Random royal stories or facts

[JustAnotherWhinger]

A random fact about King Harald of Norway got me think about all the random/interesting/bizarre stories and facts about royals and thought a thread of them could be interesting.

Harald, who died today, was the first monarch to be born in Norway for over 600 years.
His grandfather, Prince Carl of Denmark, was selected to be the new King of Norway in 1905 (he became King Haakon VII.

Another Danish prince, George, was selected to be the King of Greece in 1863 and reigned until he was assassinated in 1914. He was Prince Philip’s grandfather.

The thing was that Henry wasn't actually a letch by the standards of times! He only had 2 or 3 acknowledged mistresses, so very different to his French contemporary Francois I.

For a royal man in the 16c (r succeeding ones, come to that) he was astonishing restrained sexually, when you consider that there was no moral stigma attached to him behaving as he liked where women were concerned.

Francis I was gross.

In his head he was always the young, virile athletic king.

Power when young like he was - 17 about to turn 18 - had does seem to cause massive ego issues.

However I do think his desire for a son gets misunderstood in modern world - the first undisputed Queen on England was eldest daughter - the first really good queen his second. England even allowing or having regnant queens wasn't a settled thing before them. His dynastic claim was shaky and England had in previous generation torn itself apart with civil war. To us it looks mad to want a son to eyes at time makes more sense.

He could have done other things - married Mary early and hoped she had sons - Catherine could have stepped aside divorced or gone to convent as there was many precedent with that across Europe- leaving Mary still a princess and still with a claim to the throne but with risk of brothers. If he'd been less religious and more ruthless he could have slowly poisoned her.

I think his view of Kingship was from plantagenet era- so warrior kings with sons to inherit - and he was bad at war and bad at getting sons who survived.

According to many accounts, his marriage to Katherine of Aragon was a happy one. They loved each other and there was mutual respect. He made her Regent during his absence in the war with France. It was only the King's Great Matter which ended it.

Catherine could have stepped aside divorced or gone to convent as there was many precedent with that across Europe

Catherine was never, ever going to do that. IMO she considered she had come to England to be queen and she was going to be queen and stay as queen. In her opinion Anne was a mere concubine and Henry was imperilling his soul with God by his behaviour with Anne and towards the church in England.

A lot of his behaviour was because he was the second occupant of a throne in a family that had at best a shaky claim to it and he was surrounded by people with the same or better claims.

A lot of his behaviour was because he was the second occupant of a throne in a family that had at best a shaky claim to it and he was surrounded by people with the same or better claims.

That reminds me. The possibility of the true heir to the British throne being Australian

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Abney-Hastings,_15th_Earl_of_Loudoun

And currently single

I remember seeing that programme, it was very interesting.

Oh, that old one. He can duke it out with the Stuart claimants

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_succession

Yep, and I think several hundred others...

I'd take claims of illegitimacy in the middle ages and 16c with a hefty shovelful of salt. Marriage rules and degrees of affinity were so complicated it was incredibly easy to fall foul of them. And of course it was handy political propaganda even if it wasn't true, particularly if the person claiming A's illegitimacy and thus disqualification from being monarch had a vested interest - like wanting to be ruler themselves.

To be an heir to the British throne, you must be a legitimate Protestant descendant of Sophia of Hanover - Under the Act of Settlement 1701.

So Stuart claimants and older claimnets are irrelvant at least till Parlimnet decides otherwise.

Genealogists and historical trackers estimate roughly 5,000 to 6,000 eligible Protestant descendants of Sophia in the official tracking lists.

When including all branches—including those who have converted to Catholicism, married Catholics (disqualifying them from the throne), or are otherwise outside the active succession—the total number of descendants stretches into the tens of thousands worldwide

If we are going to talk about a claim to the throne via the female line, let's take it back to 1399 when the son of a daughter of the second son of Edward III was superseded by the son of the third son of Edward III.

The recent-ish change to the rule on marrying Catholics, and the reinstatement of those who’d been barred also increased the numbers in the line considerably!

I did after posting vaugly remember they'd change law there as well with marrying catholics - but didn't realise it was retrospective as well thought it was like the absolute primogeniture being changed ie just going forward.

But you are right any member of the Royal Family who had previously been stripped of their succession rights solely for marrying a Roman Catholic regained their place in the line of succession as did any protestant descendants.

Though Catholics are still barred from the throne - mainly due to monarch being head of church of England I think.

We certainly not going to run out of any claiments under act of succession any time soon.

The retrospective bit is quite unusual for changes to the line. I guess with this one it didn’t affect the immediate line so was fine to be done.

The highest impacted was the Earl of St Andrews son of the Duke of Kent. It will still cease to be held by someone in the line of succession, just a generation later now that he’s back in. His son is Catholic so is not in the line.

His uncle, Prince Michael of Kent was also included back in. Probably the most well known of those back in the line.

Definitely not going to run out!

It also tidied up the peculiarity of Protestant descendants of those barred from marrying a Catholic being in the line, but the married one not.

Prince Michael of Kent was barred because of his marriage, yet his children were always in the line as they were not Catholic.

Which always struck me as a very very odd way to do things.

Also imagine a scenario before the recent change.
Prince Freddie marries Augusta of good German Protestant stock.
He is the heir. All is well.
Except she then starts making demands.
And then threatens that he'd better comply or she will start taking instruction to enter the RC Church.
She's already been seen in the vicinity of Westminster Cathedral and the more discerning papers have been speculating...
Perhaps she's already been received...
And thereby queer his pitch for the throne

Watched a programme called Sophia: Suffragette Princess.

Her father was Maharaja Dalip Singh. He lost his Sikh empire (and the Koh-i-Nope diamond) to Britain at the age of 11. He moved to Britain and his children were born here.

Sophia’s godmother was Queen Victoria. She lived in a grace and favour home at Hampton Court.

She later became very heavily involved in the Suffragette movement. She went to the House of Commons with Emmeline Pankhurst.

It was a very interesting watch!

There's an exhibition on her and her sisters at Kensington Palace until 8 November

https://www.hrp.org.uk/kensington-palace/whats-on/the-last-princesses-of-punjab/

There's a brilliant book about her, called Sophia, by Anita Anand. Who, like Sophia, was the child of immigrants, and has such interesting insights.