How the union of England and Scotland created a royal numbering problem — and why it took a row over postboxes to explain the solution.

When Prince William eventually succeeds his father, he will probably become King William V.

That seems straightforward enough. Britain has already had four kings called William, so the next one will be the fifth.

But suppose a future monarch decides to reign as James. He would probably become James VIII, despite the fact that the United Kingdom has never had a James III, IV, V, VI or VII.

And if we ever have another King Alexander, he would probably be Alexander IV. There has never been a King Alexander of England, Great Britain or the United Kingdom.

What’s going on?

The answer takes us back several centuries, involves the complicated relationship between England and Scotland, and eventually leads to an unexpectedly heated argument about postboxes.

Two kingdoms, two histories

In 1603, Elizabeth I died without children. The English throne passed to her cousin, James VI of Scotland.

James had already been King of Scotland for 36 years. He was the sixth Scottish king of that name, following a succession of Jameses stretching back to the fifteenth century.

But England had never had a King James.

So James VI of Scotland became James I of England.

He was the same man, ruling two separate kingdoms, with two different regnal numbers.

This arrangement is known as the Union of the Crowns. It wasn’t a political union. England and Scotland retained their own parliaments, legal systems and institutions. They simply shared a monarch.

The numbering differences continued.

When William of Orange became king in 1689, he was William III in England but William II in Scotland. He is sometimes referred to as William III and II.

The situation changed in 1707, when the Acts of Union brought England and Scotland together into the new Kingdom of Great Britain.

There was now one kingdom, with one monarch. And, therefore, one regnal number.

But there was still a problem: which kingdom’s numbering system should be used?

The problem that didn’t go away

For a surprisingly long time, the issue attracted relatively little attention.

The first monarch of Great Britain was Queen Anne, who had already been Queen of England, Scotland and Ireland since 1702. Neither England nor Scotland had previously had a reigning Queen Anne.

Then came the Hanoverians: George I, George II, George III and George IV. Neither England nor Scotland had previously had a King George.

When William IV succeeded George IV in 1830, however, the discrepancy returned.

England had previously had three King Williams. Scotland had had only two.

The new monarch used William IV, following the English sequence.

The same thing happened when Edward VII came to the throne in 1901. England had previously had six kings called Edward. Scotland had never had a king of that name in its recognised royal succession.

Edward VII nevertheless used the English numbering.

And his grandson, Edward VIII, followed the same convention in 1936.

So there was an established practice of using the higher number. But all the examples favoured England.

That distinction would become important.

Elizabeth I or Elizabeth II?

On 6 February 1952, George VI died and his daughter Elizabeth became Queen.

In England, the numbering was obvious. Elizabeth I had reigned from 1558 to 1603. The new Queen was therefore Elizabeth II.

But Scotland had never had an Elizabeth I.

For some Scots, calling the new monarch Elizabeth II seemed to imply that the English royal succession took precedence over the Scottish one.

This wasn’t simply a theoretical disagreement among constitutional historians.

It became a very public controversy.

The most visible battleground was the humble postbox.

The postbox war

British postboxes traditionally display the royal cypher of the monarch during whose reign they were installed.

Under Elizabeth II, that cypher was EIIR: Elizabeth II Regina.

But in Scotland, the appearance of EIIR on new postboxes provoked protests.

Some boxes were vandalised. One particularly controversial box in Edinburgh, installed in November 1952, was repeatedly attacked and eventually destroyed by an explosion in February 1953.

The disagreement had escalated from a debate about constitutional history to actual violence.

There was also a legal challenge.

In MacCormick v Lord Advocate, John MacCormick and Ian Hamilton argued that the use of Elizabeth II was inconsistent with the Treaty of Union of 1707.

The Scottish courts rejected their challenge in July 1953. The judges did not establish a new rule for numbering monarchs; they concluded that the legal challenge could not succeed.

The practical solution to the postbox controversy was rather simpler.

New Scottish postboxes would display the Crown of Scotland instead of the EIIR cypher.

That distinction remains visible today. Compare an Elizabeth II postbox in England with one installed during her reign in Scotland, and you’ll generally see different royal symbols.

A constitutional argument has left a permanent mark on the street furniture.

Churchill explains the rules

While all this was happening, the question reached Parliament.

On 15 April 1953, Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Elliot asked Prime Minister Winston Churchill whether the decision to use Elizabeth II had taken account of the principle that the higher of the English and Scottish regnal numbers should be used.

Churchill confirmed that this was the practice followed since the Union.

He also suggested that it would be sensible to continue using the higher number in future, whichever kingdom supplied it.

That last part is important.

It meant that the convention wasn’t supposed to favour England. If Scotland had had more monarchs with a particular name, the Scottish number should take precedence.

Churchill even offered James and Robert as examples of names for which the Scottish sequence might supply the number.

And that gives us some interesting possibilities.

Meet the kings who haven’t existed yet

Let’s imagine four future monarchs, each choosing a traditional royal name.

William V

England had William I, William II, William III and William IV. Scotland had William I, William II and William III (the last of whom was the same monarch as England’s William IV).

The next William would therefore be William V, following the higher English sequence.

That’s the name we expect the present Prince of Wales to use when he becomes king, although he isn’t legally required to do so.

James VIII

England had James I and James II.

Scotland had James I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII.

The next James would therefore be James VIII, using the Scottish sequence.

And here’s a pleasing historical symmetry: James VI of Scotland became James I of England in 1603. More than four centuries later, his Scottish numbering would still take precedence.

Alexander IV

Scotland had three kings called Alexander, the last of whom died in 1286.

England has never had a King Alexander.

Nevertheless, a future British monarch choosing that name would, under the convention, become Alexander IV.

David III

Scotland had David I and David II, the latter reigning in the fourteenth century.

England has never had a King David.

So the next one would probably be David III.

A monarch’s regnal number could therefore commemorate kings who lived hundreds of years before the United Kingdom existed.

What about Ireland and Wales?

You might reasonably ask why this convention only mentions England and Scotland. After all, Wales and Ireland have their own long histories of kings and princes.

The answer is largely historical. Wales had been incorporated into the English kingdom long before the Union of 1707, while Ireland had shared the English monarch since the sixteenth century and formally joined the United Kingdom in 1801.

Neither country’s earlier rulers formed part of the English and Scottish regnal sequences that Churchill was comparing.

And since names such as Llywelyn, Rhodri, Brian and Niall are unlikely choices for a future British monarch, the distinction is unlikely to cause much practical difficulty.

There’s also an international dimension. The British monarch is separately monarch of fourteen other Commonwealth realms, including Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Those countries have their own royal titles, but in practice they use the same regnal names and numbers. Charles III, for example, is Charles III in Canada and Australia as well as in the United Kingdom.

The Commonwealth realms coordinate on matters of royal succession, but Churchill’s numbering convention isn’t a law binding all fifteen countries. In principle, their separate constitutional arrangements leave room for differences, although adopting different numbers for the same monarch would be decidedly confusing.

But is any of this actually a law?

No. And that’s perhaps the most interesting part.

There is no Act of Parliament requiring future monarchs to adopt the higher English or Scottish regnal number.

Churchill was quite explicit about that in 1953. Neither the Queen nor her advisers, he explained, could bind their successors in such a matter.

His statement described an established practice and recommended that it should continue.

It wasn’t a new law.

Nor is a future monarch obliged to use their first given name as their regnal name.

Edward VII, for example, was christened Albert Edward. His son George V was christened George Frederick Ernest Albert.

And Charles III could have chosen a different regnal name when he succeeded Elizabeth II in 2022.

So when we say that Prince William will become William V, we’re making a reasonable prediction, not stating a legal certainty.

He could choose another name.

And if some future monarch chose James, Alexander or David, the conventional numbering would be VIII, IV or III respectively. But the precise decision would be made at the time.

A thousand years in a number

Regnal numbers look like simple labels. We tend to assume that each new monarch simply takes the next available number.

But British royal history is rarely that straightforward.

The modern monarchy grew out of several separate kingdoms, each with its own rulers, traditions and historical identity.

The convention of using the higher regnal number acknowledges those different histories.

It’s why the next William will probably be William V, while the next James could be James VIII.

And it’s a reminder that even something as apparently insignificant as the number after a monarch’s name can tell us a great deal about how the United Kingdom came to exist.

Coming soon: Your own moment in royal history

We’ve been working on something new at Line of Succession: personalised A3 fine-art prints showing the British royal line of succession on a date of your choice.

Perhaps you’d like to see who was in line for the throne on the day you were born, on a wedding anniversary, or at a particularly significant moment in royal history.

Our first physical samples are now being produced, and we’re hoping to make the prints available to order very soon.

Watch this space!

Somewhere in Europe, there’s a WhatsApp group that you almost certainly aren’t invited to join.

Its members include three young women in their twenties. Like many people their age, they use it to keep in touch with friends, share experiences and discuss the challenges of everyday life.

But there’s one rather unusual thing that all three have in common.

They’re going to be queens.

Not queens consort, married to reigning kings. Queens regnant, reigning in their own right. And between them, they represent one of the most significant changes to European monarchy in centuries.

The royal group chat

The three confirmed members of the group are Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, Princess Elisabeth of Belgium and Princess Ingrid Alexandra of Norway.

The existence of the group isn’t simply a piece of royal gossip. Catharina-Amalia has spoken publicly about it, explaining that the princesses keep in touch because they share experiences that very few other people can understand.

After all, most young women don’t have to worry about whether someone wants to be their friend because of their personality or because they’ll one day be their country’s head of state.

In an interview published in May 2026, Elisabeth also discussed the friendship between the three women. They’ve known each other for years, meet occasionally at royal events and support each other as they prepare for their future responsibilities.

There’s been speculation that Princess Leonor of Spain is also a member of the group, although that hasn’t been confirmed.

It’s an appealing story. Three young women, born into extraordinary circumstances, finding friendship with the handful of people who genuinely understand their situation.

But there’s a more interesting story hiding behind it.

A generation or two ago, some of these women wouldn’t have been allowed to inherit their thrones at all.

Three princesses, three countries, three different histories

Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange — Netherlands

Catharina-Amalia was born on 7 December 2003, the eldest child of the then Prince Willem-Alexander and Princess Máxima.

When her grandmother, Queen Beatrix, abdicated in 2013, her father became King Willem-Alexander and Catharina-Amalia became heir apparent.

The Netherlands has a long history of female monarchs. Before Willem-Alexander became king, the country had been ruled by three successive queens: Wilhelmina, Juliana and Beatrix. Between them, they occupied the Dutch throne for almost 123 years.

But there’s an important distinction between allowing women to inherit the throne and treating sons and daughters equally.

Until 1983, the Dutch succession rules still gave preference to male heirs. A younger brother could take precedence over his older sister.

A constitutional reform that year introduced absolute primogeniture: the eldest child inherits, regardless of sex.

Catharina-Amalia has two younger sisters, Alexia and Ariane, so the change doesn’t alter their relative positions. But it guarantees that a hypothetical younger brother wouldn’t displace her.

Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant — Belgium

Princess Elisabeth was born on 25 October 2001, the eldest child of King Philippe and Queen Mathilde.

When her father became king in 2013, Elisabeth became Duchess of Brabant, the title traditionally held by the heir to the Belgian throne.

Belgium’s history is rather different from that of the Netherlands.

When the Belgian monarchy was established in 1831, women were excluded from the succession altogether. It wasn’t simply that sons took precedence over daughters. A daughter couldn’t inherit the throne at all.

That changed in 1991, when Belgium amended its constitution to introduce absolute primogeniture for the descendants of King Albert II.

Elisabeth was born ten years after the change. She has three younger siblings, including two brothers, Gabriel and Emmanuel.

Under the old rules, those brothers would have been eligible to inherit while Elisabeth would have been excluded.

Instead, Elisabeth is first in line and is expected to become Belgium’s first reigning queen.

That’s a remarkable change in a country that, within living memory, didn’t permit women to inherit the Crown.

Ingrid Alexandra, Crown Princess of Norway

Princess Ingrid Alexandra was born on 21 January 2004, the eldest child of the then Crown Prince Haakon and Crown Princess Mette-Marit.

Her grandfather, King Harald V, died in August 2026, bringing her father to the throne as King Haakon VIII and making Ingrid Alexandra Crown Princess.

Norway changed its succession rules in 1990, introducing equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters.

But there’s an interesting complication.

The change wasn’t applied equally to everyone already in the royal family. Transitional provisions preserved male preference for people born before 1990.

That’s why Haakon remained ahead of his older sister, Princess Märtha Louise, in the succession.

For Ingrid Alexandra, born in 2004, the new rules apply in full.

She has a younger brother, Prince Sverre Magnus. Under the previous rules, he would have taken precedence over her.

Instead, Ingrid Alexandra is heir apparent.

The Norwegian royal family therefore provides a particularly neat illustration of how succession law can change between generations. Haakon inherited ahead of his older sister, but Ingrid Alexandra will inherit ahead of her younger brother.

The revolution in royal succession

For much of European history, the rules governing royal succession were based on some form of male preference.

The precise rules varied enormously. Some monarchies excluded women completely. Others allowed daughters to inherit, but only when there were no eligible sons. Still others permitted women to inherit under more complicated circumstances.

Over the last few decades, many European monarchies have abandoned these distinctions.

Sweden led the way in 1980, introducing absolute primogeniture and making Princess Victoria heir to the throne ahead of her younger brother, Carl Philip.

Victoria, now 49, is particularly interesting because the reform actually changed the identity of the heir. Carl Philip had been born Crown Prince in 1979, but the new legislation put his older sister ahead of him.

Victoria was therefore the most prominent early beneficiary of a reform that would eventually spread across much of Europe.

She’s occasionally been mentioned in connection with the royal WhatsApp group, although her membership hasn’t been confirmed. She would certainly have some valuable experience to share with its younger members.

The Netherlands followed Sweden in 1983, Norway in 1990 and Belgium in 1991.

Denmark adopted equal succession rights in 2009, while Luxembourg introduced absolute primogeniture for the descendants of Grand Duke Henri in 2011.

And the United Kingdom followed with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which ended male preference for people born after 28 October 2011.

The change came just in time for the next generation of the British royal family. Princess Charlotte, born in 2015, retained her place in the succession when her younger brother, Prince Louis, was born in 2018.

Under the old rules, Louis would have moved ahead of her.

These reforms have transformed the future of European monarchy. Instead of younger sons routinely displacing their older sisters, the firstborn child is increasingly recognised as the natural heir.

But not every monarchy has made the change.

What about Spain?

Princess Leonor of Spain is another young woman preparing to become queen.

Born in 2005, she’s the eldest daughter of King Felipe VI and Queen Letizia, and has been Princess of Asturias since her father’s accession in 2014.

She’s also been mentioned as a possible participant in the royal WhatsApp group, although we don’t know whether she’s actually a member.

Unlike the other three princesses, however, Leonor lives under a succession system that still gives preference to male heirs.

Article 57 of the Spanish Constitution explicitly provides that, within the same degree of relationship, a male takes precedence over a female.

Leonor is heir because she has no brothers. Her only sibling is her younger sister, Infanta Sofía.

Had her parents subsequently had a son, he would have displaced Leonor in the succession, despite being younger.

There have been discussions about changing the Spanish rules, but reform would require a particularly demanding constitutional amendment process.

For now, Leonor is expected to become Spain’s next monarch under a system that still treats sons and daughters differently.

And the princess who won’t become queen?

There’s an even more striking example in Monaco.

Prince Albert II and Princess Charlene have twins, Princess Gabriella and Prince Jacques, born on 10 December 2014.

Gabriella was born first, two minutes before her brother.

But Monaco retains male-preference primogeniture, so Jacques is heir to the throne and Gabriella is second in line.

Under the rules used in the Netherlands, Belgium or modern Norway, Gabriella would be first.

Two minutes and a constitutional provision make all the difference.

Gabriella is only 11, so she’s considerably younger than the three confirmed members of the WhatsApp group. There’s no evidence that she’s a member, but her situation provides an interesting contrast with theirs.

And there’s another young princess worth mentioning.

Princess Estelle of Sweden, Victoria’s daughter, was born in 2012 and is currently second in line to the Swedish throne, ahead of her younger brother, Prince Oscar.

Unlike her mother, Estelle has never experienced a change in her place in the succession. She was born into a system in which daughters and sons have equal inheritance rights.

At 14, she’s probably a little young for the future queens’ WhatsApp group, although perhaps she’ll join something similar when she’s older.

Between them, Victoria, Estelle and Gabriella illustrate three very different experiences of royal succession: a woman whose position was changed by reform, a girl who has never known anything different, and another whose younger brother still takes precedence.

A very different royal future

European royal families have always maintained relationships across national borders. For centuries, marriages between royal houses helped create alliances, settle disputes and occasionally trigger wars.

Today’s royal connections are rather different.

Catharina-Amalia, Elisabeth and Ingrid Alexandra aren’t being brought together by dynastic marriage negotiations. They’re friends, communicating through the same technology used by millions of people their age.

But their friendship is also a reminder of how profoundly the rules of monarchy have changed.

All three are eldest daughters. Two have younger brothers who would once have taken precedence over them, while the third lives under laws that would prevent such a displacement.

They belong to a generation in which being born a girl no longer automatically means surrendering the Crown to a younger sibling.

For all the traditions, ceremonies and centuries-old institutions surrounding Europe’s royal families, that’s a surprisingly modern development.

And perhaps the next time one of them has a difficult day, she’ll open WhatsApp and find that two future queens know exactly how she feels.

Last week, we looked at the difference between having a royal title and having a place in the line of succession. We discovered that you don’t need to be a prince or princess to have a perfectly legitimate claim to the British throne.

But there’s another misconception worth clearing up.

If you visit the Royal Family’s official website, you’ll find a numbered list of people in line to the throne. It begins, unsurprisingly, with William, Prince of Wales, and works its way through his children, his brother Harry and Harry’s children. Then come the descendants of King Charles’s siblings.

And then, rather abruptly, it stops.

At number 26, we find Lucas Tindall, the youngest child of Zara and Mike Tindall and a great-grandson of Queen Elizabeth II.

So what happens if, through some spectacularly unlikely sequence of events, all 26 people ahead of Lucas become unable to inherit the throne? And then Lucas himself?

Would Britain have to find a new royal family?

Not at all.

The official list stops at the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II. But the line of succession certainly doesn’t.

To see where it goes next, we need to take a short tour through the descendants of her grandfather, King George V.

Meet the family

George V and his wife, Queen Mary, had six children. Two became kings, one became a princess royal, two became dukes and one died tragically young.

Their children were:

• Edward (1894–1972), who became Edward VIII.

• Albert (1895–1952), who became George VI.

• Mary (1897–1965), who became Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood.

• Henry (1900–1974), Duke of Gloucester.

• George (1902–1942), Duke of Kent.

• John (1905–1919), who died aged 13.

We can dispose of two of these branches immediately.

Edward VIII, famously, abdicated in 1936 to marry Wallis Simpson. The couple had no children, so there are no descendants to consider.

Prince John, the youngest child, suffered from epilepsy and died in 1919, aged just 13. He also left no descendants.

That leaves four branches. We’ve already met most of the descendants of George VI, so we’ll begin there.

The Snowdons and Chattos

George VI had two daughters: Elizabeth and Margaret.

Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II, and her descendants occupy the first 26 places in today’s succession.

Her younger sister, Princess Margaret, married the photographer Antony Armstrong-Jones in 1960. He was subsequently created Earl of Snowdon, and they had two children.

Their son, David Armstrong-Jones, succeeded his father as the second Earl of Snowdon in 2017.

And here’s our answer to the question in the title.

Number 27 in the line of succession is David Armstrong-Jones, Earl of Snowdon.

He’s followed by his two children, Charles, Viscount Linley, and Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones.

Next comes his sister, Lady Sarah Chatto, followed by her sons Samuel and Arthur.

Already we’re encountering a rather different-looking royal family. There are earls and viscounts, ladies and ordinary Mr Chattos, but no princes or princesses.

As we saw last week, that’s because the rules governing royal titles are quite different from those governing succession. Princess Margaret’s children were grandchildren of George VI through his daughter, rather than through a son. They weren’t entitled to princely titles under the general provisions of the 1917 Letters Patent.

Their places in the succession, however, were never in doubt.

And once we’ve finished with Princess Margaret’s descendants, we can move further back through George V’s family.

The Gloucesters

Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, was George V’s third son and the younger brother of George VI.

He married Lady Alice Montagu Douglas Scott in 1935, and they had two sons: William and Richard.

Prince William of Gloucester died in a flying accident in 1972, aged 30, without children.

His younger brother Richard inherited the dukedom when their father died in 1974. He is still the Duke of Gloucester today.

Richard and his wife Birgitte have three children: Alexander, Earl of Ulster; Lady Davina Windsor; and Lady Rose Gilman. They also have grandchildren.

This branch gives us another demonstration of how royal titles gradually disappear from a family.

Richard is a prince because he is a male-line grandson of George V. His children, however, are great-grandchildren of George V, and therefore fall outside the normal provisions of the 1917 Letters Patent.

Alexander uses the courtesy title Earl of Ulster, and his sisters have the courtesy title Lady. Their children have their own mixture of titles and ordinary names.

There’s another interesting change coming for the Gloucesters.

When Prince Richard dies, his eldest son Alexander, currently Earl of Ulster, is expected to inherit the dukedom. But Alexander isn’t a prince. He’s a great-grandson of George V, rather than a grandson.

So the title will continue, but it will cease to be a royal dukedom. The present holder is styled His Royal Highness The Duke of Gloucester. His successor will instead be His Grace The Duke of Gloucester, just like other non-royal dukes.

Exactly the same thing is expected to happen to the Dukedom of Kent when Prince Edward’s eldest son, George, Earl of St Andrews, inherits it.

The dukedoms aren’t disappearing. They’re simply passing beyond the generations entitled to royal status.

But every eligible descendant remains part of the succession.

The Kents

Prince George, Duke of Kent, was George V’s fourth son. He died in an aircraft accident in Scotland in 1942, leaving three young children.

All three are still alive today: Prince Edward, Duke of Kent; Princess Alexandra; and Prince Michael of Kent.

And all three have descendants of their own.

Edward inherited the dukedom at the age of six. He and his wife Katharine had three children: George, Earl of St Andrews; Lady Helen Taylor; and Lord Nicholas Windsor.

The family has grown considerably since then, and it contains some particularly interesting complications.

Three descendants in this branch have converted to Roman Catholicism: Lord Downpatrick, Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor and Lord Nicholas Windsor.

Why does that matter?

Because the Act of Settlement established a Protestant succession. Being a Roman Catholic remains a disqualification from inheriting the British throne.

It’s important to distinguish that from the old prohibition on marrying a Catholic. We’ll come back to that in a moment.

A conversion doesn’t necessarily remove an entire branch of the family tree from the succession. The disqualification applies to the individual. Their descendants can still be eligible if they meet the relevant conditions.

This means that the genealogical family tree and the legal line of succession don’t always contain precisely the same people.

Someone can be a descendant of George V without being eligible to become monarch.

The prince who came back

Prince Michael of Kent provides perhaps the most entertaining legal curiosity in the whole family.

In 1978, he married Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz, who was a Roman Catholic.

At the time, the law disqualified not only Catholics themselves but also anyone who married one.

Consequently, Prince Michael lost his place in the succession.

His children, Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Windsor, were raised in the Church of England and retained their own succession rights.

Then Parliament changed the rules.

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 abolished the disqualification for marrying a Catholic. When that change came into force on 26 March 2015, Prince Michael regained his place in the line of succession.

He hadn’t changed his religion. He hadn’t divorced or remarried. His ancestry hadn’t changed.

The law had simply stopped treating his marriage as a disqualification.

But the Act didn’t remove the prohibition on a Catholic becoming monarch. That distinction remains important for other members of the Kent family.

There’s a further complication when we try to establish precisely who should be excluded for being Catholic.

What happens to a child born into a Catholic family? Is a Catholic baptism sufficient to disqualify them, or does the law require some personal profession of faith, perhaps at confirmation?

This isn’t just a hypothetical question. During a parliamentary debate in 2013, MPs discussed exactly this uncertainty. The legislation doesn’t specify a particular religious ceremony as the moment at which someone becomes disqualified.

And confirmation doesn’t necessarily happen at a predictable age.

For anyone trying to maintain an accurate list of the more distant successors, this presents a real problem. Births, deaths and marriages can generally be established from public records. Whether someone has been baptised or confirmed into a particular church may be much harder to discover.

The family tree tells us who is descended from whom. But sometimes the information needed to establish their legal eligibility is considerably more elusive.

The Ogilvys

The third child of Prince George, Duke of Kent, is Princess Alexandra.

She married Angus Ogilvy in 1963. He declined the offer of an earldom, so their children, James and Marina, grew up without noble or royal titles.

Their descendants include the Ogilvy, Vesterberg and Mowatt families.

We’re now a long way from the familiar names on the Buckingham Palace balcony. But these people are still descendants of George V, and those who meet the legal requirements remain in the succession.

Once again, a royal surname or title tells us surprisingly little about someone’s eligibility.

The Harewoods

We’ve now covered the descendants of George V’s sons who had children. But there’s one more branch to explore.

George V’s only daughter, Princess Mary, married Henry Lascelles, 6th Earl of Harewood, in 1922.

They had two sons: George and Gerald.

Their elder son, George Lascelles, became the 7th Earl of Harewood in 1947. He had four sons: David, James, Jeremy and Mark.

David succeeded him as the 8th Earl in 2011, and the family continues through several generations of Lascelles descendants.

Princess Mary’s younger son, Gerald, also had children and descendants of his own.

The Harewoods are a particularly good illustration of just how far royal ancestry can extend into families that most people would never think of as royal.

There’s another complication here, too.

Some descendants of the 7th Earl were born outside marriage. British succession law does not automatically recognise every biological descendant as eligible: the legal rules concerning legitimacy matter as well.

Once again, tracing the family tree is only half the job. We also have to apply the law to determine who actually belongs in the line of succession.

By this point, we’ve encountered people with titles ranging from Prince to Earl to Mr, people who have lost their succession rights through religious conversion, and a prince who lost his place and then got it back.

And we’ve still only been exploring the descendants of one king.

But surely it ends somewhere?

You might reasonably think that once we’ve exhausted all the descendants of George V, we’ve reached the end of the succession.

Not even close.

The present succession is based on the Protestant descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover, who died in 1714.

Sophia was a granddaughter of James VI of Scotland and I of England. The Act of Settlement 1701 established her and her eligible Protestant descendants as the heirs to the English throne, bypassing closer relatives who were Catholic.

Her son became George I in 1714, beginning the Hanoverian dynasty.

George V was one of Sophia’s many descendants, but by no means the only one with descendants of his own.

So, after the last eligible descendant of George V, the line continues through other branches of the family. These include the Norwegian royal family, descended from George V’s sister Maud, who became Queen of Norway in 1905. The current Norwegian monarch, King Haakon VIII, is a third cousin of King Charles III. And from there, the family tree stretches into aristocratic and ordinary families across Britain, Europe and beyond.

There are thousands of potential successors. The exact number is difficult to establish, not least because births, deaths, religious affiliations and questions of eligibility continually change the list.

Which raises one final question.

The other end of the queue

Who is the very last person in line to the British throne?

In 2011, The Wall Street Journal interviewed Karin Vogel, a 38-year-old therapist living in Rostock, Germany, who had been identified by genealogists as the last person in their enumeration of Sophia of Hanover’s descendants.

That enumeration, compiled by William Addams Reitwiesner, wasn’t quite the legal line of succession. It included Catholics, who are excluded under British succession law.

And the numbering will certainly have changed since the list was compiled.

But there’s an intriguing symmetry here.

Prince William is securely first in line to the throne. New births further down the family tree cannot displace him.

And Karin Vogel may be almost as secure at the opposite end.

Unless she’s had children, acquired a younger sibling, or a previously overlooked branch has been discovered, there’s no obvious reason why she shouldn’t still be last in that genealogical ordering.

One at the very front. One at the very back.

And an extraordinary family tree stretching between them.

The Royal Family’s published list stops at number 26.

The line of succession doesn’t.

Look at the top of the British line of succession and you could be forgiven for thinking that it is simply a list of princes and princesses.

Prince William. Prince George. Princess Charlotte. Prince Louis. Prince Harry. Prince Archie. Princess Lilibet.

Then comes Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, which is our first clue that things aren’t quite that simple.

Keep going and we find Princess Beatrice followed by her daughters, Sienna and Athena Mapelli Mozzi. Princess Eugenie is followed by August, Ernest and Adelaide Brooksbank.

Further down we find Peter Phillips, his daughters Savannah and Isla, and Zara Tindall with her children Mia, Lena and Lucas.

Most of those people don’t have royal titles. Some don’t have titles at all.

But every one of them is in line to become King or Queen.

That’s because the rules that determine who succeeds to the throne and the rules that determine who gets to be a prince or princess are two completely different things.

There’s a useful shorthand for remembering the difference.

• Succession is largely about who your parents are.

• Royal titles are usually about who your father is.

As we’ll see, there are qualifications and exceptions to both rules. But they explain a surprising amount about the modern Royal Family.

A family tree, not a list of titles

Your place in the line of succession doesn’t depend on whether you’re a prince, princess, duke, earl—or plain Mr or Miss.

It comes from your position in a family tree, subject to rules laid down in legislation.

The modern succession ultimately derives from the Act of Settlement 1701, which settled the Crown on the Protestant descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover. More recent legislation has changed some of the rules. In particular, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 ended male-preference primogeniture for people born after 28 October 2011: a younger brother can no longer jump ahead of an older sister. It also removed the disqualification that resulted from marrying a Roman Catholic.

But none of this says that you have to be a prince or princess.

Consider Princess Anne.

Anne is currently nineteenth in line to the throne. Her son Peter Phillips is twentieth, followed by his daughters Savannah and Isla. Anne’s daughter Zara Tindall is twenty-third, followed by her three children.

None of those seven descendants of Anne has a royal title.

It doesn’t matter. Their places in the succession come through Anne.

Titles follow a different family tree.

Why Beatrice is a princess and Zara isn’t

The rules governing the titles Prince and Princess and the style Royal Highness largely date from Letters Patent issued by George V in 1917.

They gave those titles and styles to the children of the Sovereign and to the children of the sons of the Sovereign. There was also a special provision for the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

That word sons is important.

When Prince Andrew had children, Beatrice and Eugenie were grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II through one of her sons. They therefore became Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

When Princess Anne had children, Peter and Zara were also grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II.

But they were grandchildren through one of her daughters.

So the 1917 Letters Patent didn’t make them Prince Peter and Princess Zara.

And we can now see the same thing happening in the next generation.

Princess Beatrice’s daughters, Sienna and Athena, follow their mother in the succession, but they don’t inherit British royal titles through her. The same is true of Princess Eugenie’s children.

So we get the apparently curious sequence:

Princess Beatrice → Sienna Mapelli Mozzi → Athena Mapelli Mozzi → Princess Eugenie → August Brooksbank → Ernest Brooksbank → Adelaide Brooksbank.

All seven are in the line of succession.

Only two are princesses.

The titles Peter and Zara could have had

Peter and Zara Phillips provide another useful complication, because royal titles aren’t the only titles available in Britain.

When Princess Anne married Mark Phillips in 1973, he was reportedly offered an earldom, as was customary for an untitled man marrying a princess, but he and Anne declined it.

Had Mark become an earl, it still wouldn’t have made his children Prince Peter and Princess Zara. Their mother’s royal status couldn’t transmit those titles to them under the 1917 rules.

But they could have received noble titles or courtesy styles through their father.

Instead, they grew up simply as Peter and Zara Phillips.

Anne has subsequently said that she thought the decision not to give her children titles was probably the right one.

Once again, none of this affected the succession.

Whether Mark Phillips was a commoner or an earl, his children were still the grandchildren of the Queen through Princess Anne.

The prince and princess who don’t use the titles

Prince Edward’s children demonstrate yet another distinction.

Edward is a son of Queen Elizabeth II. Therefore, under the 1917 Letters Patent, his children fall within the male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign who are entitled to be Prince or Princess and Royal Highness.

But when Edward married Sophie Rhys-Jones in 1999, it was announced that their children would be styled as the children of an earl rather than as prince or princess.

And that’s how they have always been known.

Their daughter is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. Their son is now James, Earl of Wessex.

The underlying Letters Patent weren’t rewritten for Louise and James. The family simply chose not to use the royal titles to which the 1917 rules would otherwise entitle them.

That gives us another distinction.

You can be entitled to a royal title without using it.

And, inevitably, their choice of title has no effect on the succession. James is currently seventeenth and Louise eighteenth.

Then the rules met Princess Charlotte

By the early 2010s, however, the difference between the rules of succession and the rules for titles was about to produce a particularly strange result.

William and Catherine were expecting their first child.

At the same time, the rules of succession were being changed so that their eldest child would remain ahead of any younger siblings regardless of sex.

But the 1917 Letters Patent still contained that very specific provision about the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

If William’s first child had been a girl, she could therefore have been directly in line to the throne without automatically being a princess under the existing rules.

And if she subsequently acquired a younger brother, the new succession rules would have kept her ahead of him — while the old rules on titles treated the boy differently.

Queen Elizabeth II dealt with the problem before George was born.

On 31 December 2012 she issued new Letters Patent, extending the title Prince or Princess and the style Royal Highness to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

As it happened, the first child was a boy anyway: Prince George.

But the change mattered when his sister was born.

Princess Charlotte was a princess from birth. And, following the commencement of the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, the birth of her younger brother Louis didn’t push her down the line of succession.

Two different sets of rules had been modernised at almost exactly the same time.

Archie and Lilibet had to wait

Prince Harry’s children show the 1917 rules working in a different way.

When Archie Mountbatten-Windsor was born in 2019, he was seventh in line to the throne.

But he wasn’t Prince Archie.

His place in the succession came through his father, Prince Harry.

His title was a different question.

Harry was then a grandson of the reigning Sovereign. That made Archie a great-grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II — one generation too far away to qualify as a prince under the general 1917 rules.

And the 2012 change didn’t apply to him. It specifically covered William’s children.

The same was true when Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor was born in 2021.

Then, on 8 September 2022, Queen Elizabeth II died.

Charles III immediately became King.

Nothing changed about Archie’s parents. Nothing changed about Lilibet’s parents. Their places in the family tree didn’t change.

But something important had changed in that family tree: their grandfather was now a Sovereign.

Until that moment, Archie and Lilibet had been great-grandchildren of a Sovereign, descended through her grandson Harry. That put them one generation beyond the general provisions of the 1917 Letters Patent.

With Charles’s accession, they became grandchildren of a Sovereign through one of his sons.

And that brought them within the 1917 Letters Patent.

They were now entitled to be Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. Those titles weren’t publicly used immediately, but they are now the names under which the Royal Family officially lists them.

It’s perhaps the neatest demonstration of the difference between the two systems.

Their succession rights didn’t suddenly appear when their grandfather became King.

Their entitlement to royal titles did.

There’s an exception to the father rule

All of this might make it sound as though royal titles can only descend through fathers.

They can’t — and the exception is important.

The 1917 Letters Patent also give the titles Prince and Princess to the children of the Sovereign.

And sometimes the Sovereign is a woman.

There’s a lovely example in the late Queen’s own family.

When Charles was born in 1948, his mother was not yet Queen Elizabeth II. She was Princess Elizabeth.

Under the ordinary 1917 rules, her children wouldn’t have qualified as Prince or Princess through her because she was a daughter of the Sovereign rather than a son.

So George VI issued special Letters Patent in 1948 granting Elizabeth and Philip’s children the title Prince or Princess and the style Royal Highness.

When Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, the special provision ceased to make any practical difference. Charles and Anne were now children of the Sovereign and qualified under the normal 1917 rules anyway.

So our shorthand needs a small footnote:

Royal titles usually follow the male line — unless your mother happens to be the Queen.

And then there’s Andrew

Finally, we have an example that approaches the question from the opposite direction.

Andrew was born HRH Prince Andrew in 1960, as a son of Queen Elizabeth II.

For decades he was also Duke of York.

Following the controversies surrounding his relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, however, his royal status changed dramatically.

In November 2025, King Charles III issued Letters Patent declaring that Andrew would no longer be entitled to the style Royal Highness or the title Prince. His Duke of York title was removed from the Roll of the Peerage and is no longer used officially, although the peerage itself has not legally been extinguished.

He is now Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

But look at the line of succession.

He’s still there.

Number eight.

His royal title has gone.

His place in the succession hasn’t.

That’s because the King could use his powers to change Andrew’s royal title. Changing the statutory succession is a different constitutional matter involving Parliament and, by convention, the other Commonwealth realms that share the same monarch.

And, intriguingly, Andrew’s daughters haven’t lost anything.

Beatrice and Eugenie are still princesses. They are still in the succession. Their father’s loss of his title didn’t rewrite the 1917 Letters Patent retrospectively, and it didn’t alter who their grandparents were.

Two systems, one family tree

So perhaps we shouldn’t think of the line of succession as a list of royal people ranked in order of importance.

It isn’t.

Nor should we assume that Prince, Princess, Duke, Earl, Lady, Mr and Miss tell us anything useful about someone’s chances of inheriting the Crown.

They don’t.

The current official list makes the point beautifully. It runs from the Prince of Wales through princes and princesses, an untitled former prince, daughters of princesses with no British titles, children using courtesy titles, and completely untitled descendants of the Princess Royal.

The two systems are answering different questions.

For succession, the important question is essentially:

Who are your ancestors, and do you satisfy the legal rules governing succession?

For a royal title, the question is more like:

How are you descended from a Sovereign, through which line, and what do the relevant Letters Patent say?

That’s why Peter Phillips can be twentieth in line to the throne without ever having been a prince.

It’s why Lady Louise can be entitled to a royal style that she doesn’t use.

It’s why Archie could be seventh in line without being a prince, and then become a prince without doing anything at all.

And it’s why Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor could stop being a prince while remaining eighth in line to become King.

The titles can come.

The titles can go.

The family tree remains.

Scene One: The Search for an Heir: 1700–1701

Whitehall. Somewhere beneath an increasingly alarming pile of family trees.

Genealogist 1: Right. We have a problem.

Genealogist 2: The royal family has run out of heirs?

G1: Pretty much. King William III has no surviving children. Princess Anne has endured pregnancy after pregnancy, but her only child to survive infancy, Prince William, has just died aged eleven.

G2: So who’s next?

G1: That’s what the English Parliament would like us to sort out.

G2: What are the rules?

G1: We start with normal hereditary succession. But Parliament’s overriding requirement is that the Crown remains Protestant. No Catholics. No illegitimate children. And obviously no dead people.

G2: That last one seems unnecessary.

G1: You’d be surprised.

G2: Fine. Start with the closest relatives. Mary and Anne were daughters of James II. Did they have any brothers or sisters?

G1: Yes. There’s their half-brother, James Francis Edward Stuart.

G2: Excellent. Problem solved.

G1: Catholic.

G2: Ah. Anyone else from James II?

G1: Plenty of illegitimate children.

G2: Illegitimate.

G1: Exactly.

G2: So go back a generation. James II’s siblings?

G1: His older brother was Charles II.

G2: Children?

G1: Lots.

G2: Excellent!

G1: All illegitimate.

G2: Every single one?

G1: Every single one. That’s why James succeeded him.

G2: Next sibling.

G1: Mary, Princess Royal.

G2: Children?

G1: William III.

G2: Who is already king.

G1: And has no children.

G2: Next.

G1: Elizabeth.

G2: Children?

G1: Died aged fourteen.

G2: Next.

G1: Henry, Duke of Gloucester.

G2: Children?

G1: None.

G2: Next.

G1: Henrietta Anne.

G2: Now we’re getting somewhere.

G1: She married Philippe, Duke of Orléans, brother of Louis XIV of France.

G2: Children?

G1: Yes. Descendants too.

G2: Brilliant.

G1: Catholics.

G2: Of course they are.

G1: So we go back another generation, to the children of James I.

G2: Charles I we’ve already exhausted.

G1: Right. His older brother Henry died young and childless. Elizabeth, however, married Frederick V, Elector Palatine.

G2: Children?

G1: Thirteen.

G2: Thirteen! Surely we can find a Protestant somewhere in there.

G1: Now you’re thinking like Parliament.

G2: Work through them.

G1: Henry Frederick.

G2: Children?

G1: Drowned at fifteen.

G2: Next.

G1: Charles Louis.

G2: Descendants?

G1: Yes, but nothing there gives Parliament the secure Protestant succession it’s looking for.

G2: Hang on. So we’re not simply looking for the next person in strict hereditary order?

G1: Not any more. Parliament wants a Protestant line it can settle the Crown upon.

G2: So we’re not so much finding the heir as choosing where to route the succession.

G1: Now you’ve got it.

G2: This is beginning to feel less like royal succession and more like debugging a family tree.

G1: Welcome to seventeenth-century European genealogy.

G2: Keep going.

G1: Several more children. Some die young. Some have no legitimate descendants. Some marry Catholics or produce Catholic lines.

G2: Who have we got left?

G1: Elizabeth’s twelfth child. Sophia.

G2: Sophia of...?

G1: Hanover. Born Sophia of the Palatinate. Granddaughter of James I of England and VI of Scotland.

G2: Protestant?

G1: Very.

G2: Legitimate?

G1: Yes.

G2: Alive?

G1: Yes.

G2: So she’s the heir?

G1: She’s the one we take to Parliament. We recommend settling the succession on Sophia and her Protestant descendants.

G2: And Parliament can just do that?

G1: That’s the plan. If they agree, the Act of Settlement will make it law.

G2: Excellent. Problem finally solved.

G1: For England, anyway.

G2: What does that mean?

G1: Scotland has its own Parliament. And it hasn’t agreed to any of this.

G2: Is that going to be a problem?

G1: Let’s deal with one constitutional crisis at a time.

G2: Fair enough.

Scene Two: Thirteen Years Later: 1714

The paperwork has survived. Not everyone else has.

G2: Morning. Anything happen while I was away?

G1: Sophia’s dead.

G2: Oh, come on.

G1: She died in June.

G2: Well, at least Queen Anne is still—

G1: She’s dead too.

G2: What?

G1: Less than eight weeks after Sophia.

G2: So we’re back to the list.

G1: Fortunately not. The Act of Settlement says Sophia and her Protestant descendants. Her eldest son is George, Elector of Hanover.

G2: Protestant?

G1: Yes.

G2: Legitimate?

G1: Yes.

G2: Alive?

G1: Yes.

G2: Is that genuinely all we’re asking by this point?

G1: More or less.

G2: How closely related is he to Anne?

G1: They’re second cousins. They share great-grandparents: James I and Anne of Denmark.

G2: And there really isn’t anyone more closely related?

G1: Oh, there are dozens of people more closely related.

G2: Then why aren’t we choosing one of them?

G1: Catholics.

G2: All of them?

G1: Around fifty people with stronger hereditary claims were passed over because they were Catholic.

G2: So George isn’t king because everyone looked at the royal family and decided he was the nearest relative.

G1: Exactly. He’s king because Parliament decided that the Crown must remain Protestant, then routed the succession through Sophia of Hanover and her Protestant descendants.

G2: And that’s how Britain gets a German king.

G1: A German king who is the great-grandson of James I and VI, yes.

G2: Seems a rather distant connection.

G1: Welcome to European royalty. Give me half an hour and I’ll show you how everyone in this room is related to everyone else.

In the first part of our survey of the world’s surviving monarchies, we encountered a largely familiar institution.

Europe’s kings, queens and princes overwhelmingly reign without governing. They open parliaments, receive ambassadors, attend ceremonies and embody the state while elected politicians exercise political power.

Travel beyond Europe and the picture changes dramatically.

Here we find an emperor whose dynasty traces its origins into legend; a king selected from among nine other monarchs; a Buddhist sovereign whose father voluntarily created a democracy; oil-rich sultans and emirs who still govern; an African king possessing extensive political authority; and another king who reigns constitutionally over a small mountain state.

If European monarchy has largely survived by surrendering political power, elsewhere the Crown can still be at the very centre of it.

Japan: the world’s oldest dynasty faces a very modern problem

Japan possesses the world’s only emperor.

Emperor Akihito began the twenty-first century on the Chrysanthemum Throne, having succeeded his father Hirohito in 1989.

By the 2010s, however, Akihito’s advancing age had created a problem. Japanese law did not provide a straightforward mechanism for imperial abdication.

Special legislation was therefore passed allowing him personally to step down.

On 30 April 2019 Akihito abdicated, becoming Emperor Emeritus. The following day his elder son became Emperor Naruhito, beginning Japan’s Reiwa era.

The Japanese Emperor does not govern. The post-war constitution describes him as the symbol of the state and the unity of the people.

Yet the dynasty faces perhaps the most serious succession problem of any major ceremonial monarchy.

Only males in the male line may inherit.

Naruhito has one child, Princess Aiko. Despite her popularity and position as the Emperor’s only daughter, she cannot succeed him.

The throne instead passes to Naruhito’s younger brother, Crown Prince Akishino, and then to Akishino’s son Prince Hisahito.

Hisahito is the only male of his generation eligible for the throne.

Japan has therefore created a remarkable contradiction. The monarchy itself remains deeply embedded in national life, but the law governing it has reduced a dynasty stretching back many centuries to a remarkably narrow line.

The future: monarchy itself looks secure. Male-only succession does not. At some stage Japan may have to choose between altering the Imperial House Law or finding another method of increasing the number of eligible male dynasts.

Thailand: the monarchy that can now be questioned

King Bhumibol Adulyadej was already a legendary figure when the century began.

He had occupied the Thai throne since 1946 and eventually became one of the longest-reigning monarchs in history.

His death in October 2016 ended a reign of 70 years.

His son succeeded as King Maha Vajiralongkorn, Rama X.

The change of sovereign also exposed a change in Thai society.

Thailand possesses strict lèse-majesté laws protecting the monarch and other senior royals from insult. For decades, open criticism of the monarchy was largely absent from public political discussion.

Then came the youth-led protests of 2020.

Demonstrators did not merely demand political reform. Some openly called for reform of the monarchy itself — something almost unimaginable during much of Bhumibol’s reign.

The future: the Crown retains powerful institutional support and a substantial royalist constituency. But the assumption that the monarchy must stand beyond public criticism has clearly weakened.

Thailand may therefore prove one of the most interesting tests of whether a politically influential monarchy can adapt to a younger and less deferential population.

Cambodia: the king who cannot choose his successor

Cambodia’s monarchy is unusual because its king is not simply succeeded by his eldest child.

King Norodom Sihanouk, one of the twentieth century’s most extraordinary royal figures, had returned to the throne when the Cambodian monarchy was restored in 1993.

In 2004 he abdicated.

A Royal Council of the Throne then selected his son Norodom Sihamoni as the new King.

Cambodia’s constitution declares that the King “shall reign, but shall not govern”. More unusually, the sovereign does not appoint his own heir.

When the throne becomes vacant, the Royal Council selects an eligible prince from the appropriate royal bloodlines.

Sihamoni is unmarried and has no children, but this does not create the dynastic emergency it would in Britain or Japan.

The future: the monarchy has a constitutional mechanism for continuing without direct father-to-son succession. What nobody can say with certainty is who Cambodia’s next king will be.

Bhutan: the monarchy that created a democracy

Bhutan offers perhaps the most remarkable example of royal reform this century.

King Jigme Singye Wangchuck could have remained an immensely powerful monarch.

Instead, he deliberately began transferring power away from the throne.

In December 2006 he abdicated in favour of his son, Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck.

Bhutan subsequently held its first parliamentary elections in 2008 and adopted a new constitution establishing democratic constitutional monarchy.

This was not a revolution forced upon a reluctant king. The monarchy itself drove the transformation.

The result has been striking. The young Fifth King has retained enormous personal prestige despite — or perhaps partly because of — the Crown’s willingness to surrender political authority.

The future: exceptionally strong. Bhutan demonstrates one of monarchy’s oldest survival techniques: reform before reform is forced upon you.

Malaysia: the country that elects its king

Malaysia possesses a constitutional system unique in the world.

Nine Malaysian states have hereditary rulers. Every five years those rulers elect one of themselves to serve as the federal Yang di-Pertuan Agong, usually following an established rotational order.

Malaysia therefore has an elected king chosen from among hereditary kings and sultans.

The present sovereign, Sultan Ibrahim of Johor, began his five-year term in 2024.

The office is more than ceremonial decoration.

Malaysia’s turbulent politics since 2018 have repeatedly produced uncertain parliamentary majorities. At such moments the King has played an important constitutional role in determining which political leader is capable of commanding confidence in parliament.

The future: highly secure. Malaysia has effectively made monarchy part of the machinery holding its federation together.

Brunei: preparing for the end of an enormous reign

Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah has ruled Brunei since 1967.

That means his reign began before the Moon landings and has continued through almost the entire modern history of the small, oil-rich state.

Unlike Europe’s ceremonial sovereigns, Hassanal Bolkiah remains both monarch and head of government, exercising extensive political authority.

The succession, however, is well prepared.

His eldest son, Crown Prince Al-Muhtadee Billah, has been heir since 1998 and has accumulated substantial governmental experience.

The future: dynastically straightforward. The more interesting question is whether Brunei’s highly centralised political system changes once Hassanal Bolkiah’s exceptionally long personal reign finally ends.

The Middle East: where kings still govern

Nowhere is monarchy more politically significant than in the Middle East.

Here the question is often not whether royal families can survive as ceremonial institutions, but how hereditary government adapts to rapidly changing economies and societies.

Jordan: the Hashemite balancing act

King Abdullah II succeeded his father, King Hussein, in February 1999.

His reign therefore spans virtually the entire period we are considering.

Jordan’s King possesses considerably greater authority than a European constitutional monarch. The Crown has important roles in government formation, legislation, foreign policy and the armed forces.

Abdullah’s eldest son, Crown Prince Hussein, has become increasingly prominent and is clearly being prepared for eventual succession.

The Hashemite dynasty also possesses a particular historical and religious prestige, tracing its ancestry to the Prophet Muhammad.

The future: the monarchy has demonstrated formidable resilience. Its continuing challenge is balancing royal authority, demands for political reform, economic difficulties and the instability of the surrounding region.

Morocco: reform without surrendering the Crown’s power

King Mohammed VI succeeded his father, Hassan II, in 1999.

The greatest political challenge of his reign arrived with the Arab Spring in 2011.

Protests prompted constitutional reform and greater authority for elected government. Yet the King retained extensive powers and an important religious position as Commander of the Faithful.

His heir, Crown Prince Moulay Hassan, born in 2003, is now an adult and increasingly visible in public life.

Morocco therefore possesses both a clear succession and a dynasty deeply rooted in the history of the state.

The future: probably secure. The more difficult question is how far political authority will gradually move from palace to parliament over future generations.

Bahrain: the emir who became king

Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa succeeded his father as Emir of Bahrain in 1999.

In 2002 the country was formally declared a kingdom and Hamad became King of Bahrain.

The defining crisis of his reign came in 2011, when large anti-government demonstrations erupted during the Arab Spring.

The protests and their suppression exposed deep political and sectarian divisions which have continued to shape Bahraini politics.

The King’s eldest son, Crown Prince Salman bin Hamad Al Khalifa, has meanwhile accumulated considerable governing experience and has served as Prime Minister since 2020.

The future: succession looks secure. The long-term question concerns the political system surrounding the dynasty rather than the identity of the next monarch.

Qatar: passing power early

In 2013 Qatar did something highly unusual.

Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani voluntarily handed power to his 33-year-old son, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

It was not an abdication forced by revolution, illness or scandal. It was a planned generational transfer.

Under Tamim, Qatar has become one of the most internationally visible small states in the world, hosting the 2022 FIFA World Cup while using its wealth and diplomatic reach to become an important regional intermediary.

The future: strong. Qatar demonstrated that even a ruling monarchy can use voluntary abdication to achieve controlled renewal.

Oman: from uncertainty to a Crown Prince

For years, Oman possessed one of the world’s most intriguing succession problems.

Sultan Qaboos bin Said had ruled since 1970. He had no children and publicly designated no successor.

Oman’s constitution provided an unusual solution: the royal family would attempt to agree upon a successor after his death. If they failed, a sealed letter left by Qaboos would be opened.

When Qaboos died in January 2020, the royal family chose to open the letter and accepted his designated successor, his cousin Haitham bin Tariq.

The transition was remarkably smooth.

Haitham then changed the system.

A new Basic Law established a formal Crown Prince for the first time, making the Sultan’s eldest son, Theyazin bin Haitham, heir.

The future: much more predictable than it appeared at the beginning of 2020.

Saudi Arabia: the great generational transition

Saudi royal succession has undergone a fundamental transformation.

King Fahd died in 2005 and was succeeded by his half-brother Abdullah.

Abdullah died in 2015 and another brother, Salman, became King.

This reflected the pattern that had governed Saudi succession for decades: the Crown passed principally among the many sons of the kingdom’s founder, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud.

But that generation could not rule forever.

In 2017 King Salman appointed his son Mohammed bin Salman Crown Prince, replacing his cousin Mohammed bin Nayef.

The change effectively moved the centre of royal power from the founder’s sons towards his grandsons.

Mohammed bin Salman has subsequently become the dominant figure in Saudi government, overseeing enormous economic and social changes while his father remains King.

The future: the next succession appears straightforward. The more fascinating question is what happens afterwards. Saudi Arabia must eventually establish a durable pattern for succession among the vast number of princes descended from Ibn Saud.

Kuwait: Crown and parliament in conflict

Kuwait has experienced several royal transitions this century.

Emir Jaber al-Ahmad died in 2006. His successor, Saad, was seriously ill and was removed after only days, allowing Sabah al-Ahmad to become Emir.

Sabah died in 2020 and was succeeded by his brother Nawaf. Nawaf died in 2023 and another brother, Meshal al-Ahmad, became Emir.

But Kuwait’s greater story concerns the relationship between monarchy and parliament.

For decades Kuwait possessed the Gulf’s most assertive elected legislature, resulting in repeated clashes between MPs and royal-appointed governments.

In 2024 Emir Meshal dissolved parliament and suspended parts of the constitution for up to four years.

The future: politically uncertain. Kuwait’s question is whether its distinctive tradition of parliamentary politics ultimately reasserts itself or whether royal government becomes permanently stronger.

United Arab Emirates: seven monarchies in one country

The United Arab Emirates is not really one monarchy.

It is seven hereditary monarchies joined together.

Each emirate has its own ruler. Collectively those rulers form the Federal Supreme Council and elect the President of the UAE.

In practice, the ruler of Abu Dhabi has always held the presidency, while the ruler of Dubai traditionally serves as Prime Minister.

The UAE’s founding President, Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, died in 2004 and was succeeded by his son Khalifa.

After Khalifa’s death in 2022, the seven rulers elected his brother Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan President.

The future: extremely secure. Hereditary rule is built into the federal structure of the country itself.

Africa: two monarchies, two completely different systems

Only two internationally recognised sovereign monarchies remain in Africa.

They demonstrate opposite approaches to kingship.

Lesotho: a constitutional Crown above politics

King Letsie III has reigned since 1996.

Lesotho has endured repeated political crises, unstable governments and tensions involving the armed forces, but the King has generally remained outside ordinary political competition.

His constitutional position resembles European monarchy far more closely than that of Africa’s other king.

The future: reasonably secure. In a politically turbulent system, a non-partisan monarch can provide a useful symbol of continuity precisely because he does not personally govern.

Eswatini: Africa’s last absolute monarchy

Travel east from Lesotho and the picture changes completely.

King Mswati III has ruled Eswatini since 1986 and marked 40 years on the throne in 2026.

He possesses extensive political authority and Eswatini is widely described as Africa’s last absolute monarchy.

In 2018 the King changed the country’s international name from Swaziland to Eswatini.

Far more consequential were the major pro-democracy protests that erupted in 2021. Demonstrators demanded political reform and restrictions upon royal authority, while the security response attracted international criticism.

Criticism has also focused upon royal expenditure and inequality.

The future: Eswatini is arguably among the monarchies facing the greatest pressure to change its form.

That need not mean abolition. European history offers another possibility: the dynasty could preserve the Crown by surrendering much of its political authority.

The question is whether reform comes voluntarily or only after greater confrontation.

Tonga: the Pacific kingdom

Tonga is Polynesia’s surviving indigenous kingdom.

King Taufa’ahau Tupou IV, who had reigned since 1965, died in 2006 and was succeeded by his son George Tupou V.

His reign coincided with a major political transformation.

Following unrest and increasing pressure for democratic government, the monarchy relinquished much of its direct political authority. Tonga moved towards a system in which an elected parliament and prime minister exercised greater control.

George Tupou V died unexpectedly in 2012 and was succeeded by his younger brother, King Tupou VI.

The Crown nevertheless retains considerably greater social and cultural prominence than many European monarchies.

The future: likely secure. Tonga provides another demonstration of the paradox of modern kingship: surrendering political power may be one of the most effective ways of retaining the throne.

Which monarchies are actually vulnerable?

Looking across these countries reveals that asking whether “monarchy” has a future is almost meaningless.

There is no single modern monarchy.

Emperor Naruhito of Japan possesses no governing authority.

King Mswati III of Eswatini possesses a great deal.

Malaysia elects its King from among hereditary rulers.

Cambodia selects its King from eligible princes.

Bhutan’s monarchy deliberately created a democratic political system.

Saudi Arabia’s Crown remains at the centre of government.

The United Arab Emirates is effectively a federation constructed from seven hereditary principalities.

Their vulnerabilities are consequently very different.

Japan’s problem is dynastic. Its monarchy is popular enough to survive, but its succession law is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain.

Thailand’s problem is political and generational. Younger Thais have demonstrated a willingness to question an institution that previous generations were expected to treat with extraordinary reverence.

Eswatini’s problem is democratic. Opposition is directed not merely at royal personalities but at the concentration of political power in the Crown.

The Gulf monarchies face another test. Enormous wealth, dynastic networks and control of government make their immediate survival highly likely. But they must govern increasingly educated, technologically connected and economically ambitious societies whose expectations will continue to evolve.

And then there is Bhutan.

Its example may ultimately be the most instructive of all.

The Bhutanese monarchy surrendered power before a revolution demanded it and emerged with its prestige enhanced.

That is a lesson European royal houses learnt over centuries.

The secret of royal survival

Since 2000 the world’s monarchies have changed far more than their ancient titles might suggest.

Japan has witnessed its first imperial abdication in more than two centuries.

Bhutan has transformed itself from royal government into parliamentary democracy.

Qatar has used voluntary abdication to pass authority to a younger generation.

Oman has created a formal Crown Prince.

Saudi Arabia has begun the enormous transition from the sons of its founder to his grandsons.

Thailand has seen public demands for royal reform once considered almost unthinkable.

Tonga has transferred much of the monarch’s political authority to elected government.

Yet remarkably few monarchies have actually disappeared.

The major exception among sovereign states connected to our survey is Barbados, which became a republic in 2021—peacefully, constitutionally and without leaving the Commonwealth.

That tells us something important.

The great threat to monarchy in the twenty-first century may not be revolution. It is irrelevance.

A monarchy that can persuade its people that it provides stability, identity or constitutional value can survive with remarkably little political power.

A monarchy that continues to exercise substantial authority must demonstrate why hereditary rule remains legitimate.

And a monarchy that can do neither will eventually face difficult questions.

The crowns of the world have survived revolutions, wars, empires, dictatorships and extraordinary social change.

Their great talent has never been remaining the same.

It has been knowing when to change.

The death of King Harald V of Norway has brought to an end one of Europe’s longest and most admired modern reigns.

Harald died peacefully at Oslo University Hospital on 28 August 2026, aged 89. He had been King of Norway since 1991 and was, at the time of his death, Europe’s oldest reigning monarch.

His son has succeeded him as King Haakon VIII. On 1 September, the new King appeared before the Storting to take the oath required by Norway’s constitution, promising to govern in accordance with the country’s constitution and laws. His daughter, Crown Princess Ingrid Alexandra, is now first in line to the throne.

The succession marks more than a change of sovereign in Norway. It is another milestone in an extraordinary generational transformation of European royalty.

Queen Elizabeth II is gone. Queen Margrethe II of Denmark has abdicated, as have Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, King Albert II of Belgium and King Juan Carlos I of Spain. Luxembourg changed sovereign in 2025.

Now Norway, too, has entered a new reign.

Yet monarchy itself has proved remarkably resilient.

Across Europe, royal houses which entered the twenty-first century looking to some like historical survivals have repeatedly demonstrated an ability to renew themselves. And beyond Europe, fourteen independent countries continue to share their monarch with the United Kingdom. King Charles III is sovereign of each of them separately, as well as serving as Head of the wider Commonwealth.

So, as Norway mourns one King and begins the reign of another, what has happened to Europe’s other monarchies since the beginning of the century — and what are their prospects for the decades ahead?

Norway: a new reign begins

King Harald V came to the throne on the death of his father, King Olav V, on 17 January 1991.

His was a characteristically Scandinavian reign: politically neutral, relatively informal and closely associated with a sense of national community. Harald was particularly remembered for the humanity he displayed at moments of national trauma, not least following the terrorist attacks in Oslo and on Utøya in 2011.

His later years were increasingly affected by ill health. In 2024, while holidaying in Malaysia, the King required a temporary pacemaker before returning to Norway, where a permanent device was fitted.

Nevertheless, Harald continued to reign until his death on 28 August.

His successor is King Haakon VIII, who at 53 begins the reign for which he has spent most of his adult life preparing.

The choice of regnal name carries considerable historical resonance. His great-grandfather, Haakon VII, was chosen as King when Norway became fully independent in 1905 and established the modern Norwegian royal house.

The new King has also retained the motto used by his predecessors: “All for Norway.”

The succession has simultaneously moved another generation forward.

Haakon’s 22-year-old daughter is now Crown Princess Ingrid Alexandra and heir apparent. Norway changed its constitution in 1990 so that the eldest child would inherit regardless of sex, although transitional provisions meant that Haakon retained precedence over his elder sister, Princess Märtha Louise. Ingrid Alexandra, born after the change, is not subject to that qualification.

If she eventually succeeds her father, she will become Norway’s first female monarch for more than six centuries.

The new reign does not begin without difficulties. The wider Royal Family has endured an unusually troubled period and considerably greater scrutiny than was customary during most of Harald’s reign.

Haakon’s task will therefore be to preserve perhaps his father’s greatest achievement: the idea that a hereditary Crown can sit comfortably within one of the world’s most egalitarian societies.

The future: the succession itself could hardly be clearer. The more interesting question is whether Haakon VIII can inherit the extraordinary reservoir of affection and trust accumulated by his father — and eventually hand a similarly secure monarchy to Ingrid Alexandra.

Denmark: an abdication that changed everything

On New Year’s Eve 2023, Queen Margrethe II astonished Denmark by announcing that she would abdicate.

She had reigned since 1972 and had repeatedly given the impression that hers would be a lifelong vocation. Yet on 14 January 2024, exactly 52 years after her accession, Margrethe signed her declaration of abdication.

Her elder son immediately became King Frederik X, with his Australian-born wife Mary becoming Queen. Their eldest son Christian became Crown Prince.

The transition was strikingly smooth.

That is important because abdication has become one of the great instruments of modern European monarchy. Rather than allowing an increasingly elderly sovereign to struggle indefinitely with public duties, several royal houses have used voluntary retirement to renew the institution.

What once seemed extraordinary — and, to British minds, carried uncomfortable echoes of Edward VIII — has become almost routine on the Continent.

The future: exceptionally strong. Frederik and Mary inherited considerable public goodwill, while Crown Prince Christian provides a clear next generation.

Sweden: waiting for Queen Victoria

Sweden has experienced no change of monarch this century.

King Carl XVI Gustaf has reigned since 1973 and is now one of the world’s longest-serving sovereigns.

But Sweden has already prepared for a very different future.

In 1980, it became the first monarchy to introduce absolute primogeniture, under which the eldest child inherits regardless of sex. That made the King’s eldest child, Crown Princess Victoria, heir instead of her younger brother Prince Carl Philip.

Victoria has therefore spent almost her entire life preparing to become Queen.

Behind her comes her daughter, Princess Estelle.

The future: secure. Sweden seems likely eventually to have two queens regnant in succession — Victoria followed, in due course, by Estelle.

It is part of a remarkable wider transformation.

The heirs in Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and now Norway are all women.

The middle decades of this century may consequently see European monarchy become noticeably more female than it has been at almost any previous point in its history.

The Netherlands: the Dutch tradition of stepping aside

Abdication is almost normal in the Netherlands.

Queen Wilhelmina abdicated in 1948. Queen Juliana followed her example in 1980. And in 2013 Queen Beatrix announced that, after 33 years on the throne, it was time for a new generation.

Her eldest son became King Willem-Alexander on 30 April 2013 — the Netherlands’ first king since Willem III died in 1890.

His eldest daughter, Catharina-Amalia, Princess of Orange, became heir.

The Dutch monarchy illustrates the principal difficulty facing many European crowns. Its survival is not seriously threatened by constitutional crisis. Instead, controversy tends to concern money, privilege and whether royal behaviour reflects the relatively modest role expected of a modern constitutional monarchy.

The future: reasonably strong. The succession is clear and the Dutch tradition of abdication makes generational change considerably easier.

Belgium: preparing for its first queen

Belgium also changed monarch in 2013.

King Albert II abdicated on 21 July, citing his age and health. His eldest son became King Philippe.

Philippe’s heir is his daughter, Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant.

Her eventual accession will make history. Belgium abolished male preference in the succession before Elisabeth’s birth, so she is expected to become the country’s first reigning queen.

Belgium also demonstrates one of monarchy’s less obvious uses.

In a country divided principally between Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Wallonia, with a smaller German-speaking community as well, the Crown provides an institution intended to stand outside both party politics and regional identity.

A president elected in a political contest might inevitably belong to one community or political tradition. A hereditary monarch can, at least in theory, belong equally to all of them.

The future: relatively strong. Elisabeth has been prepared for her constitutional role from childhood and represents another carefully managed generational transition.

Luxembourg: Europe’s newest reign

Until the events in Norway, Europe’s most recent hereditary royal succession had taken place in Luxembourg.

Grand Duke Henri, who had reigned since 2000, abdicated on 3 October 2025 in favour of his eldest son, Grand Duke Guillaume V. Guillaume became head of state after taking the constitutional oath before the Chamber of Deputies.

There was nothing particularly revolutionary about it.

Henri himself had become sovereign when his father, Grand Duke Jean, abdicated in 2000. Luxembourg has consequently embraced the idea that the throne can be handed to the next generation before the sovereign’s death.

The new Grand Duke and his wife, Grand Duchess Stéphanie, have two sons, providing another generation of succession.

The future: highly secure. Luxembourg demonstrates monarchy at its least dramatic — which may be one reason it works so effectively.

Spain: rebuilding after Juan Carlos

Spain entered this century with one of Europe’s most admired monarchs.

King Juan Carlos I was widely respected for his role in the transition from Franco’s dictatorship to democracy and particularly for his conduct during the attempted military coup of 1981.

Then his reputation collapsed.

Financial and personal controversies seriously damaged both Juan Carlos and the institution, and in June 2014 he abdicated.

His son became King Felipe VI, with the unenviable task of rebuilding confidence in the Crown.

Felipe’s reign has included the Catalan independence crisis and continued controversy surrounding his father. Yet attention has increasingly shifted towards his elder daughter, Princess Leonor, Princess of Asturias.

On her eighteenth birthday in 2023, Leonor swore allegiance to the Spanish Constitution before parliament — a major milestone in her preparation to reign.

Curiously, Spain still retains male-preference succession. Leonor is heir because she has no brother; had a son subsequently been born to Felipe and Queen Letizia, he would have displaced her.

That now seems an academic possibility, but it leaves Spain with a succession law increasingly at odds with those of most comparable European monarchies.

The future: less assured than the northern European monarchies, but considerably healthier than it appeared during Juan Carlos’s final years. Leonor may ultimately provide the Crown with another opportunity for renewal.

Monaco: the Grimaldis continue

Prince Rainier III had ruled Monaco for more than half a century when he died in 2005.

His son became Prince Albert II.

For several years the succession presented an obvious problem because Albert had no legitimate dynastic children. His marriage to Charlene Wittstock and the birth of twins in 2014 resolved it.

Although Princess Gabriella was born first, Monaco retains male-preference succession, so her twin brother Hereditary Prince Jacques is heir.

Monaco is, of course, an unusual state. Its monarchy is not simply an institution sitting within the country: the history and international identity of the principality are extraordinarily closely associated with the Grimaldi family, which has ruled, with interruptions, for more than seven centuries.

The future: very secure. Serious republicanism in Monaco is difficult to envisage.

Liechtenstein: the prince who still has power

Liechtenstein differs sharply from most European monarchies.

Prince Hans-Adam II remains the reigning sovereign, having succeeded his father in 1989. Unlike the monarchs of Britain, Scandinavia or the Low Countries, Liechtenstein’s Prince retains meaningful constitutional authority.

A referendum in 2003 approved constitutional changes which strengthened the powers of the monarchy.

There is, however, an unusual wrinkle.

In 2004 Hans-Adam handed the day-to-day exercise of his duties as head of state to his eldest son, Hereditary Prince Alois, while remaining sovereign himself.

Alois has therefore effectively performed many of the functions associated with the monarch for more than two decades without formally inheriting the throne.

This arrangement also makes Liechtenstein’s eventual succession rather less disruptive than it might otherwise be: the heir has already spent much of his adult life doing the job.

The future: very secure. Alois is thoroughly established, while his eldest son, Prince Joseph Wenzel, provides the next generation.

Andorra: a monarchy without a royal family

Andorra possesses perhaps Europe’s strangest constitution.

It has two Co-Princes.

One is the Bishop of Urgell in Spain. The other is the President of France.

Neither position is hereditary.

The arrangement descends from a medieval settlement of 1278. The offices which once represented competing feudal interests eventually evolved into the joint headship of the modern Andorran state.

Today the Co-Princes are Emmanuel Macron, in his capacity as President of France, and Bishop Josep-Lluís Serrano Pentinat, who became Bishop of Urgell in 2025.

The result is one of the delightful oddities of European constitutional history.

When France elects a new president, it simultaneously acquires a new republican head of state — and Andorra acquires a new prince.

The future: surprisingly secure. Andorra has retained the symbolism and historical continuity of monarchy without maintaining a hereditary royal household or dynasty.

Vatican City: the elected monarch

Vatican City is stranger still.

The Pope is sovereign of Vatican City as well as Supreme Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church.

The death of Pope Francis in 2025 led to the conclave which elected Cardinal Robert Prevost as Pope Leo XIV.

The papacy is therefore simultaneously elective and monarchical.

No Pope inherits the position from his father, and the identity of the next sovereign cannot be known in advance. Yet once elected, the Pope possesses sovereign authority over Vatican City.

It is a reminder that hereditary succession is not actually essential to monarchy. History has produced numerous elective crowns; the Vatican is simply the most prominent surviving example.

The future: effectively inseparable from the future of the papacy itself. Unless the constitutional relationship between the Holy See and Vatican City is fundamentally redesigned, the world’s smallest sovereign state will remain an elective monarchy.

The King who reigns over fifteen countries

Europe, however, tells only part of the story.

King Charles III is not simply King of the United Kingdom.

He is separately sovereign of fourteen other independent countries, making fifteen realms in all. The fourteen are:

Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

This distinction is important.

They are not British colonies, nor does Charles reign over them as King of the United Kingdom. Each is an independent sovereign state with its own Crown in constitutional law.

Britain cannot decide whether Canada or Jamaica should remain a monarchy.

Canadians and Jamaicans must decide that for themselves.

And here the future of monarchy becomes considerably less predictable.

Australia: the republic that didn’t happen

Australia came close to constitutional change before our period even begins.

In 1999 Australians voted in a referendum on replacing the Queen and Governor-General with a president appointed by parliament.

The proposal was defeated.

That result did not necessarily mean that Australians had suddenly embraced monarchy. The republican movement itself was divided over the proposed model, particularly whether a president should be chosen by parliament or directly elected by the public.

Republicanism has remained an established part of Australian political debate ever since.

Yet another referendum has proved remarkably elusive.

That illustrates one of the great advantages enjoyed by an established constitutional system: replacing it requires agreement not merely that the present arrangement is undesirable, but upon what should take its place.

The future: Australia could certainly become a republic. But there is no inevitable timetable for doing so.

Canada: easy to question, extraordinarily difficult to abolish

Canadian attitudes towards the Crown are complicated.

The death of Elizabeth II removed a sovereign who had been part of Canadian public life for seven decades, and polling has repeatedly demonstrated considerable indifference or hostility towards monarchy.

Yet abolishing it would be extraordinarily difficult.

The Crown is woven throughout Canada’s federal constitutional arrangements, and changing the office of the monarch would require an exceptionally demanding degree of constitutional agreement.

Canada therefore demonstrates an important distinction:

A monarchy does not necessarily need overwhelming popularity to survive.

Sometimes constitutional inertia is an extraordinarily powerful ally.

There is also a difference between telling a pollster that one would prefer a republic and being sufficiently concerned about the matter to embark upon a prolonged and potentially divisive process of constitutional reform.

The future: continued debate, but probably continued monarchy for some time yet.

New Zealand: republicanism without urgency

New Zealand has also produced several senior politicians who favour an eventual republic.

Yet the issue has rarely become urgent.

The monarchy functions principally through a New Zealand Governor-General and intrudes little into ordinary political life. Consequently even many republican-minded New Zealanders see limited reason to devote political energy to changing it.

That may sound like a rather uninspiring defence of monarchy, but it is a surprisingly effective one.

An institution which causes little political difficulty can be harder to abolish than one which inspires passionate loyalty or passionate opposition.

The future: a republic at some point this century would be unsurprising. So would another several decades of monarchy.

Jamaica: the likeliest departure?

The situation is rather different in Jamaica.

Successive governments have discussed replacing the monarch with a Jamaican head of state, and republican reform remains an active political project.

The process has nevertheless proved more complicated than simply declaring a republic. Jamaica’s Justice Minister was still urging parliament in June 2026 to return to the proposed constitutional legislation intended to remove the monarch.

Any final change will require the necessary constitutional and democratic process.

The important precedent is Barbados.

In 2021, Barbados peacefully removed Elizabeth II as head of state and installed a president while remaining a member of the Commonwealth.

It demonstrated something which is often misunderstood in Britain: becoming a republic does not require a country to leave the Commonwealth.

Indeed, the majority of Commonwealth countries are already republics.

For Caribbean states, republicanism can consequently be presented not as a rejection of Britain but as the final constitutional stage of independence.

The future: Jamaica remains one of the strongest candidates to become the next Commonwealth realm to turn republican.

The other Caribbean realms

The Bahamas, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines have all experienced varying degrees of republican discussion.

Their constitutional arrangements differ, as do public attitudes.

But Barbados changed the psychology of the debate.

For much of the twentieth century, the Commonwealth realms appeared to be a relatively settled constitutional family. Now there is an obvious alternative model: retain Commonwealth membership and friendly relations with Britain, but replace the monarch with a locally chosen head of state.

That does not mean a domino effect is inevitable.

Constitutional change can be difficult. Republican governments can discover that voters are less interested in the issue than politicians. And there is always the awkward question of what sort of presidency should replace the Crown.

Nevertheless, the direction of travel in parts of the Caribbean is unmistakable.

The future: it would be surprising if every Caribbean realm still shared the British monarch at the end of this century.

The Pacific realms

Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu present a rather different picture.

Republicanism has generally had less political urgency there, and the Crown has acquired local constitutional identities largely separate from the day-to-day British monarchy.

That last point is worth emphasising.

The fact that the same person wears several crowns does not mean that those crowns are constitutionally identical. Charles III’s role as King of Papua New Guinea belongs to Papua New Guinea’s constitutional system, just as his Canadian Crown belongs to Canada.

In societies containing numerous linguistic, ethnic and regional communities, a politically neutral head of state outside domestic party competition can also have attractions.

The future: there is no reason to assume that the Pacific realms will automatically follow any Caribbean movement towards republicanism.

Why Europe’s monarchies keep surviving

The curious lesson of European monarchy since 2000 is that surrendering power has generally strengthened the Crown rather than weakened it.

The Scandinavian sovereigns do not govern. Neither do those of Belgium, the Netherlands or Luxembourg. Political disputes can therefore rage without necessarily implicating the head of state.

Abdication has also become normal rather than catastrophic.

Beatrix, Albert II, Juan Carlos, Margrethe and Henri have all demonstrated that a sovereign can step aside and allow a younger generation to take over without threatening the institution.

Succession has been modernised as well.

Sweden pioneered equal primogeniture. Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands followed. Luxembourg has done likewise.

And the next royal generation is already clearly visible.

Victoria in Sweden. Elisabeth in Belgium. Catharina-Amalia in the Netherlands. Leonor in Spain. Ingrid Alexandra in Norway.

Five women who may eventually occupy five European thrones.

The European monarchy of the middle twenty-first century may consequently look rather different from that of 2000.

The Commonwealth realms face a more fundamental question.

For them, the argument is often not about whether Charles III performs his duties adequately. It is whether an independent country in the Caribbean, Pacific or elsewhere still wants its head of state to be a hereditary monarch who principally lives thousands of miles away.

Some will eventually answer no.

Others may conclude that an apolitical Crown which rarely intrudes upon national life is considerably easier to retain than to replace.

And the events of the past few days in Norway demonstrate the question that ultimately confronts them all.

Harald V belonged to a generation which inherited monarchy largely as an established fact. He spent 35 years demonstrating what he believed a modern Norwegian sovereign should be.

Haakon VIII inherits something rather different.

His first days as King have been dominated by mourning for his father, and it is far too early to know what character his reign will ultimately acquire. But the words addressed to him by the President of the Storting on 1 September captured the challenge unusually well: the monarchy must evolve alongside the democracy of which it forms part if it is to endure.

That applies far beyond Norway.

A crown can represent history.

It can provide continuity.

It can place the headship of the state outside the ordinary competition for political power.

But in the twenty-first century, none of those things can simply be taken for granted.

Each monarchy must persuade each new generation that the institution continues to serve a purpose.

And perhaps that, more than crowns, palaces or centuries of history, explains why some monarchies have survived so remarkably well.

They have learnt how to change.

Reports on 20 August 2026 indicate that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are preparing to relocate to Britain with their children, Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. Whatever the long-term significance of the move, it marks the latest chapter in a story that has attracted worldwide attention since Prince Harry and Meghan Markle first met in 2016.

Rather than examining the reasons behind events or revisiting competing interpretations, this timeline records the major milestones in their relationship and public life, from their engagement and marriage to their decision to step back from royal duties and the years that followed. It focuses on dated events and publicly confirmed developments rather than speculation, rumour or commentary.

2016

July 2016 – Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are introduced through mutual friends and begin a relationship.

October 2016 – News of their relationship becomes public.

8 November 2016 – Kensington Palace issues a statement condemning harassment and abuse directed at Meghan in the media and online.

2017

September 2017 – Harry and Meghan make their first official public appearance together at the Invictus Games in Toronto.

27 November 2017 – Their engagement is announced, followed by a televised interview discussing their relationship and future plans.

2018

19 May 2018 – Prince Harry and Meghan Markle marry at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle. Queen Elizabeth II grants them the titles Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

October 2018 – During an official tour of Australia, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand, the couple announce that they are expecting their first child.

2019

6 May 2019 – Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is born.

September–October 2019 – During a tour of southern Africa, both Harry and Meghan speak publicly about the pressures of royal life and media scrutiny in the documentary Harry & Meghan: An African Journey.

2020

8 January 2020 – The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announce their intention to step back as senior working members of the Royal Family and to work towards financial independence.

13 January 2020 – Discussions take place at Sandringham between Queen Elizabeth II, the Prince of Wales, the Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry regarding the Sussexes’ future role.

18 January 2020 – Buckingham Palace announces the agreement governing the couple’s future relationship with the monarchy, often referred to as the “Sandringham Agreement”.

Key Terms of the Sandringham Agreement

• The Duke and Duchess of Sussex would cease to be working members of the Royal Family.

• They would no longer receive public funding through the Sovereign Grant.

• They would not use their HRH styles in practice.

• They would pursue financial independence.

• Certain patronages and honorary appointments would be relinquished.

• The arrangements would be reviewed after one year.

March 2020 – Harry and Meghan undertake their final programme of engagements as working royals.

31 March 2020 – The transition period formally ends.

2020 – Harry and Meghan establish Archewell, which becomes the umbrella organisation for their charitable foundation and a range of media and philanthropic initiatives.

Spring–Summer 2020 – After spending time in Canada, the couple establish a permanent home in California.

2021

14 February 2021 – Harry and Meghan announce that they are expecting their second child.

15 February 2021 – Following the one-year review of the Sandringham Agreement, Buckingham Palace confirms that the Duke and Duchess will not return as working members of the Royal Family. Prince Harry’s honorary military appointments and royal patronages are returned to Queen Elizabeth II for redistribution.

7 March 2021 – Harry and Meghan participate in a televised interview with Oprah Winfrey, broadcast internationally.

9 March 2021 – Queen Elizabeth II issues a statement on behalf of the Royal Family, acknowledging concerns raised during the interview and stating that the matters would be addressed privately.

4 June 2021 – Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor is born in California.

June 2021 – Meghan publishes the children’s book The Bench.

1 July 2021 – Prince Harry returns to Britain for the unveiling of a statue of Diana, Princess of Wales, at Kensington Palace on what would have been her 60th birthday.

2022

April 2022 – Harry and Meghan visit Queen Elizabeth II before attending the Invictus Games in The Hague.

2–5 June 2022 – The couple attends events associated with Queen Elizabeth II’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations.

August 2022 – Meghan launches Archetypes, a Spotify podcast exploring stereotypes and labels applied to women.

8 September 2022 – Queen Elizabeth II dies at Balmoral Castle.

September 2022 – Harry and Meghan remain in Britain during the period of national mourning and attend events surrounding the late Queen’s State Funeral.

December 2022 – Netflix releases the six-part documentary series Harry & Meghan, the couple’s first major screen project under their production partnership with the streaming service.

2023

10 January 2023 – Prince Harry’s memoir Spare is published.

May 2023 – Harry attends the Coronation of King Charles III at Westminster Abbey.

June 2023 – Spotify and Archewell Audio announce the end of their podcast partnership following the first season of Archetypes.

June 2023 – Prince Harry gives evidence in court during legal proceedings against Mirror Group Newspapers, becoming one of the most senior members of the Royal Family in modern times to appear in the witness box.

Throughout 2023 – Harry continues several legal actions relating to media organisations and privacy issues.

2024

February 2024 – Following the announcement that King Charles III is undergoing treatment for cancer, Prince Harry travels to Britain to visit his father.

March 2024 – Meghan announces the launch of her lifestyle brand, originally named American Riviera Orchard.

July 2024 – Prince Harry receives the Pat Tillman Award for Service in recognition of his work with the Invictus Games.

Throughout 2024 – Harry continues legal proceedings relating to media-related claims and personal security arrangements.

2025

2025 – Meghan relaunches her lifestyle venture under the name As Ever, expanding her activities in food, home and lifestyle products.

February 2025 – Netflix releases the first season of With Love, Meghan, a lifestyle series focused on cooking, entertaining and home life.

2025 – The first As Ever product range is released, including preserves, teas and a wider collection of lifestyle products.

August 2025 – Netflix releases a second season of With Love, Meghan.

2025 – The Duke and Duchess continue charitable work through the Archewell Foundation while undertaking media and commercial projects based in the United States.

2026

June 2026 – Reports emerge that Archie and Lilibet are expected to spend time in Britain for the first time in several years.

July 2026 – The Sussex family makes a private visit to Britain, including a reported meeting with King Charles III.

20 August 2026 – Multiple news organisations report that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex intend to relocate to Britain with Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet before the start of the new school year. Reports indicate that the family will live privately and will not resume duties as working members of the Royal Family.

Looking Back

Few members of the Royal Family have experienced such a rapid and public transformation of their role. In the space of a decade, Harry and Meghan moved from a royal engagement and widely celebrated wedding to life outside the framework of official royal duties, establishing new charitable, media and commercial ventures in the United States.

The years following their departure from royal duties saw the creation of Archewell, major publishing and broadcasting projects, podcasting, documentary-making, legal battles, lifestyle branding and business ventures. Alongside these public developments, the couple also became parents to two children and established a family life in California.

The reported move back to Britain in 2026 therefore represents another significant milestone in a story that has unfolded in full view of the public since 2016. Whatever developments follow, the events listed above chart the principal milestones of one of the most closely watched chapters in modern royal history.

Prince George celebrates his 13th birthday today, with a new official portrait marking the occasion and highlighting just how quickly Britain's future king is growing up. As he enters his teenage years, he also reaches an important milestone in his royal journey.

For George, however, turning 13 carries an additional layer of significance. As second in line to the British throne, every stage of his life has constitutional importance. While his parents, the Prince and Princess of Wales, have worked hard to provide him with as normal a childhood as possible, the reality is that his teenage years will inevitably begin to look rather different from those of his classmates.

It is a fascinating moment to reflect not only on Prince George himself but also on what becoming a royal teenager has meant for previous heirs to the throne.

A Childhood Carefully Protected

Since his birth in July 2013, Prince George has occupied a unique position within the Royal Family. He is the eldest child of the Prince and Princess of Wales and, one day, is expected to become King.

Despite that extraordinary future, William and Catherine have consistently prioritised giving George, along with Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis, a stable and grounded upbringing. The family attends school events, sporting fixtures and local activities in much the same way as many other families, while public appearances have been carefully limited to significant royal occasions.

This measured approach reflects lessons learned from previous generations. Both William and Catherine have spoken, directly and indirectly, about the importance of allowing children to develop naturally before the weight of public duty becomes more prominent.

Turning 13 does not suddenly transform George into a working royal, but it does represent the beginning of a new chapter.

The Teenage Years Bring New Expectations

Throughout history, royal childhoods have gradually given way to increased preparation for future responsibilities.

For Prince George, the coming years are likely to involve a deeper understanding of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, national institutions and the role he will eventually inherit. Much of this education will happen privately rather than publicly, but it forms an essential part of preparing any future sovereign.

His education will continue to be his primary focus. Like any teenager, examinations, friendships, hobbies and personal development remain central to daily life. Yet alongside these ordinary experiences will be the gradual introduction to subjects that few teenagers ever encounter: state ceremonies, constitutional conventions, diplomacy and public service.

There is no formal timetable dictating when these lessons begin. Instead, the Royal Family has traditionally introduced future monarchs to their responsibilities gradually, allowing maturity and experience to develop naturally.

Learning From Prince William’s Experience

Prince William’s own teenage years offer perhaps the closest comparison.

As a teenager during the 1990s, William lived under intense media attention. His parents’ highly public marriage difficulties, followed by the tragic death of Diana, Princess of Wales, created enormous public interest at a time when he was still growing up.

Those experiences appear to have profoundly shaped William’s own approach to parenting.

Today, the Prince and Princess of Wales carefully control when their children appear in public. Official photographs are often released by Kensington Palace to mark birthdays and important milestones, reducing the demand for intrusive photographs while allowing the public to share in significant family moments.

It is an approach that seeks to balance legitimate public interest with a child’s right to privacy.

As George enters his teenage years, maintaining that balance is likely to become even more important.

Royal Teenagers Through the Generations

Prince George is not the first future monarch to face the challenges of adolescence under public scrutiny.

King Charles III spent much of his youth preparing for a role unlike any other. His education, including his years at Gordonstoun, reflected the belief that resilience, discipline and public service were essential qualities for a future sovereign.

Queen Elizabeth II experienced an even more extraordinary adolescence. At just ten years old she became heir presumptive when her uncle, Edward VIII, abdicated the throne and her father became King George VI.

By the time she reached her teenage years, Britain was entering the Second World War. Rather than enjoying a conventional adolescence, Princess Elizabeth was already beginning to undertake public duties, delivering her first radio broadcast at the age of fourteen to children evacuated during the Blitz.

Each generation has faced different circumstances, yet the underlying challenge has remained remarkably consistent: preparing a young person for a lifetime of public service while allowing them space to mature.

A Different Kind of Celebrity

Modern royal teenagers occupy a position unlike almost anyone else.

They are among the most recognisable young people in the country, yet they do not choose fame in the way actors, musicians or sporting stars might. Public interest exists because of constitutional role rather than personal ambition.

For this reason, Prince George’s parents have adopted a deliberately restrained approach to publicity. Outside major national events such as Trooping the Colour, royal jubilees or Christmas services, George is rarely seen in official settings.

This has allowed him to enjoy school life with a degree of normality that earlier generations of royal children often struggled to achieve.

As social media continues to reshape public life, protecting that normality becomes increasingly valuable.

What Changes at Thirteen?

In practical terms, very little changes overnight.

Prince George will continue attending school, spending time with his family and enjoying many of the same interests as other teenagers. There is no expectation that he will suddenly undertake regular public engagements or assume formal royal duties.

Instead, the changes are likely to be gradual and largely invisible to the public.

Over the coming years, he may accompany his parents to a wider range of significant national occasions. He will continue learning about Britain’s history, institutions and the Commonwealth, while quietly gaining experience of the ceremonial and constitutional aspects of monarchy.

Most importantly, these years provide an opportunity to develop confidence before public responsibilities become more substantial in adulthood.

Looking Ahead

The coming decade will almost certainly be one of careful preparation rather than dramatic change.

The Prince and Princess of Wales have repeatedly demonstrated their determination to put family life first, suggesting that George’s education and personal development will remain the priority for some time yet. Any increase in public visibility is likely to be measured and purposeful rather than frequent.

History suggests this is a sensible approach. The monarchy depends not simply on ceremony but on continuity, stability and careful preparation across generations.

As Prince George celebrates his 13th birthday, he joins a long line of royal teenagers whose lives have balanced ordinary milestones with extraordinary expectations. Like every teenager, he faces the exciting challenges of growing up. Unlike almost everyone else, he does so knowing that one day he is expected to become Britain’s King.

For now, however, he remains exactly what his parents have consistently sought to protect: a young teenager with school to attend, friends to spend time with and years of learning ahead before the responsibilities of the Crown eventually come calling.

This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers—kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post questions and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Join chat

How to get started

1. Get the Substack app by clicking this link or the button below. New chat threads won’t be sent sent via email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens. You can also access chat on the web.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

The announcement that Prince George will attend Eton College from September has brought to an end years of speculation about where the future king would continue his education.

At first glance, the decision appears to be a continuation of recent royal tradition. His father, Prince William, and his uncle, Prince Harry, both attended the famous Berkshire school. Yet viewed through the lens of history, George’s move to Eton is merely the latest chapter in a remarkable story about how royal education has evolved over the last two centuries.

From governesses in palace nurseries to elite boarding schools and university lecture halls, each generation of royals has been educated differently from the one before. The changing schools attended by Britain’s princes and princesses reveal much about changing attitudes towards childhood, duty and monarchy itself.

The Victorian Beginning: Education at Home

For much of the nineteenth century, royal children did not attend school in the way we understand it today.

Queen Victoria’s own childhood education took place almost entirely within Kensington Palace under the strict supervision of her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and Sir John Conroy. Languages, religion, history and music formed the core of her studies.

After becoming queen in 1837, Victoria and Prince Albert took a close interest in the education of their own nine children. Prince Albert, in particular, believed that intellectual development was essential for future sovereigns and princes.

Their children were educated largely by tutors and governesses within royal residences. They studied languages, mathematics, science, literature, art and history from an early age. The emphasis was on discipline and scholarship rather than formal schooling.

Yet even within Victoria’s family there were concerns that intense expectations could place considerable pressure upon young royals.

The Future Edward VII: A Prince Under Pressure

Victoria and Albert’s eldest son, Albert Edward—known within the family as Bertie and later King Edward VII—received an exceptionally rigorous education.

From childhood he was subjected to an intensive programme of private tuition designed by Prince Albert. Languages, constitutional history, religion and military subjects filled his timetable.

However, Bertie struggled to meet his parents’ expectations. His difficulties became a source of constant concern to both Victoria and Albert, who feared he lacked the intellectual seriousness required of a future monarch.

His experience highlighted a challenge that has accompanied royal education ever since: how to prepare a future sovereign for duty without overwhelming them with expectations.

The Children of George V: Duty, Service and Different Expectations

By the late nineteenth century, royal education was beginning to move beyond palace walls.

King George V firmly believed that princes should understand discipline, hierarchy and service. As a result, his sons experienced a far more structured upbringing than many modern royal children.

His eldest son, the future Edward VIII, was educated by tutors during childhood before entering the Royal Naval College at Osborne on the Isle of Wight at the age of twelve in 1906. He studied there until he was fourteen before progressing to the Royal Naval College, Dartmouth, where he remained until the age of sixteen.

His younger brother, the future George VI, followed a similar route. He attended Osborne between the ages of thirteen and fifteen before moving to Dartmouth until the age of seventeen. Although he was not expected to become king, his education stressed duty and military preparedness.

George V’s only daughter, Princess Mary, also received a carefully supervised royal education, though one shaped by the expectations placed upon aristocratic girls in the early twentieth century. Born in 1897, she was educated privately at home alongside aspects of her brothers’ early instruction, with lessons in languages, history, music, religion and the social accomplishments expected of a princess.

Her education was not directed towards naval college or military training, as it was for her brothers, but towards public service, charitable work and court life. During the First World War, while still in her late teens, Mary became closely associated with welfare and nursing causes, later training as a nurse and becoming a prominent supporter of the Girl Guides, the Voluntary Aid Detachment movement and numerous hospitals and charities.

The Duke of Gloucester, Prince Henry, attended St Peter’s Court preparatory school before Eton College from the age of thirteen to eighteen. He subsequently entered the Royal Military College, Sandhurst.

Prince George, Duke of Kent, attended St Peter’s Court and later Osborne and Dartmouth, while the youngest brother, Prince John, who suffered from epilepsy and died aged thirteen in 1919, was educated privately at Sandringham and Wood Farm.

By modern standards, George V’s parenting style could seem austere. Emotional reserve was considered a virtue, and military training formed a significant part of royal education. Yet the result was a generation whose lives were deeply shaped by service and public duty.

Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret: The Last Royals Educated Entirely at Home

The childhood education of Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret differed significantly from that of their uncles.

Born in 1926 and 1930 respectively, neither princess was initially expected to occupy the central role that history would eventually assign to them. Their education was therefore conducted privately under the supervision of their governess, Marion Crawford, affectionately known as “Crawfie”.

Elizabeth began formal lessons at around the age of six. Alongside Margaret, she studied literature, French, history, geography, music and religion.

Everything changed in 1936 when Edward VIII abdicated and Elizabeth’s father became George VI. At the age of ten, Elizabeth suddenly became heir presumptive.

Her education thereafter took on a more constitutional focus. From her early teens she received lessons in constitutional history and government from Henry Marten, Vice-Provost of Eton College. These studies were designed specifically to prepare her for her future role as sovereign.

The Second World War also influenced both sisters profoundly. During the conflict, they spent much of their time at Windsor Castle. Elizabeth undertook public duties as a teenager and joined the Auxiliary Territorial Service at the age of eighteen, training as a driver and mechanic.

Neither Elizabeth nor Margaret ever attended school. In many ways they represented the final generation of senior royals educated entirely within royal residences.

Queen Elizabeth II’s Children and a New Educational Philosophy

The birth of Prince Charles in 1948 marked the beginning of a new approach.

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip believed that royal children should experience a broader education than previous generations. As a result, their children became pioneers in a gradual move towards mainstream schooling.

King Charles III

Charles began his education at Hill House School in west London at the age of eight in 1957, becoming the first heir apparent to attend a school rather than being educated solely by private tutors.

At the age of nine he moved to Cheam School in Berkshire, remaining there until he was thirteen.

In 1962, Charles entered Gordonstoun in Scotland at the age of thirteen. The school, attended previously by Prince Philip, was renowned for its demanding regime of outdoor activities, physical challenges and character-building exercises.

After spending two terms at Timbertop, Gordonstoun’s remote Australian campus, at the age of sixteen, Charles returned to Scotland and completed his education there before leaving at eighteen.

He then attended Trinity College, Cambridge, from the age of nineteen, reading archaeology and anthropology before switching to history. In 1970 he became the first heir to the throne to earn a university degree.

Princess Anne

Princess Anne attended Benenden School in Kent from the age of thirteen until eighteen.

Her years at Benenden coincided with the development of her passion for equestrian sport. Teachers and classmates frequently remarked upon her determination and independence, qualities that would become hallmarks of her public life.

Prince Andrew

Prince Andrew attended Heatherdown School from the age of seven until thirteen before following his brother to Gordonstoun between the ages of thirteen and eighteen.

He later joined the Royal Navy, reflecting the continued importance of military service within the royal family.

Prince Edward

Like Andrew, Prince Edward attended Heatherdown between the ages of seven and thirteen and Gordonstoun from thirteen to eighteen.

However, he subsequently followed an increasingly common path for younger royals by attending university. He studied history at Jesus College, Cambridge, graduating in 1986.

Diana’s Influence and a New Generation

The educational choices made for Princes William and Harry reflected changing attitudes towards royal childhood.

Diana, Princess of Wales, was determined that her sons should enjoy as normal an upbringing as possible while still recognising their unique position.

Prince William began at Mrs Mynors’ Nursery School in west London at the age of three. He later attended Wetherby School between the ages of four and eight before moving to Ludgrove School in Berkshire from eight to thirteen.

In 1995, at the age of thirteen, William entered Eton College. The decision was highly significant. He became the first future king to attend the school, breaking with the Gordonstoun tradition established by his father.

William remained at Eton until he was eighteen. Following a gap year spent in Chile, Belize and various parts of the United Kingdom, he enrolled at the University of St Andrews in Scotland in 2001 at the age of nineteen.

Initially studying art history before switching to geography, William graduated in 2005 with a degree in geography.

His years at St Andrews proved historically significant for another reason. It was there that he met Catherine Middleton, a fellow student who would eventually become his wife and the future Princess of Wales.

Prince Harry followed a remarkably similar educational path. He attended Wetherby School between the ages of four and eight, Ludgrove from eight to thirteen and Eton College from thirteen to eighteen.

Unlike his brother, Harry chose not to attend university, instead entering military training and subsequently serving in the British Army for ten years.

The Wales Children and the Twenty-First Century Monarchy

The Prince and Princess of Wales have sought to combine lessons from all the generations that came before them.

Prince George attended Westacre Montessori School Nursery in Norfolk from the age of two before joining Thomas’s Battersea at four. Following the family’s move to Windsor, he entered Lambrook School at the age of nine alongside Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis.

Now, at the age of thirteen, George is preparing to follow his father and uncle to Eton College.

His educational journey already reflects many of the changes that have transformed royal childhood over the past two centuries. Unlike Queen Elizabeth II, he has attended school from an early age. Unlike George V’s sons, he has not been prepared primarily for military service. Unlike Charles, he has grown up in an era shaped by digital technology and social media.

Yet there are also clear continuities. Like previous generations, George’s education is intended not simply to provide academic qualifications but to prepare him for a life of public service.

From the private tutors of Queen Victoria’s era to the classrooms of Eton, royal education has continually evolved in response to changing times. Prince George’s next step is not merely a school move; it is the latest chapter in a story that stretches back more than two hundred years.

One of the most persistent misconceptions about the modern royal succession is the claim that Elizabeth II changed the rules so that Princess Charlotte could be a princess from birth.

At first glance, the argument appears convincing. Charlotte was born in 2015 as HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, and many people know that changes to both the succession laws and royal titles took place shortly before her birth. The conclusion often drawn is that the changes were made specifically for her.

The reality is rather different.

Charlotte undoubtedly benefited from the reforms, but she was not their reason. In fact, when the crucial decisions were taken, Charlotte did not yet exist and nobody knew whether the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s first child would be a boy or a girl.

To understand what happened, it is important to separate two distinct constitutional developments: the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 and Elizabeth II’s Letters Patent of 2012.

Two Different Changes

Although they are frequently discussed together, the two measures address entirely different issues.

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 dealt with who could inherit the Crown.

The Act ended the centuries-old system of male-preference primogeniture for future generations of the Royal Family. Previously, a younger son would take precedence over an elder daughter in the line of succession. Under the new rules, the eldest child would inherit regardless of sex.

The Act also removed the disqualification arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic and replaced the sweeping provisions of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 with a more limited requirement that only the first six people in line to the throne must obtain the Sovereign’s consent to marry.

The 2012 Letters Patent, by contrast, had nothing to do with succession. They dealt with royal styles and titles.

Under rules established by George V in 1917, the title of Prince or Princess and the style of Royal Highness were not automatically available to all great-grandchildren of the Sovereign. The rules limited these dignities to specific categories of royal descendants.

Most importantly for the present discussion, the 1917 Letters Patent provided that only “the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales” would automatically be a Prince and Royal Highness.

In practical terms, this meant that William’s eldest son would be born a prince. Any daughters, however, would not automatically receive that status.

As long as succession favoured males, this distinction caused little difficulty. Once plans were underway to introduce absolute primogeniture, however, a potential anomaly emerged.

What if William and Catherine’s first child were a girl?

Under the proposed succession reforms, she would be ahead of any younger brother in the line of succession and could one day become Queen. Yet under the existing title rules, she would not automatically be born a princess.

It was this inconsistency that the Queen sought to address.

The Road to Reform

The story begins shortly after the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton on 29 April 2011.

At the time, William was second in line to the throne after his father, the then Prince of Wales. Any future children of the marriage would therefore be close to the line of succession and, in due course, potential heirs to the Crown.

Only a few months later, leaders from across the Commonwealth realms gathered in Perth, Australia, for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

On 28 October 2011, the prime ministers of the sixteen realms that shared Elizabeth II as Sovereign reached what became known as the Perth Agreement.

The agreement recognised that the existing succession rules no longer reflected modern values. The participating governments agreed that male-preference primogeniture should end and that the remaining restrictions concerning marriage to Roman Catholics should be amended.

The agreement itself did not change the law. Rather, it represented a political commitment by all the realms to enact corresponding legislation or constitutional measures.

This coordination was essential because the Crown is shared among independent sovereign states. Any alteration to the rules of succession required the cooperation of all the realms to avoid the possibility of different countries recognising different monarchs.

As a result, reform proved more complicated than passing a single Act of Parliament at Westminster.

Each realm had to determine how the changes would be implemented within its own constitutional framework. Some required legislation. Others could proceed through different constitutional mechanisms. The process, therefore, took several years.

William and Catherine’s First Child

On 3 December 2012, Buckingham Palace announced that the Duchess of Cambridge was expecting her first child.

At this point, Parliament had not yet completed work on the succession legislation and the sex of the baby was unknown.

It was precisely this uncertainty that made the issue urgent.

If the child were a girl, she would be affected directly by the proposed move to absolute primogeniture. Yet under the existing rules governing royal titles, she would not automatically become a princess.

To ensure that the titles framework aligned with the principles behind the succession reforms, Elizabeth II issued Letters Patent on 31 December 2012.

The document declared that all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess.

The timing is revealing.

The Letters Patent were issued before the birth of William and Catherine’s first child and before anyone outside a very small circle could possibly know whether that child would be male or female.

The measure was therefore not designed specifically for Charlotte. Rather, it was a precautionary constitutional adjustment intended to ensure that any child born to the couple would receive appropriate status.

The Succession to the Crown Act

Meanwhile, the legislative process continued.

The Succession to the Crown Bill was introduced into Parliament in December 2012 and received Royal Assent on 25 April 2013.

Even then, the reforms did not immediately come into force.

Because the changes required coordination among all the Commonwealth realms, implementation had to await the completion of the necessary constitutional procedures elsewhere. Only once the realms had confirmed that their respective requirements had been met could the reforms take effect.

The Act finally entered into force on 26 March 2015.

By that stage, Prince George had already been born.

Because George was male and the eldest child, the new rules made no practical difference to his position in the line of succession. He would have remained ahead of any younger siblings under either the old or the new system.

The significance of the reform became apparent only when his sister arrived.

The Arrival of Princess Charlotte

Princess Charlotte was born on 2 May 2015.

Thanks to the 2012 Letters Patent, she was HRH Princess Charlotte from birth.

Thanks to the Succession to the Crown Act, she retained her place ahead of her younger brother, Prince Louis, when he was born in 2018.

Charlotte was not the first person anywhere in the line of succession to benefit from the introduction of absolute primogeniture. That distinction belongs to Senna Lewis, granddaughter of the Duke of Gloucester, whose position moved ahead of that of her younger brother when the Act came into force in 2015.

Charlotte was, however, the first princess born into the immediate Royal Family whose place in the succession was protected by the new rules and who could not be displaced by a younger brother.

Yet it would be wrong to conclude that either reform was created specifically for her.

The succession changes were agreed internationally in 2011, years before her birth, as part of a wider effort to modernise the constitutional rules governing the Crown.

The Queen’s Letters Patent of 2012 were issued because William and Catherine were expecting a child whose sex was unknown. The purpose was to ensure that the title rules would sit comfortably alongside the proposed succession reforms, regardless of whether that child proved to be a boy or a girl.

Charlotte was the beneficiary of those changes, not their inspiration.

Princess Charlotte has become the public face of the succession reforms, and understandably so. Every time the line of succession is published, her position ahead of her younger brother serves as a visible reminder that male-preference primogeniture has passed into history. Yet the reforms themselves were broader, older and more complex than is often remembered. They emerged from an agreement between sixteen Commonwealth realms, required years of constitutional coordination, and were designed to modernise both succession law and royal titles before the birth of William and Catherine's first child. Charlotte became their most famous beneficiary, but she was never their sole purpose.

In short, the reforms were not about creating a princess. They were about modernising the monarchy for the twenty-first century and ensuring that the position of a future monarch’s eldest child would no longer depend upon whether that child happened to be male or female.

At its height, the British Empire governed nearly a quarter of the world’s population and territory. From Canada to India, from Australia to the Caribbean, the Crown stood at the centre of an enormous imperial system that shaped global politics for centuries.

Yet the Empire that once claimed territories across every inhabited continent no longer exists.

What survived instead was something very different: the modern Commonwealth — a voluntary association of independent nations, some of which still recognise the monarch as head of state, and many of which do not.

For the British monarchy, this transformation was one of the greatest constitutional reinventions in modern history. The Crown evolved from the symbol of imperial rule into a largely diplomatic and ceremonial institution shared among sovereign nations.

The British Empire ended. The monarchy adapted.

The British Empire at its Height

By the early twentieth century, the British Empire had become the largest empire in history. Britain governed colonies, protectorates, dominions, and territories across Africa, Asia, the Americas, the Caribbean, and the Pacific.

The monarch was not merely a symbolic figurehead. The Crown represented imperial authority itself.

Queen Victoria’s assumption of the title Empress of India in 1876 reflected the monarchy’s central place within imperial identity. Royal ceremonies, tours, portraits, and symbols reinforced the idea that the sovereign sat at the apex of a global imperial system.

But beneath the surface, constitutional change had already begun.

The Rise of the Dominions

Some territories within the Empire gradually gained substantial self-government. These became known as the Dominions.

Countries including:

• Canada

• Australia

• New Zealand

• South Africa

• the Irish Free State

increasingly governed their own domestic affairs while still recognising the same monarch.

This created an important constitutional question:

Was the King ruling one empire — or several independent nations sharing one Crown?

The answer emerged gradually during the 1920s and 1930s.

The Balfour Declaration and the Statute of Westminster

The 1926 Imperial Conference produced the Balfour Declaration, which recognised Britain and the Dominions as:

“equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another.”

This principle was then formalised by the Statute of Westminster in 1931, one of the most important constitutional laws in modern Commonwealth history.

The statute recognised that:

• Britain could no longer legislate freely for the Dominions

• each Dominion possessed constitutional equality

• the Crown existed separately within each realm

This was the moment the monarchy effectively ceased to be purely “British”.

Instead, the sovereign became separately:

• King of the United Kingdom

• King of Canada

• King of Australia

• and so forth

Constitutional scholars sometimes describe this as the “divisible Crown”.

It remains one of the defining features of the modern monarchy.

The “Divisible Crown” Explained

Today, King Charles III is not simply a British monarch whose authority extends overseas.

Legally speaking, he is separately sovereign of each Commonwealth realm.

That distinction matters enormously.

For example:

• the Canadian government advises the King on Canadian matters

• the Australian government advises him on Australian affairs

• Governors-General represent the Crown independently in each realm

This is why constitutional changes involving the monarchy often require consultation among multiple realms rather than decisions by Westminster alone.

The monarchy may appear unified ceremonially, but constitutionally it is shared among distinct sovereign states.

Decolonisation After the Second World War

The Second World War accelerated the collapse of European empires across the world, including Britain’s.

The most significant turning point came in 1947, when India achieved independence.

India had long been regarded as the “jewel in the crown” of the Empire. Its independence fundamentally altered Britain’s global position and marked the beginning of rapid decolonisation throughout Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean.

Over the following decades:

• colonies became independent nations

• some retained the monarchy

• others became republics

• Britain increasingly abandoned the language of “Empire” in favour of “Commonwealth”

For the monarchy, this required another transformation.

The sovereign could no longer function as an imperial ruler. Instead, the Crown became a symbol of continuity, diplomacy, and voluntary association.

India and the Reinvention of the Commonwealth

India also forced the Commonwealth itself to evolve.

When India became a republic in 1950, a major constitutional problem emerged. Traditionally, Commonwealth membership had implied allegiance to the Crown.

If India removed the monarch as head of state, could it remain within the Commonwealth?

The solution changed the organisation permanently.

Commonwealth leaders agreed that republics could remain members while recognising the monarch only as the symbolic Head of the Commonwealth.

This was revolutionary.

The Commonwealth ceased to be an exclusively monarchical organisation and became instead a voluntary association of independent states.

That model continues today.

Elizabeth II and the Modern Commonwealth

No monarch shaped the modern Commonwealth more profoundly than Queen Elizabeth II.

Ascending the throne in 1952 during the height of decolonisation, Elizabeth II oversaw the transition from empire to Commonwealth across seven decades.

Throughout her reign:

• dozens of territories gained independence

• many countries became republics

• the monarchy’s international role became increasingly diplomatic and symbolic

Rather than resisting these changes, Elizabeth II largely embraced them.

Her Commonwealth tours, speeches, and personal diplomacy consistently emphasised partnership and equality rather than imperial hierarchy.

For many historians, this adaptation explains why the Commonwealth survived at all.

Commonwealth Country vs Commonwealth Realm

These terms are frequently confused.

A Commonwealth country is any member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Most Commonwealth members are republics.

A Commonwealth realm, however, is a Commonwealth country that recognises the British monarch as its own head of state.

Today, countries including:

• Canada

• Australia

• New Zealand

• Jamaica

remain Commonwealth realms.

Meanwhile:

• India

• South Africa

• Barbados

are Commonwealth countries but not Commonwealth realms.

In short:

• all Commonwealth realms are Commonwealth countries

• not all Commonwealth countries are Commonwealth realms

The Role of Head of the Commonwealth

The title Head of the Commonwealth is separate from the monarchy itself.

It is:

• symbolic rather than political

• not automatically hereditary

• distinct from being king or queen of any particular realm

The role involves:

• representing the Commonwealth internationally

• promoting cooperation among member states

• serving as a symbolic figure of continuity

Although the position is not technically hereditary, Commonwealth leaders agreed in 2018 that King Charles III would succeed Elizabeth II in the role after her death.

Importantly, republics within the Commonwealth recognise the Head of the Commonwealth despite not recognising the monarch as their own head of state.

Barbados and the Modern Republican Model

A major modern example of constitutional change came in Barbados.

On 30 November 2021 — the 55th anniversary of Barbadian independence — the country formally became a republic.

Queen Elizabeth II ceased to be Queen of Barbados and was replaced as head of state by a Barbadian president.

Yet Barbados did not leave the Commonwealth.

Instead, it remained a Commonwealth member while ceasing to be a Commonwealth realm.

The transition occurred peacefully through constitutional reform rather than revolution, demonstrating how modern Commonwealth nations can alter their systems of government while maintaining broader international ties.

Then-Prince Charles attended the ceremony in Bridgetown, acknowledging both Barbados’s history and its sovereign constitutional choice.

The event illustrated how far the Commonwealth had evolved from its imperial origins.

Which Countries Could Become Republics Next?

Several Commonwealth realms continue to debate republicanism today, though the political circumstances vary considerably.

In Jamaica, governments have repeatedly expressed interest in replacing the monarchy with a republic, often linking the issue to national identity and the legacy of colonialism.

In Australia, republican sentiment remains an important constitutional debate more than two decades after the failed 1999 referendum. Questions about national identity, constitutional reform, and the role of the monarchy continue to surface periodically in Australian politics.

Elsewhere in the Caribbean, countries such as:

• Belize

• Bahamas

• Antigua and Barbuda

have all seen varying degrees of republican discussion in recent years.

By contrast, constitutional change appears less likely in countries such as Canada and New Zealand, where legal complexities and political priorities make reform considerably more difficult.

What remains important, however, is that becoming a republic no longer means leaving the Commonwealth itself.

That distinction may prove increasingly significant in the decades ahead.

Conclusion

The end of the British Empire could easily have marked the end of the monarchy’s global role.

Instead, the Crown evolved.

Over the course of the twentieth century, the monarchy transformed from the centre of an imperial system into a shared constitutional institution existing across multiple independent nations.

The Commonwealth itself changed just as dramatically:

• from empire to partnership

• from hierarchy to voluntary association

• from imperial governance to diplomatic cooperation

Today’s Commonwealth bears little resemblance to the British Empire from which it emerged.

Yet the monarchy remains woven into its history, its institutions, and — in some countries — its constitutional future.

The British Empire disappeared.

The Crown endured by changing with the world around it.

There are few countries whose creation can be traced across so many centuries of warfare, dynastic ambition, invasion, and political change as England.

What we now think of as a single nation began instead as a fractured landscape of competing kingdoms and regional loyalties. In the centuries following the collapse of Roman Britain in AD 410, no ruler governed the whole country, and no unified “English” kingdom yet existed. Instead, power shifted constantly between rival realms including Mercia, Northumbria, Kent, East Anglia, and Wessex.

The England that eventually emerged was not inevitable. It was forged gradually — through conquest and diplomacy, Viking invasions and royal reform — before surviving one final transformational conquest in 1066.

And at the heart of that story stood the kings of Wessex.

AD 410 - The End of Roman Britain

For almost four centuries, Britain had formed part of the Roman Empire. Roman towns, roads, villas, and military fortifications stretched across much of the province, particularly in the south and east.

But in the early fifth century, as the Roman Empire came under mounting pressure elsewhere in Europe, imperial authority in Britain collapsed. Around AD 410, the Emperor Honorius reportedly instructed the cities of Britain to look to their own defences.

Roman administration faded. Troops withdrew. Urban life declined in many regions. Into this political vacuum emerged a patchwork of local rulers and competing powers.

Over the following generations, Germanic-speaking migrants from northern Europe — traditionally identified as Angles, Saxons, and Jutes — established settlements across much of southern and eastern Britain. From these territories gradually emerged a series of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.

Later medieval writers would call them the “Heptarchy”: the seven kingdoms of Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Wessex. In reality, the political map was far less tidy. Borders shifted frequently, kingdoms rose and fell, and smaller territories often disappeared altogether beneath stronger neighbours.

There was, as yet, no England.

Seventh and Eighth Centuries - Rival Kingdoms Compete for Power

By the seventh century, several major Anglo-Saxon kingdoms had established themselves as dominant regional powers.

Northumbria controlled much of northern England and became an important centre of learning and Christianity. Mercia emerged as the leading power in the Midlands. Wessex consolidated authority in the south-west.

For long periods, Mercia appeared the most likely candidate to dominate England. Under King Offa, who ruled from AD 757 to 796, Mercian influence reached extraordinary heights. Offa corresponded with Charlemagne, issued sophisticated coinage, and oversaw the construction of the great earthwork still known as Offa’s Dyke along the Welsh border.

Yet even Offa never ruled a united England. Anglo-Saxon kings exercised overlapping and often unstable authority. Power depended heavily upon military success and personal allegiance rather than fixed national institutions.

That instability would soon be tested by a new and devastating threat.

AD 793 - The Vikings Arrive

In AD 793, Viking raiders attacked the monastery at Lindisfarne off the coast of Northumbria.

Though not the first Scandinavian raid on Britain, the assault shocked Christian Europe and later became symbolic of the beginning of the Viking Age. Over the following decades, Scandinavian attacks intensified. What began as seasonal raiding gradually developed into organised conquest and settlement.

Then, in AD 865, a large Viking force known to later chroniclers as the Great Heathen Army landed in England.

Within a generation, much of Anglo-Saxon England had fallen.

East Anglia was conquered. Northumbria collapsed. Mercia was broken apart. Viking rulers established themselves across large areas of northern and eastern England — territory later known as the Danelaw.

Only one major Anglo-Saxon kingdom survived intact.

Wessex.

AD 871 - Alfred and the Survival of Wessex

In AD 871, Alfred became King of Wessex amid near-constant Viking attacks.

His later reputation as “Alfred the Great” can sometimes obscure how precarious his position initially was. By the winter of AD 878, Viking forces under Guthrum had driven Alfred into hiding in the Somerset marshes at Athelney.

Yet Alfred recovered dramatically.

In May AD 878, he defeated Guthrum at the Battle of Edington. The victory secured Wessex’s survival and led to a settlement dividing England between Anglo-Saxon and Viking-controlled territories.

Alfred’s true significance, however, lay not only in military victory but in political transformation.

Recognising that Viking attacks would continue, Alfred reorganised the defences of Wessex through a network of fortified towns known as burhs. He reformed military obligations, improved administration, promoted education, and encouraged the use of written English.

Increasingly, Alfred presented himself not merely as king of the West Saxons, but as protector of the English peoples not yet under Viking rule.

In AD 886, after Alfred recaptured London, a contemporary chronicle declared that “all the English people” outside Danish control submitted to him.

The idea of a wider English identity had begun to emerge.

AD 899–924 - Edward the Elder and Æthelflæd

When Alfred died in AD 899, the task of expanding Wessex’s authority fell to his son Edward the Elder and, crucially, to Edward’s sister Æthelflæd.

Following the death of her husband in AD 911, Æthelflæd became ruler of Mercia in her own right — an extraordinary position for a woman in early medieval Europe. Known as the “Lady of the Mercians”, she proved both politically capable and militarily formidable.

Working in close cooperation, Edward and Æthelflæd systematically reconquered Viking-held territories. New fortified towns were established across the Midlands and eastern England. Danish strongholds fell one by one.

By the time of Æthelflæd’s death in AD 918, the balance of power had shifted decisively.

Wessex was no longer simply one kingdom among many.

It was becoming the dominant power in England.

AD 927 - Æthelstan and the Birth of England

The decisive breakthrough came under Alfred’s grandson, Æthelstan.

Raised partly in Mercia and inheriting both West Saxon and Mercian traditions, Æthelstan became king in AD 924. Three years later, in AD 927, he captured York — the last major Viking kingdom in England.

For the first time, a single ruler controlled territory stretching from the south coast to Northumbria.

Contemporary charters increasingly described Æthelstan not merely as King of Wessex, but as Rex Anglorum — “King of the English”.

Many historians therefore regard AD 927 as the true beginning of the Kingdom of England.

Yet Æthelstan’s new kingdom remained vulnerable. In AD 937, a powerful alliance of Scottish, Viking, and Strathclyde forces invaded England in an attempt to destroy his authority.

The result was the Battle of Brunanburh.

Though historians still debate precisely where the battle took place, its importance is beyond doubt. Contemporary writers regarded it as one of the greatest battles ever fought in Britain. Æthelstan’s victory preserved the unity of England and established Wessex’s supremacy beyond serious challenge.

An Old English poem celebrating the triumph declared that England had been made whole.

Tenth Century - England Consolidated

The rulers who followed Æthelstan strengthened the institutions of the emerging kingdom.

Under kings such as Edmund, Eadred, and particularly Edgar, England became increasingly centralised and administratively sophisticated. Royal authority expanded through systems of taxation, law, coinage, and local government based around shires and royal officials.

By the later tenth century, England possessed something unusual in early medieval Europe: a relatively coherent and unified kingdom governed through increasingly effective royal administration.

But England’s stability remained fragile.

The Vikings would return.

AD 1016 - Cnut Conquers England

Renewed Scandinavian invasions at the end of the tenth century plunged England once again into crisis.

In AD 1016, the Danish prince Cnut defeated Edmund Ironside and became King of England.

Yet significantly, Cnut did not dismantle the English kingdom. Instead, he ruled through its existing structures, laws, taxation systems, and royal institutions. England had become too politically coherent to be treated merely as a collection of conquered territories.

Indeed, Cnut’s reign demonstrated how far England had evolved since Alfred’s day. A Scandinavian conqueror could now inherit the machinery of an established kingdom.

AD 1042 - Edward the Confessor

After the end of Danish rule, the House of Wessex returned to power in AD 1042 with Edward the Confessor.

Edward’s reign brought relative stability, but it also exposed growing tensions within the English political elite. Powerful aristocratic families — particularly the Godwins — competed fiercely for influence at court.

Meanwhile, Edward’s lack of an heir created uncertainty over the succession.

That uncertainty would explode dramatically in AD 1066.

AD 1066 - The Norman Conquest

Edward the Confessor died on 5 January AD 1066.

The following day, Harold Godwinson was crowned king. But his claim was immediately contested by two formidable rivals: Harald Hardrada of Norway and William, Duke of Normandy.

What followed was one of the most consequential succession crises in English history.

In September AD 1066, Harald Hardrada invaded northern England alongside Harold Godwinson’s estranged brother Tostig. Harold marched north and defeated them decisively at the Battle of Stamford Bridge on 25 September.

But even as Harold celebrated victory, William of Normandy had landed on the south coast.

Harold forced his exhausted army south at remarkable speed. On 14 October AD 1066, the two sides met at the Battle of Hastings.

Harold was killed. William emerged victorious.

By Christmas Day AD 1066, William had been crowned King of England in Westminster Abbey.

The Norman Conquest transformed England profoundly. A new French-speaking aristocracy replaced much of the Anglo-Saxon elite. Castles spread across the country. The English Church was reshaped. The language of government and law changed dramatically.

Yet William conquered England; he did not invent it.

By 1066, England already possessed defined borders, established systems of royal administration, taxation, law, and government, along with a political identity that had been forged over centuries.

The long process that began after the collapse of Roman Britain in AD 410 had created not merely a dynasty, but a kingdom.

And that kingdom endured — even through conquest.

It is one of the most persistent—and curiously revealing—misnomers in the English-speaking world: the habit of referring to the present sovereign as the “King of England”. One hears it in films, in journalism, and with particular frequency across the Atlantic. It is, of course, wrong. But more than that, it is interestingly wrong.

For the simple truth is that, at almost no point in history since the early eighteenth century has there been a “King of England”. And even before that date, the crowns worn by English monarchs concealed a far more intricate constitutional reality than the shorthand suggests.

To understand what the British monarch is monarch of, one must begin not with empire, nor even with Great Britain, but with a gradual, uneven process of consolidation—of which Wales provides the first and most instructive example.

The Disappearance of Wales

When William I took the English throne in 1066, he was, in formal terms, King of England. Wales lay beyond his direct control: a patchwork of native principalities and marcher lordships, loosely dominated but not absorbed.

The process of bringing Wales under the English crown was long and, at times, brutal. It culminated under Edward I in the late thirteenth century, whose campaigns effectively extinguished independent Welsh rule. Yet even then, Wales was not simply “England”.

The decisive change came under Henry VIII. The Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 abolished Wales as a separate legal entity and fully integrated it into the Kingdom of England.

By the time of Elizabeth I, Wales had disappeared—constitutionally speaking—into England itself.

Ireland: From Lordship to Partition

If Wales represents absorption, Ireland represents something far more complex: a relationship that evolves, over centuries, from lordship to kingdom, from union to division.

English involvement begins in earnest under Henry II, who asserted authority as Lord of Ireland. For centuries thereafter, Ireland remained a lordship of the English crown—never fully subdued, and never fully integrated.

A significant shift came under Henry VIII, who in 1542 had himself declared King of Ireland, elevating the territory from lordship to kingdom. This placed Ireland, at least formally, on the same monarchical footing as England, even if the reality remained more complicated.

When James VI and I came to the throne in 1603, he was simultaneously:

• King of England (including Wales)

• King of Scotland

• King of Ireland

Three crowns, one head.

The next transformation came with the Acts of Union 1800, which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. Ireland was no longer a separate kingdom in personal union, but part of a single, unified state.

That arrangement did not endure. Following the upheavals of the early twentieth century, most of Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1922, under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Treaty:

• Southern Ireland became self-governing (and later a republic)

• Northern Ireland remained within the United Kingdom

Thus the monarch’s relationship with Ireland—once lord, then king, then sovereign of a united kingdom—was fundamentally redefined.

Three Kingdoms, One Monarch

The accession of James VI and I in 1603 illustrates something subtler: unity of person without unity of state.

When James inherited the English throne from Elizabeth I, he did not create a new kingdom. Instead, he accumulated crowns. He was already King of Scotland; he became King of England (which included Wales) and King of Ireland. What emerged was a composite monarchy—one individual ruling three distinct kingdoms.

This distinction is not pedantic; it is fundamental. Each of James’s kingdoms retained:

• Its own Parliament

• Its own legal system

• Its own church settlement

Even the famous Authorised Version of the Bible (1611) was produced within this context: a shared monarch attempting to impose a degree of religious uniformity across jurisdictions that remained constitutionally separate.

James himself preferred the title “King of Great Britain”, but this was aspirational. No such state existed in law. The crowns were worn together, but not fused.

This arrangement persisted through the seventeenth century, surviving civil war, the execution of Charles I, republican interlude, and restoration. It is a striking example of a monarchy that is already multinational, yet not yet unified—a reminder that political geography and royal title do not always align.

A King of France?

Complicating matters further—if only symbolically—was the English (and later British) claim to the throne of France.

This began under Edward III, who in 1340 asserted a dynastic claim that helped to ignite the Hundred Years’ War. For a time, the claim had real substance. Under Henry V, the Treaty of Troyes recognised him as heir to the French throne, raising the possibility—briefly—of a dual monarchy.

That possibility collapsed within a generation. By 1453, English rule in France had effectively ended. Yet the claim did not.

Instead, it lingered—centuries beyond its practical relevance—in royal style and symbolism. English and later British monarchs continued to call themselves “King of France” and to quarter the fleurs-de-lis in their arms. It became a constitutional fossil: a title detached from reality, preserved by tradition.

Its eventual abandonment in 1801, under George III, was telling. There was no dramatic renunciation, no diplomatic reckoning—merely a quiet adjustment of titles to reflect what had long been true.

The episode serves as a cautionary note for your broader theme: royal titles are not always reliable guides to political fact. Sometimes they describe reality; sometimes they memorialise it; sometimes they simply outlive it.

The End of England

If the French claim shows how titles can outlast reality, the Acts of Union 1707 demonstrate the reverse: how reality can extinguish a title altogether.

Under Anne, the Kingdom of England (already including Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland were merged into a new state: the Kingdom of Great Britain.

This was not a personal union of crowns, as in 1603, but a full political union:

• One Parliament at Westminster

• One sovereign state

• One crown in law, not merely in person

The consequences are often underappreciated. From 1707 onward, there is no sovereign Kingdom of England. It does not exist—not as a legal entity, not as a political unit, not as a crown.

Thus the phrase “King of England” does not become imprecise at this point; it becomes meaningless.

Empire and Its Transformation

The expansion of British power overseas added scale, but not simplicity.

Under Victoria, the monarchy came to preside over a vast empire. Yet this empire was never a single constitutional entity. It consisted of:

• Crown colonies governed directly

• Protectorates with indirect rule

• Self-governing Dominions with substantial autonomy

Victoria’s title as Empress of India (1876) reflected imperial reach, but not uniform governance. The Crown functioned differently in different places.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 marked the decisive turning point. It recognised that the Dominions were independent states, equal in status to the United Kingdom.

From this moment, the Crown ceased to be a purely British institution extended outward. Instead, it became something more unusual: a shared monarchy, existing separately within multiple sovereign states.

From Empire to Commonwealth

As the Empire receded, it gave way not to a single successor, but to two overlapping—and often confused—concepts.

The first is the Commonwealth of Nations: a voluntary association of independent countries, most of them former parts of the British Empire. Membership does not require a shared head of state, nor even a monarchical system. Republics such as India and South Africa sit comfortably alongside kingdoms.

The second is the more specific category of Commonwealth realms: those countries which retain the monarch as their own head of state. These include, among others, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

The distinction is crucial:

• The Commonwealth of Nations is a diplomatic and cultural association

• The Commonwealth realms are constitutional monarchies sharing the same sovereign

One may belong to the first without the second. Most members, in fact, do.

Complicating matters slightly further is the role of Head of the Commonwealth. This is not a hereditary title, nor is it constitutionally tied to monarchy. Nevertheless, since the mid-twentieth century, it has been held successively by George VI, Elizabeth II, and now Charles III.

In 2018, Commonwealth leaders agreed that Charles should succeed Elizabeth in this role—an important reminder that, unlike the Crown, it rests on collective consent rather than inheritance.

The Many Crowns of Elizabeth II

When Elizabeth II acceded in 1952, she inherited not a static inheritance, but a system in motion.

As decolonisation proceeded, newly independent states faced a choice: retain the Crown or become republics. Many chose the latter. Some, however, retained the monarch—creating a network of independent realms sharing a sovereign.

At its height, Elizabeth II was head of state of more than thirty countries. By the end of her reign, that number had reduced to fifteen.

The key point is constitutional rather than numerical. She did not rule a single transnational entity. Instead, she occupied multiple, legally distinct thrones simultaneously. In each realm, her authority derived from that country’s own constitution, not from the United Kingdom.

A Changing Monarchy: From Elizabeth II to Charles III

This arrangement is not fixed. It continues to evolve.

In 2021, Barbados became a republic, removing the monarch as head of state while remaining within the Commonwealth of Nations. The transition was orderly and deliberate—less a rupture than a constitutional adjustment.

Other realms have considered similar steps. Some have held referendums; others have ongoing debates. There is no requirement of uniformity. Each country determines its own constitutional future.

Thus, when Charles III acceded in 2022, he became monarch not of a fixed set of countries, but of a potentially changing group of realms, each free to reconsider its position.

A King of Many Places—and None of Them “England”

Today, Charles III is separately:

• King of the United Kingdom

• King of Canada

• King of Australia

• King of New Zealand

• and of several other independent realms

Each title rests on a distinct constitutional foundation. Each exists independently of the others.

What he is not—and what no monarch has been for more than three centuries—is “King of England”.

The Point of the Matter

To call the present sovereign “King of England” is not merely imprecise. It is to flatten a rich and complex history into a convenient fiction.

The monarchy has encompassed:

• Absorption (Wales)

• Personal union (the Stuarts)

• Political union (Great Britain and later the United Kingdom)

• Dynastic ambition (France)

• Imperial expansion and retreat

• And, finally, a network of independent realms linked by a shared Crown

It has been, at different times, many things—but rarely simple.

The habit of saying “King of England” persists because it feels intuitive: England is the largest and historically dominant part of the United Kingdom. Yet intuition, in this case, obscures reality. The crown has never sat neatly within those borders, and for more than three centuries it has not been tied to them at all.

To speak accurately is not to be pedantic; it is to recognise how the monarchy has evolved—through conquest, union, separation, and reinvention—into something rather unusual: a single institution that exists simultaneously in multiple constitutional forms.

And so the question remains a useful one, precisely because it resists an easy answer:

Monarch of where?

There is a temptation, on the centenary of Queen Elizabeth II’s birth, to rehearse the familiar arc: the young princess, the unexpected accession, the dutiful sovereign. Yet such narratives, however accurate, risk missing the more elusive quality of her reign—its peculiar relationship with power itself.

For what marked Elizabeth II’s seventy years on the throne was not the exercise of power in any direct sense, but the preservation of its appearance. She came to the Crown in 1952, at a moment when Britain could still plausibly regard itself as a global power. The Second World War had been won; the imperial structure, though already under strain, had not yet fully receded. By the time of her death, the geopolitical landscape had altered beyond recognition. And yet, curiously, the British state did not always seem to have diminished in proportion.

The explanation lies, at least in part, in the sovereign herself.

The British monarchy is often described as ceremonial, and in strict constitutional terms this is true. The Queen did not govern. She did not set policy. But to reduce her role to ornament is to misunderstand the subtler forms of influence embedded within the constitution. Her weekly audiences with successive prime ministers—from Winston Churchill to Rishi Sunak—were conducted in private, without record, and without fanfare. Yet they formed a continuous thread through modern British political life.

What she possessed, uniquely, was memory. Not the abstract memory of institutions, but the lived recollection of decisions taken, crises navigated, and assumptions once held with confidence. In those audiences, she represented a form of continuity that no elected official could match. Prime ministers came and went; she remained. That constancy did not confer authority in the executive sense, but it did shape the atmosphere in which authority was exercised. Britain continued, in part, to behave like a nation accustomed to global leadership because, in her presence, it still felt like one.

Nowhere was this more evident than in her stewardship of the Commonwealth of Nations. The Commonwealth is not an empire, nor even a coherent political bloc. It is a voluntary association, diverse to the point of contradiction. And yet, under the Queen, it acquired a degree of cohesion that exceeded its formal structure. This was not the product of constitutional design, but of personal commitment. She attended, she listened, she remembered. Leaders who had little else in common found, in her, a fixed point of reference.

It would be too strong to suggest that she prolonged Britain’s global power in any material sense. Economic and military realities admit of no such intervention. But it is not unreasonable to argue that she softened the experience of its decline. The Commonwealth, in her hands, became a kind of afterlife of influence—a space in which Britain could continue to convene, to host, and to matter, even as the terms of that importance evolved.

Ritual reinforced this impression. The great set-pieces of monarchy—the State Opening of Parliament, Trooping the Colour, the carefully choreographed state visit—were not empty theatre. They projected continuity, stability, and a certain quiet authority. Foreign dignitaries encountered not merely a country, but an institution that seemed to stand slightly apart from time. In diplomacy, such impressions are not trivial. They shape expectations; they confer a subtle advantage.

For much of her reign, this worked in Britain’s favour. The gap between perception and reality was not so wide as to invite scrutiny. But as the decades passed, the dissonance grew more pronounced. Britain’s relative position in the world shifted, sometimes gradually, sometimes abruptly. Yet the presence of the Queen—familiar, unchanging, quietly assured—made that shift less immediately apparent.

Only in retrospect does the full effect become clear. Her reign provided a form of reassurance: that whatever transformations were underway, something essential endured. It is possible that this reassurance came at a cost. A nation that feels itself continuous may be slower to reconsider its place in the world. A state that appears stable may postpone difficult adjustments.

None of this diminishes her achievement. On the contrary, it clarifies it. Her “quiet power” did not lie in altering the course of events, but in shaping how those events were experienced—by her governments, by her counterparts abroad, and by her people. She did not hold Britain at the height of global power. But for much of her long life, she ensured that it remained, in spirit and in presentation, a country that had not entirely relinquished the habit of it.

That, in the end, may be the most subtle legacy of all.

In recent years, a small but persistent strain of online commentary has sought to question the existence of the children of Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, namely Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. While such claims are not grounded in credible evidence, they offer an opportunity to reflect on how we evaluate information, evidence, and plausibility in the modern age.

Rather than engaging with speculation directly, it is more constructive to examine the internal logic required to sustain such theories. When one does so, three simple questions emerge—each of which reveals the claims to be fundamentally untenable.

What would be gained?

Any serious allegation must begin with motive. What, precisely, would the Duke and Duchess of Sussex gain from such an elaborate deception?

Since stepping back from official royal duties in 2020, the couple no longer operate within the framework of the working monarchy. They do not receive public funding through the Sovereign Grant, nor do their current professional endeavours depend upon fabricating heirs. Indeed, their public roles—spanning media, philanthropy, and publishing—are entirely independent of such considerations.

Conversely, the risks associated with such a scheme would be immense. One would have to assume a willingness to jeopardise reputations, invite legal consequences in both the United Kingdom and the United States, and sustain a deception involving numerous professionals and institutions. It is difficult to identify any plausible benefit that could justify such extraordinary risk.

What would be the endgame?

Equally revealing is the absence of a coherent objective. For a conspiracy of this magnitude to function, it must lead somewhere, yet no convincing endgame is ever articulated.

The children occupy positions in the line of succession, but they are not in immediate proximity to the throne. Their existence confers no meaningful constitutional advantage that could not be achieved through entirely legitimate means. Nor does the notion of “publicity” withstand scrutiny; public attention is neither scarce nor dependent upon such fabrications.

A theory without a clear and rational conclusion is not a strategy—it is an assertion without structure.

Must others be complicit - or deceived?

Perhaps the most telling question is this: who else must be involved?

To deny the existence of Archie and Lilibet is, by necessity, to implicate others. One must accept either that the royal family is complicit in maintaining a falsehood or that it has been successfully deceived.

The first proposition would require the participation of senior figures, including Charles III, as well as the late Elizabeth II, both of whom publicly acknowledged the children. It would further imply the involvement of palace officials, medical professionals, and government authorities across two countries - all maintaining perfect secrecy.

The alternative - that the royal household has been misled - is no more plausible. Royal births are subject to formal procedures, legal registration, and multiple layers of verification. To sustain such a deception over several years would require bypassing systems designed precisely to prevent such occurrences.

In either case, the theory demands a chain of increasingly improbable assumptions, none of which are supported by evidence.

Addressing Common Claims

While it is neither necessary nor particularly helpful to catalogue every rumour, a small number of frequently repeated claims may be addressed briefly, as they tend to reflect broader misunderstandings rather than substantive evidence.

One such claim concerns the relatively limited number of publicly released photographs of Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex. This is sometimes presented as suspicious. In reality, it reflects a conscious decision by Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex to afford their children a greater degree of privacy than is customary for senior working royals. Such an approach may differ from recent precedent, but it is neither unprecedented nor improper.

A further line of argument points to perceived irregularities in announcements or procedures surrounding the births. Yet royal practices have never been entirely static. While tradition once dictated highly formalised announcements within the United Kingdom, the circumstances of the Sussex family, particularly the birth of Lilibet in the United States, naturally involved different legal and administrative processes. In both cases, however, the essential requirements of birth registration and medical certification were fulfilled in accordance with the relevant authorities.

Occasionally, claims are also made on the basis of photographic or video material, with ordinary variations in appearance, perspective, or timing interpreted as inconsistencies. Such interpretations tend to rely on selective readings of visual media rather than verifiable facts, and they overlook the well-established limitations of drawing firm conclusions from isolated images.

Taken together, these claims share a common characteristic: they arise not from contradictory evidence, but from gaps in visibility, differences in expectation, or misunderstandings of procedure. When placed in proper context, they do not substantiate the conclusions drawn from them.

In this light, it becomes clear that such arguments do not meaningfully challenge the substantial body of formal documentation and institutional acknowledgement outlined above. Rather, they illustrate how easily conjecture can take root in the absence of full visibility—particularly when that absence is the result of deliberate and entirely legitimate choices regarding privacy.

A question of evidence

Against these conjectures stands a straightforward body of verifiable fact: official birth registrations, medical documentation, public acknowledgements by senior royals, and consistent reporting across reputable sources. While the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have chosen a more private approach to family life than some of their relatives, privacy is not evidence of absence.

Conclusion

Conspiracy theories often endure not because they are persuasive, but because they resist disproof within their own framework. Yet when examined through the lens of motive, structure, and institutional reality, the claims surrounding the Sussex children collapse under their own weight.

In the end, the matter is rather simple. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In this instance, there is none—only speculation, sustained in the absence of reason.

A more measured approach—grounded in evidence, proportion, and common sense—leads to a far more credible conclusion.

Here on Line of Succession we track the official order to the British throne — a carefully defined list determined by statute, religion, and centuries of constitutional practice. On paper, the line is straightforward. In reality, royal inheritance has rarely been so tidy.

History is full of moments when the succession might easily have taken a different turn. Depositions, disputed legitimacy, religious conflict, and parliamentary intervention have all reshaped the crown’s path at one time or another. For every officially recognised monarch, there are rival genealogies and intriguing “what if” claimants waiting in the wings.

This week we are stepping away from the official list to explore several of the most interesting alternative lines of succession. Some once commanded political movements and armies; others exist mainly as genealogical curiosities. All of them illustrate just how contingent the modern royal succession really is.

The Jacobite Succession

The best-known alternative royal line begins with the supporters of the deposed King James II of England.

In 1688 the Glorious Revolution removed James from the throne and replaced him with his Protestant daughter Mary II of England and her husband William III of England. Parliament subsequently reinforced the new constitutional settlement through measures such as the Bill of Rights 1689 and, crucially, the Act of Settlement 1701.

Jacobites rejected this settlement entirely. In their view, James II remained the lawful monarch and the crown should pass to his heirs regardless of religion.

The Jacobite line therefore ran through three principal Stuart claimants:

• James Francis Edward Stuart

• Charles Edward Stuart

• Henry Benedict Stuart

The most dramatic moment of the Jacobite cause came during the Jacobite Rising of 1745, when Charles Edward Stuart led a Jacobite army as far south as Derby before retreating to Scotland, where the uprising ended in defeat at the Battle of Culloden.

When Henry Benedict Stuart died childless in 1807, the senior Stuart line ended. However, the theoretical hereditary claim continued through the descendants of Henrietta Anne Stuart and passed into a succession of European dynasties.

Today the senior heir of that line is Franz, Duke of Bavaria.

Under strict Jacobite principles he would theoretically be King Francis II of Great Britain and Ireland. In practice, however, such a claim would have no legal standing in the United Kingdom. The Act of Settlement 1701 restricts the crown to the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover, meaning that even if the Duke of Bavaria wished to assert his hereditary claim, the existing constitutional settlement would invalidate it.

Like his predecessors in the Wittelsbach line, the Duke of Bavaria has never shown any interest in pursuing the matter.

The “Real King of Britain” in Australia

One of the more entertaining modern succession theories emerged from a 2004 documentary presented by Tony Robinson titled Britain’s Real Monarch.

The programme examined a controversial hypothesis about Edward IV of England. According to the theory, Edward may have been illegitimate because his supposed father, Richard, Duke of York, was allegedly campaigning in France at the time Edward was conceived.

If Edward IV were not the legitimate son of the Duke of York, the Yorkist claim would instead descend through his younger brother:

• George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence.

Following that line through the centuries eventually leads to an Australian aristocrat:

• Michael Abney-Hastings.

At the time the documentary aired, Lord Loudoun lived in rural Victoria and worked as a forklift driver. The idea that Britain’s rightful monarch might be living quietly in Australia understandably captured the public imagination.

However, even if the historical theory were correct — something most historians doubt — the claim would still fail under modern constitutional law. The Act of Settlement 1701 determines the present royal succession, and it grants the crown exclusively to the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover. Since the Abney-Hastings line descends through an entirely different branch of medieval royalty, any theoretical claim would be legally excluded.

Lord Loudoun died in 2012, and the earldom passed to his son:

• Simon Abney-Hastings.

Under the same speculative theory, Simon would now occupy the position his father once held in that alternative genealogy. Like his father, he has treated the idea with good humour and has never pursued any form of royal claim.

The Australian Claimant to be Charles and Camilla’s Son

A very different sort of “alternative claimant” emerged in the twenty-first century with the assertions of Simon Charles Dorante-Day, an Australian man who claims to be the secret son of Charles III and Camilla, Queen Camilla.

Dorante-Day states that he was born in the 1960s and adopted shortly afterwards, alleging that his biological parents were the then Prince Charles and Camilla Shand. He has pursued legal action in Australia seeking DNA testing and official recognition of this alleged parentage.

No credible evidence has ever substantiated the claim, and historians and royal commentators consider it entirely unsupported. The timeline itself presents serious problems, as Charles and Camilla’s well-documented relationship did not begin until the early 1970s.

Of course, even if this claim were true, it would make no difference to the line of succession. Dorante-Day would be excluded as illegitimate, and the subsequent marriage of Charles and Camilla makes no difference to that.

Nevertheless, the story occasionally resurfaces online and in international media, reflecting the enduring fascination with royal lineage and the powerful allure of hidden heirs.

If the Line of Sophia of Hanover Failed

The modern British succession ultimately derives from a single individual:

• Sophia of Hanover.

Under the Act of Settlement 1701, the crown was granted to Sophia and the “heirs of her body being Protestant.”

When the Act was passed, Sophia was actually far down the hereditary line descending from James I of England. Many individuals with stronger hereditary claims existed, but they were excluded because they were Roman Catholic.

Parliament, therefore, deliberately bypassed numerous senior lines and settled the crown on Sophia as the nearest acceptable Protestant heir.

This creates an intriguing genealogical puzzle. If every descendant of Sophia were somehow to die out, the Act of Settlement would effectively cease to operate. Parliament would once again have to legislate to determine the next monarch.

From a purely genealogical perspective, however, one must look further back in the royal family tree, because the Stuart descendants senior to Sophia were largely Catholic dynasties on the continent.

One of the earliest English royal figures whose line still has living descendants is:

• Frances Brandon.

Frances was the granddaughter of Henry VII of England and the mother of the famous — and tragically short-lived — Lady Jane Grey.

Through her younger daughters, particularly Katherine Grey and Mary Grey, the Brandon line continued into numerous English aristocratic families. Those descendants survive today, meaning that if one searches far enough back through Tudor genealogy, the Brandon line provides one of the earliest surviving branches with living heirs.

Of course, none of this would determine the monarchy in practice. If Sophia’s line truly failed, the choice of the next monarch would almost certainly become a matter for Parliament rather than pure hereditary calculation — just as it did during the constitutional crises that produced the settlement of 1689 and 1701.

A Monarchy of “What Ifs”

The modern succession appears long, stable, and reassuringly clear. Thousands of descendants of Sophia of Hanover stand between the present day and any conceivable constitutional vacuum.

Yet the history of the British monarchy shows how often the royal line has been redirected by events: revolutions, religious conflict, disputed legitimacy, and acts of Parliament.

Had just a few moments in history unfolded differently, the British throne might today belong to a Bavarian duke, an Australian aristocrat, or an entirely different royal house.

For students of royal genealogy, these alternative successions serve as a reminder that the monarchy is not merely a list of names. It is a story shaped by politics, religion, and the unpredictable twists of history.

Did You Know?

The modern British line of succession is far longer than most people realise.

Because the crown is limited to the Protestant descendants of Sophia of Hanover under the Act of Settlement (1701), genealogists have traced thousands of eligible heirs.

Most estimates suggest there are well over 6,000 living people currently in the legal line of succession to the British throne.

Only the first couple of dozen names are widely published, but the list stretches deep into European and North American families — many of whom have little idea that they technically appear somewhere in the order of succession.

In theory, every one of those people would need to be excluded or die out before the succession could move beyond Sophia’s descendants and force Parliament to establish a new royal line.

For most of the past millennium, the English — later British — Crown has followed a recognisable hereditary principle: the monarch is succeeded by their eldest legitimate son, or - in the absence of sons - by their eldest legitimate daughter.

Until the twenty-first century, this operated under male-preference primogeniture. Only with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was absolute primogeniture introduced for those born after 28 October 2011.

Yet the history of the monarchy since 1066 shows that while the principle has been consistent, its application has sometimes been turbulent - and occasionally set aside altogether.

It is helpful to distinguish between three very different kinds of exception.

I. When the Rulebook Was Thrown Out

These were moments of deposition, conquest, parliamentary revolution, or dynastic collapse - when the established order of succession was overridden by force or statute.

1. William I (1087)

When Edward the Confessor died in January 1066 without children, the succession was disputed. William, Duke of Normandy, claimed that Edward - his distant cousin - had previously promised him the English throne, and that Harold Godwinson had sworn an oath to uphold that claim. Harold, however, was chosen king by the Witan and crowned as Harold II of England. William regarded this as both a personal betrayal and a violation of a solemn oath. His invasion was therefore presented not as conquest alone, but as the enforcement of what he believed to be his lawful right.

On his death, William left Normandy to his eldest son Robert Curthose, but England to his second son William II. The inheritance of the English Crown was treated as a political choice rather than an automatic right.

2. Henry I and The Anarchy (1135)

Henry I of England had secured recognition of his daughter, the Empress Matilda, as heir. Yet upon his death, Stephen seized the throne. The result was civil war - proof that hereditary right alone did not guarantee accession.

When Stephen died, he passed the succession to Matilda’s son, Henry II.

3. Richard II (1399)

Richard II of England, childless, was deposed by Henry Bolingbroke, who reigned as Henry IV. Parliament retrospectively justified what was, in essence, a usurpation.

4. The Wars of the Roses (1455-1487)

The fifteenth century saw succession repeatedly overturned:

• Henry VI of England was deposed by Edward IV, despite having a son.

• Edward V of England was displaced by his uncle, Richard III.

• Richard III of England fell in battle, ending the Yorkist line and putting Henry VII, the first Tudor king, on the throne.

Here, heredity yielded entirely to force of arms.

5. Edward VI (1553)

Edward was 15 when he died and had no children. He named his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, as his heir, but she was unable to retain it, and after only nine days, the throne was seized by his half-sister, Mary I

6. The Glorious Revolution (1688)

James II of England had a legitimate son. Yet Parliament declared that he had abdicated and offered the Crown jointly to William III and Mary II (James’s daughter and her husband. This was not a technical quirk - it was a constitutional revolution.

7. The Abdication Crisis (1936)

Edward VIII abdicated. With no children, the Crown passed to his brother George VI - a lawful transfer, but one precipitated by unprecedented personal and constitutional circumstances.

II. When the Rules Produced a Different Outcome

In these cases, the established succession rules were followed - yet they resulted in someone other than the monarch’s eldest child inheriting.

1. Henry VII (1509)

Henry’s eldest son, Prince Arthur, died at the age of 15 with no children. On Henry’s death, the Crown went to his second son, Henry VIII.

2. Mary I (1558)

Mary died childless and was succeeded by her half-sister, Elizabeth I.

3. Elizabeth I (1603)

Elizabeth was unmarried and had no children. When she died, the Crown passed to her nearest relative, James VI of Scotland, who became James I of England. He was Elizabeth’s first cousin twice removed.

4. Charles II (1685)

Charles II had no legitimate children and was succeeded by his brother James VII of Scotland and II of England.

4. William III (1702)

William III reigned jointly with his wife, Mary II, until her death in 1694. After that he reigned alone until his death in 1702. The couple had no children, so he was succeeded by Mary’s sister, Anne. Mary and Anne’s brothers had all been removed from the succession because they were Catholic.

5. Anne (1714)

Anne died in 1714 with no surviving issue. Under the Act of Settlement 1701, the Crown passed to her nearest Protestant relative, George, Elector of Hanover - her second cousin - inaugurating the House of Hanover.

6. George II (1760)

George II’s eldest son was Frederick, Prince of Wales. Frederick predeceased his father, so his father was succeeded by Frederick’s son, George III.

7. George IV (1830)

George IV’s only child, Princess Charlotte, predeceased him, so he was succeeded by his younger brother, William IV.

8. William IV (1837)

William died with no living, legitimate descendants, so he was succeeded by the daughter of his younger brother Prince Edward (who had died in 1820). She became Queen Victoria.

9. Edward VII (1910)

Edward’s eldest son, Prince Albert Victor, predeceased his father, so he was succeeded by his second son, George V.

III. The Corner Cases

Finally, there are a few monarchs whose successions occurred amid instability but ultimately conformed to hereditary principle:

• John (1216) - His son Henry III succeeded despite French invasion.

• Edward II (1327) - Deposed, but succeeded by his son Edward III.

• Charles I (1649) - Executed, yet his son Charles II was king de jure throughout the Interregnum.

These episodes appear anomalous but did not, strictly speaking, violate the rule.

A Thousand Years of Elastic Continuity

Across nearly a millennium, the principle of hereditary succession has shown remarkable resilience. Yet it has also been shaped by conquest, statute, civil war, religion, and personal decision.

The “rule” has endured, but history reminds us that it has never been entirely immune from circumstance.

Police in the UK have arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor on suspicion of misconduct in public office, according to multiple mainstream news organisations reporting police confirmation of the arrest of “a man in his 60s” in Norfolk. The reporting places the arrest at Wood Farm on the Sandringham estate, with searches also being carried out at addresses in Norfolk and Berkshire.

That combination of details — age, location, and the intense media focus — leaves little doubt about the identity of the suspect, even if the police statement itself is framed cautiously. Reuters, for example, reports the arrest directly in connection with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and says it relates to allegations involving the late Jeffrey Epstein.

What is he suspected of?

The suspicion being reported is misconduct in public office, a serious common-law offence that applies when someone who holds public office is alleged to have abused the trust of that position. In plain terms, it is about the alleged misuse of an official role, rather than (say) a private moral failing.

The core allegation described in the reporting is that, during a period when Andrew held an official public role connected to UK trade work, he shared confidential or sensitive information with Epstein — a convicted sex offender who moved in elite circles and cultivated access to influential people. Reuters says the focus is on alleged sharing of confidential government information with Epstein, with reference to materials said to be from 2010 and linked to trade-related trips.
AP similarly reports that police action followed an assessment of allegations that trade reports were sent to Epstein.
The Guardian’s live coverage adds colour about the nature of the material described, reporting that emails released in US document dumps are said to show briefings or reports being forwarded.

At this stage, what matters is what the offence requires and what police must establish: not merely that there was a relationship or social contact, but that there was a serious breach of duty connected to a public office, and that it reached the threshold of criminality.

Why now? The trigger appears to be new material from the United States

A striking aspect of today’s events is the timing: the reporting repeatedly points to newly released US documents connected to Epstein as the catalyst that brought the matter back to a point of active criminal investigation. Reuters describes the allegations as surfacing following the release of a very large set of US government documents related to Epstein, which prompted scrutiny and, ultimately, the UK police action now under way.

That “why now” is important because it suggests this is not simply a re-litigation of public scandal, but an investigation that police believe is justified by fresh evidential leads (or at least fresh visibility of alleged communications), sufficient to move from assessment into an active investigation and an arrest.

What does an arrest mean in UK terms?

An arrest is not a conviction, and it is not even a charging decision. It is, however, a major step. In UK criminal procedure, arrest typically indicates police believe it is necessary and proportionate to detain and interview a suspect under caution, and potentially to secure evidence (including through searches).

The reports that searches are being conducted at multiple locations matter because they strongly imply the investigation is not just about taking a statement: it is about gathering material — documents, digital devices, correspondence, or other records — that could corroborate or contradict what has been alleged.

From a reader’s perspective, this is the key point: the existence of an arrest tells us the investigation has entered a formal, high-stakes phase, but it does not tell us what the evidence will ultimately show.

The Epstein connection — and the sensitivity around “official” access

Public interest in Epstein’s networks has always been fuelled by two overlapping concerns:

1. Sexual exploitation and trafficking (a moral and criminal horror in its own right), and

2. The possibility that access to power created opportunities for influence, leverage, or compromise.

Today’s reported allegation sits squarely in the second category: that Epstein may have been given access to information he should never have had — not because of his official status (he had none), but because he cultivated relationships with people who did.

The Guardian’s reporting indicates that the police focus is on alleged sharing of sensitive information during Andrew’s trade role, and Reuters describes the allegation as involving confidential government information.

Even if the information in question were not “national security” material in the strict sense, the principle is the same: public office is held on trust. The alleged misuse of that trust is what makes this legally distinct from yet another round of reputational fallout.

For the Royal Family as an institution, the stakes are painfully obvious. A police arrest involving the King’s brother is constitutionally and reputationally serious — yet the constitutional position is also clear: policing and prosecution decisions are not supposed to bend around royal sensitivities. Reuters’ report notes the public significance and the nature of the alleged offence, and today’s coverage across outlets underscores the pressure on institutions to demonstrate equal application of the law.

What happens next?

There are several plausible near-term steps, and they may happen quickly:

• Interview under caution (already implied by “in custody” reporting).

• Further searches and digital forensics on any seized devices or records (a process that can take time, but the decision to search tends to happen early).

• A decision to release without charge, release under investigation, or seek charge — depending on the evidence and the relevant tests for prosecution.

It is also possible (and worth stating plainly) that the investigation could broaden beyond the initial allegation if evidence points that way — or narrow if the evidence does not substantiate the claim to the criminal standard.

Why this story is bigger than one individual

This isn’t simply “royal scandal” in the tabloid sense. The reason it has become a major breaking-news event is that it touches three of the UK’s most sensitive fault-lines at once:

1. Public trust in institutions — whether rules apply evenly.

2. The boundary between private relationships and public duty — especially when elite networks overlap with official roles.

3. The long shadow of the Epstein case — which continues to generate new allegations and new documentary trails years after his death.

At the centre of it all is a very specific legal question: did a public role — and the access and credibility that came with it — become a conduit for improper disclosure or influence? That is what investigators will now be trying to answer, and it is why today’s development is being treated with such seriousness.

For now, the only responsible stance is to hold two truths at the same time: the arrest signals that police believe there is a case serious enough to justify detention and searches, and the suspect remains entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence unless and until charged and convicted.