|
Post by observer on Mar 21, 2009 2:32:30 GMT
Arsinoe was probably Cleopatra's half-sister, and so it is not clear from which parent Arsinoe inherited African characteristics - nor is it clear what is meant by "African" in this context. Many inhabitants of Africa at that time - and this - were not Black African, e.g., the Berbers. Cleopatra herself was the daughter of Ptolemy XII (bastard son of Ptolemy IX by an unknown Greek concubine) and his half-sister Cleopatra V Tryphaena (bastard daughter of Ptolemy IX but possibly by a different concubine). The genealogy is confused, so it is precipitate at this stage to conclude that because Arsinoe was perhaps part-African in heritage that Cleopatra was too.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 6, 2009 0:00:46 GMT
A report published online last week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (at www.pnas.org/search?fulltext=anastasia&go.x=0&go.y=0&go=GO&submit=yes) suggests that recent DNA evidence suggests that none of the late Czar Nicholas II's children survived Ekaterinberg. Supports of Anna Anderson and other claimants may now have to rethink their positions, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Nov 28, 2008 2:56:50 GMT
Generally, Constitutions are quite specific about who can inherit. In the case of Norway, for example, the Constitution states: "The order of succession is lineal, so that only a child born in lawful wedlock of the Queen or King, or of one who is herself or himself entitled to the succession may succeed, and so that the nearest line shall take precedence over the more remote and the elder in the line over the younger."
In the case of the UK, and countries like Canada, inheritance is based upon the 1701 Act of Succession, which does not mention adoption.
In the case of Japan, adoption is no longer possible by any member of the Imperial Family.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Sept 18, 2008 6:18:58 GMT
Having seen HRH The Prince of Wales take the salute at the Thanksgiving Service and March Past marking the end of the troubles in Northern Ireland I was struck by the fact that he was wearing the sash and star to the Order of the Garter. Wouldn't it have been an ideal moment to revive the Order of St Patrick? Just an idea... Given that the Order was designed for the whole of Ireland, and that its Chapel and Chancery were in Dublin, it would seem difficult to revive it for Northern Ireland only.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 26, 2008 1:32:07 GMT
if William keeps his name will he be William V? i ask this because shouldnt the Scots be taken into consideration, seeing as they had a few williams of their own Under a convention adopted early in the present British monarch's reign, future British monarchs will be numbered according either to an English or Scottish reckoning, whichever was higher, so William would be William V.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 9, 2008 7:50:44 GMT
Is the Queen too old to reign? If not, how old is too old? At present, The Queen is more than capable to reign. In the future, if she's anything like her mother, she'll be fine. Don't forget, The Queen considers it a job for life. However, the Family [or "The Form"] share things out and if it gets too much she will appoint HRH The Prince of Wales regent. That's how it goes. I think that it is incorrect to state that the Queen would appoint the Prince of Wales as regent "if it gets too much," as this is controlled by Acts of Parliament. For example, in the case of King George III, it took an Act of Parliament in 1811 to allow the-then Prince of Wales to become Regent. If the Queen were to become incapacitated, then under the Regency Act of 1937, Charles would become Regent. It would take a new Act of Parliament to allow a Regency in the situation you mention.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 8, 2008 23:34:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 3, 2008 1:29:48 GMT
Why is it that Marie is not known as Her Royal Highness Princess Jaochim... I thought that was the standard for women who married a prince, unless its the norm in Denmark for a woman to be made a princess before her marriage, if so why hasn't other countries done this.. I know belgium does it too..help..lol Apparently all members of the Danish Royal Family, by birth or marriage (in the case of women) are considered Princes or Princesses of Denmark - in Princess Marie's case this was automatic. In the case of Princess Mathilde of Belgium, she was created a Princess of Belgium before her marriage. The only other House I know of where women are created Princesses in their own right and can thus enjoy the title after divorce is that of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 3, 2008 1:27:05 GMT
Many thanks, Observer. I'm glad your Danish is up to the mark ;o) It makes me wonder if this was done entirely to be timed for Joachim and Marie's wedding and whether Marie is more favoured than HRH Prince Joachim's first wife, Alexandra. I believe that it is something that had been considered for some time, and that Prince Joachim's marriage simply provided the opportunity to announce the decision.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 2, 2008 3:56:54 GMT
I understand from the Danish Monarchy's own site that HRH The Prince Joachim's new bride HRH Princess Marie [who looks strkingly similar to her sister-in-law, HRH Crown Princess Mary] is, as a result of her marriage, Countess of Monpezat. This is the title her father-in-law HRH The Prince Consort held before his marriage. The site doen't mention that Prince Joachim holds this title, so has Princess Marie been awarded it in her own right? And why? Does anyone know? Queen Margrethe of Denmark gave the title of Count of Monpezat to all her descendants at the end of April. Lineal descendant males are greve af Monpezat, lineal descendant females are komtesse af Monpezat and wives of greves are grevinder, so both Crown Princess Mary and Princess Marie are grevinde af Montpezat. See kongehuset.dk/publish.php?id=16821
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 13, 2008 1:30:28 GMT
Donald
I am sorry you feel it necessary to discontinue what I was enjoying as an interesting debate from two different perspectives on the arms used by modern Russia, and their similarities and differences used during the time of the imperial dynasty. I was certainly not offended by anything you wrote and looked forward eagerly to your response to my postings. I think that debates such as the one just finished are one of the strengths of this Board. Thank you for an interesting time.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 13, 2008 0:03:07 GMT
Donaldetc, I don't doubt that you have such pictures or that the Romanov family used the double-headed eagle in the 1880s and 1890s. At that time, as the ruling family, they were entitled to use the state arms as what are technically (sorry to use that word again) known as Arms of Dominion. As Wikipedia and other sites point out, the British Queen and her family use the UK royal coat of arms in the same fashion - see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom. and also historymedren.about.com/od/pimbley/a/pim_a_4.htm for "Arms of Dominion - Are those belonging to empires, kingdoms, principalities, states, etc., officially used by the ruler de facto.....Occasionally the arms of dominion were those of an early sovereign or governor. " As Velde points out, the fleur-de-lys as the Arms of France, date back to at least the 12th century, long before the Bourbon family became Kings of France. Lilies were later adopted by the family now known as Bourbon when Robert, Count of Clermont, married Beatrix of Burgundy, heiress to Bourbon, in 1272. In any event, the French courts have ruled since at least 1988-9 that the Bourbon lilies are not Arms of Dominion but family arms, as Velde points out - see www.heraldica.org/topics/bourbon.htm. As you say - it is all in one point of view.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 12, 2008 7:43:18 GMT
Chapter Six of the Fundamental State Laws of the Russian Empire quite explicitly states that the black two-headed eagle on a gold shield is the Russian State Arms, not the arms of the Romanovs, and that the great, medium and lesser seal containing the black eagle, etc belong to the Russian State not to the Romanovs: "The Russian State Coat of Arms is a black double-headed eagle on a gold shield, crowned by two imperial crowns, above which there is a third, bigger crown, of similar appearance, with two undulating ends of ribbon of the Order of St. Andrew, the First-Called. The State eagle is holding a gold scepter and a gold orb. On the breast of the eagle is the Moscow Coat of Arms: a scarlet escutcheon with an image of St. George the Great Martyr and Victory-bearer on horseback, smiting a dragon with a golden spear. The great State seal contains the escutcheon with the double-headed eagle described above, crowned by the helmet of Grand Duke Saint Alexander Nevsky and encircled by the chain of the Order of St. Andrew, the First-Called; on either side -- depictions of Archangel Michael and Archangel Gabriel; above all -- a gold pavilion studded with two-headed eagles and lined with ermine bearing the inscription: “God is with us”; above the pavilion -- the Imperial crown and State gonfalon. Around the escutcheon are depicted the ancestral coat of arms of His Imperial Majesty and the coat of arms belonging to the Realms of Kazan, Astrakhan, Poland, Siberia, Taurian Khersones and Georgia, the Grand Duchies of Kiev, Vladimir, Novgorod and Finland; above the pavilion -- combined on six shields the coat of arms of the other Principalities and Provinces, named in the full Imperial title (article 59). This full title of His Imperial Majesty is placed along the rim of the seal. The medium State seal contains the same depictions as on the great seal except for the State gonfalon and the six shields with the combined coat of arms of Principalities and Provinces located above the pavilion. Along the rim -- the abridged version of the Imperial title (article 60, paragraph 1). The small State seal is in general similar to the medium seal but lacks the images of the Holy Archangels and the ancestral Coat of Arms of His Imperial Majesty, and the coat of arms of the Kingdoms and Principalities encircling the main escutcheon are situated on the wings of the eagle. Along the rim of the seal -- the brief version of the Imperial title(article 60, paragraph 2)." See www.imperialhouse.ru/eng/dynastyhistory/dinzak1/446.htmlWhether most people refer to the black eagle as the Romanov eagle does not make it so - at least in the eyes of the Romanov Emperors who promulgated the laws.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 9, 2008 23:58:48 GMT
...... As for Serbia and Montenegro, both rather late comers to the game, they tried to ape the association with the Byzantine Empire, or the Empire of the Romans, by using the bicephalic eagle just like Russia did when it adopted it. This eagle has always been associated with Byzantine imperial dignity. Medieval Serbia used the silver double-headed eagle from at least the Nemanjic dynasty, in the 12-13th centuries, long before the Romanovs in the 17th. The Montenegrin Crnojević dynasty in the late 15th century CE is thought to have copied medieval Serbia's arms, though these arms were based on the medieval Byzantine one of the Palaiologi. Albania's eagle is said to be that of Skanderbeg (c. 1403-1468). ... Even Napoleon used only a single headed eagle when he tried to recreate the empire of Charlemagne because the double headed eagle was too closely assoicated with the Habsburgs and Romanovs and Napoleon didn't want people to think he was aping them. Charlemagne used a one-headed eagle and Napoleon I's similar single-headed eagle was adopted from Imperial Rome. It is not an heraldic eagle but an ancient eagle clutching a thunderbolt, just like Jupiter's eagle. ... And to get really technical, the black bicephalic eagle was originally a supporter rather than the arms of the imperial houses. Only later did both houses adopted a great coat of arms that put the eagle on the shield and thus made it the arms. I don't recall disagreeing. It was common to use an eagle as a supporter to show princely rank. I don't believe there are any real Romanov grand dukes left, but as for Romanov princes using the griffin, Prince Michael Romanoff-Ilyinski uses it, as does Prince Dimitry Romanov, see www.dimitriy-romanov-fund.eu/trademark-english.htm
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 9, 2008 0:41:06 GMT
..... I am not sure just how to define "common." The two headed eagle was from Byzantine times almost always associated with the imperial dignity. Austria used it, and so did Russia after it identified itself as heir to the Byzantine empire. The German Empire stuck with the one headed eagle. Only Albania and Serbia uses it today. Austria uses the eagle today but it is single headed. The German Confederation had a double-headed black eagle on gold/yellow as its arms; Montenegro had and has a gold double-headed eagle on red as its arms and flag; Yugoslavia had a silver double-headed eagle; Mt Athos - the religious republic within Greece - flies a double-headed black eagle on gold in the old Byzantine style. Technically, too, it is not strictly speaking a "Romanov" eagle because its use pre-dates that dynasty's imperial rule. It was adopted by Ivan III the Great on his marriage to Zoe (or Sophia) Paleologus. The Ancestral Arms of His Imperial Majesty the Lord Emperor and Autocrat of All Russias were, namely, Per pale, 1. Argent, a griffin segreant Gules, holding a sword proper and a round shield Or, ensigned upon its upper edge with an eaglet Sable, all within a bordure Sable, charged with eight lion's heads erased Or and Argent alternately. They were displayed below the main shield in the Great Coat of Arms. Like the double-headed eagle of Austria, that of Imperial Russia, strictly speaking, was the State Arms. The House of Hapsburg arms were were crowned red lion, armed and fanged blue, on gold.
|
|