In April 1926, all royal news was looking forward to one event
and one event only and it would change history. Papers and
magazines were filled with stories of the Royal Family, especially
the Duke and Duchess of York who were expecting their first child
imminently. And although Buckingham Palace had never made a formal
announcement about the arrival of a third grandchild for King
George V and Queen Mary, as April 1926 wore on, the chatter was
hard to ignore. In fact, it had started something of a rather
familiar debate.
Prince or Earl?
Of course, we all know that the baby which would be born in
April 1926 was a girl who went on to become the longest reigning
Monarch in British history. Back on April 7 1926, the expected
arrival was the first child of the second in line to the throne, a
baby who everyone already confidently believed would be shuffled
down the line of succession rather rapidly when the heir to the
throne married and had a family of their own. And so attention
turned to the baby’s title. It was of far more interest to readers
than any chatter about what Albert and Elizabeth, later King George
VI and Queen Elizabeth, would call their child.
The Yorkshire Evening Post thoroughly enjoyed itself on the
evening of April 7 as it mulled over the ongoing discussion. It
noted that ”discussion concerning the title to be borne by the
child of the Duke and Duchess of York is prevalent. There are those
who contend that if a boy is born, he will be called the Earl of
Inverness, that being the second peerage held by the Duke of York
while a girl would bear the courtesy title of ”lady”.’
However, the paper had a decisive answer for its readers,
declaring that any assumption that the child would be styled as the
son or daughter of a duke was ”incorrect” and it explained
why. The paper continued ”when the King reduced the number of
members of the Royal Family, he decreed that the children of the
Sovereign’s sons shall be princes and princesses.”
There was one more comment that history would prove to be wrong.
For the paper said that ”the grandchildren of the Duke of
York….will not be Princes or Princesses”. It just goes to show
how little expectation there was, in April 1926, that the imminent
royal baby would ever rule. In the end, the baby was a girl, born
on April 21, and a Princess from birth until her accession as Queen
Elizabeth II in 1952. And the first grandchild of the Duke of York
of 1926 became a king himself and now reigns as Charles III.
A new home for the royal baby
Despite the lack of expectation that this royal baby would ever
reign, their arrival was causing plenty of excitement. The
Daily Express was one of many papers on April 7 1926 to
report about the brand new home that the little one would
occupy.
On April 6, the parents to be, the Duke and Duchess of York, had
arrived back from their Easter break and were now safely installed
in 17 Bruton Street, Mayfair, the home of the duchess’ parents, the
Earl and Countess of Strathmore. And it seemed their moving day was
something of a spectacle as the paper noted that ”a large
number of bystanders watched with interest dozens of suit cases,
trunks and boxes being carried into the house. The articles
included a wireless set and a square frame aerial.”
Every detail of the preparation for the royal baby mattered. The
paper also reported that ”the exterior of the house has been
freshly painted a faint pearl grey” and added that the choice
of nursery had already been made with the Duchess of York selecting
”the room at the back of the house which she used as a child,
out of the hum of the traffic…”
Behind Palace Doors
For those who needed more of a royal fix, a new book was about
to hit the shelves. The Birmingham Daily Gazette was one
of a number of papers that day to tell the story of Kathleen
Woodward, a former factory worker who had just got royal sign off
on her authorised biography of Queen Mary.
The story behind the book was a fascinating one. The paper
reports that Kathleen had written to Queen Mary after seeing her in
person for the first time in 1925 and telling her that her own tale
was unknown to the wider public and then asking if she could write
it. The paper said ”to the writer’s joy…Queen Mary accepted the
suggestion’.
Kathleen had been given ”entree to the royal homes in
England and Scotland, and personal introduction to all those in
high places who could assist her in her task.”
It appears the new royal biographer had risen to the challenge
with the newspaper writing ‘‘she has interviewed statesmen,
diplomats, ladies in waiting, equerries, courtiers, housekeepers,
dressers and serving men” with Queen Mary reading the final
result and giving her blessing.
You can find out if Kathleen rewrote to include news of the new
royal arrival – her book is still listed as available to buy.
