|
Post by observer on Dec 10, 2009 0:02:11 GMT
Interesting.... very interesting. The British system is VERY complicated! For instance, what would happen if Lady Helen Windsor married a life Baron (ex: Richard Wharton, Baron Wharton), would she become Lady Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton? Or simply Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton? But, for further confusion... let's say that this Helen Wharton, became a life-peeress in her own right, by sitting in the House of Lords.... Would she be Lady Helen Wharton, Baroness & Lady Wharton? But then what happens when she gets a divorce? Does she keep her title-by-marriage? CONFUSING!!! In my people, it's pretty simple: if the daughter of the King [ex: HRH Princess Amelia of…] were to marry a commoner [ex: Mr. Richard Wharton], she drops the style of Her Royal Highness, and becomes simply Mrs. Richard Wharton, Princess of… If she obtains a divorce, she then becomes Ms. Amelia [maiden name], Princess of… However, she may petition to the King to have her title and style changed back to HRH Princess Amelia of… once again, if she so pleases. All in all, both systems can be confusing and complicated… PLEASE help with the original question. Sincerely, The Chief of... It is actually quite simple. As the daughter of a peer above the rank of Viscount, a woman enjoys the courtesy title of 'Lady' while remaining a commoner. If she marries an untitled commoner, she takes his family name but retains the title 'Lady' in combination with her own first name. If her spouse receives a knighthood, she retains her former married name as her rank is still higher than his, i.e., the daughter of a peer has precedence over her knighted husband. If her husband becomes a (life) peer, she takes his rank and becomes formally known as Baroness X, informally as Lady X, but it is still a courtesy title. If she becomes a life peeress, than she is usually normally known as Baroness X in her own right. Lady Patricia Ramsay's case does not apply here. In modern times, Princess Anne formerly was known as Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips, then Mrs Timothy Lawrence, and is now simply the Princess Royal. If she divorces an untitled or knighted commoner. she reverts to her former unmarried name. If her spouse is a peer, she might become Lady Kate, Baroness X, or Lady Kate, Lady X., or possibly simply, Kate, Lady X, as these are matters of usage and not of law. For example, Dianna, Princess of Wales (NOT Dianna, The Princess of Wales) and Sarah, Duchess (not the Duchess) of York. If she remarried, by convention but not by legal right she may retain the title. If she is a life peeress in her own right, divorce does not affect her title. The point is that, except for peeresses and women members of chivalric orders (i.e., Dames) in their own right, a woman's titles are dependent on her position as child or wife of a titled man. The titles are by courtesy only and how they are applied is governed by usage and convention. Examples from other countries do not have any application to the British system.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 8, 2009 23:38:44 GMT
As I understand courtesy titles, when the daughter of an earl, Lady (first name) (surname) marries a commoner, she takes the last name of the person she marries. i.e. Lady Helen Windsor became Lady Helen Taylor upon her marriage. What would happen to her title if her husband were to be knighted? Would she continue to be Lady Helen Taylor or become Lady Taylor? When a commoner marries, say Lord (surname) she becomes Lady (surname) because she doesn't hold the title in her own right. Lady Helen Taylor holds her courtesy title by right but would becoming Lady Taylor diminish it? First, in this case, the women is a titled commoner as her title is one of courtesy only, and the man is not. Second, I believe she would continue to be called Lady Helen Taylor, in the same way that the late Lady Diana's sister, Lady Jane Fellowes, was so titled when her husband Robert was knighted. She became simply Lady Fellowes when he became a life baron, however. Third, in the first case her courtesy title is derived from her father's position as a peer; in the second (when her spouse is a peer), her courtesy title is derived from her marriage. In neither case is she anything other than a titled commoner, however.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 6, 2009 23:58:30 GMT
...... I would also think that Anne would renounce her title as Princess Royal and that would be bestowed on Zara.... The title of 'Princess Royal' is bestowed by Royal Warrant on the Sovereign's eldest daughter, and I do not believe that it can be renounced without the Sovereign's permission. I believe, however, that a Royal Warrant could be revoked, but it would be an unusual step in the circumstances in which the title is granted, i.e., to the Sovereign's eldest living daughter.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Nov 30, 2009 23:18:32 GMT
Here's an interesting topic. Let's say, for hecks sake, that Charles, William, and Harry, all three predecease the Queen Elizabeth II, and that the succession laws were changed to equal primogeniture, and Anne is to succeed after Harry, making her the new heir after Charles, Will, and Harry die. Now, for this purely speculative scenario, lets say that Anne is now the heir apparent, would she become Princess of Wales? And also, would her children be given titles? Any help with this would be nice. Also, do you think that in the future, Anne's children will be ennobled? The answer to your first question is probably "no, not as the law presently stands." The title is reserved for male heirs, and no previous heiress apparent, e.g., Victoria, was created Princess of Wales. The answer to the second question depends on whether or not the Sovereign issues new Letters Patent on the styles and titles of the children of heiresses apparent. The answer to the third one is "no," as Anne declined titles when she married Capt. Mark Phillips.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Nov 23, 2009 23:32:31 GMT
Cameron would be presumptuous to address Queen Elizabeth as 'cousin' because of the tenuousness of the relationship (5th cousin twice removed is not a close relationship), the relationship is through an illegitimate line, she is his sovereign, and even closer cousins (Queen Margrethe of Denmark, for example) address her as 'Her Majesty' in public.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Nov 23, 2009 2:50:16 GMT
Trying to find the official site for the Institute of African Royalty. I want to join. They do good work. Please assist. Thanks. Have a good day:) An interesting first post - it also appears on multiple sites. As the Institute was formally launched only on November 3rd of this year, it is difficult to conclude that actually they have done any "good work." As membership seem to be limited to African traditional leaders, moreover, I imagine it is quite difficult to attain.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Nov 20, 2009 0:11:51 GMT
i may be off on the name (forgive me oh mighty Tories) but i thought i read somewhere that the Tory leady, and prob next British PM, is descended from William IV of England (dunno what of Scots but it wasnt the IV)..sooooo, can he address the queen as cousin ;D David Cameron, the Tory Leader, is a great-great-great-great-great-grandson of King William IV (who died in 1837), descended from one of his illegitimate children - Elizabeth FitzClarence, later wife to the 18th Earl of Errol. He is a fifth cousin, twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II. I imagine it would be extremely presumptuous to call her 'cousin' to her face.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Oct 21, 2009 1:33:50 GMT
The official statement about the rank and status of Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon after her marriage was made in the London Times of April 28, 1923:
It is officially announced that, in accordance with the settled general rule that a wife takes the status of her husband, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon on her marriage has become Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York, with the status of a Princess.
No Letters Patent from George V were issued.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Oct 19, 2009 23:40:47 GMT
The Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon became HRH Princess Albert, Duchess of York, on her marriage to HRH Prince Albert Frederick Arthur George but, like other commoners who marry into the British Royal Family, she was not created a Princess in her own right.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 20, 2009 3:01:18 GMT
(c) Germany abolished all royal and noble titles in 1919 (though they are used socially). German law only applies inside Germany, but in any case German titles are still used in Germany, and no one has ever been prosecuted for using one, so the law is not applied, and it is probably now in conflict with European law, which forbids the confiscation of assets for political reasons. Indeed, when Caroline sued some German magazines, the European Court of Human Rights reported “Princess Caroline von Hannover, was born in 1957 and is the eldest daughter of Prince Rainier III of Monaco”. www.echr.coe.int/eng/Press/2004/June/ChamberjudgmentVonHannover240604.htmMost German titles are not German at all, but were created within the Holy Roman Empire, which is now dissolved. Liechtenstein is acknowledged to be a successor state to the Holy Roman Empire and continues to recognize Imperial titles, which therefore remain valid internationally. www.chivalricorders.org/nobility/holyroman/ Austria is also said to have abolished titles, but Prince of Liechtenstein is itself an Austrian title, as Liechtenstein is a castle in Lower Austria. In 1608 the Lord of Liechtenstein was raised to rank of Prince of the Holy Roman Empire, and in 1722 the then Prince bought the Lordship of Vaduz, which is where the current Prince resides, but he also still owns two palaces in Vienna, the Palais Liechtenstein and the Stadtpalais Liechtenstein. www.tourmycountry.com/austria/stadtpalais-liechtenstein.htmGerman titles are part of a surname in Germany. Even if it is widely regarded as a legal fiction, that fact remains that inside Germany royal and noble titles were abolished under the Weimar Republic. Any recognition of the titles outside Germany is a courtesy only, as the Hannovers - as German citizens - are subject to German law and not to the laws of other countries. I doubt that European law is retroactive, so your point about the confiscation of assets is a red herring. Note, that Caroline was referred to as "von Hannover,” even though her father was referred to as 'of Monaco." I imagine this usage reflects her legal German surname. Your quotation from Chivalric Orders is misleading. The full sources states that " The Principality of Liechtenstein has claimed to be able to confirm the succession to Imperial titles and has confirmed the right of a Spanish nobleman to be heir to such a title, for purposes of the Spanish law requiring the successor state to confirm that the claimant to a particular title is in fact the heir. Thus there is a remaining jurisdiction, even though no Imperial titles have been conferred since 1806." Whether Liechtenstein in fact is regarded in international law (leaving aside the unique circumstances described above) as a successor state - any more than Austria or Luxemborg - and what it means is unclear. Other successor states include Germany, the Czech Republic, Switzerland (independent since 1648), Italy (except the southern parts), San Marino, Monaco, Belgium and the Netherlands (independant since 1648). Note several of those abolished royal and noble titles. I think your thinking on the origin of the title of "Prince of Liechtenstein" is muddled. The castle of Liechtenstein may be south of Vienna, but the title is from the Holy Roman Empire in 1719, not the Austrian Empire, which dates from 1806. The abolition by the Austrian Republic of noble titles did not affect the Liechtensteins as they had been an independent sovereign principality since 1806, and not subject to Austrian law. www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/9403.htm
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 11, 2009 1:00:24 GMT
In the past it had been correct to rank royal highnesses above serene highnesses where neither the HRH or the HSH holder were the head of the house. In practice Prince William of Wales would have outranked Princess Caroline (as a Monagasque princess) as she still holds HSH in her own right. Albert II would out rank The Prince of Wales (Charles) as Albert is a soverign prince while Charles is an heir apparent prince (for want of a better description). I have to again disagree with Observer, it is recognised that outside of Germany, Ernst is titled as HRH THE Prince of Hannover, therefore custom suggests (in some cases DICTATES) that Caroline is correctly titled as HRH THE Princess of Hannover. Caroline would IMO most likely use a fusion of both styles being legally HR & SH The Soverign Princess, her youngest daughter may also use that style in the event of Caroline's accession, as she hold the royal title in her own right. [/quote Ernst is not "titled" but is "styled" The Prince of Hanover.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 10, 2009 1:41:52 GMT
So if she were to succeed her brother, what would happen to her HRH title? Would she be HSH Princess Caroline of Monaco, HRH Princess of Hanover? It is difficult to tell in advance how she would choose to be addressed in the event that she became Sovereign Princess of Monaco. Strictly speaking, however, she is not HRH Princess of Hanover, but HRH Princess Ernst of Hanover in the same way as Princess Michael of Kent, but convention suggests that she would come HRH Princess Caroline I of Monaco, though her successors would revert to HSH.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 9, 2009 2:32:50 GMT
Does that mean that Caroline ranks higher than her brother? Although in general HRHs rank higher than HSHs, in this case the answer is probably "No." He is a reigning prince, she is the wife of a pretender and holds the title by courtesy and convention because (a) Hanover disappeared as a separate independent state in 1866, when it was annexed by Prussia; (b) despite his pretensions, Ernest is NOT a British prince; and (c) Germany abolished all royal and noble titles in 1919 (though they are used socially). Even is Monaco recognizes her as HRH, she still ranks below her reigning brother and even is she succeeds him as reigning princess, the HRH cannot pass through her to her successors as Sovereign Princes or Princesses of Monaco.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 16, 2009 23:43:05 GMT
It is customary to wear a signet ring on the little finger is some cultures - either on the left or on the right - rather than on the ring finger. The position of the ring, whether it is facing up or not, also indicates the marital status of that person in some countries. Wearing his wedding ring behind his signet ring on his little finger is also not uncommon and is not confined to royals. For years I've worn a signet ring and what is called a "keeper" - a guard rings to prevent the loss of a more valuable one - on my right hand little finger (I'm left-handed).
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 1, 2009 23:41:11 GMT
It is rumored that 26-year old HIRH Prince Pedro Luiz de Orleans e Braganca, third in line to the former imperial Brazilian throne, was killed in the Air France plane crash. Does anyone know more?
|
|