King Carl IV of Norway). Haakon VII married his first cousin Princess Maud of Wales, youngest daughter of the future King Edward VII of the United Kingdom and his wife, Princess Alexandra of Denmark, eldest daughter of King Christian IX of Denmark and Princess Louise of Hesse-Cassel.

The Norwegian Constitution of 1814 is still in effect today.

King Haakon VII of Norway.

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.

The limits of power of monarchs in exile: Part II

Tags

Austria, Austria-Hungary, Constitutional Monarchy, Karl von Habburg, King Michael of Romania, Otto von Habsburg, Romania, SalicLaw

 Last week I wrote of the controversy surrounding the disputed successor to the Headship of the Royal House of Saxony. This raises the question of does the head of these former ruling houses have the power to change centuries old house laws? With so many disputes after the head of the house dies, I guess the consensus is that they do not have that power or right. I think what may be closer to the truth is that the heads of these former ruling dynasties is that they have no power to make their new laws or ruling stick past their tenure as head of the house.

The Imperial House of Austria has been somewhat more successful in changing their house laws. They had had very rigid marital laws and when the now head of the house, Archduke Karl (Emperor Karl II to his supporters) married in 1993 to Baroness Francesca Thyssen-Bornemisza. The marriage received the dynastic authorization of Karl’s father, Archduke Otto who was then head of the House of Habsburg, despite objections from some members of the dynasty because the brides family was not aristocratic enough. Baroness Francesca is the only daughter of Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza de Kászon, a European industrialist, and his third wife, Fiona Campbell-Walter. The Thyssen-Bornemisza family is of the nobility of pre-republican Hungary and Transylvania, but since they did not descend in the canonically legitimate male line from a family of dynastic, mediatised or alter Adel status, many former Habsburg family members protested the marriage. Since that time Otto amended the rigid marriage rules to allow marriages into noble families that would not have been deemed acceptable during the times when the dynasty ruled.

Romania is another case. King Michael was ousted in 1946 (many say illegally) and he leaves no male heir. His eldest daughter is Princess Margarita and in 2007 the king designated her as his heir with the titles of “Crown Princess of Romania” and “Custodian of the Romanian Crown.” This is technically against the Romanian kingdom’s last democratically approved constitution of 1923 which was in effect while the monarchy was extant. That constitution stated that upon the death of King Michael, and should he have no sons, the claim to the Crown devolves once again upon the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family from which the Romanian royal family descends.

The Constitution of 1923 provides for an agnatic primogeniture (basically the “Salic law”) which means males only may inherit the throne, barring females, and females may not pass succession rights to their children. However, the 1923 Constitution is no longer in affect but many feel that the traditions behind those ancient laws still carry the rule of the day. Under the old constitution the next in line to the Romanian throne are the descendants of Friedrich Wilhelm, Prince of Hohenzollern (1924-2010).

These are the Hohenzollern members in line to the throne under the old Constitution.

1. Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern (b. 1952)
2. Alexander, Hereditary Prince of Hohenzollern (b. 1987)
3. Prince Albrecht of Hohenzollern (b. 1954)

4. Prince Ferdinand of Hohenzollern (b. 1960)
5. Prince Aloys of Hohenzollern (b. 1999)
6. Prince Fidelis of Hohenzollern (b. 2001)

The Romanian situation is complex and so I will continue with this next week and then give my overall opinion on if a former monarch or head of a former ruling dynasty does have the right to change their house laws.

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.

HRH Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge

Tags

Constitutional Monarchy, Diana, Duke of Edinburgh, Elizabeth II, George III, George IV, King George V of Great Britain, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Princess of Wales, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the prince of Wales

Some interesting facts about the new Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and the history of the name in the Biritish Royal Family.

Princess Charlotte is 4th in line to the throne after her grandfather, The Prince of Wales, her father, the Duke of Cambridge, and her brother Prince George of Cambridge. Should she have a younger brother he will not supplant her in the line of succession due to the change in succession laws. She is the first female in line to the throne. She will only be supplanted in the succession if and when her brother Prince Gorge of Cambridge has children in the future. God forbid anything happening to Prince George of Cambridge, but if it did Charlotte would become her father’s heir and eventually Queen Regnant. This would happen even if Charlotte were to have younger brothers.

She is the first Princess of Cambridge born since 1833 when HRH Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge (1833-1897) was born. Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge was the daughter of HRH Prince Adolphus-Frederick, Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850) (7th son of King George III) and HSH Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel (1797-1889). Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge was a first cousin of Queen Victoria and married Francis, Duke of Teck (1837-1900) in 1866. Their daughter, Mary of Teck (1867-1953) married the future King George V of the United Kingdom 1893 making her the grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II. This means that Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge is the great-great-great-great grandmother of the newest Princess of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.

There have been other Princesses named Charlotte in the Royal Family. First of all there was Queen Charlotte (1744-1818) wife of King George III of the United Kingdom. Queen Charlote was born HSH Princess Sophia-Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and daughter of Duke Carl-Ludwig of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1708-1752) and HSH Princess Elizabeth of Saxe-Hildburghausen (1713-1761). It has been said that Queen Mary resembled her great-grandmother Queen Charlotte and that in turn, Queen Elizabeth II resembles Queen Mary and conversely, Queen Charlotte.

The eldest daughter of King George III and Queen Charlotte was HRH The Princess Charlotte, The Princess Royal (1762-1828). In the future she would marry King Friedrich of Würrtemberg (1754-1816) as his second wife. This is the same royal dynasty that produced Francis, Duke of Teck.

King George III’s eldest son, the future George IV (1761-1820), had only one daughter, Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796-1817) from his disastrous marriage with his cousin Princess Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. In 1817 Charlotte married HSH Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Sadly, Princess Charlotte of Wales never lived to succeed her father as Queen. She died in childbirth in 1817. Her husband went on to be elected King of the Belgians in 1831.

Another aspect of the birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge is that everyone in line after her takes one step back in the sucession. Princess Charlotte’s uncle, Prince Harry of Wales, is now 5th in line to throne. He was born 3rd in line. But who it affects most is Princess Beatrice of York who falls beck to 7th in line to the throne. Under the new laws of succession only the first 6 in line to the throne have to seek permission of the Sovereign to marry. This means that Princess Beatrice of York does not have to ask the Queen permission to marry. Should the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have another child this would push the Duke of York to 7th inline to the throne meaning he would no longer need his mother’s permission to marry once again.

Lastly, The Duke of Cambridge’s uncle, The Earl Spencer, has a two year old daughter named Lady Charlotte Diana Spencer. So the name Charlotte has a strong history behind it!

Happy 89th Birthday to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II!

Tags

Constitutional Monarchy, Elizabeth II, Happy Birthday, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Today Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II turns 89! Happy birthday!

In a few short months Her Majesty will become the longest reigning monarch in British history when she will beat, by one day, the 63 years, 216 days, that her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria reigned. So I want to take a moment and recognize what a great monarch Elizabeth has been over the years. During the 1990s when her children were causing so many negative stories in the paper Her Majesty never missed a step. It has been a pretty flawless reign where she has maintained the dignity of the crown. At 89 Her Majesty is still going strong and I hope she can continue for many more years.

I have said this before but it bears repeating. Here in the US in 2016 we will have an election for President, our Head of State and Head of the Government, so as candidates have already started running I have 20 months of mudslinging and attacks and hatred being spewed by both parties to look forward to. One of the reasons I admire the British system is that it has evolved to where the Head of State and Head of the Government are separate. Leaving the mud slinging to the politicians gives the chance for the Head of State to be the Symbol of the Nation for all people not just those of a specific political party. So I think the British people are fortunate to have a Head of State that embodies all that is good about Britain and I hope the British people do appreciate her hard work, service and dedication to her people. You are fortunate to have her. Happy Birthday your Majesty and long may you reign and God Save the Queen!

Survival of Monarchies: Part X, Conclusions.

Tags

Charles of Austria, Constitutional Monarchy, Emperor Carl of Austria, France, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, King Louis XVI of France, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013, United Kingdom

This has been a very long series. Here is the conclusion. As stated in the beginning my premise for the survival of the monarchies that are extant is due to a more Liberal political view that allowed these systems to adapt and change with the times. These are also the reasons why these systems are continuing to survive. For example, the United Kingdom followed the direction the Scandinavian and Benelux monarchies have gone in regards to gender neutrality for the succession to the crown. In the future the eldest child will inherit the throne regardless of gender. For a further example, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s new baby is a girl, she will follow Prince George and become fourth in line to the throne as she would have under the old laws. However, she will not be moved down in the succession by any future younger brothers. The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 has finally gone into affect once Australia finally approved it. Other more Liberal provisions of the Act was to repeal the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 so now only the first 6th in line to the throne have to ask permission of the sovereign to marry. The Act also restored to the order of succession those who had married Catholics. So as long as a Prince or Princess married a Catholic they will no longer lose their place in the succession. However, if a British Prince or Prince converts to the Catholic faith or is baptized into the faith they will lose their place in the succession.

We have seen that in Britain they went from an almost absolute monarchy under the Tudors to the Constitutional Monarchy they have today. Although it was a very rough road to get to where we are today the monarchy did survive because it was able to adapt to the changing political philosophies of the day. We saw the same thing in Denmark although with much less bloodshed. In Denmark the king took over the power and when the people desired a Constitution with a monarch that had lesser power it was granted easily. When King Christian IX (1863-1906) tried to wield more power than he had he was very unpopular for it and almost lost his crown. His ability to adapt to how things were helped save that crown.

Russia, Austria-Hungary and the German Empire (and France) all fell during times of war but the staunch Conservatism and the inability to change lead to the downfall of each. Both Czar Nicholas II of Russia and King Louis XVI lost their thrones and lives during revolutions. Brief periods of Constitutional Monarchy were attempted but each monarch were used to centuries of personal autocracy and the sharing of power was seen as being beneath them. Plus, these bodies (Parliaments) were not very trusting of their sovereigns either. Kaiser’s Wilhelm II and Carl I-IV lost their thrones because the people no longer wanted them. I think this point cannot be over stressed. Both Germany and Austria-Hungry clung to a type of autocracy that had fallen out of favor over a century.

I think it brings up a good point to close with. It is important that monarchies bend to the changing times for the most important lesson learned with the collapse of these more Conservative regimes is that the monarchs govern by the will of the people and if and when the people no longer desire them they will be gone. I think today’s monarchs realize this very important fact. In that context I think these monarchies do provide their countries with something the people do need. I have gone over this briefly and I will restate it here: Symbolism and Patriotism are important to any country and having a head of state that is above the partisan game playing and bickering and who is a symbol and unifying factor can be of great value to the people. As long as they can find ways to remain meaningful in the lives of their country and adapt to the changing needs of the country and remaining an anchor for stability then the people will desire to keep them around.

Survival of Monarchies: Prussia Part II

Tags

Brandenburg, Cleves, Constitutional Monarchy, Frederick the Great, Holy Roman Emperor, Holy Roman Empire, Kingdom of Prussia, Mark, Pomerania, Ravensberg

It was during the reign of Friedrich II “The Great” that we see the rise in militarism and the consolidation of Hohenzollern lands into the great state of Prussia. Many of the traditions that were started by Friedrich were continued throughout the monarchy as each Hohenzollern king or emperor tried to emulate their ancestor. To be honest The House of Hohenzollern never did produce a leader as effective as Friedrich the Great. Now in this survey of how monarchies survived into the 21st century I cannot do the reign of Friedrich the Great justice. What I will do is establish how he consolidated the Prussian state and how that was carried on, at least in spirit, with his successors.

When Friedrich II came to the throne in 1740 his lands were strewn throughout the Holy Roman Empire and the Kingdom of Poland. His Brandenburg lands were part of the Holy Roman Empire. The entire Prussia state consisted of scattered territories, including Cleves, Mark, and Ravensberg in the west of the Holy Roman Empire; Brandenburg, Hither Pomerania, and Farther Pomerania in the east of the Empire; and the former Duchy of Prussia, outside of the Empire bordering the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was through a series of wars with Austria and Russia, annexing portions of Poland, that made Prussia the top military state and one of the most powerful nations in Europe.

By 1772 Friedrich II was able to call himself King of Prussia without any protests from Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II. With Prussia a solid European power and a strong military power to back it up, the Hohenzollern kings and the military became not only the actual power behind the throne but the symbolism of the military was steeped in Prussian culture. Every Prussian prince joined the military, if only nominally, at the age of 10 or 11. During the 19th century fancy court dress was replaced by military uniforms as the proper attire for a prince or king.

The rise and strengthening of Prussia during the reign of Friedrich II was also a nail in the coffin of the Holy Roman Empire. From 1648 until the end of the reign of Friedrich II in 1786 all the states in the Empire were, for the most part, autonomous, but none were considered powerful. With Prussia we see the rise of a new nation-state that could rival Austria. Although the Holy Roman Empire would limp on for another 20 years before it was dissolved in 1806. In reality the Empire disappeared as Prussia and Austria grew as rivals and began to compete over the future of the German states and the two also became the strong central powers in Europe.

Forged out of War and conquest Prussia was a mighty military state. After the dissolution of the empire in 1806 Austria looked to dominate the Confederation of the Rhine, the state that took its place, however, Prussia could no longer sit under the thumb of Austria. In the early and mid part of the 19th century when the unification of the German lands became the central issue the question of under whose leadership would Germany be unified; Prussia or Austria? Also, as the Liberal Revolutions of 1848 spread across German lands the question then became would Germany be united as a Liberal or Conservative state?

That is what we will examine next week.