Wednesday, 23 October 2013

A Queen and 3 Future Kings -- The Christening Photo of Prince George is Revealed

The christening photograph of HRH Prince George of Cambridge that many have been eagerly awaiting is of HM The Queen with three future kings: Prince Charles, Prince William and Prince George. The last, and most famous, christening photograph of a sovereign with three future sovereigns is this one from 1894:

A Queen and Three Kings:
Photograph of Queen Victoria and the future
King Edward VII, King George V and King Edward VIII.
Occasion: The Christening of the future
King Edward VIII in 1894.
I am pleased to report that the christening photograph of HRH Prince George with his father, grandfather and great-grandmother has just been released. It is remarkable to think that, together, these photographs currently span almost 200 years and have the potential to eventually span 300 years. Queen Victoria was born in 1819 and, with increased life expectancy and medical/scientific advances, there is every possibility that Prince George will live remain on the throne in 2119. Quite remarkable!

Christening Photograph of HRH Prince George of Cambridge
with HM The Queen, HRH The Prince of Wales and HRH The Duke of Cambridge
Released 24 October 2013.
Clarence House

Seated: HM The Queen, TRH The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge with HRH Prince George
Standing: TRH The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales & The Duchess of Cornwall and Prince Harry of Wales
Miss Pippa Middleton, Mr. James Middleton, Mr & Mrs Michael Middleton
Released 24 October 2013
Clarence House

Details, Guest list and Godparents for The Christening of HRH Prince George of Cambridge at St. James's Palace

Details of The Christening of HRH Prince George of Cambridge at the Chapel Royal at St. James's Palace have been released today.

In keeping with the desire to have a small and low-key event, only a few guests have been invited.

The Guests:

HM The Queen & HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall
HRH Prince Harry of Wales
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Middleton, Mr. James Middleton and Miss Pippa Middleton

The Godparents:


  • Mr Oliver Baker (Oliver Baker attended the University of St Andrews with The Duke and Duchess)
  • Mrs David Jardine-Paterson (Emilia Jardine-Paterson attended Marlborough College with The Duchess)
  • Earl Grosvenor (Hugh) (Earl Grosvenor is the son of The Duke of Westminster)
  • Mr Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton (Jamie Lowther-Pinkerton served as Private Secretary to The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry from 2005-2012 and continues to serve part-time as Principal Private Secretary and Equerry)
  • The Hon Mrs Michael Samuel (Julia Samuel was a close friend of The Princess of Wales)
  • Mrs Michael Tindall (Zara Tindall is The Duke of Cambridge’s cousin)
  • Mr William van Cutsem (William van Cutsem is a childhood friend of The Duke of Cambridge)
Prince George will wear the hand made replica of the Royal Christening Robe, made by Angela Kelly, Dressmaker to The Queen.
HRH Prince George will be baptised by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Lily Font with water from the River Jordan.
Following the service, The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall will host a private tea in Clarence House. Guests will be served christening cake, which is a tier taken from The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s wedding cake.
Yesterday, Lambeth Palace released this video in which the Archbishop of Canterbury discussed the "hugely important" baptism of Prince George and expressed his desire that it serve as an inspiration to others.


Monday, 21 October 2013

"The Royals": Major Documentary Series on the modern history of the Royal Family


As the world looks forward to the christening of HRH Prince George of Cambridge in the Chapel Royal at St. James's Palace on Wednesday, 23 October, Britain's Channel 5 TV has launched a major new series about the royal family. "The Royals" is a six-part documentary series produced by Content TV and Back2Back productions. Following its UK broadcast, the series, which deals with a range of royal subjects, will be distributed globally.

Discussing royal babies on "The Royals", the landmark
six-part series produced by Content TV and Back2Back Productions
and distributed globally.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the first episode examined the evolution in the treatment of "Royal Babies" over the past several generations. I am pleased to be one of the "talking heads" in this series -- and some of my contributions were broadcast in this episode, which aired last night in the UK. Stay tuned for future episodes covering a broad range of royal subjects (including weddings, funerals, state ceremonies and....pets!).

Saturday, 28 September 2013

Conjugal Arms of TRH The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge Revealed

Conjugal Arms of TRH The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge
(C) The College of Arms
The Conjugal Arms of TRH The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge, which had been formally approved by HM The Queen in February, were revealed to the public yesterday, 27 September 2013. Conjugal Arms do not alter the separate and distinct individual shields of The Duke or The Duchess -- they are merely a means of identifying a married couple by displaying their shields side by side.

Although not seen very often, Conjugal Arms are firmly rooted in royal tradition and have been used by HM The Queen & HRH The Duke of Edinburgh as well as by TRH The Prince of Wales & The Duchess of Cornwall. Conjugal Arms are traditionally seen on occasions when both husband and wife are performing or are present at official ceremonies or events. In such circumstances, one may expect to see the Conjugal Arms displayed on ceremonial plaques, memorials etc.

As would be expected, the Conjugal Arms have been designed by the College of Arms. Over time, as the Duke of Cambridge's status evolves, so too will his own coat of arms and, by automatic extension, the Conjugal Arms.

The Conjugal Arms of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge displays the shield of The Duke of Cambridge on the left (heraldically dexter) and that of The Duchess on the right (heraldically sinister). The shields are flanked by the Duke of Cambridge's Royal Supporters, the Lion supporting The Duke's shield and the Unicorn supporting The Duchess's.

Armorial Bearings of HRH The Duke of Cambridge KG KT
(in this image the shield is not encircled by the Order of the Garter)
The Coat of Arms of The Duke of Cambridge is based on the Royal Arms but is distinguished by the use of a 3-pointed white label of difference bearing a red escallop on the central point. The red escallop is taken from the arms of The Duke's late mother. Again, to difference his arms from those of The Sovereign, the same label is used as a collar around the necks of The Duke's Lion and Unicorn supporters and his Lion crest.

The Duke's shield (as depicted in the Conjugal Arms) is encircled by the Order of the Garter, the United Kingdom's oldest Order of Chivalry. In 2008 HRH became the Order's one-thousandth knight.

Armorial Bearings of HRH The Duchess of Cambridge
(C) The College of Arms

Armorial Bearings of HRH The Duchess of Cambridge originally borne
by HRH following the 2011 grant of arms to her father, Mr. Michael Middleton
(C) The College of Arms
The Coat of Arms of The Duchess of Cambridge was granted following her marriage to Prince William. The shield combines the shield of her original arms (the Middleton arms were granted to her father, Michael Middleton in 2011) with those of her husband. By Royal Warrant, The Duchess was also accorded the Coronet of the Duke of Cambridge (the style of coronet being appropriate for the son of the Heir Apparent) and supporters. As is traditional for the wife of a member of the Royal Family, one of The Duchess's supporters is taken from her husband (the Lion with a collar composed of a white label of three points bearing a red escallop on the middle point). The second supporter is a white hind with the ducal coronet around its neck.

The Duchess's shield (as depicted in the Conjugal Arms) is encircled by a wreath of oak -- this is simply to provide artistic balance to the Order of the Garter that encircles the Duke's shield. The wreath will eventually be replaced upon the Duchess's appointment to an order (the first order is likely to be the Royal Victorian Order).


Thursday, 26 September 2013

Canadian Portrait of HM The Queen Unveiled at Rhodes House, University of Oxford


On 20th September a reception was held at Rhodes House at the University of Oxford to mark the unveiling of an unofficial Canadian portrait of HM The Queen. The portrait, which depicts Her Majesty in a suitably regal manner, was painted by the noted Canadian portrait painter (and full time medical doctor) Dr. Suan-Seh Foo of Toronto. The painting was donated to Rhodes House by the great Canadian philanthropist Dr. Terrence Donnelly, LL.D., O.Ont, also of Toronto.



Unveiling of the Canadian Portrait of HM The Queen,
Rhodes House, University of Oxford. 20 September 2013.
Dr. Terrence Donnelly, LL.D., O.Ont. stands in the centre.
Dr. Donnelly is flanked, on his right, by the artist Dr. Suan-Seh Foo and,
on his left, by one of the very few Canadians to have received a knighthood,
Prof. Sir John Bell FRS, Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University.

Dr. Terrence Donnelly addresses the assembled guests whilst
Dr. Suan-Seh Foo looks on.

Home to the world famous Rhodes Scholars, Rhodes House is an enduring testament to the unity of the English Speaking Peoples and the common values, beliefs and interests that they share. The building features innumerable symbols and references to the United States and the various countries, colonies and regions that constituted the British Empire in 1928.

The gardens at the rear of Rhodes House.
Carvings representing Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Africa
are on either side of the bay window.


Arms of Canada
(Also featuring a fish for Newfoundland)
Australia

New Zealand
South Africa and other African references (West Africa, East Africa, Egypt & Sudan, Southern Rhodesia) 
The main bay window in the great hall features two carvings -- this one representing Great Britain and, opposite, another one representing the USA (next photo). This carving includes the arms of Shakespeare , Milton and Oliver Cromwell!

Carving Representing the United States of America
in the main bay window

The Front of Rhodes House, University of Oxford

Inside of the dome in the lobby of Rhodes House featuring emblems and symbols of the constituent parts of the British Empire in 1928: Rose of England, Trek Wagon for Afrikaners in South Africa, Southern Cross and Anchor of Good Hope for the Union of South Africa, Zimbabwe Bird for Rhodesia, Irish Shamrock, Sphinx for Egypt and the Sudan, 4 star Southern Cross for New 
Zealand, African head for West Africa, Welsh Dragon, Palm Trees and Shell and Pineapple for tropical colonies, 5 star Southern Cross for Australia, Star of India, Scottish Thistle, Fish for Newfoundland, Maple Leaf for English Canada, Fleur-de-Lys for French Canada.

Bust of Cecil Rhodes Under the Dome in the Lobby of Rhodes House

Thursday, 12 September 2013

Queen Charlotte's Ball - 26 October 2013 - Royal Courts of Justice, London

The Queen Charlotte's Ball at the
Durbar Court in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office
The Queen Charlotte's Ball is a firm fixture on London's social calendar. In recent years we have been overawed at the the spectacular venues, the glamorous decoration, the impressive turnout and, of course, the elegance and beauty of the debs.




This years's Queen Charlotte's Ball looks set to be one of the best ever. Continuing the tradition of selecting truly unique and special venues, the 2013 ball will be held in the majestic Royal Courts of Justice in Central London. If you have never visited this magnificent building before, there can be no better occasion to attend the Ball.

This year's Queen Charlotte's Ball will be held in
London's Royal Courts of Justice
26 October 2013
The Queen Charlotte's Ball will benefit SOS Children's Villages International.

I encourage you to support both this worthy cause and this noble and gloriously enjoyable annual tradition.

Ticket information (individual and by table) is available directly from the organiser:

Mrs. David Hallam-Peel
26 Hans Crescent
Knightsbridge, London
SW1X OLL
Tel: +44 203 006 1660
Email: jhp@londonseason.net

WEB: http://thelondonseason.org/queen-charlottes-ball-london-26th-october-2013/

The Queen Charlotte's Ball - Queen of the Season

The modern Queen Charlotte's Ball (c) OK Magazine
For generations, the British social "Season" has been a source of fascination and bewilderment, both at home and abroad. Our modern-day global obsession with television programmes such as Downton Abbey, suggests that interest in the lifestyles of the traditional upper classes is as popular as ever.

Traditionally, the Season centred upon the Royal Family's residence in London from April to July and from October until Christmas. During those months, the British aristocracy would desert their country piles and flock to London in order to be close to the Royal Court.

Of course, during the centuries in which European sovereigns wielded immense political power, ambitious aristocrats would be expected to attach themselves to their monarch's royal court as it journeyed around their kingdoms, or settled in specific locations such as Versailles. By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, however, the rise of political parties and the principle of responsible government had significantly curtailed royal involvement in political life and the centre of power shifted inexorably from the Royal Court to Parliament.

Political decline made the symbolic and ceremonial roles of the Crown all the more important. The Monarch had to be seen. The Royal Court had lost none of its social cachet -- but its followers were now focussed increasingly less on politics and more on glamour, rank, style and fashion. The social "Season" was born.

For many years The Queen Charlotte's Ball was the Season's highlight. Instituted by King George III in 1780 to mark the custom of returning to the capital at the end of the hunting season, His Late Majesty named the May Ball after his beloved consort, Queen Charlotte. The Ball soon became the essential platform for introduction to Society. Aged 17 - 18, well-bred debutantes were presented to the Sovereign, their "debut" at the Ball triggering months of balls, parties and other exclusive social events, attendance at which was necessary to ensure that one was part of "Society" (and, most importantly, able to be courted by suitors). These events evolved and developed into what we now know as the "Season" and have become an essential part of an English spring and summer.

Today the annual Queen Charlotte's Ball is run by "The London Season". The Ball's purpose has changed to reflect the realities of 21st century life:

"At the beginning of each academic year, parents and potential debutantes are invited to attend interviews at Boodles, St James. Girls are chosen based on their interest in helping with the charity focus for the year and whom the committee feels would benefit from the events of the year. Debutantes embark on a one-year programme of etiquette classes, and charity events crowned by the world famous Queen Charlotte’s Ball in which they appear in white gowns and jewels lent by eminent couturiers and jewellery houses. At one time, this ball introduced the daughters of the British nobility to potential husbands. Today, officially, the focus is not on marriage but on giving ambitious girls the opportunity to further their careers and develop in social confidence."

This year, The Queen Charlotte's Ball will take place on 26 October 2013 in the majestic surroundings of London's Royal Courts of Justice. The venue is spectacular and an opportunity to attend an event there should not be missed. The Queen Charlotte's Ball is one of the most glamorous events on the London social calendar.

This years Queen Charlotte's Ball will be held in the majestic surroundings of
London's Royal Courts of Justice on 26 October 2013


Tickets (individual and per table) are eagerly sought and may be purchased by contacting the organiser:

Mrs. David Hallam-Peel,
24/26 Hans Crescent,
London, Knightsbridge,
SW1X OLL.
Tel: +44 203 006 1660.
Email: jhp@londonseason.net

Web: http://thelondonseason.org/queen-charlottes-ball-london-26th-october-2013/




Saturday, 17 August 2013

Time for a Commonwealth Family Reunion

The Commonwealth Family

"For the past forty years we have spurned our ever-faithful Commonwealth family for the sado-masochistic thrill of a European affair – one that, as with many extra-marital trysts, has proved costly and unfulfilling....Gibraltar is merely the latest illustration of an incompatible relationship turned sour. Our future lies in a Commonwealth family reunion." – Rafe Heydel-Mankoo

The article below was originally published in The Commentator on 14th August 2013. The original article may be read at THIS LINKhttp://www.thecommentator.com/article/4051/time_for_a_commonwealth_family_reunion


Britain is a cad.  If Terry Thomas were alive today he would probably denounce his beloved nation as a rotter, a stinker and an absolute shower – and rightly so. For despite our innate sense of moral virtue, our unshakable belief in British decency and integrity and our politicians’ unfaltering devotion to family, this nation is an international love cheat.

For the past forty years we have spurned our ever faithful Commonwealth family for the sado-masochistic thrill of a European affair – one that, as with many extra-marital trysts, has proved costly and unfulfilling. From demands for an end to the UK rebate, to Franco-German attempts to transfer financial regulation to the EU, Europe has failed to serve British interests. The Anglo-Spanish contretemps over Gibraltar is merely the latest illustration of an incompatible liaison turned sour. A healthy relationship shouldn’t be dominated by constant squabbling – it is time to admit that our fling was a mistake, to tell our dominatrix mistress that we just want to be friends, good friends, and to ask our dutiful Commonwealth kith and kin if they are willing to forgive us and work at restoring our natural partnership.

Unsurprisingly, our European affair started in the heady era of 1960’s free love, when hearts ruled minds and an uncertain post-Imperial Britain entered a mid-life crisis, abandoning its sober English-speaking partner for an impetuous continental coquette. The embarrassing Gallic rejection of Britain’s gawkish advances only served to enflame our yearning for continental consummation. 

There are few things as pathetic as a deluded lover. Having won the affection of our courtesan, we giddily embarked on what we regarded as a “no strings” romance – however it was not long before our paramour began to demand increasingly greater levels of commitment. Love may be blind but it is inexcusable that we were wilfully blind – deliberately ignoring what our friends knew and what, deep down, our instinct told us. As the years passed, and even though the lust had long subsided, we accelerated down the autobahn and straight into to a civil partnership, with a loveless marriage seemingly our ultimate and unavoidable fate.

Luckily, as a nation of shopkeepers we were cautious about opening a joint bank account; and when it became clear that our irresponsible lover had spent her marriage dowry – apparently much of it on Porche Cayennes and Mediterranean swimming pools – we realised what fools we had been. Better late than never – but where do we go from here?

An acrimonious split from Europe would be spiteful and foolhardy. Our relationship had its positive moments and it is undoubtedly in our interest to remain best friends and business partners. But the romance is over. Time has ravaged our aging sweetheart – and not even the most expensive German cosmetic surgery can disguise the wrinkles.

Meanwhile, the Commonwealth family we long neglected has grown up. Young, vigorous and dynamic, fluent in English and trained in the common law, many members of our family have bright, prosperous futures before them. Indeed, compared with the European demographic dinosaur, it is easy to see that the Commonwealth is the future. Our far flung family is present in every continent, with two members in the G7 and five in the G20. The full potential of India, Malaysia and Singapore has yet to be realised. We are wakening up to this potential: between 2010 and 2012 the greatest increase in UK exports of goods and services was to Commonwealth countries.

Arch Europhiles are too cowardly to acknowledge that in the second quarter of this year we exported more outside the EU thanwithin. Indeed, by 2050 the Commonwealth could have a market approximately 10 times larger than that of the EU. Europhiles have lost their objectivity – and too much of their own credibility and reputation (let alone money) have been invested in the European project for them to admit their hubris. Nevertheless, it is becoming increasingly evident that we have backed the wrong horse – worse still, it’s a horse we partly own. Fortunately, if British economic and political history tells us anything, it is that we have always been able to ride at least two horses.

Thankfully, despite years of neglect and inattentiveness, our dependable Commonwealth family has not yet abandoned us. We still have time to renew and nurture the shared bonds that make us natural partners – it’s not too late. Having sown our continental wild oats we are coming to the realisation that blood is thicker than the waters of the English Channel.

An intelligent debate about maximising Commonwealth opportunities is long overdue. Europe has always known that we are more comfortable dealing with our Commonwealth cousins on matters of diplomacy, defence and security. We need to be mature enough to tell Europe that we also wish to forge independent economic and political relationships.  

Our leaders ceaselessly pay homage to family values, affirming the family as the essential unit of society. How right they are. The Commonwealth shares common values, common beliefs, common interests and common sense. Let us stop avoiding the awkward conversation – it’s time for a family reunion. 

Saturday, 3 August 2013

Occupation: Princess of the United Kingdom???

Birth Certificate for HRH Prince George of Cambridge
The birth certificate of Prince George of Cambridge was published this week. Much was made of the fact that the young prince's parents chose to list their occupations as Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom. Some columnists sneered at the suggestion that these ranks could be equated with proper job titles; others wondered why the Duke of Cambridge had not described himself as a search and rescue pilot.

Comparing the birth certificates of Prince George and his father Prince William, it is clear that a distinction is drawn between the status of Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom and the titles that traditionally form part of an individual's name. Prince William's parents are named on his birth certificate as the Prince and Princess of Wales whilst his father's occupation is described as "Prince of the United Kingdom" (in 1982 birth certificates did not carry information relating to mothers' occupations). On his birth certificate Prince George's parents are named as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.
Prince William's Birth Certificate

The rank of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom indicates membership of the Royal Family. I hold the view that members of the Queen's family who are not princes or princesses of the United Kingdom are not royal and are therefore not members of the Royal Family (viz Peter Phillips and Viscount Linley -- they are members of The Queen's family but not of the Royal Family). Once this distinction is understood, it is easier to understand that the rank of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom is also an occupation / job title -- i.e., these individuals are working members of the Royal Family and they receive funding for fulfilling their public duties. To be crude, if the Royal Family is nicknamed "the Firm", then princes and princesses of the United Kingdom may be deemed "the Firm's employees". 

To provide another example: as grandsons of King George V, HRH The Duke of Gloucester and HRH The Duke of Kent are both princes of the United Kingdom and they fulfil public duties as members of the Royal Family -- thus, each may describe his occupation as "Prince of the United Kingdom". However, their sons (respectively the Earl of Ulster and the Earl of St. Andrews) can not do so, even after they succeed to their fathers' dukedoms, as they will never be royal highnesses or princes of the United Kingdom (and consequently they will not receive funding for fulfilling public duties).  

Wednesday, 31 July 2013

Royal birth media appearances

Global interest in the recent royal birth exceeded that even of last year's Diamond Jubilee. During the week of the Royal birth I was interviewed by media from as far afield as Lithuania, Colombia and Jamaica. There can be little doubt that the increase in interest owes a great deal to the rise of social media and 24-hour "rolling news". My British "rolling news" appearances included breaking the news of Prince George's birth on LBC Radio, London's leading talk radio network:



And reviewing the newspapers on Sky News the morning after HRH's birth (watch via link below):



Monday, 29 July 2013

Sign of "The Times"? A Princely Catalogue of Errors

Below is a letter I wrote to the editor of The Times to complain about the large number of errors that had appeared in the newspaper during its coverage of the birth of HRH Prince George of Cambridge:

"Dear Sir,

As the country's pre-eminent newspaper of record, The Times has the burdensome duty of maintaining the highest standard of accuracy. Arguably nowhere is this more important than in its reporting of great national and royal events. 

Hitherto, had I been asked to rate the quality of the output of The Times in the style of a credit-rating agency, I would have automatically rated it: AAA. I was therefore saddened to stumble upon a series of basic and quite inexcusable errors in your paper this week in relation to the birth of HRH Prince George of Cambridge. 

One article published on Wednesday 24 July ("Guessing games let the bookies name their price", p.5) stated that the son of The Duke of Cambridge was "already the Prince of Cambridge" -- this is incorrect. The young prince is no more "the Prince of Cambridge" than HRH Prince Harry of Wales is "the Prince of Wales". Both princes take their territorial designation from their fathers. I accept that the lack of a Christian name complicated matters, but there were numerous other options for referring to the baby prince. 

A day later, the name of Prince George was announced and, to illustrate an article about previous royal Georges, The Times mistakenly published an image of King William IV rather than the intended King George IV (the error subsequently noted and corrected in the following day's edition). In that same article, The Times stated that our young Prince George Alexander Louis could choose to reign as King Alexander I, whereas in reality he would probably need to be King Alexander IV given that there have been three Scottish kings named Alexander and a convention has been established for the regnal number of the British sovereign to follow the higher of the existing English, Scottish or British regnal numbers (which is why the Elizabeth I-less Scots were able to accept an Elizabeth "II"). 

Now, reading today's paper (Friday, July 26), I am dismayed to see the publication of a wholly incorrect letter to the editor in which the author states that should The Prince of Wales predecease his mother, The Queen will be succeeded by her next son, The Duke of York, rather than by her eldest grandson, The Duke of Cambridge. What nonsense.

The succession to the throne is based upon primogeniture and it operates according to a system of inheritance similar to the "depth-first search" algorithm by which one starts at the root to explore all options before backtracking. According to this system, the descendants of deceased elder siblings (in this case, the Prince of Wales's sons) take precedence over living elder siblings (i.e. the Duke of York). A cursory glance at the Order of Succession would have substantiated this fact. This week's catalogue of errors is worrying. Is The Times Style & Usage Guide no longer in use? Does The Times no longer have a royal fact checker? I fear it may be time to consider putting The Times's AAA rating on "Negative Watch".

Sincerely,

Rafe Heydel-Mankoo"

Saturday, 27 July 2013

Interview on BBC News following the first public appearance of HRH Prince George of Cambridge

Following the birth and naming of HRH Prince George of Cambridge, the media storm has subsided considerably, affording me the opportunity to update my blog. The past few days have been extremely busy for me, with various appearances on NBC, SKY, BBC, FOX, SUN (Canada) and other networks.

On Wednesday I was honoured to break the news of the birth of our new royal prince live on air on London's LBC Radio, where I remained on air for 5 hours to provide running commentary as London, the UK and the Commonwealth erupted in jubilation at the happy news. A truly memorable day.

Here is part of my interview with BBC World News on Thursday immediately following the first public appearance of HRH Prince George of Cambridge, upon his departure from the Lindo Wing of St. Mary's Hospital in Paddington:




Thursday, 18 July 2013

Can an Unborn Royal Baby Inherit the Throne?

Can an unborn royal baby inherit the throne? 

When I was asked this question today, I remembered that I had written about this subject several years ago. The scenario is one which we in this country shall hopefully never face; nevertheless, it raises some interesting issues and I therefore post the question and my response:

Q: Can an unborn baby inherit the throne? e.g. the King dies while his wife is pregnant with their son. Will that unborn son inherit or eventually inherit the throne?

A: As with all such questions, one must first look to the law of succession applicable to the state / house in question. Unfortunately, in the case of our own Monarchy, there is no clear answer.

We must therefore turn to history for guidance. Whilst our Monarchy has never dealt with this scenario, there have been examples on the continent.

Louis X's queen, Clemence d'Anjou, was pregnant at the time of his death in 1316. In what laid the foundation for Salic succesion, Louis' living daughter was passed over and Louis' brother was named regent. 5 months later Clemence gave birth to a boy, who immediately succeeded to the throne as King Jean I. He died a few days later and the regent succeeded as King. Had Clemence given birth to a daughter, the regent, as heir presumptive, would have been named Sovereign retroactively to the date of his brother's death. Something similar occurred a few years later, also in France, with Philip VI's succession to Charles IV in 1328, although Philip's relationship was more distant.

A less ancient case occurred in Spain in 1885, where the law of succession was similar to our own. Upon the death of King Alfonso XII his pregnant queen was appointed regent. Her child was proclaimed King upon birth. We might expect a similar scenario in the case of our own monarchy, although this cannot be guaranteed as the Regency Act permits the establishment of a regency only where a sovereign exists.

Unfortunately we cannot look to any UK legislation for advice as none deals with this specific event. Whilst any answer must therefore be speculative, our own history provides us with one possible solution. Queen Adelaide, William IV's widow, was still of child-bearing age upon his death in 1837. Consequently Victoria was proclaimed queen "saving the rights of any issue of his late Majesty's consort". This proclamation may provide some indication of the manner in which the matter might be handled -- although it is our law-makers who shall have final say.

Monday, 15 July 2013

"HM The Queen, Seigneur of the Swans!"

Swan Uppers Toasting "HM The Queen, Seigneur of the Swans"
Whilst we all await the eagerly anticipated royal birth, we should not forget that it is very much "business as usual" for the Royal Calendar.  Today marks the start of the ancient ceremony of Swan Upping. Dating back to the 12th century, the ceremony involves the Crown claiming ownership of all unmarked mute swans on the open waterways. Although no longer eaten, historically swans were a prized delicacy (both for meat and for feather quills) and thus reserved for the Monarch and the aristocracy. Since the 15th century the Crown has shared ownership of the swans with two ancient Livery Companies of the City of London: The Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Dyers.

The annual Swan Upping Ceremony takes place over five days in the third week of July. The ceremony has The Queen's Swan Marker, the Royal Swan Uppers and the Swan Uppers of the Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Dyers travel up the river Thames in six traditional rowing skiffs. The Queen's Swan Uppers are dressed in scarlet uniforms with historic flags flying from the boats. The Swan Uppers of the livery companies wear blazers and white trousers.

When the Swan Uppers sight a brood of cygnets they cry "All up!" and steer the boats into position. The cygnets are then weighed, marked, measured and, after a health check by The Queen's Swan Warden, released.

Upon passing Windsor Castle, all of the rowers stand to attention in their boats and salute "Her Majesty The Queen, Seigneur of the Swans".

In 2009 The Queen, as "Seigneur of the Swans" attended the Swan Upping ceremony. This was the first time a Sovereign had attended in several centuries.





Tuesday, 9 July 2013

The Royal Baby's Official Title & Styles -- Plus other relevant Title FAQs.

A few days ago, several news sources were quick to proclaim the "breaking news" that the official title of the royal baby had been formally announced as "The Prince/Princess of Cambridge".

No it hadn't. 

As the misleading reports continue unabated, I would like to settle this issue and also deal with some related questions which often arise in connection with the confusing subject of royal styles and titles. I hope this guide will provide some clarity.

A ROYAL BABY STYLES AND TITLES FAQ:

Q1:  If the child of a Duke and Duchess is a Prince(ss) will he/she outrank the parents?

Answer:  NO.

The Duke of Cambridge is also a prince and a Royal Highness and therefore the child will not outrank the parents. Children and wives normally take their status from their father/husband. Consequently, the title borne by the child will reflect his/her status as the child of Prince William: "Prince(ss) X of Cambridge".

Traditionally, the child of a "Prince of the Blood Royal" would automatically become a prince or princess upon birth, irrespective of whether his/her father is a royal duke. A royal dukedom is a substantive peerage title whereas "prince" is a titular dignity -- they are very different creatures.

In 1917, King George V issued Letters Patent which regulated who was entitled to be styled as a "prince" or "princess" and be called "His/Her Royal Highness". Those so entitled included the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign, and the eldest living son of the son of the Prince of Wales. Importantly, this last category would have applied to a son of Prince William but not to a daughter.

Consequently, in December 2012, to accommodate the possibility of the birth of a daughter to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, The Queen declared that the 1917 LP would be amended so that all children of the son of the Prince of Wales would be granted the dignity of "prince" or "princess" and be called "Royal Highness". [This was not the first such amendment: In 1948 our Queen's father, King George VI, amended the 1917 LP to include the children of Princess Elizabeth (who would otherwise have been denied the status of "HRH Prince/Princess)]. 

The royal child will be "Prince(ss) X of Cambridge" and *not* "Prince(ss) of Cambridge" as this latter style implies they are holders of substantive titles. Many of the media reports of the past few days have been disappointing -- we have known how the baby would be styled for months, if not years. This is not news. The title follows the standard format for royal babies and has long-established precedence.

HRH The Duke of Gloucester
HRH The Duke of Kent
Q2: Will the child of the Duke of Cambridge bear a courtesy title (a junior title held by the father)?

Answer: NO.

The status of "HRH Prince" trumps a courtesy title (such as that borne by the son of a non-royal Duke) and that is why the royal baby would be known as "Prince(ss) X of Cambridge".

Royal Dukes outrank noble Dukes. Although a non-royal Duke would permit his son to style himself with a courtesy title, this is not the case for Royal Dukes as their princely status is deemed higher than a courtesy title of Marquess, Earl, Viscount or Baron. For example, when their fathers were alive, the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent were not known by the courtesy titles that would have been appropriate had they been noble, rather than royal, dukes (respectively Earl of Ulster and Earl of St. Andrews). Instead they were styled "HRH Prince Richard of Gloucester" and "HRH Prince Edward of Kent". Similarly, when George VI was Duke of York, his daughter, our current Queen, was known as  "HRH Princess Elizabeth of York" -- and so it shall be with the issue of the Duke of Cambridge.

By virtue of the 1917 Letters Patent, Gloucester and Kent will cease to be royal dukedoms in the next generation. Consequently, as the sons of the current Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester are not Royal Highnesses or princes they bear the courtesy titles one would expect for future noble dukes: Earl of St. Andrews (Kent) and Earl of Ulster (Gloucester).

The Earl of Ulster
The Earl of St. Andrews




Q3: So does a Royal Duke outrank a Prince?

Answer: The practical reality is that Royal Dukes do not necessarily outrank Princes. The official precedence of royals in the UK is determined by the closeness of the relationship with the Sovereign. Thus Royal Dukes do not impact upon ranking in the table of precedence. With one exception: the grandsons of the Sovereign who are royal dukes outrank their non royal duke cousins. This is why the Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester are ranked above HRH Prince Michael of Kent. 

HRH Prince Michael of Kent
Q4. Will Prince William succeed to his father's titles upon Prince Charles' accession to the throne as Sovereign?

Answer: YES and NO.

When Prince Charles becomes King, Prince William will automatically succeed to the titles of Duke of Cornwall (to be used as the superior title outside Scotland) and Duke of Rothesay (to be used as the superior title within Scotland). He will not automatically become Prince of Wales.

Q5. Will Prince William use "Duke of Cambridge" after he also becomes Duke of Cornwall but before he is installed as Prince of Wales?.

Answer: This will be a matter of choice (as is now so often the case with royal titles!). George III was known as "Duke of Edinburgh" in the short period between his father's death and becoming Prince of Wales. In contrast, as he was already Duke of York upon becoming heir apparent, George V was known as "Duke of Cornwall and York".



Wednesday, 3 July 2013

HM Albert II, King of the Belgians to Announce his Abdication

HM Albert II, King of the Belgians, will address the Belgian nation today at 5pm BST (4pm GMT) to announce his intention to abdicate. His Majesty's abdication will take effect on Belgium's national day, 21 July.

The Belgian media has reported that King Albert informed his cabinet of the decision earlier today. The Belgian Prime Minister will address the nation after the King.

In a country with strong internal divisions, it is often jokingly said that there is only one Belgian: The King. Certainly, during Belgium's recent political crises in 2010-2011, during which it effectively had no active government, His Majesty played an important role as mediator.

The 79 year-old King Albert II succeeded to the throne 20 years ago, upon the death of his much-loved brother King Baudoin in July 1993. I was in Belgium at the time and I was struck by the degree to which the nation mourned King Baudoin and supported the Monarchy. Shop windows were dressed in black crepe, people wore black armbands and every possible flag was lowered to half mast (which is quite a sight in Belgium, a country rich with civic flags and heraldry).

King Albert will be succeeded by his son Prince Philippe, HRH The Duke of Brabant. Prince Philippe is married to Princess Mathilde, HRH The Duchess of Brabant. Princess Mathilde is half-Polish: her mother was born Countess Anna Maria Komorowska and her maternal grandmother was HSH Princess Zofia Sapieha.

The Future King & Queen of the Belgians with Queen Fabiola.
Princess Mathilde and Prince Philippe, TRH The Duke and Duchess of Brabant,
are wearing the Grand Cross ribands of the
Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland
With the abdication of Pope Benedict XVI, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar and now King Albert II of the Belgians, 2013 may well be regarded as the Year of Abdication. 


Saturday, 29 June 2013

Exposing the self-styled Polish "princes" of Adelaide, Australia. - TV Interview

One of the self-styled "princes" with his "princess" wife
and a foreign lady who, understandably, had no reason to doubt
his claims.
[YouTube video clip of the TV programme may be viewed below]

I was recently approached by "Today Tonight", a leading investigative journalism TV programme in Australia. The producers were keen to expose two brothers living in Adelaide who were posing as Polish "royal" "princes", styled "Serene Highness". Needless to say, neither individual appears in any of the historical sources or reference works for the titled Polish nobility. The evidence is clear: the brothers are nothing more than self-styled "wannabe princes" and rather sad and wilfully deluded "Walter Mitty" characters living in a fantasy land.  Normally, this would not be an issue of great concern, (in my field of work I encounter many self-styled characters) but they have managed to convince a number of well-meaning individuals that they are the real McCoy (and this includes distinguished people in other countries as well as some members of notable families inviduals in Asia and elsewhere).  Of course this should not be surprising. People are generally trusting and would have no reason for suspicion or to question someone's use of a title (why would they?) -- furthermore, Polish titles are so obscure that most people would not know how to check the authenticity of any claim. Alas, the realisation that these two brothers are not who they claim to be is bound to be extremely embarrassing to their supporters and those who have become their social acquaintances.

The documentary "Phoney Royals", Exposing Two Self-Styled Polish Princes Living in Adelaide may be viewed via YouTube in this video:
Not only do these two brothers pose as "Polish princes", one of them has also worn Australian medals and decorations which were never awarded to him (including bravery medals and the Order of Australia). A photograph of him wearing these medals may be seen in the video clip above. To wear orders and medals to which one is not entitled is a criminal offence in Australian law carrying the possible penalty of imprisonment. Bearing all of this in mind, I therefore had no hesitation in agreeing to participate in this TV programme.

It is interesting to note that after the TV programme was aired, the two brothers protected access to their website by making it available only to those who have login usernames and passwords.