UK: Title bonanza ... sort of

There has been som sort of a "title bonanza" (in the meaning "a large amount of something good", cf. Cambridge Dictionary) in the United Kingdom lately. Maybe I am stretching the expression a bit. But I thought the subject title would look rather cool with it, so I will stick to it.

I have been rather busy lately, among others I have paid visits to Egypt and the United States, so I have not been able to update my blog for some time. This article will provide a summary of recent title news in the United Kingdom.

1. Prince of Wales

A Letters Patent creating Prince William, Duke of Cornwall etc. Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester was published in The London Gazette on 24 February 2023:

Crown Office

In accordance with the direction of HIS MAJESTY THE KING Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 13th February 2023 for creating His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cornwall Rothesay and Cambridge, Earl of Carrick and Strathearn, Baron of Renfrew, Baron Carrickfergus, K.G., K.T., Lord of the Isles and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, PRINCE OF WALES and EARL OF CHESTER.

One can only wonder why it has taken so long to issue the Letters Patent, but better late than never, they say. In his first speech to the nation on 9 September 2022, the day after King Charles III succeeded to the throne, he let it be known that he had created his son Prince William Prince of Wales. The Letters Patent only formalized that decision, and the creation should be counted from 9 September 2022, not 24 February 2023. By the way, Marlene Koenig wrote a good historical summary of Letters patents and the Prince of Wales title on 6 February 2023, updated on 24 February 2023, in her blog Royal Musings.

2. Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet of Sussex

Last Thursday (9 March 2023) the spokesperson of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex issued a press statement informing that "that Princess Lilibet Diana was christened on Friday, March 3 by the Archbishop of Los Angeles, the Rev John Taylor". Leaving the fact that John Taylor is a bishop and not an archbishop for now, the titles for the Sussex children came as a surprise to most observers. The titles were confirmed by Buckingham Palace when the line of succesion was updated early on 9 March. What a mess the Palace and the Sussexes have created. First, such news should have come in a statement from Buckingham Palace, not from the Sussexes. According to The Telegraph, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had made it known to the royal family before Christmas that the children would take the royal titles. So why not give out the information then? Technically the Sussex children became Prince and Princess on 8 September 2022 in accordance with the Letters Patent of 30 November 1917. According to the same Letters Patent, "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms". But when Archie was born in May 2019 it was stated that the baby boy would be known as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor and, even if not expressed explicitly, not, by courtesy, as Earl of Dumbarton (Prince Harry's secondary title). Similarly, when Lilibet was born in June 2021, she was named Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor without "Lady" in front, whch technically was her right.

I have always wondered why the Duke and Duchess of Sussex made these decisions for their children at the time. It could be that they felt "snubbed" because the children were not gien royal titles right away just like the (younger) children of the current Prince and Princess of Wales (then Duke and Duchess of Cambridge), cf. the Letters Patent of 31 December 2012. We remember the infamous Oprah interview in March 2021 where the Duchess of Sussex commented on the title issue, and we were surprised (or maybe we shouldn't be) that she was so ill-informed. Of course Prince Harry should have known this and should have told her. But when reading his autobiography Spare I get the impression that Prince Harry don't/didn't know much about all the formalities surrounding the royal family and the monarchy, and that his father and the relevant court members have failed to communicate such formalities. I get the impression that the lack of communication within the British royal family is rather bad.

So, it seems that King Charles since his accession had let it be up to the Sussexes to decide on whether they should let their children use their rightfully royal titles or not. And now it has been decided and announced. Another statement from the Sussexes last Thursday said that "The children’s titles have been a birthright since their grandfather became monarch. This matter has been settled for some time in alignment with Buckingham Palace". The Palace should in my opinion have issued a statement and updated the official website much earlier. Maybe the Sussexes had feared that the king would issue a new Letters Patent restricting the titles for the members of the royal family and wanted to come ahead of such an issue. It would be more difficult for the king to make such a restriction now, but allegedly it has never been the king's intention to deprive them of the titles. All in all, it is just a communication mess. I get the birthright explanation and all, but when the children live in the United States and when the relationship with the British Royal Family is as it is, I wonder what they need the royal titles for. Obviously the titles will only be used in more formal settings.

3. Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar created Duke of Edinburgh

Buckingham Palace announced on 10 March 2023, which was the earl's 59th birthday, that Prince Edward had been created Duke of Edinburgh:

His Majesty The King has been pleased to confer the Dukedom of Edinburgh upon The Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex and Forfar, on the occasion of His Royal Highness’s 59th birthday.  

The title will be held by Prince Edward for His Royal Highness’s lifetime. 

The Dukedom was last created for Prince Philip in 1947, upon his marriage to Princess Elizabeth, who held the title of Duchess of Edinburgh before acceding to the throne in 1952.

The new Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh are proud to continue Prince Philip’s legacy of promoting opportunities for young people of all backgrounds to reach their full potential.

So finally Prince Edward got the ducal title as promised. I wrote about the title issue back in March 2019 when he was created Earl of Forfar, so I don't feel the need to repeat it here. But I must say that I am very  happy about the decision! The way the statement is phrased one gets the impression that Prince Edward has only been created Duke of Edinburgh for life, i.e. that the creation is not hereditary. We just have to wait and see how the Letters Patent, whenever it will be issued, is phrased before we know for sure. It could be that King Charles doesn't want the traditional royal ducal title to be carried by a commoner as will happen sooner or later to the ducal titles of Gloucester and Kent. Another question is whether the king is able to create a life peerage that is not a barony or not, cf. the Life Peerage Act (1958). Marlene Koenig has recently tweeted a link to a briefing on this question.

The Duke of Edinburgh's son James is now styled Earl of Wessex, while Louise continues t be styled [The] Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

UK: Second child for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex became parents to their second child on Friday 4 June 2021 at 11.40 a.m. when their daughter Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, California, USA. According to the press statement the baby girl will be called "Lili". The statement in full:

Statement from the press secretary for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter Lilibet "Lili" Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.

She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling at home.

Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.

This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.

As a daughter of a duke, the now 2-days-old girl is entitled to be styled Lady Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, but as when her brother was born, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have expressed their wish that their children should not use courtesy titles.

Lili was born as no. 8 in the line of succession to the British throne. She is the Prince of Wales' fifth grandchild and the 11th great-grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II.

UK: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will not be returning as working members of the royal family

Buckingham Palace issued the following statement yesterday, 19 February 2021:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have confirmed to Her Majesty The Queen that they will not be returning as working members of The Royal Family. 

Following conversations with The Duke, The Queen has written confirming that in stepping away from the work of The Royal Family it is not possible to continue with the responsibilities and duties that come with a life of public service. The honorary military appointments and Royal patronages held by The Duke and Duchess will therefore be returned to Her Majesty, before being redistributed among working members of The Royal Family. 

While all are saddened by their decision, The Duke and Duchess remain much loved members of the family.

In a note to the editors, Buckingham Palace added that 

Following The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s decision to step away last year as working members of The Royal Family, a 12-month review was agreed. A decision has now been made after conversations between The Duke of Sussex and Members of The Royal Family. The military, Commonwealth and Charitable associations which will revert to The Queen are:

    The Royal Marines, RAF Honington, Royal Navy Small Ships and Diving.

    The Queen's Commonwealth Trust, The Rugby Football Union, The Rugby Football  League, The Royal National Theatre and The Association of Commonwealth Universities.

The decision to step back as senior members of the British royal family was announced on 8 January 2020. Yesterday's statement informing the public that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who currently live in Los Angeles, USA, will not be returning as working members did not come as a surprise to anyone who has followed the developments during the last year. I still feel sad about the decision, but I both respect it and understand it well. It should be added, as Michael Rhodes of Peerage News has pointed out, we will most likely still on various occasions be seeing the Duke of Sussex in uniform. He can not wear those uniforms of the regiments of which he was honorary colonel or captain general, but he will retain the right to wear those of the regiments in which he served. 

Last Sunday (Valentine's Day) it was announced that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are expecting their second child later this year. Their first child, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, was born on 6 May 2019.

UK: New statements released concerning the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

The following statements were released in the evening of 18 January 2020 concerning the arrangements agreed on after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had expressed their wish to step back as senior members of the royal family.

Statement from HM The Queen

Following many months of conversations and more recent discussions, I am pleased that together we have found a constructive and supportive way forward for my grandson and his family.

Harry, Meghan and Archie will always be much loved members of my family.

I recognise the challenges they have experienced as a result of intense scrutiny over the last two years and support their wish for a more independent life.

I want to thank them for all their dedicated work across this country, the Commonwealth and beyond, and am particularly proud of how Meghan has so quickly become one of the family.

It is my whole family’s hope that today’s agreement allows them to start building a happy and peaceful new life.

Statement from Buckingham Palace

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.

As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from Royal duties, including official military appointments. They will no longer receive public funds for Royal duties. 

With The Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations. While they can no longer formally represent The Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.

The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.

Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly-funded security.

This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.

This means that some of the questions that arised after their «independence statement» was made public now have been answered. They will no longer be styled Royal Highnesses, and they intend to pay back the money which was used for the renovation of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home. Of course there are still unanswered questions. The future will tell what kind of roles the Sussexes will actually play and how they will become financially indepentent, i.e. not only having to rely on their combined private fortune. There will of course be people who will argue about the costs of security. But that is, as said in the statement, not for the royal family to decide. The Duke of Sussex should not be blamed if those in charge of security arrangements believe police protection is needed also in the future, whether in the United Kingdom or in Canada. That is part of the deal when you have a monarchy, plain and simple.

UK: Intense days

It has been intense days for everyone involved – members of the British royal family and court, the media and the royalty-watching community – since the Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced last week that they wished to «step back as senior members of the Royal Family».

Members of the royal family – the Queen, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and the Duke of Sussex – met on Monday this week to continue the discussions on finding solutions on how the more independent life for the Sussexes will look like. After the meeting the Royal Communications issued the following statement on behalf of Queen Elizabeth:

STATEMENT FROM HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Today my family had very constructive discussions on the future of my grandson and his family.

My family and I are entirely supportive of Harry and Meghan's desire to create a new life as a young family. Although we would have preferred them to remain full-time working Members of the Royal Family, we respect and understand their wish to live a more independent life as a family while remaining a valued part of my family.

Harry and Meghan have made clear that they do not want to be reliant on public funds in their new lives.

It has therefore been agreed that there will be a period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK.

These are complex matters for my family to resolve, and there is some more work to be done, but I have asked for final decisions to be reached in the coming days.

I have waited a bit before commenting on the developments. It has been many other events to write about since «the independence statement» was released, and I also thought it was a good idea to wait for more details. There was no reason to get carried away. As so often every newspaper claim to have sources close to the couple and to the other family members, and too many people seem to accept their stories as facts, especially if they fit their own views, and even if some of the stories seems very far out.

The media coverage and the discussions in the social media have been very intense and heated, and the Sussexes have received a lot of criticism, especially the Duchess, who has been labelled as the main villain. It seems to have become an established fact that the Sussexes didn't respect the Queen's request that they waited with making their decision public. It certainly showed poor judgment and disrespect to the Queen and other members of the family if that was the case. There might have been good reasons for making the decision public prematurely, but I can well understand the criticism on this point. I acknowledge how delicate the situation is, but I still feel the reactions to their decision to step back as senior members are far out of proportions. Allegations of «betrayal» etc. are really uncalled for. I also find many critical comments, especially in the social media, to be very one-sided.

I think Crown Prince Haakon of Norway put it so well when he earlier this week commented on «the Sussex drama»: – I think that everyone should «breathe with their stomach». And surely the will find good solutions.

Yes, I am personally both sad and disappointed about their decision. I think the Duke of Sussex has a great way of interacting and communicating with the public, and the Duchess and the Sussexes as a joint couple have made more than a promising start, even if there have been a few bumps in the way. One could of course have wished they waited this out a bit and that they would have overcome the challenges eventually. They clearly see it differently. And here we come to the very core: It is their life. They cannot be forced to live a life they are not happy about. In the end nothing would come out good for either parties – the royal family, the Sussexes and public. Yes, they live privileged lives, but they pay a high price for it, and they have found it to be too high and have decided for a different path.

Clearly there are complex issues to solve, and there are still many unanswered questions – about money, titles (which shouldn't be commercialised) and what kind of role they will play in the British society and abroad. Hopefully good solutions will be found.

The biggest question in my opinion is how the current and future senior members of the royal family will play their roles and how they will meet all the expectations. Most people had expected that the Sussexes would assist the Queen and her successors at least until the Cambridge kids were old enough to make engagements on their own. The number of working royals will in the future be lower, not only for natural reasons, but also because of the alleged decision to slim it down actively. How is this going to play out? The reduced number has to mean that the royal family cannot meet all the expectations and demands as today. Some changes are unavoidable, and the royals have to find their own way just like previous generations. I just hope that my reservations and feelings of uincertainty will prove me wrong.

Finally: Some people have wondered if it is now the time for the York princesses – despite the decisions of the Way Ahead Group that they should not be working royals – «to step up» to fill the gaps. But why would they wish to give up their rather independent lives now after so many years on the sideline?

UK: Duke and Duchess of Sussex to step back as senior members of the Royal Family

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex released today the following statement on their official website and Instagram account:

“After many months of reflection and internal discussions, we have chosen to make a transition this year in starting to carve out a progressive new role within this institution. We intend to step back as ‘senior’ members of the Royal Family, and work to become financially independent, while continuing to fully support Her Majesty The Queen. It is with your encouragement, particularly over the last few years, that we feel prepared to make this adjustment. We now plan to balance our time between the United Kingdom and North America, continuing to honour our duty to The Queen, the Commonwealth, and our patronages. This geographic balance will enable us to raise our son with an appreciation for the royal tradition into which he was born, while also providing our family with the space to focus on the next chapter, including the launch of our new charitable entity. We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, and all relevant parties. Until then, please accept our deepest thanks for your continued support.”

Their Royal Highnesses, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex

The statement comes after the couple had taken some time off in the fall of 2019. I feel both a bit surprised and a bit sad following the news. I personally feel they are a great asset to «the Firm». The couple's relationship with the public started so well, and they are in my opinion only partly to blame for the the developments and downfall in 2019. The Duchess especially has not been treated fairly by the press or in the social media.

Obviously it is too easy to say much at present about what the new role will actually mean. The couple will still make engagements on behalf of the Queen. But the statement becomes more clouded following the press release from the Royal Communications later tonight:

Stateement on discussions with the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

Discussions with The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are at an early stage. We understand their desire to take a different approach, but these are complicated issues that will take time to work through.

One easily get the impression that the couple had not consulted their family, or at least that the discussions were not completed, before the statement was released, and that the statement was thus premature. The couple writes, however, that «We look forward to sharing the full details of this exciting next step in due course, as we continue to collaborate with Her Majesty The Queen, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Cambridge, and all relevant parties.» [The italics are mine.] Either way it is of course easy to jump to conclusions, and one doesn't have to spend much time on Twitter to know that people are going into a frenzy over the news. It is perhaps a wise idea to step back for a while and wait for more details. In the end the «different approach» might bring positive changes for everyone involved. Time will show.

UK: Christening at Windsor

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (2 months old), the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, was christened in the Private Chapel at Windsor Castle today. The ceremony was conducted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.

There is nothing much to add, really.  3 days ago the media received a «Media advisory» informing that «The godparents, in keeping with their wishes, will remain private». In my opinion the Sussexes are still struggling with finding the right balance between their official role and their wish for privacy for their son. I am sure it will be sorted out eventually. Richard Palmer, royal correspondent of The Daily Express, claims that the Sussexes «are in breach of a legal requirement to make the names of Archie’s godparents available to the public». So maybe the names will be revealed later, some way or the other, just like with the place of Archie's birth.

After the christening two photos were released on Instagram. The family photo which was taken in the Green Drawing Room shows Duke and Duchess of Sussex sitting with their son Archie and with the Duchess of Cornwall on the left and the Duchess of Cambrigde on the right. Behind them were (from left to right) the Prince of Wales, Doria Ragland, Lady Jane Fellowes, Lady Sarah McCorquodale (the last two sisters of Diana, Princess of Wales) and the Duke of Cambridge.

The two photos were accompanied with a short text, which among others said:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are so happy to share the joy of this day with members of the public who have been incredibly supportive since the birth of their son. They thank you for your kindness in welcoming their first born and celebrating this special moment.

Their Royal Highnesses feel fortunate to have enjoyed this day with family and the godparents of Archie.

Their son, Archie, was baptised wearing the handmade replica of the royal christening gown which has been worn by royal infants for the last 11 years. The original Royal Christening Robe, made of fine Honiton lace lined with white satin, was commissioned by Queen Victoria in 1841 and first worn by her eldest daughter. It was subsequently worn for generations of Royal christenings, including The Queen, her children and her grandchildren until 2004, when The Queen commissioned this handmade replica, in order for the fragile historic outfit to be preserved, and for the tradition to continue.

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

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.

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.

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).

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?

UK: «Private birth plans»

We are getting closer to yet another royal birth in the United Kingdom – today it is exactly 6 months since the pregnancy was announed – and last Thursday Buckingham Palace released an «operational note» to the media facilities «ahead of the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's baby»:

«The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are very grateful for the goodwill they have received from people throughout the United Kingdom and around the world as they prepare to welcome their baby. Their Royal Highnesses have taken a personal decision to keep the plans around the arrival of their baby private. The Duke and Duchess look forward to sharing the exciting news with everyone once they have had an opportunity to celebrate privately as a new family.»

This means first of all that we will not know if the Duchess will give birth in a hospital or at home at Frogmore before the birth has taken place. Secondly, there will not be a photo call outside the Lindo Wing at the St. Mary's Hospital in London like after the births of the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

However, in the same operational note the media was also told that «Within a few days of the birth, the Duke and Duchess will take part in a photo call within the grounds of Windsor Castle». And furtheremore, the media has been informed that «A large fixed position for broadcasters and reporters will be facilitated on the Long Walk in Windsor. This will only become open for access once it has been announced that The Duchess is in labour. The facility will be operational from 6am until 11pm and for up to 72 hours after The Duchess has given birth».

So much for keeping the birth «secret». Of course the media – and far too many royalty watchers and «experts» – have worked themselves into a frenzy with screaming headlines about «break of protocol» and whatever. The Norwegian tabloid VG produced one of the most silly headlines ever: «Prins Harry og hertuginne Meghan vil holde fødselen hemmelig» («Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan is going to keep the birth a secret»). But then went on by saying that «Prinseparet vil vente med å kunngjøre at babyen er kommet til de selv har rukket å feire begivenheten privat», which more or less taken from the last sentence of the first quote above.

If only people could calm down for a minute or two ... or three. As the editor of the blog Peearage News, Michael Rhodes, has put it, «The idea that the Sussexes are breaking ‘protocol’ and ‘royal tradition’ by having a private royal birth is wrong. The hospital photo shoot is a modern move. The birth of the Queen’s children were private affairs. Edward wasn’t seen in public until he was 3 months old.» Rhodes later went on by writing that «If some people understood the difference in the words ‘private’ and ‘secret’ then the Duke & Duchess of Sussex would not be suffering from the barrage of criticism thrown at them by irrate Twitterers....and Press».  I couldn't have said it better myself.

I think the parents to be have made a wise decision. We will get the happy news soon enough anyway.

Many people have asked about possible royal titles for the Sussex baby. As no press release concerning a Letters Patent has been given yet, I think we can safely assume that the Sussex baby will not become a Prince or Princess. This means that the baby, if a girl, will be styled Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, while a boy by courtesy will be styled Earl of Dumbarton, which is the Duke of Sussex's second (lesser grade) title.

For the record, when I commented on the title issue back in October, I didn't make any predictions on what the Queen would decide. I only wrote what I personally thought would be the best solution. The number of «working royals» are bound to drop for natural reasons in the years to come, so in that regard it would be wise to give a royal title to the Sussex baby as well. Many have argued that the Letters Patent published in January 2013 signalled that only the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would be Prince or Princess. In other words, the LP would have been worded differently if all possible grandchildren of the Prince of Wales were to receive a royal title.

That is a reasonable argument. However, there is nothing that could have stopped the Queen from changing her mind some time in the future if she saw it necessary. At the time Prince Harry had not settled down anyway. There are good arguments for limiting the number of Princes and Princesses, but there are in my opinion equally good reasons for including the Sussex baby.

As it stands today, the future Sussex baby, whether it be Earl of Dumbarton or Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, will in accordance with the terms of the Letters Patent of 30 November 1917 become Prince or Princess when the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne. But it is not unreasonable to expect that the Letters Patent in due time will be modified to reduce the number of potential princes and princesses, or that the monarch in some form or another will «let it be known» that the Sussex baby will continue using «the birth title» under the new reign even without a changed LP. We will obviously know sooner or later.

Updated on Monday 6 May 2017 at 22.00 (orthographic mistake corrected).

UK: Buckingham Palace issues Social Media Community Guidelines

On 4 March 2019 Buckingham Palace issued the following press statement concerning the new «Social Media Community Guidelines»:

These guidelines are in place to help create a safe environment on all social media channels run by The Royal Family, Clarence House and Kensington Palace.

The aim of our social media channels is to create an environment where our community can engage safely in debate and is free to make comments, questions and suggestions.

We ask that anyone engaging with our social media channels shows courtesy, kindness and respect for all other members of our social media communities.

In order to help create this safe environment we have set out some guidelines which apply to any engagement with us or other members of the community on any of our social media channels.

By engaging with our social media channels you agree to follow these guidelines.

Comments must not:

• Contain spam, be defamatory of any person, deceive others, be obscene, offensive, threatening, abusive, hateful, inflammatory or promote sexually explicit material or violence.
• Promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age.
• Breach any of the terms of any of the social media platforms themselves.
• Be off-topic, irrelevant or unintelligible.
• Contain any advertising or promote any services.

Breach of guidelines

We reserve the right to determine, at our discretion, whether contributions to our social media channels breach our guidelines. We reserve the right to hide or delete comments made on our channels, as well as block users who do not follow these guidelines.

We also reserve the right to send any comments we deem appropriate to law enforcement authorities for investigation as we feel necessary or is required by law.

The Telegraph explains the new formal guidelines with the «escalating abuse of the Duchesses of Cambridge and Sussex» in social media, and adds that «On Twitter and Instagram, the comments section has regularly descended into abuse of both Duchesses, with the Duchess of Sussex subjected to racist comments on top of the sexist and offensive words aimed at both her and the Duchess of Cambridge.»

The Telegraph also refers to the ongoing «war» between the «supporters» of the two duchesses. I have noted that many Boardhost forum regulars and others have also been dragged into this conflict. I am happy to stay out of it! Another matter is how this «Sussex vs. Cambridge war» goes against the very concept of monarchy. Many of the «warriors» seem to have a very shallow understanding of monarchy, monarchism and the roles of the royals.

I don't think the lack of formal guidelines would have stopped the British Royal Court from blocking or reporting offensive postings, but at least from now on the trolls and haters can not claim that they have not been warned!

UK: Sussex pregnancy

Kensington Palace issued the following press statement this morning:

Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are very pleased to announce that The Duchess of Sussex is expecting a baby in the Spring of 2019.

Their Royal Highnesses have appreciated all of the support they have received from people around the world since their wedding in May and are delighted to be able to share this happy news with the public.

This was the text which was released from the official Twitter account. But according to The Telegraph and other newspapers, the statement also said that:

The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, and Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted for the couple.

Ms Doria Ragland is very happy about the lovely news and she looks forward to welcoming her first grandchild.

The happy news was published first today in order not to overshadow the York Brooksbank wedding on Friday, and the public was informed shortly after the expecting couple had landed in Sydney, Australia. In the next 16 days the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are going to carry out 76 engagements in Australia, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand.

According to The Telegraph, «A source said the Royal family were told the news on Friday at the wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, and were able to congratulate the couple there in person.»

The decision to tell the happy news to family and friends at the royal wedding on Friday has obviously caused some critical comments in various social media. I prefer to focus on more important and interesting aspects, such as constitutional matters.

The baby will be born into the world as no. 7 in the line of succession to the British throne, after his or her father, and before Prince Harry's uncle the Duke of York. It will also mean that the Earl of Wessex will no longer be included in the top ten list.

As many newspapers and royalty watchers have commented on already, the baby will not be titled Prince or Princess with the style of Royal Highness unless the Queen decides otherwise. This is in accordance with the Letters Patent of 30 November 1917, which said:

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 30th ultimo, to define the styles and titles to be borne henceforth by members of the Royal Family. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour; that save as aforesaid the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes.

(London Gazette, issue 30428, Dec. 14, 1917, p. 2.) 

On 31 December 2012, the Queen decided by Letters Patent that «all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.» (Published in The Official Gazette on 8 January 2013).  If this decision had not been made, Princess Charlotte would have been styled Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and Prince Louis Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.

In other words, the baby, if a girl, will be styled Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, while a boy will by courtesy be styled Earl of Dumbarton, which is the Duke of Sussex's second (lesser grade) title. But as already mentioned, the Queen could decide to issue a Letters Patent equal to the one published in 2013. In my opinion, that would be the best way forward, as the child would eventually, unless the Letters Patent of 1917 is changed in the meantime or the Sussex decides on something similar  to the Wessex solution*, be upgrated to Prince or Princess as soon as the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne. The baby would then of course be a grandchild of the monarch.

But one thing is my private opinion, which really doesn't matter that much, another is what the Queen decides. Many people have argued that the Letters Patent of 1917 should be changed in order to reduce the number of royals (i.e. royal princes and princesses). But I would question the necessity, as the current number is bound to drop when the oldest generation dies out anyway. There are limits to how small the number of working royals can be, considering the relatively large British population and all the Commonweatlh countries where the British monarch serves as head of state. Even if the role of the monarch and the royal family is changed, they will still be on demand to carry out many engagements.

Therefore I personally think it is a pity that Princess Beatrix and Princess Eugenie of York, as it appears today, have not been asked to become working royals. I am sure they would do a great job. With the York princesses out of the question, the number of working royals could some time in the future be limited to William, Catherine and their 3 children as well as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Having the latter's child or children on board as well would in my opinion be an advantage. It will be interesting to see what the current and future monarch finally decide.

Another matter is of course that the Letters Patent of 1917 some time in the future has to be brought into (better) agreement with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

* «On June 19, 1999, at the time of Prince Edward's wedding, it was announced that The Queen had decided, with the agreement of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children of their marriage should not be given the style of His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.» The children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex are therefore styled Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn.

Updated on Tuesday 16 October 2018 at 22.45 (I wrote from the future baby's point of view and managed to write that the Duke of York was Prince Harry's great uncle while in fact he is of course his uncle. The typical mistake one makes when one think one thing and write something else ...).

Coat of arms of HRH The Duchess of Sussex

Buckingham Palace announced today the coat of arms of HRH The Duchess of Sussex, formerly Meghan Markle, wife since Saturday 19 May 2018 of HRH The Duke of Sussex (Prince Harry).

The press release said in full:

A Coat of Arms has been created for The Duchess of Sussex. The design of the Arms was agreed and approved by Her Majesty The Queen and Mr. Thomas Woodcock (Garter King of Arms and Senior Herald in England), who is based at the College of Arms in London.

Her Royal Highness worked closely with the College of Arms throughout the design process to create a Coat of Arms that was both personal and representative.

The blue background of the shield represents the Pacific Ocean off the California coast, while the two golden rays across the shield are symbolic of the sunshine of The Duchess's home state. The three quills represent communication and the power of words.

Beneath the shield on the grass sits a collection of golden poppies, California's state flower, and wintersweet, which grows at Kensington Palace.
It is customary for Supporters of the shield to be assigned to Members of the Royal Family, and for wives of Members of the Royal Family to have one of their husband’s Supporters and one relating to themselves. The Supporter relating to The Duchess of Sussex is a songbird with wings elevated as if flying and an open beak, which with the quill represents the power of communication.

A Coronet has also been assigned to The Duchess of Sussex. It is the Coronet laid down by a Royal Warrant of 1917 for the sons and daughters of the Heir Apparent. It is composed of two crosses patée, four fleurs-de-lys and two strawberry leaves.

The arms of a married woman are shown with those of her husband and the technical term is that they are impaled, meaning placed side by side in the same shield.

Mr. Thomas Woodcock, Garter King of Arms said: "The Duchess of Sussex took a great interest in the design. Good heraldic design is nearly always simple and the Arms of The Duchess of Sussex stand well beside the historic beauty of the quartered British Royal Arms. Heraldry as a means of identification has flourished in Europe for almost nine hundred years and is associated with both individual people and great corporate bodies such as Cities, Universities and for instance the Livery Companies in the City of London."

The heraldic artist is, cf. the signature,  Robert John Parsons. The College of Arms will most certainly give the blazon (description) of the arms later on.

Maternal family of HRH The Duchess of Sussex

The day before HRH The Duke of Sussex (Prince Harry) married Meghan Markle, the American genealogist Christopher C. Child published the article «Meghan Markle's maternal family» in Vita Brevis, the blog of the New England Historic Genealogical Society.

In the blog article Child shows Meghan's matrilineal ancestry back to a Millie Jones, who was born in Georgia around 1815 and appeared last time in the national census of 1880, then living at Smiths in Hart County, Georgia.

Concerning Meghan's first marriage to Trevor Engelson, Child writes that they married at Ocho Rios, Jamaica on 10 September 2011.

His source is the Wikipedia article about the duchess. While there is no doubt that the wedding was celebrated in Jamaica, genealogists would normally focus on the legal marriage, which seems to have taken place in Los Angeles, USA. In his book Meghan: A Hollywood Princess, 2018 (Kindle Edition, Loc 1329), Andrew Morton writes:

With the ocean as backdrop, the couple recited vows they had written themselves [...] Though the couple had officially married in Los Angeles in a brief civil ceremony, this was the real celebration for family and friends, [...]

In other words, the legal marriage took place earlier than 10 September 2011. I suspect, however, that Child already knows this. In the third paragraph of his article, he stresses that «The lineage should be considered preliminary, as I have ordered several additional twentieth-century records that might lead to corrections or additions to the facts below.» He might have ordered twentyfirst-century records as well?

Postscript 26 May 2018 at 19:25: My article above was cut short because I had to prepare for a meeting. I had intended to comment on Andrew Morton's sources before signing off. Sources for the claim that the couple married in a civil ceremony in Los Angeles are not explicitly given. In the Acknoweledgement section the author refers to among others certain family members and friends, some by name, some unidentified. The way the ceremony at Ocho Rios was described, however, it seems quite plausible that the couple was already legally married before entering the island. I wonder, though, if documentation of the civil wedding in LA, is available, or do we have to wait some time before such details are released?

Updated on Saturday 26 May 2018 at 19:25 (postscript added).

UK: Sussex wedding

HRH The Duke of Sussex, younger son of the Prince of Wales and the late Diana, Princess of Wales, married at St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 19 May 2018 Rachel Meghan Markle, daugher of Thomas Markle and Doria Ragland. I was away for the weekend, so I could not post my observations before now.

From a constitutional and genealogical point of view, and that is usually what I focus on, there is not much to write about. The engagement was announced on 27 November 2017 and the Queen expressed that she was «delighted» for the couple. The formal declaration of consent was given on 14 March 2018. From the Court Circular of 19 May we learn that «The Marriage of Prince Henry of with Ms. Meghan Markle was solemnized in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, today».

In the Court Circular the Duke of Sussex was still referred to as Prince Henry of Wales.  Earlier the same day the following announcement was given:

Prince Harry and Ms. Meghan Markle: Announcement of Titles

Published 19 May 2018

The Queen has today been pleased to confer a Dukedom on Prince Henry of Wales.  His titles will be Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel.

Prince Harry thus becomes His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex, and Ms. Meghan Markle on marriage will become Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.

The title «Duke of Sussex» was for unknown reasons always the favourite of the bookmakers and they got it right this time, just like in 2011 when the Queen conferred on Prince William the title «Duke of Cambridge». Harry's new title was created for the first time in 1801 for Prince Augustus Frederick, the sixth son and ninth child of King George III and Queen Charlotte. The prince married twice in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act (the first time before the title creation), so there never was a Duchess of Sussex. Meghan has thus become the first one. And of course, Prince Harry has become the 2nd Duke (1st Duke of the 2nd creation).
 https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/997736471154122752
So, when the constitutional aspects have been touched upon, as well as basic genealogical facts of the marriage, I could move on to the guest list. But as far as I know such a list has not been released. In the Court Circular we only learn, following the sentence of the solemnization:

The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh, with The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall and other Members of the Royal Family, arrived at St. George's Chapel and were received at the Galilee Porch by the Dean and Chapter of Windsor.

Prince Henry of Wales, with The Duke of Cambridge, was received at the West Door by the Dean and Chapter of Windsor and Their Royal Highnesses were conducted to the Bray Chapel.

Ms. Meghan Markle drove to St. George's Chapel and was received at the West Door by the Dean of Windsor.

The Service was performed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assisted by the Dean of Windsor.

At the conclusion of the Service the Registers were signed in the Ambulatory.

The Bride and Bridegroom drove to Windsor Castle in an Ascot Landau, processed through the town of Windsor and returned to the Castle where The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a Reception in their honour.

And that is not much to go by. Of course I watched the whole broadcast and as far as I know all the members of the British Royal Family were present except for Prince Louis of Cambridge, who was born earlier this year. Prince Philip, who will be 97 next month, had a hip operation earlier this year, but still walked without crutches. Very impressive.

Members of  Prince Harry's mother's side were of course also present. From the bride's family only her mother Doria Ragland was in attendance. Two days before the wedding Kensington Palace confirmed that Meghan's father, Thomas Markle, would not attend, and his health problems was given as an explanation. It had earlier been revealed that he had  had posed for staged photos with a paparazzi photographer and the embarrassment of it all might have made him feel too uncomfortable to attend. One can only feel sorry both for Meghan as well as for her father. She clearly wanted both her parents present for her wedding. Instead of her father, Ms. markle was accompanied to the altar by the Prince of Wales.

It appears that Meghan has had little or no contact with her half-brother Thomas Markle and Samantha Grant and their families for many years. They have created quite a few headlines before and after the engagement was announced, so it is not difficult to understand that they were not invited. That no uncles and aunts or other family members were invited was perhaps more surprising. It might say something about Meghan's priorities regarding family, but then again one should be careful not to jump to conclusions. She surely has her reasons.

The only royals who attended the royal wedding besides the members of the British Royal Family were Prince Seeiso and Princess Mabereng of Lesotho. Prince Harry has known Prince Seeiso, who is the youngest brother of King Letsie III of Lesotho, for many years. In 2006 the two princes founded Sentebale, a charity that «supports the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people affected by HIV in Lesotho and Botswana,» to quote the charity's own website. Prince Harry has had little personal contact with members of the European royal family, which probably explains to some extent why no-one was invited. Of course he is only the younger son of the Prince of Wales and thus not in the direct line to inherit the throne, so his wedding could not be as grand as his brother's was. But I still felt something was missing. We already knew that no politicians would attend, but I still find it strange that the 6th in line of succession did not even invite the prime minister. One former prime minister attended, though – John Major – apparently because he following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales had played the role as guardian to Prince William and Prince Harry, being responsible for legal and administrative matters.

Instead of royals and representatives of the official UK, Harry and Meghan had invited representatives of charities and organisations Harry has endorsed as well as a long and impressive list of celebrities, including Oprah Winfrey, Idris Elba, George Clooney and his wife Amal Alamuddin,  David and Victoria Beckham and Elton John and his husband David Furnish, to mention a few.

It was a great and enjoyable wedding ceremony, though. The couple looked a bit nervous, but very much happy and in love, the weather was great and the church was beautifully decorated. So much could be said about the dresses and the hats. Oh, the hats! But I will leave it at that. The ceremony had many highlights, including the introit, the hymns and the song «Stand by me» performed by Karen Gibson and the Kingdom Choir. Not to mention the address by the American Bishop Michael Curry, the presiding bishop and primate of the Episcopal Church. How he could preach! The full text of his address can be read here, while the order of service is available here.

The service was lead by the Dean of Windsor, David Conner, while the marriage was solemnized by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby.

Postscript Tuesday 22 May 2018 at 23.35: When commenting on non-British royals attending the wedding last Saturday, I obviously focused on reigning families. That is why I only mentioned the princely couple of Lesotho. But there were members of former reigning families and/or «Gotha members», including Princess Xenia of Hohenlohe-Langenburg (a grand niece of Prince Philip and thus Prince Harry's second cousin) and Hereditary Prince Franz-Albrecht and Hereditary Princess Cleopatra of Oettingen-Spielberg (others would have to enlighten me concerning the motivation for inviting them – they certainly are not close relatives of Prince Harry, but obviously have learnt to know eachother somehow).

Besides the family members, representatives of charities and organisations and the celebrities – I could have mentioned many more than I did – there were of course also many friends of the couple in attendance, including Meghan's colleagues from the TV series Suits. I decided to give only a few examples. No full guest list has been released, but Netty Leistra and other contributors have assembled a survey in the guestlist section at the forum Nobiliana. Please go there if you want more names and details!

Updated last time on Tuesday 22 May 2018 at 23.35 (postscript added).