by The Laird o’Thistle
March 8, 2021

There is plenty of uproar in the worldwide media today over the interview of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast last night in the U.S. While I have no intention of wading into any issues and allegations involved in the interview, there are some factual bits concerning honorifics and titles that may be helpful in sorting out what was said.

One of the headline grabbers today has been about young Archie not being a “Prince” or an HRH. That is true. But, that is because of some royal streamlining rules put in place as long ago as 1917, during the reign of the Queen’s grandfather, King George V.

According to those rules, the honorific of being “His/Her Royal Highness” by birth, and the title “Prince” or “Princess” (of Wales, Cambridge, York, Kent, etc.), pertains to the children and grandchildren of the sovereign “in the male line.” While a special exception has been granted for three of the Queen’s great-grandchildren – Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis – that is specifically because they are the children of the heir’s heir in direct succession… that is, because their father will one day be King… as someday will Prince George, assuming that the monarchy continues.

The Duke of Sussex is the Queen’s grandson, via Prince Charles, and thus automatically an HRH (though not currently using the honorific) and a Prince. His children are not yet grandchildren of the sovereign, and thus not automatically entitled [sic] to be HRH or Prince/Princess. When Prince Charles eventually becomes King, they too will automatically become HRHs and Prince and Princess of Sussex… unless they choose to not assume the status, as has been the choice of Prince Edward for his family.

In looking at other members of the current royal family, among the Queen’s other grandchildren (besides William and Harry), only Beatrice and Eugenie are titled “HRH” and “Princess” – statuses their father insists they retain. Princess Eugenie’s new son, however, is simply August Brooksbank with no other title. As noted, Prince Edward’s children… though entitled to do so… are more simply James, Viscount Severn (more on courtesy titles in a moment) and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. Princess Anne’s children, under the old “male-line” rule and at her insistence years ago, have no royal titles. The late Princess Margaret’s children, the Earl of Snowdon and Lady Sarah Chatto, are not royal either. Their titles derive from the one granted to their late father.

The other “HRH” Princes and Princess by birth are Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester), Prince Edward (Duke of Kent), Prince Michael of Kent, and Princess Alexandra (Lady Ogilvy). They are all grandchildren of George V, through their fathers. None of their children or descendants are of “royal” status. The descendants of George V’s daughter, Princess Mary (Countess of Harewood), have no royal status.

The other somewhat confusing issue in play is that of courtesy titles. The custom is that when a Peer holds several titles, their direct line heir can their secondary titles (etc.) as a courtesy title. That is why the son of Prince Edward, who is Earl of Wessex, is called Viscount Severn… Edward’s secondary title. The best known instance is the current Earl of Snowdon, who was known as Viscount Linley from the day of his birth up until his father’s death in 2017. Similarly, the Duke of Gloucester’s son is the Earl of Ulster; and the Duke of Kent’s eldest is the Earl of St. Andrews.

As Duke of Sussex, Prince Harry and Meghan’s son Archie already has every right to be known as the Earl of Dumbarton, Harry’s secondary title. Every indication has been that it has been their choice to not do so, and for him to simply be known as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

So, while there is certainly a case to be made for a revision of the rule concerning who is or isn’t an “HRH” and “Prince” or “Princess” by birth – especially in regard to the restriction to the “male line” – the issue with the Sussexes is not one of being denied something, but of not being granted an exception as was done for Prince William’s children. And, it may be argued that the rationale that exists for the young Cambridges does not exist for the young Sussexes… especially given Prince Charles’s long-expressed intention (well before the Sussex wedding) to “downsize” the working royal family when he succeeds as King.

As for the tangentially related issue of extending official police protection to the Queen’s grandchildren and their families, the rule of thumb is that it applies to “working” members of the Royal Family, and extends to the family of immediate heirs such as the Cambridge children. Until leaving the UK, Harry was covered… unlike his first cousins Beatrice, Eugenie, and so on. (Long-time Royal watchers will recall the vocal protestations raised by Prince Andrew when protection was withdrawn from Beatrice and Eugenie in 2011.) Those to whom government-funded protection does not apply have to make private arrangements, sometimes with the financial assistance of other family members.

Yours aye,

Ken Cuthbertson – The Laird o’ Thistle

March 8, 2021

Postscript: After completing the column, it occurred to me that in 1948 an earlier exception to the “male line” rule had to be made by King George VI, for the children of Princess Elizabeth and Prince Philip, granting the status of “HRH” and the style of “Prince or Princess” to their children, in anticipation of the birth of Prince Charles. It applied for both Prince Charles and Princess Anne at their births. Otherwise they would have been known as the Earl of Merioneth and Lady Anne Mountbatten.

Embed from Getty Images 

May 9, 2020

Many will not have noticed, maybe most, but when #230873 Second Subaltern Elizabeth Windsor of the Auxiliary Territorial Service (ATS) addressed the people of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, and the world last night, her old ATS cap was sitting on the desk beside her. I did notice, and it… above anything else… is what brought a tear to my eye and a lump to my throat.

It’s no secret that Queen Elizabeth II adored her father, King George VI, and deeply reveres his memory. So it was no surprise that last night she spoke first of her father, having in fact begun with a film clip of his speech on May 8, 1945… a clip that reminded listeners how, still, at the war’s end, he struggled with his speech impediment. Across the 68 years of her reign, the Queen’s priorities have been the extension of his, especially in regard to the Commonwealth. Back in the royal family’s televised 2016 birthday tribute to her, ELIZABETH AT 90, the Queen’s beloved late cousin, Margaret Rhodes, said that she would like to tell the Queen, “How very proud the King would be of her….” Those words bear repeating after last night’s speech.

Queen Elizabeth also shared memories not just of that day, and that famous V-E night, but of the years of determination and united effort of all the British people, and their Allies, to prevail against Hitler, and to build a new world of renewed justice, freedom, and peace. In listening, it struck me how deeply ingrained that vision is in her, and in her generation. She spoke, too, of how the current generation’s coming together in the struggle against the pandemic shows that they are still of the stuff of the WWII heroes.

It goes without saying… but also needs saying… that Elizabeth Windsor is the only person on earth who could have made last night’s speech. The famous pictures of her, with her parents, Churchill, and Princess Margaret, on the balcony of Buckingham Palace on May 8, 1945, bring that home. She’s the one who is not only still living, and standing, but still serving… at age 94. And that, I think, is what that unremarked ATS cap on the desk was intended to remind us of, quietly.

I am 30 years younger than the Queen, but for myself and members of my generation, I think that when we hear the phrase “the War” we still first assume that the reference is to World War II. But, we also know that year-by-year the memories of that struggle grow dimmer, as that generation quickly passes.

In a way, I suspect that the Queen’s V-E 75 speech will serve as a sort of valediction… a “farewell” address… for the World II generation. And I, for one, can think of nothing better.

Yours aye,
Ken Cuthbertson
The Laird o’ Thistle

by The Laird o’Thistle
January 22, 2020

I was asked by my friends at Unofficial Royalty to share some thoughts on the changes in role and status for Prince Harry and Meghan, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.  Like many, I was caught off guard by the sudden “crisis” with which the British royal family has begun the year, but in a way I think we should not have been very surprised at all.  The signs of a different tack have been emerging ever since the Sussexes engagement. And, while I have my concerns, I think something more important is afoot, something that has dogged the royal family for several generations.

The basic issue has, I think, been rightly framed as to who is a “working royal” and who is not?  And, if one is a “working royal” what does that entail? With the Sussex decision… as sorted out by the Queen, Prince Charles, Prince William, and Harry at their Sandringham gathering on January 13… there is now the outline of a pragmatic “in, or out” model for the future.  To see this, though, I think it is important to look to another relatively recent episode of royal family life involving the Queen’s youngest son, Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex.

In several ways, Prince Edward and his now wife Sophie were trailblazers for the royal family.  The days when Edward left the Royal Marines to work in theatre now seem like the rather distant past, but at the time they were also seen as a crisis for the royals, a crisis “spun” by the media to their own advantage.  As Edward moved into his new life and work – moving toward becoming a producer of television documentaries, etc. – he also acquired a life-partner, Sophie Rhys Jones, with a career of her own in public relations. At the time, both intended to pursue their private careers, but ultimately… after several spectacular bumps along the way… found that a hybrid royal/private arrangement was unworkable.  And, so, they made the choice to be full-time working royals, supporting the Queen. In the years since, they have proved themselves to be solid and dependable members of “The Firm” and, with their children, they have also grown personally close to the Queen and Prince Philip from their Windsor home. That, I see, as “Model A” of royal/private adaptation. They are the “In” model.

What I see emerging for Harry and Meghan is “Model B” of royal/private adaptation.  They are pursuing the “Out” model… giving up the use of their HRH status, giving up other official roles, including Harry’s military roles, and so on.  (Giving up the Royal Marines role he took on from Prince Philip must be particularly poignant for both Harry and Philip.) For them this is facilitated by, for a time at least, living abroad in Canada for much of the time.  It currently seems that this is a more radical step than Harry himself wished, but it makes good institutional sense… especially as the House of Windsor, and other monarchies, move on from older gender-based models of who is “in” and “out” over time.  (As in Princess Margaret’s and Princess Anne’s “non-royal” children.)

What, I hope, is ultimately ended by this is the sort of hybrid model that has proved so troublesome across the generations of British and other monarchies.  The unfortunate example of the Duke of York, and his unrealistic hopes for his daughters, provides the current case-in-point. Ever since he left the Royal Navy, Andrew’s status has been problematic.  Without even taking up the whole Epstein Scandal, Prince Andrew’s penchant for hobnobbing with dodgy oligarchs, allegedly with some private dealings on the side, has tainted him. His further insistence on pushing the “royal” status of his daughters, who are never going to be true “working royals” in The Firm, is not only problematic for his relationship with his elder brother, but also unfair to Beatrice and Eugenie.  Edward and Sophie recognized that for their own offspring, Louise and James, long since. Harry and Meghan also realized that from the get-go with wee Archie.

In the future, then, what I foresee is a stronger delineation between being a “working royal” on the one hand, and a private member of the extended “royal family” on the other, and it may fall to personal choice as to which route a young royal (other than the “heir” him- or herself) takes.  It may be that someday, down the way, young Charlotte opts for “In” while Louis opts for “Out”, or vice versa.  Time will tell.

This, I think, is the substantive piece of the Sussex drama of the last few weeks.  At the personal level, concerning the choices made by them, I admit to being puzzled, and somewhat concerned.  What particularly strikes me is how… whatever the merit, or not, of doing so… first Meghan distanced herself from her father and half-siblings, and now Harry is rather distancing himself from his father and brother in particular.  I find that puzzling and worrisome. But, in their stepping back publicly, it also seems to be none of the public’s business. (Although, inevitably, they will still be in the public eye.) I just hope that in moving onward they do so with discretion and wisdom, for their own sake and for that of the Mountbatten-Windsor clan.

Yours aye,

Ken Cuthbertson

by The Laird o’Thistle
December 22, 2018

I’ve not written anything in this series for ages, but I have been pondering of late. Some years back I was lucky enough to start working on my own family history while a number of older relatives were still living, people who personally knew and remembered relatives who had been dead for fifty, sixty, seventy, and even eighty years. They proved to be invaluable sources in moving beyond the facts to a sense of personalities and lifestyles of earlier generations. And, I did it “just in the nick” of time, since almost all of them have since passed on.

That has made me wonder what, given the chance, I would ask the Queen? In the wonderful birthday documentary “Elizabeth at 90” (2016), she shared a number of illuminating and humorous memories of the Strathmore family, but not much on the Windsors. There is, nonetheless, a lot of personal knowledge of the British royal family that she carries with her, and people she remembers that virtually no one else now does. In several cases, she is, quite literally, the last living person who knew them. This is especially true since the death of her deeply beloved “second sister” Margaret Rhodes, just over two years ago.

So, although she is famously averse to being interviewed if I were able to sit down and ask Her Majesty a few key questions, here is what I would most want to know:

1. What are some of your own memories of your grandfather, King George V?

2. As one of the youngest participants, what do you recall of the 1935 Silver Jubilee?

3. An old newsreel shows you following the rest of the royal family into St. George’s Chapel at Windsor for George V’s funeral (1936). What do you recall from that day?

4. Do you have particular memories of King George V’s sisters, Princess Louise (d. 1931), Princess Victoria (d. 1935), and Queen Maud (d. 1938)?

5. Your life also overlaps three of Queen Victoria’s children: Princess Louise (d. 1939), the Duke of Connaught (d. 1942), and Princess Beatrice (d. 1944). What impressions of them remain with you?

6. What sort of childhood memories do you have of your uncle, the Duke of Windsor, from before the Abdication Crisis?

7. You were sixteen when the Duke of Kent was killed in the war (1942), nearly a decade older than his children. Are there particular impressions and memories you have of him?

8. One of the famous stories of your grandmother, Queen Mary, is about her insistence on coming immediately to “kiss your hand” upon your return to London at the time of your father’s death in 1952. Might you be willing to tell us something about that call?

I don’t expect to ever get the chance to ask these things. I can hope and wish, though, that someone might get a chance to do some such… even if the current public never sees it until fifty or sixty years hence. What a treasure it would be, for historians and for history itself. It is the sort of information that makes it come alive.

A blessed Christmas and a “Guid New Year” to all!

Ken Cuthbertson

by The Laird o’ Thistle
November 28, 2016

The Queen’s cousin, who was almost a second sister to her, died this last weekend at age 91. Margaret Rhodes was, simply, the last of the HM’s truly lifelong companions. Descended from two historic Scottish families (Elphinstone and Bowes-Lyon), she was a niece of the late Queen Mother, and a goddaughter of the Queen’s father, King George VI. She was ten months older than HM. As children, the cousins galloped and played horses together, and enjoyed other mad games with family and friends. When WWII broke out in 1939, Cousin Margaret stayed on with the two Princesses – Elizabeth and Margaret Rose – safely tucked away at Balmoral until nearly Christmas, when it was at last deemed safe for the girls to rejoin their families. As the war proceeded and the girls became older, Margaret Elphinstone came down from Scotland to live at Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, and to do her bit… eventually becoming a secretary for MI6. Her memories included going to shelter with the King, Queen, and Princesses during air raids. She was a principal member of the party on the famous “night out” for Elizabeth and Margaret, with the crowds on VE Day. She was a bridesmaid at Princess Elizabeth’s marriage to Prince Philip in 1947.

In later years she went on to marry, raise a family, and have many adventures. But she always remained close to her aunt and cousins… entertaining them at her home in Devon, and joining them regularly at Balmoral. In 1981 she and her terminally ill husband moved to a house on the Windsor Castle estate, where he would be closer to medical treatment. After his death, she became a member of the Queen Mother’s household, companioning and serving her aunt until her death. She sat with the Queen at the Queen Mother’s bedside during the latter’s final hours. In the years since the two cousins continued to spend time together, both on holiday together at Balmoral and in regular Sunday visits, after church in the little chapel next to Royal Lodge, when the Queen would stop in for a cuppa and a chat. It is reported that HM visited her cousin during her final illness.

Second, only to Prince Philip, Mrs. Rhodes has been the “nearest living relation” of Queen Elizabeth II over these last fifteen years since the deaths of the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret. Although the Queen has a good relationship with her Windsor cousins (the Kents and the Duke of Gloucester) they are not nearly as close, nor are they quite her peers in age. The impact of this death on HM will doubtless be significant, even as the monarch’s legendary self-discipline will, again, without doubt, keep her determinedly “carrying on” in her duties as long as she is able. Thankfully, she does still have Prince Philip, her “rock and stay”, at her side.

In her 2011 memoir, The Final Curtsey, Margaret Rhodes made it clear that she… like the Queen… was a person of faith. She looked forward, she said, to the next “great adventure” that lies beyond. With that in mind, there seems no better way to end this particular column than with words from the final verse of Henry Baker’s beloved old paraphrase of Psalm 23:

And so through all the length of days
Thy goodness faileth never;
Good shepherd, may I sing thy praise
Within thy house forever.

Yours aye,
Ken Cuthbertson

by The Laird o’ Thistle
November 19, 2016

It has been some time since I wrote, not since before the Queen surpassed her great-great-grandmother to become the longest reigning monarch in British history, and before she surpassed the personal milestone of her 90th birthday. Coverage of these and other royal events in Britain has been well handled, and I really have not seen what I might usefully add to the mix. That said, there is something that I would like to point out about the upcoming twelve months.

On Sunday, 20 November, Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip observe their 69th wedding anniversary, beginning their 70th year of marriage. From that mark, beginning in December 2016, there are a significant number of British royal milestones coming up in the next year. There is a centenary. There are a couple of important eightieth anniversaries. And, there is a series of important seventieth anniversaries, culminating on 20 November 2017. All of them are closely tied to HM Queen Elizabeth II, who also marks the sixty-fifth anniversary of her reign in 2017.

First, the Centenary of the House of Windsor: On 17 July 1917, toward the end of the third full year of World War I, the British royal family changed its name. At the instance of King George V, the briefly tenured House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, which began in 1901 when Edward VII succeeded Queen Victoria, the last Hanoverian, assumed a new identity as the House of Windsor. The stories of that change, in the face of wartime anti-German sentiment, are familiar to many. Also familiar is the fact that other branches of the extended British royal family were compelled to follow suit, including the members of the Battenberg family, who became Mountbattens.

In the century since, obviously, those two particular families have come together. Although officially a member of the Danish-Greek branch of the House of Oldenburg, Prince Philip assumed his maternal line surname when he was naturalized as a British subject in March 1947… seventy years ago. Upon Queen Elizabeth II’s accession to the throne, under pressure from Queen Mary (her grandmother) and Winston Churchill, it was announced that despite custom the official name of the British royal house and family would remain Windsor. (Lord Louis Mountbatten’s indiscreet boasting is said to have provoked Queen Mary.) In 1960 the Queen somewhat ameliorated this with the declaration that the actual surname of her descendants, apart from any royal titles, was to be “Mountbatten-Windsor”. The surname was first officially used by Princess Anne in 1973, in signing the register at her marriage to Captain Mark Philips. It has cropped up occasionally since then.

On 17 July 2017, then, the ninety-one-year-old Queen Elizabeth II, and her ninety-six-year-old husband will observe the 100th anniversary of both their families. So far as I know, no plans have yet been announced for how the anniversary will be marked, but given the Queen’s personal memory of, and deep connection to, her royal grandparents, and Prince Phillip’s corresponding attachment to his Mountbatten kin, it will doubtless be commemorated… perhaps at St. George’s, Windsor.

Second, come two significant eightieth anniversaries: On 11 December 1936, King Edward VIII abdicated and was succeeded by King George VI. At the same moment, of course, 10 ½-year-old Princess Elizabeth became Heiress Presumptive to the throne. In the following spring, on 17 May 1937, King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (the late Queen Mum) were crowned at Westminster Abbey. Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret both took part in the coronation and balcony appearances afterward, under the stern gaze of their granny, Queen Mary.

The anniversaries of her father’s accession and her parents’ coronation will, doubtless, be more personal than public for the Queen. Nonetheless, they also mark her own entry into official public life in the United Kingdom, some fifteen years prior to her own accession.

Third comes a series of seventieth anniversaries: We have already quietly passed the anniversary of the private consent of King George VI that his daughter could wed Prince Phillip, which occurred in the summer of 1946. The king’s stipulation, however, was that the engagement not be made public until after Princess Elizabeth’s twenty-first birthday on 21 April 1947.

That birthday, most famously, was marked by the “my whole life, whether it be long or short…” speech given by the Princess. Broadcasting to the entire Empire/Commonwealth from South Africa, where the family was on an official tour, the Princess dedicated herself to the service of “our great imperial family, to which we all belong.” In a way, this may be the most important of all the 2017 anniversaries. It is remarkable that seventy years on, she still lives out that commitment daily.

The other anniversaries in this series relate to the Queen and Prince Phillip’s marriage. As noted, the Prince became a British subject, assuming the Mountbatten surname, in March 1947. Their engagement was publicly announced on 10 July 1947. On the eve of their wedding, Philip… along with Princess Elizabeth… was made a Knight of the Garter. He was also made Duke of Edinburgh (etc.) and designated a Royal Highness by King George VI. The royal couple was then married on 20 November 1947 in Westminster Abbey.

Seventieth wedding anniversaries are much more common at present than once seemed imaginable, given the combination of younger ages at marriage in that time, together with increased longevity, and the greater long-term stability of marriages from that generation (than current). That the Queen and Prince Phillip will… God willing… reached this milestone is, nonetheless, a great achievement for them both as spouses and as working partners.

Finally, in tenure: On 6 February 2017, Queen Elizabeth II will quietly mark the sixty-fifth anniversary of the death of her beloved father, and her own accession to the throne. Sadly, for her, shortly on the heels of this will come the fifteenth anniversary of the deaths of both her beloved sister and their mother.

As the Queen said in September last year (2015), a long life means passing many milestones. Some are things that have simply occurred, others are things achieved. More than anything else, in my opinion, 2017 marks the seventy years of “devoted service” by Queen Elizabeth II to the “great family” of former Empire and current Commonwealth. Seventy years of service to the century-old House of Windsor, and the Mountbatten-Windsor family. Seventy years of commitment and life together with a beloved husband and partner. Her whole, now long, life of devoted service is an achievement, possibly never to be matched.

Whether 2017 proves to be the culminating year… not in the sense of final, but perhaps in the sense of climatic significance… of the reign of an increasingly elderly and frail couple remains to be seen. The time, for them… and all of us… is not just moving on but counting down. Prince Phillip, over the years, has said that it is really rather obscene to try to create or define a legacy for oneself. But in a way his wife did so, lang syne, back in her own so-called “salad days”, with a speech from a Cape Town garden on a sunny April day…

Yours aye,
Ken Cuthbertson