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 thing is 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 to 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 Hans 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 he held the power and right to name his successor. Although the king did hold this power it 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 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 and ended with the Crown Act of 2013 which left the succession 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.

English or German? Part II

Tags

10th Duke of Beaufort, 1st Duke of Westminster, Duke of Clarance and Avondale, Earl of Eltham, Henry Somerset, Hugh Grosvenor, King Edward VII of Great Britain, King George V of Great Britain, Kingdom of Württemberg, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, Lady Margaret Grosvenor, Lord Cambridge, Marquess of Cambridge, Mary of Teck, Prince Adolphus of Teck, Prince Albert-Victor of Wales, Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Mary, Queen Victoria of Great Britain, Royal Military College, Sandhurst, The Duke of Cambridge, Wellington College, World War I

In Part one we looked at the Cambridge-Teck family and how that even though they were technically a minor German royal family they were born and bred in England. The children of Princess Mary-Adelaide of Cambridge and Franz, Duke of Teck a morganatic scion of the House of Württemberg were all born at Kensington Palace and raised in England. As was had seen in Part one, the eldest daughter, Princess Victoria-Mary, known as May, grew up to become engaged to Prince Albert-Victor of Wales, Duke of Clarence and Avondale (second in line to the British Throne) until his untimely death in 1892. After a suitable mourning period May became engaged to Prince Albert-Victor’s brother, Prince George, Duke of York who became King George V of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in 1910. May chose to be called Queen Mary and became the role model of a dedicated and dignified queen. She was born during the reign of Queen Victoria in 1867 and lived to see her own granddaughter, Queen Elizabeth II, ascend the throne before she passed away in 1953.

Queen Mary’s eldest brother was born HSH Prince Adolphus of Teck. He was educated at Wellington College and then joined the Royal Military College, Sandhurst. At the age of 19, he joined the 17th Lancers,, the regiment of his maternal uncle, HRH Prince George, The Duke of Cambridge, who was the commander-in-chief of the British Army from 1856-1895. Prince Adolphus was promoted Lieutenant in 1893 and transferred to the 1st Life Guards and raised in rank to that of Captain in 1895. In 1897 Queen Victoria created him Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order (KCVO) and in 1901 King Edward VII promoted him to Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order (GCVO).

1894 Prince Adolphus married Lady Margaret Grosvenor, daughter  Hugh Grosvenor, 1st Duke of Westminster Lady Constance Sutherland-Leveson-Gower, (herself the fourth daughter of the 2nd Duke of Sutherland). Prince and Princess Adolphus of Cambridge had four children, Prince George born in 1895, Princess Mary in 1897 (she later married Henry Somerset, 10th Duke of Beaufort of the old Plantagenet line), Princess Helena in 1899 and Prince Frederick in 1907.

In 1900 Prince Franz, Duke of Teck died and Prince Adolphus as the second Duke of Teck and he and his wife were styled HSH The Duke and Duchess of Teck. In 1911 his brother-in-law, King George V, as a gift to mark his own Coronation, granted his cousin the style His Highness. In 1914 with the outbreak of World War I the Duke of Teck returned to military service first serving as a military secretary at the War Office and later as military secretary to the commander-in-chief of the British Expeditionary Forces (B.E.F.) in France, Sir Douglas Haig, with the rank of brigadier general.

In 1917 there was a lot of anti-German feelings in Britain and King George V changed the name of the royal house from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor and further renounced all German titles for himself and members of the British royal family. In response to this the Duke of Teck relinquished his title of Duke of Teck in the Kingdom of Württemberg and the style His Highness. Adolphus, along with his only surviving brother, Prince Alexander of Teck, adopted the name Cambridge, after their grandfather, Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850). The Children of Adophus Cambridge also lost their German princely titles and adopted the surname Cambridge. Shortly thereafter King George bestowed his brother-in-law Marquess of Cambridge, Earl of Eltham, and Viscount Northallerto. These titles were all in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. His elder son took the title Earl of Eltham as a courtesy title, while the younger children became Lord/Lady (Christian Name) Cambridge.

After the war Lord Cambridge made his home in Shropshire after at Shotton Hall near Shrewsbury and had an active socail life. In 1923 he was offered the vacant throne of the Kingdom of Hungary (long-held by the Habsburg family) but he gave this offer no serious consideration. Lord Cambridge died, aged 59, after an intestinal operation in October 1927 at a Shrewsbury nursing home, The was ist Marquess of Cambridge was first buried at St George’s Chapel, Windsor, and later transferred to the Royal Burial Ground, Frogmore. His elder son, the Earl of Eltham, succeeded him as Marquess of Cambridge.

Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner?

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Commoner, Elizabeth II, HRH The Prince of Wales, King George VI, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Peerage, Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh, Prince William, Queen Elizabeth II, Scotland, The Duke of Cambridge, titles

When the Duchess of Cambridge married Prince William of Wales the media spoke about her being a commoner. They were correct. Until her marriage she was indeed a commoner. However, did you know that until Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, created her grandson Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus, that he too was a commoner? What may be even lesser known is that the queen herself, as young Princess Elizabeth, heir presumptive to the throne, was a commoner when she married Lt. Philip Mountbatten, former Prince of Greece and Denmark; and that he was not a commoner? You may think I have gone mad! Let me explain.

In the British system, a society historically divided by class,  there are three legal standings, or classes, people can hold and belong to. These positions/Classes are: The Sovereign, Titled Peers/Nobility and Commoners. Therefore technically and legally speaking if you are a Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom and you do not hold a peerage title, and you are not the sovereign, you are in fact… a commoner. The style His or Her Royal Highness and the title Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom is a courtesy title held at the behest of the sovereign but does not bestow a legal position. Do not confuse this legal and class status with rank or precedence which are different subjects all together. A person may hold a princely title and have more precedence and out rank a peer. That will be the subject of my next blog entry.

Therefore only members of the royal family that also hold peerage titles are not, technically speaking,  commoners. The sons of Queen Elizabeth II are all Peers: The Prince of Wales, The Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex. Princess Anne, The Princess Royal, is a commoner because the title Princess Royal is a courtesy title and not a peerage title. In the next generation, only Prince William, as Duke of Cambridge, is a peer and all of his cousins (his children and brother) are commoners. The queens cousins, The Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent are also peers of the realm but their children are not. Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent are royal, but commoners.

Interesting fact is that when the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent pass on their titles to their children these titles will cease to be royal as the title of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom is limited via the 1917 Letters Patent to the male-line grandchildren of the sovereign. Although the next Duke of Gloucester and Kent will not be royal they will be peers and not commoners.

There are actually five types of peerages. The Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. These represent those titles that were created at the various times in the history of the country. The hierarchy, or rank, of these peerage titles is as follows: (highest to lowest) Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount and Baron. There is also the hereditary title of Baronet but Baronets are not peers but fit into the social class of the Landed Gentry. It gets confusing doesn’t it? 

I will end my post by keeping it simple. Unless you are the sovereign or a titled peer, even if you hold the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you are technically a commoner. On 20 November 1947 HM King George VI created his future son-in-law HRH Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich. This made the former Prince Philip of Greece a Peer of the Realm. When he married the king’s daughter, Princess Elizabeth, the very next day, she was a commoner while her husband was not.

The New Royal Baby

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!

Naming the Royal Baby

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.

The British Monarchy and the Future.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Charles Prince of Wales, Elizabeth II, England, King Charles III of the United Kingdom, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of Scotland, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Scotland, The Duke of Cambridge, the prince of Wales, United Kingdom of Great Britain

There were two blog posts on Royal Central that I read recently. One remarked about when Charles becomes king his coronation service will be more ecumenical and will not be a service just for those of The Church of England. Another article was about the Scottish referendum for independence that will be voted on next year. Both of these articles demonstrate that, as with all of life, things will not remain the same and things will change. The British monarchy, and all extant monarchies, have survived because of thei ability to change and adapt to the times. Today I will examine the two issues brough up by the articles on the Royal Central website.

The Coronation of King Charles III

I do think that changing the coronation service to allow the participation of others faiths is a good idea. Charles has gone on record saying that he hopes to be the Defender of Faiths (plural) and not just the defender of the Church of England. I think this is forward thinking. It represents the changing demographics in British society. Although a large percentage of people in the United Kingdom do label themselves as Christian (71.6%) that leaves 28. 4% of the population that identify themselves as Muslim, Buddhist, Atheist, no-specific faith or any number of other religious beliefs. In a constitutional monarchy the monarch needs to be a representative of all faiths and all people. I for one do someday see the need for the Monarchy and the Church of England to part ways, but that may not happen for a long long while. The new Succession laws have made a large step in removing anti-Catholic bias from the monarchy, it just didn’t go far enough in this writers opinion. As of the writing the heir to the monarch still has to be in communion with the Church of England.

Devolution of the United Kingdom

In the fall of 2014 Scotland will vote on whether or not to remain a member of the United Kingdom or to become a separate sovereign state once again. Years ago if you had asked me I would have been against such an action. However, as I have learned more about Scottish history and the strong sense of identity and national spirit that the Scots have it saddens me to see they have lost some of that identity in the shadow of England. I guess that is one of the reasons I am bothered that people still call Elizabeth II “Queen of England.” It is not just the fact that it is not her proper title, it is the fact that it ignores Scotland completely.

Another reason I have changed my mind about Scottish independence is that I have learned that if independence is achieved Scotland would retain Elizabeth II as Head of State and become a member of the Commonwealth. To me this is acceptable compromise. I have said this before, but it bears repeating. I do miss the days when the monarch was simply the King or Queen of England. I also miss the traditions and the days when the monarch was called the King or Queen of Scots.  If Scotland does become independent and Elizabeth II (or simply Queen Elizabeth in Scotland) is retained as the Head of State, I do hope we see the return of those classic titles. This will place things as they were prior to 1707 with England and Scotland sharing a joint monarch.

Now, I have to ask the question, is it possible that Scotland could return to how things were prior to 1603 when James VI, King of Scots succeeded to the English throne? Could we see Scotland having its own monarch once again and not sharing one with England? Personally, I would love to see it. My dream scenario would be that the Earl of Wessex become Edward IV, King of Scots* and his son would be the future James VIII**. I know this will not happen but that doesn’t stop me from dreaming! I don’t know how much the Scots are monarchists and would want their own monarch.

It is interesting to watch the future and to see the changes.

* Many consider Edward Balliol as the rightful King of Scots between 1332-1336. King Edward VII would be considered Edward II, King of Scots, while his grandson, Edward VIII, would be considered Edward III.

** If James Francis Edward Stuart, Princes of Wales (1688-1766), son of James II-VII of England and Scotland, who’s pretence to the Scottish throne was from 1701 to 1766, is counted as James VIII (as most Jacobites do) then a future James of Scotland could be called James IX, King of Scots.

Name the new Royal Baby!!!

Tags

Buckingham Palace, HRH The Prince of Wales, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Name the new Royal Baby, Prince Charles, Prince William, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria, Scotland, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke of Cambridge

Here is your chance to name the new Royal Baby, the son or daughter of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The new roayl baby will be 3rd in line to the throne of The United Kingdom.

I am having trouble with a formal poll so I will just list the names I think are plausible and in the comments below tell me what name you think will be given to the child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Boys names.

1. William

2. George

3. Charles.

4. Henry

5. Philip

6. Richard

7. Edward

Girls names.

1. Elizabeth

2. Catherine

3. Diana

4. Elizabeth

5. Charlotte

6. Victoria

7. Mary

8. Anne

My personal guess is I would like to see the name George for a boy and Victoria for a girl.

Interesting Times

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!

Duchess of Cambridge has left the Hospital.

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Elizabeth II, England, Kate Middleton, Kings and Queens of England, kings and queens of the United Kingdom, Prince Charles, Prince William, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke of Cambridge

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243915/Kate-Middleton-pregnant-Duchess-leaves-hospital-Prince-William-side.html

I am glad to see that she has left the hospital. I just hope that she is able to get more rest and have this problem behind her.

 

 

 

 

Who was Countess Maria of Loon-Heinsberg?

Tags

Countess Margaret of Solms-Braunfels, Elizabeth II, King George I of the Hellenes, kings of Prussia and German Emperors., Maria of Loon-Heinsberg, Prince William of Wales, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Queen Victoria, The Duke of Cambridge, United Kingdom of Great Britain

I am going to have a little fun today with genealogy. On a cold and rainy day I may grab the genealogy charts I have and trace various royals both past and present through various lines just to see how they are related to other dynasties and other obscure royals. Okay, I lied. I don’t always wait for a rainy day to do this because I have no life!! LOL!

My starting point was Prince William of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge. He is a descendent of a minor German Countess, Maria of Loon-Heinsberg (1426-1502). Countess Maria was the daughter of Count Johann I of Loon-Heinsberg and Countess Margaret of Solms-Braunfels. She married Count Engelbert I of Nassau and they had 6 children including Count Johann IV of Nassau Vianden-Dietz. Through her descendants the line snakes through the Counts of Nassau to reach Prince Willem I, Prince of Orange, Stadholder of the Netherlands, and the direct ancestor of Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands. From Willlem I the line goes through the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg and Prussia who would eventually become kings of Prussia and German Emperors. The line continues through the German House of Württemberg to Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna of Russia who married King George I of the Hellenes and they are the paternal grandparents of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and the paternal grandfather of Prince William of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge.

I did this in a random fashion and went through either the female line or the male line arbitrarily. If I had gone in a different direction I would have ended up with some different. Here is the line, starting with the Duke of Cambridge and going back until we reach Countess Maria of Loon-Heinsberg 17 generations later.

Prince William of Wales, Duke of Cambridge 1982-
Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales 1948-
Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh 1921-
Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark 1882-1944
Grand Duchess Olga Constantinovna of Russia 1851-1926
Princess Alexandra of Saxe-Altenburg 1830-1911
Duchess Amelia of Württemberg 1799-1848
Duke Ludwig of Württemberg 1756-1819
Margravine Friederike of Brandenburg-Schwedt 1736-1798
Margrave Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg-Schwedt 1700-1771
Margrave Philipp Wilhelm of Brandenburg-Schwedt 1669-1711
Elector Friedrich Wilhelm of Brandenburg, Duke of Prussia 1620-1688
Princess Elizabeth Charlotte of the Palatinate 1597-1660
Princess Louise Juliana of Orange-Nassau 1576-1644
Prince Willem I, Prince of Orange, 1533-1584
Count Willem I of Nassau-Dillenburg 1487-1559
Count Johann V of Nassau-Vianden-Dietz 1455-1516
Countess Maria of Loon-Heinsberg 1426-1502