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 XIV

Tags

British Monarchy, Consort, Duke of Edinburgh, House of Lords, King George VI of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, the prince of Wales

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (born Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark; June 10, 1921 – April 9, 2021), was a member of the British royal family as the husband of Queen Elizabeth II.

Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was born on the dining room table in Mon Repos, a villa on the Greek island of Corfu on 10 June 1921, the only son and fifth and final child of Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark and Princess Alice of Battenberg. A member of the House of Glücksburg, the ruling house of Denmark, he was a prince of both Greece and Denmark by virtue of his patrilineal descent from King George I of Greece and King Christian IX of Denmark; he was from birth in the line of succession to both thrones.

Philip’s four elder sisters were Margarita, Theodora, Cecilie, and Sophie. He was baptised in the Greek Orthodox rite at St. George’s Church in the Old Fortress in Corfu. His godparents were his grandmother Queen Olga of Greece, his cousin Crown Prince George of Greece, his uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten, and the mayor of Corfu, Alexandros Kokotos

Even though Prince Philip was born in Greece, and into the Greek and Danish royal families, his family was exiled from the country when he was eighteen months old. After being educated in France, Germany and the UK, he joined the Royal Navy in 1939, aged 18.

From July 1939, he began corresponding with the thirteen-year-old Princess Elizabeth, the daughter and heir of King George VI of the United Kingdom. Prince Philip had first met her in 1934. During the Second World War wherevhe served with distinction in the British Mediterranean and Pacific fleets.

After the war, Philip was granted permission by George VI to marry Elizabeth. Before the official announcement of their engagement in July 1947, he abandoned his Greek and Danish titles and styles, became a naturalised British subject, and adopted his maternal grandparents’ surname Mountbatten. Of course none of this was necessary because as a descendant of Electress Sophie of Hanover, Philip already was a British Citizen. It is speculated that this was done to make Philip appear less foreign.

He married Elizabeth on November 20, 1947. Just before the wedding, the King granted Philip the style His Royal Highness and created him Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. Philip left active military service when Elizabeth became queen in 1952, having reached the rank of commander, and was made a British Prince in his own right inn1957.

Philip was introduced to the House of Lords on July 21, 1948, immediately before his uncle Louis Mountbatten, who had been made Earl Mountbatten of Burma. Philip, like his sons Charles and Andrew and other royals (with the exception of the 1st Earl of Snowdon), ceased to be members of the House of Lords following the House of Lords Act 1999. He never spoke in the House. In fact, however, he attended Parliament only when escorting the Queen for the annual State Opening of Parliament, where he walked and sat beside her.

Philip had four children with Elizabeth: Charles, Prince of Wales; Anne, Princess Royal; Prince Andrew, Duke of York; and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. Through a British Order in Council issued in 1960, descendants of Philip and Elizabeth not bearing royal styles and titles can use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, which has also been used by some members of the royal family who hold titles, such as Anne, Andrew and Edward.

Contrary to rumours over the years, the Queen and Duke were said by insiders to have had a strong relationship throughout their marriage, despite the challenges of Elizabeth’s reign.

After Princess Elizabeth acceded to the throne, the Queen also announced that the Duke was to have “place, pre-eminence and precedence” next to her “on all occasions and in all meetings, except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament”. This meant the Duke took precedence over his son, the Prince of Wales, except, officially, in the British parliament.

A sports enthusiast, Philip helped develop the equestrian event of carriage driving. He was a patron, president or member of over 780 organisations, and served as chairman of The Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, a self-improvement program for young people aged 14 to 24.

The Queen referred to Prince Philip in a speech on the occasion of her Diamond Jubilee in 2012 as her “constant strength and guide” Their marriage was the longest of any British monarch, lasting more than 73 years until Philip’s death in April 2021.

Prince Philip was the longest-serving consort of a reigning British monarch and the longest-lived male member of the British royal family. He retired from his royal duties on August 2, 2017, aged 96, having completed 22,219 solo engagements and 5,493 speeches since 1952. Philip died on April 9, 2021, two months before his 100th birthday.

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.

January 30, 1649: Execution of Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Tags

Commonwealth, Execution of Charles Stuart of England, House of Lords, King Charles I of England, Long Parliament, Pride's Purge, Privy Council, Rump Parliament, Thomas Pride

Charles’s beheading was scheduled for Tuesday, January 30, 1649. Two of his children remained in England under the control of the Parliamentarians: Elizabeth and Henry. They were permitted to visit him on January 29, and he bade them a tearful farewell. The following morning, he called for two shirts to prevent the cold weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear: “the season is so sharp as probably may make me shake, which some observers may imagine proceeds from fear. I would have no such imputation.”

He walked under guard from St James’s Palace, where he had been confined, to the Palace of Whitehall, where an execution scaffold had been erected in front of the Banqueting House. Charles was separated from spectators by large ranks of soldiers, and his last speech reached only those with him on the scaffold. He blamed his fate on his failure to prevent the execution of his loyal servant Strafford: “An unjust sentence that I suffered to take effect, is punished now by an unjust sentence on me.”

He declared that he had desired the liberty and freedom of the people as much as any, “but I must tell you that their liberty and freedom consists in having government … It is not their having a share in the government; that is nothing appertaining unto them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things.” He continued, “I shall go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be.”

At about 2:00 p.m., Charles put his head on the block after saying a prayer and signalled the executioner when he was ready by stretching out his hands; he was then beheaded with one clean stroke. According to observer Philip Henry, a moan “as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again” rose from the assembled crowd,some of whom then dipped their handkerchiefs in the king’s blood as a memento.

The executioner was masked and disguised, and there is debate over his identity. The commissioners approached Richard Brandon, the common hangman of London, but he refused, at least at first, despite being offered £200. It is possible he relented and undertook the commission after being threatened with death, but there are others who have been named as potential candidates, including George Joyce, William Hulet and Hugh Peterrs. The clean strike, confirmed by an examination of the king’s body at Windsor in 1813, suggests that the execution was carried out by an experienced headsman.

Cromwell was said to have visited Charles’s coffin, sighing “Cruel necessity!” as he did so. The story was depicted by Delaroche in the nineteenth century.

It was common practice for the severed head of a traitor to be held up and exhibited to the crowd with the words “Behold the head of a traitor!” Although Charles’s head was exhibited, the words were not used, possibly because the executioner did not want his voice recognized. On the day after the execution, the king’s head was sewn back onto his body, which was then embalmed and placed in a lead coffin.

The commission refused to allow Charles’s burial at Westminster Abbey, so his body was conveyed to Windsor on the night of February 7. He was buried in private on February 9, 1649 in the Henry VIII vault in the chapel’s quire, alongside the coffins of Henry VIII and Henry’s third wife, Jane Seymour, in St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. The king’s son, Charles II, later planned for an elaborate royal mausoleum to be erected in Hyde Park, London, but it was never built.

The execution of Charles I had been carried out by the Rump Parliament. The Rump was created by Pride’s Purge when Colonel Thomas Pride forcibly removed from the Long Parliament all those members who supported the King and were not supporters of the Grandees in the New Model Army and the Independents. Many historians consider called it a coup d’état.

Just before and the execution of King Charles I, the Rump Parliament passed a number of Acts of Parliament creating the legal basis for the republic. After the execution of Charles I, the House of Commons abolished the Monarchy, the Privy Council and the House of Lords, and declared the people of England “and of all the Dominions and Territories thereunto belonging” to be henceforth under the governance of a “Commonwealth”, effectively a republic. The House of Commons now had unchecked executive and legislative power. The English Council of State, which replaced the Privy Council, took over many of the executive functions of the monarchy.

The Trial of Charles I, King of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Tags

Charles Stuart, House of Lords, John Cook, Parliamentarians, Rump Parliament, The High Court of Justice, Trial of King Charles I of England, Westminster Hall

Charles was moved to Hurst Castle at the end of 1648, and thereafter to Windsor Castle. In January 1649, the Rump House of Commons indicted him on a charge of treason, which was rejected by the House of Lords. The idea of trying a king was a novel one. The Chief Justices of the three common law courts of England – Henry Rolle, Oliver St John and John Wilde – all opposed the indictment as unlawful.

The Rump Commons declared itself capable of legislating alone, House of Lords passed a bill creating a separate court for Charles’s trial, and declared the bill an act without the need for royal assent. The High Court of Justice established by the Act consisted of 135 commissioners, but many either refused to serve or chose to stay away. Only 68 (all firm Parliamentarians) attended Charles’s trial on charges of high treason and “other high crimes” that began on January 20, 1649 in Westminster Hall. John Bradshaw acted as President of the Court, and the prosecution was led by the Solicitor General, John Cook.

Charles was accused of treason against England by using his power to pursue his personal interest rather than the good of the country. The charge stated that he, “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”, and 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.

Reflecting the modern concept of command responsibility, 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.” An estimated 300,000 people, or 6% of the population, died during the war.

Over the first three days of the trial, whenever Charles was asked to plead, he refused stating his objection with the words: “I would know by what power I am called hither, by what lawful authority…?” He claimed that no court had jurisdiction over a monarch, that his own authority to rule had been given to him by God and by the traditional laws of England, and that the power wielded by those trying him was only that of force of arms. Charles insisted that the trial was illegal, explaining that,

no earthly power can justly call me (who am your King) in question as a delinquent … this day’s proceeding cannot be warranted by God’s laws; for, on the contrary, the authority of obedience unto Kings is clearly warranted, and strictly commanded in both the Old and New Testament … for the law of this land, I am no less confident, that no learned lawyer will affirm that an impeachment can lie against the King, they all going in his name: and one of their maxims is, that the King can do no wrong … the higher House is totally excluded; and for the House of Commons, it is too well known that the major part of them are detained or deterred from sitting … the arms I took up were only to defend the fundamental laws of this kingdom against those who have supposed my power hath totally changed the ancient government.

The court, by contrast, 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’.

At the end of the third day, Charles was removed from the court, which then heard over 30 witnesses against the king in his absence over the next two days, and on 26 January condemned him to death. The following day, the king was brought before a public session of the commission, declared guilty, and was formally sentenced to death. Fifty-nine of the commissioners signed Charles’s death warrant.

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’.

History of the Titles of the Prince of Wales: Part IV.

Tags

Charles Lennox, Duke of Lancaster, Duke of York, Dux, House of Lords, Kings and Queens of England, Kings and Queens of Great Britain, kings and queens of Scotland, Peerage, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Richard II of England, Roman Republic, titles

HRH The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Rothesay

The next title I will examine is that of Duke. A duke (male) or duchess (female) can be a confusing title. A duke can be a monarch ruling over a duchy in their own right with sovereignty equal to that of a king or queen, though duke has been considered lesser title. A duke can also be a titled or a member of royalty or nobility, historically of highest rank below the monarch. The title originates comes from the Latin dux, which translates to “leader” a title first applied a military commander in Roman Republic who otherwise to did not have an official rank (particularly one of Germanic or Celtic origin). As the title and position evolved a duke came to mean the leading military commander of a province.

Duchy and dukedom

A duchy is the territory or geopolitical entity ruled by a duke. In Continental Europe (France, Holy Roman Empire, German Empire etc) a duchy was often a Sovereign or semi-Sovereign state where the ruling duke was the monarch. In the English system the title of duke has never been associated with independent rule in the British Isles. Therefore a duke was a title of nobility, called a dukedom, not duchy (excepting the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster, more on that later), and the holder did not rule over a territory, and as the political system evolved a duke was allowed to be a member of the House of Lords.

In Anglo-Saxon England, after the Roman Legions exited Britain the typical Roman political divisions were largely ignored and the highest political rank beneath that of king was ealdorman. The title ealdormen were referred to as duces (the plural of the original Latin dux). However, gradually with the Danish invasions of England the title ealdorman was replaced by the Danish eorl (later earl). After the Norman conquest, their power and regional jurisdiction was limited to that of the Norman counts. The titles of Earl and Baron became the most dominant until the reign of Edward III of England (1227-1277).

Edward III created the first English dukedom when he created his eldest son Edward, the Black Prince, Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall in 1337. This creation was motivated by the loss of the title Duke of Normandy by the king. After the death of the Black Prince, the duchy of Cornwall passed to his nine-year-old son, who would eventually succeed his grandfather as Richard II.

The title of Duke of Lancaster was created by Edward III in 1351 for Henry of Grosmont, 4th Earl of Lancaster, a great-grandson of Henry III in the male line. He died in 1361 without a male heir and the peerage expired. The second creation was on November 13, 1362, for John of Gaunt, 1st Earl of Richmond, who was both the 1st Duke of Lancaster’s son-in-law and also fourth son of King Edward III. John had married Blanche of Lancaster, 6th Countess of Lancaster, daughter of Henry Grosmont and heiress to his estates. On the same day Edward III also created his second son, Lionel of Antwerp, as Duke of Clarence.

All five of Edward III’s surviving sons were created dukes but the last two were made duke’s by Edward III’s grandson and successor, Richard II. In 1385, Richard II invested his last two uncles with dukedoms on the same day. Thomas of Woodstock was named Duke of Gloucester and Edmund of Langley became Duke of York. From the Dukes of Lancaster and Dukes of York came the Houses of Lancaster and York respectively who’s descendants battled for the throne during the Wars of the Roses.

By 1483, a total of 16 ducal titles had been created: Those associated with the Royal Family were; Cornwall, Lancaster, Clarence, Gloucester, and York. Those dukedoms established for the nobility were; Ireland, Hereford, Aumale, Exeter, Surrey, Norfolk, Bedford, Somerset, Buckingham, Warwick and Suffolk. Some dukedoms became extinct, others had multiple creations, and those associated with the Royal Family merged with the crown upon the holder’s accession to the throne.

Charles Lennox, 1st Duke of Richmond, 1st Duke of Lennox, 1st Duke of Aubigny (illegitimate son of Charles II, King of England, Scotland and Ireland. (July 29, 1672 – May 27, 1723)

In the United Kingdom, the inherited position of a duke along with its dignities, privileges, and rights is a dukedom. However, Dukes in the United Kingdom are addressed as “Your Grace” and referred to as “His Grace”. Currently, there are thirty-five dukedoms in the Peerage of England, Peerage of Scotland, Peerage of Great Britain, Peerage of Ireland and Peerage of the United Kingdom, held by thirty different people, as three people hold two dukedoms and one holds three

Royal Dukedoms

A Royal Duke is a duke who is a member of the British Royal Family, entitled to the style of “His Royal Highness”. The current Royal Dukedoms are, in order of precedence:
* Duke of Lancaster, held by Elizabeth II
* Duke of Edinburgh, held by Prince Philip
* Duke of Cornwall (England) and Duke of Rothesay (Scotland), held by Prince Charles, Prince of Wales
* Duke of York, held by Prince Andrew
* Duke of Cambridge held by Prince William
* Duke of Sussex held by Prince Harry
* Duke of Gloucester, held by Prince Richard
* Duke of Kent, held by Prince Edward (who should not be confused with the Earl of Wessex)
*
With the exceptions of the dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay (which can only be held by the eldest son of the Sovereign), royal dukedoms are hereditary, according to the terms of the Letters Patent that created them, which usually contain the standard remainder to the “heirs male of his body”. The British monarch also holds and is entitled to the revenues of the Duchy of Lancaster, and within the borders of the County Palatine of Lancashire is by tradition saluted as “The Duke of Lancaster”. Even when the monarch is a Queen regnant, she does not use the title of Duchess.

Forms of address

* Begin: My Lord Duke
* Address: His Grace the Duke of _____
* Speak to as: Your Grace (formal and employees), Duke (social)
* Ceremonial, formal, or legal title: The Most High, Noble and Potent Prince His Grace [forename], Duke of _____
Coronet

A British or Irish Duke is entitled to a coronet (a silver-gilt circlet, chased as jewelled but not actually gemmed) bearing eight conventional strawberry leaves on the rim of the circlet. The physical coronet is worn only at coronations. Any peer can bear his coronet of rank on his coat of arms above the shield.

Earl of Snowdon, former husband of Princess Margaret, has died.

Tags

2nd Earl of Snowdon, Armstrong-Jones, Baron, Earl of Snowdon, House of Lords, of Nymans, Princess Margaret, Viscount Linley

It has been reported that Lord Snowden died in his sleep aged 86. His son, with Princess Margaret, David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley, becomes the 2nd Earl of Snowdon.

Here is some biographical info on him related to royal history.

Antony Charles Robert Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon, GCVO, RDI (7 March 1930 – 13 January 2017), commonly known as Lord Snowdon, was an English photographer and film maker. He was married to Princess Margaret, younger daughter of King George VI and younger sister of Queen Elizabeth II.

In February 1960, Snowdon, then known as Antony Armstrong-Jones, became engaged to the Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret, and they married on 6 May 1960 at Westminster Abbey. The couple made their home in apartments at Kensington Palace. As he was a commoner, he was created Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley, of Nymans in the County of Sussex on 6 October 1961 due to concerns over the prospect of a British princess giving birth to a child without a title. The Snowdon title has centuries-old royal associations, since the name Snowdon was borne by the Welsh princes and the House of Gwynedd before 1282, though here it was granted as a nod to Armstrong-Jones’s Welsh ancestry. A Barony of Snowdon (sometimes spelled Snaudon) was a subsidiary title of King George II’s son Frederick, Prince of Wales. The subsidiary Linley title honoured Lord Snowdon’s great-grandfather Linley Sambourne as well as Nymans, the Messel family estate in West Sussex.

The couple had two children: David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley, born 3 November 1961, and Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones, born 1 May 1964.

The marriage began to collapse early and publicly.

On 16 November 1999 Lord Snowdon was created Baron Armstrong-Jones, of Nymans in the County of West Sussex This was a life peerage given him so that he could keep his seat in the House of Lords after the hereditary peers had been excluded. An offer of a life peerage was made to all hereditary peers of the first creation (those for whom a peerage was originally created, as opposed to those who inherited a peerage from an ancestor) at that time.

The government of the day had expected Lord Snowdon to follow the example of members of the royal family and turn down his right to a life peerage. At the time, Labour MP Fraser Kemp said he was “shocked and surprised that someone who achieved their position in the House of Lords by virtue of marriage should accept a seat in the reformed Lords”.

He retired from the House of Lords on 31 March 2016.

 

Crown Bill debated in the House of Lords

Tags

2012. Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Duchess of Gloucester, Duke of Gloucester, Elizabeth II, England, House of Lords, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Pope Francis, Succession Crown Bill

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2013/march/lords-succession-to-the-crown-report-stage/

This week an inaugural Mass was held for Pope Francis (this has replaced the old Papal Coronation) and many European Monarchies either went themselves or sent representatives. For the UK The Duke and
Duchess of Gloucester represented Her Majesty the Queen. I thought this would be a good time to examine the Crown Bill that is being debated in the House of Lords this month. (see article in the link)

As stated in the Bill there are three major changes that are being voted on…

• removing the first born son preference and allowing an older daughter over a younger brother to become a monarch
• allowing anyone who marries a Roman Catholic to remain in line
• limiting the requirement that all descendants of George II must obtain the monarch’s permission to marry to the six people nearest in line to the crown. If the monarch’s approval is not given then the married couple and their descendants lose their place in the line of succession.

The focus of this blog is the abolition of the requirement in the 1701 Act of Settlement that those in line to the throne would lose their place in succession upon marrying a Catholic. While I think this is along over due change it does create a problem and that is the source of the debate in the House of Lords.

The problem is that the sovereign is also the Head of the Church of England and must be in communion with that Church. That does make sense. I don’t think the UK would be happy with a monarch that is Head of the Church of England but also a Roman Catholic. So where does one draw the line? That is the issue at hand.

I think disestablished the monarch from the Church of England is not an option…at least at this time…so there must be a point where the monarch must remain Catholic. In my opinion, the monarch should be allowed to marry a Catholic as long as they raise their children in the Anglican faith.

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.