Depravity and Deprivation

The Prince Andrew made a statement two days ago that, following discussions with the rest of the royal family, he will “no longer use my title or the honours which have been conferred upon me”. This is a press release rather than any formal instrument of law, so does not properly remove those from him, though a complete stripping away of said title and honours may be looming anyway. It is important to be aware of the principles and procedures involved here.

Removal of the Peerages

Andrew holds three titles in the Peerage of the United Kingdom — Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh — which were conferred on him by Queen Elizabeth II. He has committed to ceasing all use of these titles whether in public or private context and so most if not all press and official sources will no longer use them when referring to him, but legally removing them is not easy. For almost a thousand years it has been the case that the reigning monarch (nowadays always on the advice of the Prime Minister) was broad prerogatives to hand out peerages at will, but not to then take them back again.

Some media sources are misusing technical terms here: The peerages are not “dormant” (which occurs when the incumbent dies and it is not clear who, if anyone, is the heir), nor “abeyant” (which is where the peerage allows succession to heirs female but without ranking them by primogeniture as the males are, so that inheritance is split between them). They are also not “extinct” or “reverted to the crown” (when the incumbent dies there is definitely no heir), nor “merged with the crown” (when the peer ascends to the throne). Probably the most appropriate term here is disused, for while Andrew legally still is Duke of York, he and everyone else will behave as if he isn’t.*

This video by Dr Allan Barton, writer of The Antiquary, explains most of the processes of removing peerages, which I will here summarise in textual form:

Recent Legislation

The Peerage Act 1963 provided, among other measures, for a person who has inherited a peerage within the last twelve months to disclaim it for his lifetime by writing to the Lord Chancellor. This is not relevant to Andrew’s situation as he has held his titles for over thirty-nine years and they were newly-created for him rather than inherited.

The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allows peers to retire from Parliament at will, and also allows the Lord Speaker to expel members who are absent without leave for a whole session of six months or longer, as well as those who receive criminal convictions resulting in imprisonment for more than a year. The House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2025 further gives the House the power to vote out members who breach the code of conduct. Notably neither of these acts say anything about removing the titles of those affected, only their membership of the legislature. These are not relevant to Andrew’s situation either because his membership of the upper house was already terminated by the House of Lords Act 1999 and he was not one of the peers elected to stay on at the time nor has he contested any of the hereditary peer by-elections since then.

The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 allowed King George V to revoke British peerages from those whom a specially-appointed committee of the Privy Council had identified as aiding or supporting an enemy country in the First World War. This is probably the closest precedent for Andrew’s situation but still is not itself applicable as his alleged offences are not of the nature described therein, plus “the present war” as specified is one that ended more than four decades before his birth.

Earlier Legislation

In medieval and early modern times, a recurrent political weapon was the Act of Attainder. This was a special Act of Parliament which convicted and sentenced its target for a serious crime without the need for a trial in court. An attainted man lost all of his civil rights and his property was all forfeit to the state. If he held a peerage this was forfeit in the same way.

This was used regularly to punish peers who were political enemies of the monarch, especially if they had led revolts against him. There is precedent for this being used against members of the monarch’s own immediate family, most notably in 1478 when George Plantagenet was attainted and then executed for treason against his brother King Edward IV. He lost the dukedom of Clarence and all subsidiary titles, which his own son Edward of Warwick was then unable to inherit.** The last use of an act of attainder against a peer of the realm was in 1745, when several dozen people were convicted for the Jacobite uprising against King George II.

The procedure for attainder was abolished in the nineteenth century and Winston Churchill was dissuaded from attempting to revive it in the twentieth. The concept of convicting a person of a crime through the legislature rather than the courts was open to abuse for political purposes and is considered incompatible with modern conceptions of Human Rights, so its future usage is highly unlikely.

If the present Duke is to be properly deprived of his peerages, a bespoke new law will need to be devised.

Removal of the Knighthoods and Other Honours

Elizabeth II appointed her son a Commander of the Royal Victorian Order in 1979, then promoted him to Knight Commander in 2003, then Knight Grand Cross in 2011. She also appointed him a Royal Knight Companion of the Order of the Garter in 2006.

Appointments to orders of chivalry are by the monarch’s letters patent, which can be cancelled and annulled by subsequent letters patent. Andrew’s knighthoods are both in orders under the monarch’s direct control rather than those subject to ministerial advice so I would logically assume that members can be removed (or, to use the technical term, degraded) at the monarch’s will as well, but this page on the Cabinet Office website is a little ambiguous.

Andrew was appointed a Grand Companion of the Order of Logohu in 2015. This order has the King of Papua New Guinea as sovereign and the Governor-General as Chancellor, but I haven’t so far found a source clarifying whether governmental advice is required for either appointment or removal.

Andrew also has a raft of military and commemorative medals, including the South Atlantic Medal for his service in the Falklands War. I haven’t looked up the rules of eligibility and forfeiture for all of these individually. His foreign awards (such as the Royal Norwegian Order of St Olav) are up to those countries to decide.

Removal of the Status of Prince

The dignity of Prince or Princess of the United Kingdom, along with the style of Royal Highness, is conferred by the sovereign either by letters patent or royal warrant and can be revoked by the same. François Velde of the website Heraldica has compiled the texts of all of these since 1864. It should be noted that, whereas the monarch himself has a distinct legal title in each of the Commonwealth Realms, the titles of the rest of the royal family only exist in the law of the United Kingdom and are recognised in the other realms by courtesy.

Removal from the Line of Succession

Per the Statute of Westminster 1931 any changes to the rules for succession to the throne must be agreed by all the Commonwealth Realms in unison. Per the Act of Settlement 1701 the Duke can remove himself from the line of succession by converting to Roman Catholicism. Perhaps that is something His Majesty can discuss with His Holiness at next week’s state visit.

Other Matters

The Order of Precedence in Scotland is determined by a royal warrant from 1905. That in England & Wales is based mainly on an ordnance by the Lord Chamberlain in 1595. These can be, and frequently are, amended in small ways by successive royal warrants to assign precedence to individuals and offices for which the original documents did not account. The King could likely revoke Andrew’s precedence as a brother of the monarch by this method.

The House of Lords Precedence Act 1539 (which per se only applies within the Lords chamber but in practice has been used as a basis for the order of precedence in England more widely) is primary legislation and would need another act of Parliament to change it.

Andrew is still eligible to be a Counsellor of State per the Regency Act 1937, as the Counsellors of State Act 2022 did not remove existing counsellors. His position as fourth adult in line to the throne will not change until Princess Charlotte has her twenty-first birthday in 2036. He could be ruled out early if he ceases to be a British subject and/or domiciled in the United Kingdom. Again, the only other way to remove him is by new primary legislation.

His precedence is largely an academic matter now that he is no longer attending even family events let alone public ones, and is fantastically unlikely to be called upon to attend a sitting of Parliament nor to sign state papers, but if there is to be a bill to remove his peerages then it would be fairly easy to tack on an extra couple of sentences dealing with these matters too.

I am a little uncertain as to the protocols around removing his naval rank, but it seems that, with the cooperation of the Admiralty Board, he can be permitted to resign his commission.

Before we get carried away with all of this, it is worth reminding ourselves of the state of limbo in which the addled prince currently lives — he has, after all, still yet to be convicted of, or even tried for, any crime, and in the future it may be considered by cooler heads that a bad precedent was set in such degradation based on the heat of public opinion.

Finally, spare a thought for Andrew Lownie, whose book is, much as I predicted, already seriously overtaken by events barely two months after publication. He’ll have to rush out a new edition next year, I suppose!


FURTHER READING

FOOTNOTES

*The closest parallel, though still quite weak, is how Queen Camilla was legally Princess of Wales from 2005 to 2022 but styled herself Duchess of Cornwall instead.

**As the attainder only applied to his father, he could still inherit the earldoms of Warwick and Salisbury from his maternal grandmother… but then in 1499 he too was attainted and executed for treason against King Henry VII. The latter title was restored in 1512 to his sister Margaret, but then she was attainted in 1539 and executed in 1541 for treason against King Henry VIII.

UPDATE (20th October)

Dr David Torrance has produced a briefing on this topic for the House of Commons Library. My FOI request to the Cabinet Office as to whether the Honours Forfeiture Committee’s remit includes those orders in the sovereign’s personal gift has been rejected.

The Duchess of Kent’s Funeral

The funeral took place today at Westminster Cathedral. It was not televised, but there was a press-pool camera outside which livestreamed to YouTube. Unfortunately the camera feed only covered the outside of the cathedral, and our view of the inside was limited to a handful of still images (which seem to be of guests filing in rather than the ceremony itself), and what could be seen from the outside once the doors were opened. Since it was broad daylight from the outside, it took a while for the camera’s light sensitivity to adjust so that proceedings inside were actually visible. This was briefly undone every time someone in a white cassock walked across the camera’s field of vision outside, so that the interior became a black void again. I will make here what few observations I can, mainly about flags and cars.

When viewed from the piazza, the flagpole on the left of the main door normally flies the flag of the Holy See (or Vatican City) while that on the right flies the Union Flag (or Jack). This time the Vatican flag flew full-mast throughout while the right pole flew the sovereign’s banner of arms at full-mast in his presence and the Union Flag at half-mast in his absence.

Katharine did not have the use of a banner of her own arms (the Duke of Kent impaling Sir William Worsley) so her coffin was draped in the generic royal banner with the ermine bordure. Attendees on departure could be seen clutching the printed order of service with Katharine’s royal cypher (the letter K topped by a coronet of crosses and strawberry leaves, curiously not the version shown on Wikimedia Commons). The order of service itself has not been released, but the royal family website has this article explaining events that took place. An announcement on the cathedral’s website uses Sodacan’s illustration of the late duchess’s heraldic achievement.

The doors opened as the piper was walking out, after which the national anthem was played. Two verses were sung, preceded by Gordon Jacob’s fanfare. It was played on the cathedral’s organ but I don’t think any brass players were present.

I took notes on which royals arrived in which car:

  • The Late Duchess herself was carried in the claret Jaguar hearse (no numberplate) also seen at Elizabeth II’s funeral.
  • The Duke & Duchess of Gloucester in OY20FUL (a dark red diesel Jaguar)
  • Prince & Princess Michael in a blue BMW (probably YK74MHB, electric)
  • The Duke & Duchess of York in KN74EFK (a green hybrid Range Rover)
  • Sir Tim Laurence & The Princess Anne in DK74CMV (a blue petrol Bentley Bentayga)
  • The Prince & Princess of Wales in KU25UPR (a blue hybrid Range Rover)
  • The Duke of Kent & Lady Helen Taylor in a blue Jaguar (registration not shown in footage)
  • The King and Sir Clive Alderton in the Bentley State Limousine (no numberplate needed).

The Duke of York looked a little confused on the way out, walking towards the cars, then back to the cathedral, then to the car again, as if not sure which one he was meant to be using. A short wheelbase bus was used for several other family members, including Lord & Lady Frederick Windsor.

The Duke of Kent, aged 89, understandably looked rather frail and shrivelled. His siblings Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra were both seen in wheelchairs at some points, then walking with canes at others. The Queen did not attend, having pulled out at the last minute due to a sudden bout of acute sinusitis. It is not confirmed if she will still be attending the imminent American state visit.

Review: The Queen and Mrs Thatcher by Dean Palmer

The Queen and Mrs ThatcherOf all the post-Churchill prime ministers who have governed the United Kingdom, there is one whose personality and policy stick out particularly strongly in the national – and indeed global – consciousness. Margaret Thatcher is the longest-serving British premier in living memory, and also the one whose tenure is often considered the most transformative. Even now, twelve years after her death, her legacy remains a potent force in determining the course of British politics both inside and outside her own party. As I mentioned in my article about memoirs, a lot of MPs define their status in relation to Thatcher in a way that doesn’t happen with Macmillan, Wilson or even Blair. Perhaps, then, it is only natural that her royal audiences, more than anyone else’s, should be a source of such fascination. Palmer isn’t the only one to single out this relationship – there’s also Moira Buffini’s comedy play Handbagged. Thatcher also marks a turning point in Elizabeth II’s reign (the halfway point of which occurred about the time of her third election victory): When the monarch came to the throne her ministers were often people nearly as old as her grandparents, by the end they were people born well within her reign and sometimes younger than her grandchildren. Thatcher was only four months older – had the Princess Elizabeth gone to school they would have been in the same academic year. On top of that, there was the obvious novelty of having the heads of state and government both be female, which still hadn’t happened again when this book came out.

The theme of the book is that despite the superficial similarity in sex and age, the two protagonists (or should that be antagonists) were fundamentally poles apart in class and philosophy – Elizabeth representing the genteel, leisurely aristocracy and Margaret the ambitious middle-class strivers. The chapters on their childhoods are where this difference is laid out most starkly (and also where Palmer’s sympathies are most obvious): Alfred & Beatrice Roberts had high aspirations for their offspring, which little Maggie displayed superhuman intelligence and stamina in pursuing, even to the extent of hiring a private tutor to teach her Latin because her grammar school didn’t offer it but Oxford required it. Palmer says that in a few months she picked up what normally takes five years. Lilibet, by contrast, barely got any formal education as her mother Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon did not value it at all. Mary of Teck intervened to rectify her granddaughters’ shortcomings but even she agreed that it would be undesirable to have them be particularly studious1. That said, it was assured that the princess took seriously her status as heiress presumptive, and that this sometimes gave her an “imperious” attitude, even to the point of criticising a priest’s sermon or a guard unit’s attire (ironically that part is like Thatcher later on). The longstanding political trope of “authenticity” comes up here: Thatcher, having worked her way from middle to upper class, had taken elocution lessons and adopted other affectations which often caused sniggering from both above and below. The Queen, having been born and raised at the top, naturally avoided this. That Thatcher did not share Her Majesty’s (or really any) sense of humour was another cause of friction. It would be wrong, however, to say that such friction is inherent due to the differences in social class, or even to political differences – among the grammar school generation of prime ministers Elizabeth II got along well with Wilson, Callaghan, Major and Brown but not so well with Heath.2

I shall attempt now to go through, in no particular order, the key reasons which Palmer identifies for the disagreement between the two leading ladies. The first is the subversion of the traditional relationship between crown and government: The British constitution employs a separation of the Dignified and Efficient parts of the state so that patriotic adulation can safely be directed at a figurehead who does not exercise real executive power, while the person who does exercise it is kept in a position of symbolic subservience. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is supposed to be first-among-equals, with all the other ministers around the cabinet table deciding on policy collectively. Thatcher’s domineering personality and immaculate sense of style often got her called “Presidential”. She would insist on immediately visiting the scene after a disaster to meet survivors (whereas the royals would wait a day or two in case their presence obstructed rescue and clean-up operations), and taking military salutes in preference to the monarch – something even Churchill couldn’t have done. It was seen that she was usurping her queen’s role as the symbolic personification of the nation. She also had a tendency to ride roughshod over her political colleagues, gradually purging all but the staunchest loyalists from the front bench, then later neglecting even these in favour of a small cabal of special advisers. This, Palmer notes, is what ultimately brought about her political downfall in 1990.

The second point of contention was Thatcher’s political philosophy: Although she was the Leader of the Conservative Party, many commentaries and histories of her tenure remark that it was really the Labour Party at this time which was “small-c conservative” in so far as it sought to maintain the prevailing status quo in Britain’s economic order. Thatcher thought that the policies of the last dozen governments had led Britain into terminal stagnation and that radical reforms were needed to find prosperity again – the welfare state, the nationalised industries and the trade unions were all dead weights which throttled growth, therefore they had to be destroyed. There was to be a ruthless drive for efficiency and productivity above all else. This did not sit well with the sedate and sentimentalist approach to life favoured by the royal household and the rest of the aristocracy. Despite the outward deference of Thatcher herself, the Firm could well have feared for their own survival against the forces she sought to unleash. The traditionalist wing of the Conservative Party, many of whose members were also from aristocratic backgrounds and who supported a paternalistic approach, likewise balked at much of this. A division erupted between One-Nation/Wet and Thatcherite/Dry parliamentarians which continues to this day.

The third division was over the pair’s approach to division itself: Thatcher realised that in order to be an effective political leader she often had to make decisions which would be unpopular even if they were necessary (and ultimately beneficial). A government can survive on the support of a surprisingly-low proportion of the population (given turnout and constituency distribution) and even that need technically only be mustered once every four or five years when a general election comes around. Party leaders need to make strategic calculations about which demographics matter and which don’t, as well as what they can accomplish in the limited time available to them. Thatcher to this day is legendarily divisive, making enemies of large swathes of the country, but not really caring as long as she beat them. The Queen, by contrast, needed to be monarch for everyone, everywhere, forever, no matter their creed or their breed. The position of the crown was more comfortable in the age of consensus than when the people were polarised. This distinction is especially stark in international affairs because Thatcher was only head of government in one country whereas Elizabeth was head of the enormous Commonwealth of Nations, many of which were demographically and economically very different to the United Kingdom. At times of crisis, such as over Rhodesia and South Africa, Thatcher often found herself at odds with the majority of her overseas counterparts, leaving Her Majesty in a difficult position scrambling to hold the organisation together. The Queen greatly valued her extended Commonwealth family, whereas Thatcher saw many of them (particularly the African countries) as ungrateful leeches. This rift also continues in the Conservative Party to this day.

Finally, many pages are devoted to Thatcher’s dealings with the news empire of Rupert Murdoch. He achieved his dominance of the British press during Thatcher’s premiership thanks in no small part to her continued and determined support. Murdoch’s many papers and other outlets would ensure the widespread distribution of the Thatcherite perspective. Murdoch shared Thatcher’s hatred of trade unions and strikers. He also had a loathing of Buckingham Palace, and his reporters would go to great lengths to dig up (or indeed create) dirt on the Windsors, intruding on their private lives where the British press theretofore had restrained themselves from treading. Thatcher may not have actively approved of such practices, but she tacitly tolerated them in exchange for Murdoch’s support to her government. To this day, many on the left and right (though mostly left) identify “The Murdoch Press” as the root of a great deal of Britain’s political and social instability – his antics in the 1980s encouraged an overall lowering of the tone which has yet to rise back up.

I picked up my copy of Palmer’s book from a throw-out sale at Hull Central Library on the 1st of this month at a price of 50p. I noticed there was a more recent edition of the same title still on the shelves for lending. In mine, I spotted an alarming number of proofreading errors, some of which I will now list for your amusement:

  • Page 43: “Alfred Roberts sought to make something of himself beyond the realm of his little business by taking an active role in both his local Methodist church and by serving on the local council.” – The word “both” should immediately follow “business”.
  • Page 61: “Mothers throughout the country were astonished that a women would take free milk from children.” – That should be “a woman” not “a women”.
  • Page 93: “Not since Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots had two “queen regnants” lived in the British Isles.” – That should be “queens regnant” not “queen regnants”.
  • Page 138: “Prurient interest in the royal family’s private lives were off-limits.” – That should be either “interests” or “was off-limits”.
  • Page 165: “Scargill was a socialist hero after helping to bring down the Tory Government in 1984.” – I would assume that meant to say 1974.
  • Page 166: “It cost £44 to mine a metric ton of British coal, while the rest of the world were selling it for £32 per ton.” – That should probably be “was selling” and metric tons are more commonly called tonnes.
  • Page 192: “At Buckingham Palace, Her Majesty waited for the third time to invited Mrs Thatcher to form her government.” – That should be “to invite” not “to invited”.
  • Page 221: “embarrassment” is used twice in the same paragraph.
  • Page 271: “King William and Queen Katherine would certainly sparkle” – That should be “Catherine” not “Katherine”.

Also, throughout the book Palmer refers to “the queen” rather than “The Queen” or “the Queen” which are more usual in most style guides.

I was intrigued too by the reference on page 153 to “the first Elizabethan period”, obviously identifying 1952-2022 as the second such era. This usage has not really caught on widely in academia or among the general public. I wonder whether “New Carolean” will do so.

On that note, the political attitudes of the then-Prince of Wales are also covered. He is described as being more “Wet” than his mother, and even as being sympathetic to the Social Democratic Party under David Owen. There is mention on page 195 of a meeting between prince and premier about increasing the former’s constitutional role. Thatcher turned down planning for any regency arrangements. She said he could open parliamentary sessions in his mother’s absence if need be, but only as a Lord Commissioner on the woolsack instead of from the throne (ironically the former was made impossible in 1999 and the latter wound up happening of Elizabeth II’s own volition in 2022). The most surprising thing mentioned was the stance of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother – apparently (page 207) she was an ultra-Thatcherite and fully supported the prime minister’s ideology, which is a little at odds with what was said about her attitude to raising her daughters as aforementioned or what the book also said about her dealings with Charles.

A few days ago I mentioned three new royal biographies coming out. While I have yet to read any of them in full (and may never do so) I read some of the previews on Google Books. Excepting where the later books describe events too recent for the earlier ones to cover, I expected that there would be a fair bit of overlap. Sure enough I noticed a lot of the same quotations and anecdotes appearing. This book has a very lengthy endnotes section which links back repeatedly to a large number of earlier royal and political biographies. Since most members of the family rarely (and the monarchs themselves never) give tell-all interviews (and those who do are often unreliable in what they say), nearly all of the publications on this subject will be pieced together from the same handful of sources, stories and speculations, with the original part being the author’s decision on which way to arrange them, what narrative arc to infer from them, and what commentary to add. Palmer does an adequate job of that, I suppose, but I can’t see this ever being considered one of the greats.


FOOTNOTES

1The term for this was “bluestocking”, which is also the name of Helen Lewis’s blog.

2The book came out too early to learn what she thought of May, let alone Truss.

Accession Day 2025

Today marks three years since the passing of Elizabeth II and thus the commencement of the fourth year of the New Carolean era. Here is a quick round-up of recent developments.

New Royal Biographies

The stream of these is continuous and too large to notice all of them, but three in particular have generated news coverage:

  • Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York by Andrew Lownie (14th August, HarperCollins). The title alludes to the Wars of the Roses, but really it’s about the personal, professional and financial lives of the most recent Duke & Duchess. The book is overwhelmingly derogatory and might have been considered scandalous had not most of the topics therein been raised already some years ago (while the other claims are usually less-than-credible). Many reviewers and columnists have said words to the effect that it would be devastating to its targets’ reputations if only they had reputations left to devastate. The people who didn’t already believe the things Downie asserts here probably won’t read this book anyway so despite a few sensational headlines I doubt in the long run it will really change anyone’s position.
  • Power and the Palace: The Inside Story of the Monarchy and 10 Downing Street by Valentine Low (11th September, Headline). Low has already written Courtiers in 2022, which I have in my collection but have not gotten around to reading yet. I’m not sure I’ll ever read this one either since, as is often the case with this kind of book, the newspapers have already spent weeks running headlines explaining all the important bits. The book is about the relationship between senior members of the royal family and senior members of successive governments. The most outlandish part is the attempt to lift the lid on Schrödinger’s box regarding Elizabeth II’s political beliefs, long a source of speculation to all and sundry. Low, quite remarkably, claims that Her Late Majesty was much more candid than formerly thought and that everyone else around her was more studiously discreet. The most prominent assertion (in terms of news coverage) concerns her views on the 2016 EU referendum. Private Eye has this amusing summary:
GALLAGHER’S GALL
ORDERED by press watchdog Ipso to print a correction to his pre-referendum front-page headline “QUEEN BACKS BREXIT”, which was found to breach its accuracy rules since there was nothing in the story to show it was true, then-Sun editor Tony Gallagher was defiant.I don’t accept that we made an error at all,” he huffed to the BBC. “We made a judgement that the headline was right and that it was backed up by the story. We knew more than we put into the public domain. The sources were so impeccable that we had no choice but to run the story in the way that we did.”
Nine years on, Gallacher has been promoted to edit almost-as-respectable sister sheet the Times, which is serialising Power and the Palace, the new book by the paper’s retired royal-watcher Valentine Low. And what headline appeared on Saturday’s front page flagging the first revelations from the impeccably sourced tome? “The Queen was a Remainer.” (Eye 1657 page 7)
  • Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story by Robert Hardman (Pan Macmillan). It actually made most of its headlines last year but apparently he has a new edition coming out soon. I’m not sure if this is the second edition or if there’s already been one in the interim that I’ve missed, as I found a version on Google Books which claims to have been published on 7th November 2024 yet includes photographs of events from 2025. It has three extra chapters compared to the one I borrowed from Hull Central Library, and these cover the two royal cancer crises as well as the D-Day Commemorations and the general election. This latest version is obviously too early to include Trump’s state visit or the Duchess of Kent’s funeral, so probably yet another version will be needed next year. Pan Macmillan ought to have a trade-in scheme so people who already bought the old edition can get discounts off the new one. In an interview with journalist Patricia Treble he said Charles is “just the King” now as opposed to “the new king” so perhaps the very name of the book is now redundant and it would be better in the long run to wait until he has enough extra material for a full-length sequel instead of endless retroactive add-ons.

The Tudor Crown

Yes, that old chestnut again. I note that HM Goverment is still not entirely consistent here: When Rushanara Ali resigned last month the Prime Minister’s typed response had the new Noad illustration on its letterhead but when Angela Rayner resigned last week Starmer’s handwritten reply was topped by the old image, as was the letter from the Standards Adviser. Recently Charles wrote a letter to King Mswati III of Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) congratulating his country on fifty-seven years of independence. That letter was Tweeted by the British High Commission in Mbabane, showing the new emblazonment. It uses the “lesser” version of the arms in blue instead of the greater version in red, so it perhaps it should be understood as an FCDO letterhead instead of a royal one.

State Visits

Britain has already received a state visit from France this year and is about to host one for America also. As far as outbound visits go, there doesn’t seem to be anything scheduled for the rest of this year. In 2026 Their Majesties are expected to travel to Canada again (for an extended royal tour), to the United States (for a British state visit) and to Antigua & Barbuda (for CHOGM). There is still no announcement as to when they will visit New Zealand, which must be frustrating to those who’ve been waiting well over a year now!

Mid-Year Reading Round-up

Having already posted some months ago a long list of all the books I’ve recently acquired, I suppose at some point I should say something about the experience of actually reading them. Here, then, are some mini-reviews of the publications I’ve finished during the period of January-June 2025, in no particular order.

The First Four Georges by Sir J. H. Plumb

Already reviewed in a different post.

The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins

Although he is primarily famous for The God Delusion and maybe secondarily for The Selfish Gene, the professor himself generally regards this one as his true magnum opus. I’m not sure how famous Dawkins already was back in 1982, but this book feels as if written in his capacity as a biologist rather than as a public intellectual and activist. It is a much more academic work than his more famous ones and, having not been taught biology for just over a decade, I cannot claim full comprehension of the more terminologically-dense parts, but these aren’t really necessary for understanding the main thesis. Dawkins does not present new facts so much as a new way of interpreting facts we already possess: Normally the conception of evolution and natural selection is that they take place on the level of the individual organism, the family, the society and even the entire species. Dawkins instead looks at it in terms of the alleles of genes competing indirectly against each other with the organisms serving merely as a convenient – and disposable – host. The title of the book refers to Dawkins’s other big point that alleles affect the physical and behavioural characteristics of a species, which in turn affect the environment those species inhabit, as well as the ways in which other species evolve in response, so the phenotype of an allele in one species can be regarded as including the features observed in another species. The author also brings up a great many case studies of evolutionary adaptation and competition, including counter-intuitive examples such as between males and females of the same species, or even between parent and child! Of great interest here are his analyses of why some creatures are capable of adapting to “win” an evolutionary war while others are not. A theme which runs through the book as well is the difficulty of finding the vocabulary to comprehend these complex natural phenomena without slipping into metaphor and personification, which feels in some way prescient given the author’s later writings about religion.

The Final Curtsey by Margaret Rhodes

As with Lady Boothroyd’s autobiography, the early sections of this book felt a lot like reading my own grandmother’s childhood recollections, although from the opposite end of the class spectrum. Rhodes gives her account of her aristocratic early life, her experience of living through the war and her career as a courtier to the royal family. One thing that confused me a little was her choice of names for Britain’s senior mother and daughter after 1952 – the reigning sovereign is “The Queen” whereas George VI’s widow is “Queen Elizabeth”. Often I would get a long way into a paragraph before working out which one Rhodes meant. Despite being published in 2012, just four years before she died, Rhodes mentions a distinctly old-fashioned approach to writing. To modern eyes she appears curiously unfazed by the historical weight of her experiences, taking it in her stride that she dined nightly with the heiress presumptive while the bombs were falling, got roped into organising a faraway dynastic wedding, smuggled prisoners out of a country undergoing a violent coup and even watched a man drop dead in front of her. While the overall tone may seem a little twee at times it’s definitely worth the read and packs a lot into relatively few pages. The final days of the Princess Margaret and the Queen Mother are especially important for the record.

The Gathering Storm by Sir Winston Churchill

This is a very long book, and that’s only the first in a six-volume set amounting to more than three thousand pages in total. Churchill has written a great many well-renowned history books, but here it is a history in which he was a major protagonist so it also doubles as a memoir of sorts. The length here is justified as he writes in great detail about a multiplicity of topics, taking the reader step-by-step from the conclusion of WWI to the outbreak of WWII, with the volume ending at the point when he became Prime Minister. It’s astonishing to realise that he completed this enormous tome while he was serving as Leader of the Opposition, a feat of intellectual multitasking which feels impossible today. Given that Churchill’s reputation speaks for itself it almost feels redundant to comment further except to say that I am on the lookout for Volume 2, though given the backlog of books already accumulated it could take a while to get there.

The Glamour Boys by Sir Chris Bryant

Yet another World War II history, and also written by a sitting MP. Bryant’s behind-the-scenes account of the parliamentary machinations leading up to the war is in many ways complementary to Churchill’s own. The focus here is on the alternative, underground world that the “boys” were forced to inhabit, noting the parallels between their nonconformism, adamant against the mainstream of the time, on both personal and political levels. This book presents a major setback for anyone attempting a historical rehabilitation of Neville Chamberlain – his reputation before was of optimistic (or perhaps delusional) naivety rather than malevolence, but here he comes off as cruel and wicked in his attempts to suppress his glamorous detractors with an underhanded smear campaign. The only downside to this book is its length – at 448 pages it’s a rather weighty tome and it sometimes feels as if Bryant was padding it out to look more imposing on the shelves. Some critics have said he indulges too much in the lurid descriptions of the rebels’ relationships in the early part of the book, but I think the real waffle comes nearer the end, once the war has already gotten going, when the defining goal of the story has been completed and everything thereafter feels a bit more like generic wartime biography divorced from the specialist subject matter.

The King’s Painter by Franny Moyle

Going a bit further back this time takes us to the Tudor era. This is a biography of the portrait artist Hans Holbein the Younger, best remembered for his imposing image of Henry VIII. The biography covers the full length of Holbein’s life and career, with detailed analyses of his major works and the artistic innovations they represented. Not having studied the history of art (or art itself) much before I cannot fairly judge the quality of Moyle’s commentary here, except to note that she brought up verisimilitude so often it almost felt like a tic. Aside from the art itself, a lot of the book was dedicated to the religious and political upheavals in continental Europe which alternately expanded and restricted Holbein’s professional opportunities.

The Roman War Machine by John Peddie

Returning to the war theme but backing up even further to the ancient world, this is a book on the military structure and logistics of the Roman Empire. In some ways this felt like a throwback to my GCSE Latin course, in others like a memory of and educational field trip I might have done in primary school. This book is in English, of course, save for the heavy use of Latin military jargon. Peddie writes in detail, and with diagrams, about the ranks, formations, equipment and resources sustaining Rome’s military operations. Even here we cannot avoid World War II, for Peddie makes repeated comparisons to campaigns in the twentieth century to show the historical resilience of the Roman legacy.

The Penguin Guide to the Railways of Britain by Edgar Jones

This book was published in 1981 so a lot of the guidance here is obviously out of date now. On this note I would particularly highlight some lines from pages 36-38: “The Advanced Passenger Train represents the latest development in electric rail transport.”, “It is possible that a diesel-powered version of the APT will be developed for use on non-electrified lines.” and “At this moment 60 per cent of trains are diesel-powered. With the progressive introduction of the HST – the most advanced diesel-electric in the world – it is fair to say that this form of power has reached its apogee in Britain. Since electricity holds the key to the future, when these expresses become obsolete it is probable that the diesel, like steam, will disappear.”. The first fifty pages tell the history of locomotion in Britain from the early nineteenth century to the late twentieth, including the evolution (with diagrams) of different types of rail vehicles. The next three hundred pages take the reader around the country, region by region, explaining all the routes can be taken and all the stations that can be visited. The writing, though concise and eloquent, can be a little dry and it was difficult to keep up the momentum towards the end. From the way it’s structured, it less resembles a conventional reading book than the railway version of Burke’s and Debrett’s, so perhaps one is better off treating it that way instead of trying to finish it in a linear fashion.

Classical Literary Criticism by T. S. Dorsch

It is a little strange to realise that not only has literature itself been around for thousands of years but that literary criticism has been too. Even though the source texts may be as old as the fourth century BC and the translations into English were done in 1965, a lot of the prose still feels contemporary to one familiar with book and film reviews both amateur and professional. Indeed, a lot of the talking points would not have been out of place in a modern day “reviewtainment” video essay. There are multiple chapters on individual narrative devices, as well a the structures and purposes of different types of plays and comments on stories already performed in the writers’ memories. Most impressively, there are multiple instances when one of the writers goes into detailed analyses of the subtleties of another writer’s word choices and sentence structure. All of this, of course, has to be translated from Greek and Latin into English with the nuances intact. There are even times when one of them criticises another critic’s literary criticism, such as when (p65) Aristotle notes that “Ariphades ridiculed the tragedies for using expressions that no one would use in ordinary speech… these raise the diction above the level of the commonplace, but Ariphades failed to see this”. The introductory note by the editor explains who the sources – Aristotle, Horace and Longinus – actually were. The former belonged in the fourth century BC while the latter two belonged in the first. The gap between them is greater than between Shakespeare and Wilde, yet to us know they seem interchangeable, a good reminder of how long the ancient Greek and Roman eras really were.

Shadow State by Luke Harding

The book was just over three hundred page but I devoured it very rapidly. It tells of how the Russian Federation went from the collapse of the Soviet Union under Gorbachev to the emergence of Putin’s regime in which the military, business, the mafia and the President’s personal interests are all effectively merged into one and how this level of corruption affects not just Russia itself but also the other nations with which Russia interferes. The stories told are the ones you’d expect – Hillary Clinton’s emails, the Salisbury poisoning, and Brexit. There is some poetry in the timing: The book was published in 2020 as Trump was heading to the election he would lose. I bought it from Red Cross on 28th August 2024, as he was heading to the election which would see him restored. This also of course means that Putin’s ongoing war against Ukraine cannot be included, though there is much about the events leading up to it and Zelensky (suited and beardless) makes several appearances. The hero of the tale is Eliot Higgins, a journalist who created the Bellingcat online information exchange that allowed amateurs to monitor and scrutinise world events remotely. Harding resists the temptation to grant Russia an Orwellian omniscience, noting instead that Putin’s schemes often backfired or fell flat, that he only turned to online subterfuge because he lacked the funds for traditional spycraft, that many of his apparent successes – including Trump – were coincidence or blind luck and that the quality of Russian operatives had declined since Soviet times. The story of Salisbury assassins Chepiga and Mishkin, in particular, plays out as something of a farce. Nonetheless the death and destruction they caused is very real and, at time of writing, the threat feels as pressing as ever.

The Ricardian Century by John Saunders

This may be the newest book I’ve ever picked up from a charity shop, as I found it at RSPCA in February and the copyright notice said 2025. The book was in pristine condition and I worked very hard to keep it that way, although despite my best efforts a few bits of the corner flaked off before I’d finished it. This is the official history of the Richard III Society from its foundation in 1924 (as the Fellowship of the White Boar) to its centenary celebrations in 2024. The book is the product of a print-on-demand service rather than an established publisher and at times looks, to paraphrase Mark Corrigan, like a printout rather than a book. The cover design is especially poor: On the rear is a small square photograph of Saunders, in low resolution and squinting a bit, clearly cropped from a larger group shot, while the front has an equally-fuzzy raster of a depiction of the Society’s coat of arms from which not all of the white space has been cut out of the background. Aesthetic issues aside the contents are engaging enough, giving the reader a detailed look at all the twist and turns of both Ricardianism as a movement and the Society as an organisation. What fascinates me is that by all logic the Society ought to be a dissident fringe group. Though clearly there has been a shift in public attitudes to Richard III over the centuries (and certainly in this millennium) towards acquitting him of history’s more outlandish charges, the consensus among historians is still that he was the most likely perpetrator of the regicide of his nephews. Furthermore, as Ricardianism asserts that “the wrong side won” at Bosworth in 1485, and that sad side includes the current royal family, it is tantamount to asserting (much like the Jacobites) that the entire royal line thereafter to the present day must be illegitimate. Despite this the Society has been accepted by the wider academic community as a legitimate scholarly institution (even if they still ultimately disagree with its conclusions) and has even been accepted by the royal establishment with Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester serving as Patron for more than half of his and its lifetime and the College of Arms hosting the book’s launch. George Awdry, Wilbert’s brother, is also mentioned a few times. One thing that really stuck out at me was the revelation (p93-4) that the Society was not formally incorporated as a legal entity until 2019, which made me wonder how they’d acquired a grant of arms in 1988, among other things.

A Very Late Announcement

Today is St George’s Day. It was delayed in the church calendar from its usual date of 23rd April so as not to clash with Easter, though this was not well publicised in advance and in practice not widely observed. The movement also means that St George’s Day clashes with Ed Balls Day!

I was disappointed to see no new appointments to the Order of the Garter either today or last Wednesday. Currently there are four vacancies among the ordinary Knights and Ladies Companion.

I was a little surprised to see that the News page on GOV.UK included “Prime Minister Liz Truss’s statement on the death of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II“, given that said prime minister resigned thirty months ago. Upon inspection of the Updates section, it seems the page was originally published with only the video link, and the transcription has now very belatedly been added. Amusingly, the note doesn’t even say “transcription”, but rather “translation”. Surely, Truss’s thoughts weren’t that incomprehensible, were they?

More Upcoming State Visits

A week ago it was announced that Their Majesties would undertake state visits Italy and the Vatican in April this year, though not many details are yet available. Last night it was reported by The Daily Mirror that next year would see a royal tour of Canada and a state visit to the United States, though naturally at this stage even less is known about these and the article itself is mainly waffle.

Interestingly these visits will be to the two republics where Britain is represented by peers – the Lord Llewellyn of Steep (Conservative) in Rome and the newly-appointed Lord Mandelson (Labour) in Washington.

Any discussion of royal travel this year and last (and likely next as well) has to take account of the monarch’s ongoing cancer treatment, around which long-haul journeys have to be carefully timed. In at least one instance, the health factor may be double-sided as Pope Francis was today hospitalised with bronchitis. The state visit to Italy will be hosted by Sergio Mattarella, President for a decade as of this month. The state visit to the United States will likely be hosted by President Trump, whose affection for the royal family is widely-viewed as an important tool for diplomatic leverage. It is not clear who will host the Canadian tour, as Canada could well be changing Prime Minister more than once between now and next year.

The Italian visit is the only one for which anything substantive has already taken place, as His Majesty preceded the trip with an Italian-themed dinner party at Highgrove. I would be interested to see if Princess Beatrice’s husband Count Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi, who is of Italian descent, has any involvement.

The North American tour next year is purely in the speculative stages at this point, but that may be an advantage in that it gives more time for preparation. That Canada and the United States will be visited back-to-back could prove very interesting in the euphemistic sense given the currently-volatile state of relations between these two countries.

Unless something else is arranged in between, Canada would be the second Commonwealth Realm other than Britain that Charles III has visited since his accession (a planned trip to New Zealand last year having been abandoned). The last time the reigning monarch visited Canada was in 2010, and the last time Charles & Camilla personally visited (as Duke & Duchess of Cornwall) was in 2022.

Elizabeth II made six visits to the United States during her reign – in 1957, 1959, 1976, 1983, 1991 and 2007. On the latter four occasions she was representing Britain, but in 1959 she went in her capacity as Queen of Canada, with 1957 being a dual mandate. Notably she never represented any of her other realms abroad in this manner.

The 1976 visit is the most obvious precedent as it came just after the Bicentenary of the Declaration of Independence and was consciously planned as part of the commemorations. Next year will be the Semiquincentenary, and a royal visit will likely have similar intentions (albeit this time some weeks ahead of the actual anniversary date).

The Dark Lord Rises

A longstanding frustration of British heraldists and constitutionalists is the misuse of the word “Lord” in conjunction with a person’s given name. “Lord” can, of course, have many different meanings depending on context. In particular, its placement before or after a person’s first name.

When “Lord” is placed before a person’s first name and surname (i.e. the place where a knight would put “Sir”) it indicates said person to be the younger son of a marquess, duke or occasionally prince – e.g. Lord Nicholas Windsor, son of the Duke of Kent; Lord Ivar Mountbatten, son of the Marquess of Milford Haven. When placed directly before the surname (or territorial title) omitting the first name, it indicates that the person is a baron, viscount, earl or marquess (most usually the former) in his own right – e.g. Lord Winston, Lord Stansgate, Lord Attlee and Lord Lothian.

Sometimes, where it is necessary to preserve the first name, the word Lord can be written between the two – most famously in the case of Alfred, Lord Tennyson. It is also possible for the same person to occupy both states – the two-time Victorian prime minister John Russell was the younger son of the 6th Duke of Bedford and was later created an earl in his own right with the earldom using his surname as the title, thus going from “Lord John Russell” as a commoner to “John, Lord Russell” as a peer. If the use of commas between parts of a person’s name is not practical, especially in long lists of names where it may cause confusion, then one can sometimes get away with using brackets for this purpose instead e.g. Lord (Andrew) Lansley.

I bring this up due to the recent appointment of Peter, Lord Mandelson to be His Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America. His page on Gov.UK and the titles of a series of recent Flickr photographs both incorrectly call him “Lord Peter Mandelson”, thus greatly elevating the prestige of his parentage.

(Just to confuse you, Mandelson actually does have noble heritage on his mother’s side, but only from another life baron – Lord Morrison of Lambeth – whose own origins were distinctly proletarian.)

Once these photographs had been transferred to Wikimedia Commons, I made sure to change the names and captions to something more suitable.

Thankfully the Court Circular for 3rd February does better, stating that

The Lord Mandelson was received in audience by The King and kissed hands upon his appointment as His Majesty’s Ambassador to the United States of America.

On the day of his arrival, the British Embassy in Washington D.C. Tweeted a video of him giving a fluffy speech about his new role, accompanied with a sickeningly-dreamy montage and backing tune. Interestingly, the Tweet and the speech simply call him “Peter Mandelson” without mentioning his peerage at all. Since there did not appear to be a text copy anywhere, I have typed out his speech based on the subtitles. I have copied the punctuation exactly as it appeared there, despite this not always matching the way Mandelson actually spoke the words. Actually, given the syntactical incoherence of some of the sentences, I suspect he spoke in free-form and the written version came later. I have numbered the lines for ease of analysis.

  1. Hello, I’m Peter Mandelson, and I’m proud to serve as His Majesty’s British Ambassador to the United States of America.
  2. It’s great to be up and running in the US, a country in which I have spent so much of my adult life and admire so much.
  3. I’m speaking to you from the Ambassador’s Residence, a building that symbolises decades of friendship, hosting countless presidents, prime ministers, politicians, royalty, and many ordinary American citizens.
  4. I’m crystal clear: the UK has no closer ally than America.
  5. And no one does more than our two countries together in intelligence sharing and defence.
  6. With our jet fighters, our naval missions, and army special forces operating together in the world.
  7. Our deep economic and cultural ties are unrivalled.
  8. Looking ahead, President Trump’s administration is shaping up to be one of the most consequential periods in modern America.
  9. I feel energised by the opportunities opening up to work more closely together in tackling threats to our security, and collaborating together in exploiting new technologies to boost jobs and higher living standards.
  10. I was born in London to a middle-class family.
  11. My father was from Jewish parents whose own father helped found a local synagogue.
  12. My loving mother was always there for my older brother and me, and my father worked hard to send us both to university.
  13. At Oxford University, my passion for learning and to drive change was ignited.
  14. I’ve served as a legislator, elected first to the House of Commons, and more recently, in Parliament’s upper house.
  15. I’ve also helped found and grow a successful international business, promoting market access and investment around the world.
  16. I’m ready to bring my policy knowledge, entrepeneurial spirit, and experience at the highest levels of government to this role.
  17. As Northern Ireland Secretary, I was responsible for implementing the Good Friday Agreement, which finally brought peace to that troubled part of the United Kingdom.
  18. Today, the UK Government’s number one priority is economic growth.
  19. More than 1 million Britons work for US companies, and a million Americans work for UK firms.
  20. The UK and US already have $1.5 trillion invested in each other, and I’m confident we can go even further and faster together.
  21. I’m hugely grateful for the warm welcome since our arrival, Reinaldo, with whom I have lived happily for 28 years and I are so happy to be here making our home in the great United States of America.
  22. We look forward to exploring this magnificent country, from coast to coast, from state to state, and meeting many new friends along the way.

The montage includes a close-up shot of the pediment on the southern facade of the residence, as well as a clip of Mandelson speaking behind a podium (location unknown, but presumably within the embassy itself). Both the pediment and the podium feature the British royal arms, the former (built in 1928) using the Tudor crown and the latter (made at some point in Elizabeth II’s reign) using St Edward’s crown.

Lines 10-14 are most in need of analysis: His reference to “a middle-class family” overlooks that his grandfather, though not yet ennobled, was already a Companion of Honour and had been an MP for decades with several cabinet posts under his belt. Line 11 should really be split up to read something like “My father was from Jewish parents. His own father helped found a local synagogue.” as the single-clause formation he actually used implies his paternal grandparents were siblings! Line 13 is a little confusing – if he didn’t already have a passion for learning then how did he get into Oxford in the first place?

The inconsistency in line 14 is especially frustrating – he refers to Parliament’s lower house by name but its upper house merely by that description, despite the montage including a clip of his introduction ceremony. The verb “elected” obviously only applies to the former. The sentence would work better as “I’ve served as a legislator, first elected to Parliament’s lower house, then appointed to the upper house.” instead.

The assertion made in line 4 could also be a little disappointing to some of Britain’s European and Commonwealth allies – especially, given recent events, the ones in Canada.

UPDATE (11th September)

Whoops, that didn’t last long, did it?

Getting Some Reception

Today Buckingham Palace hosted a reception for recently-elected members of the House of Commons and recently-appointed members of the House of Lords. They included, of course, the Reform leader Nigel Farage – a fact which was the cause of the majority of press coverage from the event. He can be seen in photographs with his deputy Richard Tice conversing with the Duke & Duchess of Edinburgh. What they actually discussed is mostly unknown.

What makes Farage’s presence in particular so significant is that any kind of public appearance alongside the royal family can be taken as an important mark of legitimacy for politicians and similar figures – a recognition that they have gained some ground in the political mainstream. Farage, both as leader of Reform and as leader of UKIP, has long had conflicting impulses regarding such recognition, claiming to resent his exclusion from the perks of “the establishment” while also leaning hard on his status as an outsider.

The tradition of inviting MPs and peers to Buckingham Palace is not new, and prior to Brexit it was also custom to invite British members of the European Parliament, in which capacity Farage attended in 2007.

These events became a subject of controversy after the 2009 election, which saw two seats won by the British National Party. The party leader Nick Griffin ultimately had his invitation to a 2010 garden party withdrawn after he used it for political advertising. The party’s other MEP, Andrew Brons, still attended.

Farage himself has long been keen to maintain political distance from the BNP and similar organisations, though inevitably some have slipped through the cracks.

Review: Charles III by Robert Hardman

Robert Hardman is no stranger to royal biography, having already penned quite a handful about Elizabeth II in the last decade or so of her life, including Queen of Our Times which came out in March 2022 as part of her Platinum Jubilee season and then in December of the same year was released again in a “commemorative edition” to update for the fact that she’d died. Now he moves into the present reign with a biography of her eldest son. I am a little confused about the title of this one as the British publication is called “Charles III: New King. New Court. The Inside Story”1 but on Google Books I can see that the United States version is called “The Making of a King: King Charles III and the Modern Monarchy”. I suspect the titles must be written this way for SEO purposes, or perhaps he just couldn’t decide which description he wanted so used all of them at once. It must be quite a fraught process to come up with a distinctive and meaningful name for a biography when you know that lots of other biographies will be documenting the same person and all competing to emerge in future history as the one definitive authority thereon. Most likely in the long run the general public (maybe academics too) will discard the pretentious subtitle and just remember it as “[AUTHOR] on [SUBJECT]” (e.g. “Jenkins on Churchill”) instead.

Hardman’s lengthy volume covers the first year of the New Carolean era. As one might expect, this period in royal history was particularly dominated by two big ceremonial events: His mother’s funeral and his own coronation. In the book, the funeral (as well as the period of Operation London Bridge leading up to it) takes up chapters 3, 4 and 5 while the planning and execution of the coronation takes 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14. That makes for nine chapters out of a total of eighteen across the whole book. The coronation section in particular is loaded with dense historical comparisons, detailing not just the crowning of Charles III but also quite a lot about those of George VI an Elizabeth II. A less charitable reader may accuse Hardman of padding here, though doubtless a lot of the innovations (and omissions) of 2023 cannot be fully appreciated without an understanding of what came before. Anyone buying this book at first printing will, doubtless, have already watched the public side of these events on television as they were happening, so the real value of these chapters is in reading the personal accounts of the people involved as to what went on behind the scenes, such as the aide who spontaneously hugged Princess Anne to console her in her grief, the brigadier getting a summons back to London while giving a speech at his daughter’s wedding in Corfu, the Duke of Norfolk getting his GCVO investiture in a rush so he could wear his sash in the procession or the royal pages being packed off into a side room with some video games. It is worth mentioning as well that Hardman directed a BBC documentary about the coronation and some other aspects of royal life that year which aired at Christmas and can be seen in some ways as the prelude to this book.

The other chapters are about the personalities of Charles & Camilla, the looming political challenges for the institution of the crown and some of the other projects in which the sovereign couple have engaged themselves (such as the Prince’s Trust/Charity/Foundation organisations which now all have to be renamed). The running thread is the process of establishing Charles’s approach to kingship and the need to assert, like most new incumbents whose predecessors served an unusually-long time, that he is his own person and is not obliged to become a clone of his forbear with whom the institution had become synonymous. Charles, of all our sovereigns, had the longest pre-accession life and a brings with him a much more complete (and publicly-known) individual persona, which makes this task all the more pressing. I was amused to read in Chapter 15 that an unnamed senior courtier refers to this as “Doctor Who syndrome”, showing that the habit of explaining the British constitution in terms of that franchise is one that runs all the way to the top. Given the relative perceptions of the new king and his late mother, I would especially see parallels to Colin Baker succeeding Peter Davidson, or Capaldi following Tennant and Smith.

Being acutely aware of some of the less-sympathetic perceptions that have swirled around the royal family as a whole in recent years, and around Charles in particular for many decades, Hardman occasionally includes explicit references to and arguments against ideas emanating from either that acclaimed Netflix drama or statements by the exiled Duke & Duchess of Sussex. At times it can feel as if he has a bit of an axe to grind. It’s probably redundant in any event, as the people likely to be credulous of the claims he’s refuting are not likely to picking up his book in the first place. I’d like to think this is merely a demonstration of Hardman’s passion for truth over sensationalism, but I can’t entirely trust him on that front given he writes for the Daily Mail after all.

These minor quibbles aside, New King New Court is an engaging and enlightening work which I would recommend to anyone interested in the topic area, though any customer (or library) sinking their money into the original edition now may wind up feeling short-changed he does another expanded version in the near future.

1The use of full stops means that the title mercifully evades what TV Tropes calls “Colon Cancer”, though I would have preferred commas.