After reading "The Royal Story" last week, and reviewing the history of Britain's ever-popular monarchy, I would like to point out a few things that I cannot see referred to anywhere.
THE LEGEND OF KING ARTHUR
One of Britain's best-known monarchs is almost universally considered to be a legend. That legend is of King Arthur.
King Arthur's story was of an early king who battled Anglo-Saxons who were invading the island. While he was a great warrior, Arthur was known for his wisdom and had a noble and benevolent character.
There is no standard story of King Arthur. One account may differ from another. More was added to the legend later. The Knights of the Round Table may have been a French contribution to the legend.
The legend seems to have begun with Geoffrey of Monmouth, who lived in the Twelfth Century. We saw in our visit to "South Wales" that Monmouth is on the border between England and Wales.
The Legend of King Arthur was largely forgotten after the Middle Ages but was revived in the Nineteenth Century. It has permeated popular culture. The presidential court of John F. Kennedy was named Camelot, after the legendary castle of King Arthur.
There are even people who believe that King Arthur will return as a messiah some day.
There were early kings who fit the general description of Arthur, Alfred the Great and his grandson Athelstan. But they were Anglo-Saxons who battled Vikings, which came later. Both were known for their wisdom, character and, benevolence.
I believe that it was these early kings that inspired the Legend of King Arthur. Geoffrey of Monmouth was Welsh, and the story was given a Welsh slant. The Welsh people are generally the descendants of the original Celtic inhabitants of the islands while English people are generally the descendants of those who came later, particularly Anglo-Saxons. "Arthur" was also originally a Welsh name.
This puts King Arthur in the same bracket with Owain, a medieval Welsh king and warrior with a legend that he will return someday. The story of Cadwalladr, another early Welsh king that was popularized by Geoffrey of Monmouth, seems to parallel that of King Arthur.
Can you believe it? There are those three crowns again, on King Arthur's vest, That we saw in the posting on this blog, "The Three Crowns And Fleur De Lis". The Three Crowns, in this arrangement, is a symbol that goes far back into medieval times, is widespread across northern Europe, but no one knows where it originated.
The symbol was adapted into France but the crowns were each changed to a fleur-de-lis, the old French royal symbol, in the same triangular pattern.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Arthur#/media/File:Arth_tapestry2.jpg
THE RETURN OF THE JACOBITES?
During the time of the House of Stuart there was the interruption of the monarchy known as the Protectorate, from 1649 to 1660. It was led by Oliver Cromwell, who declined to be crowned as king. When the monarchy was restored the son of the executed Charles I took the throne as Charles II.
But when James II, younger brother of Charles II, inherited the throne he made it clear that he was a Catholic and would favor the appointments of Catholics. The conflict involving the interruption of the monarchy was not directly about Catholicism but there had earlier been a Catholic queen, Mary I, who had used barbarity in an effort to bring England back to Catholicism by force. The attempt had not been successful but had gotten a mixed drink named for her, the "Bloody Mary".
Then there was the Catholic plot to blow up the Parliament, with barrels of gunpowder, that we saw in the posting on this blog, "The Far-Reaching Story Of Guy Fawkes".
The daughter of James II, Mary, was an Anglican and married to the Dutch king William, whose mother was English. They were invited to land in England and rule jointly. James II left for exile and William and Mary became so popular that they got a university in Virginia named for them.
The replacement of James II with William and Mary was known as England's "Glorious Revolution". But this was not a new dynasty, since Mary was the daughter of James II it was still the House of Stuart.
Catholics were not persecuted but most people wanted to be sure that there would never again be a Catholic monarch. Early in the Eighteenth Century a law was passed that no one who was a Catholic, or married to a Catholic, could be king or queen.
A movement arose, known as the Jacobites, who felt that James II was still the rightful king and demanded his return. There were several Jacobite uprisings. After the death of James II the Jacobites kept track of which of his descendants they thought was the rightful king.
In 2015 the law barring Catholics from the monarchy was repealed. Where are the Jacobites now? Surely it could be traced who the rightful monarch should be. Do they have any plans to claim the throne?
THE HEAD OF OLIVER CROMWELL
Here is a story that seems to have been forgotten.
Oliver Cromwell led the Puritans that overthrew and executed King Charles I, in 1649. This was not a Protestant-Catholic conflict, it was after the Reformation and both sides were Protestant. Politics got intertwined with religion, the Parliament against the Royalists, and Cromwell led the Puritan Parliamentarians to victory in the English Civil War against the Anglican Royalists.
But when Oliver Cromwell died his son didn't inspire the same devotion and the monarchy ended up being restored. The son of Charles I had escaped capture by hiding in an oak tree and returned, in 1660, to take the throne as Charles II.
The Royalists wanted to execute Oliver Cromwell but he was already dead. That didn't stop them, they dug up his body and beheaded him. His head was put on display on a spike where the trial of the executed king had been held.
One day the spike reportedly broke and the head fell to the floor. The story is that a guard retrieved the head and took it home. As time passed the head of Oliver Cromwell found it's way into all manner of displays and exhibitions.
This went on for nearly three hundred years before the head was finally given a proper burial in the early 1960s. It was buried at Cambridge University, where Oliver Cromwell had studied. Only a few people were present at the burial and the exact location was kept secret.
There has always been speculation that the head did not belong to Oliver Cromwell to begin with which, in the days before DNA testing, was difficult to confirm. Only a few people knew where exactly the head was buried so testing cannot be done on it now.
There is additional speculation that Cromwell's supporters knew that the Royalists would dig up his body to publicly behead him, and it was not his body that they dug up.
IRELAND AND THE BRITISH MONARCHY
Every one of the five royal dynasties to rule England has had a connection outside England.
The House of Plantagenet had a connection to France. It arose in the period after the Norman Invasion of 1066.
The House of Tudor had a connection to Wales. It's first king, Henry Tudor, had been born in Wales.
The House of Stuart had a connection to Scotland. When Elizabeth II died childless in 1603 her cousin, the king of Scotland, also inherited the throne of England. The "Glorious Revolution" also brought the House of Stuart a connection to the Netherlands, when the princess who was married to the Dutch king took over from her father.
The House of Hanover and the House of Saxe-Coburg / Windsor had connections to the states that are now part of Germany. A monarch of Britain was required to be Protestant and the nearest Protestant relations of the childless Queen Anne were the House of Hanover.
Before the named dynasties King Canute had a connection to Scandinavia.
But there was never a similar Irish connection to the British monarchy. How might history have been different if there had been?
What made Ireland different from the rest of northern Europe is, of course, that Ireland remained Catholic during the Reformation while the rest of northern Europe joined the Protestants. This was no doubt due to memory of the powerful personality of St. Patrick, more than a thousand years before who, ironically, was from Britain. Monks from Irish monasteries converted much of northern Europe, only for Ireland to remain Catholic when they later went Protestant.
There actually was a similar connection with Ireland but it came in the realm of politics, not of royalty.
From 1801 to 1922 Ireland was actually part of Britain. An Irishman from Dublin rose to become one of Britain's greatest military heroes, overall commander of the British Army and finally, British Prime Minister.
He was Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington. The great obelisk in Dublin's Phoenix Park is a monument to him.
KAISER WILHELM II AND THE BRITISH MONARCHY
The reign of Queen Victoria brought an end to the personal union between England and Hanover, which is now part of Germany, because, under Hanover's rules but not England's, a female could not inherit the monarchy.
History might have been very different because Victoria is known as the "Grandmother of Europe". Her oldest grandson was Kaiser Wilhelm II, of the German Empire. The Kaiser wasn't a political leader, he was a monarch with the title of Emperor.
It was Hanover's rule, not Britain's, about female inheritance that ended the personal union between the two. If not for that rule, or if it could be retroactively reversed, then Victoria would also have been Queen of Hanover. Since Kaiser Wilhelm II was her oldest grandson, and he was Emperor of now-united Germany, which included Hanover, then shouldn't the Kaiser have a legitimate claim to the British throne?
Queen Victoria died in 1901, on the Isle of Wight, and Kaiser Wilhelm was at her bedside. But her grandchildren never got along with each other and in 1914 Germany, led by Kaiser Wilhelm, went to war with Britain and Russia. The Tsarina of Russia was also German-born and a granddaughter of Queen Victoria.
I am greatly surprised that Kaiser Wilhelm, or his government, never seems to have tried to claim the British throne. Even if it didn't amount to anything, it would still have been a psychological tool before and during the First World War.
The linking of the royal families of different nations has a long history, going back to ancient times. While it has long been used to cement alliances between kingdoms, it can also mean a foreigner showing up with a legitimate claim to a nation's throne.
A lasting monarchy must be rooted in history. Monarchies actually have a high casualty rate. The British Monarchy involved a lot of bloodshed over the centuries, but that is what has made it last. Creating a monarchy "out of the blue" for a new country, or a newly-united country, doesn't have this history behind it. Upon unity in the 1870s, both Germany and Italy inaugurated monarchies, but neither lasted.
THE NAZIS AND THE BRITISH MONARCHY
Maybe the Nazis realized that the Kaiser had missed a chance to make a valid claim on the British monarchy. They couldn't claim the monarchy themselves, through royal houses of the states that had now been united into Germany, because all of that had been abolished by the revolution of 1919. See the posting on this blog, "The End Of The First World War", November 2018.
But maybe the Nazis could get the British monarchy on their side. The devastating market crash of 1929 not only made Communism into a global system, it also prompted sympathy for the National Socialism of the Nazis. The Nazis had been brilliant at bringing their country out of the Great Depression.
Other than Germany there were Nazi-like political parties in a number of countries, including Britain. Prince Edward, next in line to the throne, was rumored to have some sympathy for Nazi ideals. Remember that in the 1930s, after that terrible economic crash, a search was on for a better way to run society. This was before the Nazis became associated with genocide.
In London lived an American socialite that made no secret of her Nazi sympathies. Her name was Wallis Simpson. What if she could be maneuvered close to Prince Edward, who was in line to be king?
I realize that it is speculation that the Nazis were behind their meeting, but I cannot be the first person who has ever thought of this.
Wallis Simpson was a divorcee, and royal rules forbade Edward, now King Edward VIII, from marrying her. What few people seem to have expected was that he gave up the throne, likely not really wanting to be king anyway. His younger brother George, the father of Queen Elizabeth II, took the throne.
The former king and Wallis Simpson met with Adolf Hitler who commented that "She would have made a good queen". Of course, that was what he had wanted.
For Buffalo, NY area readers, this was the then-future king who was at the opening of the Peace Bridge in 1927.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallis_Simpson#/media/File:Duke_and_Duchess_of_Windsor_meet_Adolf_Hitler_1937.jpg
SCOTLAND AND THE BRITISH MONARCHY
When Scotland held a referendum on independence from Britain in 2014 what I think got missed was that the intention was not to completely separate. It was stated that Scotland would still recognize the monarchy and use the pound as currency.
This would not be a complete separation but a scaling back of the relationship to the personal union that existed for over a century before England and Scotland joined as one country, in 1707.
A personal union means that a monarch rules over more than one country, although that doesn't necessarily mean that the two countries are completely united.
Elizabeth I, the final monarch of the House of Tudor, died childless. A daughter of the first Tudor king, Margaret Tudor daughter of Henry VII ( The Seventh ), had married a king of Scotland. That meant the current king of Scotland, James IV ( The Fourth ) was her cousin and first in line for the throne of England.
James IV of Scotland also became James I of England, in 1603. This began the personal union between the two countries that would last for over a century, until the two countries were officially united in 1707. This was the beginning of the House of Stuart in England.
In Edinburgh, Scotland still has it's original Parliament building, adjacent to St. Giles Cathedral, Holyroodhouse Palace is still in use, and Scotland's original Crown Jewels are on display at Edinburgh Castle.
The monumental achievement of James I in England was the King James Bible, that has certainly done more to shape the English language than any other manuscript and was named for King James. We saw the King James Bible in the posting on this blog, "Hampton Court Palace And The King James Bible", July 2016.
It was this personal union, known as the "Union of the Crowns", that the separatists were seeking to return to in the 2014 referendum, not to separate altogether, as it was stated that Scotland would still recognize the monarchy and use the pound as currency. The news barely mentioned this.
THE NAMES OF WILLIAM AND HARRY
This is something that I haven't seen pointed out about the split between the two royal brothers. It concerns their names, William and Harry.
"Harry" is usually short for "Harold". Harry's real first name is "Henry" but his brother gave him the nickname of "Harold", according to the Wikipedia article on Prince Harry. Prince Harry's official title is the Duke of Sussex.
Let's not forget what a powerful force history and names can be. History dictates that these two brothers should not get along with each other.
Sussex is where the Battle of Hastings took place, in 1066 nearly a thousand years ago. This pivotal battle in English history was between forces led by Harold Godwinson against William the Conqueror. It was Harry against William, and William emerged victorious.
Isn't it expecting too much for two brothers that are part of the organization that represents the history of the country to get along with names like these? Is this why William gave his brother the nickname of "Harold"?
The two brothers reportedly once had a physical altercation. Of course, they were reenacting the Battle of Hastings. History demanded it.
Harry reportedly emphasized that he had outranked his older brother in the military. This was so important because of the historic battle of Harold against William.
Giving the two brothers the names of these historic enemies, and giving one the title of Duke of the place where their battle happened, virtually ensured that this modern split would happen.
CADET BRANCHES
With the acrimonious split between Harry and Meghan and the rest of the Royal Family it might be a good time to review junior royal lines, also known as cadet branches.
There are no set rules of how a monarchy operates, and each country has it's own way. The British monarchy today doesn't officially have cadet branches. Junior members of the royal family are given nobility titles, dukes and duchesses.
When there are two brothers and the elder inherits the throne, the younger brother may inaugurate a cadet branch of his descendants. A cadet branch may possibly gain the throne if the reigning dynasty should die out.
The royal family where cadet branches seem to be most predominant was that of France. The original royal family, of the third and final dynasty, was the House of Capet, after Hugh Capet. The House of Valois was a cadet branch that ultimately came into power. The House of Bourbon was another cadet branch that eventually took power, and was the one overthrown in the French Revolution of 1789.
The House of Bourbon made a comeback, after the time of Napoleon, and it was the House of Orleans, a cadet branch of Bourbon, that held the throne when the monarchy was eliminated for good in 1848.
Another French cadet branch was the House of Guise. It never held royal power but one of it's princesses, Mary of Guise, married into being Queen of Scotland.
There are no British cadet branches today, but that was not always the case. In the Fourteenth Century the ruling House of Plantagenet fell into civil war between it's two cadet branches, the House of Lancaster and the House of York. The losses in that war, called the "War of the Roses" because the symbol of Lancaster was a red rose and York a white rose, caused Henry Tudor to inherit the throne of the House of Lancaster. This brought the next dynasty to the British throne. It's first king was Henry Tudor, reigning as Henry VII. The bloody "War of the Roses", between two cadet Branches, is likely why England ceased recognizing cadet Branches.
The split of Harry and Meghan from the royal family is not out-of-the-ordinary at all. Why don't we consider the two as inaugurating America's cadet branch, since Americans are as fascinated by British royalty as anyone.
There is a portrait of Diana on the pillar of the bridge underpass into which her car crashed in Paris.
Image from Google Street View
.png)
#/media/File:Alex_Sawary.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
