|
Post by observer on Sept 15, 2013 10:24:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on Sept 4, 2013 8:45:11 GMT
Quite a few members of the Lascelles family (the Earls of Harewood, descendants of HM King George V through his only daughter HRH The Princess Mary, Princess Royal) have been born out of wedlock and subsequently legitimised. They may have then received the title they would have had, had they originally been born in wedlock, but not the rank. Neither do they qualify for the succession to Harewood title nor the UK Throne. With regard to the right of inheritance of various legitimated Lascelles, and others whose parents are in line to titles and/or the throne in Britain, the relevant Acts are those of 1926, 1959, and 1976. The Legitimacy Act 1926, 10 (1) says, "Nothing in this Act shall affect the Succession to any dignity or title of honour or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title." The Legitimacy Act 1959, 6 (4) says, "It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne." The Legitimacy Act 1976 (c. 31) allowed the legitimacy of the child of a putative marriage to apply to titles, honors and dignities, but confirmed that legitimation by subsequent marriage did not ("Apart from section 1, nothing in this Act shall affect the succession to any dignity or title of honor or render any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title"), nor did it to the Crown ("It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act affects the Succession to the Throne"). I understand, however, that Scots law does allow succession to a Scots peerage title if one is legitimated in this fashion. I guess that in other European countries, the subsequent legitimation of children on their parents' marriage would depend on whether or not that marriage received the appropriate approval, .i.e, in many European monarchies, royals need either monarchical (as in the UK and Sweden) and/or government (as in the Netherlands) approval to marry. For the last case, witness the marriage of Prince Friso- his children have no succession rights because his marriage was not approved by the Dutch parliament.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Sept 3, 2013 23:49:16 GMT
Quite a few members of the Lascelles family (the Earls of Harewood, descendants of HM King George V through his only daughter HRH The Princess Mary, Princess Royal) have been born out of wedlock and subsequently legitimised. They may have then received the title they would have had, had they originally been born in wedlock, but not the rank. Neither do they qualify for the succession to Harewood title nor the UK Throne. As I understand it, in the case of Mark Lascelles, he was born in 1964 when his father was still married to his first wife, Marion Stein - they did not divorce till 1967. His parents married in 1967. Therefore, he was not "lawfully begotten" under the terms of the letters patent governing the inheritance of the title. The original question was just about legitimation on the parents marriage. If we consider the question implicit in the heading, however, I think I concede that the situation of subsequent legitimation in terms of inheriting a throne is limited to Monaco. This is not surprising considering the way in which Rainer III inherited his claim/throne. I can't think of another modern royal family where this occurred.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Sept 3, 2013 13:35:49 GMT
I read over the weekend that with the marriage of Princess Caroline of Monaco/Hanover son Andrea Casiraghi to his longtime girlfriend Tatiana Santo Domingo that their son becomes legitimate and therefore has succession rights to the Monegasque throne; Does anyone else know of any countries where children are made legitimate after marriage?just curious I believe that this has long been the case in much of Europe, most Commonwealth countries, the USA, and many south American countries, for children to be legitimated on the subsequent marriage of their parents IF the parents were free to marry at the time of the child's birth, i.e., not married to anyone else. This previously happened in Monaco with the two eldest of Princess Stephanie's children, for example. Legislation in many countries, including much of the UK, Australia, etc., now legitimates a child if its parents subsequently marry whether or not they were married to other people at the time the child was born. I understand that legitimacy in Muslim countries, when harems were common, depended on recognition by the father. Of course, nowadays the issue of legitimacy seems to be important only in terms of succession to royal or noble titles - as in Monaco - and citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 22, 2013 11:45:51 GMT
Cinderella, thanks for posting this linik - I had missed the broadcast. Interesting that it does refer to "relatives" and not to "descendants." Interesting, too, the possible number of English people who might fall into that category.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 17, 2013 22:30:49 GMT
Thank you, Cinderella, for your response. It is my understanding, however, that in both legal and genealogical terms, "collateral descendant" is used to refer to "a relative descended from a brother or sister of an ancestor, and thus a cousin, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle." This is similar to the Wikipedia definition from the Law Dictionary. The key word surely, however, is "ancestor," whom the OED defines as "a person, typically one more remote than a grandparent, from whom one is descended:" In this case, however, none of the "relatives" descends from Richard III, who would be the "ancestor." Anne of York is the ancestor, from whom they are lineal descendants. It is the descendants of Richard III who would be the collateral descendants, surely. I think the newspapers have the relationship back-to-front, though I can accept that there is a collateral descent from Richard and Anne's father, Richard, 3rd Duke of York. Collateral descent is indirect; i.e., "up" to one ancestor, and then "down" again, such as from brother to brother, cousin to cousin, uncle to nephew, etc. As the common ancestor of the "descendant's" line and any from Richard III is Richard III's father, the relationship to these so-called "descendants" actually is, in genealogical terms, that of a "collateral relative," whom Family Magazine online defines as "... any blood relative who is not your ancestor. So your ancestors are your parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., and your collateral relatives are cousins, nieces, nephews, aunts, uncles, siblings, etc. " www.familytreemagazine.com/article/collateralrelative
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 17, 2013 15:22:04 GMT
Why do newspaper reports claim that King Richard III's "descendants" are disputing his burial place?
His only known legitimate issue, his son Edward of Middleham, died young, at or around the age of 10. Obviously, without any descendants of his own.
Richard is reputed to have had three illegitimate offspring.
His bastard son, known as John of Gloucester, had no known descendants.
His bastard daughter, Katherine (wife of William Herbert, Earl of Huntingdon), seems to have had no children either, because the Earl’s heir was his daughter by his first wife, Mary Woodville (sister of Edward IV's wife, Elizabeth Woodville).
The third bastard attributed to Richard III was Richard of Eastwell, called Richard Plantagenet, but he is known only from a gravestone of 1550 and information first published in 1735, so he may not be in fact one of Richard III's by-blows. In any event, there is no record of his fathering children.
Richard III's bones were identified through a comparison of his mitochondrial DNA with that of two matrilineal descendants of his eldest sister, Anne of York because he had no descendants of his body.
Descendants of Anne of York are not those of Richard III but of Anne's daughter, also Anne (who married Thomas Grey, 1st Marquess of Dorset), by her husband, Henry Holland, 3rd Duke of Exeter.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Aug 12, 2013 14:00:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 14, 2013 22:26:52 GMT
Long time no post! ....[Aside: is there no contact with her cousins descended from Princess Mary - sister to George V?] .....Did Princess Elizabeth have a Bowes-Lyon cousin bridesmaid? .... I believe that there used to contact with the children of Princess Mary, the former Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, i.e., Patrick, Earl of Harewood and the various Lascelles. Her bridesmaids included three of her non-royal cousins - two Bowes-Lyons (Margaret Elphinstone later Margaret Rhodes, the daughter of the Queen Mother's sister Mary, and Diana Cinderella Bowes-Lyon, daughter of the Queen Mother's brother John) as well as her cousin Lady Mary Cambridge, daughter of the Marquess of Cambridge (the former Prince George of Teck).
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 14, 2013 15:01:00 GMT
I'm curious about all things Coronations right now. Are coronations held only for the king/queen, or do their children go through something similar to be official titled Prince/Princess? If so, when does it happen in their life? What about if the child is Heir Apparent? If the monarch is married at the time of the coronation, does the spouse have a role? Is he/she crowned alongside him/her as King/Queen/Prince? If so, how? Of course, customs vary depending on the monarchy but not all monarchies have coronations. About the only countries to have coronations (i.e., crownings) nowadays are Great Britain, Thailand, Tonga and Bhutan - the others may have inaugurations rather than coronations. A crown is often present at the inauguration - as it was for King Willem Alexander and King Sihamoni - but the king does not wear it. Indeed, not all monarchies even have crowns - Japan for example and most Muslim monarchies do not. Coronations are only for the male sovereign and his consort or queens regnant (in Europe or Tonga - though there is the possibility under the Bhutanese and Thai constitutions for a queen regnant such an event is unlikely in the near future) If there is a queen consort, then in Britain and Tonga she is also crowned, I believe. As Bhutan's king was unmarried when he was crowned I do not know whether it is traditional for Bhutanese queens-consort to be crowned - his predecessor has four wives while the current king has only one. I do not believe Thailand crowns queens consort, however. The title of prince or princess is either automatically ceded or created by letters patent (or the equivalent) without a special ceremony unless, like the Prince of Wales, there is a separate inauguration when they are installed in one of the titles traditional for the heir. If there is a queen regnant, her consort generally has no role in the coronation except to swear allegiance (as Prince Philip did) if that is part of the ceremony. The only countries that had kings-consort in modern times were Spain and Portugal but the former doesn't have a coronation and the latter is now a republic. Non-western and non-Christian monarchies generally do not have coronations but installations or inaugurations or a swearing-in ceremony. I understand. Exceptions include those of the former Shah and Shahbanou of Iran (with the title "Shahbanou" being especially created for the occasion) and the Kings of Nepal, though when King Gyanendra crowned himself his wife had no part in the ceremony if I remember correctly. There are ceremonies in Swaziland and Lesotho that resemble coronations but these do not involve a crown in the European sense.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 12, 2013 1:29:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 9, 2013 7:35:11 GMT
I have realized that in 1936 Great Britain had the similar situation but with three kings - Georges V and Vi, and Edward VIII - and two queens - Mary and Elizabeth.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 9, 2013 7:03:03 GMT
Given the news that the new child will be known as Prince A or Princess B of Cambridge, it is interesting to note the full names of the last people to have this title:
1. Prince George William Frederick Charles of Cambridge (26 March 1819 - 17 March 1904), second Duke of Cambridge of the 4th creation of 1801. 2. Princess Augusta Caroline Charlotte Elizabeth Mary Sophia Louise (19 July 1822 - 5 December 1916), later Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg Strelitz, and 3, Princess Mary Adelaide Wilhelmina Elizabeth of Cambridge (27 November 1833 - 27 October 1897), later Duchess of Teck, the mother of Princess Victoria Mary Augusta Louise Olga Pauline Claudine Agnes of Teck (26 May 1867 - 24 March 1953), aka Princess May of Teck, once affianced to the Duke of Clarence and Avondale, but better and later known as Queen-Empress-consort Mary, the wife of George V. Princess Victoria Mary is thus the great-great-grandmother of the new infant Prince or Princess of Cambridge, while Princess Mary Adelaide is the 3xgreat grandmother., if I have calculated correctly. All that being said, there is a range of family names from which to chose to name the new child from those used for its predecessors.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jul 4, 2013 3:07:23 GMT
It appears that King Albert II will retain the title of King, like his father Leopold III, after his abdication. This means that there will once again be two kings in Belgium (Albert and Filip) as well as three queens (Fabiola, Paola, and Mathilde). Does anyone know of a similar situation?
|
|
|
Post by observer on Jun 14, 2013 2:30:50 GMT
|
|