20 Years Ago Today….

Tags

Diana Princess of Wales, Elizabeth II, HRH Princess of Wales, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Prince of Wales, Prince William, Princess Diana, Queen Elizabeth II

Here is a little bio on Diana, Princess of Wales whom we lost 20 years ago today.

Diana, Princess of Wales (Diana Frances; née Spencer; 1 July 1961 – 31 August 1997), was a member of the British royal family as the first wife of HRH The Prince of Wales, who is the eldest child and heir apparent of HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Diana was born into the Spencer family, a family of British nobility with royal ancestry (through illegitimate lines from Charles II and James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland. Diana was the fourth child and third daughter of John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, and Frances Roche. She grew up in Park House, situated on the Sandringham estate, (first purchased for the Royal Family by Edward VII). She was educated in England and Switzerland. In 1975—after her father inherited the title of Earl Spencer—she became known as Lady Diana Spencer. She came to prominence in February 1981 when her engagement to The Prince of Wales was announced to the world.

Their wedding to the Prince of Wales took place at St Paul’s Cathedral on 29 July 1981 and reached a global television audience of over 750 million people. During her marriage, Diana’s official title was HRH Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, and Countess of Chester. The marriage produced two sons, the princes William (HRH The Duke of Cambridge) and HRH Prince Henry of Wales who were then respectively second and third in the line of succession to the British throne. As Princess of Wales, Diana undertook royal duties on behalf of the Queen and represented her at functions overseas. She was celebrated for her charity work and for her support of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines. She was involved with dozens of charities including London’s Great Ormond Street Hospital for children, of which she was president from 1989.

Diana remained the object of worldwide media scrutiny during and after her marriage, which ended in divorce on 28 August 1996. Media attention and public mourning were extensive after her death in a car crash in a Paris tunnel on 31 August 1997 and subsequent televised funeral.

Advertisements

Why the Queen cannot give the throne to the Duke of Cambridge.

Tags

Act of Settlement 1701, Edward VI, Elizabeth II, Henry IV, Kingdom of England, Louis XIV of France, Parliament, Prince Charles, Prince William of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge

Frequently on social media I will see posts by people that think the Queen should give the throne to the Duke of Cambridge, bypassing the Prince of Wales. These people generally are not fans of the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. The Queen has no power to give the crown to anyone. She cannot bypass the Prince of Wales and give the crown to the Duke of Cambridge. The succession to the throne is regulated by Parliament and this authority has been in the hands of Parliament for centuries. Therefore, it would take an Act of Parliament to alter the succession and remove the Prince of Wales from his rightful place in the order of the succession. There is no plans to do so, nor is there any reason or need to alter the succession.

Even during the reigns of the Saxon kings the power to regulate or name your successor was not in the hands of the monarch. That power was in the hands of the Witenagemot (Witan) a council of elders. At the time the English kingship was elective and semi-hereditary. The Witenagemot had the power to name and elect the king and although they limited their choices to the House of Wessex, they would often select a brother of the pervious King especially if the king left children too young to reign.

In 1066 when William I “the Conqueror” became king he abolished the Witenagemot and held the power and right to name his successor. Although the king did hold this power, the will of the king was not always followed. Case in point was Henry I of England (1100-1134) who named his daughter, the Empress Matilda, as his successor. However, despite the Barons swearing an oath to uphold the succession of the Empress Matilda, this oath was ignored upon King Henry’s death allowing the King’s nephew, Count Stephen of Blois, to usurp the throne and plunging England into many years of civil war.

Eventually the crown evolved into the male preferred primogeniture that remained up until recently which ended with the Crown Act of 2013 and left the succession to the Crown to the eldest child regardless of gender. Also, concurrent with the settling into the tradition of male preferred primogeniture, came the rise of Parliament which also tried influence the crown in matters of succession. When Henry IV (1399-1412) usurped the crown from Richard II (1377-1399) he had his kingship sanctioned by Parliament to give his reign legal status.

Even when monarchs such as Henry VIII (1509-1547) and his son Edward VI (1547-1553) tried to alter the succession they were unable to assert their will without Parliamentary approval. Henry tried to exclude the descendants of the union of his sister Margaret to King James IV of Scotland and Edward tried to bypass his sister Mary and give the throne to his cousin, Lady Jane Grey. In each case Parliament either ignored the king’s will, as was the case with the union of Margaret to King James IV of Scotland, and Parliament did not sanction altering the succession that Edward VI attempted. This was another reason Lady Jane is considered a usurper.

Queen Elizabeth I (1558-1603) was the last monarch who had power to name her successor given the fact that she left no heir. This was a power she refused to use as she did not name her successor, although historians debate whether or not she did name her distant cousin, King James VI of Scotland, as her successor. In 1679 King Charles II of England, Scotland and Ireland actually stopped Parliament from removing his brother, James, Duke of York from the succession due to his Catholicism via the Exclusion Bill. The almost lead to another English civil war.

The Duke of York became King James II-VII of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1685 and it was his abandonment of the throne in 1688 which lead to Parliament calling William III of Orange and Princess Mary, daughter of the deposed king, to the throne which they held jointly. This was made legal with the passing of the English Bill of Rights in 1689. With the Passing of the Act of Settlement in 1701, which regulated the throne to the Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, Parliament has held the power to regulate the succession to the crown ever since.

Although not England, even the great powerful Louis XIV of France and Navarre (1643-1715), an absolute monarch, was unable to alter the succession to the French throne when he wanted to give succession rights to his legitimized children after the Princes of the Blood. This demonstrates how difficult it is for a monarch to alter the succession to the crown.

I hope this short history lesson demonstrates why the Queen cannot alter the succession to the crown by giving the throne to the Duke of Cambridge bypassing the Prince of Wales.

Wonderful picture of HM the Queen with HRH The Prince of Wales!

Tags

Elizabeth II, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Photograph, Prince Charles, Royal Family, the prince of Wales, The Queen

Taken earlier this year! Not sure who took this picture but it is wonderful! Wonderful picture of HM the Queen with HRH The Prince of Wales!

EDIT: Info from my friend Karen. The photo was taken by photographer Nick Knight back in May, in the White Drawing Room at Windsor Castle before the night of the celebrations at the Royal Windsor Horse Show.

Baptism of HRH The Prince of Wales; December 15, 1948.

Tags

Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven (Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine), Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Mary, The Earl of Athlone, the prince of Wales

One of the things I enjoy about the history of royalty is when I can connect todays royal family to the Victorian Era. On this date Prince Charles of Edinburgh (future Prince of Wales) was Baptized. The Prince of Wales was baptized in the Music Room of Buckingham Palace on 15 December 1948. At his birth on 14 November 1948, Charles was the first child of HRH Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh (later Queen Elizabeth II), and HRH Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh, and the first grandchild of King George VI and Queen Elizabeth of the UK.

In the back row of this photograph are: (left to right) Patricia Mountbatten, the Lady Brabourne, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, HM King George VI, the Hon David Bowes-Lyon (his maternal great-uncle), HG Alexander Cambridge, Earl of Athlone, brother of Queen Mary, who stood proxy for King Haakon VII of Norway.

In the front: (left to right) Victoria Mountbatten, the Dowager Marchioness of Milford Haven (his paternal great-grandmother), who was born HGDH Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, the eldest daughter of Grand Duke Ludwig IV of Hesse and by Rhine and his wife Princess Alice of the United Kingdom (second daughter of Queen Victoria), HRH Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh (holding Prince Charles) Queen Mary, Princess Margaret.

Pictured below. HGDH Princess Victoria of Hesse and by Rhine, paternal great-grandmother of HRH The Prince of Wales.

Kate Middleton? NO, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge!

Tags

Kate Middleton, Prince Charles, Prince William, styles, The Duchess of Cambridge, titles, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

After more than five years of marriage to HRH The Duke of Cambridge, his wife, the former Kate Middleton, is still often called Kate Middleton or many other incorrect titles. Her correct title, simply is, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. I swear if by some unfortunate tragedy the Duke of Cambridge were to wake up tomorrow to find that he is the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain the press and others would still call his wife Kate Middleton!

She is a Princess of the United Kingdom via her marriage to HRH The Duke of Cambridge, but because she was not born a member of the royal family she is not entitled to be called Princess Catherine. That right is reserved for women who are the daughter of the sovereign or the granddaughter of the sovereign in the male line. (an exception has been made for little Princess Charlotte of Cambridge who is a great-granddaughter of the sovereign in the male line…more on that in another post).

This was the same case/situation for the late Diana, Princess of Wales (her correct title after the divorce). While Diana was married to HRH The Princes of Wales her correct title was, again simply,  HRH The Princess of Wales. Since Diana was not born either as daughter of the sovereign or the granddaughter of the sovereign in the male line it was not correct to call her “Princess Diana.”

The press never got that right and that is why they and others flounder in what to call the wife of the Duke of Cambridge…Duchess Kate: Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge (this way of referring to her indicates she is divorced for that is how Diana was referred to after her divorce): Princess Catherine: Princess Kate and a combination of all the above. All are wrong. Her correct style is, Her Royal Highness, and her correct title is…The Duchess of Cambridge. That is it! If you have a peerage title you are known by that peerage title (along with the style His or Her Royal Highness in the case of the royal family members that hold peerage titles) and not your first name. If you are a wife of a peer you take the feminine form of your husband’s title…in the case of the lovely lady formerly known as Kate Middleton, the title is Duchess of Cambridge.

In the future HRH The Duchess of Cambridge will be known as HRH The Princess of Wales when her father-in-law (the current Prince of Wales) becomes king and eventually invests his son as Prince of Wales. Further in the future, and God willing, when the Duke of Cambridge becomes King, as King William V of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (assuming he doesn’t select another regnal name) and the simple correct way to refer to him will be, His Majesty the King, and his his wife’s correct style and tittle will be Her Majesty The Queen. So lets stop calling her Kate Middleton.

Maybe tomorrow or very soon I will write a post on the history of titles and their correct forms and usage.

Lines of Succession to the Throne.

Tags

Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Andrew, Prince Charles, Prince Edward, Prince Philip, Princess Anne, Queen Elizabeth II, the Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, the prince of Wales, The Princess Royal

Today will begin a new series on how the line of succession has changed over the years. I will pick random and important dates and will examine who was in line for the throne at that time. Although my main focus will be the British line of succession I will also include other monarchies from time to time. Although this is a new series I won’t be doing it week-to-week, it will reoccur randomly.

At first there was just four. It was mid 1977 when I began to research the royal family and the Kings and Queens of Britain. At that time there were just four descendants of HM. The Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. These four were also the top four in line to the succession to the throne:

1. HRH The Prince of Wales
2. HRH The Prince Andrew
3. HRH The Prince Edward
4. HRH The Princess Anne

Except for the Prince Charles, none of the Queen’s children had any titles yet. Princess Anne would not be given her title, The Princess Royal, until ten years later in 1987. Prince Andrew and Prince Edward would not be given their titles until they married. In 1977 the Queen had been on the throne 25 years and it was also the year of her Silver Jubilee. Her Majesty was 51 years old (the same age as I am now) and would be a first time grandmother that November when Princess Anne would give birth to her first child Peter Philips.

Flash forward 38 years and a lot has changed! Her Majesty is now 89 and has celebrated her Golden Jubilee celebrating 50 years on the throne in 2002 and her Diamond Jubilee in 2012 celebrating 60 years on the throne. This September The Queen will be on the throne one day longer than Queen Victoria and will be come Britain’s longest reigning monarch at 63 years, 217 days. Instead of her descendents occupying the first four places in the succession they now occupy the first 17 places in line for the succession! Here they are in order.

1. HRH The Prince of Wales
2. HRH The Duke of Cambridge
3. HRH Prince George of Cambridge
4. HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
5. HRH Prince Henry of Wales
6. HRH The Duke of York
7. HRH Princess Beatrice of York
8. HRH Princess Eugenie of York
9. HRH The Earl of Wessex
10. Lord Severn
11. Lady Louise Windsor
12. HRH The Princess Royal
13. Peter Philips
14. Savannah Phillips
15. Isla Phillips
16. Zara Tindall
17. Mia Tindall

It is very interesting to see how the line of succession changes over the years. It is fascinating to compare today’s line of succession to February, 1952 just prior to the death of HM King George VI.

1. HRH The Prince Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh
2. HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh
3. HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh
4. HRH The Princess Margaret
5. HRH The Duke of Gloucester (Prince Henry)
6. HRH Prince William of Gloucester
7. HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester
8. HRH The Duke of Kent (Prince Edward)
9. HRH Prince Michael of Kent
10. HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
11. The Princess Royal, Mary, Countess of Harewood
12. The Rt Hon The Earl of Harewood
13. David Viscount Lascelles
14. Gerald Lascelles
15. HH Princess Alexandra, 2nd Duchess of Fife
16. James Carnegie, 3rd Duke of Fife
17. HM King Olav V of Norway

Today, 63 years later only the top two remain in the top twenty inline for the throne. The Prince of Wales (HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh at the time) moved up one place and has remained. His sister, The Princess Royal (HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh at the time) has gone from 3 (she was actually at number 2 until the birth of the Duke of York in 1960) to number 12. The next living member on the list is number 7, HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester, the current HRH The Duke of Gloucester who moved to his current 24th inline to the throne. Incidentally, the Duke of Gloucester is the youngest grandchild of King George V and Queen Mary. He is the first inline to the throne who is not descended from King George VI. He is also the senior male line descendant of Queen Victoria.

HRH Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge

Tags

Constitutional Monarchy, Diana, Duke of Edinburgh, Elizabeth II, George III, George IV, King George V of Great Britain, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Princess of Wales, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the prince of Wales

Some interesting facts about the new Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and the history of the name in the Biritish Royal Family.

Princess Charlotte is 4th in line to the throne after her grandfather, The Prince of Wales, her father, the Duke of Cambridge, and her brother Prince George of Cambridge. Should she have a younger brother he will not supplant her in the line of succession due to the change in succession laws. She is the first female in line to the throne. She will only be supplanted in the succession if and when her brother Prince Gorge of Cambridge has children in the future. God forbid anything happening to Prince George of Cambridge, but if it did Charlotte would become her father’s heir and eventually Queen Regnant. This would happen even if Charlotte were to have younger brothers.

She is the first Princess of Cambridge born since 1833 when HRH Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge (1833-1897) was born. Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge was the daughter of HRH Prince Adolphus-Frederick, Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850) (7th son of King George III) and HSH Princess Augusta of Hesse-Cassel (1797-1889). Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge was a first cousin of Queen Victoria and married Francis, Duke of Teck (1837-1900) in 1866. Their daughter, Mary of Teck (1867-1953) married the future King George V of the United Kingdom 1893 making her the grandmother of Queen Elizabeth II. This means that Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge is the great-great-great-great grandmother of the newest Princess of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge.

There have been other Princesses named Charlotte in the Royal Family. First of all there was Queen Charlotte (1744-1818) wife of King George III of the United Kingdom. Queen Charlote was born HSH Princess Sophia-Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and daughter of Duke Carl-Ludwig of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1708-1752) and HSH Princess Elizabeth of Saxe-Hildburghausen (1713-1761). It has been said that Queen Mary resembled her great-grandmother Queen Charlotte and that in turn, Queen Elizabeth II resembles Queen Mary and conversely, Queen Charlotte.

The eldest daughter of King George III and Queen Charlotte was HRH The Princess Charlotte, The Princess Royal (1762-1828). In the future she would marry King Friedrich of Würrtemberg (1754-1816) as his second wife. This is the same royal dynasty that produced Francis, Duke of Teck.

King George III’s eldest son, the future George IV (1761-1820), had only one daughter, Princess Charlotte of Wales (1796-1817) from his disastrous marriage with his cousin Princess Caroline of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. In 1817 Charlotte married HSH Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. Sadly, Princess Charlotte of Wales never lived to succeed her father as Queen. She died in childbirth in 1817. Her husband went on to be elected King of the Belgians in 1831.

Another aspect of the birth of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge is that everyone in line after her takes one step back in the sucession. Princess Charlotte’s uncle, Prince Harry of Wales, is now 5th in line to throne. He was born 3rd in line. But who it affects most is Princess Beatrice of York who falls beck to 7th in line to the throne. Under the new laws of succession only the first 6 in line to the throne have to seek permission of the Sovereign to marry. This means that Princess Beatrice of York does not have to ask the Queen permission to marry. Should the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have another child this would push the Duke of York to 7th inline to the throne meaning he would no longer need his mother’s permission to marry once again.

Lastly, The Duke of Cambridge’s uncle, The Earl Spencer, has a two year old daughter named Lady Charlotte Diana Spencer. So the name Charlotte has a strong history behind it!

Is Royalty a Controversial and Complicated subject?

Tags

Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Earl of Chester, High Steward of Scotland, King George VI, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Merge with the crown, Prince Charles, Prince Harry, Prince Henry of Wales, Prince of Wales, Prince Philip, Princess Beatrice, Princess Elizabeth of York, Proper usage of titles, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Queen, titles

You would think this was harmless and fun without much controversy… but you’d be wrong!! You wouldn’t know it from reading the comments on this blog because they are 99% very positive. However, I also run my own royal history page on Facebook (link below) and while that page is also pretty civil you will see some squabbling from time to time. If you’re on Facebook you can follow that page if you’d like.

https://www.facebook.com/EuropeanRoyalHistory

I would to mention a few of my observations to why discussing royalty can be controversial.

1. First of all not everyone is following royalty for the same reasons. Plus, some peoples interest in the topic may not be as deep or as intense as others which lead me to this observation. Before I relate what it is I want to say, I imply no judgment at all. It seems there are two groups of people that are interested in royalty. One group, I call royalty watchers, follow royalty like they would follow any celebrity, be they an actor or an actress, singer or musician or sports figure. Often, as I have observed, many of these types of royalty watchers began watching royalty due to the influence of Diana, Princess of Wales. Therefore, there interest may be limited to The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry of Wales, and may be extended to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh and other immediate members of the British Royal Family. But there is a limited focus and interest.

2. The other group that are interested in royalty are like myself, they are more of an historian than royalty as celebrity watcher. That means often our knowledge and interest is not just with the British Monarchy (although it may be our favorite) or the current British Royal Family; our interests stretch far back into history and across all monarchies of Europe and even the world. Again, both groups are fine. If you’re interest is not that deep, whatever level you enjoy royalty is fine!

The problem, as I have observed, these two groups often clash.

3. It seems as if they clash over two areas. These two areas are Diana, Princess of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) and the knowledge and usage of titles and correctly addressing the members of the royal family. I apologize for generalizing the situation so if you don’t fit in these categories I understand. It seems the more historical minded people have no problem accepting the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) into the royal family and seeing her one day being queen along side her husband, future King Charles III. The more casual royalty watcher, those that began watching royalty due to the influence of Diana, Princess of Wales, tend to still hold Diana in very high esteem and cannot stand either the Prince of Wales or the Duchess of Cornwall (Camilla) very much. With some there is outright hated. So that can be a controversial topic and an area of conflict.

Another topic that is surprisingly controversial is the usage of titles. Now, I must admit the proper usage of styles and titles is a bit confusing and can take a while to learn, but it can be done. I have found that the more historically minded the royalty watcher they generally do know this information. What I see in the casual royalty enthusiasts can be divided into three categories: a) There are those who do not understand the proper usage of titles or the laws governing how titles are created and inherited and what happens to some of them when the heir to the throne becomes the sovereign or the title becomes extinct. This group is eager to learn about these things. b) The second group may have some knowledge on the subject but they are grossly misinformed and are often wrong. I find this group to be a challenge to deal with because they often do not like to be corrected when they’re wrong and will often stubbornly cling to their misinformation. c) That last group are the very casual royalty watcher who could care less about this topic!

The proper usage of titles and the rules and laws governing them was a big interest of mine so I don’t think I am being too pedantic about this topic considering how much misinformation there is and given the fact that there are people that do want to understand how the system works. Someone has to set an example or all we get is this misinformation! Even keep in mind often the American media and even the British media gets this stuff wrong!!! (even a King got it wrong once)*

Here is a quick run down about how to refer to the members of the royal family. One thing many royalty watchers get upset about is the fact that the press on both sides of the pond still call the wife of Prince William (HRH The Duke of Cambridge) Kate Middleton!! The proper way to refer to the wife of HRH The Duke of Cambridge is, simply, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. It is not Princess Catherine or Duchess Catherine. You do not call members of royalty by their first name if they have a peerage title. For example, its not proper to say “Prince Charles” he is to be called HRH The Prince of Wales. It is alright to drop the HRH and call him the Prince of Wales.

We do not call the Queen, Queen Elizabeth or just Elizabeth, it is proper to refer to her as Her Majesty, The Queen or simply The Queen. Her husband is not to be called “Prince Philip”, he is to be referred by his title, HRH The Duke of Edinburgh. Now if members of the royal family are not the sovereign and they do not have a peerage title, you refer to them by their style Prince of Princess, their first name and the territorial designation they would inherit from their father. For example, Prince Harry is officially, HRH Prince Henry of Wales because he is the son of the Prince of Wales. The Duke of Cambridge was HRH Prince William of Wales until he received his peerage title.

Princess Beatrice is HRH Princess Beatrice of York because her father is HRH The Duke of York. The Queen, incidentally, was born HRH Princess Elizabeth of York for at the time of her birth her father, future King George VI, was HRH The Duke of York.

For those Princes or Princess without a peerage title to be able to use the predicate “The” in front of their name is reserved only for the sons and daughters of the sovereign. For example, if tomorrow the Prince of Wales were to ascend the throne as king, HRH Prince Henry of Wales would then become HRH The Prince Henry. He would be known as that until he is given a peerage title. Also, if the Prince of Wales were to be king tomorrow, the Duke of Cambridge would automatically inherit the titles Duke of Cornwall in the Peerage of England and the titles Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, and High Stewardship of Scotland, which are the Heir Apparent’s titles in the Peerage of Scotland. The titles Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester are not hereditary and would merge with the crown when the current Prince of Wales becomes king. King Charles III would then be able to re-create his son Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester whenever he sees fit. Until then he known by his double peerage titles while in England, HRH The Duke of Cornwall and Cambridge.

That is only the tip of the iceberg. I am sure I will type more about this in the future. Suffice it to say whenever the question of titles and its rules and regulations come up there is often some misinformation which leads to debate and conflict. I don’t claim to be the font of all knowledge on this topic for I am still learning myself. I know a few royal authors that know quite a bit more than I.

Even sometimes the sovereign himself doesn’t know the rules! * In 1947, Prince Phillip of Greece and Denmark renounced his Greek and Danish titles to become a British subject (something he already was, but that is another story) in order to marry the heiress presumptive to the throne, HRH Princess Elizabeth of York. He became Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten (taking the Anglicized name of the Princely House of Battenberg that his mother was from). The day before the wedding King George VI endowed Philip with the style His Royal Highness and the titles, Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, and Baron Greenwich. However, this did not create him a Prince of the United Kingdom as many, including the King, thought! Despite renouncing his Greek and Danish titles (not legally recognized in Britain anyway) HRH The Duke of Edinburgh was not a Prince! But that didn’t stop the press from continuing to refer to him as Prince Philip. I have a book on the royal family from 1951, a year HRH The Duchess of Edinburgh became queen, and it refers incorrectly to the Duke of Edinburgh as “Prince Philip.”

Some say King George VI did this intentionally and that is the point of debate. However, the matter was left unsettled for ten years. Various dignitaries of State suggested titles for the Duke of Edinburgh. They ranged from Prince Consort, the title Prince Albert, husband of Queen Victoria held, to the unusual, Prince of the Commonwealth or  Prince of the Realm. The Duke of Edinburgh himself did not want any elevation of his titles. In the end The Queen, issued Letters Patent on February 22, 1957 giving her husband the style and titular dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He has henceforth been known as His Royal Highness, The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, with the capitalized definite article “The”normally restricted to the children of the Sovereign.

I guess it can get complicated and no wonder titles can be quite the controversial subject!!!

Happy Tenth Wedding Anniversary to the Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall: Time to Heal

Tags

Diana, Diana Princess of Wales, HM Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, Prince Charles, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, the prince of Wales

It has been 10 years since the Prince of Wales married Camilla Parker-Bowles at Windsor Guildhall.  After 10 years the marriage seems as strong as ever and I personally think that HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is an excellent companion and spouse for her husband. This marriage was not without controversy and many were not only against this marriage they are against the Duchess of Cornwall becoming queen upon the succession to the throne by the Prince of Wales.

Although the Duchess of Cornwall is legally the Princess of Wales it is a title she doesn’t use out of deference to the late Diana, Princess of Wales. Clarence House announced at the time of the marriage that when the Prince of Wales becomes king the Duchess of Cornwall will be called HRH The Princess Consort instead of Queen. Now the truth is the Duchess will legally be Queen and that it will take an Act of Parliament to remove the title Queen from the Duchess. Despite a growing attitude that more people want the Duchess to be queen it still seems like a controversial topic.

http://royalcentral.co.uk/charlesandcamilla/half-of-brits-want-camilla-to-be-queen-new-poll-shows-47011

I am an American and most of my observation on this topic comes from social media. I belong to several groups and pages dedicated to royalty (I even run one myself) and this is still a hot topic for both sides. There seems to be an equal mix of those that support the Duchess and those that…well, there is no other way to put it….they hate her! The hatred comes from what I call overzealous Diana supporters. The sad thing to me about all of this is the fact that it has been eighteen years since Diana, Princess of Wales died and there are some who have not, or will not, let go of their hatred. I just don’t think holding onto that much anger or resentment is healthy. My thought is, if Diana had lived she would have forgiven the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall and moved on with her life, possibly even remarried. So I wonder why those that still love and support her do not let go of their anger like she would have?

Her sons, The Duke of Cambridge and Prince Henry of Wales, have accepted the Duchess of Cornwall as have Her Majesty the Queen and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and the rest of the royal family. They all know her more intimately than any of us, so I trust their judgment. From all accounts that I have read the Duchess of Cornwall is a kind and caring woman. She is much better suited for the Prince of Wales than Diana was. That is a sad truth and that takes nothing away from the good heart and loving caring ways in which Diana, Princess of Wales lived her life. I also loved and admired Diana, Princess of Wales and that leads me to my closing point.

There is enough love to go around for both of them. In my life one of the things that gives me meaning is seeking healing. I long for people to heal on the inside and I long to help heal the discord between people. A lot of time has passed and it is time to heal the rift between those that support the Duchess of Cornwall and those that still remember fondly Diana, Princess of Wales. For me the bigger picture is the future of the monarchy. And as I said at the conclusion of my series, Survival of Monarchies, the monarch rules by the will of the people and if the divide continues and is very vocal it could have a negative affect on the monarchy.

The Duchess of Cornwall is a great support for the Prince of Wales and I think she has shown herself to be an important member of the royal family. It is time to heal and let us all show support for the entire royal family and be grateful they are still around providing welcome service to their country. Here is wishing the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall a happy tenth wedding anniversary and praying for more happy years to come!

Queen Camilla?

Tags

Camilla Parker Bowles, James, Lady Louise Windsor, Louise of Wessex, Prince Charles, Prince James of Wessex, Queen Elizabeth II, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Earl of Wessex, the prince of Wales, Viscount Severn

This is a controversial topic. When The Prince of Wales married the present Duchess of Cornwall in April of 2005 it was decided that instead of being called HRH The Princess of Wales (a title that is legally hers) she would instead use one of the Prince of Wales’ other titles, Duke of Cornwall, and that she would be known as the Duchess of Cornwall. It was also announced at the time that when Charles becomes king the Duchess of Cornwall will beknown as HRH The Princess Consort instead of Her Majesty the Queen.

There has been great debate whether or not Her Majesty the Queen needs to issue new letters patent for these titles to be legal. Some argue that as the Font of all Honours the queen’s word is just as legally binding as any official decree or letters patent. Camilla is the Princess of Wales even though she does not use that title. However, I have read that in the situation with the Duchess of Cornwall not being queen when her husband becomes king, it would actually take and Act of Parliament to strip her of her title. This is something I do not think will be done.

It seems as if the queen is doing the same thing with the Duchess of Cornwall that was done with the Children of TRH The Earl and Countess of Wessex. Allowing her to use a lesser title despite legally holding a higher title. The children of The Earl and Countess of Wessex are legally entitled, per the 1917 Letters Patent issued by King George V, to be styled and titled HRH Prince or Princess of Great Britain as grandchildren of the sovereign in the male line. In this case their eldest daughter is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and their son is HRH Prince James of Wessex. These titles have not been legally stripped from them, it was simply announced they just would not use their royal styles and titles.

Therefore, despite the agreement made when the Prince of Wales married the Duchess of Cornwall she will, in fact, be Queen of the United Kingdom when her husband becomes king, she just will not use that title. The question I am asking is should she be allowed to be called queen, her rightful title?

I have mixed feelings on the subject. On the one hand I say yes. I think the Duchess of Cornwall has led a fine example of being a supportive consort to the Prince of Wales and would make an excellent Queen Consort. On the other hand I also know that constitutional monarchies need the support of the people. From my understanding is that although the Duchess of Cornwall has risen greatly in poularity since her marriage to the Prince of Wales there is still considerable objections by a number of people who do not support the Duchess of Cornwall becoming queen. So in this instance, despite my feelings, I need to bow to public opinion as it is today. Will that opinion change? I certainly hope so. I still think there is enough time for the Duchess of Cornwall to win over the hearts of the people and to take her righful position by her husbands side on the throne.