Just a quick clarification on the future of the title “the Duke of Edinburgh” because a few folk have been asking.
Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh at the time of his marriage to the then Princess Elizabeth in 1947. He held it for so long and with such distinction, that it’s difficult to envisage anyone else using it.
Nevertheless it is a title with a past and with a future.
When Philip’s youngest son, Prince Edward was married in 1999, it was announced that he would one day receive his father’s title. Edward took on many of his father’s duties including responsibility for the iconic Duke of Edinburgh scheme. Charles may be his mother’s heir. Edward was being lined up to be their father’s.
But Edward cannot really receive the title until Charles is King.
Almost all hereditary peerages (titles like “duke”, “earl” and “baron”) are created for the holder and their “heirs male, lawfully begotten.” Charles, as the eldest son, inherits the dukedom of Edinburgh. To change this would require an act of Parliament. It’s highly unlikely that Parliament will priorities sorting out a royal title over a bill on schools, budgets, hospital or Covid.
Charles could disclaim the title. But it would still be held in reserve for his heirs and could not be easily given to Edward.
So Charles is the duke of Edinburgh. However, it is unlikely that he will ever use the title. He has many titles that most people know nothing of.
When Charles becomes King all his other titles will “merge with the crown.” He can then choose to recreate the dukedom of Edinburgh for Prince Edward, which he has publicly committed to doing.
If – God forbid – something happened to Charles before he became King, the Edinburgh title would be inherited by William.
In theory, the Queen could choose to create a new dukedom of Edinburgh for Edward now. So there would be two dukes of Edinburgh at the same time. It is highly unlikely that she will. It would seem very irregular but as far as I know, there is no law against it. In the 1900s there were two dukedoms of Fife in existence at the same time. Though both were held by the same person.
I’m not gonna lie. The Crown is one of the best things to hit screens in a generation.
I was hooked within minutes of it “dropping” in 2016. Season one was almost flawless. Its successor gave a Royal history geek almost everything they could wish for. And, following a shaky third series, season four saw the show rebound with a right-royal gusto.
But there are big problems.
With historical fiction, the clue is in the name. It does not need to follow all the facts. Those that know a great deal about the period must turn a blind eye to poetic license and dramatic liberties.
But there must be some boundaries. When scriptwriters entirely distort the character or reputation of a real human being, they have gone beyond what is acceptable. This applies to dramatizations of the medieval era. But it has a special importance when the people in question are still alive.
Here are just four of the occasions where the Crown season four crossed the line.
Did the Royals really subject visitors to the ‘Balmoral tests’?
The Balmoral tests
In the second episode, the newly elected Margaret Thatcher and her husband Dennis travel to Balmoral to spend time as the guests of the Queen. Here they are subjected to the “Balmoral tests”. This series of secret challenges allows the Royal family to judge whether a newcomer fits in with their way of life.
In the episode, the Thatchers fail spectacularly. Being from more humble stock, Margaret is ignorant of upper-class country life. She turns up in the wrong kit, over-dresses for pre-dinner drinks and is unfamiliar with the parlour games the Royals revel in. Rather than help Margaret address her “shortcomings” the Royal family delight at her ignorance. The deer hunt, it would seem, is not the only blood sport they excel at.
What rot.
There’s no doubt that the two women were from radically different backgrounds. The show’s creators had every right to draw attention to that. And that’s hard to do visually. Both spoke with a posh voice and wore expensive clothes. Stressing the difference in custom and etiquette was, in some ways, a clever device for emphasising the difference in upbringing.
But it was exaggerated almost to the point of caricature. Thatcher did not just step out of her father’s humble shop in Grantham and walk into Downing Street. She had studied at Oxford, sat as an MP for twenty years and served as a cabinet minister. She was not totally ignorant of the upper classes.
Yes, Thatcher probably didn’t look forward to her trips to Balmoral. Her authorised biographer, Charles Moore, wrote that she ‘endured’ rather than ‘enjoyed’ the visits. And she may, on one occasion, have brought the wrong shoes. But to suggest that her entire first trip was an act of sabotage by the Royal family flies in the face of the widespread testimony that they go to some length to ensure people are comfortable in their presence.
After leaving office, Margaret Thatcher spoke lavishly about the Queen’s humanity. And what, specifically, did the former Prime Minister praise in interview after interview? The Queen’s ability to “put people at their ease.”
Why is the Queen Mother portrayed as cold and callous?
2. The callous Queen Mother and her hidden nieces
I haven’t enjoyed the portrayal of Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother in any of the Crown’s four seasons. The former Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon is well attested to have been warm, bubbly and fun loving. That’s yet to come across.
But in episode seven, her portrayal goes from cold to outright cruel. Princess Margaret discovers that her maternal cousins, long thought dead, were secretly living in a mental institution. Margaret later confronts her mother. Under duress, the dowager Queen reveals that her nieces were hidden from view upon George VI and Elizabeth ascending the throne. It could never be known that there was mental instability within her family. Such knowledge would have threatened the security of the monarchy.
Seriously?
Fortunately, historian Gareth Russell has stepped up to the plate. In a compelling facebook post he points out that the dates simply don’t add up. The Queen Mother became Queen in 1936. Her nieces were not placed into an institution until 1941.
Russell also points out that Elizabeth was from a large family. Her brother was much older. She probably believed that her nieces had died and had no idea they were still alive until she was in her 80s. Once it was brought to her attention, she sent money to the home where they lived.
Changing facts can be acceptable in fiction. Sometimes it’s necessary to make the narrative flow. But maligning a real person in the process can never be acceptable.
3.Thatcher asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament in 1990
Before the season aired, I was worried about the portrayal of Thatcher’s relationship with the Queen. But, barring the Balmoral tests, it was much better presented than I expected.
The two women were the same age, but from different walks of life. They didn’t particularly understand one another. But there was mutual respect.
But I was taken aback when, during her conflict with her own MPs, Margaret Thatcher asked the Queen to dissolve Parliament. In the UK, dissolving Parliament (which prior to 2010 was something that happened under the Royal prerogative but at the request of the Prime Minister) means calling a general election. In a general election, all MPs, and therefore the Prime Minister, is up for re-election.
However, I think the series writers were confusing this with “proroguing Parliament.” This is when Parliament ceases to sit until the beginning of its new session but the government remains in place. It is implied in the series, that without trouble from her pesky MPs, Thatcher could survive.
It is not credible that Thatcher would try and drag the Queen into an internal party dispute. Besides, Thatcher was facing an election for leadership of the Conservative Party. Getting rid of Parliament would have been no help to her. It was not a Parliamentary process.
In the context of fiction this is probably acceptable. It shouldn’t really be on my list. But it irked me. So it’s staying put.
The series failed to show balance in the “wars of the Waleses”
4.The relationship between Charles and Diana
As someone that grew up in the 80s and 90s, I have heard every rumour about the relationship of the Prince and Princess of Wales that there is to tell. In reality, only a handful of people ever knew the truth of it.
The Crown made the creative decision to base the series on the often-rumoured premise that Charles never really ended his relationship with Camilla. This may be true. Or it might be, as others have claimed, that he did not reignite the affair until Diana had already started committing adultery. We just don’t know.
Fiction does not have footnotes. I understand that they had to go one way or another. And some of the portrayal is clearly based on the legendary tapes that Diana indirectly supplied to Andrew Morton.
But at the very least, it’s still only one side of the story. Much more effort should have been made to show balance. Diana’s own family have been uneasy with the portrayal of her in the series.
Throughout season four Charles comes across as petulant and unlikeable. Yet, no one is a two-dimensional character. The writers of the Crown cannot know the truth. Greater care, balance and generosity should have been shown.
*
“Oh come on,” I hear you cry. “The Crown is fiction. It’s not their fault if people believe it.”
Yes. And no. The Crown includes encyclopaedic-style facts at the end of episodes. This suggests it is grounded in fact. They refuse to include a disclaimer (which, by the way, are common when shows depict the lives of real people).
And regardless of whether people should believe it, it is clear that people do believe it. Many (including those who are well educated) simply believe that “if it wasn’t true, they wouldn’t be allowed to put it on TV”). Producers know this. The fact it’s “based on truth” is something that adds to the appeal and bolsters viewing figures.
The Crown is brilliant TV. The attention to detail is outstanding. It deserves every award it receives and more besides. But adding a tiny disclaimer would do nothing to diminish its success. And it might do everything to protect real people from a distorted reputation.
The rules governing the use of Royal titles are both captivating and convoluted. They have evolved over a thousand years with new protocols created to address specific situations. They are not always logical and even super-cool Royal watchers can struggle to make head and tail of them.
Those hoping to get their head around the practices and protocols, won’t get much help from the popular press. Almost every time a news outlet tries to explain how a title works, they get more wrong than right.
Here’s the top 5 errors I’ve noticed in British media in recent months.
Female-line grandchildren of a monarch do not get Royal titles
1. Princess Anne ‘chose’ not to give her children Royal titles
The use of Royal titles has been strictly governed since 1917. Legal documents regulate the usage of the style of His/Her Royal Highness and the ‘titular dignity’ of Prince or Princess. Under current laws they do not extend to female-line grandchildren of monarchs.
According to ‘letters patent’ issued in 1917 and adapted in 2013, Royal styles go the children of a sovereign, children of sons of a sovereign and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
As such, Anne’s children, Peter and Zara Phillips were never entitled to be a Prince or Princess. It is probable that Anne’s first husband, Mark Phillips was offered an Earldom and that this was refused. Had the couple accepted, Anne’s children would have been styled as the children of an Earl, as Princess Margaret’s offspring were. So it is probable that Anne effectively turned down titles for her children – but not royal titles.
2. Kate and Meghan are not princesses because they are not blood royals
I understand where this comes from. But it’s not quite correct. Under the British system a wife takes her husband’s precedence. She is the feminine version of all her husband’s titles (there are exceptions such as in the Church and the military). So the wife of a Prince is always a Princess.
Under strict court etiquette, is not appropriate to refer to a Princess by marriage as ‘Princess Firstname.’ Catherine is ‘Princess William’ rather than ‘Princess Catherine’. Meghan is ‘Princess Henry’.
Because both their husbands are also Dukes, they are referred to as Duchesses. Whenever an individual is a peer or peeress – royal or not – first names are rarely required. Our future Queen is not ‘Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge’ but simply ‘The Duchess of Cambridge’. This can change in widowhood where it has become customary to combine first names with titles.
Catherine became a Princess the second she married the Duke of Cambridge
3. Diana was made a Princess, but Kate has yet to be so
No. Diana and Catherine both acquired the status of Princess by marriage (see above). No one has actually been ‘made a princess’ since the reign of Edward VII (although special measures were taken to ensure Anne was a Princess ahead of her mother’s ascension).
Despite being popularly referred to as ‘Princess Diana’, the late Princess of Wales was never officially styled as such. When the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge married, the Palace made it clear they were perfectly relaxed about people calling the Duchess ‘Princess Catherine’. But the style is not officially acknowledged at court.
4. William and Harry’s wives were given titles, but Eugenie’s husband was not because she is lower down the line of succession
Royal titles have little to do with place in the succession but much to do with gender.
Under the British system – and indeed most western systems – a wife takes on the style and precedence of her husband. As stated above, the current Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex acquired their status simply by virtue of marriage. But husbands of titled women derive no style or precedence from their wives. That’s why the Duke of Edinburgh is not known as ‘King.’
In days gone by, untitled men marrying a Princess would be offered a peerage title – typically an Earldom. Their children would thus enjoy aristocratic styles. But those days are gone.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed not to use Royal titles when working commercially
5. The Queen has removed the style ‘HRH’ from Harry and Meghan.
Not quite, though the early communication around this was confusing. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed not to use their Royal styles when conducting commercial work. We are yet to see exactly how they will style themselves on such occasions. My guess is that they will act as if they are untitled and use their peerage title as if it were a surname. So for example, if Meghan stars in a film, she might simply be credited as ‘Meghan Sussex.’
This would be consistent with what other aristocrats and Royals do. The Duchess of Kent styled herself as ‘Mrs Kent’ when working as a music teacher. The Queen’s nephew calls himself ‘David Linley’ when trading. His actual name is David Armstrong-Jones, but until his father died his courtesy title was ‘Viscount Linley.’
In the post, I stated my hunch – and it really was just a hunch – that upon marriage Harry would be created ‘Duke of Sussex’, a title he is rumoured to desire.
Perhaps I have more influence than I think. When the joyous news of the couple’s engagement was released, some media outlets were reporting as near certainty that America’s Meghan Markle would be transformed into Sussex’s Duchess upon marriage.
There are a number of logical reasons for thinking this. Most of the Dukedoms previously used for royalty are occupied and those that remain – such as Clarence – seem too tainted to touch.
But I still think that our popular media has jumped the gun. Let’s look at the other alternatives Her Majesty is presented with:
A new Dukedom could be invented – By tradition, only Dukedoms that have previously been wielded by a Royal are bestowed on a Prince. But it’s only a tradition. Perhaps a new location will be honoured. Duke of London? Duke of Glasgow? All are possible. True, Her Majesty is more traditionalist than innovator – but she broke all the ‘rules’ when she made her third son Earl of Wessex.
Harry could become ‘Duke of York in waiting’ – the monarch’s second son – which Harry will one day be – is traditionally created Duke of York. Clearly this cannot happen while Prince Andrew lives, but it should be noted that he has no son to succeed him. Perhaps Harry could have an Earldom bestowed upon marriage with the promise that he would one day become Duke of York when the title is vacant. This would mirror what happened with Prince Edward who will one day assume the title of Duke of Edinburgh.
Harry might get no title at all – I don’t think this is likely. But as far as I know, no monarch has previously been in the position where he/she needed to give two of grandsons peerages (George V’s brother was dead by the time George was made Duke of York). She might decide that it’s for Charles to dish out his second son’s title when he eventually gets the throne. She was, after all, quite happy to leave two of her cousin’s wives with the clumsy sounding styles of Princess Richard of Gloucester and Princess of Michael of Kent. Perhaps Meghan will simply be HRH Princess Henry of Wales. Stranger things have happened…
For what it’s worth, I still think Dukedom of Sussex is going to be the one that lands. I’ve read rumours that Harry has always wanted it (I have no idea if they’re true) and it seems that Her Majesty does take personal wishes into consideration. But to report it as a done deal – like so much of our media has (and don’t even get me started on the American press) is just continuing the trend of lazy journalism that bombards conversation on these topics.
So much of what I discuss on this site can never be truly known. The great thing about this subject is that it’s only a matter of months before time will tell…
Elizabeth II has become legendary across the globe as a dignified but silent figure who sees all but comments little. However, according to comments in a recent minister’s memoirs she may be more involved in the running of Government than many people realise.
The Queen is a figure head. She leads the nation through her example, her conviction and her remoteness from politics. She is a towering ambassador for the UK – and her other realms and territories – and brings substantial revenue into businesses, households and the treasury coffers. But when it comes to the political operating of the country, technically running in her name, she is entirely uninvolved.
Or is she?
Recently I have been pouring through the incredibly compelling memoirs of Ken Clarke, the veteran Conservative minister who served the Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron administrations. It’s full of twists and turns and no pages are more exciting than those focused on the political upheaval that plagued the Major government over the European Union and the Maastricht treaty (USA and younger readers – don’t worry – you won’t need to know anything about these issues to follow the rest of the post).
According to Clarke, when Prime Minister John Major was aware that his personally negotiated treaty might not obtain a parliamentary majority he pondered resigning (this is well attested to elsewhere). However, according to a conversation that Ken had with John Patten (a fellow government minister), the Prime Minister had been spoken to Robert Fellowes, the then private secretary to the Queen who had ‘hinted’ that if Her Majesty were asked for a dissolution of Parliament – and therefore a general election – she would refuse. Apparently she had not admired the way that former PM Ted Heath had ‘taken it to the Country’ when he failed to settle an industrial dispute. She did not want a repeat performance.
For obvious reasons, this account can’t just be taken as read. It relies on John Patten having heard if accurately from either Major or someone close to him, Major having correctly understanding what Fellowes was ‘hinting’ at and Fellowes himself having rightly understood the Queen’s actual sentiments. But with those caveats in mind, the story does have a ring of credibility to it. The casual way that Clarke mentions it – almost in passing and to illustrate a bigger point – suggests that people close to power found it credible and perhaps, that such interventions from the Palace were not wholly exceptional.
Image By PFC TRACEY L. HALL-LEAHY, USA
Today, because of the ‘fixed-terms Parliament Act’, the Queen has a much reduced role in the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of General Elections. But prior to 2010 a Prime Minister would effectively determine the timetable by asking the Queen to grant a dissolution, which would in turn lead to a General Election. No Parliament was allowed to sit for more than 5 years, but if a Prime Minister thought things were going well, they generally liked to ‘go to the country’ after 4.
No doubt some will harp on about the Queen’s active involvement in so recent a political event, claiming it is undemocratic and an example of why the monarchy must go. But I see it very differently. In the situation in question, the country had only just had an election. Was anyone really in the mood for another one? More importantly, ensuring that the elected Government don’t try and use the polls as a political tactic to solve disputes that they themselves are supposed to handle is, in and of itself, a safeguarding of democracy.
Every head of state – elected or otherwise – is meant to enforce the constitution and hold the Government to account for it. Clearly in the UK’s uncodified system that can be tricky at times. I wonder if those of us fortunate enough to dwell on these isles realise how lucky we are that these judgements fall into the hands of a canny, wise and experienced stateswoman who has no agenda save her devotion to duty.
A few friends have asked what I make of the statement from Kensington Palace a week or so ago – the one asking for a bit of privacy for Prince Harry and his new girlfriend. I’m a fanatical Royal watcher and (by day) a PR guy, so I guess it makes sense that people would inquire.
Some think it’s a bit rich; the Royals are public property. They get the money, the status and the security. As a result they have to put up with living in the media gaze.
Others think it was poorly executed from a PR perspective. Why release a story this strong the morning after Trump has so controversially cleaned up in the USA and make it inevitable it would receive less attention? Shouldn’t their press people know better?
Both the views above, are just plain wrong.
Of course the Royals are – to an extent – public property. They are effectively all part of the UK constitution (not to mention those of the 15 other countries in the Queen’s realm) and it’s very much a family affair. They enjoy a life of extreme privilege. In return they carry out duties on behalf of the country, have their destinies more or less determined from birth and have to live with the fact that their lives are chronicled and captured fairly indiscriminately. The Cambridges clearly accept this. That’s why we get a picture of Prince George and Princess Charlotte every six months or so.
But to say that a young(ish) man of Royal blood, who is not even directly in line to the throne cannot form friendships and relationships without those people becoming victim to media harassment is clearly a nonsense – especially when the relationship is being conducted relatively discreetly.
I’m never really one to blame the media. They only give us what we want. It is our desire for the rumours, the gossip – the juice – that fuels it. Appealing directly to us (which is in effect what Kensington Palace did) with the statement was entirely justified. As to whether it was a ‘mistake’ to release it during a busy news day – hardly! It’s exactly what I would have done. You want it to be noticed, but you don’t want 24/7 media pouring over it all day. It wouldn’t even surprise me if the press office brought it forward when they realised Trump was going to triumph.
You might wonder why I’m posting this on a blog about Royal history. Well, to start with, this site is about the Royal houses that have shaped England, Britain and the UK – so that includes the present day house of Windsor. But there’s a deeper reason I decided to put ‘pen to paper.’
It occurs to me that our human desire for gossip, speculation, slander and scandal is never going to be satisfied. However, it concerns me that we’re happy to see living human beings torn to shreds in the process. If only people realised that you can get all this and more by studying the annals of history. Is not Henry VIII’s well documented courtship of Anne Boleyn far more tantalising than following the development of a relationship between two people who are both free to marry? Couldn’t we have more fun debating the paternity of John Beaufort than worrying about what diet a current young Royal is on? The tales of tension between Hanoverian Kings and their heirs are surely more interesting than guessing at how well the Queen gets on with Prince Charles.
We will never change human nature. But channeling our thirst for gossip into interrogating the past at least makes us less likely to cause pain to other human being.
The reasons that the legendary King George V decided to abandon all German names, titles and distinctions in 1917 are well known. And let’s face it, kind of obvious. The proud but down-to-earth emperor was dismayed by comments that he presided over an ‘uninspiring and alien court’ to which he famously responded that he may be uninspiring but he’d be damned if he was alien! Thus, against such peculiar circumstances, was the house of Windsor born.
What is less know (well, unless you’re a super call Royal-watcher like me) is that just a few months later, George took the opportunity to shrink the Royal family, restricting the title of Prince and Princess and virtually abolishing the style of Highness.
On 30 November 1917,of 1917, letters patent were issued declaring that henceforth only the children of the sovereign, sons of sons of the sovereign and the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be entitles to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince of Princess. Hitherto, male-line great-grandchildren of a sovereign could also call themselves Prince or Princess with the style of Highness.
Despite my obsession with Royalty in general and Royal titles in particular, I have never come by much in terms of a reason for the King’s decisions. This is no doubt mainly down to the fact that I so far limited my search to the internet; I have never yet had the chance to trawl through many of the excellent biographies of the war-time King, something I would love to do when time allows. But it might also be because the King’s own thoughts on the matter were fairly guarded.
Nonetheless I thought whacking out some #QuickFireThoughts on the subject would make a compelling blog post. I have three (all entirely speculative) theories as to why he felt the title stripping necessary. The first two I think are quite credible; the third more of a #WildCard:
George V wanted to start a fresh with the Royal family – It is quite believable that the earlier decision to Anglicise the house of Saxe-Coburgh-Gotha reminded everybody just how far flung the Royal family had become and just how intwined they were with continental (especially Germanic) Royalty. Perhaps the King also didn’t fancy the thought of a host of deposed demi-Royals from the continent fleeing to Britain and claiming Royal status as descendants of Queen Victoria for the next few years. This declaration would have limited Royalty almost (although not entirely) to those already domicile in the UK, largely eliminating that problem.
In the wake of monarchies falling, the time seemed right to shrink down the family-firm – Everywhere you looked European monarchies were crumbling. The Russian Tsar had been forced to abdicate earlier that year, and it was pretty obvious that others weren’t far behind. So, perhaps the British monarchy did what it does best; modernise to survive! We know that George V was keen to pump a bit more British blood into the veins of the house of Windsor and would allow his children to take local spouses; this whole project would be easier if there were less potential Royals to marry off. Also, perhaps he felt that the new house of Windsor really needed a fresh start and should be contained, primarily to his descendants. Regardless of his motivation, the move boasted incredible foresight; had he not made this change, Britain today would be positively littered with Princes and Princesses.
It was a personal vendetta against the Connaughts – Before I get into this, let me reiterate that this point firmly fits into the #WildCard category. But anyway, here we go! Although the 1917 letters patent but the ky-bosh on a number of continental royals potentially falling back on British titles once stripped of others, there was only one person who was actually affected by it at the time: Alastair, Earl of Macduff who prior to the LPs has been known as His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught.I remember once reading somewhere (and I really can’t remember where) that George V had some kind of grudge against his Connaught cousins. Could it be that he wanted to alienate them from the Royal family. After all, young Alastair’s aunt, Princess Patricia of Connaught mysteriously ‘volunteered’ to give up her Royal style when she married in 1919. Perhaps this was no coincidence…
Anyway, perhaps one day I will have chance to read more about this and return to the subject. Until then, if anyone know more or has any views, I would be very grateful to hear them!
It’s amazing what you learn from popular culture. Up until the recent series of ‘I’m a celebrity…’ I had never heard of Lady Colin Campbell, a writer who married into (and divorced out of) the British aristocracy and went on to pen ‘tell all’ books about Diana and the Queen Mother.
Until recently I had never heard her theory that Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (better known to us as Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother) was not the daughter of her legal mother, but in fact the result of a ‘surrogacy’ arrangement between her father, the future Earl of Strathmore and Kingmore, and Marguerite Rodiere, a French cook who worked at one of their residences.
It’s an absurd theory. What makes me really angry is that Lady Colin must be aware of that.
The story goes that after eight successful pregnancies, Celia, Lady Glamis (the future Countess) was unable to bear any more children. Therefore, in an early version of surrogacy, they approached a member of their household to help them get two further children by proxy: Elizabeth and her little brother David. The following arguments are given in evidence:
The Queen Mother’s middle name was Marguerite – a sure sign (apparently) of her real parentage
The Duke and Duchess of Windsor (the Queen Mother’s brother and sister-in-law) used to refer to her behind her back as ‘cookie,’ an innuendo as to her origin
The story is apparently ‘widely known’ in aristocratic circles
None of this even begins to stack up. Firstly, choosing a middle name is not usually seen as a practice of identifying maternity. It might well be that the Strathmores were fond of their cook and decided to honour her in their daughter’s name, or possibly more likely, through her they became aware of the name and just decided they liked it. It could of course, just be a coincidence.
The snub of the Windsors also adds no weight to this case. They are widely understood to have used this nickname because the then Duchess of York, with her soft and plump appearance, reminded them of a Scottish Cook. More than anything else, they were just looking to be derogatory.
As to whether this story was ‘doing the rounds’ in aristocratic circles, I cannot say. I do not myself mix in them. However, I would caution everyone to be wary of any historian who makes an argument based on sources that very few people have access to. Just because something happens to be the subject of gossip doesn’t make it true; gossip often is, after all, exactly that!
Anyway, this theory begs some even more obvious questions. After bearing eight healthy children, would the couple really be so desperate to have another two that they would go to such extremes? Would the proud and high-born coupling of Bowes-Lyon and Cavendish really be so prepared to contaminate their blood line?
The real reason this suggestion is so ludicrous, is the striking physical resemblance between Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and her own mother. While I appreciate that this isn’t the most scientific approach in the world, let’s just stand back a minute and take a look at some pictures. I genuinely don’t believe anyone can look at these pictures and honestly take alternative theories about the Queen Mother’s parentage seriously. I can only conclude that Lady Colin Campbell’s desire to sell books far out weighted her determination to tell the truth.
This makes me very angry indeed.
Okay geeks…what do you think? Am I being too harsh? Should I give Lady C the benefit of the doubt? Or are you as angry about this as I am?
As regular readers know, as a historian I see myself as an amateur; but when it comes to questions of Royal titles – ah now that’s quite different. Here I consider myself an expert.
On this subject, people trust my knowledge. On this subject, I often get asked questions – questions I am only too happy to answer. Once question I’ve been asked a bit lately (okay only once. And I was the one that asked it. To myself. Even though I already knew the answer) is “when Prince Harry gets married, what title will his wife received and how will any eventual children of the marriage be styled?”
The answer, as ever, isn’t entirely straightforward. But as I like a challenge, I’ll wade in and answer it, making a few qualifications along the way.
If Prince Harry married NOW and there was no intervention from the Queen…
Than his lucky bride would be known as HRH Princess Henry of Wales.
“SAY WHAAAAT?!” I hear you cry. “That sounds weird at the best of times and who the heck is ‘Henry of Wales.’”
Okay, bear with, bear with. First of all we need to be clear on one thing. Despite the fact he is almost universally known as ‘Harry’ (I believe at his late mother’s request) William’s younger brother is technically called ‘Henry’ and on official documents is styled as such. Thanks to Letters Patent issued by his great-great-grandfather in 1917, as a son of a son of the sovereign he is entitled to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince before his christian name. By custom, he takes the territorial designation from his father’s title (in this case ‘Wales’) and uses it as sort of surname with an ‘of’ in front of it.
In the British system, a wife literally feminises her husband’s style. So the wife of Mr Joe Bloggs is technically Mrs Joe Bloggs rather than Mrs Jane Bloggs, even if the latter is now more common social practice. Hence why Harry’s wife would rather clunkily be ‘HRH Princess Henry of Wales.’
As for the children? Well, let’s just suppose that in the lifetime of the Queen, Harry and his wife have two children and for sake of argument we’ll call them Andrew (after his uncle) and Catherine (after his sister in law). They would be known respectively as Lord Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Lady Catherine Mountbatten-Windsor.
“Hold the phone!” I can sense you shout out loud as your coffee drops to the floor. “Mountbatten? What’s that about? And why on God’s earth aren’t these two fictitious young Royals a Prince and Princess.”
<Sigh.> I knew it would get to this. Okay, I’ll tell ya.
The Royal family are known as the ‘House and family of Windsor.’ There was some question mark over this when the Queen ascended (married women tend to take their husband’s name and Philip had adopted the surname of Mountbatten in 1947) but the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill made it crystal clear. However a few years later, the Queen, no doubt wanting to recognise her husband, decreed that her and Philip’s male-line descendants who do NOT bear the style Royal Highness would carry the name ‘Mountbatten-Windsor.’
As far as their lack of Royal titles? The Letters Patent of 1917 (mentioned above) restricted the use of the Royal style so that male line great-grandchildren of a sovereign were no longer entitled to it (with the exception of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. In fact the Queen had to intervene to ensure that Charlotte was born a Princess). Instead, it made provisions for them to have the same titles as the children of Dukes – the right to prefix their Christian name with the title ‘Lord’ or ‘Lady.’
HOWEVER, when Charles ascends the throne, everything changes. Now, these two offspring would be male-line grandchildren of a sovereign and would be bumped up to HRH with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess. And Harry’s title would change too – he would lose ‘Wales’ and gain the definite article, becoming HRH The Prince Henry, with his wife upgrading to HRH The Princess Henry.
But in reality, there would probably be some intervention from the Queen
When Harry marries he will probably be given a peerage most likely a Dukedom, but potentially an Earldom like Prince Edward. Even if this doesn’t happen on marriage, it is highly likely to take place once Charles ascends. If then he is created (let’s say) ‘Duke of Sussex’ (the title he is rumoured to desire) than it’s good news for his wife. She would then be styled Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.
It is also possible that a change will be made with the children. Given that they will one day be grandchildren of a sovereign and entitled to the Princely style, the Queen might decide to bring that day forward and give it to them straight away. She has that power.
But more worryingly, there is a third alternative. We hear much talk of Charles wanting to ‘shrink’ the Royal family. While this would be disastrous for Royal watchers like me, there is a chance that he may further restrict HRH to those in direct line of succession – freeing his other descendants from the burden or privilege (depending how you see it) of Royal titles. As such Harry’s children may never be technically considered Royal – although this is entirely speculation.
Well there you go. That was an adventure, wasn’t it? Stay tuned for more super-coolness just around the corner.
Shockingly, my friends and family are not always keen for me to recite my fascinating knowledge of Royal history in their presence. Even more puzzling to me – and something that will no doubt surprise loyal readers – my loved ones have often found my attempts to educate them on the intricacies of Royal and aristocratic titles objectionable. Puzzling!
However, ever since the great Royal wedding of 2011, there’s one question which a number of those close to me have been keen to ask. Namely, why was Diana ‘made a Princess’ when Kate wasn’t?
I can certainly understand why people ask. After all, from 1981 until 1997, William’s mother was constantly referred to in the media as ‘Princess Diana.’ Yet when Kate got hitched the palace seemed to go out of their way to make it clear that it was not entirely appropriate to call her ‘Princess Catherine.’
A number of my friends have drawn their own conclusions as to why. “It’s because Diana was married to the immediate heir to the throne,” said one, or “Diana was Princess of Wales and Kate is just a Duchess” speculated another.
Both quite logical, but both incorrect. To get to the bottom of this, we need to understand two things.
The later Princess of Wales was NEVER ‘Princess Diana.’
This might come as a surprise to some; the media heavily referred to her as such, both during and after her marriage. But it is only Princesses by birth who use their Christian names in their title. Diana was indeed the Princess of Wales and even The Princess Charles but technically never Princess Diana.
Sounds quirky doesn’t it? But actually this isn’t unusual. I remember when my mother was invited to the Buckingham Palace garden party, her invite was addressed to “Mrs Gary Streeter.” But her name is not Gary. It is Janet. Similarly the wife of a younger son of a Duke or Marquess does not use her Christian name in her title (remember good old Lady Colin Campbell…?).
But Kate is a Princess and during her marriage, so was Diana
Just because you can’t use your Christian name in your style (or more accurately, doing so wouldn’t be the most appropriate action in the eyes of the court) does not mean that you are not a Princess. Anyone married to a Prince is a Princess. This is as true for Camilla and Sophie as it is for Kate and was true for Diana and Sarah Ferguson during their marriages. It is equally the case for the Duchesses of Kent and Gloucester and for Princess Michael of Kent.
So how can the great public tell which noble women are or are not Princesses? Easy. Three little letters: HRH (standing for Her Royal Highness). Since 1917 the style of Royal Highness has been synonymous with the rank of Prince or Princess in the UK (yes, yes, yes I know there may have been an exception with the Duke of Edinburgh but exceptions prove the rule and I will write about this on another occasion). Therefore The Duchess of Norfolk is not a Princess or member of the Royal family but HRH The Duchess of Gloucester is.
Make sense? Don’t worry if it’s a little confusing. No one ever sat down and made a list of rules that governed how Royal titles and styles fit together and operate. Customs have emerged over centuries and in reality the current system is a hybrid of ancient English and Scottish practice that merged with the Germanic approach in 1714 and has been evolving in response to circumstance ever since. But hey, let’s face it…that’s all part of the fun!
Okay geeks…over to you? Is this system all a little archaic? Should we just suck it up and call her ‘Princess Catherine’? Do you think William will modernise Royal styles when he eventually gets to the throne?
