Uncategorized
Even before the ‘White Princess’ TV series, Margaret Beaufort was remembered as the mother-in-law from Hell. But does she really deserve this reputation? Check out my thoughts on the reason why Margaret was so much at court in the early years of Henry VII’s reign. What do you think?
Subscribe to our newsletter!
The Queen’s announcement that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will cease using the style His/Her Royal Highness has taken many by surprise.
Recently, the folks at CNN have published a piece stating that while the couple will not use the style, the Queen has not formally revoked it.
This is true. However, the rest of the piece shows how little the history and the use of the style is understood. Because the article contains errors which seem to be widespread, I wanted to take a moment to correct the inaccuracies in the piece.
This blog post is not intended as a criticism of the journalist or the people who have been sharing the piece on social media. Royal titles are complicated and opaque. Rules have not been followed consistently throughout history. They largely emerge from established custom and have not been logically or systematically developed. I have been studying them for many years and thought it might be helpful to clear a few things up.
CNN claim: it’s entirely unprecedented for a monarch to ask her own grandchild to drop their title
This is probably technically true. However, it is not unprecedented for royal grandchildren to stop using them.
When Princess Patricia of Connaught – granddaughter of Queen Victoria – married in 1919 she stated her wish to relinquish the style of Royal Highness and the title of Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Her cousin, George V, issued a Royal Warrant relieving her of the title and allowing her to be styled as Lady Patricia Ramsay with precedence before Marchionesses.
CNN claim: since the early 18th century it’s been customary for the title to be issued to sons and grandsons (and later, daughters and granddaughters) of the monarch.
It is certainly true that prior to the mid-1800s the use of the style was used inconsistently. However, I cannot find any evidence that it was given to male descendants prior to their female counterparts.
It’s probably worth pausing here to quickly review the history of ‘Royal Highness.’ The best work on this is an academic study by Ann Lyon, but you have to pay to get it. Hopefully, my more workman-like run through will suffice.
CNN: HRH is bestowed upon royal members at the discretion of the monarch at the time, but was used liberally until World War I.
This is not true. As we have seen from the above, Queen Victoria clarified the use of HRH in 1864 and it was clearly restricted to two generations.
CNN claim: in 1917, George V restricted how many minor royals were getting the title – at a time when there was public suspicion about the German origins of the House of Windsor, speedily renamed that year from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
Not true. As we have seen, George V slightly expanded the use of the HRH style. He did, however, heavily curtain the use of the Prince / Princess title and all but eliminated the style of ‘Highness’.
CNN claim: Queen Elizabeth II has loosened those guidelines, giving HRH status to a number of senior royals.
Not really. The only extension she has made was to ensure the style went to all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Without these changes, only George would have been an HRH. The younger two would currently be known as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor. However, they would have obtained HRH upon Charles’s succession.
CNN claim: They’ve agreed to be known as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
Have they? I’ve seen this a lot on social media, but I can’t find any evidence for it.
If one is the holder of a peerage than using first names with titles is highly irregular. There are plenty of Dukes who are not Royal. For example, the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire are known as just that. Not Peregrine, Duke of Devonshire and Amanda, Duchess of Devonshire.
In reality, when involved in commercial work, I suspect that the couple will do what most peers do and use their title as a surname. So, if the Duchess stars in a film, she will probably be credited as ‘Meghan Sussex.’ In the same way, the current Earl of Snowdon trades as ‘David Linley’, because prior to his father’s death his title was Viscount Linley.
The truth is, we’re not clear on how this is going to work yet. I assume – although may be wrong – that when they do come to big Royal events, such as Charles’s coronation, they will still use HRH.
CNN claim: today, children and grandchildren of the monarch traditionally get the HRH title – though it was historically withheld from granddaughters
As explored above, I cannot find any evidence for this. If anyone knows where this has come from, or if I have missed anything, please let me know.
CNN claim: Not everyone has accepted the offer of an HRH. Princess Anne, the Queen’s daughter, declined the title for her own children, Peter and Zara. That’s in contrast to Prince Andrew, who allowed his daughters, Beatrice and Eugenie, to carry it.
This is commonly stated but is not true. Anne’s children were never entitled to HRH. As you’ll see from above the title goes to children and male-line grandchildren of a sovereign. This follows the usual pattern that a child takes their style from their father unless their mother has a hereditary title.
The only way that it could be argued that Anne ‘chose’ for her children to be untitled is that it is almost certain that her first husband – Mark Philips – was offered an Earldom upon marriage. Had he accepted it, then Peter would be known as Viscount Something (Earls typically have two titles and the eldest son is known by the lesser in his father’s lifetime) and his sister as Lady Zara Tindall.
CNN claim: Kate and Megan were both were awarded the HRH title by the Queen after they married Princes William and Harry, respectively. But those who marry royals who aren’t as high in the line of succession may miss out. Jack Brooksbank, for instance, did not get the title when he married Eugenie, even though she is an HRH.
This is a total misunderstanding. Under British common law, a woman becomes the feminine of everything her husband is. So whoever HRH Prince Michael of Kent marries becomes HRH Princess Michael of Kent.
However, women cannot communicate precedence, title or styles to their husbands, hence why Eugenie’s husband is untitled. It has nothing to do with their place in the succession. Hope this helps clears a few things up!
In the past few posts we’ve seen that the childhood Margaret, though a wealthy heiress, was not deemed to be a candidate for the throne. However, as Lancaster was gradually depleted there were those who began to ponder whether her blood line could lead to a dynasty of Kings.
In truth, when we see Margaret or her young son portrayed as the ‘heirs to Lancaster’ in historical fiction books and TV dramas, their status has been somewhat inflated in order to give currency to their characters. Margaret Beaufort has even been described in one series as ‘the Red Queen’ – an attribute that should surely go to Margaret of Anjou if it’s going to go to anyone.
But I can’t forget that when trying to frame her sort-of father-in-law in 1450, Parliament accused him of having tried to marry his son to her because he believed her to be the heir to the throne. While he almost certainly hadn’t believed anything of the sort, those accusing him could not have done so if there was not a hint of credibility to the claims. But it probably was just a hint. Everyone thought the Duke of York was the heir; but perhaps when people discussed what would happen after Henry VI’s demise, Margaret occasionally got a mention.
Everything of course changed in 1470 when Lancaster had no option but to look for anyone with Royal blood and glanced briefly at Henry Tudor. Any claim he had came through Margaret – but no one thought she herself could be Queen. However, Henry’s chances only really picked up when people started rebelling against the tyranny of Richard III. At this stage, people primarily supported him because he pledged to marry Elizabeth of York – who did have a good claim.
As I said at the beginning, Margaret Beaufort is my Royal history heroine. Through arranging the engagement of her son to Elizabeth, and risking much to take part in rebellions, she can claim credit for the rise of the Tudors. But there’s no need to retrospectively raise her status to make her a compelling character to study. She has interest and appeal in bucket loads.
Both unnecessary emotion and an exaggerated sense of mystery surround the question of who killed the Princes in the Tower. As such it is important to cast any misplaced sense of loyalty aside and ruthlessly examine the facts that we do know from 1483 to discover the most likely destiny of the boys – and the most probable orchestrator of it.
“No! No,” cried Philippa Langely!
It was a moment of history. The bones of Richard III were being unearthed before her very eyes. And it was almost instantly clear that he was in possession of the very curved spine that Ricardians have long argued was a Tudor invention.
Langley is an active member of the Richard III society. She is also my hero. Thanks to her stoic efforts over many years, she paved the way to the greatest historical discovery of a generation, perhaps of a lifetime.
But in her loudly expressed disbelief at what she saw, she betrayed one of the fundamental problems in the debate around Richard III. Too often people are on a quest not to unearth the truth, whatever it might be. They search for facts that will validate their theories.
This is exactly what we need to counter. This discussion throws up so much emotion, but there’s no reason it needs to. Similarly it encourages talk of a dearth of historic records (which to an extent is true), creating an impression that we can never know the truth.
It’s time to clear the fog. It’s time to leave tribalism and emotion at the door. For a minute let’s stop focusing on what we can’t know and take a minute to review what we do know.
Two accounts of Richard’s reign are rich in detail about the events of 1483. One (the Croyland Chronicle) was written by a member of his government and another (Dominic Mancini) was crafted by an Italian visitor who clearly had access to a source at court and a first-hand experience of the public reaction. Neither of these had any reason to fabricate, and although they could never have seen each other’s work, they broadly corroborate.
And it is by studying these two accounts and ruthlessly examining the events of that fateful year that we see Richard’s guilt to leap out at us, even though neither directly accuse him of the Prince’s murder.
We can, with confidence, be sure of the following:
As such, we can be confident that at this stage the Princes were dead. Rumours of their murder were proving disastrous for Richard and driving many into the sympathies of Henry of Richmond, the remote Lancastrian claimant exiled to Brittany. To prevent this, the new King would have only needed to present his nephews for public viewing. But he didn’t.
Some would argue, of course, that the fact they were dead does not make Richard responsible for it. And it doesn’t. But when you stand back and review the chronology that I have presented above, is there really any other alternative?
All of Richard’s actions are consistent with those of a man who had set out to seize the throne and he had acted swiftly and brutally to anyone who got in his way with expressions of tyranny. He then obtained custody of both Princes and placed them entirely under his watch. Rebellions in their favour would have convinced him that his attempts to bastardise them had failed. He had the motive and means to eliminate them forever.
But surely this is all circumstantial? Even if he had usurped the throne and taken them prisoner, couldn’t someone else have been responsible for this final, must outrageous of deeds?
No, not really. Richard had his own, loyal men guarding his nephews. Only someone acting under his orders could have had access to them. And if for any reason someone else had managed to get their hands on them, he would have known about it almost straight away. It is hardly conceivable that he would have had a good enough network of spies to detect rebellions against him across the country, but would have been blind to what was happening on his own watch.
However, as I’m sure my Ricardian friends would rush to remind me, this is just one of many theories. But as we shall see in the next post, it is a theory that is far more compelling than any other on offer.
Okay geeks…over to you. Am I being too judgmental toward Richard? Are their facts from 1483 that I am failing to consider? I would love to know what YOU think!
Welcome to RoyalHistoryGeeks.com, the home of a new blog that will launch in January 2016.
For as long as I can remember, I have been obsessed with the stories of the Kings and Queens that have shaped the United Kingdom. From the personal dramas that would seem far-fetched to a soap opera writer, to the dynamic political factions that competed for power, influence and dominance over the crowned heads of the Kingdom, the annuls of history have presented me with greater intellectual stimulation and enjoyment than any fiction writer could have hoped to.
Having spent many a late night debating on Royal forums, furiously correcting Wikipedia entries and trawling the internet for any trace of the subjects that fascinate me, I know that I am not alone.
It is my dream that this blog helps facilitate these conversations and becomes a centre for intelligent and well-written content on the Royal houses that have reigned over us and those that were intimately connected to them.
A blog, by its nature must be regularly updated and fast moving. This means that content won’t always be thoroughly researched, although sometimes a greater level of investigation will proceed posting.
Let me be clear on one thing. Blogging can never replace deeply researched scholarship; this blog will not even pretend to do so. Instead it will help people dip their toe in the water, give each of us a chance to contribute our thinking and frankly, help us enjoy sharing our super-cool but often misunderstood obsessions with those of a like mind.
If you would like to be kept up to date with the progress of this blog, or even fancy the chance of submitting a post, please sign up to the mailing list.
Thanks for considering joining me on this adventure. We have a Royal history that’s worth being geeky about.