The Thames Valley Police have given Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor an arrest warrant for his 66th birthday.
Thursday, February 19, 2026
Wednesday, February 18, 2026
We need that Letters Patent, Your Majesty!
Your Majesty,
It is time to issue a new Letters Patent defining who is royal and who is not. Although the next two heirs are males, the succession of the firstborn child must be addressed.
The 1917 Letters Patent is outdated, as the titles are limited to the male line. A new Letters Patent must treat males and females equally.
Yes, the next two heirs are males, but why wait until the firstborn is a daughter? Do it now as a pre-emptive act.
This is what I think you should do:
Children of the Sovereign: HRH Prince or Princes
Grandchildren of Sovereign: with the exception of the children of the Heir apparent, all grandchildren should be styled as daughters and younger sons of a duke (Lady Christian name, Lord Christian name), unless the child of the sovereign has been given a dukedom. This would allow the eldest sons to have a courtesy title, also for life, such as an earldom.
The children of the eldest child of the Sovereign: HRH Prince or Princess
The children of the eldest child of the eldest child of the Sovereign: HRH Prince or Princess
The children of the younger children of the eldest child of the Sovereign: Styled as daughters and younger sons of a duke.
This would mean George's children would be royal. His eldest child's children would be royal, as would be the eldest child's eldest child's children.
Only children and the children of the eldest child of the Sovereign would receive non-hereditary dukedoms at the time of a marriage. The focus would be on those closest in the line of succession.
Charlotte and Louis would be given life dukedoms. Their eldest sons would have a lifetime earldom (which means their children would have courtesy titles for children of an earl), and younger children would have the style of daughters and younger sons of a duke.
This new Letters Patent should also be retroactive to 1999, when Prince Edward married Sophie Rhys-Jones. It was decided by Queen Elizabeth II that Edward's children would be styled as the children of an Earl. Lady Louise and Lord Severn are now styled as children of a duke.
The new Letters Patent would also apply to all grandchildren of the Sovereign, with the exception of the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. Princess Alexandra and Prince Michael of Kent, due to their age. All have served the Crown, especially the two Dukes and Princess Alexandra.
In the late 1990s, the Way Ahead recommended the York princesses be styled as daughters of a duke.
Princesses Beatrice, Eugenie, and Lilibet would become Lady Beatrice, Lady Eugenie, and Lady Lilibet Windsor, and Prince Archie would be styled as the Earl of Dumbarton, which is the secondary title of the Sussex dukedom.
https://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2022/09/will-beatrice-and-eugenie-be-alastair-ed.html
Before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, there is a precedent for a royal downgrade. HH Prince Alistair of Connaught, a great-grandson of a Sovereign (Queen Victoria), lost his princely style in the 1917 Letters Patent. His new title was Earl of Macduff, the courtesy title of the dukedom of Fife. Alistair's mother, Princess Arthur of Connaught, was the Duchess of Fife in her own right.
The new Letters Patent will also not affect the Princess Royal's children, as she was born before the Succession law was changed. It would apply to Charlotte's children.
Parliament will have to change the Duchy of Cornwall to allow for the eldest child (a female) of the Sovereign to be styled as Duchess of Cornwall. The change would also need to include a clause allowing the new heir apparent to inherit the dukedom.
When George II's eldest son, Frederick, died in 1751, the king named Frederick's eldest son, George, as Prince of Wales. The future King George III could not inherit the Cornwall dukedom.
George III's eldest son, George, was Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales until he succeeded to the throne in 1820. There would not be another Duke of Cornwall until November 7, 1841, when Queen Victoria gave birth to her second child and first son, Prince Albert Edward.
King Edward III created the Duchy of Cornwall on March 17 for his eldest son, Edward. The Duchy was created by Royal Charter. Only the eldest son of the Sovereign can inherit the Duchy, which provides the heir apparent's income.
The Duchy was not affected by the Succession to the Crown Act (2013). However, the Sovereign Grant (2012). Prince George would not inherit the dukedom if his father died before King Charles III.
However, the Sovereign Grant (2012) includes a provision for an heir who is not the eldest son of the Sovereign:
"a grant is to be paid to heirs to the throne who are not Dukes of Cornwall to put them in a similar financial position as if they were Dukes of Cornwall; this means that in future, daughters of the Monarch, as well as younger sons, could benefit
if the heir is not the Duke of Cornwall and is over 18, the heir is to receive a grant based on Duchy revenues; the Monarch (who in these circumstances becomes the Duke) receives the Duchy revenues, and the Sovereign Grant is reduced by an equal amount (so in effect, the heir would receive the Duchy income)
if the Duke of Cornwall is a minor, 90% of the revenues of the Duchy go to the Monarch and the Sovereign Grant is reduced accordingly."
The title Duke of Rothesay is reserved for the eldest son of a King.
I also advocate for Princess Anne being the last Princess Royal. There is no special status for the eldest daughter, who is created Princess Royal. It is not a peerage. Legally, Anne remains a commoner while her younger brothers are not commoners, but peers of the realm.
Although Andrew's peerages were removed from the Roll of Peers, he is still the Duke of York. It would take an Act of Parliament to officially remove the titles.
https://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2025/11/technicality-andrew-is-still-duke-of.html
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/peerages-can-they-be-removed/
The titles, Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester, are bestowed by the Sovereign through a Letters Patent. A female heiress apparent should be the Princess of Wales. Her husband will not be the Prince of Wales. It would make sense to create a lifetime dukedom for the house of the heiress apparent and a Queen Regnant.
Prince Louis follows Princess Charlotte in the line of succession. If Louis gets a dukedom on his wedding, so should Charlotte. At first, I was not in favor of Edward's life dukedom. It does make sense, however. Two of the historic royal dukedoms, Gloucester and Kent, will cease to be royal in the next generation. Edinburgh will revert to the Crown when Edward dies, which allows for a new creation in the next generation. York will also revert to the Crown upon Andrew's death, but... I would wait at least two generations before offering the peerage to a Sovereign's child.
Limiting titles to the main line will allow the children and grandchildren of the younger children of the Sovereign to have their own careers and lives, away from the royal bubble.
https://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2019/01/what-was-george-v-thinking.html
I hope we are on the same page, Your Majesty. I am a constitutional monarchist and believe that a constitutional monarchy is far superior to the horrific spectacle currently on display in the US.
Tuesday, February 17, 2026
Arrivals at the Army and Navy Club for the Senior Serving and Retired Officers' Briefing
 |
| HRH Prince Michael of Kent @Ken Stone |
 |
| HRH The Duke of Kent @Ken Stone |
 |
| HRH The Duke of Gloucester @Ken Stone |
Earlier today, the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, and Prince Michael of Kent were at the Army and Navy Club for the Senior Serving and Retired Officers' Briefing.
The copyright belongs to Ken Stone - and thank you for allowing me to use the photos.
Saturday, February 14, 2026
Did Maud have Artificial insemination? Not Convinced
 |
| Marlene A Eilers Koenig collection |
Christopher Wilson recently wrote an article for the Daily Mail on Queen Maud, stirring up the rumors that Maud was artificially inseminated by Sir Francis Laking with sperm provided by his son, Guy.
In his biography of Queen Maud, Norwegian historian Tor Bomann-Larsen hinted without real evidence that she went through an "early form of artificial insemination" in October 1902. But another Norwegian historian, Odd Arvid Storsveen, disputed Tor Bommann-Larsen's "hypothesis" that the future King Olav was not King Haakon's son.
A forthcoming biography of Maud by Arnhild Skre will be published later this year and may contain new information that settles the question of Olav's father.For now, let me examine several statements made by Wilson in his article.
He wrote: "After nearly seven years of marriage Maud, Edward's daughter, had failed to become pregnant and she was now approaching her 33rd birthday. To ensure Norway's line of succession, a son and heir was required – pronto."
In 1902, there was no "pronto" needed to produce an heir. Carl and Maud would not have known that there would be a throne in their future. Carl was the second son of King Frederik VIII of Denmark and Princess Louise of Sweden. Frederik succeeded his father, King Christian IX, in 1906.
At the time of the alleged artificial insemination, Carl was fifth in line to the Danish throne after his father, his elder brother, Crown Prince Christian, and Christian's two sons, Princes Frederik and Knud. From 1814 to 1905, Norway and Sweden were in a personal union, with the Swedish monarch as the sovereign. The two countries maintained separate constitutions. It was not until 1905 that Prince Carl of Denmark was elected as King of Norway. He took the name Haakon, and his young son, Prince Alexander of Denmark, became Crown Prince Olav of Norway.
Maud and Carl (styled in the United Kingdom as Prince Charles of Denmark) were first cousins, as their mothers, Queen Alexandra and King Frederik VIII, were siblings.
Yes, 1901. This date undermines Wilson's claim that George V awarded the MVO to Guy Laking for his alleged sperm donation.
 |
Perhaps King Edward VII informed Guy about the MVO on December 14, 1901.
Wilson writes: "Given no explanation why someone who hadn't served the Crown was receiving an intimate decoration from the sovereign himself, a possible conclusion to be drawn is that this was the King's way of thanking Laking for his secret services to his sister Maud, and to the Norwegian crown."
The evidence that proves Wilson got it wrong:
 |
| The date is December 24, 1901. Christmas Eve |
Wilson adds: "Everyone else receiving the coveted award that year had served the king on his recent eight-month tour of the British Empire on HMS Ophir, a P&O steam liner temporarily reclassified as the Royal Yacht."
George was not king in 1901, when he and his wife, Mary, as the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, carried out the Empire tour (March 1-October 31, 1901) aboard HMS Ophir.
Guy Laking received the MVO in December 1901. It was given by King Edward VII. Whatever the reason was for the honor, it had nothing to do with King George V or his sister, Maud.
Wilson writes: " She did her duty in producing an heir to the throne of Norway, but had no further children."
What duty? There was no duty. Maud gave birth in 1903. Norway did not become an independent kingdom until 1905.
Maud was the wife of a Danish prince, fifth in line to the Danish throne.
Christopher -- men decide the sex of a child at conception. It is not a woman's duty to produce a son.
Wilson writes: "So, it is alleged, Maud came to London" ... from where, as she had been in London for some months Her father's delayed Coronation took place in August 1902. She and her husband had spent most of 1902 in England. The Court Circular can be your friend.
On August 20, Prince Carl returned to Denmark for Danish naval obligations.
The Times, September 16, 1902
She did not return to Denmark.
It is true that Princess Maud was under Dr. Francis Laking's care. After "nine weeks of seclusion," the princess attended a Thanksgiving Service for the King at St. Paul's Cathedral," the Cheltenham Looker-On reported on November 2, 1902. The princess was described as not having a "robust constitution," and never "seemed able to gain entire health and strength."
She "put herself under the care" of her father's physician, for an "entire course of rest cure." Prince Carl had left (look up date) for service in the Danish Navy, and Maud remained in England to "give herself up to health restoration." At this time, rest cures included sleep, tonics, massage, and "strengthening remedies." Maud would have been encouraged to eschew late nights and "society distractions."
The newspaper reported, "She is now looking very well with no appearance of being an invalid."These rest cures were taken by many "fashionable women."
It is true that Maud suffered from poor health her entire life. She disliked cold weather and preferred England to Denmark and, later, Norway.
She and her two older sisters, Louise and Victoria, suffered from chronic health issues throughout their lives. Her marriage to Prince Carl took place on July 22, 1896, at the Private Chapel, Buckingham Palace.
 |
| Marlene A Eilers Koenig Collection |
Victoria never married. Louise, the eldest of the three "Whispering Wales" sisters, married the Duke of Fife, gave birth to a stillborn son and two daughters, Alexandra (Princess Arthur of Connaught) and Maud (Countess of Southesk). There were no further attempts to try for another son, due to her health. Queen Victoria issued a new Letters Patent that allowed the Fife dukedom to be inherited by Louise's daughters and their male heirs.
Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, and her younger sister, Maud, each had one son. Their first cousin, Princess Patricia of Connaught, also had only one son.
Princess Charles was 33 years old and married for nearly seven years when she gave birth to her only son. The late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, gave birth to her first child in 1941, six years after her wedding to Prince Henry, although she had suffered at least one miscarriage. Queen Ingrid of Denmark, whose mother was Maud's first cousin, Princess Margaret of Connaught, also married in 1935. Her first child, the future Queen Margrethe II, was born in 1940.
Maud's health had improved by the time Prince Carl had returned to England on October 16.
By late October, she was attending royal events. On October 30, 1902, Prince and Princess Charles left Buckingham Palace for Appleton House, on the Sandringham estate. The property was given to Maud as a wedding present from her father, King Edward VII. They remained in Norfolk for some time, and perhaps they had a bit of fun in bed.
Maud's first cousin, Kaiser Wilhelm II, visited Sandringham in early November, and she and her husband attended all the events, including a grand dinner and the German Emperor's departure.
Appleton House was their home, but they also made several trips to London. On November 19, the prince and princess attended a memorial service for Prince Edward of Saxe-Weimar. In December, Maud and Carl joined the king and queen at a theater performance. They were back in Sandringham for the Christmas holidays, including attending Divine Service on Christmas Day.
Maud's sister-in-law, the Princess of Wales, gave birth to a son, Prince George, on December 20, 1902. The following month, Maud and Carl were among the guests at the infant prince's baptism. In February, they attended the State Opening of Parliament.
Maud attended royal events through early May. These events included official dinners and nights out at the theatre.
Several papers speculated that the Princess was expecting a baby. On May 10, Maud and Carl left Buckingham Palace for Appleton House. Her sister, Princess Victoria, visited Maud and Carl at Appleton House on May 25.
 |
| May 5, 1903, Gloucester Citizen |
 |
| Aberdeen Journal, May 7, 1903 |
These two articles state that Maud's baby was due in late summer or August. The Princess of Wales' confinement began in early October 1902. Prince George was born on December 20, nearly three months later. Maud's confinement began in late May. She gave birth to Prince Alexander Edward Christian Frederik on July 2nd, less than six weeks later. It is possible that the prince was born prematurely, as it is not unusual for a first child to arrive a bit early.
Artificial insemination was not a normal procedure in the early 20th century. Why would royals resort to this when the royal bloodline was important?
At this point, the IVF discussion is hearsay.
In 1902, Carl expected to continue to divide his time between the Danish Navy and Maud in England. His father did not become king until 1906, a year after he was elected King of Norway. If the Norwegian throne had not become available, Carl would not have had a major role in Denmark. His older brother was the heir, and he had two healthy sons.
Carl and Maud, and their son, would have continued to divide their time between England and Denmark. Their son had succession rights in Denmark and England.
Let's look at this another way. One writer described Carl (Haakon) as "infertile," but what about the real possibility that Maud suffered from infertility issues, and getting pregnant was difficult, as it is for millions of women all around the world? We suffer from numerous gynecological problems, including the painful endometriosis disease, which is finally being talked about without disdain. The disease was named in 1927. It has existed for centuries. It can be excruciatingly painful and can make getting pregnant difficult or impossible. I speak from experience. I could not have children because of endometriosis.
Maud may not have liked or enjoyed sex, especially if it was painful due to a gynecological issue. In the early 1900s, doctors knew little about women's health. A painful period meant a woman was sent to the fainting couch. One granddaughter of a British princess who had only one child told me some years ago that her grandmother hated sex.
I acknowledge this is speculative, but gynecological issues are a plausible hypothesis.
How did this article come about? Christopher Wilson and I have followed each other on Twitter for some years. Until yesterday. I responded to his tweet about his article, stating I am skeptical of the artificial insemination story.
He responded: "Let it rest." I responded with a few points, and the next message was "Bye." He blocked me.
My response was to do the research he skipped. His article was pushed as an exclusive. Yup, another Daily Mail article that is exclusively wrong. I hope he reads my article, but will he rewrite and republish his article based on the fiction about Guy Laking's honor and Princess Maud?
Will he apologize and acknowledge that I provided him with the facts that refute his false statements? Will he make a donation for the work I did?
Friday, February 13, 2026
A visit to Sofiero and Helsingborg
 |
| Kronberg Castle |
October 21, 2025 - my fourth and final full day in Denmark. I decided to go to Sweden to visit Helsingborg and Sofiero. I could have taken the train from Copenhagen to Helsingborg via Malmö, but I didn't. I went by ferry, as one can. It was convenient and fun!
I took the Metro to Østerport, then caught the train to Helsingør, known in English as Elsinore. The castle is Kronberg, but is also known as Hamlet's castle ... To Be or Not to Be .. which provided the inspiration for a certain English playwright's tragedy about a Danish prince!
Great view of the castle from the ferry.
The train ride took about 45 minutes. The train and ferry stations are connected. I bought a round-trip ticket between Helsingør and Helsingborg. The cost was about $14.00. This area is the narrowest part of the Øresund. The travel time was about 20 minutes. There were many Swedes returning home with booze, as the prices are lower in the duty-free store at the ferry station than in Sweden. There was a bar and a small restaurant on board, but you could purchase alcohol when the ferry was in Danish waters. I settled for coffee.
Although Sweden and Denmark are part of Schengen, everyone goes through Border control when arriving in Sweden. A friend advised me to take my passport, which I did. Without it I would not have been allowed into Sweden. (If you travel by train to Malmö, you may be checked at the Hyllie station, which is the first stop in Sweden, when traveling from Copenhagen.)
At the Border Control, I had to show my passport, and was asked where I was going and how long I would be in Sweden. I responded: just today, and I am going to catch a bus to Sofiero and meet a friend.
Down the escalator and into the train station. I texted my friend to say I had arrived. We agreed to meet up after I left Sofiero. I bought a round-trip bus ticket in the Pressbyrån store (similar to 7-11). The bus stop was a few minutes away.
The ride took about 20 minutes and dropped me off a few feet from the entrance.
For those of you who do not know, Sofiero Palace was once a summer home for the Swedish Royal Family. It was named for Queen Sofia (Sophie of Nassau), consort of King Oscar II. In 1906, they gave the estate as a wedding present to their grandson, Gustav Adolf, and his new wife, Princess Margaret of Connaught.
https://visitskane.com/classic-attractions/sofiero-palace-and-gardens
In 1973, King Gustav VI Adolf bequeathed Sofiero to the city of Helsingborg.
I can only imagine how beautiful the gardens are during spring, summer, and early fall. When I visited in October, the gardens were an autumnal beauty, but no rhododendrons or tulips.
Inside the castle was a small exhibition on the Swedish royal family. The outdoor cafe near the soccer field was closed for the season, so I decided to have lunch in the Castle Restaurant. Good choice.
Great view of the Oresund. I chose a Cobb salad, a slice of cake with vanilla cream, and a glass of wine. The salad was huge. I knew I could not finish it, so I canceled the dessert.
At the next table, a Swedish woman heard my comment to the waitress. She said, "Ask to have the salad packed to go." I looked at her, smiled, and said: Doggy bags in Sweden? She laughed: yes, we learned it from you!
So I asked for the rest of the salad ... and the slice of cake ... to go! The food was in two containers with wooden utensils and napkins, and was put in a nice carry bag.
The next stop was the souvenir shop, where I bought a few things. Before heading out, I decided to walk DOWN the path to the water ... and then UP another path and toward the exit.
My friend texted me, saying she was on her way to pick me up.
 |
| Kronberg in the distance |
It was a joy to get into my friend's car. We headed north for a bit to see the Oresund and where she grew up in Sweden. She had several places in mind where we could stop for Fika (coffee and cake), but each one was closed. We decided to drive back to Helsingborg. She parked the car at a parking garage connected to the train/ferry station. Apart from the camera, I left my stuff in her car, as we headed to a cafe, Bruket, that she often visits -- and it was delightful.
https://www.bruketkaffebar.se/
 |
| The Oresund |
 |
| I had a vanilla latte and a Chokladbollar (Chocolate ball). Yummy! |
We walked to the Mariakyrkan, the Lutheran Cathedral.
 |
| I bet the burgers here are awesome! |
We walked back to the car. I retrieved my belongings from my friend's car. Hugs, and looking forward to seeing each other again. She left for a tennis game, and I headed down the escalator to the ferry station, where the Aurora was boarding. A 20-minute ride across the Oresund. A train bound for Copenhagen was pulling out when I got to the platform. No worries. Another train arrived three minutes later. I ate the leftover salad and the dessert. A reminder of a lovely day.
This was my last night in Copenhagen. I finished packing, read a little, and then got into bed, setting the alarm. Although I had to be on the Metro heading toward the airport by 1:28 p.m., I wanted to give myself enough time to have two adventures on my final morning.
Why 1:28 p.m.? That is when my Copenhagen Card would expire. More on that in the final post on this trip.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)