History of the Prince of Wales titles.

Tags

Henry VII of England, Kingdom of England, Kingdom of France, Kings and Queens of Great Britain, Prince Charles, Prince of the Blood, Princess of Wales, titles

This is my first entry into looking at all the titles of the Prince of Wales. I will start with the of Prince, then we’ll look at the title of Duke and Earl etc. Then I’ll look at each specific title, Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall etc.

HRH The Prince of Wales

In examining the origins of the title and position of Prince we go back to the ancient world. The Latin word prīnceps (older Latin *prīsmo-kaps, literally “the one who takes the first place/position”). Generally the Latin term prīnceps is also referred to as “First Citizen” and became the title of the informal leader of the Roman senate some centuries before the transition to empire, the princeps senatus.

Emperor Augustus established the formal position of monarch on the basis of principate, not dominion. He also tasked his grandsons as summer rulers of the city when most of the government were on holiday in the country or attending religious rituals, and, for that task, granted them the title of princeps. Historically, this is a first example of the title of Prince being granted as a courtesy title on members of the family.

From the days of the Roman Empire the title of Prince evolved in two ways. The most familiar is Prince being a male member of a monarch’s, or former monarch’s, family ranked below a king and above a duke. In some States of Europe the title of Prince is a title of nobility and for other states the title denotes sovereignty. Whether the title is used as a courtesy title for a member of a Royal Family or that as a Noble or one that denotes Sovereignty in his own right, the title is often hereditary and also regulated. The feminine equivalent is a princess.

Generically, prince refers to a member of a family that ruled by hereditary right, the title referring either to sovereigns or to cadets of a sovereign’s family. The term may be broadly used of persons in various cultures, continents or eras. In Europe, it is the title legally borne by dynastic cadets in monarchies, and borne by courtesy by members of formerly reigning dynasties.

Each country in Europe has its own rich history with the title of Prince and I will not delve into those here for my focus is the history of the title of Prince in Britain.

Who held the title of Prince?

To put it simply, the title “prince” is used throughout British history (England, Scotland, Wales etc) and has been used to mark descent from a sovereign.  Just who qualified for that title changed throughout the history of each of these realms. The further back we go in time the waters muddy to just who held these titles and how they were regulated. It wasn’t until 1714 do we see titles regulated in the manner we’re most familiar with as George I (1714-1727) shaped the British title system to conform to the way titles were regulated in Hanover and the rest of Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Despite inaugurating this title system many ways George I regulated titles no longer exists as George V overhauled the system in 1917 which has remained basically the same since then.

Henry VII King of England and Lord of Ireland.

It generally surprises people to learn that the use of Prince as courtesy style for sons of the Sovereign dates only to Henry VII (1485-1509). Prior to the Tudor period it’s been difficult to find the evidence to how the term Prince, or Princess was used. We all know the legends of Robin Hood and how when King Richard the Lion Heart was off on Crusade and the kingdom was ruled by the evil Prince John. Was John really called a “Prince” in his day, or is giving him that title a more recent and retroactive practice?

However, if the title of Prince didn’t become a courtesy title for the sons of the Sovereign until the reign of Henry VII, then it seems any association with the title Prince for earlier members of the Sovereigns family is a more modern or recent practice. Another interesting fact is that the usage of the title of Princess during the Tudor period was inconsistent. There is evidence that future Queen’s Mary I and Elizabeth I were sometimes referred to Princess Mary of Princess Elizabeth, and also the Lady Mary and the Lady Elizabeth. It wasn’t until the Restoration of Charles II (1660-1685) that daughters of the Sovereign were styled princesses.  Both sons and daughters of the Sovereign were styled Royal Highness from the time of the Restoration. 

Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland.

If the title of Prince was first a courtesy title for the sons of a Sovereign then the question arises how far in the male line should the title of Prince be extended? Grandsons? Great-grandson or even further? In Europe, the Holy Roman Empire for example, primogeniture took a while to be established therefore princely titles and titles of nobility were extended to all male descendants.

In France, during the 16th century, the title of Prince extended to all existing male-line descendents of kings.  This principle established in law as early as 1400 that agnates had a right of succession no matter how distant their kinship.  This differed from the the English style where succession rights were not always extended to male line descendants of the Sovereign. An example of this is with Henry VII who descended from John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster’s (son of Edward III 1327-1377) third marriage. Although the children of this union were born illegitimate they were subsequently legitimized but without succession rights.

In Britain the concept of “Prince of the Blood Royal, ” in imitation of the French style, makes its appearance. I’d also like to note that the title of Prince, as a courtesy title, is not a title that is granted to an individual like a peerage title (Duke, Earl & Marquess etc) but rather a style or appellation customarily used to indicate the relationship to the sovereign, and membership in the royal house. 

Now back to the question of how far to extend the Princely to more distant relatives in the male line? I speak of the male line because children would inherit surnames and all Princely titles and titles of Nobility from their father, therefore children would not inherent their mothers Royal titles. The only exception being when the mother/female is the Sovereign. 


The problem of styling grandchildren of the sovereign at the English court did not arise much during the Tudors and the Stuarts:

* the only grandchildren of Henry VII born during his lifetime were the children of his daughter Margaret and James IV of Scotland, born outside the realm and those children inherited their father’s Scottish titles.
* Henry VIII had no grandchildren
* Mary I and Elizabeth I had no children
* The only grandchildren of James I-VI born during his lifetime were the children of his daughter Elizabeth and the Elector Palatine, all born overseas, either Heidelberg or the Hague
* only two of those children, Prince Rupert and  Elizabeth, abbess of Herford, ever resided in Britain

* The only child of Charles I married during his lifetime was Mary, whose only son William (future William III-II) was born in the Hague in 1650, a year after Charles I’s death

Therefore, as you can see, there wasn’t an issue in how to style the grandchild born of the Sovereign during their lifetime because there wasn’t any! The problem didn’t arise until the late Stuarts, the with the children of the Duke of York (future James II-VII son of Charles I, brother of Charles II) and the children of Princess Anne (daughter of James II-VII sister of Mary II).  It appears that these grandchildren/nephews of sovereigns were titled
* “Prince” for grandsons in male line,
* “Lord” for grandsons in female line,
* “Lady” for granddaughters in either male or female line,
* and all were styled “Highness”.

Thus, at this stage, the style of Royal Highness remained the prerogative of children of a sovereign.

In order to keep this to a digestible level I’ll stop here and pick up later in the week.

Advertisements

St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle.

Tags

Dean of Windsor, Edward III of England, Henry VII of England, King Henry VIII of England, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Knights of the Garter, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, royal wedding, St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle

A short look at St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle where the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was held.

St. George’s castle chapel was established in the 14th century by King Edward III of England, Lord of Ireland and began extensive enlargement in the late 15th century. It has been the location of many royal ceremonies, weddings and burials. Windsor Castle is a principal residence for Queen Elizabeth II and St. George’s Chapel is the planned burial site for the Queen.

The day-to-day running of the Chapel is the responsibility Dean and Canons of Windsor who make up the religious College of St George, which is directed by a Chapter of the Dean and four Canons, assisted by a Clerk, Virger (traditional spelling of verger) and other staff. The Society of the Friends of St George’s and Descendants of the Knights of the Garter, a registered charity, was established in 1931 to assist the College in maintaining the Chapel.

St George’s Chapel became the Mother Church of the Order of the Garter, and a special service is still held in the chapel every June and is attended by the members of the order. Their heraldic banners hang above the upper stalls of the choir where they have a seat for life.

The period 1475–1528 saw a radical redevelopment of St George’s Chapel under the designs of King Henry VII’s most prized counsellor Sir Reginald Bray (later Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster), set in motion by Edward IV and continued by Henry VII and Henry VIII. The thirteenth-century Chapel of St Edward the Confessor was expanded into a huge new Cathedral-like chapel under the supervision of Richard Beauchamp, Bishop of Salisbury, and the direction of the master mason Henry Janyns.

St George’s Chapel was a popular destination for pilgrims during the late medieval period. The chapel was purported to contain several important relics: the bodies of John Schorne and Henry VI of England and a fragment of the True Cross held in a reliquary called the Cross of Gneth. These relics all appear to have been displayed at the east end of the south choir aisle.

The Chapel suffered a great deal of destruction during the English Civil War. Parliamentary forces broke into and plundered the chapel and treasury on October 23, 1642. Further pillaging occurred in 1643 when the fifteenth-century chapter house was destroyed, lead was stripped off the chapel roofs, and elements of Henry VIII’s unfinished funeral monument were stolen. Following his execution in 1649, Charles I was buried in a small vault in the centre of the choir at St George’s Chapel which also contained the coffins of Henry VIII and Jane Seymour. A programme of repair was undertaken at St George’s Chapel following the Restoration of the monarchy under Charles II.

The reign of Queen Victoria saw further changes made to the architecture of the chapel. The east end of the choir was reworked in devotion to Prince Albert; the Lady Chapel, which had been abandoned by Henry VII, was finally completed; a royal mausoleum was completed underneath the Lady Chapel; and a set of steps were built at the west end of the chapel to create a ceremonial entrance to the building. In the 21st century, St George’s accommodates approximately 800 persons for services and events.

The chapel has been the site of many royal weddings, particularly of the children of Queen Victoria. These weddings include:

* The Prince Albert Edward, Prince of Wales and Princess Alexandra of Denmark in 1863 (later King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra respectively)

* The Princess Helena and Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg in 1866

* The Princess Louise and the Marquess of Lorne (later Duke of Argyll) in 1871

* The Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught and Princess Louise Margaret of Prussia in 1879

* Princess Frederica of Hanover and Luitbert von Pawel Rammingen in 1880

* The Prince Leopold, Duke of Albany and Princess Helena of Waldeck-Pyrmont in 1882

* Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein (daughter of Princess Christian) and Prince Aribert of Anhalt in 1891

* Princess Alice (daughter of the Duke of Albany) and Prince Alexander of Teck (later Earl of Athlone) in 1904

* Princess Margaret of Connaught (daughter of the Duke of Connaught) and Prince Gustaf Adolf of Sweden (later King Gustaf VI Adolf of Sweden) in 1905

* Lady Helena Cambridge (daughter of the Marquess of Cambridge, and niece of Queen Mary) and Major John Gibbs, Coldstream Guards in 1919 (non-royal)

* Anne Abel Smith (granddaughter of Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone) and David Liddell-Grainger in 1957 (non-royal)

* Lady Helen Windsor (daughter of The Duke of Kent) and Timothy Taylor in 1992 (non-royal)

* The wedding of The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Sophie Rhys-Jones in 1999

* The union of The Prince Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles in 2005 received a blessing from The Archbishop of Canterbury

* Peter Phillips and Autumn Kelly in 2008

* Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on 19 May 2018

* The forthcoming wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank on 12 October 2018

Legal Succession: The Children of Henry VII

Tags

4th Earl of Lennox, Arthur Prince of Wales, Battle of Flodden, Edward III of England, Elizabeth of York, Henry VII of England, James V, King Fernando II-V of Aragaon, King of Scots, King Richard III of England, Mary Tudor, Matthew Stewart, Queen Isabel I of Castile

With Henry VII on the throne and married to Elizabeth of York the dynastic struggle between the branches of the Plantagenet family came to an end. Henry VII marked the start of his reign as being the day before defeating Richard III at the battle of Bosworth Field. This enabled him to confiscate the lands of the nobles who fought for Richard III on the grounds of treason. He did spare the lives of some Plantagenet heirs, namely, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln, and Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury niece of both Edward IV and Richard III. There were still skirmishes for the throne after Henry VII became king. The Earl of Lincoln was reconciled to Henry VII for a while. However, Lincoln was killed in the Yorkist Battle of Stoke Field on June 16, 1487 the last battle of the War od the Roses.

Although Henry secured himself on the throne succession issues would plague the House of Tudor and the repercussions would be felt in later generations. Henry VII and Elizabeth of York had 8 children, with only 4 of them living until adulthood. These four would play a role in the succession to the throne. The two surviving daughters, Margaret and Mary Tudor, both made dynastic marriages. Margaret first married James IV, King of Scots and they were the parents of James V, King of Scots. This gave the Scottish kings a good claim to the English throne as Margaret and James IV were both descendants of Edward III of England via the Beaufort line which had produced Henry VII’s claim to the English throne. James IV died in 1513 at the Battle of Flodden against the forces of his brother-in-law, Henry VIII. Margaret secondly married Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus. Their daughter, Margaret Douglas, Countess of Lennox, married Matthew Stewart, 4th Earl of Lennox. They, in turn, had a son, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley, who married his cousin Mary, Queen of Scots, the daughter of James V, King of Scots. All of these family ties secured the claims of the House of Stewart (Stuart) to the English throne.

The next daughter, Mary Tudor, also married twice., Her first marriage was to the aged King Louis XII of France which did not last long. Louis died about a year after the marriage and there was no issue. Mary then married Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk. Their eldest daughter, Frances Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk, married Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk and became the daughter of Lady Jane Grey a claimant to the English throne.

Arthur, the eldest son, was created Prince of Wales in 1489 when he was 3 years of age. When Arthur was 15 he married Infanta Catherine of Aragon, daughter of King Fernando II-V of Aragon & Castile and Queen Isabel I of Castile, the two  monarchs that united Spain. Arthur died in 1502 ans left no issue. Fernando and Isabel wanted Catherine to return to Spain but Henry, not wanting to lose the Spanish dowry, kept her in England.

The next in line was Henry, Duke of York. Henry VII had plotted a career his second son as a priest in the Catholic Church. With the death of Arthur in 1502 Henry became heir to the throne and it became his father’s wish that he should marry, Catherine his brother’s widow. Henry, Duke of York was very reluctant to do so.

In 1509 Henry VII died at the age of 52 and left a sturdy crown and rich coffers to his son, Henry VIII of England. Nest week I will discuss the struggles for an hier and the many marriages of Henry VIII.

Legal Succession: Henry VII part 2

Tags

Battle of Bosworth Field, Duke of Lancaster, Earl of Richmond, England, Henry IV, Henry Tudor, Henry VII of England, House of Lancaster, House of York, John of Gaunt, Kings and Queens of England, Richard II, War of the Roses

As we saw in the last installment Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, had a tenuous claim to the English throne. As descendents of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster (son of Edward III) via a third marriage which later legitimized his children, Henry Tudor’s line once had succession rights but those rights were then legally removed. As I mentioned before, the victors  get to rewrite the rules and this is evident in the rise to the throne of Henry VII.

With the death of Henry VI and the death of his son, Edward, Prince of Wales, the collateral branch of the Plantagenet, known as the House of Lancaster had come to an end. However, there were other descendants of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster to take up the Lancastrian claims. The Beaufort House, from John of Gaunt’s third marriage, were given the title Duke of Somerset and after the extinction of the male line only the female line remained, represented by Lady Margaret Beaufort and her son Henry Tudor. The year after the Battle of Tewkesbury Lady Margaret married Lord Stanley, who had been a devoted supported of King Edward IV. Stanley did not support Richard III and instrumental in putting Henry Tudor on the throne.

It was the defeat of Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field in August of 1485 that placed the new Tudor Dynasty on the throne. Ever since Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard II in 1399 the legality of all the subsequent kings has been a pretty messy situation. Although Henry had a slim blood claim to the throne his legal standing was even weaker given that his line had lost its succession rights. Therefore, his succession to the throne was more of a conquest than a usurpation.

One of the things the new Henry VII did was to unite the warring factions while also strengthening his position on the throne. To do that he desired to marry Elizabeth of York, daughter of King Edward IV. This would unite both the houses of York and Lancaster. However there was some resistance to that. Those that were against the union claimed that Richard III’s Act of Parliament, Titulus Regius, that had declared the marriage of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville invalid and the children illegitimate still stood as law. Henry VII disagreed with that position and had the act repealed. When he was crowned Henry VII took the throne not as a conqueror but as a legitimate descendant of John of Gaunt.

Henry and Elizabeth married on January 18, 1486. Their first son, Arthur, born on September 20, 1486 had a strong blood and legal claim to the throne. He was a descendant of the now legal King Henry VII of England and he was a multiple descendant of Edward III and heir to both the houses of York and Lancaster.

As we shall see in the next section of this series Arthur never lived to become king and the throne passed to his brother who became King Henry VIII of England. Although the succession of Henry VII and his marriage to Elizabeth of York ended the Dynastic Wars struggles for the throne would also plague the Tudor Dynasty.

Legal Succession: Henry VII Part One.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Constance of Castile, Duke of Lancaster, Henry III of Castile, Henry IV, Henry VII of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, Letters Patent 1397, Pope Eugene IV, War of the Roses

This is the Legal succession issue which inspired me to do this series. It is complex so I will divide it into a couple of blog entries.

Many know that Richard III was killed at Bosworth Field on August 22 1485 in the last battle of the War of the Roses and that the victor on the field of battle, Henry Tudor, Earl of Richmond, a scion of the House of Lancaster, mounted the English throne to become King Henry VII. The question I ask is, did Henry VII have any legal claims to the throne? Was he a usurper or did he obtain the crown by conquest? My assertion is that his blood claim to the throne was weak, there were many ahead of him in the order of succession, therefore that he obtained the throne by right of conquest.

First of all I would like to examine his blood claim to the throne of England. His claim to the throne begins with his descent from King Edward III via his son, John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster. As we have already seen The House of Lancaster came to power when Henry IV usurped the throne from Richard II in 1399. Henry IV was the son of John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster and his first wife, Blanch of Lancaster. John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, married a second time, Constance of Castile, daughter of King Pedro the Cruel of Castile. John of Gaunt and Constance of Castile had one daughter, Catherine, who married her cousin, King Enrique III of Castile. From this union descends the Kings and Queens of Spain.

The descent from John of Gaunt which gave Henry Tudor a weak claim to the throne was through John of Gaunt’s third union with Katherine Swynford née (de) Roet. Initially Katherine was the governess to Gaunt’s daughters, Philippa and Elizabeth. After the death of Gaunt’s first wife, Blanch, John and Katherine entered into a romantic relationship which produced 4 children, all illegitimate being born out-of-wedlock. However, two years after the death of Constance of Castile, John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford legally married at Lincoln cathedral 1393.

Subsequent Letters Patent in 1397 by Richard II and a Papal Bull issued by the Pope Eugene IV legitimized the adult children of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford with full rights to the throne. However, an Act of Parliament in the reign of Henry IV confirmed their legitimacy but barred the children from having rights to the throne. Later historians would argue whether or not the barring of the children of this union from the English throne was legal or not. This Act of Parliament did weaken the claims of Henry Tudor.

I will stop here and continue this series next week.

Bones identified as belonging to Richard III

Tags

Bones identified as belonging to Richard III, Buckingham Palace, Duke of Gloucester, Elizabeth II, England, Henry VII of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, Leicester Cathedral, Plantaganet, Prince Richard, Tudor

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21063882

The bones found in Leicester are “Beyond reasonable doubt” belonged to King Richard III of England. Richard was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 durring the final conflict of the War of the Roses when the  last Plantaganet king was deposed by the Tudor dynasty.

DNA tests have confirmed the bones do belong to him. He will be reburried next year at Leicester Cathedral. Speculating who will represent the Birtish Royal Family it seem likely that the current Duke of Gloucester, Prince Richard, will represent the Queen at the ceremony. Prior to becomeing King, Richard III was also Duke of Gloucester.  The current Duke of Gloucester is also patron of The Richard III Society, an organization which has sought to correct the misunderstandings and reputation of the once controversial king.