Autumn Royal Roundup September 9
William and Kate at Austrian wedding
Although Kate Middleton has attended two Royal weddings alone this year, it’s nearly three years since Prince William joined her.
For more than a year, the couple appear to have had a marked reluctance to be seen together at formal occasions. That has changed in recent months and they are now regularly, if sparingly, spotted at functions in Britain and abroad.
On Saturday both were in Saltzburg, Austria, for the nuptials of their mutual friend Chiara Hunt, sister of Olivia Hunt who went to St Andrew’s University with them.
Kate was svelte in a knee-length dress and fitted jacket. The golden couple seemed happy to be photographed together and were thoroughly relaxed on one of their rare public outings together.
Singer James Blunt and TV presenter Ben Fogle, who is married to the bride’s other sister Marina, were also guests.
BBC pulls Diana documentary
After spending £200,000 ($350,000) on a new documentary about Diana, Princess of Wales, the BBC has decided to cancel it a year after the project began.
The film was presumably intended to update her biography in the light of the many new revelations arising out of the long and exhaustive inquest held by Lord Justice Scott Baker.
Both the BBC and Buckingham Palace denied that any pressure had been applied.
BBC produces exclusive Prince Charles 60th film
The BBC has been granted exclusive access to the Prince of Wales for a film marking his 60th birthday in November.
The event is being celebrated in style. Both Kate Middleton and Chelsy Davy, girlfriends of Prince William and Prince Harry, have been invited to a party and ball at Buckingham Palace — the first time either has attended such an event.
We must hope the BBC is careful with its editing this time around. Another bad splice of intimate footage and it could lose its Royal franchise forever.
Prince Harry gets motorbike licence
It is being reported that Prince Harry has obtained a full motorbiking licence and intends following his brother William into the superbike league.
The Prince was shown messing about on an old Army bike in a recent film shot when he was deployed to Afghanistan last winter.
As yet he has not bought a machine, but has access to William’s bike, which he rarely uses now.
William’s daredevil antics on two wheels brought protests from his protection team who found it difficult to keep up with him. He finally agreed to give it up when worries about his safety went all the way up to the Prince of Wales.
Harry is said to be even more expert than his brother and much more daring. How long before he faces a similar injunction, we wonder?
Looking forward the birthday film…although I always worry that I won’t get to see them over here in the US.
For those of us out of the loop on the “intimate footage” you mentioned…I’m assuming that they showed something they should not have?
The image of William or Harry leaving their protection teams in the dust is rather amusing to me
Brings to mind my mother chasing me down a ski slope and giving me an earful because I have NO business skiing like that when I was expecting…oops! I did slow down when the person I was skiing with took a serious digger (although I was the better skier by far and did not fall all day.) But she was correct, for the greater good sometimes the fun has to go out the window. Sigh! I got in trouble for skydiving too…so I understand to a small degree how life can get in the way.
By Julie on September 9th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I hate to have a negative comment where Kate’s fashion sense is concerned, but I’m not fond of her in yellow. It doesn’t suit her skin tone. I think cool colors suit her best.
Of course, it may look better in person.
Regardless, she’ll look smashing in white!
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Julie, kudos to you for being such an adventuress — my idea of excitement is choosing which breakfast sandwich to pair with my cuppa decaf each morning from Tim Horton’s.
Dan, respectfully agree to disagree but Kate looked like a ray of Salzburg Sunshine in that yellow ensemble. Although, I do agree with you, her best colour will be white!
By alsgal on September 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I loved the style but not the color…yellow looks best on those with darker skin tones. But, even then she is beautiful. And, the motion is carried…white will be best
By Julie on September 9th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
I bet Kate is still tanned from her summer holidays. I thought she looked great in yellow. It sets off her hair.
By Evelyn on September 9th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Her hair, yes; her skin tone, no. But people’s skin tones are often not well-represented in photographs. Either too pinky, too orangey, and usually too shiny. That’s why there’s so much make-up applied in fashion photography—to compensate for the evils that the still camera do to a perfectly lovely face!
If I may quibble further
, her yellow jacket next to William’s red tie is a little too ketchup-and-mustard for my taste, and I think Williams jacket needs a tailoring.
Ok, I’ll stop now.
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
My dear Dan, you must stop thinking always of food, or, in this case, of condiments.
I do not care for yellow on anyone, but I have to admit, the golden glow of Kate’s tanned skin set off the golden jacket to perfection. I also thought that the particular shade of red in Prince William’s tie partnered the golden hue of Kate’s jacket and made a very tich tapestry of colors associated with Royal scenes. That rich red and gold–very regal! That said, I must in all fairness admit that I would probably think that Kate looked smashing in a burlap sack. So much for my objectivity.
Regarding the cake for the Royal Anecdotes Gala Royal Wedding Tea, we may have to have more than one cake, because we must also have a chocolate groom’s cake.
I believe that what we may do is have a tiered layer cake, traditional wedding cake design, with one layer red, one layer carrot, one layer chocolate and one layer cocoanut. In for a penny, in for a pound! For those I hear already groaning about the calories, you may recollect that I did, only quite lately, warn all our dear RA clan that I would be going hog wild (metaphor!) on the menu, and that prudent RAers should take steps to trim their waistlines in preparation.
Regarding the title for Prince William and Kate, I shall trust our own John, and confidently expect that the Queen will bestow a Royal Dukedom on the wedding day. Cambridge would suit me to a “T” but Clarence would suit me equally well. The title Clarence does not emanate from Clarence House, as it was in use in Elizabethan times and earlier than that, I believe. I don’t believe that Clarence House is that ancient an edifice. In these modern times and in this specific instance, the grandeur of the title is not derived by properties attaining to it, as in this case, the Queen would be gifting the couple with a temporary title until Prince William rises to the second highest title in the realm–Prince of Wales.
Regarding Charles statement, “…Count me out,” I agree that it was a curious and even troubling outburst from the Prince of Wales. It may have been a fit of pique which he now regrets, or it may be the harbinger of things to come. Charles is 7 1/2 months my junior and I have followed his life’s doings since we were both children. He has waited a very long time to be King, and if Queen Elizabeth II lives to the age of her beloved Mother, which God grant, he will wait longer still. I will be the most surprised person on the planet if he abdicates, because he has a number of pet projects he wishes to pursue and a number of changes he is determined to make. Also, I believe that it is his dearest wish to be crowned King with Camilla at his side as his Queen. I simply cannot imagine any scenario or eventuality that would bring him to forsake the inheritance and title he was born to receive. Abdication is a word and an action that fills the Royal Family with utter horror, with good reason. Even though Charles was not alive when his Great Uncle abdicated, he was alive and growing up when the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were living in France and traveling to America and sometimes to England. He knows what a sad and hollow life the Duke of Windsor had after he abdicated, and the tragedy for the Duke that his Duchess, Wallis, was so reviled by so many. Charles is an intelligent man, a sensitive man and a man who carefully thinks through any action he takes in advance of the action. Charles will consider all these things, and many more, and he will mount the throne and reign after Queen Elizabeth II dies, in my opinion.
By Gigi on September 9th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Dan, your discriminating eye tells me you must be the sort who is always immaculately turned out. I am only wondering now if you are an Anderson & Sheppard or Henry Poole man?
I must confess I sometimes leave the house looking a bit furry but I can’t imagine living without my menagerie of dogs, kittens, rabbits, chickens, roosters, hamsters, two pet iguanas named Larry and Liz Fortensky, not to mention an assortment of suicidal goldfish who are forever jumping up, up and away out of their bowl! Thank goodness for room spray.
By alsgal on September 9th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Being given the title of “Duke” what does that entail. Any sort of extra responsibilities, being named Duke of Cambridge (just as an example) what does that mean exactly? Why is the name so important?
By American Cousin on September 9th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Who knows, maybe Kate was aware of the fact that she wasn’t wearing her best color- you never want to upstage the bride!
By Greycella on September 9th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
That would be in keeping what many have said about about Kate being down-to-earth and humble. It wouldn’t surprise me even though Gigi and I seem to be the only people who found the colour, especially paired so attractively with William’s tie, a most winning combination.
By alsgal on September 9th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
If one didn’t want to upstage the bride, one wouldn’t pick canary yellow to blend into the shadows. But enough about that—I’m not comfortable sounding like a Kate-basher!
John, I just posted one of my duchy tomes that has not appeared. I hope it didn’t get lost in (or worse, is gumming up) your server
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
By the way, I am currently decked out in Messrs. Banana of Republic and Monsieur Levi de Strauss. I’m a better critic of others than I am of myself!
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Dan, it’s not in the moderation panel, so must have been overwhelmed by a sudden surge of traffic. I hope you wrote it in an editor so can post it again.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Gigi, your cakes sound awesome — calorie-wise. I presume small slices will be available?
In terms of Charles succeeding, I think a lot of people don’t realize how passionate and committed he is to his green agenda. It’s really his life’s work.
If he believes he would have to give Royal Assent to laws that drove a coach and horses through them, he could just decide to call it a day rather than risk the Monarchy by opposing the Parliamentary process.
Having said that, it looks as if the Conservatives, who are anti-EU and green, will be in power for a generation from 2010. So he may feel more comfortable with them.
I do believe it’s a close call though.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Dan, who needs Savile Row when one has such a delightful sense of humour!
I’m no fashion maven nor do I make any attempt to make a personal statement with my own appearance although the fur and smell certainly make for a lasting impression as the scent of this woman does indeed linger long after I have left the room — not so sure that is a positive thing!
That is probably why I feel compelled to say, good job Kate, you are doing rather well for one who has, on the record, confessed to not being fussed about fashion.
By alsgal on September 9th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Ack, I copied it, but didn’t paste it anywhere and have since copied again. It’s gone to blog heaven (or the other direction), alas.
Oh well. Just more of my dissertation on Dukedoms. My preference would be that they just continue to be known as Prince William of Wales and Princess _____ of Wales (the latter by Letters Patent from HM), since no one will ever call them anything else, but I don’t think you like that idea.
In that vein, you said earlier that Prince Philip bears that title as a reference to his having been a Prince by birth (of Greece and Denmark, titles he renounced before his marriage). But he was also created a Prince of the United Kingdom by HM in 1957. So indeed, the Prince in his name is British, just as, presumably, William’s bride’s could be.
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Dan, he may have renounced the Greek and Danish titles before his marriage, but he would still be a basic Prince in Britain by virtue of his descent from Queen Victoria and other links. The later title was entirely in the Queen’s gift and simply burnished his credentials as Duke of Edinburgh.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Also Princess Catherine of Wales would be too close to Camilla’s title to be supportable. It would confuse an already confused situation.
By John on September 9th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Why? Prince Henry of Wales doesn’t create confusion between his rank and William’s. In fact nothing in William’s title denotes his status as ranking heir.
By the way, Charles’s wife is legally Camilla, Princess of Wales. Princess Catherine of Wales is different enough, and no one could possibly confuse who came first.
But, to shoot down my own argument, the problem would arise if Prince William of Wales and Princess Catherine of Wales bore a child before Charles becomes King, such as may happen. The child would be Prince(ss) ____ of Wales, allowing no difference in rank between parents and child.
To wit: Duke and Duchess of Whatnot it is! So long as it isn’t Duke and Duchess of Yellow, because it is simply not her color!
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Hey, my middle smiley face didn’t work. Curses! Foiled again.
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
RE your remark about Philip’s later title being in the Queen’s gift: Aren’t all Royal titles in the sovereign’s gift, by birth or letters patent? Even those by birth seem able to be denied, as Lady Louise Windsor’s has been. I understand she can claim the Princess title that is legally hers, whether her parents like it or not, when she reaches adulthood.
By Dan on September 9th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
This is getting ridiculous regarding the titles. There was an error in the 40’s when Prince Philip renounced his Greek and Danish Titles. At the time it was erroneously assumed that Philip had to apply and become a British citizen to serve in the RN hence the renouncing of his titles but as a descendant of Sophie the Electress he always had been a British subject in addition to these titles as Prince Ernst August of Hanover discovered in the 70’s. Tho his son is now removed due to his marriage to Caroline of Monaco a Catholic. I also think it doesn’t matter if Kate is called Princess Kate she will anyway just as Diana was always called erroneously Princess Diana even though her title was Diana The Princess of Wales and later Diana Princess of Wales.
Next up Kate’s yellow jacket. While it was a nice jacket Yellow is a very hard color to pull off unless you are extremely dark in skin color or extremely fair as in a blonde. Kate looks better in jewel tones and pinks and corals. But she did look lovely.
As for the Diana biography update being scrapped I say hogwash somewhere subtle pressure was applied and of course the BBC would deny this to remain the the RF’s good graces. But at least the public will again be spared the lies told during the inquest that totally trashed her memory.
By Trudie on September 9th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Philip may have been a British subject, but since he descended from Victoria in the female line, he was no more a British Prince than Peter Phillips is today. Evidently, HM wanted to be able to call him Prince Philip (not Prince Consort, certainly not King Philip), but didn’t want the title to refer to his Greek and Danish Princely titles. With a stroke of a pen in 1957, she created him a British Prince.
I don’t know, Trudie, perhaps it’s just me, but I find this sort of discussion illuminating. There’s only so many times we can say amongst ourselves, “when’s the announcement coming? when’s the announcement coming?”
I look to this site for information, not just collective anticipation.
By Dan on September 10th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Well, so what if pressure was applied? Enough is enough already. Let her and her children have some peace.
By Ursula on September 10th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I was enjoying the back-and-forth too.
By Ursula on September 10th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
I agree Dan, I like the discussion on other topics as well, besides the “the engagement is tomorrow, no no, 3 months, no 18 months..” It’ll happen when it happens…
I’m still curious about my orginal questions:
Being given the title of “Duke” what does that entail. Any sort of extra responsibilities, being named Duke of Cambridge (just as an example) what does that mean exactly? Why is the name so important?
By American Cousin on September 10th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
American Cousin, I’m not a John or Dan type of expert in this sort of thing, but just from my own layman POV names and titles are important as they are often symbolic and used communicate someone’s stature or authority. In America, think how a state senator would be thought of if he only went by Skippy Schmidt. Whereas Senator Samuel Thurston Howell Schmidt III has quite a ring to it, don’t you think? A name like that tells everyone, hey back off, this guy is important. (It also tells them to never, ever board a boat with this man, unless one is ready to take an infamous three hour tour!
)
Although I can’t really say what sort of duties or responsibilities would differ between say, a Duke or an Earl, there is apparently an order of precedence that is strictly adhered to at things like Coronations and other grand occasions.
Many things in life are merely symbolic, and have long since lost their original importance, yet we still choose to honor and follow these traditions on faith. For example, what on earth does a gold ring have to do with marriage and fidelity? Wearing one doesn’t prevent one from committing adultery, and if it’s supposed to serve as a reminder to the wearer or as a deterrent to a potential transgressor, well, we all know that doesn’t count for much these days. Yet, over and over agin, we find ourselves happily standing in a church, witnessing a bride being given a ring.
Some things don’t make sense, but we like doing them anyway.
By alsgal on September 10th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Titles like Duke and Earl once meant more than they do now. They are considered hereditary peers and used to serve in the House of Lords, one of the two houses of Parliament. As I understand it, most hereditary peers have been devolved from that role, replaced by life peers. John would know more about their current and future roles in government than I.
Some of them are relatives of the Queen, for example the Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, and Earl of Harewood, who are the Queen’s cousins. Gloucester and Kent are considered senior members of today’s Royal Family, whereas the Earl of Harewood leads a private life at his family’s estate, aptly named Harewood House in Yorkshire. (This is not to be confused with Harewood Park, Herefordshire, the estate acquired in 2000 by the Duchy of Cornwall and rumored by some to be the future estate of William and his bride.)
As for responsibilities, a few have ceremonial roles. The senior-most non-royal Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, is the hereditary Earl Marshal of England, and he is in charge (ceremonially) of the state opening of Parliament. Others serve as various “sticks,” “rods,” and so forth. Their wives often serve as Ladies-in-Waiting to the Queen.
The scads of lesser nobles who have inherited their titles (there are loads of existing Dukes and even more Earls; Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer is a good example) are mainly responsible for keeping their family’s estates afloat. Some fare better than others.
The fact that no non-Royal Duke has been created since Victoria’s day is an indicator of their increasing irrelevance to matters of state. But so long as they continue to have male heirs, their titles will persist, whether or not they have the fortunes and status that once came with them!
For interesting reading, Google “category: dukedoms” and “category: earldoms”, click on the first Wikipedia link that comes up for each, and you’ll find the complete list of them, past and present. Wikipedia does not have the best reputation for accuracy, but the general history is enlightening, and everything can be cross-checked at other sites. Most of them also provide links to the family’s own websites, where you can explore those grand treasure houses they live in.
By Dan on September 10th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Even though no actual property will be entailed upon Prince William when he is given a Dukedom, as John says, a Royal Dukedom is a higher rank and enoblement than Prince William of Wales, Prince William’s current title. With that title of Duke, which is in the Queen’s gift, and which she will bestow upon him on the eve of the wedding, as is supposed, Prince William will be raised both in title and his responsibilities. Royal Dukes, by tradition, support the Crown to a far greater extent than minor members of the Royal Family, performing many duties assigned them by the Monarch. It is a fitting and a traditional interim title until Prince William is raised to Prince of Wales. This custom of bestowing Royal Dukedoms on the sons of reigning monarchs is one that goes back to very ancient times. We know that Edward III bestowed Dukedoms on some of his sons, although some, such as John of Gaunt, the Duke of Lancaster, achieved their dukedoms through advantageous marriages. George III bestowed Royal Dukedoms on his many sons, although in the case of the Sailor King, who became King William IV, the King had to be manipulated into bestowing the title Duke of Clarence and St. Andrews. Queen Victoria bestowed Royal Dukedoms on all her sons except, of course, the Prince of Wales, who held his title from his early years.
I also love discussing and learning from the many posts on this site. Being a student of genealogy and Royal lore from my early childhood, Royalty, and specifically the British Royal Family, is a topic of which I never tire.
By Gigi on September 10th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Wow, fantastic stuff people. Thank you very much. Love the history behind it and it’s always great to learn a little bit more. Especially when the time comes and NBC is broadcasting the royal wedding, I’d like to have better knowledge then the 5 min recap Matt Lauer would have gotten.
By American Cousin on September 10th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
While Dukedoms other than Royal seem to have gone out of fashion (it has been 134 years since the last), Earldoms are relatively more common, often for MPs and former Prime Ministers. Harold Macmillan was the last of the latter to get one, created Earl of Stockton in 1984. But even this seems to be dying out: Margaret Thatcher was made a Baroness upon her retirement (a title that will pass with her) and John Major and Tony Blair haven’t been dubbed anything at all. The latest Earls have been Royal: Prince Andrew was made Duke of York and Earl of Inverness on his marriage in 1986, and then of course came the Earl of Wessex. In addition to being made a Duke, William will also be made an Earl and possibly a Baron of something when he marries. But since the title of Prince of Wales comes with its own subsidiary titles (Princes of Wales have also been the Earls of Chester since the 14th century, and in Scotland he will be known as the Duke of Rothesay), it’s unclear to me whether William will maintain his marriage titles once he is invested Prince of Wales. In theory, they persist until their death and all male heirs are exhausted. Thus, William could be Prince, Duke, Earl, and Baron of all sorts of things one day! All of his titles will merge with the Crown when he accedes.
When Prince Edward is elevated sometime after Charles becomes King (according to current plan), he should become Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Wessex, and Viscount Severn. Baby James, currently styled with the courtesy title Viscount Severn, should move up a notch at that time, and be styled Earl of Wessex as his father’s heir apparent.
Sorry, I could go on and on!
By Dan on September 10th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Dan, Tony Blair has been dubbed a great many things but not anything that could be printed here on a family forum!
I’ve read that the Queen was not very fond of Mrs. Thatcher, so perhaps that is the reason she is a mere Baroness? Or was that something determined by Parliament?
Also, my question to the experts here is this: after the Queen and the Prince of Wales pass on to their Greater Reward, will William, in addition to being King, also be the Duke of Lancaster and Cornwall, or will the Duchy of Cornwall automatically pass to his son (if he has one) once William becomes King? What would happen in the event he and Kate have female issue only?
By alsgal on September 10th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
The sovereign is indeed the Duke of Lancaster automatically. The Duchy of Cornwall is reserved for the eldest son and heir of the sovereign, and he becomes Duke of Cornwall automatically, as Charles did when his mother took the throne. If William has no son when he becomes King, the title of Duke of Cornwall will merge with the Crown and await the next male heir to the throne. In the meantime, the Duchy of Cornwall will go on managing its assets, waiting for a Duke to reap its rewards.
The title of Prince of Wales is not automatic. Charles was not created the Prince of Wales until he was 9 years old (1958), and not formally invested until he was 20 (1969).
By Dan on September 10th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
By the way, I had heard that HM made Mrs. Thatcher a Baroness so she would have no possibility of becoming Prime Minister again!
Neither Lords nor Ladies can rule the House of Commons.
By Dan on September 10th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Ok here is another question. (great stuff so far). Prince William becomes Duke of Berkshire (for argument sake and the county in MA I grew up in!) Earl of Boston and Baron of Village. Now does that mean there is no Duke of Boston and Earl of Village? I know I’m getting into the nitty gritty, just trying to peace it all together.
Didn’t I read somewhere Prince Charles is a Earl of a Such and Such, would that mean there is no Duke of Such and Such. But if there is a Duke of Such and Such, would that mean, he is more senior of Such and Such than the heir to the throne?!
yikes…
By American Cousin on September 10th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
If William and his Queen have only daughters, it will be interesting to see if they up-end the tradition of naming only males to the Principality of Wales. We have had this discussion before, and I believe John is against it.
But consider:
Where would the eldest daughter/heir’s income come from? I suppose she could draw on the Duchy of Cornwall’s income without bearing the title. That way, should a son be born later, he could become the automatic Duke of Cornwall. Then they could fight over the Duchy proceeds!
The title Prince of Wales is different, because it does NOT automatically descend on the eldest son. It has to be created by Letters Patent. If the laws change by which later-born sons do not unseat the eldest daughter as heir, there would be no reason why the eldest daughter could not be created Princess of Wales in her own right. Following the tradition of spouses of reigning Queens, her husband would be known as Prince Consort of Wales (as Prince Albert was known as Prince Consort to Victoria, not as her King), so there would be no confusing whose title it was.
I think it’s about time daughters are considered equals, and not sent down once a son arrives. If Sweden can do it, so can the UK!
Right, John?!
By Dan on September 10th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
There are certain titles that are reserved for Royals. As I said before, Princes of Wales are always the Earls of Chester, Dukes of Rothesay, etc. William would not be given a Dukedom or Earldom that is or ever has been held by a non-Royal. That’s why Duke of Buckingham is out, even though it is available and would seem eminently appropriate. Alas, it has been tainted by common blood. (And James I’s alleged male lover was George Villiers, created by James as Duke of Buckingham.)
Royal sons would never be given an Earldom of an existing Dukedom. Only occasionally do the titles overlap, anyway. The Duke of Devonshire is also the Earl of Devonshire, I believe.
Sidebar: Legend has it that the first Duke of Devonshire was so created by mistake. He should have been created Duke of Derbyshire, where his estates are located. But they haven’t complained to this day!
By Dan on September 10th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Clarification: the male heir to the throne automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay, but he has to be created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester. (Above I said that Princes of Wales are always Dukes of Rothesay, and indeed they are, but the male heir is already Duke of Rothesay before he is created Prince of Wales. It is more accurate to say that the Duke of Cornwall is always the Duke of Rothesay.)
Gads, I think I’m becoming Obsessive-Compulsive about all this! (No offense to OCD sufferers!)
By Dan on September 10th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Dan, the depth of your knowledge is very impressive!
By alsgal on September 10th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
Nonsense, Dan, we are all enjoying your learned posts, so continue educating us! I must say that I, for one, prefer that the Rule of Succession in the United Kingdom remain as it is. That means that a son of a ruling monarch succeeds that monarch as King even if he is not the elder child. Thus far, there has been no compelling reason to change this ancient order of succession and I, for one, favor that status quo be upheld in these matters. Just because Sweden chose to change their rule is no reason for the United Kingdom to follow suit. Queen Elizabeth II has been a magnificent monarch, as was Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth I before her. I take nothing away from the Royal daughters of the Kingdom who, through circumstances outside their control, were brought to the throne. In fact, I feel that I am second to no one in my admiration (and even adulation) for the Queens of the Realm. Nevertheless, that is no reason to presume that the Kingdom would garner a material benefit if the Rule of Succession were changed to allow the reigning monarch’s eldest child, of either sex, to reign as Monarch after the death of the Sovereign. I do not believe in change for the sake of change. I daresay that is evidence of my increasing age, but there it is.
By Gigi on September 10th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Dan and Alsgal, Margaret Thatcher was given a life peerage (Baroness) by John Major, her successor.
The reason she was not made a hereditary Countess is because the Tory party could not bear to see her obnoxious son, Mark, become a Viscount. Unhappily, since then he’s inherited his father’s Knighthood.
I have this on very good authority.
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 8:48 am
John or Dan, is there any reason Bill Burlington doesn’t go by the courtesy title Marquess of Hartington since Stoker (love the nickname! :)) inherited? Is he still doing the photography? I see his website has been under construction for a few years now. He was/is quite talented I hear.
By alsgal on September 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Alsgal, I believe this is because he bore Burlington as a courtesy title for so long while his grandfather, the 11th Duke, was still alive. At that time, his father, now the 12th Duke, bore the Hartington title. Since he is a man of business, changing his name from Bill Burlington to Bill Hartington might cause confusion.
Viscount Linley is also a man of business, going by David Linley. We shall see if he changes his name to David Snowdon when his father passes. At that time, of course, both the Snowdon and Linley titles will be his outright, and he can do as he wishes.
Interesting, John. I didn’t know Prime Ministers could create life peerages. The House of Lords is something I know very little about, although I know it is in flux.
By Dan on September 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Gigi, the proposal has already been made in Great Britain to change to what they call “absolute primogeniture,” by which succession is by order of birth irrespective of gender. It was part of the Succession to the Crown Bill in 2004, which also would have removed the clauses forbidding those in the line of succession from marrying Catholics. The bill was withdrawn when the government pledged to block it. It apparently has come up again this year.
John surely knows more about this than I do.
By Dan on September 11th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Dan, baronies (life peerages) are always created by politicians — Prime Ministers and Leaders of the Opposition — which is why the honours have a very bad reputation.
In terms of the succession laws, there has been a flurry of them recently because of EU directives from Brussels masquerading as “equality” laws. Only someone like the dreadful Harriet Harman would take them seriously.
The Monarchy is a very dangerous field for Labour governments. Reforms bring no political advantage at all, enrage a large chunk of the electorate, and take an eternity to pass all their stages in Parliament. That’s why they’re best left alone.
I imagine also the Queen quietly tells the PM, “Mr Brown, the Monarchy is my province. Politics shouldn’t come into it. I would be grateful if you didn’t send me a Bill of this nature to sign. It would contravene my personal beliefs and present me with a quandry over whether in conscience I could give it the Royal Assent.”
Any Prime Minister wishing to remain in power would back off like a scalded cat.
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
I presume Charles being Baron of Renfrew (subsidiary title to Duke of Cornwall) and Andrew being created Baron Killyleagh upon his marriage are exceptions, or are these Baronetcies (granted by the Crown), not Baronies?
By Dan on September 11th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Dan, those are old Baronies going back to the Norman invasion in some cases. They usually relate to properties entailed on a Dukedom.
Nowadays, Barons and Baronesses are life peerages. Baronetcies are hereditary Knighthoods.
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Not to change the subject (and maybe I missed it) but did we ever determine if the possibility for the PM and Kate to have met @ Balmoral came to fruition last weekend? Or did I get that one wrong?
By Julie on September 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
After the wedding? Seemed like you said it could still happen, John?
By Julie on September 11th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
A couple of interesting American lineages (from the Daily Mail):
George W. Bush has Royal lineage with links to the Spencer family that produced Diana, Princess of Wales — it makes him the 17th cousin to Prince William of Wales. Mr Bush is also linked to Sir Winston Churchill through three relatives, the Coes of New York, the Sumners of Massachusetts and the Shermans of Rhode Island.
Bill Clinton has even bluer blood. His ancestry can be traced back, on his mother’s side, to King Henry III who ruled England from 1227 to 1272. He is also related to several medieval monarchs and Simon de Montfort, a statesman and solider under King Henry III.
And Sarah Palin hails from Norfolk, East Anglia on her mother’s side.
What a load of Brits your Presidents and hopefuls are!
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Fascinating (to me, anyway
). What might be the reason for making Andrew a Duke, an Earl, and a Baron on his marriage, but not a Viscount? Likewise, making Edward an Earl and a Viscount, but not a Baron? Prince Philip was also made a Duke, an Earl, and a Baron on his marriage, but no Viscount.
Perhaps Viscountcies go with Earldoms while Baronetcies go with Dukedoms?
Golly, I think I need some therapy.
By Dan on September 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Julie, the Court Circular for Balmoral doesn’t mention William and Kate being there. So, that’s a No.
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Dan, Viscountcies are normally reserved for Earl’s eldest sons. There may be some lurking in the background of the Earl titles, but not mentioned as being too trivial.
The other lesser titles may relate to properties entailed on the highest title, so will vary. They are historical vestiges of the main title.
Baronetcies are not Baronies, they are hereditary Knighthoods.
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Dan, drop in on the Windsor Castle pub and grab some of that lager.
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
The Duke of Norfolk must be thrilled at being a geneological stone’s throw from Ms. Palin. But particular sympathy is reserved for Senator Obama, who has found himself related to…
Dick Cheney.
By Dan on September 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Would the Court Circular for Balmoral typically include William, as he is not yet a full-time Royal?
By Dan on September 11th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
As a Knight of the Garter, you bet!
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Well, Cheney has to be related to someone.
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Dan - do go have a brew, it would be like a brush with fame
By Julie on September 11th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Here’s a correction to one of the statements I made yesterday:
I said that, when there is no Duke of Cornwall, the money from the Duchy of Cornwall keeps raking in until there’s a Duke to draw on it. WRONG-O!
Absent a male heir to hold the title, the Duchy remains with the Monarch, and the Civil List from the government to support the Monarchy is reduced by the amount of the Duchy’s income.
At least, so says the Duchy’s website.
By Dan on September 11th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I didn’t know that, Dan.
The only problem I see with it is that the Civil List is currently around £10m ($17.5m) while the rental income of the Duchy is about £18m ($31.5m), plus property capital gains of £270m ($475m) in recent years.
The loss of the Civil List would seem to be small beer to the Monarch, although it hasn’t happened for many decades.
By John on September 11th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
I would think it must have been the case under George VI, whose only children were Elizabeth and Margaret and there was no Duke of Cornwall until Charles’s birth.
By Dan on September 11th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
Thank you Dan — you never fail to amaze me with the depth of your Royal knowledge.
John or Dan could you please tell me why the Queen doesn’t just say, “Oh to heck with the Civil List, just give me the Crown Estate back and we’ll pay for ourselves from the salary that comes from that?”
Would that put an end to these whinging MP’s, or do you think their real motivation is ultimately to abolish the Monarchy itself, by taking it apart, bit by penny pinching bit?
By alsgal on September 11th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Gigi,
Best of luck in the upcoming days with hurricane Ike. I think from what I see that it is going to be a rough time. Thanks to Dan for all the info about titles. I imagine lots of people are interested in this sort of thing. I know that I am. It is truly fascinating. I am sure whatever title the Queen gives to William and Kate will be fair. Kate, I wish you the best of luck with the Disco Night. I hope that it is very successful. (Last 2 lines are in hopes that she does read the internet.) John thanks for all of the info.
By kat on September 12th, 2008 at 3:28 am
Alsgal, the next opportunity for that to happen, apparently, is if/when Charles becomes King. He’s radical enough to do it, but it may depend on whether there’s a Conservative Government or a Labour one. Labour would be dead against it.
By John on September 12th, 2008 at 10:59 am
John, I can see that it might be a bold move but it would seem to put an end to all of this ridiculousness every year about the RF “costing the same as a loaf of bread” or a pint of milk, etc. I know the accountants and the RF must feel the need to justify the expense, which is why these silly comparisons come out each time the accounts are made public. But I’d like to ask the MP’s if “a loaf of bread” carries out more than 4,000 public engagements per year or raises hundreds of millions of pounds for charity? Let’s hope not.
It is rather pitiful to read things about Buckingham Palace looking a bit shabby and that the MP’s once again have denied the Queen the money to even repair the most basic things like the roof. Can one imagine the outcry if a piece of plaster fell off of the White House and nearly hit one of the Bush children, or if Madame Bruni sat down in the Presidential Bathub and found there was no hot water? Of course that will never happen, as these national monuments are kept in good condition, as well they should be.
I’m a realist and a monarchist first and foremost, and while I’m not naive enough to insist the BRF are faultless, they do a heckuva good job and have done so for nearly 1,000 years. A few bumps here and there, but each and every time the BRF manages to get back on course and that is really quite remarkable! I hope the Prince of Wales does take that bold step, and that the Crown Estates are rightfully returned back to the RF.
By alsgal on September 12th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I agree, Alsgal, and only the Labour party stands in the way, I believe. Since it is on the brink of a Canadian-meltdown style defeat at the next election, that may not be a problem in future.
Prince Charles has made a splendid job of running the Duchy, increasing its profits many times over while specializing in organic produce and conservation — he really must be the world leader in the field.
The Royal Estates have been far less imaginatively managed under the Treasury, which should not be let anywhere near a business environment.
The problems with the Palaces cry out for proper management and allocation of resources — which politicians shy away from while their wasteful social programmes eat up vast amounts of cash for no useful purpose.
So, yes, I totally agree.
By John on September 12th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
The danger in the Monarchy becoming a self-sustaining enterprise—essentially a private business—is that it would lose its connection, however symbolic it has become, to the civic life of the state. Fully privatized, wouldn’t the Royal Family become like the Kennedys in the US, the Cavendishes of Devonshire, the Percys of Northumberland, or some other? Just another rich and storied family with pretensions, with nothing to bind them to the people.
Also, doesn’t the Civil List cover only a fraction of the costs of the Monarchy, once palaces, staff, and security are figured in?
By Dan on September 12th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Dan, I’m not sure, but it would seem the Civil List is pretty stingy.
John, when you brought up wasteful social programmes (and these exist in every country) I was reminded of what Ronald Reagan said were the the nine most dangerous words in the English language: “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
By alsgal on September 12th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
You’ve hit the psychological nail on the head, Dan, and probably the reason the Queen has been reluctant to do this.
When Monarchs were absolute, it didn’t matter because they were the State. Now the State is a monster run by politicians, it has to be handled with great care. If the Queen were seen to be getting a better deal than Cabinet ministers, a future Labour government might decide to get tough.
There are lots of nuances here. On balance though, I would like to see the finances of the Monarchy much better operated than at present.
By John on September 12th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Alsgal, Reagan was a profound political philosopher, like Mark Twain.
By John on September 12th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
John, I fully agree with you about maximizing the value of the Crown Estates (however crass that sounds) along the lines of the Duchy of Cornwall, which is also at the forefront of an environmental/sustainable movement that is gaining steam (not carbon!) around the world. The Crown could be a leader in more ways than one.
It will be heartening to see Prince William follow in his father’s footsteps, at least in this regard.
I wonder: is there an argument for merging the two Duchies? Surely, when he accedes, Charles will want the Crown Estates run as efficiently as the Duchy of Cornwall. I hate to use the term “synergy,” but might one management bureaucracy be better than two?
By Dan on September 12th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Dan, indeed they would, and Prince Charles is the man to do it.
By John on September 12th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Let’s hope Gigi and everyone are safe in Texas. I’ve just been reading blood-curdling reports of the storm surge and 50ft waves hitting Galveston and elsewhere. Houston looks safe from that, at least.
This must be the worst hurricane season for decades.
By John on September 13th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Kat and John, many thanks for your good wishes and kind concerns for my welfare! So far, our area of Austin is having increasing winds but no rain yet. All of Austin is packed with evacuees from the coast, which has taken a direct hit from Hurricane Ike. Galveston Island is expected to be totally under water by tonight and many houses and buildings there are on fire from downed power lines. A very large ship which I believe is a tanker became stranded in the Gulf when they lost power trying to flee the storm and the winds are so high that the Coast Guard cannot reach them with helicopters to lift the crew of 22 to safety. If no tide pushed the ship out of it’s position, it is feared that the ship will founder and the crew will be lost.
Here in Austin, evacuees are housed in every school district building, multiple districts, the hospitals are filled to capacity with evacuees from hospitals in the coastal areas, and if more space is needed, the churches will take and house evacuees as happened during Katrina. The Mayor and Governor have instructed all of us to stay off the streets so that emergency vehicles can get through and to conserve gasoline supplies. The trees are blowing wildly but we stored all our porch furniture, potted plants and everything else we had outside that might be airborne in a strong wind.
We are praying for the safety of all those in the coastal regions of Texas, especially those who were unwilling or unable to evacuate.
By Gigi on September 13th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Gigi, I’m glad to see you are alright down there in the Hill Country and our thoughts and prayers continue to be with those along the Gulf, along with their insurance agents.
Looks as if the proud albeit drunk regulars at the Poop Deck survived the night, although I saw the Balinese Room, which survived Carla in ‘61 and Alicia in ‘83, did not. It was host to many an entertainer back in the forties and fifties, Frank Sinatra was just one of many to have performed there.
‘Tis sad the Boom Boom Room is no more.
By alsgal on September 13th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Gigi, glad to hear you’re safe and well. It sounds very intimidating down there in Texas right now. And to think we’ve been moaning about three months of soft rain.
It’s all relative, I suppose.
By John on September 13th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
From titles to religion: the NOTW has an article about Charles angling to have Camilla crowned Queen when he is crowned King. This brings up a question that I have always found intriguing: why did Charles and Camilla not have a church wedding? The Anglican church recognizes divorce, does it not? Who put the kibosh on the church wedding: the Archbishop; the Queen; Charles himself; Camilla?
By Ursula on September 14th, 2008 at 3:18 am
Ursula, the Church of England recognizes divorce but will not remarry people in church. That’s why Princess Anne was married in the Church of Scotland second time around.
Charles and Camilla had a civil wedding, then a church blessing by the Archbishop of Canterbury immediately afterwards.
Since then, the law has changed on same-sex couples so there may have been a relaxation on the remarrying rule as well.
By John on September 14th, 2008 at 10:49 am