26 October 2016
25 October 2016
Princesses Eugenie and Beatrice of York
By Carfax2 via Wikimedia Commons
In the last two decades, there has been ongoing debate about who should be officially royal and who should carry out official royal duties on behalf the monarch. In all of this time, nothing has been resolved. According to recent reports, the central tension in the discussion is between a desire for a smaller monarchy (favored by the future king, The Prince of Wales) and the rights due to the York princesses (championed by their father, the future king's younger brother, The Duke of York).
So, who is right?
Dutch Queen Beatrix at her 2013 abdication
By Floris Looijesteijn via Wikimedia Commons
Sweden, however, seems to have gone the other direction. When King Carl Gustav's first child, Crown Princess Victoria gave birth to his first grandchild, it seemed natural and appropriate that this child was made a royal princess, she is after all destined to be a Queen Regnant. When Carl Gustav's third child Princess Madeleine had a daughter with her English-American husband, however, I was actually stunned when the baby was not only made a royal princess but also given a royal duchy of her own. Now, all five of the Swedish king's grandchildren are royals and each has his or her own royal duchy--an expansion of royal titles that is likely predicated (ironically) on the Swedish penchant for true equality: if one grandchild is royal then all should be, I guess.
Princesses Mako and Kako of Akishino, granddaughters of
The Emperor of Japan, will likely (but legally) be forced out
By Kounosu1 via Wikimedia Commons
So, we still have to ask which path is the best path. In the past, and in most countries changes to royal titles, prerogatives and inheritance rights were applied only to people not yet born at the time. Therefore, when Norway adopted gender-neutral accession rules, it did not strip Prince (now Crown Prince) Haakon of his future throne in favor of his older sister. In Sweden, they did reverse the order and Crown Prince Carl Philip had to yield his #1 spot to his older sister who became Crown Princess Victoria. In The Netherlands, their 2002 changes did not affect people who were already adults at the time. Britain's gender-neutral change in 2015 was a bit more complex as it applied only to people born after October 28, 2011.
All of this means that the "correct" answer is not readily apparent. At the time of their births, Beatrice and Eugenie of York were expected to be full royals, but a lot has changed since 1990. On one side, people feel that a slimmed-down monarchy is more cost-effective, but that is actually not a new concern. There have always been questions about the cost of the royal family. Other royal male-line grandchildren in past generations did not have an official royal role, but this was only in the case of younger sons (like Prince Richard of Gloucester before the death of his elder brother and Prince Michael of Kent). Meanwhile, the children of the current and immediate past Princess Royal have had no royal titles or official roles despite having a monarch for a grandparent.
The modern royal family grew to its largest in the late 1980s and early 1990s with 15 adult members: The Queen, The Queen Mother, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince and Princess of Wales, The Duke and Duchess of York, The Prince Edward, The Princess Royal (Anne), The Princess Margaret, Princess Alice, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra. Since then, two of these left by divorce, three by death and one by unofficial retirement. These five departures have been filled by four replacements: The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry of Wales, and The Countess of Wessex. Five royals replaced five royals. Seems reasonable. But, in the next 10 to 15 years, we can reasonably expect the departure of another four to six (Her Majesty, Edinburgh, the Gloucesters, Kent, and Alexandra) due to death of retirement with no one waiting in the wings to take on their responsibilities, patronages, etc. The next decade after that could take out three more (Wales, Cornwall, and Anne) with Prince George and Princess Charlotte the only two able to step up. The official royal family would have slimmed from 15 working members to eight in a generation.
How large does the family need to be? Her Majesty certainly made very public use of the entire family during the Jubilee of 2012 but will that kind of occasion ever occur again in the future?
On the other hand, is it fair to Beatrice and Eugenie to make them renounce their royal titles (as some have proposed in the past) or even continue to forego official roles? They have been left in limbo too long, and have pursued university degrees and real careers in the mean time. Their father clearly wants them to forsake those careers to be "real" royals, but I wonder what the princesses really want and whether that change if they start families of their own. Despite their regular-Joe jobs, they still have to be present for Trooping the Colour and other official occasions. They have taken on "unofficial" patronages and have even served as official representatives of their grandmother, The Queen, but Beatrice was denied the opportunity to accompany her father on an official visit to India in 2012. Is there not a middle way?
Both of their parents, The Duke of York and Sarah Duchess of York, are highly aware of Beatrice and Eugenie's royal heritage. Despite their own less-than-regal behavior over the years, they raised their daughters to be well-behaved, discreet, charitable, conscientious, and loyal monarchists. They are, all in all, good princesses. I think that they could be responsible members of the official royal family.
Having said that, I suspect that this is not a battle that The Duke of York will win. After all, Prince Charles will be the next King and he is in the best position to determine what the Royal Family looks like in the future. Will he make the best choice? That remains to be seen. The question won't really be answered until after his own reign and maybe even after William's. If little George ultimately does become King, Charles' decisions as the Head of Royal House would have been successful and popular. So, royal bloggers of the future, someone leave a note on my grave to let me know how it turned out.
For more on this subject, read Marlene Koenig's post on the Royal Musings blog.
23 October 2016
|By Luis-Michel van Loo via Wikimedia Commons|
Such is not the case of today's princess, who left neither a child nor her name to posterity.
However, Infanta Barbara of Portugal was a much longed-for and prayed for child. In the first three years of marriage, her teenaged parents, King John V of Portugal and Archduchess Maria Anna of Austria had no children. This is always a crisis for a monarchy. King John vowed to build a convent if his heir arrived by the end of 1711, and when the child finally arrived in early December on the Feast of Saint Barbara, she was no less celebrated for being a girl. Instead, in addition to naming her for the saint of her birthday, her father also gave her the title of Portuguese heirs: she was The Princess of Brazil. Of course, when a little brother was born 10 months later, she lost her title and her position; a common fate for first-born girls.
Nevertheless the little Infanta Barbara, who gained a four more little brothers, was a treasured and well-educated child in the court of her highly cultured parents. Their household celebrated both the arts and science and all of their children received excellent tutelage across a wide range of topics. Barbara's greatest area was music, and she was paired with the great composer Domenico Scarlatti as her teacher. She excelled at singing, keyboard and harpsichord. She even learned to compose music herself. Her enthusiasm ensured that she got to take Scarlatti with her when she was married off in an exchange of princesses whereby she married the future Spanish king and his sister married her brother.
The one thing Barbara lacked was good health. Not only was she prone to asthmatic attacks, that likely lessened her interest and ability in athletic pursuits, but she also suffered from that great and dangerous plague of the day, small pox. She survived the disease, unlike her youngest brother, but it left an unattractive infanta more hideous. It is said that her husband even had a visible response to her ugliness when they first met. Beyond that, the couple struggled with fertility, the great disaster of any royal marriage. Barbara produced only one child, and he was tragically stillborn.
Nevertheless, Ferdinand was happy with his bride. He had grown up in an unstable environment as the one thing that stood between the throne and his half-brother. His powerful stepmother, Elizabeth Farnese, controlled his father King Philip V, who was weak and suffered from mental illness. At one point, Ferdinand and Barbara were even kept under virtual house arrest because Elizabeth feared the growing shadow court around them. As Philip grew more ill and eventually died, Elizabeth did not step willingly aside. Ferdinand, who relied entirely on Barbara and key advisers, had to finally have her removed. Although everyone knew that Barbara the real power of the monarchy, she was much more subtle than her predecessor about her control.
During more than 12 years on the throne together, the couple supported the arts, especially music and theater. In fact, when part of Barbara's favorite palace, Aranjuez, was destroyed by fire, they rebuilt part of it as a theater so that they could enjoy opera at home. They were also generous to their subjects, declining to collect taxes whenever natural disasters struck a region of their territory. They also stabilized the economy, modernized the navy and improved Spain's commerce in the America's.
Unfortunately, Barbara's health continued to plague her and her weight blossomed. Like her father, husband and father-in-law, she also struggled with mental health problems though to a lesser degree than any of them. She suffered from depression at times and had a paranoid fear of sudden death. When death did take her at age 46, it triggered the complete collapse of her husband. Ferdinand, like his father before him, refused to dress or to sleep. Over the course of the several months he became increasingly frail and unstable. He followed Barbara to the grave about 10 months later.
The Spanish throne went to Elizabeth Farnese's son King Charles III and no Spanish or Portuguese infanta ever again bore the name Barbara.
For more about Barbara of Portugal:
Biography of Ferdinand VI on Mad Monarchs
For portraits of Barbara of Portugal:
Infanta Barbara of Portugal Queen of Spain on Maria's Royal Collection