alt.talk.royalty FAQ: British royalty and nobilityFREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS FOR ALT.TALK.ROYALTY-- BRITISH ROYAL & NOBLE FAMILIES --SUMMARY:This regular posting contains a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) and their answers and other useful information about the British Royal Family and British nobility. (The Royal & Noble Families of the World FAQ can be found at http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm). It should be read by anyone who wishes to post to the alt.talk.royalty newsgroup. A separate posting lists only the changes made during thelast month to this document: http://tinyurl.com/ydbtke.Note: the FAQ contains European characters (accented letters) which may not show on your browser/newsreader or may show garbled characters. All characters used here arepartof the ISO Latin-1 set and are displayable by normal browsers. Ask your Internet Service Provider for an "8-bit clean feed" if you have this problem. Last updated on: 19 Apr 2008For comments, additions, suggestions, please contact the maintainer,François Velde (http://www.heraldica.org/contact.html).Table of ContentsPart I: Introduction What is alt.talk.royalty? How do I access alt.talk.royalty? Welcome to alt.talk.royalty! History of the alt.talk.royalty FAQ Basic newsgroup "netiquette". What kind of postings are appropriate in alt.talk.royalty? Examples of "good" and "bad" posts. Are there archives where I can find older posts on a subject? What other newsgroups and chat groups are there? Can I sell or advertise in this newsgroup? Where can I get the latest version of the FAQ?Part II: British Royal Family What is the surname of the royal family? Who are the members of the royal family? Who is next in line when a king or queen regnant dies? What is the order of succession to the Throne? Where can I find the complete list of all those in line to the British Throne? Who is the last person in the line of succession the British throne? What happens if no one is left in the line of succession the British throne? If King James II hadn't been overthrown in 1688/1689, who would be the sovereign today? If Salic Law had applied in Great Britain and Victoria had not succeeded King William IV as Queen in 1837, who would be the sovereign today? Who were the monarchs of England? Can the sovereign abdicate? Have there ever been monarchs who abdicated? Can a member of the royal family do as he or she pleases? When a man marries a princess or a queen, does he take his wife's rank? When a woman marries a prince, why does she use her husband's Christian name in her title instead of her own name? What are the different types of queen? What type of sovereign is HM The Queen? When did HM The Queen succeed? What type of work does HM The Queen do as sovereign? What are HM The Queen's titles? Why does the queen have so many different titles? Is the queen also separately queen of any territories which are not independent countries? What are all the countries which have been Commonwealth monarchies, and when? Why does The Queen celebrate her birthday twice a year? Why is Queen Elizabeth II "HM" and not "HRH"? Why are the children of HM The Queen "HRH" while the children of HRH Princess Margaret are not? Which members of the royal family are entitled to "HRH"? Who are the relatives of HM The Queen? Is it true that HM The Queen has agreed to allow the Government to change the laws of succession to the throne? Was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark a British subject before he became naturalized in 1947? Did Prince Philip renounce his Greek titles and his succession rights to the Greek throne before his marriage to HRH Princess Elizabeth? Which members of the royal family have a ducal title and who inherits their titles at their deaths?* Peculiarities of the dukedom of Edinburgh* Will Edward inherit the dukedom of Edinburgh? What is the difference between an heir apparent and an heir presumptive? How many Princes of Wales have there been and who were they? Who were the princesses who bore the style "Princess Royal"? Where can I find the Acts, Proclamations and Instruments concerning the royal succession? What is the Farran exemption? What is the address of HM The Queen? Does Prince William of Wales have an e-mail address? What are some of the royal palaces and places of burial? Mini-biography of Diana, Princess of Wales Is a new king free to choose a new name, or does Charles haveto reign as "Charles III"? What is the title of a Queen's husband? How are sovereigns numbered? What happens when a king dies and his widow is pregnant?Part III: British Noble Families What is the peerage? What ranks are there in the peerage? Is everyone in a peer's family noble? Who is a commoner in Britain? Can a peer renounce his peerage titles? Can a woman inherit a peerage? Can a person buy a title and become a noble? If I buy a coat-of-arms, am I noble?Part IV: Resources On-line Sources of Information Useful Addresses Magazines and Videos BibliographyCredits, Copyright, DisclaimerPart I: Introduction1. What is alt.talk.royalty?alt.talk.royalty is an unmoderated newsgroup created for the purpose of discussion ofall aspects of royalty and nobility of any time period anywhere in the world. There is nomailing list gated to this group. Please remember that one cannot subscribe to orunsubscribe from alt.talk.royalty via a mailing list, as is the case, e.g.,for soc.genealogy.medieval.alt.talk.royalty was first proposed in December 1994 and was created in February1995 (according to:ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/control/alt/alt.talk.royalty)Despite the FAQ compiler's efforts, it has not been determined who beganalt.talk.royalty nor who is responsible for composing its charter.The charter states: "The group is oriented to discussion of royalty and nobility of allnationalities, both present day and historical. Discussions of the British royal family, thepossibility of a restored Russian monarchy, Henry VIII's foibles, and the forms of addressused in the Spanish court would all be appropriate. Advertising and commercialism arenot welcome, especially since everyone knows that involvement in retail commerce resultsin attainder!"All those who have access to alt.talk.royalty and are interested in royalty and nobilityare encouraged to participate. (Before interested individuals "discovered" alt.talk.royaltyand began posting to it regularly, they posted their questions in rec.heraldry.) The scopeof the group encompasses topics such as the sovereigns or rulers of nations, royal andnoble genealogies, vital statistics (births, marriages, deaths), lines of succession, royalresidences, biographies, current events, pretenders or claimants to thrones, mistressesand illegitimate children, so on and so forth.alt.talk.royalty is not here for the glorification of royalty. All views, positive, negativeand in-between, are permitted. We are here to talk about royalty and nobility. You will find, however, most people who post to alt.talk.royalty talk in favor of royalty and that they are not anti-royalist. You can express anti-royalist sentiments, but it is a fair assumption that you will get a heated and vociferous response. Royalty discussions can bring out the best and the worst in people; they engender strong emotions and opinions.alt.talk.royalty has in its midst authors, genealogists, historians, journalists and other such posters (and lurkers). Some of our members post to the group while others preferto lurk. Our members are international: as of this edition of the FAQ, the majority arefrom the United States, while the rest are from Australia, Canada, Denmark, France,Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Sweden and the United Kingdom.Back to Table of Contents2. How do I access alt.talk.royalty?alt.talk.royalty is an Internet (or Usenet) newsgroup. To access it, you need a "client" (software application) on your computer and access to a "news (or Usenet) server". The client will connect to the server, retrieve the posts, and send your own replies. The server will then disseminate your posts to the rest of the world.If you have access to the Web, your web browser can serve as client, and you can accessa server over the Web. See Yahoo directory for "Usenet servers" for a list.Google Groups (http://groups.google.com) also offers access.Alternatively, contact your ISP (Internet Service Provider) and ask them if they have anews server and what software they provide to connect to it. Again, your web browsercan serve as a news client to connect to the news server.Back to Table of Contents3. Welcome to alt.talk.royalty!This purpose of this chapter is to provide useful information for new members ofalt.talk.royalty. First-time users, or even those who've been here a few times, havefound the newsgroup's atmosphere intimidating. When posting for the first time, somepeople find themselves the object of criticism or downright abuse. The new-to-the-groupposter might not understand that that kind of behavior happens with regularity in newsgroups.And so, at the suggestion of some alt.talk.royalty regulars, the FAQ compiler andmaintainer has developed this section which will hopefully explain the personalities of theregular members as well as provide tips on how to "survive" in alt.talk.royalty.One of the first things that is noticeable about alt.talk.royalty is that it has a dualpersonality. Some days, it has a pleasant, quiet, stress-free atmosphere, while on otherdays it can be testy, noisy and combative. Some days, it can be academic and instructivein tone, yet gossipy and disruptive on other days. It has been suggested that, generallyspeaking, the male members of alt.talk.royalty are competitive (with some positivelythriving on this), while the female members seem cooperative. For the most part,alt.talk.royalty's members are pro-royalty/monarchy. What sets us apart are ourpersonal perspectives and biases.alt.talk.royalty has quite an interesting mix of people. While we can't tell you about thelurkers (they obviously prefer to remain anonymous), we can tell you about those whopost with some regularity. There are authors (Greg King, author ofThe Last Empress;Marlene Koenig, author under the name of Marlene A. Eilers, of Queen Victoria'sDescendants; Peter Kurth, author of Anastasia: The Riddle of Anna Anderson;Ted Rosvall, author of Bernadotte-Attlingar; William Addams Reitwiesner, author ofThe American Ancestors and Relatives of Lady Diana Frances Spencer, Guy StairSainty, author of The Orders of Chivalry and Merit of the Bourbon TwoSiciliesDynasty, Daniel Willis, author under the name of Daniel Brewer-Ward ofThe House ofHabsburg: a genealogy of the descendants of Empress Maria Theresia), art dealer(Guy Stair Sainty), author (Grant Hayter-Menzies), lawyer (Patrick Cracroft-Brennan), librarian (Noel McFerran), medical doctor (Sam Dotson), university professors (Stephen Stillwell, Peter Kurrild-Klitgaard, and JeffreyTaliaferro, the last two political scientists), some who share ancestors with royaltyor are descendants of royalty (Frank Johansen and Grant Menzies), and even an aristocrator two (Gilbert von Studnitz and Eric von Ehrenberg). Of course, there are also the average,everyday type of person who posts to alt.talk.royalty.If one observes alt.talk.royalty for some time, individual types become obvious and onefinds that they usually view and respond about royalty/monarchy in a predictable way.For example, there are the absolute monarchists (Louis Epstein, Noel McFerran), thegenealogists (Sam Dotson, Marlene Koenig, Steven Lavallee, William Addams Reitwiesner,Darren Shelton, Paul Theroff, Daniel Willis), the historians (François Velde), the legalists (Paul Johnson, Guy Stair Sainty), the legitimists (Dimitry Macedonsky), so on and so on. One can continue to categorize alt.talk.royalty's members into those types who enjoy the gossip/daily lives aspect of royalty, those whose only interest is the British royal family enthusiasts (with a subset focussed on Diana, Princess of Wales), those whoview royalty from a religious aspect, from a political aspect, so on and so forth.Some of alt.talk.royalty's members use an alias, but most post under their real names.Some posters have obvious favorite areas and share willingly their knowledge. Otherposters are more generalists, but share their knowledge with the same generosity. Someposters will only post or reply when their favorite topic comes up for discussion. Otherposters will reply to just about everything and anything. Some of the regulars alwaysprovide references for their replies which can annoy some people, while others feel ituseful and informative. Other posters never cite their sources. Some posters reply toquestions succinctly while others provide mini-essays. Some posters will point out spellingand grammar errors while others never do so. Some posters reply to others in a light-hearted way while others are business-like. Some posters will criticize another member'squestion for whatever reason, while other posters will reply kindly and helpfully. Someposters have strong beliefs and won't budge an inch when discussing a particular topic,while others seem flexible and willing to see other points of view. Lastly, some of thenastier posters (and they are only a handful, thankfully) almost always use foul language,are rude and hurtful and seem to be in alt.talk.royalty only to disrupt the group.New members and not-so-new ones will probably realize at this point that given thesetypes of personalities, it would not be easy to post with confidence in alt.talk.royalty.The FAQ compiler and maintainer has received emails from people who feel they'vebeen poorly treated by the regulars. Because of this, they chose to lurk instead of postingin the group or vow never to return to alt.talk.royalty. Some posters almost alwaysbehave in a certain way and their criticisms shouldn't be taken personally because that ishow they behave to just about everyone. It is almost guaranteed that when a person poststo a newsgroup he or she will eventually be criticized or abused. Please don't beintimidated by the bad manners of some and leave alt.talk.royalty too soon. There arelots of us who welcome newcomers and we appreciate your ideas and input!Back to Table of Contents4. History of the alt.talk.royalty FAQThere was talk in early 1996 of creating a FAQ for alt.talk.royalty and some workfor one had been started by members of the group. It did not materialize into a finishedproduct, however. A few months later, in August 1996, another member of the group(Mark Odegard) posted a titles FAQ to the group. It was called "A Glossary ofEuropean Noble, Princely, Royal, and Imperial Titles". (It can now be found on theWWW at:http://www.heraldica.org/topics/odegard/titlefaq.htm.)Nonetheless, alt.talk.royalty remained without a general, all-purpose FAQ until May 1997.At that time, a rough draft version of a FAQ was posted to the group; it had been createdby Yvonne Demoskoff with the help of several members. A number of additions, correctionsand suggestions were made over the next few months and by November 1997 the roughdraft was replaced with an official first version.In June 1998, the FAQ was posted once again to the newsgroup but this time it was in twodistinct parts: one was called the Brit-FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions for alt.talk.royalty -British Royal & Noble Families) and the other was called the non-Brit-FAQ (FrequentlyAsked Questions for alt.talk.royalty - Non-British Royal & Noble Families).In August 1998, François Velde took over the maintenance of the various alt.talk.royaltyFAQs.Back to Table of Contents5. Basic newsgroup "netiquette".Before posting to any Usenet group, please read the introductory articles in thenewsgroup news.announce.newusers. There, Emily Postnews will help you throughsome netiquette you need to know before posting.We highly recommend "lurking", that is, reading messages without posting anything for afew weeks so that you get an idea of how people typically phrase their postings. This willalso give you an idea of the flow of the newsgroup, the personalities of the regulars, andthe like. The easiest way to learn how to post in a.t.r. is to watch how others do it. Startby reading the posts and try to figure out what people are doing and why. After a fewweeks, you will start to understand why certain things are done and what things shouldn'tbe done.Occasionally, you will see trolls (strong worded postings intended only to provoke a lotof replies), flames and off-topic posts. The best way to deal with these kinds of postingsis to ignore them. If your newsreader program allows the use of a kill-file make use of itto filter out undesirable postings. Alternatively, if you see a blatantly offensive message,do not respond with another post. Instead, send a strong complaint to<postmaster@posters.site> and <abuse@posters.site>.One last point to remember concerning inappropriate behavior: our newsgroup, incommon with other newsgroups, has its share of people who seek to disrupt the groupcollectively and/or its posters individually. alt.talk.royalty and its FAQ might not havean official policy as to how one should deal with such disruptive behavior, but it cansuggest the following: DNFTEC. This stands for "Do Not Feed The EnergyCreature". An energy creature's favorite feeding tactic is to try to hurt people's feelingsor get them angry. The Energy Creature can then feed off the pain and anger it hasgenerated. Its second favorite tactic is to hurt one person or the group's feelings whilegathering the sympathy of others. That way, when the injured party lashes back, otherswill jump to the Energy Creature's defense. The Energy Creature feeds off the attentionand the negative energy generated by the people fighting. Newsgroups will never becompletely rid of such obnoxious, offensive and ill-mannered beings, but much can bedone to keep the situation under control by remembering this simple formula: DNFTEC.If the Energy Creature gets a response, it gets stronger. If it is ignored, it will eventuallyweaken, wither and go away. Remember: do not to feed the energy creatures.Back to Table of Contents6. What kind of postings are appropriate in alt.talk.royalty?We are an unmoderated newsgroup. The only things not allowed here are thingsprohibited by Usenet protocol, such as spams (the posting of off-topic material to manyUsenet groups) and illegal postings (e.g. chain letters, sending non-exportable things,threatening to kill people). However, inappropriate topics or posts are those which arecompletely unrelated to royalty and nobility.Attachments, whether they are text (batch files, system files) or binaries (audio, video,pictures such as .JPGs, .GIFs, .TIFs and the like, programs, and "web" files such asHTML, HTM, SHTML) are also inappropriate. Binaries must be kept in groups withbinaries in the name; they cannot appear in alt.talk.royalty. If news administrators findbinaries in a.t.r., they could kill the group and move it to the alt.binaries section. A betterway of dealing with binaries is to post the binary in a binaries group and to write a note ina.t.r. telling the group where the particular binary can be found. In other words, do notpost anything other than plain text in our non-binary newsgroup.Posts which refer to royalty and nobility in a negative way (such as suggesting that onemonarchy in particular, or all monarchies in general should be overthrown), while notoff-topic, will usually get no response. Most of the posters in alt.talk.royalty are fullyaware of the strengths and weaknesses of hereditary systems, and are participating in thisnewsgroup to explore the intricacies of these systems, rather than to engage in flamewarswith persons who are opposed to the idea of these systems.Patently offensive remarks are inappropriate.Back to Table of Contents7. Examples of "good" and "bad" posts.Let's begin with "bad" posts:"Please tell me EVERYTHING about Princess Diana.""I need to know ALL the people in line to the British throne; my homework is duetomorrow!""I'm looking for information about the kings of England."-- these types of posts are usually met with well deserved sarcasm or risk beingcompletely ignored"So-and-so is an idiot and should be shot!"-- personal comments or attacks on a.t.r. members have no place in a royalty newsgroup;take it to private e-mail, if you must"This is a test."-- there isn't any reason to test alt.talk.royalty, the system works fine. If you have totest something, do it in a group with 'test' in it such as alt.test or misc.test.And now "good" posts:"Who succeeded King George II?""Why does Queen Elizabeth II celebrate her birthday in April and in June?""Where is King Henry VIII buried?""Can someone tell me how King George V and Tsar Nicholas II are related?"(these "bad" and "good" posts are examples only and will not be necessarily found inthe FAQ)Points to Remember: when the topic in a post has changed, please reflect that in the subject heading byindicating the new subject and including a reference to the old subject heading we suggest reading all the existing responses to a query before posting one's ownresponse; maybe the question has already been answered, and the name of the game isnot to show off how much one knows people don't like to read things again and again; therefore, try to avoid large quotes;quote only what you respond to please keep the lines of your messages to under 70 characters; long lines will overflowwhen quoted by others and become very difficult to read remember, it is generally considered rude to post private e-mail correspondencewithout the permission of the author of that mail be careful about infringing upon copyrights and licenses; when quoting, do not usemore of the work than is necessary to make your commentary; for more information oncopyright, read "Copyright Myths FAQ: 10 big myths about copyright explained" foundat the following URL: http://www.clari.net/brad/copymyths.html posts may be in any language, but will probably be understood by the largest audienceif in EnglishBack to Table of Contents8. Are there archives where I can find older posts on a subject?Most Internet Service Providers (ISPs) do not keep posts for more than one or two weeks. Therefore, to find older posts, head over to the WWW and check out"Google Groups" (formerly known as Deja News) at: http://groups.google.com/groups?as_ugroup=alt.talk.royaltyOnce there, you will be able to search old posts back to April 1995.This is also a good starting point to see what questions have already been asked in our newsgroup. It's possible that yourparticular question has already been asked.Back to Table of Contents9. What other newsgroups and chat groups are there?Some newsgroups that deal with royalty and/or related subjects are: alt.gossip.royalty rec.heraldry (discussions of coats of arms and of the honors they can depict) soc.genealogy.medieval (discussions of genealogy, royal or otherwise, mainly ofthe Middle Ages) soc.history soc.history.ancient soc.history.medievalN.B.: not all ISPs carry "alt." and "clari." newsgroups; however, they can be accessedby visiting the Google Groups web site at:http://groups.google.comWe suggest that you find out more about these newsgroups by reading their FAQs,if available, or by lurking, so that you post your queries in the appropriate group andnot haphazardly cross-post to all of them.America Online (AOL) features chat groups about royalty for its members. The royaltychats meet almost daily and the topics range from discussions about the late Diana, Princessof Wales to the Romanovs to the Tudors.Back to Table of Contents10. Can I sell or advertise in this newsgroup?Usenet procedures heavily discourage advertising in newsgroups not specifically designedfor commerce. Having said that, one-time offers to sell or buy books, and such, aboutBritish royalty and nobility, will be tolerated. Those who wish to regularly advertiseshould post their messages in the appropriate newsgroups (for example,alt.genealogy.marketplace).Back to Table of Contents11. Where can I get the latest version of this FAQ?You can obtain the latest version of the FAQ by visiting its web site at:http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.htmlBack to Table of ContentsPart II: British Royal Family1. What is the surname of the royal family?On 17 July 1917, King George V issued a Proclamation which stated that the male linedescendants of the royal family would bear the surname Windsor:from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our Houseand Family shall be styled and known as the House andFamily of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the maleline of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who aresubjects of these Realms, other than female descendantswho may marry or may have married, shall bear the saidName of WindsorA few months later, King George V issued Letters Patent on 30 October 1917 whichlimited the title 'Prince' and the style 'Royal Highness' to the children of a sovereign, thechildren of sons of a sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Princeof Wales. HH Prince Alastair of Connaught (1914-1943), grandson of HRH PrinceArthur, Duke of Connaught (Queen Victoria's fourth son), became the first member ofthe royal family to use the surname Windsor in lieu of his princely title. It has beensuggested that it was a misinterpretation of these latest Letters Patent which led toHH Prince Alastair (for such he was based on practise going back to the time of KingGeorge I's accession in 1714 and which practise was confirmed in Queen Victoria'sLetters Patent of 30 January 1864; source: "The Princes of Great Britain" article inBurke's Peerage 1963 edition, pp xxvii-xxxii) being denied his princely title. However,as he was the son and heir of a peeress (Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife), he wasallowed the courtesy use of his mother's subsidiary title and became Alastair Windsor,styled Earl of Macduff.On 11 December 1917, it was further decided by Letters Patent that:the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in thedirect male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldestson of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and titleenjoyed by the children of Dukes.In 1952, Queen Elizabeth II confirmed her grandfather's decision that the royal family'ssurname would continue to be Windsor. Her Majesty declared on 9 April 1952 that itwas:her Will and Pleasure that She and Her Children shall bestyled and known as the House and Family of Windsor,and that Her descendants other than female descendantswho marry and their descendants shall bear the name ofWindsor.A few years later, HM The Queen modified this statement by issuing Letters Patent inFebruary 1960 which stated in part:while I and my children will continue to be styled and knownas the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, otherthan descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes ofRoyal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess,and female descendants who marry and their descendants,shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor.Did this mean that the name of some members of the royal family changed from "Windsor"to "Mountbatten-Windsor"? Some people contend that the goal of this declaration wasmeant to not only change the surname of the children of HM The Queen but those of hermale-line descendants as well. At Princess Anne's wedding in November 1974, Annesigned the marriage register 'Anne', without a surname. It was the registrar who filled inher names as 'Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor'. According to aBuckingham Palace statement issued in October 1975, the specific addition of the surname'Mountbatten-Windsor' was "the Queen's decision that this should be done". Further, HMThe Queen consulted with the acting Prime Minister to confirm whether all her childrenwould have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. She received the following reply:"The effect of Your Majesty's Declaration is that all the childrenof Your Majesty who may at any time need a surname have thesurnames of Mountbatten-Windsor."(Prince Philip: A Biography, by Denis Judd, London: Michael John, 1980, page 196)It would seem that the surname of HM The Queen's children is whatever HM wishes.Legally and constitutionally, however, the Queen cannot do as she wishes. The surnameof the Queen's children is Mountbatten-Windsor in practise and has appearedthreetimes: at Princess Anne's first marriage in 1974, on Prince Andrew's marriage register in1986, and when the banns were read prior to Princess Anne's second marriage toCommander Laurence in 1992. (When the Prince of Wales married for the first time in 1981, he signedthe register as "Charles P" and the registrar filled in his name as "His Royal HighnessPrince Charles Philip Arthur George The Prince of Wales".) Nonetheless, the familyname remains legally Windsor because there hasn't been any modification or clarificationto the Letters Patent of 1960.Back to Table of Contents2. Who are the members of the royal family?The term royal family "has no strict legal definition" (The Royal Encyclopedia, 1991)."The expression 'royal family' carries no strict legal definition. However,certain relatives of the monarch possess special privileges and are subject tospecial common law or statutory provisions. Traditionally members of the royalfamily perform a public social or ceremonial function by virtue of the legalinstitution of the monarchy, and this is reflected in the styles and forms ofprecedence which are in existence" (Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th ed. (Reissue)((vol 12(1) par. 27). Thus, depending on the purpose one has in mind (applyingthe Royal Marriages Act or the Civil List Act), or the criterion used (those entitledto styles or precedence), one can come up with different lists.The Sovereign decides which members of his or her family are accorded the status ofmembers of the Royal Family. From time to time, Queen Elizabeth II compiles a listwhich consists of people who are considered by Her Majesty to make up her immediatefamily. In February 1990, there were thirty-five people on this list, excluding royalchildren. The list is circulated privately to members of the royal family (who refer to itas the 'printed list') and it is not published elsewhere. The list has no legal or officialstatus.When one mentions "royal family", the general public usually thinks the term includesthe children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren (and spouses) of the Sovereign.For the purposes of this FAQ, the term royal family includes the following people: HM The Queen HRH The Duke of Edinburgh HRH The Prince of Wales HRH The Duchess of Cornwall HRH Prince William of Wales HRH Prince Henry (Harry) of Wales HRH The Princess Royal HRH The Duke of York HRH Princess Beatrice of York HRH Princess Eugenie of York HRH The Earl of Wessex HRH The Countess of Wessex Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor Viscount SevernWhen speaking informally of the Royal Family, this list of people could include, but notnecessarily be limited to, the following people: Princess Anne's husband and her children;Sarah, Duchess of York; Princess Margaret's children, their spouses and her grandchildren;the Duke of Kent and his wife, their children, spouses, and children; Princess Alexandraof Kent, her children, spouses and children; Prince Michael of Kentand his wife and their children; the Duke of Gloucester, his wife and theirchildren; the Earl of Harewood and his wife, his late brother's (the Honourable GeraldLascelles) wife; the Duke of Fife.Back to Table of Contents3. Who is next in line when a king or queen regnant dies?The right to succeed is determined by statutes, notably the Act of Settlement. When a king or queen regnant dies, therefore, the new sovereign is the heir of body of Electress Sophia.The Act of Settlement, passed by Parliament in 1701, states that after the death of QueenAnne, the succession would pass to Sophia, Electress of Hanover "and the heirs of herbody, being Protestants". To be able to succeed a king or queen regnant, one must be aProtestant descendant of Electress Sophia. This means that those born a member of theRoyal Family, but not those who marry into the Royal Family, are eligible to be in line ofsuccession. It does not mean that the late king's widow or the late queen's widower is thenew sovereign. (Marriage to the sovereign does not give the widow or widower greaterprecedence over those in line of succession.)Back to Table of Contents4. What is the order of succession to the Throne?An order of succession is a mechanism or algorithm that determines the new sovereign at the time the old sovereign dies. It usually specifies a pathto follow in the genealogical tree from the deceased sovereign, and oftentimes additional criteria to be met by the potential successor. The first person to be found by the algorithm is the new sovereign. The algorithm is defined bystatutes.At any point in time, there is a sovereign, and the rule of succession can be applied (as a pure mental game, as long as the sovereign is alive) in the following way: "if the sovereign were to die this minute, who would succeed?"The answer to the question is the heir, either apparent or presumptive.One can, of course, extend the game a step further, and ask who is the heir'sheir. In other words, the question becomes: "if the sovereign and the heir were to die this minute, who would succeed?" By extending the question in this fashion, one creates a "line of succession", in which the heir is number1 (or next in line, after the sovereign), the heir's heir is number 2, and so on. The line of succession is thus constructed recursively, by asking at eachstep N: "if the sovereign and the first N-1 people in the order were to die this minute, who would succeed?" The answer is person number N on the list.Because British statutes (such as the Act of Settlement) impose additional criteria,this process is not purely genealogical. For each candidate found along thepath in the genealogical tree, the criteria (described below) must be evaluated.Thus an individual may be ineligible, in which case the individual is treated as if he or she "were naturally dead", and the search moves on to thenext individual. The procedure is roughly as follows. If individual A is dead or ineligible:1. look for A's eldest-born male B (if none were born, go to 3).2. If B is dead or ineligible, go to 1 with "B" instead of "A".3. If no candidate meeting the criteria is found, return to A, find the the next eldest-born male C; repeat steps 1-3 with "C" instead of "A",until a candidate is found or all of A's male children are exhausted.4. Repeat steps 1-3 with "female" instead of "male".5. If no candidate has been found yet, go to A's royal parent D and look for D's next eldest-born male, repeating steps 1-4 with "D" instead of "A".6. If no candidate has been found, go to D's royal parent E and repeat steps 1-5.7. Keep going climbing up the royal genealogy. If you reach step 6 with D = Electress Sophia, there are no candidates left (this will take a while, because there areabout 4360 individuals descended from her: see the list).The criteria required of a candidate are that he or she be born in wedlock, of a marriage contracted in accordance with the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, and that he or she not be a Roman Catholic or have married one (according to the Act of Settlement of 1701). More precisely, the Act recalls that the Bill of Rights of 1689 enacted "That all and every Person and Persons that then [in 1689] were or afterwards should bereconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shouldprofesse the Popish religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by thatAct [the Bill of Rights] made forever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown [...]";and the Act enacts "That all and every Person and Persons who shall be or may takeor inherit the said Crown by vertue of the Limitation of this present Act [to ElectressSophia and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants] and is areor shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Romeor shall profess the Popish religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject tosuch Incapacities as in such Case or Cases are by the said recited Act [the Bill ofRights]provided enacted and established". There is a debate over the meaning of thisclause. Under one interpretation, being a Roman Catholic at the time of succession forever results in an incapacity to succeed at that time. Under the other, being a Roman Catholic at any time after 1689 ("then or afterwards") immediately creates a perpetual incapacity to succeed whenever the succession becomes open. Under the firstinterpretation, a Roman Catholic, if he or she converts before the crown comes to him or her,can succeed (even if he does so the minute before). Under the second, anyone who is aRoman Catholic no matter how briefly is forever excluded.Another source of contention is the phrase "marry a Papist". Although its meaningseems straightforward, some think that it should be read as "being married to a Papist".In that case, a man whose deceased wife was Roman Catholic could still succeed. Underthe literal reading of the phrase, anyone who ever marries a Roman Catholic is foreverexcluded. This seems to be the reading of 8(2) Halsbury's Laws of England par 39, which states: "a person who is a Roman Catholic or marriesa Roman Catholic, is excluded from inheriting, possessing or enjoying the Crown[...]".Because of these differences in interpretation, some individuals have been assigned a "bis" number in the line of succession that follows. It should be noted,however, that such an expert in Britsh constitutional law as Vernon Bogdanorhas written (The Monarchy and the Constitution, p. 55): "Any member of the Royal Family who marries aCatholic becomes ineligible to succeed. Thus when Prince Michael of Kent [...]married a Catholic [...] and when the Earl of St. Andrews [...] married a Catholic[...], they lost their rights of succession, for themselves, though notnecessarily for their children."The following people are in line of succession to the Throne. It is limited to the firstthirty-five or so in line of succession to keep the list at a reasonable length. HRH The Prince of Wales (b. 1948) HRH Prince William of Wales (b. 1982) HRH Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984) HRH The Duke of York (b. 1960) HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988) HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990) HRH The Earl of Wessex (b. 1964) Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003) Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor (Viscount Severn) (b. 2007) HRH The Princess Royal (b. 1950) Peter Phillips (b. 1977) Zara Phillips (b. 1981) David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (b. 1961) Hon. Charles Patrick Inigo Armstrong-Jones (b. 1999) Hon. Margarita Elizabeth Alleyne Armstrong-Jones (b. 2002) Lady Sarah Chatto (b. 1964) Samuel Chatto (b. 1996) Arthur David Nathaniel Chatto (b. 1999) HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester (b. 1944) Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (b. 1974) Lady Davina Windsor (b. 1977) Lady Rose Windsor (b. 1980) HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent (b. 1935) bis. George, earl of Saint Andrews (married to a Roman Catholic, Note 1)bis. Edward Windsor, Baron Downpatrick, a Roman Catholic (b. 1988) (Note 2) Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor (b. 1992) Lady Amelia Windsor (b. 1995)bis. Lord Nicholas Windsor, a Roman Catholic (b. 1970) (Note 3) Lady Helen Taylor (b. 1964) Columbus Taylor (b. 1994) Cassius Taylor (b. 1996) Eloise Taylor (b. 2003) Estella Taylor (b. 2004)bis. HRH Prince Michael of Kent (married to a Roman Catholic, Note 4) Lord Frederick Windsor (b. 1979) Lady Gabriella Windsor (b. 1981) HRH Princess Alexandra, the Honorable Lady Ogilvy (1936) James Ogilvy (b. 1964) Alexander Ogilvy (b. 1996) Flora Ogilvy (b. 1994) Marina Mowatt (b. 1966) Christian Mowatt (b. 1993) Zenouska Mowatt (b. 1990)Notes:1. The Duke of Kent's elder son, George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews (the father of three next persons in the line), could not presently succeed because of his marriage to Sylvana Tomaselli, a Roman Catholic. George's children, however, could succeed as long as they are not Roman Catholics themselves.The duchess of Kent converted to the Roman Catholic faith on Jan 14, 1994. This does not affectthe rights of the duke of Kent.2. The Earl of St. Andrews's son, Lord Downpatrick, converted to the Roman Catholic faith on May 4, 2003.3. Lord Nicholas Windsor converted to the Roman Catholic faith around Easter 2001.4. The father of Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella Windsor, Prince Michael of Kent,could not presently succeed because of his marriage to Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz, a Roman Catholic. Prince Michael's children, however, could succeed as long as they are not Roman Catholics themselves.Contrary to what earlier versions of this FAQ asserted, the line of succession has a legal meaning. It is referred to (but not defined) in the Regency Act 1937, by which an eventual Regent is chosen to be the next in line ofsuccession, subject to the exclusions of section 2 of the Act of Settlement as recalled above,and other conditions (being a British citizen of full age, residing in the UK, holding Communionwith the Church of England); and by which the sovereign can temporarily delegate his or her powers to a group of people consisting of his or her spouse, and the next four persons in the line of succession who satisfy the conditions to be regent.In general terms, the modern rules for eligibility as an heir or heiress are (adapted from"The Royal Line of Succession: From William the Conqueror to Prince William of Wales",compiled by John Butcher, edited by Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk, Harmondsworth,Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd., 1983): the reigning sovereign's sons (and their sons then daughters), then daughters (and theirsons then daughters), in order of their birth; if a child dies or is already dead, it passes tothat child's sons then daughters, in order of their birth if the reigning sovereign has no descendants, the line passes to either his youngerbrothers (if he's a king), then sisters, in order of their birth; if the sibling dies or is already dead, it passes to that sibling's sons, then daughters, in order of their birth; or, to her younger sisters (if she is a queen), in order of their birth; if the sister dies or is already dead, then it passes to that sister's sons, then daughters, in order of their birth if there are no descendants of the sovereign's lineal parent, the line passes to thatparent's brothers or sisters; so on and so forth no one born out of wedlock or born to an eligible parent whose marriage contravenesthe Royal Marriages Act of 1772 can be in line of succession no one who is, or becomes, or marries a Roman Catholic (according to the Act ofSettlement 1701) can be in line of successionBack to Table of Contents5. Where can I find a complete list of all those in line to the British Throne?A list of all of the descendants of Electress Sophia, including Catholics and arranged insuccession order, complete as of Jan. 1, 2001, is at:http://www.wargs.com/essays/succession/complete.htmlBack to Table of Contents6. Who is the last person in the line of succession the British throne?The persons who are genealogically last in line to succeed to the British throne under theAct of Settlement are found among the von Keudell descendants of Prince Ernst ofWürttemberg (1807-1868). (Prince Ernst is a descendant of King George I's daughter,Sophie Dorothea (1687-1757), wife of Friedrich Wilhelm, King in Prussia, himself the only sonof Sophia Charlotte (1668-1705), last child of the Electress Sophia).According to the list cited above, the last three people in the line of succession are Klaus Vogel (b. 1964), his son Lorenz (b. 1998)and his sister Karin (b. 1973).Back to Table of Contents7. What happens if no one is left in the line of succession the British throne?What would happen to the British throne if all the descendants of Electress Sophia disappeared? The answer isthat Parliament would have done something about it in advance. With thousands of people in the line of succession, Parliament is not likely to ever be taken by surprise by their complete disappearance. There is a precedent for such a situation. In 1701, William III was reigning alone and childless.His heir apparent was Anne, married to Prince George of Denmark. She had given birth to twelve children between 1683 and 1700, but only one had survived past infancy, and he had died at the ageof 11 in July 1700. Beside Anne, there was no one in the line of succession established in 1689.For that reason, Parliament passed the Act of Settlement "for a further provision of the succession of the Crown in the Protestant line."Should Parliament really be caught by surprise, and the throne left vacant without any successor,a de facto king (chosen somehow) could call a valid Parliament which would then enact that the king was also de jure. Such a procedure was used by Henry VII in 1485, and by William and Mary in 1689.Back to Table of Contents8. If King James II hadn't been overthrown in 1688/1689, who would be the sovereigntoday?If King James II hadn't been overthrown in 1688/1689, Europe's history would have beenvery different in many ways. At some level, the question is impossible to answer,because it requires conjectures about three hundred years' worth of history; in particular, about what marriages would have taken place and what the issue would havebeen. Different people would have been on the throne, and they would have certainlymarried differently.If King James II hadn't been overthrown in 1688/89, and if all births, marriages and deathshad taken place exactly the way they did in fact take place, Franz, Duke of Bavaria (b. 1933)would be the sovereign today. Franz, who is the great-grandson of the last King ofBavaria, is known as Francis II , King of England, Scotland, France, and Ireland to hisJacobite followers since the death of his father in July 1996. Franz finds himself in thisposition because he is the senior co-heir general (senior representative) of King Charles I.Following the death of the last legitimate descendant of James II (Henry IX, called Dukeof York, Bishop of Ostia and Velletri, Vice-Chancellor of the Holy Roman Church, Deanof the Sacred College, Archpriest of the Vatican Basilica) in July 1807, the right to the(Jacobite) throne passed through the royal families of Sardinia, Modena and Bavaria. Theimmediate heirs of Franz (he is unmarried and childless) are his brother Prince Max, duke in Bavaria (b. 1937) and his eldest daughter Sophie (b. 1967) who is married to HereditaryPrince Aloïs of Liechtenstein. Their eldest child, Prince Joseph Wenzel, was born in London inMay 1995.There are some individuals who question the validity of the Wittelsbach/Jacobite claimwhich came through a niece-uncle marriage. It was raised by W. J. Palmer in "TheJacobite Heir: A Doubt", published in The Genealogists' Magazine, vol. 12, no. 6(June 1956), pp 188-189, and was answered by Philip M. Thomas in "The JacobiteHeir: A Doubt Allayed" in the same Magazine, vol. 12, no. 8 (December 1956),pp 273-275. The answer is that British law recognizes, as valid, marriages which wouldnot be valid in Britain if the marriage was valid in the place where (a) the marriageoccurred and (b) where the person was domiciled. Since the niece, Princess MariaBeatrice of Sardinia (1792-1840), was domiciled in Sardinia, where her father was King,and her uncle the Duke of Modena, Francesco IV (1779-1846), was domiciled inModena, and the marriage was valid there (Papal dispensation, etc.), the marriageis then valid in Britain.Back to Table of Contents9. If Salic Law had applied in Great Britain and Victoria had not succeeded KingWilliam IV as Queen in 1837, who would be the sovereign today?If Salic Law had prevailed at the time of the death of King William IV (r. 1830-1837),and all births, marriages, and deaths had taken place exactly the way they did since,HRH Prince Ernst August of Hanover (b. 1954) would be sovereign today. In otherwords, Queen Victoria would have remained Princess Victoria of Kent (her father wasPrince Edward, Duke of Kent) and the succession would have gone to her paternal unclePrince Ernest Augustus of Great Britain (1771-1851). (He became King of Hanover in1837.) The reason that HRH Prince Ernst August would be sovereign today is becausehe is the senior male lineal descendant of Prince Ernest Augustus who died in 1851.Back to Table of Contents10. Who were the monarchs of England?This list of kings and queens from Egbert, King of Wessex to Elizabeth II canbe found on the official web site of the British Monarchy at http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page5.asp.Back to Table of Contents11. Can the sovereign abdicate?Britain does not allow unilateral abdications. "In a monarchy, succession to the throne is a matternot of choice but of duty." (The Monarchy and the Constitution, by Vernon Bogdanor,Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)Parliament sets the conditions under which the monarch reigns. Parliament, when itpassed the Act of Settlement in 1701, included language that states the Throne is to go tothe Electress Sophia and the heirs of her body. Parliament did not say, in that Act, that theThrone is to go to the heir of the body of the Electress Sophia only if the said heir of thebody wants it. Parliament requires the Throne to go to the heir of the body of the ElectressSophia and to nobody else.In the case of King Edward VIII, he succeeded because he was the heir of ElectressSophia of Hanover, and Parliament made her the heir in the 1701 Act of Settlement.Parliament, in 1936, altered the Act of Settlement by removing Edward VIII andaccelerating the succession of George VI. Up until that point, Edward was the heir of thebody of the Electress Sophia. Not until he died could someone else be the heir ofElectress Sophia. Therefore, to make someone else king before Edward VIII's deathrequired a modification of the Act of Settlement. Were Edward VIII to have actually quit,to have unilaterally declared that he refused to reign, that he was walking off the job, thenhe would have been acting in defiance of the will of Parliament, as expressed in the Act ofSettlement. As a constitutional monarchist, Edward VIII was more respectful of the wishesof the Legislature.King Edward VIII was the only sovereign in British history (since the reign of Williamthe Conqueror) to declare he wished to voluntarily cease to be king. Whatfollowed was a very precisely choreographed dance.In the Instrument of Abdication of 10 December 1936, Edward VIII did not say "Iabdicate", but said it was his desire to stop being king, and it was his desire thatappropriate legislation be enacted ("I declare [...] My [...] determination to renounce[...and] that effect should be given to this"). The next day, 11 December 1936 Parliamentdrew up and passed the "His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act". This Act hadfour legal consequences: that (after royal assent) there would be a demise in the Crown, that the next person eligible to succeed to the Crown would doso (this was HRH Prince Albert, Duke of York), that His Majesty and his descendants were no longer eligible to succeedto theThrone under the terms of the Act of Settlement, that the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 would not apply to His Majesty and hisdescendants.As all Acts, this one required royal assent be become law. Edward VIII,still king, gave Royal Assent to the Act that same day (11 December 1936).At that moment and not before, he ceased to be king.Therefore, Edward VIII didn't abdicate on his own. What he did do is state his wish to voluntary cease being king, and, once legislation was put into place, be allowed by Parliament to do so. Of course, in the final analysis,Edward VIII ceased to be king only because he wished to do so, and did so ofhis own will. In that sense, he did abdicate. But the British constitutionrequires both king and Parliament to participate in an abdication, and anabdication cannot take place without either king or Parliament.The complete text of the Declaration of Abdication Act and of the Instrument of Abdicationcan be found at the following URL:http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/abdicate.htmlBack to Table of Contents12. Have there ever been monarchs who abdicated?Of England's forty-two monarchs since 1066, from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II,two were forced to abdicate after they were deposed, one wasdeemed to haveabdicated, and one voluntarily chose to cease being king.Monarchs Forced to Abdicate: Edward II (1284-1327):- reigned from 1307-1327- deposed (by an illegally-convened "Parliament") on 20 January 1327- forced to abdicate in favour of his son Edward (Edward III) on 25 January 1327 Richard II (1367-1400):- reigned from 1377-1399- deposed on 29 September 1399 by Henry of Bolingbroke who usurped the throne as Henry IV- forced to abdicate by Parliament on 29 Sept. 1399Monarch Deemed to Have Abdicated:James II (1633-1701):- reigned from 1685-1688- attempted to leave the country on 11 December 1688 (succeeded on 23 December)- deemed by Parliament meeting on 28 January 1689 to have abdicated on 11 December 1688Monarch Who Voluntarily Chose to Renounce:Edward VIII (1894-1972):- reigned from January - December 1936- voluntarily sought to renounce the throne and did so by instrument dated 10 December1936, which was confirmed by the Declaration of Abdication Act passed on 11December 1936Back to Table of Contents13. Can a member of the royal family do as he or she pleases?It is true that members of the royal family do not have any formal constitutional functions.They do not, however, have the same freedom as the rest of the nation's citizens tobehave and say in public what they wish. For example, if they intend to make a speechwhich could be considered controversial, it is courteous for them to send a copy of theirspeech beforehand to the appropriate government minister. The Sovereign and his heirdo not vote in elections, general or local ones, because they must remain politically neutraland it would be considered unconstitutional for them to do so. Until 1999, the members of theroyal family who held a hereditary peerage were subject to a 'legal incapacity to vote', as members of the house of lords. The House of Lords Act of 1999 has removed that disqualificationfor all peers who lost the right to sit in the House of Lords, including the prince of Wales,the dukes of Edinburgh, York, Gloucester, and Kent, and the earl of Wessex. Traditionally, HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother and HRH The Princess Margaret did not votebecause of their closeness to HM The Queen even though they have always been legally entitled.Further, the members of the royal familydo not stand for election to political or non-political positions. The royal family's publicrole is to stand for unity and neutrality.The members of the royal family are bound by the Act of Settlement and the RoyalMarriages Act when planning to marry. Since the spouse of a member of the royal familyis instantly in a special position, as the possible parent or ancestor of a future sovereign, it is indeed perfectly relevant for the Crown to have a say in whom a member of the royalfamily marries. If any member of the royal family refuses to accept that authority they may act as they wish, but forfeit their rights and privileges. If they wish to retain the privileges of their rank, they have a duty of obedience to the law - and it is perfectly reasonable that permission to marry should be part of the law (every European royal family and many mediatised ones have "house Laws" regulating marriage). Even in "ordinary" families, parents indicate their consent or disapproval of the choice of spouse of a family member, and the consequence of disobedience may occasionally lead to alienation in a family. There isn't anything particularly odd or unusual about this.In the case of the royal family, Princess Margaret's decision not to marry Peter Townsendwas not least because she was persuaded that as someone so close to the Throne she hada duty of obedience to royal tradition and to the teachings of the Church of England (asthey then stood). In both the cases of the Duchess of Windsor and Princess Margaret, itwas not the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 which stood in the way of their marriages.Rather, it was the laws of the Church of England, and the impossibility at that time of beingmarried to a divorced person and being able to receive the Sacraments (a necessary partof the Coronation service).Back to Table of Contents14. When a man marries a princess or a queen, does he take his wife's rank?When a man marries a princess or a queen, he does not take his wife's rank and becomeautomatically a prince or a king. In (English) common law a man retains his name uponmarriage. Conversely, when a woman marries a prince or a king, she becomesautomatically a princess or a queen; this is in keeping with (English) common Law wherebya woman is entitled to her husband's name. If the husband of a queen were permitted to be known as king,he would then technically rank higher than his wife the queen.The husband of a princess or a queen can have a peerage or a title conferred upon him bythe Sovereign. Three examples when a peerage or a title was bestowed on the spouse ofa princess or a queen: 1961: when Antony Armstrong-Jones, husband of HRH Princess Margaret, wascreated a peer when he was made Earl of Snowdon on 6 October 1961 (Antony andMargaret had been married since 6 May 1960) 1947: when Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten, husband of HRH Princess Elizabeth (laterQueen Elizabeth II), was created a peer when he was made Duke of Edinburgh on 20November 1947 the day of his wedding (N.B.: Philip received the style Royal Highnessthe day before on 19 November, and was made a Prince of the United Kingdom ofGreat Britain and Northern Ireland on 22 February 1957) 1857: when Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, husband of Queen Victoria, wasgranted the title Prince Consort on 26 June 1857 (N.B.: Albert received the style RoyalHighness on 6 February 1840 four days before his marriage)It is worth noting that the British Constitution does not make any provision for the positionof a husband to a Queen (see the question: 'What is the title of a Queen's husband?'below). A man who marries a princess who later becomes queen orwho marries a queen regnant, does not become king. Queen Victoria succinctlysummarized the situation:'It is a strange omission in our Constitution that while the wife ofa King has the highest rank and dignity in the realm after her husbandassigned to her by law, the husband of a Queen regnant is entirelyignored by the law.'(Uncrowned King: The Life of Prince Albert, by Stanley Weintraub, The Free Press,a division of Simon & Schuster Inc., New York, 1997)Back to Table of Contents15. When a woman marries a prince, why does she use her husband's Christian name inher title instead of her own name?The wife of a prince takes her husband's Christian name in her title as do all married royalwomen. This is because it is the correct style for any married woman ('Mrs' followed byher husband's Christian name and then his surname.) When a woman is known as 'HRHPrincess [her Christian name] of [Gloucester, or Great Britain, or Kent, or York, etc...]',this indicates she is a princess by birth. When a woman is known as 'HRH Princess[her husband's Christian name] of [Gloucester, or Great Britain, or Kent, or York, etc...]',this indicates she is a princess by marriage. That is why it is correct for the formerBaroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz to be known as 'HRH Princess Michael of Kent'instead of being known as 'HRH Princess Marie-Christine of Kent'.The situation is slightly different when a woman is married to a prince who happens to bea royal duke or the Prince of Wales. When a woman is married to a royal duke she isknown, for example, as 'HRH The Duchess of Kent', not 'HRH Duchess [her husband'sor her Christian name] of Kent'. When a woman is married to the Prince of Wales, she isknown as 'HRH The Princess of Wales', not 'HRH Princess [her husband's or herChristian name] of Wales'.The ways of addressing royal women change once there is a divorce. In the case of thelate Diana, Princess of Wales, Diana was entitled to 'HRH The Princess of Wales' whileshe and Charles were married. Following her divorce, Diana ceased to be both a RoyalHighness and a princess because she was no longer married to a Royal Highness andprince. (These were hers only by marriage not by birthright.) Accordingly, Dianabecame known by the name 'Diana, Princess of Wales'. In the case of Sarah, Duchessof York she was entitled to be known as 'HRH The Duchess of York' while she andAndrew were married. Following her divorce, she too ceased to be both a RoyalHighness and a princess because she was no longer married to a Royal Highness and aprince. (Again, these were hers only by marriage not by birthright.) Sarah is thereforeknown by the name 'Sarah, Duchess of York'. This style is common to divorced wivesof British peers which was the situation in which Diana and Sarah were in August andMay 1996, respectively. (Note, however, that Sarah is not addressed as 'Your Grace'.)Back to Table of Contents16. What are the different types of queen?There are three types of queen in practise in Britain, but only one of them is sovereign. queen regnant- a woman who actually reigns; a woman in the line of succession who succeeds assovereign in her own right- example: Princess Elizabeth was the first in line of succession and became Queenupon the death of her father, George VI, in 1952queen consort- the wife of a king; a woman who marries a man who is in the line of succession wholater becomes King or is already King at the time of their marriage- example: the former Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon married a man who was in line ofsuccession, Prince Albert, Duke of York; he later succeeded as King upon the abdicationof his brother King Edward VIII in 1936- a Queen Consort is entitled to be called Queen (followed by her Christian name) for therest of her life even after her husband diesqueen dowager- the widow of a king; a woman who is the widow of a late reigning king- example: HM Queen Mary became queen dowager following the death of her husbandHM King George V in 1936- a particular type of queen dowager is one who uses the appellation 'Queen Mother'- example: following the death of her husband, King George VI in 1952, HM QueenElizabeth (1900-2002) chose to be called HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother; as aqueen dowager, she is referred to as HM Queen Elizabeth, while her daughter the queenregnant is referred to as HM The QueenBack to Table of Contents17. What type of sovereign is HM The Queen?HM Queen Elizabeth II is a queen regnant who is a constitutional monarch. She tookan oath at her Coronation to rule according to the laws and customs of the people. HerMajesty is the Head of State of the United Kingdom and is Head of the Commonwealth.She is Sovereign of the British Orders of Knighthood, Sovereign Head of the Order ofSt. John, Lord High Admiral, and, in theory, is all-powerful, the source of justice and thefountain of honour. However, her power is limited by the (unwritten) Constitution. TheQueen's real power lies in her being able to deny absolute power to anyone else. Forexample, it is in her power to dismiss the prime minister and dissolve Parliament.Back to Table of Contents18. When did HM The Queen succeed?HRH Princess Elizabeth succeeded her father, King George VI, upon his death on6 February 1952. Seventeen months later, she was crowned as HM Queen Elizabeth IIon 2 June 1953 at Westminster Abbey.Back to Table of Contents19. What type of work does HM The Queen do as sovereign?The website called "The Working Day of Her Majesty The Queen" will be of interest tothose who wish to gain an insight into HM The Queen's daily work as sovereign:http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page312.aspBack to Table of Contents20. What are HM The Queen's titles?The full titles of Queen Elizabeth II are:United Kingdom:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth,Defender of the FaithCanada:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Herother Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the FaithAustralia:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Australia and Her other Realmsand Territories, Head of the CommonwealthNew Zealand:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her otherRealms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the FaithJamaica:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Jamaica and of Her other Realms andTerritories Queen, Head of the CommonwealthBarbados:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Barbados and Her other Realmsand Territories, Head of the CommonwealthThe Bahamas:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the Commonwealth of TheBahamas and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the CommonwealthGrenada:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland and of Grenada and Her other Realms and Territories,Head of the CommonwealthPapua New Guinea:Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Papua New Guinea and of Her other Realms andTerritories, Head of the CommonwealthSolomon Islands:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the Solomon Islands and of Herother Realms and Territories, Head of the CommonwealthTuvalu:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Tuvalu and of Her other Realmsand Territories, Head of the CommonwealthSaint Lucia:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Lucia and of Her otherRealms and Territories, Head of the CommonwealthSaint Vincent and the Grenadines:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Vincent and theGrenadines and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the CommonwealthBelize:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Belize and of Her other Realmsand Territories, Head of the CommonwealthAntigua and Barbuda:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Antigua and Barbuda and of Herother Realms and Territories, Head of the CommonwealthSaint Christopher and Nevis:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of Saint Christopher and Nevis andof Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.Back to Table of Contents21. Why does the queen have so many different titles?The transformation from the single imperial crown held by queen Victoria to the 16 crownsheld in personal union today by Elizabeth II took place as part of the process of thetransformation of the British empire into a free association of independent states. In the19th century, many British colonies were granted limited self-government under the crown,and this autonomy increased with the creation of Dominions, the first of which was Canada(1867). In the years following the first world war, a series of "Imperial Conferences" ofDominion heads of government were held. After the 1926 Conference, a declaration wasissued that the dominions were:autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal instatus, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect oftheir domestic and external affairs, though united by a commonallegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of theBritish Commonwealth of NationsThis declaration of intent was implemented in 1931 by the Statute of Westminster, whichgranted immediate legislative independence to Canada, South Africa and Ireland, and wasextended to Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland if ratified by the Parliaments ofthose countries. Newfoundland reverted from Dominion to Colonial status in 1934 withoutever ratifying the Statute; Australia and New Zealand ratified it in 1942 and 1947 respectively.The key section was clause 4, which stated that:No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after thecommencement of this Act shall extend, or be deemed to extend, toa Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it isexpressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested,and consented to, the enactment thereof.The importance of this for the monarchy was that any future legislation of the UKparliament affecting the succession to the throne required the assent of each dominionin order to have effect in that dominion. This was recognised by the drafters andspecifically called out in the preamble as a convention to be followed in the future:. . . it would be in accord with the established constitutionalposition of all the members of the Commonwealth in relation toone another that any alteration in the law touching theSuccession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shallhereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of allthe Dominions as of the Parliament of the United KingdomThe convention was followed in the Abdication crisis of 1936, and the AbdicationAct of that year called out the assent of Canada, South Africa, Australia and NewZealand. The Irish Free State assented separately, through the passage of the ExternalRelations Act of 1936.The Commonwealth thereby became an association of independent nations linked bycommon allegiance to a shared monarch. The monarch was represented in each countryby a governor-general appointed by the Crown on the advice of the government of thatcountry. This convention was subverted by the Irish Free State, which in 1936 removedall reference to the monarchy from its constitution and abolished the position ofgovernor-general, and in 1937 adopted a new constitution creating an Irish presidency;the only role left to the monarchy was in connection with the accreditation of Irish envoysabroad. Nevertheless, Ireland was allowed to remain in the Commonwealth until 1949, atwhich point it formally declared itself to be a republic, which it had been in practice formany years. Allegiance to the monarch as a condition of Commonwealth membership wasformally removed when India secured agreement in 1949 to remain in the Commonwealthafter it became a Republic in 1950. Since 1995, the Commonwealth consists of 16independent monarchies under the queen, 6 monarchies with their own monarchs, and32 republics. With the acceptance of Mozambique into the Commonwealth in 1995, even the unspoken qualification of a common British colonial heritage no longer applies.These changes were also reflected in the royal styles and titles. Edward VII was "by theGrace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the BritishDominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India", which in histime described a single imperial domain. George VI's titles, although superficially verysimilar, were still appropriate to describe the major change which had taken place in thestructure of the Commonwealth: "by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and ofthe British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."However, this royal style was not sustainable after the Crown was transformed from acommon allegiance held by all Commonwealth members to a position as Head of theCommonwealth which included republican members. Consequently, the Royal Stylesand Titles of the queen were changed on her accession so that she has a separate royalstyle for each country, all incorporating the common element: "Her other Realms andTerritories, Head of the Commonwealth . . .", (see question 12). Back to Table of Contents22. Is the queen also separately queen of any territories which are not independentcountries?At first sight the answer is "No". However, there are three cases where the situation is notentirely clear: the Cook Islands, the six Australian states, and Scotland. A useful rule of thumb is totest the ability of government of the candidate territory to affect the royal succession inthat territory. By this test, the Cook Islands is, for all practical purposes, a separatemonarchy, while the Australian states and Scotland are probably not.Most of the Commonwealth dependent territories are still governed through the UnitedKingdom, Australia or New Zealand. There are two states which have maintained afree association with New Zealand – the Cook Islands and Niue. Under the Cook IslandsConstitution of 1965, the queen is head of state "in right of New Zealand". At that timeher representative was appointed by the governor-general of New Zealand, and the NewZealand parliament retained considerable powers to legislate on behalf of the Cook Islands.A very similar arrangement was made for Niue in 1974. However, in 1981 the Cook Islandconstitution was amended in two significant respects: (i) the queen's representative wasappointed directly by the queen herself and (ii) the Cook Islands parliament was grantedcomplete legislative independence of New Zealand in both internal and external affairs.As a result, the current relationship of the monarchy to the Cook Islands is effectivelyidentical to that of any independent Commonwealth monarchy, even though the queen isstill nominally head of state "in right of New Zealand". In particular, if the royal successionin right of New Zealand were changed, this would require the separate consent of theCook Islands before it applied there.The second obscure case is that of the Australian states. This arises because the stategovernors maintain a direct relationship with the Crown independently of theGovernor-General. The framers of the Australian constitution deliberately chose todo this in order to give the states relief against a possibly oppressive federal government.Under the Statute of Westminster, the preexisting relationships between the BritishCrown and parliament and the Australian states were preserved intact,so that the governors of Australian states continued to owe allegiance to the UK Crownrather than the Australian one. Through the Australia Act of 1986, these residual linkswere adjusted, so that the governors in the Australian states now represent the Australiancrown, but they remain in direct relationship with the queen. It has been argued that thisdirect relationship creates separate state crowns, but since the states were and are unableto affect the succession to either the UK or the Australian crowns as it applies in theirterritory, it seems difficult to sustain this position.Nevertheless, in the debate about whether Australia should become a republic,decided by referendum in 1999, the possibility was raised by both monarchistsand republicans that the individual states might decide separately. If different states madedifferent decisions, this might result in the creation of one or more state monarchies. Inparticular, the government of Queensland amended the state constitution in 1977 to"entrench" the role of the governor as representative of the Crown -- i.e. it could onlybe changed by a referendum of Queensland voters. As insurance, the entrenchmentposition was itself entrenched. This persisted until a new state constitutionwas adopted in 2001. After 1977, members of the Queensland legislature sworeseparate allegiance to "the queen of Queensland", as well as to the Queen of Australia.In practice, the queen of Queensland was a symbolic fiction. However, if the Australian people as a whole had chosen to create arepublic in 1999 but the vote of the people of Queensland had not met the provisions ofentrenchment, it is unclear what the actual effect of this would have been: whether the governor of Queensland would henceforth have represented the Australian President, as successor tothe Australian Crown, or whether a successor Queensland Crown, still held by thequeen, would have come into existence. In the event, the circumstance did not arise.These considerations do not apply to Canada because the lieutenant-governors of theCanadian provinces are appointed by the Governor-General, and always have been.Thus, they can only represent the monarchy represented by the Governor- General,so the fate of the Canadian monarchy is automatically reflected in the provinces, unlessspecial provision is made otherwise. For litigation purposes, the Canadian crown issaid to be divisible, so that, for example, the Crown "in right of Saskatchewan" mightpress suit against the Crown "in right of Prince Edward Island", but this does not implythe existence of separate provincial monarchies in the same sense as is proposed forthe Australian states.Finally, there is the case of Scotland. In opening the new ScottishParliament on Jul 1, 1999, its Presiding Officer Sir David Steel stated that it was "constitutionally correct" torefer to the queen as "Queen of Scots", from which it might be inferred thatdevolution had had the effect of separating the Scottish Crown from that ofthe United Kingdom. He did not give any justification for this statement,and it appears to be incorrect. Clause I of the Acts of Union of 1707united the former Scottish and English crowns "forever"in the crown of the United Kingdom. The Scotland Act of 1998, which created the newScottish Parliament, incorporated the Acts of Union in clause 37, and inSchedule 5 specifically stated that the Crown, including the succession, andthe Union were among the "reserved matters" that were defined, in clause29, to be outside the competence of that Parliament.Back to Table of Contents23. What are all the countries which have been Commonwealth monarchies, and when?The following table lists the dates of independence under the monarch and, where applicable,transformation from Commonwealth monarchy to republican status for each country, apartfrom the United Kingdom, which is or has been a Commonwealth monarchy. There havebeen 35 Commonwealth monarchies at one time or another, with a peak of 18 between1983 and 1987. The current count is 16.Country Monarchy RepublicCanada 1931 -- (a)Ireland 1931 1936 (a)(b)South Africa 1931 1961(a)Australia 1942 -- (c)New Zealand 1947 -- (c)(d)India 1947 1950Pakistan 1947 1956Ceylon 19481972(e)Ghana 19571960Nigeria 19601963Sierra Leone 19611971Tanganyika 19611962(f)Trinidad and Tobago 1962 1976 Uganda 1962 1963Jamaica 1962 -- Kenya 1963 1964Malawi 1964 1966Malta 1964 1974Rhodesia 1965 1970(g)Gambia 1965 1970Barbados 1966 -- Guyana 1966 1970Mauritius 1968 1992Fiji 1970 1987Bahamas 1973 -- Grenada 1974 -- Papua New Guinea 1975 -- Solomon Islands1978 -- Tuvalu 1978 -- St.Lucia 1979 -- St.Vincent & the Grenadines 1979 -- Antigua & Barbuda 1981 -- Belize 1981 -- St.Kitts-Nevis 1983 -- This table is based on a list posted to ATR by Rupert Barnes on 11 December 1997(the 66th anniversary of the Statute of Westminster), with confirmation and additionalmaterial drawn from various web-sites and other resources, notablyThe Commonwealth(http://www.thecommonwealth.org/)Notes:(a) Date of legislative independence through the Statute of Westminster. Canada hadbecome a Dominion in 1867, South Africa in 1910, and the Irish Free State in 1922.(b) The date of the end of monarchy in Ireland is a matter of controversy -- see thediscussion in question (20) above. Alternate dates which are argued are 1937 and1949.(c) Date of ratification of the Statute of Westminster. Australia had become a Dominionin 1901 and New Zealand in 1907.(d) The Cook Islands is nominally part of the realm of New Zealand but has for allpractical purposes been a separate realm since 1981 – see the discussion on question(21) above.(e) Name changed to Sri Lanka under the 1972 constitution.(f) Name changed to Tanzania after the union with Zanzibar in 1963.(g) Now Zimbabwe. Rhodesia unilaterally declared itself independent, without agreementfrom Britain, or recognition from the other Commonwealth members or from the Crown.While the Rhodesian Constitution of 1965 nominally created a Commonwealth monarchyof the normal form, no Governor-General was ever appointed to represent the queen.Instead, the Rhodesian government appointed an "Officer Administering the Government"to fill the role. The last colonial governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs, remained in place till 1969.Back to Table of Contents24. Why does The Queen celebrate her birthday twice a year?HM The Queen was born HRH Princess Elizabeth of York on 21 April 1926. Shenaturally celebrates her birthday privately on this date.As sovereign, Her Majesty's official birthday is marked with a military parade calledthe (The Queen's) Birthday Parade (popularly known as "Trooping the Colour"). It isheld publicly in early June (either the first, second or third Saturday) in London in aceremony which dates back to the early 18th century.Trooping the Colour ceremony is based on the days when mounted guards and sentrieskept watch at royal palaces and such in London. These guards carried or 'trooped' theflags of their battalion which could be seen and recognised by the soldiers. In 1748, itwas decided that the parade would mark the official birthday of the sovereign with KingGeorge II being the first monarch to attend the ceremony. (Some sources say the firsttime the parade marked the sovereign's birthday was in 1805 for George III.) It becamean annual event in 1820 with the accession of King George IV. Later still, following KingEdward VII's accession in 1901, it became a regular custom for the monarch to takepersonally the salute. The parade is followed by the appearance of the royal family (andtheir guests) on the balcony of Buckingham Palace with a fly-past by the RAF. This royaltradition has evolved over the years and has become a tourist attraction enjoyed not onlyby the assembled public but by television spectators around the world.In 1947, HRH Princess Elizabeth participated in Trooping the Colour for the first timein her capacity as Colonel of the Grenadier Guards. Later, in 1951, she took the salutefor her father King George VI who was ill.This year, Trooping the Colour will be held on Saturday, 17 June, 2006.Back to Table of Contents25. Why is Queen Elizabeth II "HM" and not "HRH"?The style His (or Her) Majesty is reserved for those individuals who are kings or queens.Elizabeth II as queen is styled Her Majesty. If she was a princess who was the daughterof a king or queen, she would be styled Royal Highness (HRH). (HM was "HRHPrincess Elizabeth" during her father's lifetime.)In the United Kingdom, the style HM is also the style of the wife or the widow of a king.Back to Table of Contents26. Why are the children of HM The Queen "HRH" while the children of HRHPrincess Margaret are not?The children of HM The Queen (Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward) are styledHRH because they are children of the sovereign, a queen. Their style and title areallowed to them as children of the sovereign.The children of HRH Princess Margaret (David and Sarah) are not HRH becauseprincesses do not usually transmit their titles to their children. Instead, David and Sarah'snames and titles come to them from their father, the Earl of Snowdon. As children of apeer, David is allowed the courtesy use of his father's subsidiary title of Viscount Linley,while Sarah is allowed the use of the prefix 'Lady' before her Christian name followed byher surname. The children of HRH Princess Anne (Peter and Zara) and HRH PrincessAlexandra of Kent (James and Marina) are in a similar situation as those of HRHPrincess Margaret. They are the children of a royal mother but take their rank from theirfather.There has been one exception to this rule in this century. On 9 November 1905, KingEdward VII bestowed the style 'Princess Royal' on his eldest daughter, HRH PrincessLouise. On the same day, His Majesty elevated the daughters of Princess Louise to therank of 'princess' with the style of 'Highness'. With this unilateral decision on the part oftheir grandfather the King, Lady Alexandra Duff (1891-1959) and Lady Maud Duff(1893-1945) no longer held their rank from their father (Sir Alexander Duff, Dukeof Fife) but rather from the will of the Sovereign.Back to Table of Contents27. Which members of the royal family are entitled to "HRH"?King George V issued Letters Patent on 30 October 1917 regulating who would beentitled to the style of HRH and the title of Prince (or Princess). Since that date, thestyle of His (or Her) Royal Highness is reserved for: the children of a sovereign the children of sons of a sovereign (that is, grandchildren in the male line of a sovereign) the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of WalesIt is also the correct style for the wives of those who are entitled to bear the style ofHRH. A widow does not lose the style of HRH upon her husband's death, whereas adivorced wife loses the style of HRH following her divorce. Before their divorces,Diana was allowed the style and title of "HRH The Princess of Wales", while hersister-in-law Sarah was allowed the style and title of "HRH The Duchess of York".Neither were entitled to such forms of address as "HRH Princess Diana", "PrincessDiana of Wales", or "HRH Duchess Sarah", "Duchess Sarah of York" despite what wasand still is reported by the media.Since 1917, there have been three exceptions to this rule:First: the Duke of Edinburgh. On the day before his marriage to the present Queen,Lt. Philip Mountbatten was created "HRH The Duke of Edinburgh". King George VI wasseemingly under the impression that since he had given Philip the style of HRH, it meant hewas also giving him the title of prince, which was not so. It wasn't until 22 February 1957that HM The Queen corrected this situation and made her husband a Prince of the UnitedKingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.Second: the Prince of Wales and his sister the Princess Royal. On 9 November 1948,HM King George VI "issued letters patent under the Great Seal ordaining that anychildren born to the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh would have the title of prince orprincess and the style of Royal Highness." (Prince Charles: A Biography, by AnthonyHolden, 1979). Thus, Charles (born less than a week after this decision) and Anne (bornless than two years later) were to enjoy the style of HRH before they would have beenentitled to it upon their mother's accession as Queen.Third:On the wedding day of HRH The Earl of Wessex to Miss Sophie Rhys-Jones,a press release from Buckingham Palace announced the queen's decision(made with the couple's agreement) that any children they have shouldnot be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesytitles as sons or daughters of an earl. While royal styles and titleshave usually been conferred and withdrawn by way of letters patent orroyal warrants, precedents show that such instruments are not necessary,and there is no reason to doubt that the press release correctly expressesthe sovereign's will, which is all that matters.At present, there are eighteen members of the Royal Family who are entitled to thestyle HRH: HRH The Prince of Wales (the child of a sovereign) HRH The Duchess of Cornwall (wife of a son of a sovereign) HRH Prince William of Wales (the child of a son of a sovereign) HRH Prince Henry of Wales (the child of a son of a sovereign) HRH The Duke of York (the child of a sovereign) HRH Princess Beatrice of York (the child of a son of a sovereign) HRH Princess Eugenie of York (the child of a son of a sovereign) HRH The Earl of Wessex (the child of a sovereign) HRH The Countess of Wessex (the wife of a son of a sovereign) HRH The Princess Royal (the child of a sovereign) HRH The Duke of Gloucester (the child of a son of a sovereign) HRH The Duchess of Gloucester (the wife of a child of a son of a sovereign) HRH The Duke of Kent (the child of a son of a sovereign) HRH The Duchess of Kent (the wife of a child of a son of a sovereign) HRH Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy (the child of a son of a sovereign) HRH Prince Michael of Kent (the child of a son of a sovereign) HRH Princess Michael of Kent (the wife of a child of a son of a sovereign) HRH The Duke of EdinburghBack to Table of Contents28. Who are the relatives of HM The Queen?The following list should be a help to anyone who has ever wondered if PrincessMargaret is the daughter of HM The Queen or if Princess Anne is her sister, who wereHer Majesty's parents, or how many grandchildren Her Majesty has. Parents:HM King George VI of Great Britain (1895-1952)Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (1900-2002) Paternal Grandparents:HM King George V of Great Britain (1865-1936)HSH Princess Mary of Teck (1867-1953) Maternal Grandparents:Claude Bowes-Lyon, 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne (1855-1944)Nina Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck (1862-1938) Husband:HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip of Greece) (b. 1921)(son of HRH Prince Andrew of Greece and HSH Princess Alice of Battenberg) Children:HRH The Prince of Wales (Prince Charles) (b. 1948)HRH The Princess Royal (Princess Anne) (b. 1950)HRH The Duke of York (Prince Andrew) (b. 1960)HRH The Earl of Wessex (Prince Edward) (b. 1964) Grandchildren:HRH Prince William of Wales (b. 1982)HRH Prince Henry (Harry) of Wales (b. 1984)(sons of The Prince of Wales)HRH Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988)HRH Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990)(daughters of The Duke of York)Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor (b. 2003)son (b. 2007)(daughter of The Earl of Wessex)Peter Phillips (b. 1977)Zara Phillips (b. 1981)(children of The Princess Royal) Nephew and Niece:David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley (b. 1961)Lady Sarah Chatto (née Armstrong-Jones) (b. 1964)(children of Princess Margaret) Surviving Paternal Cousins:George Lascelles, 7th Earl of Harewood (b. 1923)(son of late HRH Princess Mary of Great Britain, Princess Royal)HRH The Duke of Gloucester (Prince Richard of Great Britain) (b. 1944)(son of late HRH Prince Henry of Great Britain, Duke of Gloucester)HRH The Duke of Kent (Prince Edward of Great Britain) (b. 1935)HRH Princess Alexandra of Great Britain, the Hon Lady Ogilvy (b. 1936)HRH Prince Michael of Great Britain (Kent) (b. 1942)(children of late HRH Prince George of Great Britain, Duke of Kent)N.B.: Her Majesty does not have any surviving aunts or uncles; Her Majestydoes have a number of surviving maternal cousins, however.Back to Table of Contents29. Is it true that HM The Queen has agreed to allow the Government to change the lawsof succession to the throne?No, it isn't true. The only thing which Her Majesty has done is to agree to allow discussionof the issue (whereby the right of succession passes to the eldest child of the sovereignregardless of gender, that is, females would have the same right of succession as males).Neither Parliament nor the Queen have decided to do anything beyond discussing the issue.For additional information, see various issues of the "Electronic Telegraph" (the onlineversion of "The Daily Telegraph" newspaper) including those of 13 February 1997(issue 629) and 28 February 1998 (issue 1009).Back to Table of Contents30. Was Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark a British subject before he becamenaturalized in 1947?Yes, Prince Philip was a British subject before he became naturalized in 1947. In fact, hehad been from birth because of the Sophia Naturalization Act . This Act, passed in 1705,gave in perpetuity the right of British citizenship to Sophia's non-Catholic descendants.At the time of Prince Philip's naturalization in February 1947, no one seemed aware thatthis procedure was unnecessary, not even his uncle Lord Louis Mountbatten who "workeddiligently towards the granting of Philip's British citizenship" (Prince Philip: A Biography,by Denis Judd, London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1980). This fact was discovered only afterthe legal victory of his cousin, Prince Ernst August of Hanover, in which he won his rightto British citizenship. In 1956, HRH Prince Ernst August of Hanover (1914-1987) soughtand won his battle to claim the status of British citizen because of the Sophia NaturalizationAct. Prince Ernst August's claim to this right was based on the fact that he was a linealdescendant of the Electress Sophia and a Protestant.Back to Table of Contents31. Did Prince Philip renounce his Greek titles and his succession rights to the Greekthrone before his marriage to HRH Princess Elizabeth?Some alt.talk.royalty members feel quite strongly that Prince Philip did indeed renouncehis right of succession to the throne of Greece in 1944 with permission of King George IIof the Hellenes. They also feel that Prince Philip renounced his titles of Prince of Greeceand Prince of Denmark (he was born HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark) whenhe became a naturalized British citizen and assumed the surname Mountbatten in February1947.However, other members of alt.talk.royalty feel just as strongly that Prince Philip didnot renounce either his succession rights or his princely titles. They believe that since thereisn't any documentary proof showing Prince Philip renounced his titles or his rights theseevents did not occur. Their argument rests on the fact that no one has been able to cite thetext of the renunciation, the date it was executed, the date it became effective, or even theclause in the House laws of the Royal House of Greece permitting a Prince to renounce.(Prince Philip is the only Greek prince who is ever said to have renounced his rights andhis titles.) They view it as a case in which Prince Philip simply stopped using his Greekand Danish titles and that he never formally relinquished them. (Foreign rules and regulationsuch as British Home Office naturalization procedures did not have any effect on PrincePhilip's title or his style of HRH as a Prince of Greece. As such, those who put forth thesearguments say that he, his children and male-line grandchildren are Princes/Princessesof Greece and Denmark, in addition to any other titles they may hold.) Other individualstake this argument further by pointing out that even if Prince Philip renounced his rightsof succession to the Greek throne, it was not enacted under Greek law. Lastly, theybelieve there isn't any primary documentary evidence that shows this so-called renunciationwas accepted (publicly or privately) by the Greek Sovereign.Back to Table of Contents32. Which members of the royal family have a ducal title and who inherits their titles attheir deaths?At the present time, six members of the royal family hold a ducal title. The titles and theirholders are (in alphabetical order): Cornwall (held by HRH Prince Charles, Prince of Wales since 1952) Edinburgh (held by HRH Prince Philip since 1947) Gloucester (held by HRH Prince Richard since 1974) Kent (held by HRH Prince Edward since 1942) Lancaster (held by HM The Queen, as Sovereign, since 1952) Rothesay (held by HRH The Prince of Wales since 1952) York (held by HRH Prince Andrew since 1986)One member holds a comital title: Wessex (held by HRH Prince Edward since 1999)CornwallSince its creation in 1337, this dukedom has been reserved for the son and heir apparentof the Sovereign. The title was first created on 3 March 1337 when King Edward IIIbestowed it on his eldest son, Edward (later known as the Black Prince). When Edward,Duke of Cornwall died in his father's lifetime in June 1376, "all his peerage dignities (noneof which devolved on his son in consequence of the spec. rems. thereof) lapsed to theCrown." (source: The Complete Peerage, volume III, page 437) Edward's youngersurviving son, Richard (the future King Richard II), became heir apparent of hisgrandfather King Edward III, but did not inherit the title Duke of Cornwall. A few monthslater, in November 1376, Richard was created Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall andEarl of Chester. When he acceded as King Richard II in 1377, all his peerage titlesmerged in the Crown.Prince Charles became heir apparent in 1952 upon his mother's accession as QueenElizabeth II. Prince Charles, as the oldest son of the Sovereign, inherited the title Dukeof Cornwall, as well as the (Scottish) titles Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron ofRenfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.If Prince Charles dies in the lifetime of his mother the Queen, all of the peerages he holds(as heir apparent) would revert to the Crown. No one inherits them, not even his sonPrince William. Following Prince Charles's death, HM The Queen could make hergrandson, Prince William, "Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester" and these would be hisfor life or until he succeeded to the Throne. Prince Charles's other titles (Duke ofCornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc...) would not be given to or inherited by Prince Williamas these are reserved for the oldest son of the Sovereign.EdinburghEdinburgh was first created as a dukedom for Prince Frederick (1707-1751), eldest sonand heir of the future King George II. On 26 July 1726, Prince Frederick was createdDuke of Edenburgh (as it was then spelled), Marquess of the Isle of Ely, Earl of Eltham,Viscount of Launceston, Baron of Snaudon (as Snowdon was then spelled). When hisfather acceded to the throne in 1727, Prince Frederick became heir apparent andinherited the title Duke of Cornwall. When Frederick died in 1751 in his father's lifetime,his titles (Duke of Cornwall, Duke of Rothesay, etc...) lapsed (reverted) to the Crownwhile his title Duke of Edinburgh devolved on (was inherited by) his son and heir, thefuture George III. George was Duke of Edinburgh from 1751 until 1760 when heacceded to the throne as King George III and all his honours merged in the Crown.The second creation was for Victoria's second son Alfred (1844-1900), who was madeEarl of Ulster, Earl of Kent, and Duke of Edinburgh on May 24, 1866. The titles became extinct with his death on July 30, 1900.Lt. Philip Mountbatten (as Prince Philip was then known), was created Duke ofEdinburgh, Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich in the peerage of the United Kingdomin November 1947.Peculiarities of the present dukedom of EdinburghThe grant of a hereditary dukedom to a royal consort creates a peculiar situation,because of the confluence of two factors:the dukedom of Edinburgh is hereditary(the Letters Patent specify the standard remainder of "heirs male of his body lawfully begotten");any peerage inherited by the Sovereign ceases to exist, or "merges in the Crown":(the Sovereign, being the "fons honorum" or fountain of honour, cannot hold a peerage him/herself, because the Sovereign is higher than any peer).Thus, the present duke may not be the last (because of 1), but the dukedom is likely tomerge sooner or later (because of 2).Consider the most likely scenario, that the Prince of Wales survives both his parents (scenario A). At the death of his mother, he will become sovereign. At the death of his father, he will become duke of Edinburgh. Either event may happenbefore the other: in either case, the dukedom will merge when the last parent dies. A less likely scenario is that the Prince of Wales does not survive both his parents. Then: (a) if Charles dies after his mother but before his father, the dukedom will merge in the Crown at the death of Philip. (b) If Charles dies after his father but before his mother,the dukedom will pass from Philip to Charles to William, and merge when William becomes king.(c) If Charles dies before both his parents, repeat scenario A with William instead of Charles.Further, even less likely variations, can be imagined.(One exotic variant has Charles renouncing his rights to the throne in favor of his son;the dukedom would then pass to Charles while the Crown passes to William).Note that the dukedom will not necessarily merge in the Crown. Here is one scenariowhere it doesn't: both Charles and William die after Philip but before Elizabeth II, andWilliam leaves a daughter. In that case, the Crown passes to William's daughter and her descendants, the dukedom passes to Henry and his descendants. But, given that the Queenhas a son who has two sons, it is far likelier that the dukedom will merge sooner or later.Will Edward inherit the dukedom of Edinburgh?On the day of the marriage of the Earl of Wessex (June 19, 1999) it was announcedby Buckingham Palace that "The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh and The Prince of Wales havealso agreed that The Prince Edward should be given the Dukedom of Edinburgh in due course, when the present title now held by Prince Philip eventually reverts to the Crown."The announcement makes clear that the grant of Edinburgh to Edward will only take place after the present title has merged (which, as discussed above, may not happen but is most likely to do so). What is slightly less clear, although it is implied, is that Edward will receive a new grant of the dukedom of Edinburgh.This ambiguity has been a source of confusion, because the announcement may be read to say that the present dukedom will be given to Edward. That is not the case: it cannot be given to anyone, it can only pass according to the remainder defined in the Letters Patent of creation, unless modified by an Act of Parliament (which isalways possible, but unlikely).The "agreement" between the Queen, Prince Philip, and the Prince of Wales, should be thought to be more of a commitment among mother, father, and son, rather than a legallybinding contract. The Prince of Wales is involved because, in most likelihood, he(as HM King Charles III) will grant the (new) Dukedom of Edinburghto his brother, after the death of their parents, and the reversionof the present title to the Crown. Prince Philip is involved in theagreement out of respect for his role as father, and his having beenthe Duke of Edinburgh for over 50 years, rather than any sense thathe controls the inheritance of his titles. And the Queen's roleis in explaining why she is not granting a dukedom to her sonupon his marriage, as she had done when she created Prince Andrew asDuke of York.GloucesterGloucester, with its long history as an earldom, was first created as a dukedom in August1385 for Thomas "of Woodstock" (1355-1397), youngest son of King Edward III. Inlater years, Thomas became dissatisfied with his nephew the King (Richard II) and soughtto depose him. Thomas was arrested and murdered while in captivity. Because he hadbeen declared guilty of treason and his estates and goods forfeited, his son did not inherithis title Duke of Gloucester.The present creation of the dukedom of Gloucester dates from March 1928 when HRHPrince Henry (1900-1974), son of King George V, was created Duke of Gloucester,Earl of Ulster, Baron Culloden. Henry, whose elder unmarried son HRH Prince William(1941-1972) predeceased him in a flying accident, was succeeded by his younger sonHRH Prince Richard (b. 1944) as Duke of Gloucester at his death in 1974. PrinceRichard will be succeeded in his turn by his son because this peerage is a hereditary onein the male line.KentThe first duke of Kent was HRH Prince Edward (1767-1820), son of King George III.Edward was created Duke of Kent and Strathearn, Earl of Dublin in April 1799. Athis death, all his honours became extinct as he had but one surviving legitimate child, adaughter, the future Queen Victoria.The present creation of the dukedom of Kent dates to when HRH Prince George(1902-1942), younger son of King George V, was created Duke of Kent, Earl ofSt. Andrews, Baron Downpatrick in October 1934. George died in a plane crash whileon active service in W.W.II and was succeeded by his elder son HRH Prince Edward(b. 1935) as Duke of Kent. Just like the dukedom of Gloucester, the dukedom of Kentis a hereditary one (in the male line) and Prince Edward will be succeeded in due time byhis elder son.LancasterAs the dukedom of Lancaster has never been conferred again since the Middle Ages, itwill be dealt with here only briefly. In 1267, King Henry III's younger son Edmund(1245-1296) received the county, honour and the castle of Lancaster. Edmund's grandsonHenry was created the first Duke of Lancaster in 1351. King Henry IV, a descendant ofthis first duke, declared that the Lancastrian inheritance would no longer form part of theother possessions of the Crown and would descend to his male heirs. As such, it isconsidered the personal prerogative of the monarch and the title Duke of Lancaster is heldby the Sovereign. Today, the duchy of Lancaster comprises acreage in various countiesand provides a source of income for the monarch.RothesayRobert III, King of Scots created his eldest son, David (1378-1402), Duke of Rothesayon 28 April 1398. This title and that of Duke of Albany (created for David's uncle Robert)were the first dukedoms to be made in Scotland. David's peerage dignities reverted to theCrown at his death because he died in the lifetime of his father and without leaving anychildren of his marriage.The title Duke of Rothesay and those of Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of theIsles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland have been reserved for the eldest son ofthe king of Scotland since an Act of Parliament made them so in November 1469. (Butas The Complete Peerage, volume XI, page 209, note "e" points out: "The act of 1469,however, as far as regards the Dukedom of Rothesay, seems but aconfirmation of thelimitation of that title as [...] it was originally so granted in 1398 [...]").Since the union of the Crowns of England and Scotland in 1603, these traditional titlesbelong to the Sovereign's eldest son. Just as Prince Charles inherited the title Duke ofCornwall on becoming heir apparent in 1952 upon his mother's accession, he hasinherited the titles Duke of Rothesay, Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of theIsles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland.YorkIn August 1385, Edmund "of Langley" (1341-1402), son of King Edward III, wascreated Duke of York by his nephew King Richard II. Edmund's successoras Duke of York, Edward, was killed at Agincourt. The title eventually mergedwhen Edward IV came to the throne in 1461.The present creation of the dukedom of York is a recent one and dates to July 1986when HRH Prince Andrew (b. 1960), second son of HM Queen Elizabeth II, wascreated Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh. At the present time,Prince Andrew has two children, daughters Beatrice and Eugenie, who will not be ableto inherit the dukedom as it was created with the remainder to his heirs male. ShouldAndrew die without leaving any sons, his title (or more accurately, the 1986 creation of it)will become extinct. The title still belongs to the Crown, however, and the Sovereign isfree to create it anew for another member of the royal family.WessexWessex has no history as a peerage title. It was last held as a feudal titleby Harald Godwinesson (d. 1066). It was announced on June 19, 1999 (the dayof the marriage of Prince Edward with Sophie Rhys-Jones) that he would receivethe titles of Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn. It is the first time thata prince receives a title no higher than Earl. There is, however, a promiseto grant him a title of duke of Edinburgh "in due course" (see above).Important points these peerage titles (with the exception of Cornwall, Lancaster and Rothesay) arehereditary according to their Letters Patent which contain the standard remainder "heirsmale of his body". Oncea peerage is granted to a member of the royal family, that peerage title is not subsequentlygranted to anyone outside of the royal family. It is possible, however, for the title to becreated anew for another member of the royal family. two possibilities exist which would prevent the legitimate heir from succeeding to apeerage: death and disclaiming. Even if the legitimate heir was disqualified fromsuccession to the Throne, he would not be disqualified from (for example) inheritingPrince Philip's Edinburgh peerage. For such a disqualification to occur would requirethe legitimate heir being declared illegitimate. Under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772,the marriage of a descendant of the Sovereign which does not receive the prior writtenpermission of the Sovereign in Council would not be legal if contracted in England. Forexample, if Princes William or Henry of Wales married without prior permission from theSovereign, their marriage would be null and void and their children would be consideredillegitimate. (Illegitimate issue can not succeed to honours or peerages.) Thus, the childrenof William and Henry would be bypassed in favor of Prince Andrew and his heirs. just because a member of the royal family entitled to the style HRH is a duke does notmean his dukedom is a 'royal' dukedom. There isn't anything fundamental about ducaltitles which make them royal dukedoms - it's a case of whether or not the particularholder of the dukedom is royal. For example, when HRH Prince Edward (b. 1935)is succeeded as Duke of Kent by his elder son George, the dukedom of Kent will not ceaseto be royal but it will cease to be associated with royalty because George, as a greatgrandson of a Sovereign, is not entitled to the style of HRH. (This situation applies equallyto the present Duke of Gloucester and his son.) a peerage for a member of the royal family isn't any different to any other peerage. Allpeerages are now created by letters patent. It is the peerage that is created, not the title.Back to Table of Contents33. What is the difference between an heir apparent and an heir presumptive?The difference between an heir apparent and an heir presumptive is as follows:Heir Apparent- the next in line to the Throne whose right to succeed cannot be defeated by the birth ofof someone with a superior right to succeed- the eldest son of the Sovereign is always the heir apparent who becomes Duke ofCornwall by inheritance as well as becoming by inheritance Duke of Rothesay, Earl ofCarrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland- the heir apparent is normally created Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester- Prince Charles, Prince of Wales is heir apparent to Queen Elizabeth II- should Prince Charles die while Prince of Wales, his elder son William would becomeheir apparent because no other birth of any sort (male or female) to anyone in the line ofsuccession could displace him from his place in succession (William is the eldest son of theeldest son of the Sovereign); also, William would not inherit the title Prince of Wales, buthe could be invested as such, as he does not have to be the son of a monarch to becomePrince of Wales (after the death of Frederick, Prince of Wales, King George II investedhis grandson and heir, the future King George III, with the title of Prince of Wales)Heir Presumptive- the next in line to the Throne whose right to succeed could be defeated by the birth ofsomeone with a superior right- Queen Elizabeth II, when Princess Elizabeth, was heiress presumptive from her father'saccession as king in 1936 until her father's death in 1952 because it was always possiblethat her parents King George VI and Queen Elizabeth might have had a sonIt is possible for a woman to be heir apparent, under the following circumstances. Supposeking X has an eldest son Y, and Y has an only daughter Z. Suppose that Y dies while X is still reigning: then Z becomes heir apparent, because no one can ever displace her in the orderof succession.Also, it happened once that a woman was heir apparent, albeit due to a peculiarity of theAct of Succession: Princess Anne of Denmark (future Queen Anne) was heir apparent to her brother-in-law William III after the death of Queen Mary, because she had priority overhis issue.Back to Table of Contents34. How many Princes of Wales have there been and who were they?Since the title was first created in 1301 for the son of King Edward I, there have beentwenty-one English Prin | |
