|
Post by observer on Feb 17, 2010 6:08:02 GMT
This is just to see what people think! After-all, the USA is fallowing in the footsteps of the Roman Republic... which became an EMPIRE. Give it some thought, and give your most honest opinion. An honest opinion? Right! The Roman Empire was not a democratic monarchy but a military dictatorship that lasted only so long as it could give its citizens bread and circuses. It existed because it relied on imports from its foreign possessions, which it plundered. Among the causes of its decline and fall were inflation, depletion of its treasury, and the rising indebtedness of its landowners (at that time, the major taxpayers). Is this the path that you believe the USA is following? Moreover, Napoleon's Empire was not a democratic monarchy either. Napoleon essentially was a self-proclaimed and self-crowned egomaniac addicted to power and glory. The death toll from the Napoleonic Wars may have been as high as 6.5 million dead. Surely not an Empire that should be emulated.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Feb 12, 2010 9:20:38 GMT
Technically she was an aristocrat, given that the children of earls hold titles for life (in Elizabeths case it was Lady) Nevertheless, she was still only a commoner as, in the British system, she held no peerage title in her own right. All the titles she held were courtesy titles derived from her status as the daughter of one peer, and the wife of another who eventually became king-emperor.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Feb 2, 2010 2:59:27 GMT
kinda of like how the Greek Princes call themselves "Prince of Greece AND DENMARK..." The descendants of the Swedish monarchs in the direct male-line can call themselves "Prince" if they so are empted to. I see. thank you all. I think you misunderstood my reply. I meant that if your hypothetical princess was Swedish then my answer would have been the same as when she was a hypothetical Danish princess - that is, that what she styled and titled herself was dependent entirely on where she lived, not that she could use the same style and titles as the Greek royal family. Moreover, it would also depend on whether any marriage in her ancestry was morganatic. In any event, I believe that the Vasa royal family is extinct in both the male and female lines - except for the Bernadottes who descend from them.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 29, 2010 0:26:13 GMT
The Queen Mother was not strictly speaking a commoner,as she was from a noble family,considering that her father was a hereditary peer. Aidan. Actually, strictly speaking, she WAS a commoner even though her father held a peerage. In the British system, there are the sovereign and peers (those who hold a noble title in their own right) and commoners (everyone else, whether they hold a courtesy title as she did or whether they hold the title of prince or princess or that of knight or baronet).
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 28, 2010 5:33:54 GMT
Let's say that this "anna" was the male-line descendant of an ancient royal swedish house... What then? Same answer as for Denmark
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 28, 2010 5:33:00 GMT
Whether it would be legal or not depends entirely, I believe, on the laws of the country in which your hypothetical royal descendant resides. If she lives in Denmark, then she would be subject to Danish law on the use of styles and titles. People living in the UK can call themselves anything they want to - provided it is not for fraudulent purposes. Foreign titles for British nationals are not recognized, because Elizabeth I ruled: "as a woman should not follow any man but her husband, so a Subject should not receive any thing but from his owne Prince. I would not my sheepe should be branded with anothers marke: neither would I have them to be at anothers call or whistle." www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/foreigntitles.htmIn other countries - Austria, Germany, Italy, etc - the use of styles and titles is not permitted by anyone if they are citizens of that country. The German law is not enforced. People still use titles. When German royalty and nobility visit Britain they are referred to by their titles. Television coverage of last year's Royal Windsor Horse Show revealed that the person seated next to HM The Queen was "Princess Ludwig". www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/others/sport-on-tv-horses-hearses-and-how-to-park-a-carriage-in-the-garage-1761457.htmlBut if a foreigner adopts British nationality, then any foreign title must be dropped. My posting was in answer to BLANK's question, which asked, " Anna wants to style herself as Anna-Maria Victoria-Louise de Florring, Princess Carrabassa. Would this not be legal for her to do?" As I replied, "It is actually perfectly legal for anyone in the UK over the age of 16 to call themselves by whatever name they so desire, provided they do not intend to defraud anyone by using the new name - see www.lawontheweb.co.uk/basics/changeofname.htm. I was not referring to the official recognition of the title such as used to be given by Royal License. German titles are legally surnames, and their use outside Germany is a matter of courtesy rather than of right or law. I do not believe that there is actually any legal requirement for naturalized British subjects either to 'cease to use' or 'not to resume' a foreign title - see www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_15677.htm, and also www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec1prosec/titles%28foreign%29?view=Binary. Such titles are simply not officially recognized but they can be use socially - in the same way that German titles are used in the UK! The late John Profumo, for example, held but did not use the Sardinian title of 5th Baron Profumo. The late singer John McCormack was a Papal count and widely known by the title - though not officially. Countess Markievicz was known socially by her husband's title. With regard to foreign titles held by British citizens, the subsidiary titles of the Duke of Wellington include Portuguese, Spanish and Netherlands titles, and Nelson was Duke of Bronté in the Two Sicilies, a title inherited by his collateral descendant the present day 7th Duke. The Scottish Duke of Richmond, etc., also holds the French Dukedom of Aubigny, and both the Dukes of Abercorn and Hamilton claim the Dukedom of Chatelherault.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 27, 2010 0:54:12 GMT
Hello Everyone! I have what should be a quick question... for this instance, I am going to use a fake person for an example. We shall call her Anna-Maria Victoria-Louise de Florring. Our so called "Anna" is the direct male-line descendant of MANY ancient Kings of Denmark... Her line is direct, in the male-line, and is legitimate through and through. Given that "Anna" is a member of the ancient royal house by male-line primogeniture and house rules, could she then not style herself as "Princess Anna?" The royal house she descends is called "Carrabassa" (made-up royal house). Anna wants to style herself as Anna-Maria Victoria-Louise de Florring, Princess Carrabassa. Would this not be legal for her to do? Thank you for your help and input! Whether it would be legal or not depends entirely, I believe, on the laws of the country in which your hypothetical royal descendant resides. If she lives in Denmark, then she would be subject to Danish law on the use of styles and titles. People living in the UK can call themselves anything they want to - provided it is not for fraudulent purposes. In other countries - Austria, Germany, Italy, etc - the use of styles and titles is not permitted by anyone if they are citizens of that country.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 25, 2010 4:22:41 GMT
Some countries do not actually have surnames for members of their royal families,which is why they use 'of Belgium','of Liechtenstein',or 'of Japan' instead. Aidan. In the case of the Liechtenstein princely family, it is more accurate to say that the country is named after the family, as their name of 'Liechtenstein' is derived from Liechtenstein Castle south of Vienna. The Belgian Royal Family belong to the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Wettin family but, like the Windsors, they gave up using the name at the time of World War I. There appears to have been no royal decree renouncing the old name and adopting a new one, however. The name used by non-ruling members of the Belgian royal family is 'of Belgium' in French, Dutch and German; the king's family name, however, is 'of the Belgians' in the appropriate languages. Bulgarian royals, another Saxe-Coburg line, still use that name, as the Portuguese use Braganza-SCG or Braganza-Wettin. With regard to Japan, surnames or family names were not commonly used except by the aristocracy until the 19th century, and the Imperial Family vastly predates the introduction of family names anyway. Members of the family, like British royals, are known by a title, e.g., Prince Hisahito of Akishino, where 'Akishino' is a title (Akishino-no-miya Fumihito shinno), like Beatrice of York or James of Wessex.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 20, 2010 0:55:19 GMT
Hey! I am just interested in know if there are more titles than King, Emperor, Queen, Prince, and Princess within the Gypsy (Roma) world? Like Count, Baron, Lord, Duke? Also wondering if the Gypsy King can grant noble titles to his people. Thanks for your help! Mary Ellen Tsekos, in an article entitled "Minority Rights: The Failure of International Law to Protect the Roma,' published in "Human Rights Brief: A Legal Resource for the International Human Rights Community," Volume 9, No. 3. P. 26, 2002, (http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/09/3roma.cfm), states that "local authorities often try to control the Roma by arresting their 'King.' The 'King of the Gypsies,' however, is an individual, usually of low standing, who places himself in the position of an ad hoc liaison between the Roma and the gaje (non-Roma). Thus, the arrest of the 'King' harms the Roma very little. These deceptions have increased hostile feelings toward the Roma and make it nearly impossible for outsiders to understand their culture." If she is correct, it is unlikely that any Romani would accept a title from a low-ranking person whose function is to be arrested in order to prevent harm coming to the rest of his people.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jan 15, 2010 0:16:26 GMT
[....... That page claims "Before 1917, members of the British Royal Family had no surname" which just isn't true. Richard, Duke of York, adopted the surname Plantagenet around 1448. King Henry VII of England was the son of Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond. King James I of England was the son of Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley. The descendants of King George I did not bother with surnames, except for the children of the Duke of Sussex, who took the surname d'Este, from their remote ancestor, Azo, Marquis of Este. The surname of Prince Albert was probably Wettin (see The Complete Peerage, 2nd edition, volume 8, page 758). But there is a complication because in Germany titles are surnames (whereas in Britain surnames and title are different). So, for example, the legal surname used by members of the former imperial family is not Hohenzollern, but Prinz von Preussen (Prince of Prussia). I believe that Richard Plantagenet was the first to use this former nickname as a surname, but whether it would count as a consistenly-used family surname is difficult to judge - his son Edward IV, for example, was known before his accession as Edward of York and not, apparently, as Edward Plantagenet. The Tudors and the Stewarts/Stuarts had surnames before they ascended the throne, of course, Stewart arising from their position as Stewards to the Scots kings, and Tudor from the personal name of one of their ancestors - Tudor Fychan. The Brunswick-Hanovers emerged as a reigning family before the widespread adoption of family names, and the Saxe-Coburgs were an agnatic branch of the Wettings. I don't think the post-WWI position of German titles as family names would affect the current British Royal Family for two reasons. First, George V adopted 'Windsor' as the family name, abandoning Saxe-Coburg-Gotha/Wettin in 1917, which the present Queen has stated will continue as the family name. As the Queen's mother was not of equal birth under Saxe-Coburg-Wettin dynastic rules, I believe she would have no right to pass on that surname. Second, Charles is, in the male line, a member of the House of Oldenburg rather than of Wettin.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 19, 2009 0:36:38 GMT
I suppose it shows that many people don't understand that the monarchy is an official part of the government structure and not a popularity contest --? Or maybe, because Charles is seen by some as eccentric, people assume he will want to abdicate as Edward VIII did. The people writing these sort of stories either do not know, or do not care to mention, that the only ways Charles will not be the next king is if (a) he become as Catholic (which is unlikely), or (b) Parliament passes an Act amending the succession (also unlikely). They also ignore the question of whether or not William would be willing to replace his father in the line of succession - something of which he has given no signs of willingness to do.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 14, 2009 23:04:17 GMT
The birth of Elizabeth heralded the demotion of Henry's first daughter Mary. King Henry demanded that she gave up her title of the Princess of Wales and was to be known as the Lady Mary - she was also declared illegitimate. When she was ordered to pay respect to the new baby she burst into tears and replied that she knew of no Princess of England but herself. Although Mary was styled ‘Marie Principisse Wallie’ (i.e., Mary Princess of Wales' ) during her youth (for example, in letters patent of 14 August 1525 granting Sir Giles Greville the chamberlainship of South Wales) and acted with vice-regal powers in Wales, this seems to have been incorrectly used. Although she was called by this title, she was never formally installed in this position, as neither was Elizabeth. Of course, the title Princess was not customarily used for royal ladies at this time, either. not coming into common usage until much later.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 14, 2009 5:46:09 GMT
.......Also, I think the Queen should reinstate the German titles that were so distastefully "done away with." After all, the Queen is still German, and is a member of the house of saxe-coburg and gotha. ....) The Queen is a morganatic member of the Saxe-Coburg dynasty as her mother was not of "equal birth" - she was only the daughter of an earl and not royally born. German titles descend in the male line, moreover, so she has not right to reinstate them - or to pass them on.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 11, 2009 23:42:50 GMT
it is a tribe consistent with people who Native American, African American, and European American, and is based out of the United States, similar to some of the Roma People and Irish Travellers who are based out of the USA. Our people have a king as do the Roma. As I have studied anthropology, we have heard and learned of the "self-reference criterion," and I do not claim to not have used it. I simply do not feel a need to state my tribes name. So, as for the fictional Lady Helen Taylor, who became Lady Wharton by marriage and Baroness Wharton of Upton by becoming a peer, she would be styled as The Rt. Hon. Helen Wharton, Baroness Wharton of Upton, correct? Not stating your tribe's name is an interesting way of disallowing others the ability to learn more about it, especially as you compare it with the Roma and Irish Travelers. To the best of my knowledge, however, the Roma do not use titles other than for their Kings and Queens (e.g., Princess, Lord, etc), and Irish Travelers rarely have (in Ireland, in fact, they are not recognized as a separate ethnic group). But if your people are a tribal people like the Roma and the Irish Travelers, why would your hypothetical HRH Princess Amelia of XXX have what appears to be a territorial designation? With regard to your second paragraph, the correct usage would be simply The Right Honorable the Baroness Wharton of Upton.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 11, 2009 0:00:08 GMT
If she was Lady Helen Taylor by birth, and Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton by marriage, and Helen Wharton, Baroness Wharton of Uptop as a member of government,how would she be styled? And.... by the way, I only used OUR hierarchical system for contrast. Again, this is quite simple. A substantive title, that is, a title in her own right if she is created a peer, takes precedence over courtesy titles that a woman has by virtue of her birth or marriage. She would simply be titled Baroness Wharton of Uptop. I understand that you took YOUR hierarchical system for contrast but, as I do not believe that you have stated where or what it is I have no way of judging its relevance, if any. This is known in cross-cultural studies as the "self-reference criterion" but, as I stated, such approaches are not relevant to the British system which is sui generis.
|
|