Royal Dukedom: Addendum Part I

Tags

Cambridge, Cornwall, Gloucester, Kent, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Letters Patent, Prince Edward, Prince Richard, Rothesay, Royal Dukedom, Royal Titles, Sussex, the prince of Wales, York

This is an addendum of my previous post on Dukes within the British Monarchy. In this instance the future of Royal Dukedoms.

The current Royal Dukedoms that are extant are:

Cambridge

Cornwall

Rothesay*

York

Sussex

Gloucester

Kent

* The Dukedoms of Cambridge, Cornwall and Rothesay are currently held by HRH the Prince of Wales.

The current Duke of York lacks a make heir so when he passes away the title will revert back to the crown. The most likely scenario is that a future King William V of the United Kingdom will grant the title Duke of York to his second son Prince Louis of Wales.

The Dukedom of Sussex is currently held by Prince Harry. His heir is his son Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Archie does not use his father’s courtesy title Earl of Dumbarton and whether or not Archie is a Prince with the style HRH is up for debate. If Archie is not an HRH and Prince the Dukedom of Sussex would cease to be a royal one on him succeeding to that title.

The Dukedoms of Gloucester and Kent are held by Prince Richard and Prince Edward respectively.

HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, (August 26, 1944) is a member of the British royal family. He is the second son of Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester and Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, as well as the youngest of the nine grandchildren of King George V and Queen Mary (notice I didn’t call her Queen Consort?).

The Duke is currently 30th in line of succession to the British throne, and the highest person on the list who is not a descendant of George VI, who was his uncle. At the time of his birth, he was 5th in line to the throne, behind his first cousins Princess Elizabeth (later Queen Elizabeth II) and Princess Margaret, his father, and his elder brother Prince William of Gloucester.

Richard ended his architectural career in 1972, after the death of his elder brother Prince William, who crashed his plane in a flying competition. Richard became heir apparent to his father’s dukedom and had to take on additional family obligations and royal duties on behalf of the Queen. He became the second Duke of Gloucester (in the fifth creation of that title) upon the death of his father on June 10, 1974.

The heir to the Dukedom of Gloucester is Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (born October 24, 1974) the only son of Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, and Birgitte, Duchess of Gloucester.

Since the Earl of Ulster is a great grandson of the monarch, in this case King George V of the United Kingdom, and therefore under the terms of Letters Patent of 1917 as a male line great-grand son of the sovereign he does not carry a royal title.

Therefore, when he inherits the Dukedom of Gloucester it will cease to be a royal dukedom and instead will be an “ordinary” Dukedom and he will be styled His Grace the Duke of Gloucester as opposed to his Royal Highness.

The Earl of Ulster married Claire Alexandra Booth (born December 29, 1977), a physician, on June 22, 2002 at the Queen’s Chapel, St. James’s Palace.

Lord and Lady Ulster have two children:

Xan Richard Anders Windsor, (born March 12, 2007).
Lady Cosima Windsor (born May 20, 2010)

Xan Windsor, as a future Duke of Gloucester himself, carries the courtesy title of Lord Culloden.

~~~~~~

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, (October 9, 1935) is a member of the British royal family. Queen Elizabeth II and Edward were first cousins through their fathers, King George VI, and Prince George, Duke of Kent.

Edward’s mother Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark was also a first cousin of the Queen’s husband Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, making him both a second cousin and first cousin once removed to King Charles III.

Prince Edward has held the title of Duke of Kent for more than 80 years, since the age of six, after the death of his father in a plane crash in 1942.

At York Minster on June 8, 1961 the Duke of Kent married Katharine Worsley, the only daughter of Sir William Arthington Worsley, 4th Baronet by his wife Joyce Morgan Brunner.

The heir to the Dukedom of Kent is the Duke of Kent’s son George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews (June 26, 1962) He is styled Earl of St Andrews, one of his father’s subsidiary titles, which he uses by courtesy as heir apparent to the Dukedom of Kent.

On January 9, 1988, George Windsor married Sylvana Tomaselli, a Canadian-born academic and a member of the Tomaselli family, at Leith Registrar Office near Edinburgh. The couple have three children:

The eldest son of the Earl of St. Andrews is Edward Edmund Windsor, Lord Downpatrick (December 2, 1988) As second-in-line to the Dukedom of Kent, he uses one of his grandfather’s subsidiary titles, Baron Downpatrick, by courtesy.

Therefore, when he inherits the Dukedom of Kent it will cease to be a royal dukedom and instead it will be an “ordinary” Dukedom and he will be styled His Grace the Duke of Kent as opposed to his Royal Highness.

Who was the first King of England ?

Tags

Bretwalda, Cerdic of Wessex, East Anglia, Egbert of Wessex, Essex, Heptarchy, Kent, King Alfred the Great, King Athelstan, King John of England, King of Bavaria, King of the Anglo-Saxons, King of the English, Kingdom of Prussia, Kings and Queens of England, Mercia, Northumbria, Sussex, Wessex, William the Conqueror

Figuring out who was the first King of Prussia or the first King of Bavaria was, is pretty easy given the fact that these kingdoms developed late in European history, early 18th and 19th to be precise. However, there are other kingdoms that stretch way back into history and figuring out who the first king of that nation or kingdom was, is rather difficult and subject to opinion. I am beginning a short series where I will identify the first king of England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I’m going to do something special with France and also ask who was the last King of the Franks? I may have touched on this before but I will also examine who was the first Holy Roman Emperor?

Alfred the Great: King of the West Saxons & King of the Angles and Saxons.

The reason why it can be hard for historians to determine who was the first king of these nations were because the idea of a unified nation-state came long after these monarchies began to develop. At first the king was more like a tribal chief over a people rather than a nation. All of these nations had many kings ruling over these territories and as time went on these smaller kingdoms either died off or were absorbed or defeated until one singular king remained. There are also other complexities special for each kingdom that I will address separately.

Today I will start with England.

Most books or lists of the Kings and Queens of England begin with William the Conqueror in 1066. Some may briefly mention the Saxon period but all-in-all a wide majority of books on this subject begin with William. However, there was far more royal history before him. After the fall of the Roman Empire there began a rise of small petty kingdoms in the British Isle. These small Anglo-Saxon kingdoms were known as the Heptarchy and they consisted of East Anglia, Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, Essex, Sussex, and Wessex. It was from the gradual unification of these early medieval kingdoms that the kingdom of England emerged. During the 9th century Vikings upset the balance of power between the English kingdoms, and native Anglo-Saxon life in general. One of the effects of the Viking invasions was that it slowed down English unification.

During the period of the Heptarchy, the most powerful king among the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms might be acknowledged as Bretwalda, which translates to High King, over the other kings. However, the tendency for one of the kings of the Heptarchy to become the Bretwalda was short lived as the decline of the other Saxon kingdoms allowed Wessex to become more powerful. Wessex soon came to be the most powerful kingdom on English soil as it absorbed the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex in 825. In 827, Northumbria submitted to King Egbert of Wessex (802-839) Thus Egbert briefly became the first king to reign over a united England. Most sources that list Egbert as the first King of England use either 827 or 828 as the starting point of his reign as Bretwalda even though his reign as king of Wessex began in 802. 

Was Egbert of Wessex the first King of England? He often is considered as such by some historians for his reign signaled that Wessex had indeed become the most powerful kingdom within England and would eventually subsume the position as the dominant kingdom over all others. Egbert was given the title Bretwalda and instead of viewing him as the first king of England I tend to view him as the last Anglo-Saxon king to hold the title Bretwalda. Incidentally, as mentioned at the start, most books or encyclopedias list William I as the starting point of the Kings and Queens of England, but those that do list or mention the Kingdom of Wessex often start with Egbert of Wessex as its first king, even though Cerdic of Wessex was actually the First King of Wessex in 519.

In 886, King Alfred the Great (871-899) retook London from the Danes and some historians mark this as the point when all of England came under one monarch. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says that “all of the English people (all Angelcyn) not subject to the Danes, submitted themselves to King Alfred.” After retaking London he began massive reconstruction of the city and making it habitable once again. Historians cite that it may have been at this point that Alfred assumed the new royal style ‘King of the Anglo-Saxons.’ Alfred’s son, Ædward the Elder (899-924), was also titled King of the Anglo-Saxons, however during his reign the Danes still held York.

It would be a few more years until England was completely united. On July 12, 927 the remaining monarchs of Britain gathered at Eamont in Cumbria to recognize Æthelstan (924-927) as “King of the English.” This has be considered by some historians as England’s ‘foundation date’, although the process of unification had taken almost 100 years. Even after 927 England was not completely united as Northumbria repeatedly changed hands between the English kings and the Danish and Norwegian invaders. Northumbria was definitively brought under English control by King Ædred (945-955) in 954, completing the unification of England. At about this time, Lothian, the northern part of Northumbria (Roman Bernicia), was ceded to the Kingdom of Scotland. England has remained in political unity ever since.

It is interesting to note that from the time of King Æthelstan until the reign of King John (1199-1216) the title which the monarch used was “King of the English,” in Latin, Rex Anglorum . In 1199 King John changed the title to Rex Anglia, “King of England” and this remained in effect until the unification of England and Scotland as the Kingdom of Great Britain in 1707.

It is difficult to pin down the first king of England. Egbert is often chosen because he was the king that brought Wessex to prominence over the other English Kingdoms. Alfred the Great is often chosen because he brought most of England under his rule but his grandson, Æthelstan as “King of the English,” finalized English unification. Any of these could be considered the first King of England. Personally, I tend to view Alfred the Great as the first King of England because his unifying of the nation was the one that stuck and lasted. What is your choice?

The Common Touch

Tags

14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne, East Anglia, Essex, Heptarchy, Kent, King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Mercia, Norman Conquest of England, Northumbria, Prince Charles, Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark, Sussex, Wessex

HRH The Duchess of Cambridge is a very popular member of the British Royal Family. She is young and beautiful with a friendly and warm personality and married to a dashing handsome prince who is destined one day to be king. These are what make up fairy tales and Hollywood movies. Another aspect of this fairy tale is that she does not come from either royalty or the titled nobility herself. Long gone are the days when royals married royals. This has not done any damage as some have feared. I have met some individuals who have supported the class system to the point where they thought that when a royal married a commoner that it lessened their royal status and that of their children. I do not agree with this view at all.

Through the centuries it has been ironic that commoners and every ordinary person has had the freedom to select the mate of their choice. Royalty, on the other hand, has not always had that luxury. Marrying into your station in life is still practiced throughout the world. There are always whispers and gossip if someone is seen to be marrying someone who is not part of their social group and status. This human proclivity is readily apparent in royal circles and has been for ages. Even in the days of the Heptarchy, members of the royal families of  Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex and Wessex married into one another’s houses. Even after the Norman Conquest of England this trend continued.

Looking at a genealogy chart of the royal family through history it mirrors much of the political climate at the time. From the Norman Conquest until the reign of Edward III (1327-1377) we can see many French princesses and those of the French nobility marry into the English royal family. This mirrors the many conflicts between England and France that royal alliances were hoped to resolve. From the reign of Edward III to the times of the Tudors we see a lot of marriages of the royal family into the English nobility. The Tudor dynasty was a hodgepodge of marriages with foreign countries and the English nobility..and even with commoners. The Stuarts married into Danish, French, Dutch and Portuguese royal houses.

With the arrival of the German House of Hanover onto the British throne in 1714 we begin to see the tradition of marrying into other German royal and noble families. This tradition lasted up until World War I (1914-1918) when the German and Russian royal houses were swept off their thrones. It was at that time when George V permitted his children to marry members of the British aristocracy. We all know the trouble Edward VIII had in selecting a wife that was not from either royal or noble stock, he gave up the throne for his marriage to Wallis Simpson. His sister Mary, The Princess Royal, married the future Earl of Harewood. George VI, married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the daughter of Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne. Prince Henry, The Duke of Gloucester, married Lady Alice  Montagu Douglas Scott, the daughter of John Montagu Douglas Scott, 7th Duke of Buccleuch. The youngest surviving son, Prince George, Duke of Kent, married into royalty. In 1934 the Duke of Kent married Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark.

Princess Marina’s cousin, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark married the future Queen Elizabeth II in 1947. In recent years we have seen members of the royal family marrying people from untitled families. The Queen’s sister, Princess Margaret, married Antony Armstrong-Jones, whom Her Majesty ennobled granting him the title 1st Earl of Snowdon. Of the queen’s children only the first marriage of the Prince of Wales, to Lady Diana Spencer, was a marriage to a member of the nobility. All the other children of the queen married untitled commoners.  In the future it may still be possible for a member of the British royal family to marry another royal or even a member of the nobility and if this happens it will happen just like anyone else meets their spouse, through friends or activities. I am all in favor of royals marrying the person they love and the person of their choice. The only drawback for me personally is I enjoy reading old genealogy charts and seeing how many ways the royals are connected. In the future these royal and noble families will be less connected by marriage.

With such hard-working and warm friendly people such as The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duchess of Cornwall and the Countess of Wessex as members of the royal family they demonstrate that being royal is not about birth, it is about conduct and service and being an honourable representative of your country. Being married into the royal family is not just a part-time job, it is a full-time lifestyle. These ladies have demonstrated that dignity and class are attributes that we can all emulate and one does not have to be high-born to display those qualities. In the future as Prince Harry and other members of the royal family select the spouse of their choice, let’s hope that they all demonstrate that common touch.