25 May 2019

Genealogen nr. 1, 2019

Siste utgave av Genealogen, medlemsbladet til Norsk Slektshistorisk Forening, lå og ventet på meg i postkassen da jeg kom hjem fra jobb i går ettermiddag. Tradisjonen tro gir jeg en kort presentasjon av innholdet samt noen flere detaljer om mine egne bidrag.
  • Lisbeth Løchen. Havaristene fra «De Zee Ploeg», s. 4–20. Sølvi Løchen har også bidratt til artikkelen.
  • Petter Vennemoe. Jakob Andersen Dishington. Del 2. Den eldre slekt Dishington i Skottland/Orknøyene, s. 21–38.
  • Are S. Gustavsen. Arlen D. Ness (1939–2019) – selve Gudfaren blant amerikanske motorsykkelbyggere, s. 38–43.
  • Dag Trygsland Hoelseth. Bøgh II. Et avsluttet kapittel, s. 44–47.
  • Elaine Helgeson Hasleton. Bygdelagenes Fellesraad and Norsk Slektshistorisk Forening Parnership, s. 48–49.
  • Rune Nedrud. Nye muligheter innen DNA-testing, s. 50–52. (Oversettelse av artikkel av Robin Wirthlin publisert på nettstedet Familylocket.com.)
  • Dag Trygsland Hoelseth. Tom Larsen (1960–2019), s. 57.
I tillegg inneholder utgaven som vanlig en del foreningsstoff, deriblant årsberetningen for 2018, regnskap og en bokgaveliste. Årsmøtet finner sted førstkommende tirsdag 28. mai kl. 19 i foreningens lokaler i Industriveien 6 på Lørenskog.

Historien om pinkskipet De Zee Ploegs havari ved Herdla i Hordaland i 1817 kan man lese litt om på Slektshistoriewiki. Artikkelen i Genealogen forteller om bakgrunnen til de tyske passasjerene, hvem som ble igjen i Norge og litt om de som enten dro tilbake til Tyskland eller kom seg til USA med nytt skip. Forfatterne har også skrevet av en del lister over passasjerene, bagasje m.m.

Del I av Petter Vennemoes artikkel om den skotske Dishington-slekten med etterkommere i Norge stod på trykk i Genealogen nr. 2, 2017.

Are S. Gustavsen, tidligere redaktør i Genealogen og nå redaktør i Norsk Slektshistorisk Tidsskrift, har skrevet en artig artikkel om Arlen D. Ness (1939–2019), spesielt godt kjent i det amerikanske motorsykkelbyggemiljøet, og med aner fra Nes i Vik sogn (Gaular), Sogn og Fjordane.

Mitt hovedbidrag denne gangen, Bøgh II. Et avsluttet kapittel, har sin bakgrunn i min oppgave som (hoved-)administrator for Slektshistoriewiki. Administratoroppgaven går blant annet med på å lage maler og passe på at nye bidrag sånn noenlunde følger disse malene slik at artiklene får et enhetlig og ryddig inntrykk. Fra tid til annen klikker jeg på «Tilfeldig side»-lenken i venstre marg for å se om det er noe jeg bør rydde opp i. Av og til finner jeg artikler som er litt for knappe og som burde utvides en smule. Artikkelen Bøgh II er en kort summarisk presentasjon av en slektsoversikt i slektskalenderen Norske Slægter fra 1912. Diplomaten Leif Bøgh Henrikssen fikk i 1900 bevilling til å anta sin mors pikenavn som slektsnavn. Både han og datteren er inkludert i en bok om konas Heiberg-slekt utgitt i 1942. Etter det har jeg ikke funnet den lille familien til Leif Bøgh (1871–1945)  i trykt litteratur, men det forekommer noen ufullstendige opplysninger på diverse nettsteder. Slektsoversikten fra 1912 inneholdt dessuten en del feil. Min artikkel gir en kort presentasjon av slektskretsen og en overmoden oppdatering og retter samtidig opp noen feil som er kommet på trykk under årenes løp. Artikkelen forteller også hvordan jeg gikk frem for å finne ut hvor det ble av datteren Emmy etter 2. verdenskrig. Artikkelen utgjør nå forskningsstatus for denne kognatiske grenen av Bøgh-slekten. Et lite bidrag i en store sammenhengen, men viktig nok for de som interesserer seg for akkurat denne familien.

Under arbeidet med artikkelen ble selvfølgelig de genealogiske opplysningene for den nærmeste slektskretsen kontrollert opp mot primærkilder. Men den historiske presentasjonen av Bøgh-slekten bygget jeg av tidsmessige grunner kun på trykte kilder. Jeg håper virkelig ikke at jeg da har kommet i skade for å gjenta informasjon som kan vise seg å være feil. Fint hvis leserne sier ifra i tilfelle! I fjor blogget jeg ellers om «slektsvirus» i en artikkel om Vogt som kan være verdt å lese i denne sammenheng.

Bøgh-slekten (Bøgh I) som Leif stammet fra gjennom et kvinneledd hadde for øvrig fortjent en ny gjennomgang og oppdatering. I litteraturen om Leifs farsslekt Henrikssen er det også en del opplysninger som det kan stilles spørsmålstegn ved og således hadde også Henrikssen-slekten fortjent å bli studert nærmere og skrevet om. Noen som føler seg kallet?

Når det gjelder Slektshistoriewiki-artikkelen om Bøgh II så er den foreløbig ikke oppdatert med de nyen opplysningene gitt i Genealogen-artikkelen. NSFs medlemmer og andre lesere av tidsskriftet må få lov til å lese utgaven først, så tar jeg en summarisk oppdatering senere. I fotnote 15 i artikkelen nevner jeg forresten at man kan finne datteren Emmy i den kommunale folketellingen for Bergen i 1922. Der var navnet transkribert til «Jenny??», noe jeg sendte feilmelding om til Digitalarkivet. Riktignok hadde jeg ikke funnet originalen, men mente det var verdt å få det sjekket opp. Etter at artikkelen min ble sendt til redaktøren har altså Digitalarkivet kontrollert originalen og rettet opp.

Avslutningsvis om artikkelen vil jeg kommentere opplysningene om at Leif Bøgh fra Bergen og Lydia Heiberg fra Kristiania giftet seg i Råde kirke i 1903. Jeg har ennå ikke funnet ut hvorfor vielsen fant sted akkurat der. Men jeg hadde neppe funnet vielsesstedet uten transkripsjonen i Digitalarkivet. En stor takk rettes til de frivillige i gruppen Råde lokalsamling som har stått for arbeidet!

Slektsforskeren Tom Larsen, som var aktiv i Ringerike Slektshistorielag i mange år og som skrev mange artikler for medlemsbladet Hringariki m.m., døde 11. mars i år, 2019. Hans alt for tidlige bortgang er et stort tap for slektsforskermiljøet, ikke bare på Ringerike. Etter at jeg hadde lest Sten Høyendahls nekrolog i Aftenposten 23. mars, gikk jeg i gang med en egen artikkel om Tom i Slektshistoriewiki, og jeg fikk god hjelp av Høyendahl til bibliografien. Ettersom jeg allerede hadde skrevet en presentasjon av Tom på wikien og deadlinen for Genealogen allerede var passert da dødsfallet ble kjent, ble jeg av tidsmessige grunner bedt om å skrive minneordene i Genealogen, selv om det ellers hadde vært mer naturlig om Høyendahl eller andre som kjente Tom hadde fått oppgaven. Minneordene bygger for en stor del på Høyendahls nekrolog, men med noen få tilleggsopplysninger.

Redaktør Rune Nedrud har ellers gjort en del designmessige endringer denne gangen. Svein Becken har gitt seg med design- og layoutoppgaven m.m., og redaktøren har tatt i bruk et nytt redigeringsprogram. Den største endringen innholdsmessig er kanskje at foreningspresentasjonen (adresser m.m.) er plassert på siste innbrettsside i stedet for den første. Det tror jeg de fleste leserne vil venne seg fort til.

Jeg leste som vanlig korrektur på bidragene til herværende utgave av Genealogen, men bare forskningsdelen. Da jeg ble redaksjonsmedlem i Genealogen i 2010 var jeg en av tre korrekturlesere. Nå er det bare jeg igjen. Dette håper jeg det kan bli gjort noe med. Selv om jeg har god erfaring som korrekturleser, blant annet i mitt daglige arbeid som redaksjonskonsulent i Lovdata, herunder utgivelsen av Norsk Lovtidend, så får jeg ikke med meg alt. Jeg håper jeg kan få en ny kollega før arbeidet med neste utgave av Genealogen skal sluttføres. Som korrekturleser ser jeg først og fremst etter ortografiske feil, men sier også ifra hvis setningsoppbygging m.m. kunne vært bedre. Redaktøren er dog opptatt av at den enkelte bidragsyters språkstil skal respekteres, så det er ikke nødvendigvis alt som blir rettet opp.

I forrige utgave av Genealogen (nr. 2, 2018) hadde Kjersti Aamodt på trykk artikkelen Erika Amundsdatter – en liten kvinne i historien. Hun oppholdt seg i Kristiania på 1790-tallet og endte opp i Røyken der hun døde in 1857, 95 år gammel. Av ukjent grunn hadde de fleste fotnotetegnene falt ut av teksten. Leserne kunne lese alle de 38 fotnotene på side 18 bakerst i artikkelen, men kunne ikke se hvor de hørte hjemme i selve brødteksten. Dette var en kjedelig feil som flere av oss, undertegnede inkludert, burde ha oppdaget. Jeg var nok for opptatt av å se etter andre typer feil, men jeg har da oppdaget fotnotefeil tidligere også, så dette var noe jeg burde ha fått med meg. Så vidt jeg vet vil redaktøren sette artikkelen på nytt og gjøre den tilgjengelig på nettsiden Genealogi.no. I forbindelse med nekrologen til Tom Larsen ser jeg for øvrig at navnet på fotografen, Marte Inger Stubberud, hadde falt ut. Det beklager vi.

In English: The article presents the contents of the latest issue of Genealogen, a periodical published by The Norwegian Genealogical Society, as well as some details about my own contributions, including my article on a cognatic branch of the Bøgh family. 

22 May 2019

Vita Brevis: The ancestry of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

More from the New England Historic Genealogical Society (NEHGS) today. When I earlier tonight wrote about Gary Boyd Roberts' article «On the Ancestry of the New Royal Baby», I was not aware that another article about Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, this time including his ancestry table, had been published at the NEHGS run blog Vita Brevis today. The blog article is written by NEHGS' editor-in-chief Scott C. Steward, but the genealogy is a collaboration with Christopher C. Child.

https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2019/05/ancestry-archie-mountbatten-windsor/

By the way, late last year Christopher C. Child wrote another Duchess of Susex-related blog article, «Challenging modern records», which is also worth reading:

https://vitabrevis.americanancestors.org/2018/12/challenging-modern-records/

NEHGS: On the Ancestry of the New Royal Baby

Genealogist, author and Senior Research Scholar Emeritus at the New England Historic Genealogical Society, Gary Boyd Roberts, has recently written a short article titled «On the Ancestry of the New Royal Baby» about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor's ancestry and especially on his US American connections. It is well worth reading:

https://www.americanancestors.org/specials/ancestry-of-the-royal-baby

19 May 2019

Princess Alexandra of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg married to Count Michael Ahlefeldt-Laurvig-Bille

It turns out that there were two (semi-)royal weddings yesterday in which descendants of Queen Victoria were involved. Lady Gabriella «Ella» Windsor and Thomas Kingston were married in St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle.

A more private and «secret» wedding («secret» because the wedding was not publically known before the event) took place at Skt. Jørgen kirke (St. George's Church) in Svendborg, Fyn, Denmark between Princess Alexandra of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, b. Copenhagen 1970, elder daughter of the late Prince Richard of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg and Princess Benedikte of Denmark, and Count Michael Ahlefeldt-Laurvig Bille, b. Svendborg 1965, son of the late Count Claus Ahlefeldt-Laurvig-Bille and Countess (Comtesse) Merete Ahlefeldt-Laurvig.

Princess Alexandra was from 1998 to 2017 married to Count Jefferson-Friedrich von Pfeil und Klein-Ellguth. They had two children together.

Count Michael was from 1992 to 2005 married to Margrethe Kirketerp-Møller and from 2006 to 2016 married to Caroline Søeborg Ohlsen. He has four children, two in each marriage (cf. Danmarks Adels Aarbog).

(Thanks to Martin C. for posting the link to Fyens.dk (see above) at the Scandinavian Royals Message Board yesterday.)

18 May 2019

UK: Lady Gabriella Windsor marries Thomas Kingston

Lady Gabriella Windsor, daughter of Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Michael of Kent, formerly Marie-Christine, Baroness von Reibnitz, and thus a first cousin once removed to Queen Elizabeth II, married today, 18 May 2019, Thomas Kingston, son of William M. Kingston and Jill M. Kingston, née Bache, in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. The ceremony was officiated by the dean of Windsor, David Conner.

Among the guests at the wedding, besides of the nearest family of the bride and groom, were Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of Sussex, the Princess Royal (Princess Anne), Sir Timothy Laurence, the Earl of Wessex, Princess Alexandra, lady Ogilvy, the Duke of York, Sarah, Duchess of York, Princess Beatrice and her boyfriend, Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, the former occupied with the FA Cup Final later the same day, and the Duchess of Sussex were absent.

The engagement of Lady Gabriella Windsor and Thomas Kingston was announced on 19 September 2018.

UK: Copy of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's birth certificate published

A copy (or rather type-up version) of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's birth certificate was yesterday obtained by the British Press Association and spread to the media. The copy can among others be viewed here.

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, the firstborn child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, was born on 6 May 2019.  His name was made public 2 days later.

The birth certificate confirms that Archie was born at The Portland Hospital in Westminster, London, as The Daily Mail had already claimed to know. Other than that, the certicate doesn't tell more than we already knew. That the Duchess of Sussex has the rank (in the certificate listed as «Occupation») as Princess of the United Kingdom is known to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the British Royal Family. Thankfully Archie's mother is styled as Duchess of Sussex and not «Princess Henry».

Anyway, the historians and genealogists can now rest satisfied that the question of Archie's birth place has been confirmed.

8 May 2019

UK: Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced today the name of their son, who was born 2 days ago:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are pleased to announce they have named their first born child:

Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor

This afternoon Their Royal Highnesses introduced Her Majesty The Queen to her eighth great-grandchild at Windsor Castle. The Duke of Edinburgh and The Duchess’ mother were also present for this special occasion.
Shortly after, at 4.45 p.m. local time, Buckingham Palace confirmed:
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are delighted to announce that they have named their son Archie Harrison.

The baby will be known as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.
The choice of names stresses the fact that the baby is so far down in the line of succession (no. 7) that the parents didn't feel any need for a traditional name, but could chose names entirely of their own preference. Archie is usually a shortened form of Archibald, which is Germanic of origin and means «genuine» or «precious» and «bold». Harrison obviously means «son of Harry». Of course most boys with the given name Harrison don't have a father named Harry, but for the ducal son the choice is most fitting, even if Harry is only the Duke's nickname.

According to The Telegraph, Archie was the 18th most popular name for boys in England and Wales in 2017 (see more details at the website of the Office for National Statistics). The Telegraph also writes that «In Scotland, Archie was the 17th most popular name for boys in 2018, according to the National Records of Scotland.»

When searching for the name Archie or Archibald at An Online Gotha, I only get one hit: Hon. Lionel Frederick Archibald Fitzclarence (1857–1863), a great-grandson of King William IV (1765–1837). Maybe one can find the name among the Duke of Sussex's non-royal ancestors, but I think we can safely assume that the Sussexes didn't check Prince Henry's family genealogy in order to find a name they liked.

Yesterday I wrote that «I would be surprised if the baby boy will be not be known as Earl of Dumbarton.» The press statement says, however, if not explicitly, that Prince Henry's subsidiary title Earl of Dumbarton will not be used. He is of course entitled to the courtesy title, and one can of course argue that Archie became Earl of Dumbarton the very second he was born. But «Master» Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor it is, and he will probably continue to be untitled even after his grandfather has succeeded to the throne and even if this will be in conflict with the Letters Patent of 1917. The LP will have to be modified some time anyway.

And of course, some time in the future the young master will become the 2nd Duke of Sussex (second creation, 2018), unless the Letters Patent of 2018 has been changed in the meantime. One can of course wonder why Prince Henry («Harry») accepted the ducal title in the first place, but no ducal title would have meant that Meghan would have been styled HRH Princess Henry of Wales, which for many people doesn't look so good in this day and age.

Archie's surname Mountbatten-Windsor was of course as expected and in accordance with the declaration of 8 February 1960:
[...] Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.
A photo call took place at Windsor Castle earlier in the days. The photos can be viewed in the Telegraph article linked to above or at the website of BBC News.

7 May 2019

UK: Follow-up to the birth of Baby Sussex – place of birth etc.

I thought I should write a short follow-up to yesterday's article, in which I commented on the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's baby boy. I mentioned among others that the birth announcement didn't explicitly state where the birth took place and added that «is quite possible that the Duchess delivered the baby at home at Frogmore Cottage as the media has speculated about for quite some time». However, The Daily Mail claimed yesterday evening that the allegedly planned home birth was called off and that the Duchess of Sussex was transported to a private hospital in London, possibly The Portland Hospital, on Sunday night and where she gave birth early on Monday morning. No named source was stated and both Buckingham Palace and the hospital have denied to comment. As the Duchess allegedly was one week overdue, the decision to send her to a hospital is more than likely, but for now we will not know for sure.

The timing of the press releases yesterday – several hours after the birth had taken place – can easily be explained by the ducal couple's wish for privacy. They wanted to travel to the hospital and then return home again unnoticed. Their wish is of course easy to understand, considering what the British media is capable of. A car chase from Windsor to Great Portland Street in London would certainly not be a dream scenario for the parents to be. The ducal couple got it the way it wanted. However, it would have made more sense – and it would have been more professional – if the information department had dropped the first statement about the duchess being in labour.

Returning to the question about the place of birth – the operational note of 11 April said that «Their Royal Highnesses have taken a personal decision to keep the plans around the arrival of their baby private.» I interpreted the note as saying that the couple wished to keep the birth plans private prior to the birth, but not after, but obviously I was wrong. As many have pointed out, the notice of the birth which was displayed outside Buckingham Palace yesterday didn't include the names of the medical personnel assisting the birth, as has been the tradition in the past. Had the names been included, the place of birth would of course have been revealed.

The place of birth is of course of historic and genealogical interest. Richard Palmer, royal correspondent of The Daily Express, tweeted yesterday evening that «Palace officials are still refusing to say where Meghan gave birth amid conflicting reports that it was at Frogmore Cottage or in a private hospital. But they acknowledge they will have to reveal the place of birth on the birth certificate within 42 days.»

As the tweet says, the information department knows that the birth certificate will be public knowledge in due time. One reason for keeping the place of birth a secret for the time being could be to protect the privacy of the medical personnel and the doula (i.e. the possible doula for what was allegedly planned to be a home birth). In 40 days the media's interest might have dropped a bit. There is of course nothing wrong with a discussion about home birth versus the use of a maternity hospital, but the media pressure is of course something the royal family, the court and medical team wanted to avoid.

As already pointed out, the birth certificate will be made public some time next month. The historians and genealogists just have to wait in patience.

A photo call will take place either Wednesday or Thursday. We will then learn to know the names of the Sussex baby and how he is to be styled. Now, as already pointed out, traditionally the eldest son of a duke will by courtesy use the second (lesser grade) title, so I would be surprised if the baby boy will be not be known as Earl of Dumbarton. Some observers have suggested, however, that it is possible he will «only» be known as Lord X Mountbatten-Windsor (or something else). I guess other scenaries shouldn't be ruled out completely, but as of now I believe that Buckingham Palace will stick to tradition.

Updated on Wednesday 8 May 2019 at 20:45 (the sentence concerning the possible use of a doula in the third last paragraph was made more precise) and at 21:40 (orthographic mistake corrected).

6 May 2019

UK: Duke and Duchess of Sussex have become parents to a boy

Finally – finally! – Buckingham Palace announced today – 6 May 2019 – that the Duchess of Sussex had given birth to a boy, born at 05.26 a.m.:
The Duchess of Sussex has been delivered of a son

Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex was safely delivered of a son at 0526hrs.

The baby weighs 7lbs 3oz.

The Duke of Sussex was present for the birth.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Lady Jane Fellowes, Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Earl Spencer have been informed and are delighted with the news.

The Duchess's mother, Doria Ragland, who is overjoyed by the arrival of her first grandchild, is with Their Royal Highnesses at Frogmore Cottage.
The press statement was first wired to the media and was immediately published some time before 2.30 local time before it was released on the Royal Family's social media accounts as well. Half an hour earlier or so it was announced that the Duchess was in labour. The statement said: «The Duchess of Sussex went into labour in the early hours of this morning. The Duke of Sussex was by Her Royal Highnesses’ side. An announcement will be made soon.» The wording of the statement suggested that the birth had already taken place, something the follow-up statement revealed. Of course, Buckingham Palace had in its «operational note» of 11 April stated that one could expect two press releases – one when the Duchess went into labour and then the second one after the birth had taken place and «once they have had an opportunity to celebrate privately as a new family». Releasing the first statement several hours after the birth had taken place only made the press department look silly. It could very well be that the ducal couple kept the press department in the dark for some time before it was allowed to prepare the statement. In this regard one can understand the complaints made by the press. Richard Palmer of the Daily Express tweeted for instance: «Not that it will matter to most people but for journalists, the palace’s handling of that announcement was an absolute shambles. It would help if the press office spent more time worrying about keeping journalists informed and less time on Instagram and overseas organisations.» Then again, thinking of how the British media was sulking after the ducal couple made its birth plans known I guess thay didn't deserve any better. Anyway, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was allowed to celebrate the arrival of their son for quite some time just like they had wanted it. We got the happy news soon enough anyway.

It was certainly a wise move by the Duke to give a few comments on camera outside Frogmore Cottage later on. As earlier promised, a photo call would take place in a couple of days and the Duke seemed to suggest that the names of the newborn baby would be made known at the same time. They were still thinking of names, the Duke claimed.

A notice of the birth was also displayed outside Buckingham Palace. The text read: «The Queen and the Royal Family are delighted at the news that her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex was safely delivered of a son at 0526am today. Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well. 06 May, 2019.»

I would like to make a few points. First, it was not explicitly stated where the birth took place. I find it a bit odd that this relevant information was not released, but it is quite possible that the Duchess delivered the baby at home at Frogmore Cottage as the media has speculated about for quite some time.

The baby boy, who is no. 7 in the line of succession to the British throne, has – as I commented on last month – not received the title of prince, but will by courtesy be styled Earl of Dumbarton, which is the Duke of Sussex's second (lesser grade) title. The birth also means that the first 20 in the line of succession now are all descendants of the Queen.

I will not enter a guessing game about the names. Some observers expext that the new parents will chose a traditional name for the one to be used daily. Others have pointed out that the child is so far from the throne that the ducal couple would feel less burdened by tradition. I suppose there will be a good mixture of names the couple likes and names from both side of the family. So maybe Alvin or Frederick or Isaac would be combined with a name or two from the British royal family?

1 May 2019

Luxembourg: List of royals confirmed to attend Grand Duke Jean's funeral

The Grand Ducal Court of Luxembourg published yesterday «La liste des Familles royales régnantes confirmée». i.e. a list of members of reigning royal families who have confirmed their presence at the funeral of Grand Duke Jean in the Notre-Dame Cathedral in Luxembourg on 4 May 2019. Grand Duke Jean, who reigned from 1964 to 2000, died on 21 April 2019, 98 years old.

Belgium
  • The King and Queen (King Philippe and Queen Mathilde)
  • King Albert II and Queen Paola
  • Prince Lorenz and Princess Astrid
  • Prince Laurent
  • Princess Léa
  • Princess Elisabeth
Denmark
  • The Queen (Queen Margrethe II)
Jordan
  • Prince Hassan and Princess Sarvath
  • Prince Rashid (*)
  • Princess Badia
Liechtenstein
  • The Hereditary Prince and Princess (Hereditary Prince Alois and Hereditary Princess Sophie)
Monaco
  • Prince Albert II
The Netherlands
  • Princess Beatrix
Norway
  • The King and Queen (King Harald V and Queen Sonja)
  • Princess Astrid Mrs. Ferner
Spain
  • King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia
Sweden
  • The King and Queen (King Carl Gustaf XVI and Queen Silvia)
United Kingdom
  • The Princess Royal (Princess Anne)
  • The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester (Richard and Birgitte)
I am sure there will be many members of former reigning families in attendance as well. I hope to come back with more details over the weekend.

(*) Postscript 15 May 2019 at 21.25: Prince Rashid was on the original list, but didn't attend. For a more complete list of royals and others attending the funeral, please see Netty Royal or  Luxarazzi.

Updated on Wednesday 15 May 2019 at 21.25 (postscript added, typo corrected).

King of Thailand marries for the fourth time

The Royal Gazette of Thailand informed today, 1 May 2019, that King Maha Vajiralongkorn Bodindradebayavarangkun has «married General Suthida in accordance with laws and traditions» and that she is now to be known as Queen Suthida. The newspapers – Bangkok Post and The Nation – refers to the formerly Suhida Tidjai, born 3 June 1978, as «General Suthida Vajiralongkorn na Ayudhya».

Queen Suditha used to be a flight attendant for Thai Airways before she was appointed commander of the then Crown Prince Maha Vajiralongkorn’s household guard in August 2014. On 1 December 2016 she was appointed Commander of the Special Operations Unit of the King’s Guard and promoted to the rank of General. On 13 October 2017 she was named a Dame Grand Cross (First Class) of The Most Illustrious Order of Chula Chom Klao with the title Than Phu Ying.

The king was first married to Soamsawali Kitiyakara from 1977 to 1991, secondly to Yuvadhida Polpraserth from 1994 to 1996 and thirdly to Srirasmi Suwadee from 2001 to 2014. He has 7 children – 5 sons and 2 daughters – but has yet to announce his heir in accordance with the Palace Law of Succession Section 5, cf. the Constitution of Thailand Section 20.

The coronation of King Maha Vajiralongkorn (Rama X) takes place on 4 May 2019. Vajiralongkorn succeeded to the throne on 1 December 2016, upon proclamation following the death of his father, King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), on 13 October 2016.