Titles of Royalty and Nobility within the British Monarchy: Viscount

Tags

7th Marquess of Salisbury, British Peerage, courtesy title, House of Commons, House of Lords, King Henry VI of England, Lord of Parliament in Scotland, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, Viscount, Viscount Cranborne

A viscount or viscountess is a title used in certain European countries for a noble of varying status.

In many countries a viscount, and its historical equivalents, was a non-hereditary, administrative or judicial position, and did not develop into a hereditary title until much later. In the case of French viscounts, it is customary to leave the title untranslated as vicomte

Etymology

The word viscount comes from Old French visconte (Modern French: vicomte), itself from Medieval Latin vicecomitem, accusative of vicecomes, from Late Latin vice- “deputy” + Latin comes (originally “companion”; later Roman imperial courtier or trusted appointee, ultimately count).

History

During the Carolingian Empire, the kings appointed counts to administer provinces and other smaller regions, as governors and military commanders. Viscounts were appointed to assist the counts in their running of the province, and often took on judicial responsibility. The kings strictly prevented the offices of their counts and viscounts from becoming hereditary, in order to consolidate their position and limit chance of rebellion.

The title was in use in Normandy by at least the early 11th century. Similar to the Carolingian use of the title, the Norman viscounts were local administrators, working on behalf of the Duke. Their role was to administer justice and to collect taxes and revenues, often being castellan of the local castle. Under the Normans, the position developed into a hereditary one, an example of such being the viscounts in Bessin. The viscount was eventually replaced by bailiffs, and provosts.

Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 7th Marquess of Salisbury … represented South Dorset in the House of Commons, and in the 1990s he was Leader of the House of Lords under his courtesy title of Viscount Cranborne.

As a rank in British peerage, it was first recorded in 1440, when John Beaumont was created Viscount Beaumont by King Henry VI. The word viscount corresponds in the UK to the Anglo-Saxon shire reeve (root of the non-nobiliary, royal-appointed office of sheriff).

Thus early viscounts were originally normally given their titles by the monarch, not hereditarily; but soon they too tended to establish hereditary principalities in the wider sense. They were a relatively late introduction to the British peerage, and on the evening of the Coronation of Queen Victoria in 1838, the Prime Minister Lord Melbourne explained to her why (from her journals):

“I spoke to Ld M. about the numbers of Peers present at the Coronation, & he said it was quite unprecedented. I observed that there were very few Viscounts, to which he replied “There are very few Viscounts,” that they were an old sort of title & not really English; that they came from Vice-Comites; that Dukes & Barons were the only real English titles;—that Marquises were likewise not English, & that people were mere made Marquises, when it was not wished that they should be made Dukes.”

United Kingdom

A viscount is the fourth rank in the British peerage system, standing directly below an earl and above a baron (Lord of Parliament in Scotland). There are approximately 270 viscountcies currently extant in the peerages of the British Isles, though most are secondary titles.

In British practice, the title of a viscount may be either a place name, a surname, or a combination thereof: examples include the Viscount Falmouth, the Viscount Hardinge and the Viscount Colville of Culross, respectively.

An exception exists for Viscounts in the peerage of Scotland, who were traditionally styled “The Viscount of [X]”, such as the Viscount of Arbuthnott. In practice, however, very few maintain this style, instead using the more common version “The Viscount [X]” in general parlance, for example Viscount of Falkland who is referred to as Viscount Falkland.

A British viscount is addressed in speech as Lord [X], while his wife is Lady [X], and he is formally styled “The Right Honourable The Viscount [X]”. The children of a viscount are known as The Honourable [Forename] [Surname], with the exception of a Scottish viscount, whose eldest child may be styled as “The Honourable Master of [X]”.

Ireland

The title of viscount (Irish: bíocunta) was introduced to the Peerage of Ireland in 1478 with the creation of the title of Viscount Gormanston, the premier viscountcy of Britain and Ireland, held today by Nicholas Preston, 17th Viscount Gormanston. Other early Irish viscountcies were Viscount Baltinglass (1541), Viscount Clontarf (1541), Viscount Mountgarret (1550) and Viscount Decies (1569).

Use as a courtesy title

A specifically British custom is the use of viscount as a courtesy title for the heir of an earl or marquess. The peer’s heir apparent will sometimes be referred to as a viscount, if the second most senior title held by the head of the family is a viscountcy. For example, the eldest son of the Earl Howe is Viscount Curzon, because this is the second most senior title held by the Earl.

However, the son of a marquess or an earl can be referred to as a viscount when the title of viscount is not the second most senior if those above it share their name with the substantive title. For example, the second most senior title of the Marquess of Salisbury is the Earl of Salisbury, so his heir uses the lower title of Viscount Cranborne.

Sometimes the son of a peer can be referred to as a viscount even when he could use a more senior courtesy title which differs in name from the substantive title. Family tradition plays a role in this. For example, the eldest son of the Marquess of Londonderry is Viscount Castlereagh, even though the Marquess is also the Earl Vane.

On occasion, the title of viscount may be the courtesy title used for the grandson of a duke, provided that he is the eldest son of the duke’s eldest son. This is because the eldest son of the duke will be given the second highest title of his father (marquess or earl), and so the third-highest is left for his eldest son. It is possible for the great-grandson of a duke to hold the courtesy title of viscount if the duke’s eldest son has the courtesy title marquess and his eldest son, in turn, uses the title of earl.

Robert Walpole, Prime Minister of Great Britain. Conclusion

Tags

Battle of Cartagena de Indias, Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach, Cornwall, Earl of Orford, Elector of Hanover, First Lord of the Treasury, Frederick-Louis, House of Commons, King George II of Great Britain and Ireland, Prince of Wales, Robert Walpole

Walpole secured the support of the people and of the House of Commons with a policy of avoiding war. He used his influence to prevent George II from entering the War of the Polish Succession in 1733, because it was a dispute between the Bourbons and the Habsburgs. He boasted, “There are 50,000 men slain in Europe this year, and not one Englishman.” By avoiding wars, Walpole could lower taxes.

After the general elections of 1734, Walpole’s supporters still formed a majority in the House of Commons although they were less numerous than before. He maintained both his parliamentary supremacy and his popularity in Norfolk, his home county.

In 1736 an increase in the tax on gin inspired riots in London. The even more serious Porteous riots broke out in Edinburgh after the King pardoned a captain of the guard (John Porteous) who had commanded his troops to shoot a group of protesters. Though these events diminished Walpole’s popularity, they failed to shake his majority in Parliament.

Queen Caroline of Great Britain

The year 1737 saw the death of Walpole’s close friend Queen Caroline. Though her death did not end his personal influence with George II, who had grown loyal to the Prime Minister during the preceding years, Walpole’s domination of government continued to decline.

His opponents acquired a vocal leader in the Frederick Louis, the Prince of Wales who was estranged from his father, the King. Several young politicians including William Pitt the Elder and George Grenville formed a faction known as the “Patriot Boys” and joined the Prince of Wales in opposition.

Robert Walpole, First Lord of the Treasury, Prime Minister of Great Britain

Walpole’s failure to maintain a policy of avoiding military conflict eventually led to his fall from power. Under the Treaty of Seville (1729), Great Britain agreed not to trade with the Spanish colonies in North America. Spain claimed the right to board and search British vessels to ensure compliance with this provision. Disputes, however, broke out over trade with the West Indies.

Walpole attempted to prevent war but was opposed by the King, the House of Commons, and by a faction in his own Cabinet. In 1739 Walpole abandoned all efforts to stop the conflict and commenced the War of Jenkins’ Ear (so called because Robert Jenkins, a Welsh mariner, claimed that a Spaniard inspecting his vessel had severed his ear).

Walpole’s influence continued to dramatically decline even after the war began. In the 1741 general election his supporters secured an increase in votes in constituencies that were decided by mass electorates but failed to win in many pocket boroughs (constituencies subject to the informal but strong influence of patrons).

In general the government made gains in England and Wales but this was not enough to overturn the reverses of the 1734 election and further losses in Cornwall where many constituencies were obedient to the will of the Prince of Wales (who was also Duke of Cornwall). These constituencies returned members of parliament hostile to the Prime Minister.

George II, King of Great Britain and Ireland, Elector of Hanover

In the new Parliament, many Whigs thought the aging Prime Minister incapable of leading the military campaign. Moreover, his majority was not as strong as it had formerly been, his detractors—such as William Pulteney, earl of Bath, and Lord Perceval—being approximately as numerous as his supporters. Behind these political enemies were opposition Whigs, Tories and Jacobites.

Walpole was alleged to have presided over an immense increase in corruption and to have enriched himself enormously whilst in office. Parliamentary committees were formed to investigate these charges. In 1742 when the House of Commons was prepared to determine the validity of a by-election in Chippenham, Walpole and others agreed to treat the issue as a motion of no confidence.

As Walpole was defeated on the vote, he agreed to resign from the Government. The news of the naval disaster against Spain in the Battle of Cartagena de Indias also prompted the end of his political career. King George II wept on his resignation and begged to see him frequently.

Frederick Louis, the Prince of Wales

As part of his resignation the King agreed to elevate him to the House of Lords as the Earl of Orford, Viscount Walpole and Baron Walpole of Houghton in the County of Norfolk, this occurred on 6 February 1742. Five days later he formally relinquished the seals of office.

Although no longer First Lord of the Treasury, Walpole remained politically involved as an advisor. His former colleagues were still pleased to see him, perhaps in part because he retained the king’s favour. After his resignation, his main political roles were to support the government by means of advice, to dole out some patronage and to speak on the ministry’s behalf in the Lords.

Later life

Lord Orford was succeeded as Prime Minister by Lord Wilmington in an administration whose true head was Lord Carteret. A committee was created to inquire into Walpole’s ministry but no substantial evidence of wrongdoing or corruption was discovered.

Though no longer a member of the Cabinet, Orford continued to maintain personal influence with George II and was often dubbed the “Minister behind the Curtain” for this advice and influence. In 1744 he managed to secure the dismissal of Carteret and the appointment of Henry Pelham whom he regarded as a political protégé. He advised Pelham to make use of his seat in the Commons to serve as a bridge between the King and Parliament, just as Walpole had done.

During this time, Walpole also made two interventions in the Lords. The first was in January 1744 in the debate on Hanoverian troops being kept in British pay. Walpole prevented them from losing the troops. In his second intervention, Walpole, with fear of a Jacobite-inspired invasion in February 1744, made a speech on the situation.

Frederick, Prince of Wales, usually hostile to Walpole, warmly received him at his court the next day, most likely because his father’s throne, and the future of the whole Hanoverian dynasty, was at risk from the Stuart Pretender.

Along with his political interests in his last years, Walpole enjoyed the pleasures of the hunt. Back at his recently rebuilt country seat in Houghton, Norfolk, such pastimes were denied him due to “dismal weather”. He also enjoyed the beauties of the countryside. His art collection gave him particular pleasure. He had spent much money in the 1720s and 1730s in building up a collection of Old Masters from all over Europe. Walpole also concerned himself with estate matters.

His health, never good, deteriorated rapidly toward the end of 1744; Orford died in London in 1745, aged 68 years; he was buried in the parish church of St Martin in Houghton, Norfolk.

His earldom passed to his eldest son Robert who was in turn succeeded by his only son George. Upon the death of the third Earl, the earldom was inherited by the first Earl’s younger son Horace Walpole, who is now remembered for his many thousands of insightful letters, published in 48 volumes by Yale University Press.

March 11, 1708: Queen Anne becomes last British monarch to veto legislation.

Tags

House of Commons, House of Lords, Queen Anne of Great Britain and Ireland, Royal Assent, Royal Veto, Scottish Melita Bill of 1708, William III-II of England

The Scottish Militia Bill 1708 (known formerly as the Scotch Militia Bill) was a bill that was passed by the House of Commons and House of Lords of the Parliament of Great Britain in early 1708.

However, on March 11, 1708, Queen Anne of Great Britain and Ireland, withheld Royal Assent on the advice of her ministers for fear that the proposed militia would be disloyal. This was due to the sudden appearance of a Franco-Jacobite invasion fleet en route to Scotland which gave ministers second thoughts, at the last minute, about allowing it to reach the statute books. It was the last occasion on which the Royal Veto was used.

Content

The bill’s long title was “An Act for settling the Militia of that Part of Great Britain called Scotland”. Its object was to arm the Scottish militia, which had not been recreated at the Restoration. This happened as the unification between Scotland and England under the Acts of Union 1707 had been passed.

On the day the bill was meant to be signed, news came that the French were sailing toward Scotland for the planned invasion of 1708 and there was suspicion that the Scots might be disloyal. Therefore, support for a veto was strong.

Significance

The Scottish Militia Bill 1708 is the last bill to have been refused the Royal Assent. Before this, King William III-II had vetoed bills passed by Parliament six times. Royal Assent to bills generally came to be viewed as a mere formality once both Houses of Parliament had successfully read a bill three times, or a general election had taken place.

In the British colonies, the denial of royal assent (exercised on the advice of ministers) had continued past 1708, and was one of the primary complaints of the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776: that the King “has refused his Assent to Laws, most wholesome and necessary for the public Good” and “He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance”.

History of Male British Consorts Part VIII

Tags

Convention Parliament, Glorious Revolution, House of Commons, Mary II of England, William III of England, William III of Orange

Mary, the future Queen Mary II, was born at St James’s Palace in London on April 30, 1662, was the eldest daughter of the Duke of York (the future King James II-VII), and his first wife, Anne Hyde. Mary’s uncle was King Charles II, who ruled the three kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland; her maternal grandfather, Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, served for a lengthy period as Charles’s chief advisor. She was baptised into the Anglican faith in the Chapel Royal at St James’s, and was named after her ancestor, Mary I, Queen of Scots.

At the age of fifteen, Mary became betrothed to her cousin, the Protestant Stadtholder of the Netherlands, Williem III of Orange. Willem was the son of the King’s late sister, Mary, Princess Royal, and Prince Willem II and thus fourth in the line of succession after James, Mary, and Anne. At first, Charles II opposed the alliance with the Dutch ruler—he preferred that Mary wed the heir to the French throne, the Dauphin Louis, thus allying his realms with Catholic France and strengthening the odds of an eventual Catholic successor in Britain; but later, under pressure from Parliament and with a coalition with the Catholic French no longer politically favourable, he approved the proposed union.

The Duke of York agreed to the marriage, after pressure from chief minister Lord Danby and the King, who incorrectly assumed that it would improve James’s popularity among Protestants. When James told Mary that she was to marry her cousin, “she wept all that afternoon and all the following day”.

James II-VII inherited the thrones of England, Ireland and Scotland from his elder brother Charles II in 1685 with widespread support in all three countries, largely based on the principle of divine right of birth. In June 1688, two events turned dissent toward the Catholic king into a crisis; the first on June 10 was the birth of James’s son and heir James Francis Edward, threatening to create a Catholic dynasty and excluding his Protestant daughter Mary and her husband Willem III of Orange.

The second was the prosecution of the Seven Bishops for seditious libel; this was viewed as an assault on the Church of England and their acquittal on June 30, destroyed James’s political authority in England. Anti-Catholic riots in England and Scotland now made it seem that only his removal as monarch could prevent a civil war.

Representatives of the English political elite invited Willem III of Orange to assume the English throne; after he landed in Brixham on November 5, 1688, James’s army deserted and he went into exile in France on December 23. In February 1689, Parliament held James II-VII had ‘vacated’ the English throne.

Willem (William) summoned a Convention Parliament in England, which met on January 22, 1689, to discuss the appropriate course of action following James’s flight. William desired the throne but felt insecure about his position; though his wife preceded him in the line of succession to the throne, William wished to reign as king in his own right, rather than as a mere consort. William was third in line to the throne at this time behind his wife,, Mary and sister-in-law, Anne. William further demanded that he remain as king even if his wife were to die. As mentioned above, the only precedent for a joint monarchy in England dated from when Queen Mary I married Felipe II of Spain. Felipe II remained king only during his wife’s lifetime, and restrictions were placed on his power.

The English Convention Parliament was very divided on the issue. The radical Whigs in the Lower House proposed to elect William as a king (meaning that his power would be derived from the people); the moderates wanted an acclamation of William and Mary together; the Tories wanted to make him regent or only acclaim Mary as queen. Furthermore, Mary, remaining loyal to her husband, refused to reign on her own without her husband.

The House of Commons, with a Whig majority, believed that the throne was safer if the ruler were Protestant. The Commons made William accept a Bill of Rights, and, on February 13, 1689, Parliament passed the Declaration of Right and the Crown was offered to William III and Mary II as joint sovereigns. It was, however, provided that “the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the names of the said Prince and Princess during their joint lives.” In other words, even though both monarchs were sovereigns (and neither a consort of the other) William was given the majority of executive power.

William III and Mary II were crowned together at Westminster Abbey on April 11, 1689 by the Bishop of London, Henry Compton. Normally, the coronation is performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the Archbishop at the time, William Sancroft, refused to recognise James’s removal from the throne.

William also summoned a Convention of the Estates of Scotland, which met on March 14, 1689 and sent a conciliatory letter, while James sent haughty uncompromising orders, swaying a majority in favour of William. On April 11 the day of the English coronation, the Convention finally declared that James was no longer King of Scotland. William II (as he was numbered in Scotland) and Mary II were offered the Scottish Crown; they accepted on May 11.

March 19, 1649: Abolition of the House of Lords

Tags

Abolition of the House of Lords, Charles I of England, Charles II of England and Scotland, Deceleration of Breda, English Civil War, English Parliament, House of Commons, House of Lords, Oliver Cromwell, Restoration

On March 19, 1649 the House of Commons abolished the House of Lords. This revolutionary action did not obtain the consent of either Lords or the King and so it was not recognised as a valid law after the restoration of the King.

The first part of the abolishing Act was as follows.

The Commons of England assembled in Parliament, finding by too long experience that the House of Lords is useless and dangerous to the people of England to be continued, have thought fit to ordain and enact, and be it ordained and enacted by this present Parliament, and by the authority of the same, that from henceforth the House of Lords in Parliament shall be and is hereby wholly abolished and taken away; and that the Lords shall not from henceforth meet or sit in the said House called the Lords’ House, or in any other house or place whatsoever …

The Convention Parliament (April 25, 1660 – December 29, 1660) followed the Long Parliament that had finally voted for its own dissolution on March 16, that year. Elected as a “free parliament”, i.e. with no oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth or to the monarchy, it was predominantly Royalist in its membership. It assembled for the first time on April 25, 1660.

After the Declaration of Breda had been received, the Convention Parliament proclaimed on May 8, 1660 that King Charles II had been the lawful monarch since the death of Charles I in January 1649. The Convention Parliament then proceeded to conduct the necessary preparation for the Restoration Settlement.

Re-establishment of the House of Lords, 1660

The Lords Temporal resumed meeting as the House of Lords, in the Convention Parliament after that body restored the monarchy.

High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I: January 20, 1649.

Tags

Act of Parliament, Charles I of England, English Civil War, High Court of Justice for the trial of Charles I, House of Commons, House of Lords, Rump Parliament

The High Court of Justice was the court established by the Rump Parliament to try King Charles I of England. This was an ad hoctribunal created specifically for the purpose of trying the king, although the name was used for subsequent courts.

After the first English Civil War, the parliamentarians accepted the premise that the King, although wrong, had been able to justify his fight, and that he would still be entitled to limited powers as King under a new constitutional settlement. By provoking the second Civil War even while defeated and in captivity, Charles was held responsible for unjustifiable bloodshed. The secret “Engagement” treaty with the Scots was considered particularly unpardonable; “a more prodigious treason”, said Oliver Cromwell, “than any that had been perfected before; because the former quarrel was that Englishmen might rule over one another; this to vassalize us to a foreign nation.” Cromwell up to this point had supported negotiations with the king but now rejected further negotiations.

In making war against Parliament, the king had caused the deaths of thousands. Estimated deaths from the first two English civil wars has been reported as 84,830 killed with estimates of another 100,000 dying from war-related disease. The population of England in 1650 was estimated at only 5.1 million, meaning that the war deaths totalled 3.6% of the population.

Following the second civil war, the New Model Army and the Independents in Parliament were determined that the King should be punished, but they did not command a majority. Parliament debated whether to return the King to power and those who still supported Charles’s place on the throne, mainly Presbyterians, tried once more to negotiate with him.

The role of Parliament in ending a reign

Neither the involvement of Parliament in ending a reign nor the idea of trying a monarch was entirely novel. Parliament had asked for the abdication of Edward II (r. 1307–1327) who was charged with incompetence. Parliament also accepted the resignation of Richard II. However, in both these cases, Parliament acted at the behest of the new monarch. Parliament had established a regency council for Henry VI, although this was at the instigation of senior noblemen and Parliament claimed to be acting in the King’s name.

In the case of Lady Jane Grey, Parliament rescinded her proclamation as queen. She was subsequently tried, convicted and executed for high treason, but she was not brought to trial while still a reigning monarch.

Establishing the court

After the King had been moved to London, the Rump Parliament passed a Bill setting up what was described as a High Court of Justice in order to try Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England. The bill initially nominated 3 judges and 150 commissioners, but following opposition in the House of Lords, the judges and members of the Lords were removed. When the trial began, there were 135 commissioners who were empowered to try the King, but only 68 would ever sit in judgement. The Solicitor General John Cook was appointed prosecutor.

Charles was accused of treason against England by using his power to pursue his personal interest rather than the good of England. The charge against Charles I stated that the king, “for accomplishment of such his designs, and for the protecting of himself and his adherents in his and their wicked practices, to the same ends hath traitorously and maliciously levied war against the present Parliament, and the people therein represented”, that the “wicked designs, wars, and evil practices of him, the said Charles Stuart, have been, and are carried on for the advancement and upholding of a personal interest of will, power, and pretended prerogative to himself and his family, against the public interest, common right, liberty, justice, and peace of the people of this nation.” The indictment held him “guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby.”

Although the House of Lords refused to pass the bill and the Royal Assent naturally was lacking, the Rump Parliament referred to the ordinance as an “Act” and pressed on with the trial anyway. The intention to place the King on trial was re-affirmed on January 6 by a vote of 29 to 26 with An Act of the Commons Assembled in Parliament. At the same time, the number of commissioners was reduced to 135 – any twenty of whom would form a quorum when the judges, members of the House of Lords and others who might be sympathetic to the King were removed.

The trial began on January 20, 1649 in Westminster Hall, with a moment of high drama. After the proceedings were declared open, Solicitor General John Cook rose to announce the indictment; standing immediately to the right of the King, he began to speak, but he had uttered only a few words when Charles attempted to stop him by tapping him sharply on the shoulder with his cane and ordering him to “Hold”. Cook ignored this and continued, so Charles poked him a second time and rose to speak; despite this, Cook continued. At this point Charles, incensed at being thus ignored, struck Cook across the shoulder so forcefully that the ornate silver tip of the cane broke off, rolled down Cook’s gown and clattered onto the floor between them. With nobody willing to pick it up for him, Charles had to stoop down to retrieve it himself.

When given the opportunity to speak, Charles refused to enter a plea, claiming that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch. He believed that his own authority to rule had been due to the divine right of kings given to him by God, and by the traditions and laws of England when he was crowned and anointed, and that the power wielded by those trying him was simply that of force of arfter Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining, “No learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King … one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong.” Charles asked “I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful [authority].” Charles maintained that the House of Commons on its own could not try anybody, and so he refused to plead. The court challenged the doctrine of sovereign immunity and proposed that “the King of England was not a person, but an office whose every occupant was entrusted with a limited power to govern ‘by and according to the laws of the land and not otherwise’.

Charles I, Enters the House of Commons

Tags

Charles, Charles I of England, English Civil War, House of Commons, John Hampden, John Pym, King of Scots, Kings and Queens of England, Parliament, Queen Henrietta Marie

On this Day in Royal History: January 4, 1642, King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland (1625-1649) marches into the House of Commons with troops intending to arrest five Members of Parliament for disobeying his orders. This historic and brazen action was the catalyst for the English Civil War 1642-1649.

This act greatly angered the MPs who saw this behavior as a breach of parliamentary privilege. Members of the House slammed the doors of the chamber in the faces of the King’s men. When King Charles finally entered the House of Commons, the Speaker, William Lenthall, refused to reveal the location of the wanted men, famously saying: “May it please your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here.”

What lead to this breech of privilege? It came in the aftermath of rebellions in Ireland and Scotland. Charles suspected, and there is evidence his suspicions were correct, that some members of the English Parliament had colluded with the invading Scots. On January 3, 1642, the day before this historic event, Charles directed Parliament to give up five members of the House of Commons – John Pym, John Hampden, Denzil Holles, William Strode and Sir Arthur Haselrig– and one peer from the House of Lords, Lord Mandeville – to be arrested on the grounds of high treason.

When Parliament refused there is some evidence to suggest Queen Henrietta Maria had persuaded Charles to arrest the five members by force and that Charles himself should intended carry out the arrests. However, news of the warrant reached Parliament ahead of him, and the wanted men slipped away by boat shortly before Charles entered the House of Commons. Charles abjectly declared “all my birds have flown”, and was forced to retire, empty-handed.

The failed arrest attempt was politically disastrous for Charles, for in one smooth stroke Charles destroyed his supporters’ efforts to portray him as a defence against innovation and disorder. Parliament quickly seized London, and Charles fled the capital for Hampton Court Palace.

No English sovereign has ever entered the House of Commons since this unprecedented breach of parliamentary privilege. Every year this event is commemorated during the State Opening of Parliament when Black Rod tries to enter the Commons, the door is slammed in his face to symbolise the independence of the elected House of Commons from the monarchy.

King William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. King of Hanover. Part III

Tags

Anthony FitzClarence, Buckingham Palace, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz., Clarence House, David Cameron, Dorothea Bland, Duke of Clarence, Earl of Munster, England, George IV, George Washington, Horatio Nelson, House of Commons, House of Lords, King Ernst-August of Hanover, King George III of Great Britain, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Mrs. Jordan, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Princess Charlotte of Wales, Privy Council, Queen Victoria, Reform Bill of 1832. Charles Grey 2nd Earl Grey, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, The Duchess of Kent, William IV of the United Kingdom

When William became king he wanted to be known as Henry IX (he was christened William Henry) until it was pointed out that the last Stuart pretender, Henry, Cardinal York, was known as Henry IX by his supporters. Cardinal York died in 1807 and that was recent enough for him to change his mind and call himself William IV. The new king was very popular with his subjects at first. He was very down to earth and even would walk the streets of London and Brighton without any security and was found to be very approachable. When he was in Brighton he would send for gusts from the local hotels and invite them to dinner and would not care too much for proper dress and protocol. He also did away with a lot of the pomp and circumstance and the overt display of monarchy that was the rule under his brothers kingship. His coronation was also less extravagant and has become known as the half-crown-ation.

William was 64 years old when he became king and is Britain’s oldest monarch to succeed to the throne. He did not reign for a long time, only seven years, but his reign is seen as significant as he presided over large changes within society and the government, forging Britain into a more modern nation. The Duke of Wellington was the kings first Prime Minister and Wellington said that William was such a hard worker that he had done more work with the king in 10 minutes than he had with his brother, George IV, after years of working with him. Lord Brougham described William IV as a superior man of business who would ask questions to ensure that he understood a matter and this was different from the practice of George IV who feared asking questions lest he appeared to be ignorant.

Although William and Adelaide did not have any children his illegitimate children took up a good deal of his time and attention. He created his eldest son, George, 1st Earl of Munster. He had a troubled relationship with his sons who were constantly looking to their father for money and titles and opportunities for power. This created many quarrels between father and sons. His daughters were said to be beautiful and caused no undue stress for their royal father. During his reign the heir to the British throne was his niece, Princess Victoria of Kent, and although he was fond of his niece there was great animosity between the king and Victoria’s mother, the Duchess of Kent. This conflict meant that Victoria was rarely seen at court.

The largest political battle of William’s reign came within his first year on the throne. Shortly after his accession a general election was called. After a bitter battle the Duke of Wellington was defeated and Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey had become Prime Minister. Because of the conflicts and problems during this election the need to reform the process, which had not been modified since the 15th century, was evident. The system was abused. The aristocracy often controlled the elections to the Commons because as landholders the members and potential members of the House of Commons were often their tenants.

The First Reform Bill was defeated in the House of Lords and Earl Grey wanted the king to dissolve Parliament and call for new elections. William hesitated because a general election had just been held the prior year. It also placed him in a bind because the House of Lords was debating a resolution that would prevent the king from dissolving Parliament and they were resistant to any reform that would reduce their power. At the request of the Prime Minister, William drove to Parliament, donned the crown, and in the face of great opposition by members such as Lord Londonderry who brandished a whip and threatened violence, he personally declared Parliament dissolved.

Matters grew worse as the Second Reform Bill was also blocked in the House of Lords and discontent grew throughout the country. Minor riots broke out and Earl Grey wanted again to push through reform and face the House of Lords. He asked William to create enough liberal peers to ensure that the Bill would pass in the House of Lords. William agreed to the proposal and created a number of new peers. There were now enough peers for the Reform Bill to pass but these new peers placed enough amendments onto the Reform Bill that they too thwarted the Prime Minister’s plans.

Earl Grey asked one again that William create enough peers for the Reform Bill to pass the House of Lords in its entirety without amendments. William refused to do the prime Minister’s bidding this time and Earl Grey and his entire Cabinet resigned, sinking the monarchy, and specifically William IV, to an all time low in popularity. William desired that the Duke of Wellington should return to his former position but he did not have enough support in the Commons so William had no choice but to ask for Grey’s reinstatement. Grey returned to office and the House of Lords was more complacent knowing that the king was now agreeing to flood their membership with liberal peers. The Reform Bill passed unamended in 1832. During the crisis William had mud thrown at his carriage and was booed at and hissed at. Eventually the blame for the king’s actions were placed on the influence of the queen and the Duke of Cumberland and the kings popularity rose once again.

William was a member of the House of Hanover and his great-great grandfather, King George I of Great Britain, loved Hanover more than Britain. Although William had visited Hanover in his youth he did not step foot in his other kingdom during his tenure as king. Instead, William was represented in Hanover by a viceroy, HRH The Duke of Cambridge, a role he had played through the reign of George IV. Although ruled by the same monarch they were not politically united. During William’s reign Hanover was part of the Confederation of the Rhine, the successor state of the Holy Roman Empire. Austrian minister Metternich had considerable influence over Hanover at this time. Twice he implemented reforms in Hanover which Lord Palmerston did not support. When asked by Palmerston, then Prime Minister of Britain, to block these reforms in Hanover, William refused which was his prerogative as King of Hanover.

In April of 1837 William’s daughter, Sophia, Lady de L’Isle, died in childbirth leaving the frail king shaken and depressed. His health began to decline further. At a dinner reception in May another conflict occurred and he publicly humiliated the Duchess of Kent where he said he hoped he lived long enough to live past princess Victoria’s 18th birthday to avoid the Duchess of Kent from becoming regent. The king was successful in this endeavor. Victoria turned 18 on May 24. William IV passed away on June 20, 1837 at the age of 71. This ended the personal union of the Untied Kingdom and Hanover. The British throne went to his niece, Victoria, and since women were barred against serving as the monarch in Hanover, that crown went to his brother the Duke of Cumberland who became King Ernst-August of Hanover.

His reign was short but significant. He oversaw needed Parliamentary reforms and it was one of the last times when a British monarch would be this active in party politics. He lead an interesting life and was an ordinary man place in extraordinary circumstances.

King William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover. Part II

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz., Clarence House, David Cameron, Dorothea Bland, Duke of Clarence, Earl of Munster, England, George IV, George Washington, Horatio Nelson, House of Commons, House of Lords, King George III of Great Britain, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Mrs. Jordan, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Princess Charlotte of Wales, Privy Council, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, TagsAnthony FitzClarence, William IV of the United Kingdom

During the first part of 19th century, after his naval career had ended, the Duke of Clarence spent considerable time in the House of Lords. He took a controversial stance on the slave trade, although illegal in Britain it was still legal in many of their colonies. The Duke did not think freedom would be beneficial to the slaves. He mentioned that in his travels he had seen many freemen in utter poverty. At one point, in a speech concerning the abolitionists, he directed an insult to the leading abolitionist “the proponents of the abolition are either fanatics or hypocrites, and in one of those classes I rank Mr. Wilberforce“.

In 1817 tragedy struck the British royal family. Princess Charlotte of Wales, daughter of the Prince of Wales (who had become the Prince regent in 1811) died in childbirth along with her stillborn son. This left no legitimate heir in the generation beyond the 12 surviving children of George III. With the succession in jeopardy many of the royal dukes bade farewell to their mistresses in an effort to secure the succession to the throne.

The Duke of Clarence’s relationship with Mrs Jordan ended in 1811. Mrs Jordan was paid a handsome financial settlement and kept custody of her daughters under the condition she did not resume her stage work. She did however, resume her work as an actress to help pay of some debts of one of her son-in-laws (husband to one of her daughters prior to her relationship with William). This resulted in losing her payments from the Duke of Clarence. She retired to Paris and died in poverty in 1816.

William was 52 in 1817 and his choices of suitable women of childbearing age were slim. William’s brother, Prince Augustus, Duke of Cambridge, found   Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel, for William to marry but her father, Landgrave Friederich III of Hesse-Cassel, refused the match. In the end the Duke of Cambridge ended up marrying Princess Augusta himself. William eventually found a suitable princess to marry him, Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen the daughter of Georg I, Duke of Saxe-Meiningen and Eleonore of Hohenlohe-Langenburg. They were married on July 11, 1818 at Kew Palace in double ceremony along with his brother, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent and Princess Victoire of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.

The union of William and Adelaide was a happy one despite the age difference, and despite the fact that she had to be step-mother to her husband’s illegitimate children. Motherhood, however, would be denied as only two children, Charlotte and Elizabeth, were born but lived only months.

On January 1820 King George III died after a long reign of 59 years. The Duke of Clarence became second in line to the throne . His eldest brother was now King George IV. George was estranged from his wife, Caroline of Brunswick, and she was past child bearing years. The next in line to the throne was William’s brother, Prince Frederick, Duke of York. The Duke of York was married to the eccentric Princess Wilhelmine of Prussia. This union was childless and the couple were estranged. This increased the likelihood that William would one day become king. Because of that awareness William began to take better care of himself and stopped drinking alcohol.

In 1827 William moved a step closer to the throne with the death of his brother, Frederick, Duke of York. William was now 62. He also returned to navy life that year when the Prime Minister, George Canning, appointed William to the office of Lord High Admiral. The office of had been in commission and while it had been in commission the office was exercised by a board. The last time an individual held the office was in 1709. His tenure in the post was short lived and tumultuous. His council consisted of Admiralty officers and they were often in conflict. The conflicts came to a head in 1828 when William put out to sea a squadron of ships that were gone for 10 days without word of where they were heading and for how long they would be gone. His brother, George IV communicated through the Prime Minister,  Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, that his brother should be relieved of command and he demanded his resignation; the Duke of Clarence complied.

William spent the next three years back in the House of Lords and supported the Catholic Emancipation Act which would remove the restrictions placed on Roman Catholics. William supported the bill while his brothers, the Duke of Cumberland and the King, did not. As rumors of Civil War in Ireland grew over these religious restrictions support for the Bill increased and it was passed in 1829. By that time it was clear that the king was in bad health and would not live long. On the morning of June 26, 1830 King George IV died leaving his brother, HRH the Duke of Clarence, king. 

I will post again on Thursday, Thanksgiving Day here in the US and complete my look at William IV and cover his reign as king.

King William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover.

Tags

Anthony FitzClarence, Buckingham Palace, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz., Clarence House, David Cameron, Dorothea Bland, Duke of Clarence, Earl of Munster, England, George IV, George Washington, Horatio Nelson, House of Commons, House of Lords, King George III of Great Britain, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Mrs. Jordan, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Privy Council, Royal Marriages Act of 1772, William IV of the United Kingdom

Finally after a few weeks delay I can get back to the featured monarch section. Today I want to feature King William IV of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, King of Hanover.

He was a man never destined to be king. He was born on August 21, 1765 at Buckingham House (it wasn’t a palace at the time) and was the third child and third son of King George III and his wife, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. With older brothers, George, The Prince of Wales (future King George IV), and Frederick, Duke of York ahead of him in the succession nobody contemplated that the little prince would one day be king. I find him to be a fascinating person to study. He was royal yet very human and in many ways very down to earth. He entered the royal navy in 1778 at the age of thirteen to be a midshipman. He remained in the royal navy for 12 years and retired from active service in 1790 at the age of 25. Prior to his retirement he did command his own vessel, the frigate HMS Andromeda, which he took command of in 1788. The next year he was promoted to the position of Rear-Admiral and placed in command of HMS Valiant. While in the royal navy he became close friends with Admiral Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson, 1st Duke of Bronté.

Prince William was in New York city during the American Revolution and George Washington even approved a plan to kidnap him. Nothing came of the plot as Britain became aware of it and sent guards to escort the prince around the city. In 1789 Prince William wanted to be made a royal duke similarly to his older brothers. However, the king was unwilling to do so. To twist the kings arm and to get his way William threatened to run in the next election to become a member of the House of Commons. George III did not want this to happen and therefore created William Duke of Clarence and St Andrews and Earl of Munster on May 16, 1789.

I could, and probably will, write a whole blog entry on the marriages of the children of King George III and Queen Charlotte. Suffice it to say that successful marriages from the 15 children of King George III and Queen Charlotte were a rarity. Prince William was no exception. William and his siblings were the first royals to come to maturity under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 which prohibited descendants of George II from marrying unless they obtained the monarch’s consent, or, if consent was denied they could marry whomever they chose when they were over the age of 25 as long as twelve months notice was given to the Privy Council.

In 1791 Prince William began a long relationship with Dorothea Bland, an actress well known by the stage name “Mrs. Jordan.” William and Dorothea were husband and wife in every way, except legally, for many years. Since his older brother the Prince of Wales unhappily married in 1795 and had a child, Charlotte of Wales, in 1796, the succession seemed assure and William and Dorothea had no reason to test the waters of the Royal Marriages Act. The couple resided at Clarence House in London (the home of the current Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall) where they raised their 10 illegitimate children under the surname FitzClarence. Their eldest son, George FiztClarence, was created 1st Earl of Munster. This line continued up to 2000 and ended with the death Anthony FitzClarence, 7th Earl of Munster. Since he did not have any male heirs when he died in 2000 the title became extinct and merged with the crown. Current British Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, is also a descendant of The Duke of Clarence (William IV) and Mrs. Jordan.

I will stop here and continue with my look at William IV on next Tuesday’s blog. See you then! 🙂