21 Wednesday Dec 2016
Posted in From the Emperor's Desk, In the News today...
BREAKING NEWS: The Queen has cancelled her plans to travel to Sandringham today.
Further details to follow when available.
I do not want to be an alarmist, but when I first saw the picture attached here, I didn’t think Her Majesty looked too well. I hope this is nothing and that things will be alright.
Queen Cancels Plans due to illness.
09 Friday Dec 2016
Tags
1066, 2066, Battle of Hastings, Duke of Normandy, England, Harold Godwinson, Kingdom of England, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen of England, William I of England, William the Bastard
Okay, I am a few months behind on this. The Norman Conquest of England occurred on October 14, 1066. The Battle of Hastings was fought between the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy (who became King William I of England) and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold II Godwinson, beginning the Norman conquest of England. That was 950 years ago. In 50 years from now, the year 2066, this historic even will celebrate its 1,000th anniversary. Will this be something to celebrate or not?
Maybe celebrate is not the correct word? How about honor…or even mark the date? No matter how you want to note this historic event the topic is very controversial. Even though this was a significant date that forever changed England’s entire culture, language and structure of society; this event helped shape England and the United Kingdom into what it is today. The truth is, this is the date when England was conquered and defeated and then occupied by a foreign power. Who wants to celebrate or honor that!?
However, is there anything positive that can be acknowledged on this anniversary? Without the Norman Conquest England would have developed very differently. Certainly the end result of this conquest, the by product of this invasion, is something to honor? The monarchy itself, although it did exist pre-1066, also was significantly changed and a descendant of William the Conqueror sits on the throne today. In fact, many people alive in Britain are descendants of William the Conqueror.
Much of this is speculative. In 50 years I will be 103 so chances are I will not be here, but you never know!? I am sure the occasion will be marked in someway and maybe a balance can be found and the good and the bad from this can be acknowledged.
09 Wednesday Sep 2015
Posted in Uncategorized
Tags
Elizabeth II, Longest Ruling Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria, Silver Jubilee
When I began my interest in British and European Royalty back in 1977 Queen Victoria had been Britain’s longest ruling monarch. Her Majesty, the Queen, had celebrated her Silver Jubilee, 25 years on the throne, and the thought of her becoming Britain’s longest ruling monarch and breaking her great-great-grandmother’s record was not on my mind. In 1989 Her Majesty passed Henry VIII of England’s 37 years on the throne and it was then I thought that maybe someday, in 2015 I calculated, she could become Britain’s longest ruling monarch. In 1989 the year 2015 seemed like a life-time away. In 1997 the Queen passed her name sake, Queen Elizabeth I’s 44 year reign and seeing how good her health was and the fact that her mother, Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was 97 at the time and still going strong, lead me to believe this historic event could be achieved.
It has been a long time coming and now it is here. I do have to say that because the Victorian Era has been one of my favorite eras to study I do greet this day with a little sadness but I am happy to see the queen reach this historic milestone in her reign.
During her reign Her Majesty has shown herself to be the very picture of a dedicated, hardworking, constitutional monarch. Congratulations your majesty on reaching this historical milestone! May her majesty continue to reign for a long long time.
Historically speaking, since she is the longest ruling monarch in British history she has five more years to beat HIM Emperor Franz-Joseph of Austria-Hungary’s 68 years and nine more to beat Louis XIV of France and Navarre’s 72 years on the throne.
21 Tuesday Apr 2015
Posted in Happy Birthday
Tags
Constitutional Monarchy, Elizabeth II, Happy Birthday, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom
Today Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II turns 89! Happy birthday!
In a few short months Her Majesty will become the longest reigning monarch in British history when she will beat, by one day, the 63 years, 216 days, that her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria reigned. So I want to take a moment and recognize what a great monarch Elizabeth has been over the years. During the 1990s when her children were causing so many negative stories in the paper Her Majesty never missed a step. It has been a pretty flawless reign where she has maintained the dignity of the crown. At 89 Her Majesty is still going strong and I hope she can continue for many more years.
I have said this before but it bears repeating. Here in the US in 2016 we will have an election for President, our Head of State and Head of the Government, so as candidates have already started running I have 20 months of mudslinging and attacks and hatred being spewed by both parties to look forward to. One of the reasons I admire the British system is that it has evolved to where the Head of State and Head of the Government are separate. Leaving the mud slinging to the politicians gives the chance for the Head of State to be the Symbol of the Nation for all people not just those of a specific political party. So I think the British people are fortunate to have a Head of State that embodies all that is good about Britain and I hope the British people do appreciate her hard work, service and dedication to her people. You are fortunate to have her. Happy Birthday your Majesty and long may you reign and God Save the Queen!
23 Tuesday Jul 2013
Posted in In the News today..., Royal Genealogy
Tags
Buckingham Palace, Duchess of Cambridge, Elizabeth II, England, Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany, Kaiser Wilhelm II, King James III of England, King Louis XIV of France and Navarre, King Louis XV of France, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales, Wilhelm II of Germany, Winston Churchill
Yesterday was an historic moment. The Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to a royal prince yesterday. This was the first time since Queen Victoria had three direct heirs to the throne. First in line was The Prince of Wales (Edward VII), then came her grandson The Duke of York (George V) and her great-grandson Prince Edward of York (Edward VIII). Queen Victoria actually lived to see George VI, Edward VIII’s brother, but there are not any pictures of her with her son, grandson and both great-grandsons.
There has not been too many monarchs who have lived to see an heir in the third generation. Louis XIV of France and Navarre was one such monarch. He lived to see his great-grandchildren. However, he also outlived most of them and his successor, Louis XV, was one of his great-grandchildren. Wilhelm I, German Emperor & King of Prussia also lived to see three generations of successors. In 1882 his grandson, Prince Wilhelm, future German Emperor Wilhelm II, gave birth to the future Crown Prince Wilhelm. Sadly, Crown Prince Wilhelm was not able to inherit the Royal and Imperial thrones due to the monarchy in Germany being abolished in 1918 at the end of World War I.
It seemed like we waited for a long time for the Duchess of Cambridge to give birth to the new little prince. Now the wait begins to see what the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will name the future King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
So what will the name be? George and James seem to be popular choices right now. Both names have historical precedence in British history. George is the name Elizabeth II’s father chose to reign under, although he was named Albert after having the bad luck of being born on December 14, 1895, the 34 anniversary of the death of his great-grandfather, Prince Albert, the Prince Consort, husband of Queen Victoria. James is the name of Catherine’s brother (as well as the Duke of Cambridge’s cousin, James Viscount Severn, son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex).
If the name James is chosen we will see if Winston Churchill’s suggestion that the highest ordinal between England and Scotland should be used. When England and Scotland shared a monarch they used an ordinal, or regnal number, for both crowns. For example, James VI of Scotland was also James I of England. His grandson was James VII of Scotland and James II of England. This is the only name affected. When Charles I came to both the English and Scottish thrones neither England or Scotland had had a king by that name before. William III of England was William II of Scotland. His wife, Mary II, was also Mary II of England and Scotland, with Mary Stuart being the first queen named Mary in Scotland and Mary Tudor being the first queen named Mary in England.
When the countries were united in 1707 the monarchs were settled in England and Scotland was often ignored by the monarchs. They have followed the English system of numbering kings. The first thee kings of the House of Hanover did not have a problem with their regnal number since neither England or Scotland had kings named George before. There seems to be no controversy in Scotland with William IV and his regnal umber. The first time we begin to see some conflict is with the reigns of both Edward VII and Edward VIII. In Scotland there were times thier regnal numbers were omitted even in the Scottish Church. This issue did become more prominent with the reign of Elizabeth II. Since Elizabeth I of England never ruled over Scotland many in Scotland did not think she should be called Elizabeth II in Scotland. Many things such as mailboxes carrying the II in the royal cypher were defaced or destroyed. This is what prompted Winston Churchill to offer the solution that he did.
If the new baby prince is named James he will be called James VIII of the United Kingdom of Great Britain instead of James III. The name also carries a little controversy seeing that the pretender to the throne, James Francis, son of deposed king James II-VII of England and Scotland was also called James III-VIII by himself and his supporters. But that was centuries ago I am sure there wouldn’t be a problem now. It also follows that if the prince is named Richard, he will be Richard IV since there was not one named Richard who was king of Scotland. However, if he is named Robert or Alexander he would be Robert IV or Alexander IV since there have been three kings of Scotland with that name respectively.
Although we cannot predict the future the new little prince will not sit on the throne for a very long long time. Her Majesty the Queen is still going strong at the age of 87. Her son, the Prince of Wales is also healthy at the age of 64 and at the age of 31 the Duke of Cambridge will also likely see a long life. So it is possible that the new royal prince will not sit on the throne until he is in his 50s or 60s.
It will be interesting to see what the new baby will be named. Whatever the name shall be I wish the new baby prince a long healthy and happy life!
12 Friday Jul 2013
Posted in From the Emperor's Desk
Tags
Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, England, King Richard III of England, King Robert III of Sctoland, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Queen Victoria of Great Britain, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales
I have been on a few royalty related sites and message boards as people are guessing what the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will name their child. From my research it seems that George is the front-runner for the name of a boy and Elizabeth is the popular guess for the name of a girl. These names are very traditional. If these are the names selected then in time this new royal scion of the House of Windsor would be either King George VII or Queen Elizabeth III depending on the gender of the child.
Will the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge select a traditional name? I have a hunch, and it is only a hunch, that the royal couple will select a name that they like and it that will also be proper and within the bonds of tradition. Yet I think it will be a name that might not be among the kings and queens of Britain from the past. The Duke of Cambridge has demonstrated an independent nature most of his life. He did not even want a royal title until Her Majesty the Queen pointed out to him that without a royal title his wife would be known as Princess William of Wales.
Even the queen herself was a bit of a non-traditionalist when it came to selecting names. Charles and Anne, names more associated with the House of Stuart than the House of Hanover/Coburg/Windsor, was traditional and refreshingly new at the same time since those names had not been used in the royal family for quite some time. Even naming Princes Andrew after the Duke of Edinburgh’s father, Prince Andreas of Greece and Denmark, walked that fine line between tradition and something new.
Another break with tradition that I feel will continue is not naming a child after a living member of the royal family. During the Victorian era, for example, there were many princesses named after Queen Victoria all living at the same time. The future Edward VII was originally named Albert-Edward and his eldest son, The Duke of Clarence, was named Albert-Victor. Edward VII’s brothers, Alfred and Arthur, each had their eldest sons named after them. In our media saturated culture it may be deemed confusing for there to be two or more royal princes and princesses with the same first name. That doesn’t mean this child won’t be named William, Charles, Henry or Philip if it is a boy; or Elizabeth, Catherine or Anne if it is a girl, it just makes it less likely.
Myself, I have many guesses for the name of the child. I would like to see the name George used or either Victoria or Elizabeth for a girl. I am also open to names from the past that have not been used in a while, such as, Richard, Robert, Alexander, Alexandra, Charlotte and Mary.
In a short while all our questions will be answered and I do want to close with saying that what we all can agree on is that the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge be healthy and happy.
11 Thursday Apr 2013
Posted in From the Emperor's Desk
Tags
Margaret Thatcher, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales, Willem-Alexander of the netherlands
April is turning out to be an interesting month and there are many things going on in the world of royalty. At the end of this month the Netherlands will have a new monarch as Queen Beatrix hands over the reigns to her son, Willem-Alexander. The Spanish monarchy is in deep trouble. The popularity of King Juan Carlos is at an all time low and while Spain suffers great economic hardships, his daughter, Infanta Cristina, is being called to testify about her husband’s dirty dealings. On a positive note everyone is watching HRH The Duchess of Cambridge as her “baby bump” grows. (God I hate that term!). Also, Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, celebrates her 87 birthday this month!
I belong to several royalty groups on Facebook and there are many growing concerns for the Spanish monarchy. As I stated in an earlier blog entry the House of Bourbon has had a difficult time on the Spanish throne. So is it time for the king to abdicate to his son, Felipe, Prince of Asturias while there is still a throne to pass on? Often when I look at the downfall of monarchies I wonder where the point of no return is. Is the Spanish crown at that point? Are things as troublesome as they seem for the Spanish crow, or is it just media hype?
At the end of the month HM Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands will abdicate after 33 year on the throne. I have mixed feelings about this. First of all I think she is a model of a great constitutional monarch. She has done an excellent job so I really hate to see her go. On the other hand as people are living much longer, and abdication is a tradition in the Netherlands, who am I to begrudge Her Majesty of a peaceful and relaxing retirement. It is also exciting to see the Netherlands have a King for the first time in 123 years. The last king, Willem III, died in 1890. I am a little disappointed that the new king will not call himself Willem IV. As a consolation I do like double names. I look forward with eagerness to the inauguration of the new king on April 30.
This past week TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (as TRH the Earl and Countess of Countess of Strathearn, their Scottish titles) visited Glasgow. The Countess looked stunning. With the her husband reducing, or leaving all together, his military duties, it seems they will be embarking on more royal duties. I would like to see them and the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall take on more duties for the Queen. Her Majesty turns 87 on April 21, and although I would love to see her continue on with her duties I would love to see them slow down and relax a bit more. As we get closer to the due date of the Duchess of Cambridge I will be putting up a poll so we can all guess the name of the new royal baby.
Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher died and next week will be the funeral and the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh will attend. This is unusual for the queen for she rarely attends funerals. There was some flack about lowering the Union Jack for Baroness Thatcher. When the Queen is in residence at Buckingham Palace the Royal Standard is raised. When she is not in residence in the Palace the Royal Standard is lowered and the flag pole remained empty. The Royal Standard is never lowered to half-mast. Starting with the death of Diana, Princess of Wales the Union Jack has flown over Buckingham Palace upon the death of a notable person. The Union Jack was lowered to half-mast following September 11 and London bombings (7th July 2005). This is a new tradition and I think it is one that shows respect and empathy.
Yes, there are interesting times and many thing to watch for!
19 Tuesday Feb 2013
Posted in Royal Genealogy
Tags
England, Henry II of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Leicester, Plantagenet, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Richard III Society, The College of Arms, Tudor, Westminster Abbey, Westminster Cathedral, Windsor Castle
Now we come to the succession of one of England’s most controversial kings. I already posted a blog entry about his character so this post will be how Richard obtained the throne of England.
In his late 30s Edward IV began suffering health problems and when he was 40 died on Easter Sunday 1483. It is not historically known what killed the king but historians suspect Pneumonia and typhoid. He linged before dying and created his youngest brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester as Lord Protector to his son, Edward, then 12 years old. On Edward IV’s death his son became King Edward V.
Next in succession after the new king was his Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York. It does not seem certain that women had sucession rights at this time. If they had succession rights then the new king’s surviving sisters, Elizabeth, Ceciley, Anne, Catherine and Bridget were next in line. This takes care of the descendants of Edward IV. Edward V one surviving paternal uncle Richard, Duke of Gloucester. Before Richard in succession stood the two surviving children of his older brother, George, Duke of Clarence. The two surviving children of the Duke of Clarence were Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick and Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury. There is some question that they had no claim to the throne due to their father being executed for treason.
Therefore, if women had rights to the throne Richard, Duke of Glouster was 10th in line for the English throne upon the death of his brother, Edward IV. If women did not have rights to the throne then Richard was 4th in line to the throne at the death of his brother.
The new King Edward V was at Ludlow in Shropshire when his father died. He and his entourage heaed south to London where they met up with Richard, Duke of Glouster at Stony Stratford. Richard dined with Edward V’s party which consisted of Earl Rivers and Edward’s half-brother, Richard Gerey. The next morning, before heading out to London Richard had Rivers and Grey, along with the king’s chamberlain, Thomas Vaughan, arrested and sent back north. They were all subsequentlycharged with treason and executed. Edward V protested, but to no avail the remainder of his entourage was dismissed and Richard escorted him to London.
Edward V was placed in the Tower of London awating his coronation which was set for June 22 of that year. Shortly after his arrival the kings arrival in the Tower of London, his brother, Richard, Duke of York, was also placed in the Tower. This was not unusual for the tradition at the time was that an uncrowned king would stay in the Tower as much as possible until his coronation. Shortly after the young Duke of York’s arrival the coronation was postponed.
On June 25, 1483 a council, headed by Lord Protector, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, issued an order proclaiming Edward V and his brother Richard, Duke of York to be illegitimate on the grounds that Edward IV had supposedly entered into an agreement (a pre-contract) to marry another woman prior to his marriage with Elizabeth Woodville while this first woman was still alive.
The next day on the basis of this ‘illegitimacy’ Edward V was removed from the throne and his uncle proclaimed king in his place while his younger brother was deprived of his ducal titles which reverted back to the crown. The placing of the Duke of Glouster on the throne as Richard III was later confirmed by an Act of Parliament (Titulus Regius). Richard III named Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick as his hier despite an earler attainer which took away his rights, as stated earlier, due to his father’s execution for treason.
Richard III was clearly a usurper. Edward IV was in a valid marriage and therefore Edward V was legitimate and the legal and lawful king. After Richard III became king, Edward V and his young brother, Richard Duke of York, were seen infrequently until the end of the summer when they were never heard from again.
Richard III died in battle in 1485 when Henry Tudor trook the throne. The legality of Hnery Tudor taking the throne of England was the primary reason I started this series. In next week’s post I will examione the claims of Henry Tudor. On Thursday I will examine what happened to the two young princes in the Tower.
15 Friday Feb 2013
Posted in Featured Monarch
Tags
England, Henry II of England, King Richard III of England, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Leicester, Plantagenet, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Richard III Society, The College of Arms, Tudor, Westminster Abbey, Westminster Cathedral, Windsor Castle
For a king that only ruled England for 2 years Richard III is a very interesting character. He has been in the news a lot recently due to unearthing his skeleton in a parking lot in Leicester, but there has always been a fascination with him among royal enthusiasts and historians. My next entry in the Legal Succession series will examine his mounting the throne of England in 1483. Today I want to take a look at the issues that surround the life of this controversial king.
Richard III was the last Plantagenet king when he died on the battlefield. The dynasty began with King Henry II in 1154 and was England’s longest-serving dynasty. He was replaced by the Tudor dynasty, and as we shall see the Tudor family only had a slim claim to the throne. because the Tudor’s had such a tenuous claim to the English throne they spread a great deal of negative propaganda toward the king they defeated when they took the throne.
Much of what many people know about Richard III comes not from the pens of historians but from the pen of a playwriter, William Shakespeare, who, writing under the watchful eye of Elizabeth I, England’s last Tudor monarch, depicted Richard in a very unfavorable light. We also have the Richard III Society, a group that has existed now for over 90 years that has aimed at a re-assessment of King Richard’s character.
Having studied Richard III myself I must admit he remains a bit of an enigma due to some unresolved issues. Was he a usurper? Did he illegally take the throne from his nephew, King Edward V? Did he have Edward V and his brother, Richard, Duke of York, murdered in the Tower of London? Or were these young princes murdered on the orders of Henry VII who wanted to rid England of any Plantagenet that may be a threat to his throne? Did Richard III, as Duke of Gloucester, murder King Henry VI?
Those are the question that have not been answered. What has been lost to history are the accomplishments of the king. He seems to have been a very able administrator. The Council of the North, established by his brother, Edward IV in 1472, brought economic strength to the commoners of Northern England. Richard III is said to have been instrumental in establishing a court of requests where grievances could be heard by the poor who could not afford a lawyer. He also introduced the concept of bail to protect suspected felons from imprisonment before trial and to protect their property from seizure during the period they awaited trial.
By Royal Charter Richard III founded the The College of Arms or Herald’s College removed the restrictions on printing books and had laws translated from French into English for the common man to understand.
I think when re-evaluating any historical figure hopefully one strives for balance. I do not think Richard III was the monster of Tudor propaganda nor am I ready to canonize him as a saint. I think he was a monarch of his times capable of great achievements along with violence and cruelty when deemed necessary.
As the future burial of his remains are being planned I just want to comment on the attitude from Buckingham Palace on the entire ordeal. It has pretty much remained silent. There seems to be a storm brewing over the remains of the last Plantagenet king. The Towns of both York and Leicester are fighting over where he should be buried. Some members of Parliament desire that Richard III be buried at Westminster Abbey or Windsor Castle with other monarchs. However, since Richard was a Catholic king, many feel he should be interned in the grand Catholic Westminster Cathedral in central London. Despite the attempts to rehabilitate the kings image he is still viewed as a usurper and the one who had the two Princess in the Tower murdered. Although I know many would love to see Elizabeth II attend an elaborate ceremony of the re-burial of an English king, with all of the controversy surrounding the situation, I cannot blame her for keeping a distance.
02 Tuesday Oct 2012
Posted in From the Emperor's Desk
Tags
Buckingham Palace, Civil List, Clarence House, Cost of Monarchy, Elizabeth II, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, King George V of Great Britain, Prince Charles, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Royal Finances
A good friend, George, and a follower of this blog, sent me this NY times article on the redemption of King Juan Carlos of Spain. The king has had a difficult years and Spain is also having its hard economic times. Here in the US we are also experiencing a struggling economy. It is times like this that monarchists like myself get a bit nervous. History has shown that monarchies and crowns, like governments, can collapse due to economic hardships. The Spanish monarchy, although ancient, has been in and out of favor. In the 1870s they experimented with being a Republic and once again the monarchy was abolished in 1931 and would not be officially restored until 1975. There are those that view the Spanish crown as on a probationary period and I wonder how secure the Spanish crown really is?
In these times when monarchs reign and do not rule they are there by the will of the people. In the past monarchs have lived, and some still do, in grand places and had extravagant lifestyles. I think the day is long over when a king of queen being able to live in splendor while their citizens…or subjects…are suffering. Therefore monarchs today need to walk a fine line between the splendor that they and their countrymen are accustomed to. When I look at the extant monarchies today the monarchies of The Netherlands and Denmark seem less ostentatious to me. That may or may not be true.
The cost of monarchies is often one of the main complaints by those who favor a Republican style of government. But looking at the reality of the situation will put this in perspective. I have seen prices ranging from $57 million to $62 million for the running of the British monarchy that tax payers have to pay for. However, I recently read that it costs tax payers $1.4 billion to keep the US President up and going. Granted we are a larger country in both area and population than any of the European states and since I am not a statistician I don’t know how that may compare to the European taxpayer.
I guess my final point is that monarchs today have to not only be frugal with the tax payers money in practice but they also have to give the appearance of frugality. It is funny how times have changed. I have a book about the House of Windsor and it shows King George V on a tiger hunt and there is also a picture of Elizabeth II and The Duke of Edinburgh on a similar hut with a large dead Bengal tiger at their feet. Today the tiger is an endangered species so a tiger hunt would not be tolerated and rightly so. I think this is one of the same reasons why the Elephant hunt was so controversial. People are now more in support of animal rights and protecting wild life and people may not be as tolerate as generations in the past when kings and queens engaged in pastimes that that were more extravagant.
What will the future hold? Will we see more stripped down versions of Europe’s royal families? I am curious to see what the reign of King Charles III of the United Kingdom will be like. There have been rumors ranging from limiting the royal title even further in order to have less family members dependent on the Civil List. I have heard rumors that Charles will not move into Buckingham Palace and will live either in Windsor Castle or stay at Clarence House. Not I am not trying to further fan the flames of rumors or give them weight and credence. What they point to me is there once Charles does become king, hopefully many years from now, there will be changes and I think that financial concerns will be a part of the motives for those changes.
