Abdication: Two Days that shook the British Monarchy. December 10-11, 1936. Part II.

Tags

1936, Abdication, Edward VIII, His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, King George VI of the United Kingdom, Prince Albert, Prince Edward, Wallis Simpson

The next day, after signing the Act of Abdication, the last act of his reign was the royal assent to His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. As required by the Statute of Westminster, all the Dominions had already consented to the abdication.

Although Edward VIII had signed a declaration of abdication the previous day—December 10, 1936—he remained king until giving Royal Assent to His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act, which he did onDecember 11, at 1.52 p.m., and the Act became immediately effective from that time. Ironically, his last act as king was giving the royal assent to his own abdication.

His brother, the Duke of York, succeeded to the throne as George VI. Instead of becoming King Albert, his given name, he selected the name George to suggest continuity with his father George V. King George VI’s elder daughter, Princess Elizabeth, became heir presumptive.

King George VI of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The act was passed through the British Houses of Parliament in one day, with no amendments. As the Statute of Westminster 1931 stipulated that the line of succession must remain the same throughout the Crown’s realms, the governments of some of the British Dominions—Canada, Australia, the Union of South Africa, and New Zealand—requested and gave their permission for the act to become part of the law of their respective realms.

Prince Edward giving his abdication speech.

On the night of December 11, 1936, Edward, now reverted to the title and style of a prince, explained his decision to abdicate in a worldwide radio broadcast. He famously said, “I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of responsibility and to discharge my duties as king as I would wish to do without the help and support of the woman I love.” He added that the “decision was mine and mine alone … The other person most nearly concerned has tried up to the last to persuade me to take a different course”. Edward departed Britain for Austria the following day; he was unable to join Simpson until her divorce became absolute, several months later.

Abdication: What To Call A Former Monarch, Part VI.

Tags

Abdication, Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII, Juan Carlos I of Spain, King Albert II of Belgium, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, kings and queens of the United Kingdom

As we’ve seen, the overwhelming vast majority of monarchs that were both deposed or abdicated kept their royal titles. An exception being the three monarchs of the Netherlands (all queens) whom assumed the title of Princess upon their abdications. However, when both King Juan Carlos of Spain and Albert II of the Belgians recently abdicated they retained their titles. When Pope Benedict XVI resigned his position as Pope, the Vatican bestowed on him the title pope emeritus shortly after his resignation.

HRH The Duke of Windsor

Now let us examine why Edward VIII of the United Kingdom was not allowed to retain his royal title.

Duke of Windsor

On December 12, 1936, at the accession meeting of the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, George VI announced he was to make his brother the “Duke of Windsor” with the style of Royal Highness. He wanted this to be the first act of his reign, although the formal documents were not signed until March 8, 1937 that following year. During the interim, Edward was universally known as the Duke of Windsor. George VI’s decision to create Edward a royal duke ensured that he could neither stand for election to the House of Commons nor speak on political subjects in the House of Lords.

HRH The Duke of Windsor

Letters Patent dated May 27, 1937 re-conferred the “title, style, or attribute of Royal Highness” upon the Duke of Windsor, but specifically stated that “his wife and descendants, if any, shall not hold said title or attribute”. Some British ministers advised that the reconfirmation was unnecessary since Edward had retained the style automatically, and further that Simpson would automatically obtain the rank of wife of a prince with the style Her Royal Highness; others maintained that he had lost all royal rank and should no longer carry any royal title or style as an abdicated king, and be referred to simply as “Mr Edward Windsor”. Personally, I am not aware of the precedent for lowering Edward VIII’s titles to either a Royal Highness or simply as “Mr Edward Windsor”.

On April 14, 1937, Attorney General Sir Donald Somervell submitted to Home Secretary Sir John Simona memorandum summarising the views of Lord Advocate T. M. Cooper, Parliamentary Counsel Sir Granville Ram, and himself:

1. We incline to the view that on his abdication the Duke of Windsor could not have claimed the right to be described as a Royal Highness. In other words, no reasonable objection could have been taken if the King had decided that his exclusion from the lineal succession excluded him from the right to this title as conferred by the existing Letters Patent.
2. The question however has to be considered on the basis of the fact that, for reasons which are readily understandable, he with the express approval of His Majesty enjoys this title and has been referred to as a Royal Highness on a formal occasion and in formal documents. In the light of precedent it seems clear that the wife of a Royal Highness enjoys the same title unless some appropriate express step can be and is taken to deprive her of it.
3. We came to the conclusion that the wife could not claim this right on any legal basis. The right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstance.

Wallis Simpson, Duchess of Windsor

As we’ve seen retaining the royal title is the established precedent. Also, if he retained the title of King that also would have ensured that he could neither stand for election to the House of Commons nor speak on political subjects in the House of Lords. There was a great prejudice toward Edward’s spouse, Wallis Simpson, and the denial of both the kingly and royal styles and titles were an attempt to deny them to her. It is my opinion that is the main reason Edward VIII did not retain his kingly status.

Abdication: What To Call A Former Monarch, Part V.

Tags

Abdication, Duke of Aosta, Edward VIII, House of Savoy, King Manuel II of Portugal, Kingdom of Spain, Kingdom of the Netherlands, Queen Isabella II of Spain, Queen Wilhelmina of the Netherlands

In the previous entries I examined how Richard II of England and Holy Roman Emperor Charles V still retained their title of King and Emperor respectively after their abdications. Here are other examples of monarchs who abdicated or were dethroned yet they kept their royal title.

King Wilhelm II of Württemberg 1891-1918

King James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland 1685-1688
King Louis Philippe of the French 1830-1848
King Miguel I of Portugal 1828-1834
King Manuel II of Portugal 1908-1910
Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany 1888-1918
Emperor Karl I-IV of Austria-Hungary 1916-1918
Queen Isabella II of Spain 1833-1868
King Alfonso XIII of Spain 1874-1885
King Mihail of Romania 1927-1930 and 1940-1947
King Simeon II of Bulgaria 1943-1946
King Peter II of Yugoslavia 1934-1954
King Constantine II of Greece 1964-1973
King Ludwig III of Bavaria 1913-1918
King Wilhelm II of Württemberg 1891-1918
King Friederich August III of Saxony 1904-1918
King Juan Carlos of Spain 1975-2014
King Albert II of the Belgians 1993-2013

By remaining kings, those who married after abdicating/being dethroned could even transmit their royal style to their wives – Anne of Bourbon-Parma who married King Mihail Romania and Augusta Victoria of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen wife of King Manuel II of Portugal all were wed and titled Queen long after their husbands ceased to reign.

Queen Isabella II of Spain 1833-1868

In one case a monarch who abdicated did grant himself a lesser title and yet also kept the title of King. King Willem I of the Netherlands, after his abdication in 1840, styled himself King Willem-Frederick, Count of Nassau. Speaking of the Kingdom of the Netherlands it was only with the abdications of Queens Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix did they downgrade themselves to Royal Highnesses and Princesses.

Here is an example of a monarch that did downgrade his title after his abdication. After the abdication of Queen Isabella II of Spain the Spanish Cortes decided to continue as a monarchy. They chose as their king, Amadeo I (Italian: Amedeo, sometimes anglicized as Amadeus; May 30, 1845 – January 18, 1890) and he was the only King of Spain from the House of Savoy. He was the second son of King Vittorio Emanuele II of Italy and was known for most of his life as the Duke of Aosta, but he reigned briefly as King of Spain from 1870 to 1873.

Amadeo I of Spain 1870-1873

Amadeo’s reign was fraught with growing republicanism, Carlist rebellions in the north, and the Cuban independence movement. With the possibility of reigning without popular support, Amadeus issued an order against the artillery corps and then immediately abdicated from the Spanish throne on February 11, 1873. At ten o’clock that same night, Spain was proclaimed a republic, at which time Amadeo made an appearance before the Cortes, proclaiming the Spanish people ungovernable. Completely disgusted, the ex-monarch left Spain and returned to Italy, where he resumed the title of Duke of Aosta.

In the final entry I will show why it was deemed necessary to downgrade Edward VIII of the United Kingdom.

Abdication and what to call former Monarchs? Part I

Tags

Abdication, Deposed, Deposition, Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII, European Monarchy, European Royalty, James II-VII of England, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Mary Queen of Scots, Mary Stuart

On December 11, 1936 King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland abdicated the throne for the woman he loved. His abdication created something unique within the context of former sovereigns.

HRH The Duke of Windsor, former King Edward VIII

Abdication, although relatively rare, has occurred through the history of the various European monarchies. Abdication is different from when a monarch is deposed although there are times when the differences are are a bit fuzzy.

Deposed vs Abdication

The word abdication is derived from the Latin abdicatio meaning to disown or renounce (from ab, away from, and dicare, to dedicate or relinquish). In its broadest sense abdication is the act of renouncing and resigning from any formal office, but it is applied especially to the supreme office of state.

Deposition by political means concerns the removal of a politician or monarch. It may be done by coup, impeachment, invasion, or forced abdication. The term may also refer to the official removal of a clergyman, especially a bishop, from ecclesiastical office.

It would be easy to differentiate between the two terms if abdication was simply defined as a monarchs willingness to relinquish their thrones and power. However, the terms become somewhat muddied and synonymous when a deposition occurs as a forced abdication. Mary I, Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate in favour of her one-year-old son James. For myself, in the name of simplicity, I view abdication as a willing or unwilling relinquishment of power through official and legal means by signing a document that is acknowledged by the government.

Edward VIII is a classic example of that. Mary I, Queen of Scots is an example of a forced abdication and yet at the same also meets the definition of a deposition. James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland is a prime example of being deposed. Troops were at his door and he fled the country. Of course being assassinated or murdered in a coup fits the definition of a deposition.

Haven gotten that out of the way, the real topic is what to call or title a monarch that has abdicated and/or been deposed? This is where the uniqueness of Edward VIII comes into play. When Edward VIII abdicated he lost his Royal style and title and was downgraded. This was an unusual occurrence for prior to his abdication the majority of former monarchs retained their titles.

Over the next few postings we will examine the abdication of several monarchs and what they were called after their reign was over. We will start with Edward VIII with the next post.

Which Titles for Prince Harry and Meghan Markle?

Tags

1917 Letter's Patent, Duke of Albany, Duke of Clarence, Duke of Cumberland, Duke of Sussex, Duke of Windsor, Edward VIII, King George III, Meghan Markle, Prince Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, Titles Deprivation Act 1919

The wedding of HRH Prince Harry and Meghan Markle has been announced to take place in May at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. 

One of the biggest speculations concerning the marriage is what Peerage Title the couple will receive. It has become the tradition with Her Majesty, the Queen, to elevate a member of the Royal Family to the Peerage by granting them a title of Nobility on their wedding day. Prince Andrew was created Duke of York at his wedding, Prince Edward was created Earl of Wessex at his wedding, and Prince William was created Duke of Cambridge at his; therefore it is logical to assume Prince Harry will also be granted a Peerage Title on his wedding day. 

But which one? The odds on favorite seems to be Duke of Sussex, followed by Duke of Clarence. There are also other options. The Dukedoms of Albany and Cumberland have been suggested but they are forever in limbo it seems. The last holders of these titles, Prince Charles-Edward, Duke of Albany 1884-1954  (later reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) along with Prince Ernest-Augustus II, Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale 1845-1923 were deprived their Peerage titles in 1917 for bearing arms against the United Kingdom in World War I under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917.

Under the provisions of this Act the legitimate lineal male heir of the 1st Duke of Albany was allowed to petition the British Crown for the restoration of the peerages. Because subsequent descendants have married in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, there were theoretically no people alive who can make such a petition according to British Law. The last person eligible to petition the Crown was Prince Friedrich-Josia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, who died in 1998. Since the the Royal Marriages Act 1772 was repealed by the subsequent Crown Act of 2013 it remains to be seen if the current heir, Prince Andreas of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, can Petition the Crown to regain this title.

In 1799 the double dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale, in the Peerage of Great Britain, was bestowed on Prince Ernest-Augustus, fifth son of King George III of the United Kingdom and Hanover. In 1837 Ernest-Augustus became King of Hanover and on his death in 1851 the title descended with the kingdom to his son King Georg V, and on Georg’s  death in 1878 to his grandson Ernst-August II. In 1866 Hanover was annexed by Prussia but King Georg V died without renouncing his rights. His son, Ernst-August II, not only maintained his claim to the kingdom of Hanover, he was generally known by his title of Duke of Cumberland.

The title was suspended for Ernst-August II’s pro-German activities during World War I under the 1917 Titles Deprivation Act as it was for his son (Prince Ernst-August III 1887-1953, reigning Duke of Brunswick). Under the Act the lineal male heirs of the 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Teviotdale have the right to petition the British Crown for the restoration of his peerages. To date, none have done so. The present heir and current head of the House of Hanover is Prince Ernst-August V (born 26 February 1954), great-grandson of Prince Ernst-August II, 3rd Duke of Cumberland and Tiveotdale. He is the senior male-line descendant of George III of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It is very unlikely that the current head of the House of Hanover will petition the Crown to have this title restored.

Unless these two Dukedoms are formally and legally renounced these titles will likely remain in limbo. Dukedoms such as Connaught belong to Ireland where the Queen no longer reigns so that Dukedom is no longer an option. The Dukedom of Windsor is so associated (tainted) with King Edward VIII the chance it ever being re-created for another British Royal is highly unlikely.

There is also the possibility that the Queen will grant the royal couple a lesser title such as Earl or even Marquess. At this time Prince Harry is 5th in line to the throne. The Duchess of Cambridge is due to give birth to their third child in April and if all goes as planned this will make Prince Harry 6th in line to the British throne. Since Prince Harry will be further down in the order of succession a lesser title becomes a possibility, however slight it is. 

I know they’re not even married yet but I need to mention the titles of any subsequent Children. Under the provisions of the 1917 Letter’s Patent any children born to the Royal Couple during the life time of the Queen will NOT have a royal title. Under the provisions of the 1917 Letter’s Patent the royal title is limited to the grandchildren of The sovereign in the male line. Prince Harry and Meghan’s children will be great-grandchildren in the male line of the sovereign thus making them ineligible for a title.

The Act only provided a title for a great-grandchild in the male line of the sovereign when that child is the eldest son, of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In this instance, Prince George of Cambridge. The Queen did amend the 1917 Letter’s Patent to include ALL children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

The Queen could do something similar with the children of Prince Harry and Meghan. However, in the long run it won’t be necessary. Any children born during the reign of the Queen will automatically gain the title Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the Queen passes away; for they will no longer be great-grandchildren of the sovereign, they will be the grandchildren of the new sovereign, King Charles III.

 

 

 

Royal Numbering Part III

Tags

Edward VIII, Elizabeth II, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, Numbering Monarchs, Roman Numerals., United Kingdom of Great Britain

In this final part on England I will look at a few royals who may or may not have been king or queen of England and speculate whether or not any future monarch with their name will receive an ordinal number. First up is King Felipe II of Spain. Felipe (Philip) of Spain was the eldest son of King Carlos I of Spain (who was also Holy Roman Emperor Karl V). On July 24, 1554 Prince Felipe married England’s first queen regnant, Mary Tudor, or Mary I. Prior to the marriage Felipe’s father ceded his kingdoms of Naples and Jerusalem to his son in order for him to have equal rank with Mary.

England’s Parliament enacted Queen Mary’s Marriage Act to regulate the marriage. According to the Act Felipe was granted the title King of England and Ireland and it was stipulated that as long as their marriage lasted Felipe was considered co-sovereign along with his wife but with Mary retaining the majority of authority. When Mary I died in 1558 and was succeeded by her half sister as Elizabeth I, Felipe ceased to be King of England and Ireland.

This was one of the motivations for Felipe seeking the hand of Elizabeth so he could retain the title of King of England and Ireland. Although he was technically a King-consort and not a king of England in his own right, as William III was, he is not generally counted as one of the Kings of England. However, since Parliament did grant him co-sovereignty some historians think it is plausible that if there were to be a future King Philip of the United Kingdom he could be called King Philip II.

Is it possible for there to be a Queen Matilda II? The first Matilda was the only surviving legitimate child of King Henry I (1100-1135). Henry tired to pass the succession to his daughter, Empress Matilda, widow of Holy Roman Emperor Heinrich V, by forcing the nobles and barons to swear an oath of allegiance supporting Matilda’s claim to the the throne. When Henry died Matilda was in Anjou with her husband Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou. Matilda’s cousin, Count Stephen of Blois, seized upon the opportunity of Matlida’s absence to grab the throne supported by the aforementioned nobles and barons. A civil war erupted and in February 1141 Matilda’s army defeated and captured King Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln. Matilda went to London for her coronation and was welcomed into the city.

Matilda adopted the title of Lady of the English and planned to assume the title of queen upon her coronation. When Matilda refused to lower the taxes on the citizens of London she was exiled from the city and the civil war was reignited that June. Stephen was released and resumed his kingship until his death in 1154. A compromise was made between Matilda and Stephen when Stephen agreed that Matilda’s son, Henry Fitzempress, would mount the throne upon Stephens death. For a short while Matilda did hold power and her legal claim to the throne was superior to Stephen’s so it is entirely plausible that if there is a future Queen Matilda of the United Kingdom she may call herself Matilda II.

 Is it possible for there to be a Queen Jane II? Lady Jane Grey is known as the 9 day queen and some lists of the kings and queens of England do include her on this list. In reality she was a pawn in a deadly game between Catholics and Protestants. Lady Jane was the great-granddaughter of Henry VII by his younger daughter Mary making Jane a first-cousin-once-removed to Edward VI.

In May of 1553 Jane married Lord Guildford Dudley, who was the younger son of Edward VI’s chief minister, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Northumberland knew the king was dying and that the rightful heir, Mary Tudor, was a Catholic who would return the realm to Catholicism. Northumberland persuaded the king to name Jane as his successor, thus subverting the claims of his half-sisters Mary and Elizabeth under the Third Succession Act. When the king died the Privy Council proclaimed Jane Queen of England and Ireland.

Jane moved into the Tower of London where most monarchs stayed awaiting their coronation. Nine days later the Privy Council had a change of heart and proclaim Mary as Queen on 19 July 1553. Jane was retained in the tower and after a short trial was convicted of high treason. At first the death penalty was rescinded as Queen Mary knew Jane was but a pawn in the entire plan. However, with the breakout of Wyatt’s rebellion with Jane’s father as one of the conspirators, this once again placed Jane’s life in jeopardy.

The rebellion was initiated with the aim of dethroning Mary due to her unpopular upcoming marriage to the Catholic Felipe of Spain with the intent of replacing her with Jane. With the 16 year old Jane a constant threat to her throne Mary signed the orders and Jane and her husband were beheaded on the morning of February 12, 1554. Since there are some historians who do recognize Jane as queen it is technically possible for there to be a Queen Jane II of the United Kingdom in the future.

 

 

Royal Numbering. Part I

Tags

Edward I of England, Edward VIII, Emperor's Desk, England, Kings, Kings and Queens of England, Numbering Monarchs, Queens, Roman Numerals., Scotland, United Kingdom of Great Britain

Another aspect of the evolution of monarchy is the development of Ordinal numbers or regnal numbers used to differentiate between monarchs of the same name within the same territory. This practice was also a latter development. Originally monarchs were know by their sobriquet, or nickname, that developed over time. Generally a sobriquet is given to you by others. For instance William I of England is more well known as William the Conqueror but prior to having that sobriquet he was known as William the Bastard due to his illegitimacy. Monarchs were also known by their territorial designations. For example, Henry III of England was also known as Henry of Winchester.

The Papacy was one of the first places where the practice of subscribing a Roman numeral to popes of the same name developed. As this practice spread to ruling monarchs it was used sporadically and did not become the standard practice until the mid twelfth century but in some cases it did not become tradition until as late as the 18^th century. When one looks at the lists of monarchs from each particular country the usage of ordinal numbers is pretty consistent over-all but mistakes were made. For the next few days I will concentrate on different countries and their traditions on how the name their monarchs…and each country does not follow a specific standard. Today I will concentrate on England/Great Britain.

Whoever began numbering the kings and queen of England ignored centuries of royal tradition and began numbering the monarchs from the time of the Norman Conquest. There were kings of England for a few centuries prior to the year 1066. This either displays shortsightedness or it stresses the cultural and political significance that the Norman invasion had on England. But either way there is an inconsistency and they messed up one name. This has been a pet peeve of mine for a long time. Since the Norman conquest all of the old Anglo-Saxon names fell into diss-use except for one: Edward. Edward Longshanks, who ruled from 1272 until 1307 was named by his father, Henry III, after the last Anglo-Saxon king, Edward the Confessor.

Since the use of ordinal numbers had not come into common usage during the reign of Edward Longshanks, he was simply known as King Edward or King Edward Longshanks. It wasn’t until the successive reigns of his son and grandson, also named Edward, that Edward Longshanks became known as Edward I. But this was not accurate for there were three Anglo-Saxon kings named Edward prior to the Norman conquest. Therefore, Edward I was in reality the fourth King of England by that name and should have been called King Edward IV. This means that the most recent King Edward, Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor, was in reality King Edward XI. Other examples of the inconsistency in all of this is the fact that there are some Anglo-Saxon kings that have been given ordinal numbers and some have not. Æthelred I (865-871) and Æthelred II (978-1016) are an example. In some lists Æthelred II is known by his sobriquet “the Unready.”

Since this is a rather large topic and I have written more, Part II on the history of ordinal numbers in Great Britain will be posted tomorrow. I don’t want to have these blog posts be too long. 🙂