The Elizabethan age (1558-1603 CE) was a period of significant change in England’s society and monarchy. Queen Elizabeth I, the last Tudor monarch, was known for her commitment to fashion and fashion-forward clothing. The Elizabethan era saw the rise of Elizabethan Theatre, which featured professional actors from touring troupes and explored new lands. The term “honeymoon” originally referred to the first month of marriage when sweetness ruled between the lovers. The concept of a post-wedding holiday only gained popularity in the 1900s.
The Elizabethan era also saw an increase in entertainment at court, including jousting, dancing, poetry-reading, dramatic performances, hunting, riding, banqueting, and concerts. Many of Queen Elizabeth I’s most entertaining court appearances took place in Greenwich Palace. Education and schooling were also received according to wealth and class, with the main purpose of training boys in good manners and proper behavior according to their social class.
The social structure of Elizabethan England consisted of four main classes: Nobility, Gentry, Yeomanry, and Poor. A person’s class determined how they could dress, where they could live, and the kinds of jobs people and their children could get. The royal couple spent their honeymoons in various locations, including country manors, private islands, and luxury safari camps. Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s honeymoon destinations are yet to be confirmed, but it is expected to include landscapes with grand castles and private getaways.
In summary, the Elizabethan era saw a significant shift in society and culture, with the royal family spending their honeymoons in various locations, including the Mediterranean, Scotland, and the Greek Islands.
📹 Brief History of the Royal Family
The Royal Family from 1066 until today. Support the videos: https://www.patreon.com/cgpgrey Research help from: Dr. Carolyn …
Where did Princess Margaret go on her honeymoon?
Marriage and family. In February 1960, Queen Elizabeth II announced her consent to the engagement of The Princess Margaret to Mr Antony Armstrong-Jones, and they were married in Westminster Abbey on 6 May. The honeymoon was spent in the West Indies. After marriage they made their home in an apartment in Kensington Palace. In October 1961, Mr Armstrong-Jones was created Earl of Snowdon and Viscount Linley.
They had two children. Their son, Lord Linley, was born on 3 November 1961 and christened David Albert Charles; their daughter, Lady Sarah Frances Elizabeth, was born on 1 May 1964. The marriage of The Princess to Lord Snowdon was dissolved in May 1978.
Later years. In her later years, The Princess Margaret suffered poor health, experiencing a mild stroke on 23 February 1998 whilst at her holiday home in Mustique. Twelve months later, The Princess severely scalded her feet in a bathroom accident. This affected her mobility to the extent that The Princess later required support when walking and was sometimes restricted to a wheelchair. In 2000 and 2001 further strokes were diagnosed.
Where did Princess Beatrice honeymoon?
The couple tied the knot in a July 17 secret ceremony in Windsor Great Park attended by close family and friends, including Beatrices grandparents Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip. The newlyweds then headed on a low-key honeymoon in France, with plans for a longer, more luxurious honeymoon in August.
The palace announced this week that Princess Beatrices hand-me-down wedding gown, which was loaned by her grandmother Queen Elizabeth, is going on display at Windsor Castle on September 24. Beatrice asked the Queen, 94, for the Norman Hartnell-designed 1960s-era dress as she rearranged her wedding amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The dress was a touching gesture from the Queen and served as a very outward symbol of both her love for her granddaughter and the unusual last-minute nature of the event. The bride and groom and their mothers, including Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York, only had about two weeks to pull the day together.
Where did Princess Kate stay the night before her wedding?
The Goring is a five-star hotel in London’s Belgravia district with a long royal history. It has a royal warrant from Queen Elizabeth II and has been visited by every British monarch and prime minister since it opened in 1910. The hotel was visited by Queen Elizabeth and Kate stayed in the penthouse suite the night before her wedding on April 29, 2011. I visited the hotel during Queen Elizabeth’s Platinum Jubilee in June.
Where did William and Kate spend their wedding night?
Even though William and Kate technically broke royal tradition by spending their wedding night in Buckingham Palace, the decision doesnt seem to have had any negative ramifications.
We Cut Bangs on 16 Different Women With The Help of Celebrity Stylist Justine Marjan.
When was Queen Elizabeth’s honeymoon?
HRH Princess Elizabeth and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh on honeymoon 23 – 23 Nov 1947.
Where was Kate Middleton honeymoon?
Seychelles: Prince William and Kate Middleton. After their marriage in Westminster Abbey, Prince William and Kate Middleton took flight on a private jet to one of the most remote islands in the world. Its reported that the couple honeymooned in the Seychelles, where they stayed at the exclusive luxury private island resort North Island. The resort has only 11 villas, and the couple stayed in theirs for 10 days, basking in the Indian Ocean and doing it in complete privacy. The villa included a freshwater pool, a private garden, a personal chef, and a butler. While the royal couples resort costs upwards of $6,000 a night, we recommend looking into similar resorts like Anantara Maia Seychelles if you want to replicate their honeymoon on a smaller budget.
Getty Images / Unsplash / Design by Cristina Cianci.
India: King Jigme Khesar and Queen Jetsun Pema. When King Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck of Bhutan wed Jetsun Pema in 2001, their royal wedding was one of the most watched events in the history of the Kingdom of Bhutan. Its fitting that the couple treated themselves to an epic nine-day honeymoon adventure throughout India. The newlyweds embarked on a luxury train journey across Rajasthan, making stops in Jaipur, Jodhpur, and Udaipur. Sources say that a special customized coach section was added to the train just for them. The luxurious train suite was furnished with a dining room, a bedroom, and a fully equipped kitchen.
Where did Prince Charles spend his first honeymoon?
After Prince Charles and Princess Dianas “wedding of the century” at St Pauls Cathedral in July 1981, the royal pair set off for Gibraltar on Spains south coast, where they boarded the Royal Yacht Britannia. The yacht cruised around the Mediterranean, including the Greek islands, for 14 days. The couple ended their getaway at Balmoral Castle in Scotland. It was a luxurious itinerary –but what really went down during those first few days of the couples doomed marriage? Turns out, a lot more drama than you might think.
While most people head out on their honeymoon with the impression that their partner is totally in love with them, Diana wasnt so sure. Her insecurity stemmed from an awkward interview at the time of her and Charles engagement. “We had this ghastly interview the day we announced our engagement,” she told her speech coach on a tape that was later used for the Channel 4 documentary Diana: In Her Own Words. “And this ridiculous news man said, ‘Are you in love? “I thought, what a thick question. So I said, ‘Yes, of course, we are, and Charles turned round and said, ‘Whatever love means. And that threw me completely. I thought, what a strange answer. It traumatised me.”
Heres why some Brits dont want Charles to be king.
Where did Queen Elizabeth spend her honeymoon?
She was a 21-year-old princess when she married Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten on 20 November 1947, five years before she became Queen.
The couple spent their honeymoon at Broadlands in Romsey.
The Queen and Prince Philip revisited Broadlands to mark their Diamond Wedding Anniversary in November 2007.
Here we look back at some of those special connections to the county.
A smiling Queen watches a flypast with the Duke of Edinburgh at Odiham Airfield in 1953 – with more than 318 planes on the ground and about 600 taking part in a flypast, it was the biggest parade of aircraft in the history of the service at the time.
Do the royals still go to Mustique?
Promoted Stories. In fact, the family first visited Mustique in 2008 and they have been returning ever since. Given the complete privacy of the Mustique, which has a no-fly zone enforced and the discretion of other guests, the prince and princess can truly relax.
Back in July 2019, the family stayed in a luxury villa on the private Caribbean Island of Mustique when they celebrated Georges sixth birthday, along with Kates parents Carole and Michael Middleton.
Prince William and Kate Middleton are kicking off their summer holidays, after George, Charlotte and Louis broke up from school last week.
The young Wales finished their first year at Lambrook, which is set in the beautiful Berkshire countryside on 52 acres.
Did Queen Elizabeth have a honeymoon?
60. They travelled by train to Hampshire, departing from Waterloo Station. Princess Elizabeths Corgi, Susan, came with them.
61. The rest of their honeymoon was spent at Birkhall on the Balmoral Estate.
62. The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh celebrated their sixth wedding anniversary in the year of the coronation, with a dance at Clarence House given by Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother.
63. In 1972, The Queen and The Duke celebrated their silver wedding anniversary with a Service at Westminster Abbey.
📹 Changes to British Royal Titles Since the Death of Queen Elizabeth II
Previous Line of Succession video: https://www.youtube.com/embed/46N-bulO-aM Limited edition chart showing Queen …
A sombre update: Elizabeth 2 reigned 7 years longer than Queen Victoria making it over the 70 years finish line. A very impressive achievement! She left the crown to Charles 3, the oldest king to ascend to the throne. From there on, the crown will continue to William, the Prince of Wales, to his son George.
This article was so unrelevant for so long.. BUT, it was released EXACTLY 7 years ago! King Charles III has just entered the Buckingham Palace – September 9th, 2022. CGP Grey knew already the day and the year, releasing this article 7 years ago, honoring the Queen’s 70 years reign. Impressive work, CGP Grey! (how did you know, if you can tell us)
Continuation: In 2018, another son of William was born: Louis. Two years later, Harry, his wife and his son leaves the Royal Family (*sped up* Because apparently it’s a thing that they can do) back to normal and in September 8, 2022, Queen Elizabeth II finally dies, breaking the hearts of the British and memers that made “immortal” memes, making Charles the new King of the United Kingdom.
I just want to say that Sophia of Hanover is an absolutely fascinating woman and i highly recommend reading her memoirs. the way she, the 13th child of a disgraced king married to the fourth brother with the smallest share of a puny kingdom got to the point where she was heiress to the english throne is absolutely riveting.
I was dying at the “marrying a commoner” “an amarican” ” a divorcee” a “two times divorcée” 😂😂 I can imagine the scandal back than … I’ve been obsessed with the royal history I even named my daughter Elizabeth but this article was so short and simple and I understood everything better than hours of documentaries
It wasn’t the stress of WW II or the breakup of the empire that killed George VI, it was the fact he was a very heavy smoker and in later life suffered bad health with several smoking-related illnesses, including lung cancer and arteriosclerosis. It no doubt contributed to his other ailments too, just as it did to his daughter Princess Margaret, who died, aged 71, who suffered from a number of conditions that are strongly correlated with smoking and suffered bad health for much of her life. Meanwhile her sister has now surpassed here age by a quarter of a century (and apparently insisted her husband gave up smoking when they married – and he almost made it to 100). It’s a lesson on why smoking is a bad idea, and one that will have been echoed in many families.
Fun fact: if Victoria had no sons or if all of them died, the line would have merged with the Hohenzollerns, making Kaiser Wilhelm II the British monarch. If we used the modern rules from Victoria onwards, Willy really would have been the King, since his mother was Victoria’s eldest child. Somewhat interestingly, this would mean that the British would have a 100% legitimate claim to France as well, since Wilhelm was an indirect descendant of Napoleon.
Basically… William William Henry Stephen Henry Richard John, oi. Henry Ed Ed Ed Rich 2 Three more henrys, join our song Edward Edward Rich the 3rd Henry Henry Ed again Mary 1 Good Queen Liz Jimmy Charles And Charles, and then Jim Will/Mary Anne Gloria George George George George Will Victoria Edward George Edward George 6 And Queen Liz 2 completes the mix.
Does it not strike you as odd that Henry VIII split the church, establishing Anglicanism, just so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon and marry his mistress Anne Bolin, because the Pope wouldn’t grant him a divorce and yet Edward VIII had to abdicate because the Crown would not allow him to marry a twice-divorced women who happened to be a commoner and an American? Sounds like a double-standard: a king could divorce and then marry his mistress but a king can’t marry a divorcee.
Elizabeth II is yet to surpass the longest-reigning monarch in European history, Louis XIV, who reigned for 72 years and 110 days. He was 4 years old when he inherited the kingdom from his father Louis XIII. The crown passed to his great-grandson Louis XV, as he had outlived both his son Louis and his grandson Louis. With any luck, Her Majesty should overtake Louis XIV in 2024. (Edit: I know Grey said queen, not monarch – I am not arguing against his point but merely adding to it) (Edit#2: REGENCIES DO COUNT if we are discussing the legal definition of a “reign”. Any dynastic historian will tell you that. Please read the thread for elaboration. Actually practically ruling isn’t necessary for you to be considered a monarch.) (Edit#3: I know that many non-European monarchs have reigned longer. )
The history of the British Empire is perhaps the real world Game of Thrones story. Also Henry II had a son Geoffrey who reminds me of Jeoffery from Game of Thrones. It has also been mentioned in the article that William II died in a hunting accident just like Robert Baratheon in Game of Thrones. Also Red wedding was inspired by scottish black dinner and War of 5 kings is based on 15th century war of 5 roses.
This article was uploaded the day that Elizabeth II surpassed Victoria as the longest reigning British monarch. It was also the 928th anniversary of William the Conqueror’s death in 1087. And wouldn’t you know, it was also the day after the -7th anniversary (pre-anniversary?) of Elizabeth II’s death. So many coincidences.
At 7:23 look inside the carriage there’s a creeper. Edit: Thanks guys👍 Let’s get this to 1,000 likes for absolutely no reason Also can other comments stop acting like they saw the creeper but just looked at my comment and copied it But to those people who actually found the creeper………. congrats you’ve got amazing skills at paying attention
The Edward VIII “scandal” of marrying an American divorcee was possibly a cover story. (Like how a person who has a gay marriage might be fired from his job for “not working hard”.) Perhaps the real reason he was made to resign was because he and his wife were Nazi sympathizers/supporters. The shame of being thought of as “prudes” might have been less than the shame of having a possible Nazi as king, so there was a good reason to go with that. That is speculation, but the fact that Edward VIII supported Nazis at least at first (before the Holocaust became apparent) is well documented.
Kings of England: William 1 William 2 Henry 1 Stephen Henry 2 Henry the Young Richard the Lionheart King John Edward 1 Edward 2 Edward 3 Richard 2 Henry 4 Henry 5 Henry 6 Edward 4 Edward 5 Richard 3 Henry 7 Henry 8 Edward 6 Mary 1 Elizabeth 1 James 1 Charles 1 Charles 2 James 2 Mary 2 William 3 Queen Anne George 1 George 2 George 3 George 4 William 4 Queen Victoria Edward 7 George 5 Edward 8 George 6 Elizabeth 2
William, William, Henry, Stephen, Henry, Richard, John oi Henry, Ed,Ed, Ed, Rich 2 Then 3 more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the 3, Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary 1, Good Queen Bess, Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria George, George, George, George Will, Victoria, Edward, George, Edward, George 6 And Queen Liz 2 completes the mix
I’m William the Conqueror My enemies stood no chance They call me the first English king Although I come from France 1066, the Doomsday book I gave to history So fat on death my body burst But enough about me To help remember all your kings I’ve come up with this song A simple rhyming ditty For you all to sing along Oh, William (Bit short init? We need more kings. Who came next?) William second, cheeks were red Killed out hunting, so it’s said I took over, Henry one That’s my next eldest son Then King Stephen, it’s true check it! Hi, Henry two, killed Thomas Beckett Richard Lionheart? That’s right! Always spoiling for a fight Oh King John, what a disaster Rule restrained by Magna Carta William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Time for my mate, King Henry eight To take up this song Henry three built the abbey Ed one hated Scots A red hot poker killed Ed two That must have hurt him lots Edward third was a chivalry nerd Began the hundred years war Then Richard two was king aged ten Then Henry, yes one more King Henry four, plots galore Not least from Henry five, why? Killed ten score at Agincourt Then Henry six arrived Edward four, Edward five Richard the third, he’s bad ‘Cause he fought wars with Henry seventh First Tudor and my dad So Henry eight, I was great Six wives, two were beheaded Edward the sixth came next, but he died young And so my dreaded Daughter Mary ruled, so scary Then along came… me I’m Liz the first, I had no kids So Tudors RIP William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi!
William, William, Henry, Stephen Henry, Richard, John, oi! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two Then three more Henrys join our song Edward, Edward, Rich the third Henry, Henry, Ed again Mary one, good Queen Bess Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then Jim, Will, Mary, Anna Gloria George, George, George, George Will, Victoria Edward, George, Edward, George six And Queen Liz two completes the mix
Skimming Wikipedia without doing any deep research, the whole “Cromwell/Lord Protector” saga of the history is absolutely hilarious to me. Like, he declared himself this brand new (kinda) title for himself and I bet he was really hoping to begin an eternally long line of crowns under his own legacy. Instead, he ruled for 5 years, got a kidney stone, and his son gave up after 8 months and just went back home and didn’t have any children. Oliver Cromwell seems like a footnote of history now, which seems like the exact opposite of what he wanted. He’s just a weird guy who failed to overthrow the crown. He had a cute son, though.
Ah… thank you. I tried googling this and it ended up a mess. Charts and Images were of NO help. This article finally made it as clear as it can be. Personally, I think Prince Charles will never be king. I’m not sure he was even thought of as king-like from early on. But then – with allowing Charles to marry Camilla. I think the Queen said, “Ok, but if you must, you give up the being king.” Charles, like Edward, gave up the crown “for love”, but instead of having a huge mess of it (that the Queen lived through with her uncle) she is just going to rule until she dies – and MANY Charles will die early and passing it on to William will not be a scandal. Whether he dies before mama or not, the crown will SOMEHOW pass Charles up for some reason (maybe he will have to refuse it for health reasons or some other made up reason), and William will be crowned the next monarch.
Person: how does the history of the British monarchy work? History experts: this article Me: OOOOOOOOH William, William, Henry, Stephen, Henry, Richard, John OI! Henry, Ed, Ed, Ed, Rich two then three more Henrys join our song. Edward, Edward, rich the third, Henry, Henry, Ed again, Mary one, good queen Bess, Jimmy, Charles and Charles and then: Jim, Will & Mary, Anna a Gloria, George, George, George, George, Will, Victoria! Edward, George, Edward, George six then Queen liz 2 completes the mix!
Princess Anne, who is largely ignored by all despite being the most hard working Royal, also chose not to give her children titles. Queen Elizabeth has changed the order of succession in honour of her daughter, although it doesn’t affect Anne (unfortunately). Princess Charlotte will be the first one to benefit.
I enjoyed this, however I must make 2 corrections as follows: 1, Prince Harry did have a title change upon the death of the late Queen. He went from Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex to The Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. All children of the monarch add the word “The” before their name. They become the definite article. I know this a somewhat pedantic point, but I’m saying it a most cordial and friendly way. 2, You have Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie still “of York” on the family tree. Upon their marriages the “of York” part of their titles was dropped. Keep up the good work
Not sure if anyone mentioned it, but the titles Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (along with Earl of Carrick, Baron of Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland ) only go to the heir apparent and eldest son of the monarch. Thus if the heir is a grandson, he would not be Duke of Cornwall, although he could still be created Prince of Wales (and Earl of Chester). This happened when Prince Frederick, Prince of Wales died, leaving his son Prince George (later King George III) as the heir apparent to his grandfather King George II. Prince George was created Prince of Wales, but he was never Duke of Cornwall, etc.
UsefuCharts have been VERY informative in breaking down the line of succession for so long. I know so much about your Queen and her family ( before and during her reign) but UsefulCharts enceased that knowledge tremendously. I can’t understand why so many people are still ill-informed about the royal family.
The Dukedoms of Cornwall and Rothesay do not go to any male who is first in line to the throne, they only go to the Sovereign’s eldest son who is also first in line to the throne. So if William dies before Charles, George would not be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay, although as heir apparent he could be created Prince of Wales. For example, George III was the grandson of George II, and the son of Frederick, Prince of Wales. Frederick as eldest son and heir was Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay but when he died before his father, George II created his grandson Prince of Wales but the future George III was never Duke of Cornwall or Rothesay because he was the grandson and not the son of the Sovereign.
Re Archie and Lilibet: the prince and princess titles need to be conferred by King Charles, they are entitled to those titles, but it’s not theirs until the king confers it. Given he wishes to slim down the monarchy (and their parents are not considered royal – they are no longer HRH), it is suspected that he will not.
SUGGESTION: Could you do a chart on the 18th Duchess of Alba? Cayetana Fitz-Stuart? I read long ago about how she became the most titled woman in the world who also strangely enough has a Guinness World Record of it. I’ve also do better with a chart and after trying to imagine how that works I did give up on it. Since I’ve been subscribed to your website I’ve always wondered if you would do this one. Thank you for consideration. 🙂
Quick note: Prince Edward’s son James uses Viscount Severn, his father’s secondary title, as a courtesy title. When Prince Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh, his son will more than likely become James, Earl of Wessex (although not The Earl of Wessex…that would still be his father along with the higher Duke of Edinburgh).
The Monarch also has the titles Duke of Lancaster (from the Wars of the Roses) in England and the Duke of Normandy (from William I, the Conquerer) in the website Islands, irrespective of whether a King or a Queen. Also owns and runs the Duchy of Lancaster estate and the Duchy of Normandy estate, The Duchy of Cornwall estate by the Duke of Cornwall. These estates provide the private income of the Monarchy. The Crown estate is run by the Government and the profits going to the Exchequer.
Very interesting! Could you do a article on how the hereditary title of Lord Great Chamberlain is held in a shared arrangement between several noble families in the UK, and switches between them only on the occasion of a new reign? This means that while the Marquesses of Cholmondeley (pronounced “Chumley”) have been Lord Great Chamberlain for the past 70 years, it has now passed to someone else. But what are the rules, how is the sequence of handing it around determined?
I think having these explanations help in not only understanding how and why things are done but that in doing so does not slight someone else based upon some public sentiment or opinion. It’s easy to get caught up in the tide of social media and half truths of who is getting favored or slighted when you do not actually know the basis of how and why things are being done. Hard to argue when something has been done for a few centuries and has precedence that happened long before someone was born that they were ‘slighted’ or ‘insulted’.
To anyone saying King Charles III is also the Duke of Lancaster, yes he is but the title is only a custom for sovereigns, rather than a legal title. When Henry V (who held the title before he acceded to the throne in 1413) became King, the dukedom merged with the crown and has not been officially recreated.
8:47 As far as I know, there is no legal mechanism to “strip” any person of a title of peerage otherwise than by Act of Parliament, treason, or operation of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917. The Crown can create any title of peerage (even so far as to create two peerages with the same title) and determine its line of descent insofar as it is one known to law. But the Crown cannot remove a title. Note: A person can disclaim a title, but it descends nonetheless on the disclaimant’s death. It is likely the Dukedom of York will be extinct on Prince Andrew’s death as he has no male heir of the body. If Prince Louis of Wales is to be created Duke of York, it would be then, if not earlier.
You mention the monarch not having lower titles, but I understand that there are 2 variations on the loyal toast which do mention other titles. In Lancashire when I lived there we toasted The {monarch}, Duke of Lancaster! and I believe that in the website Isles they use the form The { monarch}, Duke of Normandy!
Thank you so much for answering a question I’ve had for years! – I always wondered why and who changed their name (from their given) when they became king. > Question : Didn’t the Queen strip Andrew of his titles? If she hadn’t have, would he have become Duke of Edinburgh instead of Edward? > I heard Princess Anne passed her title of ‘Princess Royal’ on to Princess Charlotte – I don’t know if that’s true. ~Thanks again for a wonderfully informative article! Greetings from the Commonwealth 🇨🇦
Wow what a long reign our Queen had! May she rest in peace and her whole family be blessed! Fascinating! I wondered if George VI’s brother George had to change his name as well, but knowing royal families, they probably gave them all several middle names and he might have used one of them instead of George? Family history… With so many King Georges in history maybe it’s not surprising George was such a common name in the 19th century/early 20th- tracing Georges in my family history has been tricky at times with several possible of the same name born around the same time in roughly the same area…! Royal names seem to crop up all over my family tree with several Georges, Henrys, Williams, Marys, Elizabeths – no Victoria yet, but it could have been me – it was my parents’ 2nd choice for my name, or if I had had a sister!
Very good explanation and accurate. Which makes a change because most Americans get the titles mixed or confused but you did it perfectly and didn’t forget about the Earl of Wessex being elevated to Duke of Edinburgh; something of an obscure detail as it was announced decades ago but you included it.
Great article!!! But a small note of correction. You implied at the end of the article that King Charles could remove the Duke of York title from his brother; this is not true. Only an Act of Parliament can remove actual titles ; they are real property and not subject to the whims of the Monarch once bestowed. We know this as a result of the Titles Deprivations Act of 1917, which was created to remove titles from Peers at the time. That said, Charles could strip the Duke’s styles of Prince and HRH with the stroke of a pen; the Letters Patent 1917 which resulted in the Duke being both a Prince and an HRH was created, in part, to remove those styles from the same people that the Titles Deprivations Act 1917 removed titles from.
Matt – you’re not quite right in the Duke of Cornwall/Rothesay titles. Those titles only go to the heir apparent if that person is the monarch’s eldest living son. In this case, William inherited them immediately but if something were to happen to William before Charles dies, George would not receive either title. I think you’re a bit off on the Princess royal title. It traditionally went to the monarch’s eldest daughter but the monarch, as the fount of honour, can bestow it on any female member of the family. If something happens to Anne, it seems very likely Charles would create the title for Charlotte without making her wait until William becomes king.
6:55 – Another way could be to get the UK Parliament to pass an act explicitly excluding you, although that would be a real pain in the ass since every other commonwealth realm would have to pass an Equivilent act excluding you as well. This is sorta what Edward VIII did, the day after he signed his declaration of abdication, the UK Parliament passed an act that that Removed Edward VIII as King, and stipulated that him or his decedents were excluded from the line of succession.
Another very important factor is that whilst Princess Catherine, then the Duchess of Cambridge, was pregnant with Louis, the right of succession was changed; therefore, Charlotte did not lose her place in line to the throne should her sibling turn out to be male–which of course is was what happened. When William becomes king, his heir will be George, but the spare will not be Louis, it will be Charlotte. The right of succession now follows birth order not sex. Perhaps this was in the previous article, but even if that is the case, it is historic and bares repeating. God save King Charles!
In a bedroom in the Ducal Palace in Urbino, Italy in 2005, I saw a notice saying that Re Carlo Terzio d’Inghilterra (King Charles III of England) slept here in the 18th Century. Just a moment, there’d only been two King Charles. Then I realised that Catholic Europe at that time recognised Charles Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Pretender) as the rightful king. Isn’t history marvellous.
Regarding “monarchs get to choose their name”, it actually occurred only once : Bertie becoming George VI, but there was a strong reason for it. Bertie was a nickname for Albert, which sounded far too german (Albert, short form for Adalbert, means in german “noble and famous”). It was also remembered in Great Britain for having been the name of George VI’s great-grand-father, the husband of Queen Victoria, who was Albert von Sachsen-Coburg-Gotha, a very problematic name for the new english dynasty, which was therefore changed into Windsor during WWI. George VI however was named “Albert Frederick Arthur GEORGE”, so he just put in first his fourth name, which also happened to be his father’s. The case of his older brother Edward VIII is a little bit different : his name in fact WAS Edward, but family and friends used to call him David, which was his seventh name. Thus we can’t consider he changed his name in order to reigne, he just came back to his real name. The only other cases are for foreign monarchs accessing a throne and wanting to please their new people : Wilhelm of Denmark becoming George I of Greece, Friedrich of Hessia becoming Charles I of Finland, Aimone of Savoy becoming Tomislav II of Croatia, Carl of Denmark becoming Haakon VII of Norway, and so on. As far as I know, no other monarch than George VI (for the presaid anti-germanic reason) ever changed his name when ruling his native country. But I may be wrong ?
People way overstated the likelihood of Charles changing his name. The only monarchs to change their names were Edward VII (to sleight Victoria, who wanted to him to be King Albert I) and George VI (so people could go back to saying King George as if Edward VIII never existed). Edward VIII went by David, but his name was Edward.
The monarchy’s own website does not mention any elevation of titles for Archie and Lillibet, even though technically they ought to be entitled to such an elevation. Whilst they are technically a Prince and Princess they will only ‘officially’ be a Prince and Princess if the King or palace evers confirms they are, either directly by a specific announcement, or indirectly by making any reference to them as such. The page showing the line of succession has been updated twice since HM Queen Elizabeth’s death, first to reflect everyone moving up one place and the Cambridges becoming Cornwall and Cambridge, then again to reflect the bestowing of the Prince of Wales to William, but throughout Archie and Lillibet have been shown as Master and Miss. It’s important to note that since the 1917 Letters Patent there hasn’t been a situation before where anyone was theoretically elevated to Prince(ss)ly status by the death of their reigning great-grandparent and the accession of their paternal grandfather, so it was never clear if an automatic upgrading would happen as many (including me) had thought, or if in fact it was only the position relative to the monarch at the time of birth that would be considered relevant. Another thing worth pointing out is that the 1917 Act only gave HRH and Prince(ss)ly title to one great-grandchild of the monarch, the eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch, and not to all children of the eldest son as Matt mentions. HM Queen Elizabeth II did make her own Letters Patent granting all of the then Duke of Cambridge’s children the right to HRH and Prince(ss)ly title, but this, as I understand it, was a specific personal grant to William’s children, and not a permanent amendment to the original 1917 rules, so as it stands any future legitimate children of Prince George of Wales born during HM King Charles III’s reign would not be HRH or Prince(ss), except for the eldest son.
According to a 1917 law from King George V — also known as the George V Convention or 1917 Letters Patent — the children of a Sovereign and the children of a Sovereign’s sons are entitled to HRH style titles and the distinction of a Prince or Princess prefix to their name This means Archie and Lilibet are both prince and princess
Interesting to watch. What I wonder is, according to the vertical succession scheme, will George’s future kids surpass his brother and sister in the line succession? I think Louie and Charlotte are No. 3 and 4 given that George doesn’t have any children which means these positions will likely change as time goes by. Btw it was very cool to discover there are two season-like names in the Family, Autumn Phillips and August Brooksbank hahaha.
I don’t think it’s correct to state Archie and Lilibet are automatically are prince and princess. What I understand is that the letters patent are not retrospective and the titles are given by the monarch’a descretion. Since King Charles has always championed a slimmed down monarchy chances are slim Harry’s children will be given prince and princess titles.
Since his father has become the Duke of Edinburgh, James, Viscount Severn is now the Earl of Wessex. It’s also worth noting that James can choose to accept the title of Prince (along with an HRH) when he turns 18. His sister is Louise the Lady Ogilvy and has never used Mountbatten-Windsor and James has always used Servern; he will now use Wessex.
I congratulate you for the article, really nice. but I have a question: if hypothetically in these years King Charles III dies prematurely and then of course William becomes king, but let’s assume that William abdicates immediately, then George becomes king as a child or does the line of succession change and the king becomes Henry?
The Duke of Cornwall is NOT given to any male who is first in line to the throne. It is given to the male heir if and only if he is also the oldest child of the monarch. For instance, if the Prince of Wales were to die right now, his son George would not automatically become Duke of Cornwall nor would any other males in the line of succession.
The new king’s titles are: “Carolus III Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Rex, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor” Charles III, By the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith
This is an interesting article, and it’s neat to see the historical context of what’s happening today in the United Kingdom. As a novelty it’s fun to unpack all of the intricacies that go along with royal succession. Just imagine, however, if you had to actually run a government based on heredity! I can see why our founders in the United States fought so hard against it.
Actually there was some confusion about what regnal name Charles would choose. If you followed through BBC, they always just referred to His Majesty, the King until the regnal name was announced. And to say the Monarch chooses their regnal name isn’t quite accurate as the government of the day may either strongly suggest, as they did with Charles or explicitly tell, as they did with George VI. The government felt that after the Abdication of Edward VIII, the country needed stability and George would help to project that stability.
I have a question. In order to be prince/princess you have to be: 1. Child of the monarch 2. Grandchild of the Monarch in a male line 3. Child of the heir’s eldest son Does that mean, if the King had only daughters, then the son of his eldest daughter would not be a prince (as a grandchild in the FEMALE line) but the children of said son would be princes (as children of the heir’s eldest son), and so you’d have a situation where the father isn’t a prince, but his children are?
Very informative but I think there is one thing that needs correction. Archie and Lilibet aren’t prince and princess automatically. I believe they do not have titles at this point. Charles would have to bestow those on them since both of their parents, and the children, have now been exiled due to Harry’s actions in the past and his decision to remove himself from royal duties and responsibilities. Plus all of those interviews and his upcoming book. So the kids are kind of waiting to see if they do become prince and princess but it hasn’t happened yet.
The title is usually affixed to the firstborn. Prince William was the first son to be born to the late Princess Diana and the former Prince Charles as he’s already in the process of becoming King. King Charles lll, like his first son, was the first son of the late Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip . Prince Harry, the second son was demoted to a lesser title since he was considered to be a non working member of the Royal family.
IIRC the laws of succession were changed a few years ago to allow for female and male children to have equal rights of succession. Was that only for the monarchy or does it affect other royal titles as well? So might the title Duchess of York be bestowed upon Charlotte instead of Louis becoming Duke of York?
There is a suggestion, Charles having talked a lot about wanting a slimmed down monarchy, they could change the right to be called prince from what you described to only being children or the monarch and children of the first in line. This could mean taking the HRH title away from Andrew’s and Edward’s and Anne’s children as well as from Harry’s children or having it apply from here onward.
What was surprising for me is that it seems the primogeniture with male preference was abolished for the title of the king or queen, but not for the other titles, if I got that right. Otherwise Andrews title would also pass over to his eldest daughter Beatrice, but you said it will extinct after his death. On the other hand Edwards titles will pass over to his son James afther his death. It doesn’t really make sense to me that the heredity of the titles seems to vary depending on the title.
This was well done! Am I correct that the Articles of Patten from George (?) in 1917 are not absolute but can be amended? I have heard that since Charles did not mention Harry’s children being elevated to Prince and Princess in the address that he announced William moving to Prince of Wales, it is uncertain whether this will happen. I imagine we will have to wait and see what horribleness Harry’s book will spew. This has been such a sad time.
About the Queen regnant/consort distinction, it doesn’t seem like that distinction was made in the title of previous Queen consorts, the Queen Mother and Mary of Teck were just “Queen Elizabeth” and “Queen Mary”, no mention of the word consort like they’re doing with Camilla by constantly calling her “Camilla, the Queen consort” in the press.
I think I may have one caveat with the article, I do not believe that Harry’s kids are being given the chance to be Prince and Princess, not because of a divide in the family but because Charles supports the idea of a slimmer monarchy, and may decide that only the monarch’s and children of the male heir’s kids be given the title HRH Prince(ss), he may change his mind though.
Regarding the Duke of Edinburgh title since that was mentioned in this article. Saw a report this weekend. Rumor is that Charles might be saving that title to bestow upon Princess Charlotte instead of his brother, Edward. The report indicated that the reasoning might be about elevating royals more directly in line for the throne instead of “lesser” royals. If that’s the case, Charlotte may one day be Charlotte, Princess Royal and Duchess of Edinburgh, given that she’s certainly going to be the next one upon Princess Anne’s passing and once William becomes the king.
I traced my family about 6 generations. I have a great grandmother that was full Cherokee Indian on my Dad’s side. I have a logbcabin with no windows that my great grandmother are outside. The cabin has no windows to prevent Indians from shooting arrows with fire. It’s hard to believe what our ancestors suffered.
The importance of Camilla never taking the title “Princess of Wales” just hit me. She was never called “Princess”, even though she married the heir apparent and the wife of the new heir apparent is called “Princess”. I think she chose not to take the title so as to give a subtle show of respect to Diana as mother of the heir. It might also have been to avoid public backlash as Diana was beloved and Camilla not so much.
This needs an update: Eugenie and Jack now have a second son- Ernest. Edward and Sophie are now the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh. Their son James is now the Earl of Wessex, held previously by Edward. David Armstrong-Jones, son of the late Princess Margaret and Antony Armstrong-Jones, the first Lord Snowden, is now the second Lord Snowden upon his father’s death.
Thank you for this article it gave great clairification thanks 🙏 I love and appreciated knowing that Harry’s 2 children are a princess and prince because that is exactly what I believed this makes me happy and I know ther great grandmother 👵 the queen 👸 is also looking down from heaven at her family and is proud of them all praise god and long live the royal family and may their lives be happy ones 🙏☮️✝️✡️😇🇺🇸🤴🏼👸👍🙏👵👏📜♾💕
The King or a Queen Regnant can—in fact—carry a lesser title simultaneously. For example, when there is the rare occasion of a Queen Regnant, she is also (wait’ll you hear this), the Duke of Lancaster! While the term “Duke” is otherwise always a masculine title, anytime a women ascends the throne, she, by default becomes Duke of Lancaster. King Charles III also inherited the Duchy of Lancaster when he became king. And so he is now both King Charles III and The Duke of Lancaster…
While you are right in saying that the wife of the reigning Monarch has the title of Queen Consort, Queen Elizabeth II did not say Camilla had the title of Queen Consort. She knew that already. Queen Elizabeth II specifically said Camilla would be known as Queen Consort. This is in direct contrast to what her mother was known as. While she was a Queen Consort, she was known as Queen Elizabeth. Camilla is a Queen Consort and will be known as Camilla, Queen Consort, not Queen Camilla. I so hope the Duke and Duchess of Sussex allow their children to use the title of Prince/Princess. They are the grandchildren of Diana who had been Princess of Wales and it would be a nice thing to do in her memory
For those asking about Harry and the Crown. He can now officially only be protector of the Crown as its unlikely he’ll be king. What does that mean? If William should abdicate or pass away, then George will become King. Should that happen whilst George is still a child/underage King, then Harry can technically look after the Crown and complete official duties on George’s behalf. Although that’s unlikely.
Technically, Harry’s children are not automatically prince and princess. That too has to be bestowed, and if he was being considerate to family and country, considering their parents are no longer HRH and disgraced non-senior royals, he would let the punitive children decide if they wish the prince and princess titles when they are 18 for themselves. Much like the queen did with Edwards children, not that Edward ever disgraced the crown. As of Edward, it has always been known that his father Prince Phillip wanted his titles to go to Edward, and King Charles is honored bound. Other than that, you have it about right.
Sooo, an entire new article, just to note that everyone moved one number up 😅 And when another baby is born somwhere in the familly tree, everyone moves one number down 😁 Just kidding, im a long time fan, so I know all of your previous vids. Also, I think this explains neatly the controversy around Harry and Meghans children, as they were not deprived of titles due to their racial background, as was implied.
A remark about the title of Duke of York : it managed to be given regularly to the Monarch’s next born son because all Dukes of York either became King or didn’t have any sons to pass it down. However, Harry has a son, so if he becomes Duke of York, Archie is the next in line to the dukedom, and Louis wouldn’t be able to get it.
Take this (unlikely) future scenario: 1. Prince George becomes King. 2. King George has young children. 3. King George either passes or abdicates before his eldest child turns 18. Question: Who takes the throne? Does the line of succession automatically slip sideways to then-Princess Royal Charlotte, making her Queen, or will she be appointed Regent until the late King George’s eldest child becomes 18? And, who the heck decides? His wife, Queen consort?
It’s been said that King Charles may not give the title Duke of Edinburgh to Edward but rather give the title Duchess of Edinburgh to Princess Charlotte, as Queen Elizabeth was once the Duchess of Edinburgh. This way, the title will return to the crown after her passing rather than being passed down to any son she may have. This will keep the title from moving down Prince Edward’s line.
The requirements to be a prince/princess are given in the article are as follows: \r \r – A child of a monarch;\r – A grandchild in a male line;\r – A child of the heir’s eldest son. \r \r Are you sure this is correct? Because, when the now-King Charles III was born in 1948, he met none of those requirements: \r \r – He wasn’t the child of a monarch (the then-Princess Elizabeth wasn’t Queen yet); \r – He wasn’t a grandchild in a male line (he was a grandchild of King George VI, but in a female line);\r – He wasn’t a child of the heir’s eldest son (because he was the heir’s eldest son!)\r \r Presumably, we need to add “A child of the heir” to one of the three conditions? Because that’s the only way I can make sense of this…
I am somehow both a staunched and vocal anti monarchist and abolitionist and also utterly fascinated by the Royal Family. I think it comes from my mum and step dad both having history degrees. I think I like to observe them from a learning and academic lens rather than a supportive lens (apart from Harry and Meghan, Been on their side from the start)
Harry & Megan opted out. After the memorial & funeral events for the late Queen I do not know if they want back in. IMHO I think they did too much damage. I was perfectly fine with both Harry & Andrew participating as family in the various memorial events. Family is family no matter the faults of the individual. But performing as Royals in events reflects on the Monarchy, Queen Elizabeth II left it in good shape but it will not take much to ruin it. Harry & Megan’s media events I think burned their bridges. Andrew may be legally off the hook but the damage is done the settlement is proof enough for most. For Andrew IMHO I would keep him out of Royal events but if they are willing his daughters should be allowed to be working Royals. The shame of the father should not go down to them. The way I see it, you have King Charles III – not a spring chicken and I do not know how many events he can do on a daily basis so he needs family to help. Queen Consort – I’ve given up hating on this woman. The late Queen and William & Harry seems of have accepted her. Who am I to complain? Her job is protecting Charles III. Princess Anne – I agree she deserves more credit than she gets. She was the ‘Rock of Gibraltar’ during the Queen’s illness and after her passing. Prince Edward – If willing should definitely participate in more royal duties. Prince William & Kate – Being the heir he will be doing the most when it comes to royal duties as expected. Their other job is to raise their kids. I saw so much “Anne” in Charlotte.
Yes, Harry can not be made Duke of York if his uncle Andrew continues to hold the title. However, Charles could do the other thing that monarchs have done historically. He could name his second son Harry as Duke of Clarence if he so chooses, as the title Duke of Clarence has ALSO historically been bestowed upon the monarch’s second son. King Edward III created his second son Lionel of Antwerp as the 1st Duke of Clarence.
my only nitpick is that QE2’s children are listed by the line of succession, and not by age, since Anne was the second born – that might show how the list skipped over her in favour of her younger brothers. Also, if anyone is confoozed and whining that “Harry isn’t higher up the list”, he was -_- he was the second son (aka “the spare” as he moaned about) until his older brother had children of his own. The line ideally runs down through the family by the eldest sons (or daughters, now), and the lines of younger siblings get further away from the throne with each generation.
Nepal gets invited to Bhutan, BAHRAIN, Kuwait, Thailand, Shri Lanka, DUBAI,UAE, Abu Dhabi, UAE, QATAR, Portugal, Norway, Pakistan, West BANGAL, Netherlands, and Belgium. Sigapore creates ties and business to Egypt, Palestine, Yemen Lebanon, Qatar, Emirates, Somalia, Lybia,Iran Morocco Bahrain, Jordan and Spain!
You have shown the wrong crown in relation to King Charles. British monarchs have two crowns, the broader shaped English crown of St Edward which is used at coronation ceremonies, and the more dome shaped crown of Scotland. The royal cypher of each sucessive monarch alternates between the English and Scottish crowns. Thus: the royal cypher of Edward 8th bore the English crown, that of his sucessor George 6th (1936-52) bore the Scottish crown, the cypher of George’s sucessor Elizabeth 2nd bore the English crown, while that of her successor Charles 3rd bears the crown of Scotland. Another inaccuracy is that the late Queen Elizabeth originally decreed that Camilla may not bear the title Queen Consort but could bear the title Princess Consort. However, knowing that when Charles became King he would be entitled to rescind this, her late majesty close to the end of her life decreed that if Charles so wished, Camilla COULD (not would) be styled Queen Consort.
Currently Harry’s children are a prince and princess. (They decided to keep/inherit the titles) What I’m wondering is, when the children grow up will they become a duke or duchess? If William is King by that time, hypothetically, supposedly, would he be able to grant his niece and nephew duke and duchess titles if they want them?