Home Secretaries present at royal births.

I have been reading the diaries of James Lees-Milne. On Wednesday 13th
October 1948, he dined with a party which included Princess Elizabeth's
secretary, Jack Colville. The princess was then pregnant and gave
birth to Prince Charles on 14th November. Colville remarked that,
"...Princess Elizabeth's child will be the first heir to the throne
born without the Home Secretary being in the room; that Chuter Ede was
to stand in the passage". James Chuter Ede (1882-1965 ...I looked him
up for you) was Home Secretary in the 1945 Labour government and
became, as a life peer, Baron Chuter-Ede of Epsom.
I am relieved that the Queen was not required to subject
herself to such an indignity, but why was the presence of the Home
Secretary once thought necessary ? To see that no imposter was
substituted for the rightful heir? If so it is rather sad. It means
that ensuring the rightful succession is not now regarded as a matter
of vital importance. I suppose modern governments look upon "all that
sort of thing" as a slightly embarrassing irrelevance.

Graham Truesdale...

I believe that the change was connected with the emerging status of the
Dominions - their representatives felt that they had as much right as the
UK Home Secretary to be present, and that was just too much.

mrelliottca...

I thought that George VI ended the practice before The Prince of Wales
was born, and that Princess Margaret was the last royal baby for whom
the Home Secretary was forced to loiter about.

Gillian White...

With the invention of DNA testing, I suppose it is an irrelevance. The
paternity or maternity of a child can easily be verified.

Francois R. Velde...

If the Home Secretary "stands in the passage", he can be just as effective,
as long as he inspects every incoming warming pan.