Is King Charles III of the United Kingdom German? Conclusion

Tags

Act of Settlement of 1701, Act of Union of 1707, Citizenship, Ethnicity, Glorious Revolution, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, King George I of Great Britain, King George II of Great Britain, King George III of Great Britain, Sophia Naturalization Act of 1705

From The Emperor’s Desk: This entry is a bit longer than usual but instead of dividing this entry and belaboring my point i decided to post it in its entirety.

The German ancestry of the British Royal Family begins with the accession of Duke Georg Ludwig of Brunswick-Lüneburg, Imperial Elector of Hanover. But how did this German Prince come to succeed to the throne of Great Britain?

Following the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which King James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland, was deposed, the line of succession to the English throne was governed by the Bill of Rights 1689, which declared that the flight of James II-VII from England to France during the revolution amounted to an abdication of the throne and that James’s daughter Queen Mary II and her husband/cousin, King William III (Willem III of Orange, who was also James’s nephew), were James’s successors.

The Bill of Rights also provided that the line of succession would go through Mary’s Protestant descendants by William and any possible future husband should she outlive him, then through Mary’s sister Anne and her Protestant descendants, and then to the Protestant descendants of William III by a possible later marriage should he outlive Mary. During the debate, the House of Lords had attempted to append Electress Sophia of Hanover and her descendants to the line of succession, but the amendment failed in the Commons.

Queen Mary II died childless in 1694, after which William III did not remarry. In 1700, Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, who was future Queen Anne’s only child to survive infancy, died of what may have been smallpox at the age of 11. Thus, Anne was left as the only person in line to the throne.

The Bill of Rights excluded Catholics from the throne, which ruled out James II and his children (as well as their descendants) sired after he converted to Catholicism in 1668. However, it did not provide for further succession after Anne. Parliament thus saw the need to settle the succession on Sophia and her descendants, and thereby guarantee the continuity of the Crown in the Protestant line.

With religion and lineage initially decided, the ascendancy of Willem of Orange in 1689 would also bring his partiality to his foreign favourites that followed. By 1701 English jealousy of foreigners was rampant, and action was considered necessary. It was considered necessary to create an Act of Parliament to settle the succession to the English throne.

The Act of Settlement

The Act of Settlement provided that the throne would pass to the Electress Sophia of Hanover – a granddaughter of James I-VI and a niece of King Charles I – and her descendants.

One the issues the Act of Settlement did not address was granting English citizenship to the Sovereign. The Act did address who can be a member of the Privy Council:

No foreigner (“no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging”), even if naturalised or made a denizen (unless born of English parents), can be a Privy Councillor or a member of either House of Parliament, or hold “any Office or Place of Trust, either Civill [sic] or Military, or to [sic] have any Grant of Lands, Tenements or Hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him”.

Before I go further, let me define who or what is a British national. Over the many years there have been many Acts of Parliament that dealt with the subject and various related issues. I’m not going into all of them but I will mention a few of them.

Nationality is a legal identification of a person in international law, establishing the person as a subject, a national, of a sovereign state. It affords the state jurisdiction over the person and affords the person the protection of the state against other states.

The British Nationality Act 1948 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom on British nationality law which defined British nationality by creating the status of “Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies” (CUKC) as the sole national citizenship of the United Kingdom and all of its colonies.

The British Nationality Act 1948 formed the basis of the United Kingdom’s nationality law until the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force in 1983. Most of its provisions have been repealed or otherwise superseded by subsequent legislation, though parts remain in force.

British nationality law details the conditions by which a person is a national of the United Kingdom. The primary law governing these requirements is the British Nationality Act 1981, which came into force on January 1, 1983. Regulations apply to the British Islands (the UK itself and the Crown dependencies) as well as the 14 British Overseas Territories.

The Act of Parliament that did address the nationality of the English monarch and the English Royal Family was the Sophia Naturalization Act of 1705.

Prior to the Act of Union which United the Kingdoms of England and Scotland into the Kingdom of Great Britain, each country had their own separate succession laws. Since the Sovereign of Ireland was always the Sovereign of England, Ireland followed England’s succession laws.

The Act for the Naturalization of the Most Excellent Princess Sophia, Electress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Issue of her Body was an Act of the Parliament of England (4 & 5 Ann. c. 16.) in 1705. It followed the Act of Settlement 1701, whereby Dowager Electress Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant descendants were declared to be in the line of succession to the throne (her son George I later became king).

Electress Sophia of Hanover, a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England, was not considered to be an Englishwoman as she had not been born in England. This Act naturalized her and “the issue of her body”, provided they were not Catholic, as English subjects. Any person born to a descendant of Sophia could also claim to be an English Subject (citizen) by being her descent of Sophia and to be the “issue of her body”.

In 1947, Prince Friedrich of Prussia succeeded in a claim to British citizenship under the Act, having renounced his German citizenship.

The Act was repealed by the British Nationality Act 1948. However, any non-Catholic descendant of the Electress born before the repealing statute was enacted had already automatically acquired the status of a British subject, so there are still people alive who can claim British nationality under the Sophia Naturalization Act.

Therefore, despite being born in Germany, technically the Holy Roman Empire at the time, King George I, King George II and Prince Frederick Louis, the Prince of Wales were all naturalized British Subjects.

However, for the sake of argument, let me say that these first three heads of the House of Hanover were ethnically German.

Now let me define ethnicity. An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include common sets of traditions, ancestry, language, history, society, nation, religion, or social treatment within their residing area. The term ethnicity is often used interchangeably with the term nation, particularly in cases of ethnic nationalism.

Ethnicity may be construed as an inherited or as a societally imposed construct. Ethnic membership tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language, dialect, religion, mythology, folklore, ritual, cuisine, dressing style, art, or physical appearance. Ethnic groups may share a narrow or broad spectrum of genetic ancestry, depending on group identification, with many groups having mixed genetic ancestry. Ethnic groups often continue to speak related languages.

As previously mentioned the first three heads of the House of Hanover were ethnic Germans:

King George I of Great Britain: George was born on May 28, 1660 in the city of Hanover in the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg in the Holy Roman Empire.

King George II of Great Britain: George was born November 9, 1683 in the city of Hanover in the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg in the Holy Roman Empire.

Prince Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales and Duke of Edinburgh: Prince Frederick Louis was born on January 31, 1707 in the city of Hanover, in the Duchy of Brunswick-Lüneburg in the Holy Roman Empire as Duke Friedrich Ludwig of Brunswick-Lüneburg.

However, the next monarch of Great Britain was different. He was born in the Kingdom of Great Britain.

King George III of Great Britain: George was born on June 4, 1738 at Norfolk House in St James’s Square, London, England in the Kingdom of Great Britain.

George III was the first monarch of the House of Hanover who—unlike his two predecessors, and his father—was born in Great Britain, spoke English as his first language, and never visited Hanover.

In my eyes and the legal definition of citizenship and ethnicity he meets the criteria for being British.

Again, I have to ask a question at what point does an individual, or a family, need to live in a certain country to be considered a national of that country and ethnically from that country?

Legally those born in a certain country are a citizen of that country. Forgetting for a moment that King George I, King George II and Prince Frederick Louis, the Prince of Wales were all naturalized British Subjects (citizens); but beginning with King George III he and all subsequent British Monarchs have been born and bread in the United Kingdom.

That’s seven generations of British monarchs born and raised in the United Kingdom. Certainly right now they can be considered British and not German both by the definition of legal citizenship and by the definition of ethnicity.

This is why I consider King Charles III as being 100% British. At least seven generations of his ancestors were born in the United Kingdom.

The closest ancestor that King Charles had that was born a German citizen was his paternal Great-great grandfather, Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hesse and by Rhine. Ludwig was born on September 12th, 1837 at the Prinz-Karl-Palais in Darmstadt, the capital of the Grand Duchy of Hesse and by Rhine in the German Confederation.

Charles’ great grandmother, Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, (Victoria Mountbatten, Marchioness of Milford Haven) was born in Windsor Castle. Her husband, and cousin once removed, Prince Louis of Battenberg (Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven) was born in Austria.

Also remember the King’s maternal grandmother was Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon the daughter Claude Bowes-Lyon, the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne in the Peerage of Scotland, and his wife, Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck. Her mother was descended from British prime minister William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland, and Governor-General of India Richard Wellesley, 1st Marquess Wellesley, who was the elder brother of another prime minister, Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington.

This also gives Charles a considerable amount of Scottish and English ancestry.

In the future the German ancestry of the British Royal Family becomes even more distant and diluted. The Prince of Wales is the son of Lady Diana Spencer the daughter of John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer. The Spencer family is an aristocratic family in the United Kingdom. From the 16th century, its members have held numerous titles including the dukedom of Marlborough, the earldoms of Sunderland and Spencer, and the Churchill barony. Prime Minister Winston Churchill was a member of the Spencer family.

The mother of the future King George VII, Catherine Middleton, brings a great deal of English blood into the Royal Family. The Princess of Wales is the eldest of three children born to Michael Middleton (b. 1949) and his wife, Carole (née Goldsmith; b. 1955). Tracing their origins back to the Tudor era, the Middleton family of Yorkshire of the late 18th century were recorded as owning property of the Rectory Manor of Wakefield. The land passed down to solicitor William Middleton who established the family law firm in Leeds which spanned five generations.

So you can see in the future of the British Monarchy, both short term and long term, the German ancestry of the British Royal Family will fade into the background.

To conclude though King Charles does have German ancestry (as well as Danish and Russian and Greek ancestry) but he is both legally and ethnically a quintessential British person.

Is King Charles III of the United Kingdom German? Part I

Tags

George V of the United Kingdom, German, Giuseppe Garibaldi, House of Bourbon, House of Habsburg, House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, House of Windsor, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Kingdom of Naples, Kingdom of Sicily, Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies, Unification of Italy

Is King Charles III of the United Kingdom German?

I was going to address this topic when the King visited Germany. I was also going to discuss this topic before the Coronation. Oh, well……better late than never.

I saw many comments on social media about the King and the Royal Family being German. It seems to be a popular belief, and also a very popular insult, to see King Charles III as being German.

I want to approach this issue not just as an historian, but as if I were a lawyer building my case. So here we go!

Question: Is King Charles III of the United Kingdom German?

My answer: No he is not!

Does he have German ancestry?

My answer: Absolutely!

I think this is an important distinction between nationality, ethnicity and ancestry which I’d like to explain and I’d like to explain why I think these distinctions is important.

First of all, why I think nationality is important I believe it is important because perception of nationality is important. Perception of a monarchs nationality has led to some problems. I would like to discuss two cases.

In the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily and the succeeding Kingdom of the Two-Sicilies being perceived as a foreign dynasty was part of the reason why the reigning Bourbon Dynasty was deposed in 1861 under Giuseppe Garibaldi.

Free to permit my indulgence here as I briefly relay the history of the kingdom of Sicily to demonstrate my point.

The Kingdom of Sicily was a state that existed in the south of the Italian Peninsula from its founding by Count Roger II of Sicily in 1130 until 1816. It was a successor state of the County of Sicily, which had been founded in 1071 during the Norman conquest of the southern peninsula.

Capetian Dynasty

Charles I (early 1226/1227 – January 7, 1285), commonly called Charles of Anjou, was a member of the royal Capetian Dynasty and the founder of the second House of Anjou. Charles was the youngest son of King Louis VIII of the Franks and Infanta Blanche of Castile.

The Capetian House of Anjou, or House of Anjou-Sicily, was a royal house and cadet branch of the direct French House of Capét. It is one of three separate royal houses referred to as Angevin, meaning “from Anjou” in France.

In 1263, after years of negotiations, Charles of Anjou accepted the offer of the Holy See to seize the Kingdom of Sicily from the German Hohenstaufens. Pope Urban IV declared a crusade against the incumbent Manfred of Sicily and assisted Charles in raising funds for the military campaign. Charles was crowned King of Sicily in Rome on January 5, 1266.

In 1282, a revolt against Angevin rule, known as the Sicilian Vespers, threw off Charles of Anjou’s rule of the island of Sicily. The Angevins managed to maintain control in the mainland part of the kingdom, which became a separate entity, a separate sovereign kingdom, also styled the Kingdom of Sicily, although it is commonly referred to as the Kingdom of Naples, after its capital.

Sicily eventually passed to the Kingdom of Aragon and then back to the main Royal line of France and eventually to the imperial House of Habsburg.

In 1734, in the aftermath of the War of the Polish Succession, Naples was reconquered by King Felipe V of Spain, a French Prince of the House of Bourbon, who installed his younger son, Charles, as Duke of Parma, and he also became as King Charles VII of Naples, starting a cadet branch of the House of Bourbon. He also became King of Sicily with the name of Charles V of Sicily the next year.

Charles (Carlos) succeeded to the Spanish throne in 1759 upon the death of his childless half-brother King Fernando VI. He became King Carlos III of Spain. But treaty provisions made him ineligible to hold all three crowns simultaneously therefore on October 6, Carlos III abdicated his Neapolitan and Sicilian titles in favour of his third son, because his eldest son Philip had been excluded from succession due to mental instability and his second son Infante Carlos was heir-apparent to the Spanish throne.

The third son became King Ferdinand IV of the Kingdom of Naples and King Ferdinand III of the Kingdom of Sicily. Ferdinand III-IV was the founder of the cadet House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies.

During the Congress of Vienna of 1815, after the Napoleonic Wars, the kingdom of Naples and Sicily were restored and united as one singular Kingdom, with Ferdinand III-IV becoming King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies under the House of Bourbon.

On April 4, 1860 the latest revolt against the Bourbon regime broke out. Giuseppe Garibaldi, funded and directed by the Piedmontese prime minister Cavour, assisted the revolt.

On October 21, 1860, a Plebiscite regarding the unification of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies with Italy was conducted. The outcome of the referendum was 432,053 (99%) in favour and only 667 in opposition to the unification. Despite claims and evidence of the Plebiscite being “obviously rigged”, many Sicilians viewed the unification as an acceptance of the House of Savoy which were Kings of Sardinia-Peidmont.

King Francis II was the last King of the Two Sicilies from 1859 to 1861. After successive invasions by Giuseppe Garibaldi and Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia ultimately brought an end to his rule, as part of Italian unification. After he was deposed, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the Kingdom of Sardinia-Peidmont were merged into the newly formed Kingdom of Italy. Victor Emmanuel II of Sardinia-Peidmont became the first King of Italy.

It wasn’t just the House of Bourbon in the Two Sicilies that was deposed, the House of Bourbon as Dukes of Parma were also deposed as well as the House of Habsburg which ruled Tuscany as its Grand Dukes.

The United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom In 1917, the name of the British Royal House was changed from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor because of anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during the First World War.

King Edward VII and, in turn, his son, King George V, were members of the German ducal House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha by virtue of their descent from Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Prince Consort, husband of Queen Victoria, herself the last British monarch from the House of Hanover.

High anti-German sentiment amongst the people of the British Empire during the First World War reached a peak in March 1917, when the Gotha G.IV, a heavy aircraft capable of crossing the English Channel, began bombing London directly and became a household name. In the same year, the King and his family were finally persuaded to abandon all titles held under the German Crown and to change German titles and house names to anglicised versions. Hence, on July 17, 1917, a royal proclamation issued by George V declared:

Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor….

The name had a long association with monarchy in Britain, through the town of Windsor, Berkshire, and Windsor Castle; the link is alluded to in the Round Tower of Windsor Castle being the basis of the badge of the House of Windsor. It was suggested by Arthur Bigge, 1st Baron Stamfordham.

Of the deposing of the House of Bourbon and it’s Italian kingdoms and the name change of the British royal house during World War I raises a question for me.

How many generations does a family need to live within a region or country to be considered a native of that country?

The concludes Part I. Join me back tomorrow as I will answer some of these questions and conclude this topic of “Is King Charles III of the United Kingdom German?”

My Thoughts On The Coronation

Tags

Archbishop of Canterbury, coronation, Crown of St. Edward, Gold State Coach, Imperial State Crown., King Charles III of the United Kingdom, the prince of Wales, Westminster Abbey

From The Emperor’s Desk:

I really needed a day or two to process my thoughts and feelings on this week’s coronation of King Charles III.

First of all, I was overwhelmed with the sense of the magnitude and grandeur of it all and how I was witnessing a ceremony that has been performed in that exact location gong back many centuries! It could have been King Edward I or Richard III or Charles II sitting there! Continuity and how it connects us to the past is, for me, one of cornerstones of the concept of monarchy.

For example, the Crown of St. Edward that was used to crown King Charles II and was specifically made for his coronation. This crown sat on the heads of seven monarchs (including King Charles). After King Charles II James II-VII (1685), William III (1689), George V (1911), George VI (1937) and Elizabeth II (1953) have all been crowned with this historic relic.

Mary II and Anne were crowned with small diamond crowns of their own; George I, George II, George III and William IV were crowned with the State Crown of George I. King George IV was crowned with a new large diamond crown made specially for the occasion; and Queen Victoria and Edward VII chose not to use St. Edward’s Crown because of its weight and instead used the lighter 1838 version of the Imperial State Crown.

One of the things that surprised me about St Edward’s Crown was that to me it looked dull and not shiny gold like I thought it was!

Yes I hope the king will continue to wear the Imperial State Crown at the opening of Parliament. What is interesting to me is that the arches were not altered for the coronation.

If you look at pictures of the Imperial State Crown from Queen Victoria to George sixth The arches were raised, or at least up higher. I’ve read where the arches were lowered for Queen Elizabeth II to give it a more feminine look.

So I was thinking that the arches would have been returned to a little more higher position for the king. Although I love that crown it does seem a little odd on Charles and it may take a little bit to getting used to. I hate to say it but it did seem a little bit feminine in my opinion.

Here is a link to my blog entry. If you scroll down a bit you can see the picture of king Edward VII George VI and Queen Elizabeth II wearing the Imperial State Crown and see how the arches are set.

https://wp.me/p2pver-3Ds

I’ve also heard some people say that Queen Camilla should have worn a smaller crown and that this one seemed a bit too big for her head and in that case I do agree. So I do hope she wears it without the arches for the state opening of Parliament.

The British do pomp extremely well and the coronation was very evident of that. I really appreciated seeing The Jubilee Coach used to bring the king and queen to Westminster Abbey. I was especially amazed to see The Return of the newly crowned king and queen back to Buckingham Palace in the 1761 gold coach built during the reign of King George III. With the massive amount of soldiers and guards along the way it was quite an impressive spectacle!

Although a spectacular as it was I need to take into account the fact that this was a trim down coronation. For example there were not a massive group of peers wearing their coronation robes and dining they’re coronets. I have to be honest and say I really did not miss this aspect of the coronation. This is now getting into the territory of modernizing the coronation.

I did spend a lot of time online reading other people’s perspective and opinions on the coronation. I’m not taking into account the anti-monarcus and people who absolutely were against the coronation. I’m speaking of people that support the monarchy and the coronation yet also realize that the moniker needs to be cognizant of the times in which we live and continually needs to be updated to stay relevant.

I have read some opinions that felt that much of the coronation is to archaic for our day and age. I’m not sure I agree with that. I sincerely hope in the future there will be more coronation of British monarchs. However, as I said I do understand the need for the monarchy to stay relevant. I believe this can be a topic all on the song which I will address in a future blog entry.

Another aspect that I liked was the use of the regalia during the ceremony. The spurs , armills and rings were only presented to the King. Traditionally, when a King is crowned, the spurs are supposed to touch his heels. It did not happen. And the King did not wear the armills and the ring.

The Spurs are now very fragile and it was decided that the King would just touch them. The Armills and both rings would have needed to be adjusted to fit the King and Queen. Rather than adjusting them and possibly causing damage they were just presented to Their Majesties.

By being presented to His Majesty where he touched them, I thought that was a nice way to honor the old but also bringing something new.

The coronation ring needs to be modified for each person. On a ring this old fragile that is not always practical so this time it was rightfully chosen not to alter the ring. In reading about the coronation of Queen Victoria she stated that the Archbishop forced the ring on her finger and it was quite painful.

The liked the part of the ceremony where the Prince of Wales was prominent was in paying homage to the king. In the past this part of the coronation would have taken up a lot of time with each peer of the realm coming up to the king and paying their homage and loyalty to him. To me it seems practical to only have the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Prince of Wales pay homage to the king. I did think it was a nice gesture that a pledge of homage and loyalty to the king, which was completely voluntary, was offered for all to participate in. For me that very much personalized this aspect of the coronation.

The next area, the clothes that people wore, seem to be an area of controversy and mixed opinions. I’m not sure how to categorize the way women were dressed back in other coronations, or even how men were dressed if they were not dressed in the robes of the period, the majority of people were dressed in formal day wear. I’d seen some people express that they wished the people were dressed in more formal evening wear with white ties and formal gowns and tiaras would have been better was the opinion of some people.

I’m actually mixed about that. I was absolutely fine with the way people dressed and I didn’t lament the lack of tiaras or other accoutrements generally worn at a coronation. However, I certainly wouldn’t have complained if the dress for the coronation was more traditional

I did like how men of the royal family were dressed. The King asked most of the Royal Ladies to wear the Robe of the Royal Victorian Order. The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duchess of Gloucester also wore the Robe of the Royal Victorian Order. The only odd one out was the Princess Royal who wore the Robe of the Order of the Thistle. I personally think that was so Scotland was represented. As the Duke of York and other royal males wore their Order of the Garter Robe (English Order).

I am not sure what the Princess of Wales and her daughter princess Charlotte of Wales was wearing on their head. To me it looked like some Romanesque laurel wreaths. I like what they were wearing although I read where some did not.

All in all I was very moved and even at times choked up and in tears about this coordination. I think I’ll close right now I rambled on a bit and I’m sure I will write more in the days to come!

God Save the King!

Countdown to the Coronation V: Arranging and Planning

Tags

Archbishop of Canterbury, coronation, Dean of Westminster, Earl Marshall, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, King James I-VI of England and Scotland and Ireland, Queen Elizabeth I of England and Ireland, Thomas Cranmer

Arranging and planning

All arrangements for coronation ceremonies are made by the Earl Marshal and his Coronation Committee on behalf of the Crown and not by the Abbey authorities. But the Dean of Westminster instructs the sovereign on all matters connected with the service and assists the Archbishop of Canterbury, who always crowns the monarch (unless the See is vacant and then a senior bishop will perform this).

Since the late 14th century every coronation ceremony has basically followed the same order of service laid down in the Abbey’s magnificent medieval illuminated Latin manuscript, the Liber Regalis, which can be viewed in the Galleries at the Abbey. The coronation of Elizabeth I was a mixture of Latin and English but that of James I-VI in 1603 was an entirely English liturgy.

A third recension was probably compiled during the reign of Henry I and was used at the coronation of his successor, Stephen, in 1135. While retaining the most important elements of the Anglo-Saxon rite, it may have borrowed from the consecration of the Holy Roman Emperor from the Pontificale Romano-Germanicum, a book of German liturgy compiled in Mainz in 961, thus bringing the English tradition into line with continental practice.

It remained in use until the coronation of Edward II in 1308 when the fourth recension was first used, having been compiled over several preceding decades. Although influenced by its French counterpart, the new ordo focussed on the balance between the monarch and his nobles and on the oath, neither of which concerned the absolutist French kings. One manuscript of this recension is the Liber Regalis at Westminster Abbey which has come to be regarded as the definitive version.

Following the start of the Reformation in England, the boy king Edward VI had been crowned in the first Protestant coronation in 1547, during which Archbishop Thomas Cranmer preached a sermon against idolatry and “the tyranny of the bishops of Rome”. However, six years later, he was succeeded by his half-sister Mary I, who restored the Catholic rite.

In 1559, Elizabeth I underwent the last English coronation under the auspices of the Catholic Church; however, Elizabeth’s insistence on changes to reflect her Protestant beliefs resulted in several bishops refusing to officiate at the service, and it was conducted by the low-ranking bishop of Carlisle, Owen Oglethorpe.

Countdown to the Coronation III: The Imperial State Crown

Tags

Black Prince Ruby, coronation, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, King George VI of the United Kingdom, King William III of England, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom, Sir Robert Vyner, the Imperial State Crown

From the Emperor’s Desk: Although St. Edward’s Crown is the focal point of the coronation, the Imperial State Crown also plays a role in this ancient ceremony.

A State Crown has existed in various forms since the 15th century. The current version was made in 1937 and is worn by the monarch after a coronation (St Edward’s Crown having been used to crown the monarch) and used at the State Openings of Parliament.

The crown is adorned with 2,901 precious stones, including the Cullinan II diamond, St Edward’s Sapphire, the Stuart Sapphire, and the Black Prince’s Ruby.

St Edward’s Crown, used to crown English monarchs, was considered to be a holy relic, kept in the saint’s shrine at Westminster Abbey and therefore not worn by monarchs at any other time. Instead, a “great crown” with crosses and fleurs-de-lis, but without arches (an open crown), was a king’s usual headgear at state occasions until the time of Henry V, who is depicted wearing an imperial crown of state with gold arches (a closed crown).

Arches were a symbol of sovereignty, and by this point in history, the king of England was being celebrated as rex in regno suo est imperator – an emperor of his own domain – owing obedience to no one but God, unlike some continental rulers, who owed fealty to more powerful kings or the Holy Roman Emperor.

Henry VII or his son and successor Henry VIII may have commissioned a more elaborate version of the state crown which is first described in detail in an inventory of royal jewels in 1521, and again in 1532, 1550, 1574 and 1597, and was included in a painting by Daniel Mytens of Charles I in 1631.

The Tudor Crown had more pearls and jewels than its medieval predecessor, and the centre petals of each of the fleurs-de-lis had images of Christ, the Virgin Mary and St George. The crown weighed 3.3 kg (7 lb 6 oz) and was set with 168 pearls, 58 rubies, 28 diamonds, 19 sapphires and 2 emeralds. Following the abolition of the monarchy and the execution of Charles I in 1649, the Tudor Crown was broken up by Oliver Cromwell during the Interregnum, and its valuable components were sold for £1,100.

Restoration to present day

Upon the restoration of the monarchy in 1660, a new state crown was made for Charles II by Sir Robert Vyner. About 10 versions of the crown have existed since the restoration. The one made for Queen Victoria in 1838 is the basis for today’s crown. Made by Rundell and Bridge in 1838 using old and new jewels, it had a crimson velvet cap with ermine border and a lining of white silk. It weighed 39.25 troy ounces (43.06 oz; 1,221 g) and was decorated with 1,363 brilliant-cut, 1,273 rose-cut and 147 table-cut diamonds, 277 pearls, 17 sapphires, 11 emeralds, 4 rubies, and the Black Prince’s Ruby (a spinel).

At the State Opening of Parliament in 1845, the Duke of Argyll was carrying the crown before Queen Victoria when it fell off the cushion and broke. Victoria wrote in her diary, “it was all crushed and squashed like a pudding that had sat down”.

The gems in the crown were remounted for the coronation of George VI in 1937 by Garrard & Co. The crown was adjusted for Queen Elizabeth II’s coronation in 1953, with the head size reduced and the arches lowered by 25 mm (1 inch) to give it a more feminine appearance.
Description

Notable stones are St Edward’s Sapphire on the top cross, reputedly taken from the ring of Edward the Confessor when he was re-interred at Westminster Abbey in 1163, and the Black Prince’s Ruby (a large spinel) on the front cross. In 1909, the 104-carat (21 g) Stuart Sapphire, set in the front of the crown, was moved to the back and replaced by the 317-carat (63 g) Cullinan II. Below the monde hang four pearls, three of which are often said to have belonged to Queen Elizabeth I, but the association is almost certainly erroneous.
Usage

The crown is worn by the monarch on leaving Westminster Abbey at the end of his or her coronation. It is usually also worn at State Openings of Parliament, although Elizabeth II wore a hat in March 1974, June 2017 and December 2019 after snap general elections, and in October 2019 she wore the State Diadem, while the Imperial State Crown was carried beside her.

Usually, it is taken to the Palace of Westminster under armed guard in its own carriage and placed in the Robing Room, where the monarch dons the robes and puts on the crown before giving the monarchs speech to Parliament. If a State Opening occurs before a coronation, the crown is placed on a cushion beside the monarch.

In 1689, one week after being proclaimed king, William III wore his crown in Parliament to pass the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689.

However, what is interesting is that wearing the Imperial State Crown for the State Opening of Parliament is a recent Twentieth Century development that began only as recently as George V (1910-1936). After the World War I which saw the toppling of many European thrones and with a country that was war weary, his advisers decided to brighten up the ceremony surrounding the event to increase visibility and respect for the monarchy, and one way this was achieved was by wearing the Imperial State Crown during the reading of the Monarch’s Speech.

Queen Victoria and Edward VII and monarchs before them did not wear a crown during the State Opening of Parliament. This makes the opening of the movie, “The Madness of King George III” (known simply as “The Madness of King George” in the United States) which depicts the king wearing a crown at the opening of Parliament very inaccurate. In her seclusion Queen Victoria rarely opened Parliament herself, but on those rare occasions she did open Parliament, Victoria wore her small diamond crown whilst Edward wore a plumed hat.

When not in use, the Imperial State Crown is on public display in the Jewel House at the Tower of London.

The Imperial State Crown was also removed from the Tower of London to be altered for King Charles III. The Arches were lowered for Queen Elizabeth II to give the crown a more feminine look. I am very interested to see what modifications were made for King Charles III.

Countdown to the Coronation II: St Edward’s Crown

Tags

Commonwealth, coronation, Crowns and Regalia, English Civil War, King Charles II of England, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Restoration, Sir Robert Vyner, St. Edward's Crown, the Imperial State Crown

St Edward’s Crown is the centrepiece of the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom. Named after Saint Edward the Confessor, King of the English from 1042 until his death in 1066. This crown had been traditionally used to crown English and British monarchs at their coronations since the 13th century.

In December of last year, Buckingham Palace announced that St Edward’s Crown was removed from the Tower of London to allow for modification work to begin ahead of the Coronation on Saturday 6th May 2023.

I was wondering if King Charles III would use the St. Edward’s Crown. I had been thinking it was too large. I had forgotten that it could be modified just like the Imperial State Crown!

The original crown was a holy relic kept at Westminster Abbey, Edward’s burial place, until the regalia was either sold or melted down when Parliament abolished the monarchy in 1649, during the English Civil War (1642-1649).

The monarchy was restored in 1660 after the Commonwealth period and in preparation for the coronation of Charles II, who had been living in exile abroad, a new St Edward’s Crown was supplied by the Royal Goldsmith, Sir Robert Vyner. It was fashioned to closely resemble the medieval crown, with a heavy gold base and clusters of semi-precious stones, but the arches are decidedly Baroque.

In the late 20th century, the new St. Edward’s Crown was assumed to incorporate gold from the original St Edward’s Crown, as they are almost identical in weight, and no invoice was produced for the materials in 1661.

A crown was also displayed at the lying in state of Oliver Cromwell, Lord Protector of England from 1653 until 1658. However, it is believed the crown at Cromwell’s lying in state was probably made of gilded base metal such as tin or copper, as was usual in 17th-century England; for example, a crown displayed at the funeral of James VI-I had cost only £5 and was decorated with fake jewels.

On the weight of this evidence, writer and historian Martin Holmes, in a 1959 paper for Archaeologia, concluded that in the time of the Interregnum St Edward’s Crown was saved from the melting pot and that its gold was used to make a new crown at the Restoration.

His theory became accepted wisdom, and many books, including official guidebooks for the Crown Jewels at the Tower of London, repeated his claim as fact. In 2008, new research found that a coronation crown and sceptre were made in 1660 in anticipation of an early coronation, which had to be delayed several times.

A stylised image of this crown is used on coats of arms, badges, logos and various other insignia in the Commonwealth realms to symbolise the royal authority of Queen Elizabeth II.

When not in use, St Edward’s Crown is on public display in the Jewel House at the Tower of London.

Usage

Although it is regarded as the official coronation crown, after 1689, it was not used to crown a monarch for over 200 years. In 1911, the tradition was revived by George V, and all subsequent monarchs (except Edward VIII who was not crowned at all) have been crowned using St Edward’s Crown.

Only six monarchs have been crowned with St Edward’s Crown since the Restoration: Charles II (1661), James II (1685), William III (1689), George V (1911), George VI (1937) and Elizabeth II (1953). King Charles III (2023) will be the seventh monarch crowned with St. Edward’s Crown since 1661.

Mary II and Anne were crowned with small diamond crowns of their own; George I, George II, George III and William IV were crowned with the State Crown of George I. King George IV was crowned with a new large diamond crown made specially for the occasion; and Queen Victoria and Edward VII chose not to use St. Edward’s Crown because of its weight and instead used the lighter 1838 version of the Imperial State Crown.

When not used to crown the monarch, St Edward’s Crown was placed on the altar during the coronation; however, it did not feature at all in the coronation of Queen Victoria.

Countdown to the Coronation

Tags

coronation, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, May 6, Operation Golden Orb, Queen Camilla, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Westminster Abbey

From The Emperor’s Desk: One week from today, May 6, 2023, is the coronation of Their Majesties King Charles III of the United Kingdom and his Queen Camilla.

From today until next Saturday I will be posting on some historic aspects of past coronations and the current coronation.

The coronation of Charles III and his wife, Camilla, as King and Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms is scheduled to take place on Saturday, May 6, 2023, at Westminster Abbey. Charles acceded to the throne on September 8, 2022, upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, during her Platinum Jubilee Year celebrating a record 70 years on the throne.

Compared with previous coronations, the ceremony will undergo some alterations to represent multiple faiths, cultures, and communities across the United Kingdom, and will be shorter than his mother’s coronation in 1953.

The ceremony will begin with the anointing of Charles, symbolising his spiritual entry into kingship, and then his crowning and enthronement, representing his assumption of temporal powers and responsibilities. Camilla will be crowned in a shorter and simpler ceremony. The royal family will travel to Buckingham Palace afterward, in a state procession, and appear on the balcony to celebrate the occasion.

In addition to the coronation ceremony, the event will be marked by public ceremonies and celebrations in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the British Crown Dependencies and overseas territories. On 7 May, the Coronation Big Lunch will take place in the United Kingdom, providing the public with the opportunity to mark the occasion with street parties.

The Coronation Concert will be held on the same day at Windsor Castle with representatives of the King and Queen’s charities as well as members of the general public in attendance. The Big Help Out initiative will take place on 8 May, to encourage community service and volunteering. Both the coronation at Westminster Abbey and the concert at Windsor Castle will be broadcast on television and streamed online.

This will be the first coronation of a British monarch in the 21st century and the 40th to be held at Westminster Abbey since 1066.

Preparation

Charles III became king immediately upon the death of his mother, Elizabeth II, at 15:10 BST on Thursday September 8, 2022. He was proclaimed king by the Accession Council of the United Kingdom on Saturday 10 September, which was followed by proclamations in other Commonwealth realms.

Due to Elizabeth’s advanced age, Charles’s coronation has been planned for years, under the code name Operation Golden Orb. During Elizabeth’s reign, planning meetings for Operation Golden Orb were held at least once a year, attended by representatives of the government, the Church of England and Clarence House staff.

Planning

The Duke of Norfolk, Edward Fitzalan-Howard, is in charge of organising the coronation as hereditary Earl Marshal. A committee of privy counsellors will arrange the event.

In October 2022, the date of Charles and Camilla’s coronation was announced: Saturday May 6, 2023 at Westminster Abbey. Buckingham Palace set the date to ensure sufficient time to mourn the death of Queen Elizabeth II before holding a joyous ceremony. In November 2022, the government proclaimed that an extra bank holiday would occur on 8 May, two days after the coronation. On January 20, 2023, Buckingham Palace announced plans for the coronation weekend between May 6 and 8.

History of the Title Duke of Edinburgh

Tags

Duke of Edinburgh, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, King George I of Great Britain, King George VI of the United Kingdom, Peerage of Great Britain, Peerage of the United Kingdom, Prince Alfred, Prince Edward, Prince Frederick Louis, Prince Philip, Queen Victoria of the United Kingdom

Duke of Edinburgh, named after the city of Edinburgh in Scotland, is a substantive title that has been created four times since 1726 for members of the British royal family. It does not include any territorial landholdings and does not produce any revenue for the title holder.

1726 Creation

HRH Prince Frederick Louis, Duke of Edinburgh

The title was first created in the Peerage of Great Britain on July 26, 1726 by King George I of Great Britain, who bestowed it on his grandson Prince Frederick Louis, who also became Prince of Wales the following year.

The subsidiary titles of the dukedom were Marquess of the Isle of Ely, Earl of Eltham, in the County of Kent, Viscount of Launceston, in the County of Cornwall, and Baron of Snowdon, in the County of Caernarvon, all of which were also in the Peerage of Great Britain.

The marquessate was gazetted as Marquess of the Isle of Wight, apparently erroneously. In later editions of the London Gazette the Duke is referred to as the Marquess of the Isle of Ely.

After Prince Frederick Louis was created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester and had inherited all the other titles associated with the Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester titles: Duke of Cornwall (as heir to the throne in England) titles: Duke of Rothesay (heir apparent to the King of Scots), High Steward of Scotland and Lord of the Isles, he still remained Duke of Edinburgh.

Upon Frederick Louis death in 1751 the titles were inherited by his son Prince George. When Prince George became King George III in 1760, the titles merged in the Crown and ceased to exist.

1866 Creation

HRH Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh

Queen Victoria re-created the title, this time in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, on 24 May 1866 for her second son Prince Alfred, instead of Duke of York, the traditional title of the second son of the monarch. The subsidiary titles of the dukedom were Earl of Kent and Earl of Ulster, also in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.

When Alfred became the reigning Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha in 1893, he retained his British titles. His only son that survived birth, Alfred, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, committed suicide in 1899, so the Dukedom of Edinburgh and subsidiary titles became extinct upon the elder Alfred’s death in 1900.

1947 Creation

HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

The title was created for a third time on November 19, 1947 by King George VI, who bestowed it on his son-in-law Philip Mountbatten, when he married Princess Elizabeth. Subsequently, Elizabeth was styled “HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh” until her accession in 1952.

The subsidiary titles of the dukedom were Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich, of Greenwich in the County of London; all these titles were in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Earlier that year, Philip had renounced his Greek and Danish royal titles (he was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, being a male-line grandson of King George I of the Hellenes and male-line great-grandson of King Christian IX of Denmark) along with his rights to the Greek throne. In 1957, Philip became a Prince of the United Kingdom in his own right.

Upon Philip’s death on April 9, 2021, his eldest son Charles, Prince of Wales, succeeded to all of his hereditary titles. Upon Charles’s accession to the throne on September 8, 2022, the peerages merged in the Crown and ceased to exist.

2023 Creation

HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Edinburgh

It was announced in 1999, at the time of the wedding of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, that he would eventually follow his father as Duke of Edinburgh.

It was expected that a new, fourth creation would be bestowed on Prince Edward after the third creation reverted to the Crown when Charles III acceded to the throne. In July 2021, The Times reported that Charles had decided not to give the title to his brother upon accession. Clarence House stated that “all stories of this nature are speculation, no final decisions have been taken” and declined to comment further.

The title was created for a fourth time on March 10, 2023 by King Charles III, who bestowed it on his brother Prince Edward, when he turned 59. The title will be held by Prince Edward for his lifetime, as a non-hereditary peerage title.

Happy Birthday to the New Duke of Edinburgh!!

Tags

Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Prince Edward, Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Prince Edward has been named as the new Duke of Edinburgh, Buckingham Palace has announced. The title was granted by his brother King Charles III on the prince’s 59th birthday.

Buckingham Palace said in a statement: “His Majesty The King has been pleased to confer the Dukedom of Edinburgh upon the Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar, on the occasion of His Royal Highness’s 59th birthday.

“The title will be held by Prince Edward for His Royal Highness’s lifetime. I guess this means the title won’t be hereditary.

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh

Charles held the title briefly and before him the Duke of Edinburgh was his father Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark who died in 2021. Prince Philip was given the title on the morning of his wedding to Princess Elizabeth, by King George VI. The Duchess of Edinburgh later became Queen Elizabeth II.

When the Duke of Edinburgh died his eldest son, then Prince of Wales, inherited the title and when Charles became King the past September the title merged with the Crown allowing the King to recreate the title for his brother.

“The new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are proud to continue Prince Philip’s legacy of promoting opportunities for young people of all backgrounds to reach their full potential.”

HM the King

The title remains associated with the Duke of Edinburgh awards scheme, which has been running activities, training and challenges for young people since 1956.

The title of Earl of Wessex has now been given to Edward and Sophie’s son, the 15-year-old Viscount Severn.

Titles For The Children of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Tags

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Duchess of Sussex, Her Royal Highness, His Royal Highness, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Letters Patent of 1917, Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, Megan Markle, Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex

From the Emperor’s Desk:

Ever since the accession of King Charles III on the British throne the question of the titles of the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex has been raised. The question wasn’t what their titles would be, the question was did they even have titles?

Prior to the accession of the King, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were not eligible to have the style of His or Her Royal Highness and the title of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom because according to the Letters Patent of 1917 issued by King George V, which stipulated that only grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line were eligible for these styles and titles.

From their birth until the accession of the King, when Queen Elizabeth II was the reigning monarch, the Sussex children were ineligible for the titles and styles because they were great-grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line..

The original 1917 Letters Patent granted the style of Royal Highness and title of Prince or Princess to the children of the sovereign and the grand children of the sovereign in the male line. The Letters Patent extended this courtesy to the son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. During the reign of Queen Elizabeth II that extension applied to Prince George only.

On December 31, 2012 Queen Elizabeth II made an amendment to the 1917 Letters Patent by issuing Letters Patent which gave the title and style His/Her Royal Highness and Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom to all the children of the Prince of Wales’s eldest son.

Therefore at birth Charlotte and Louis they were thus styled “Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte of Cambridge” and “His Royal Highness Prince Louis of Cambridge” respectively.

It has been announced that the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will begin to use the style Royal Highness and the Prince and Princess titles afforded to them by the Letters Patent of 1917.

The news was revealed when it was announced that Princess Lilibet had been christened on Friday in California.

Buckingham Palace has said that the Royal Website will be updated to reflect the change in due course.

They will now be known as: His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex and Her Royal Highness Princess Lilibet of Sussex.