|
Post by observer on Jun 8, 2010 8:55:19 GMT
There was never an Earldom of Marr (sic) held by the Wright family in the Scots peerage at the time of Mary Queen of Scots. At the time of Mary Queen of Scots the Earldom of Mar (note spelling) of the First Creation was held de jure by the Erskine family. There was also an Earldom of Moray and Mar held at the time by her illegitimate half brother, James Stewart, Earl of Moray and Mar. At the present time, both the Earldom of Mar and the Earldom of Mar and Kellie are held by descendants of the Erskine family. You can read about these peerages on Wikipedia at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Mar#Earls_of_Mar.2C_sixth_creation_.281562.29The title of Lord and Lady of the Manor of Marr was purchased by Ewa Lucas-Gardiner in 1996 from the Manorial Society of Great Britain. She and her husband Robert Lucas-Gardiner apparently are known by the shortened title of Lord and Lady Marr, You can read about this at findarticles.com/p/news-articles/scotsman-edinburgh-scotland-the/mi_7951/is_2001_Jan_20/countess-castle-fake-faberge-eggs/ai_n33005354/ You can read about the Manor of Marr at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marr,_South_Yorkshire Mary Queen of Scots' son was King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 30, 2010 1:59:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 29, 2010 7:36:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 11, 2010 9:07:26 GMT
Yes, I know she was his biological daughter but she was still adopted by her father. I wonder why renounced her rights to the throne to Ranier though. Was adopting her just a stop-gap until she produced an heir? She was adopted and legitimated as a political act as Prince Louis' heir to the Monegasque throne was the German Duke of Urach, a member of a morganatic branch of the Wurttemberg Royal Family. In the aftermath of World War I, France would not accept a German on the throne of Monaco, and the only other option if Louis died heirless was for Monaco to become part of France.
|
|
|
Post by observer on May 10, 2010 3:16:40 GMT
I was just reading on Wikpedia that Denmark has changed their succession rules to allow for equal primogenture. I haven't heard anything anywhere else though. I recall it being discussed but I don't recall hearing that it had been passed. Is this true? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_Act_of_Succession_referendum,_2009 For some reason I thought I would have read this on a blog somewhere. Yes, the Danes have changed their succession law. Some news organizations reported it at the time.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Apr 13, 2010 9:12:38 GMT
Observer, A baronetcy IS a hereditary knighthood,as it most certainly is not a peerage.Some baronetcies are inheritable by women,thanks to mistakes being made in the letters patent.In these cases,they are classed as hereditary damehoods as well as hereditary knighthoods. They are the British Isles equivilant of the hereditary knighthoods that were conferred in Austria-Hungary & some of the German states. The Kingdom of Hungary under Regent Miklos Horthy (1920-44) also conferred hereditary knighthoods as well.These hereditary knights have the title of Vitez,which is placed before the name. Have a read here; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extant_baronetcies . The Irish hereditary knights are a special case.They have the title of 'Knight' placed where 'Sir' would normally go. Aidan. Aidan, I suggest that you read the article at the following link - www.burkespeerage.com/articles/peerage/page66-baronet.aspx. It is from Burke's Peerage and states: "Baronets were originally given the right to be knighted, which would make no sense if they were merely, as is sometimes wrongly asserted, hereditary knights. They also once had the right to have their eldest sons knighted on the latter attaining their majority, a privilege which was bestowed by JAMES I in 1616 after candidates dried up following his ruling that baronets' precedence should be lower than that of barons' younger sons but which was rescinded by GEORGE IV in 1827." When women hold a baronetcy, they are termed a baronetess, not an hereditary damehood, although they are styled Dame XY, Btess. I do not believe that baronets are the equivalent of continental hereditary knighthoods, therefore, which were used in the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Italy, The Netherlands, etc.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Apr 13, 2010 9:02:00 GMT
Observer, Descendants of British royalty who hold hereditary peerages are still classed as being royalty. There's a huge world of difference between being born a descendant of royalty & being born into a noble family. I can guess that a similar thing applies in Japan,where although peerage titles have not been conferred since the 1940's,the descendants of those who were created peers are still classed as being nobility,such as the Tokugawa family,whose last ruling Shogun was created a Prince by the Emperor Meiji. Aidan. The nobility in Japan was abolished in 1947 and Japanese are either members of the Imperial Family or commoners. Female member of the Imperial Family who marry outside the Family lose their status and become commoners who live ordinary lives without special privileges.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Apr 13, 2010 8:59:26 GMT
Actually, the very last person to be awarded a hereditary peerag outside the British Royal Family was Sir Denis Thatcher, 1st Bt. who was awarded the title in Feb 1991. Actually. a baronetcy is NOT a peerage, although it is an heredity title as it does/did not allow the holder to enter the House of Lords
|
|
|
Post by observer on Apr 8, 2010 8:51:27 GMT
How many of you are aware that the very last baronetcy (British hereditary knighthood) was conferred in 1990? Well,the recipient was Sir Denis Thatcher,1st. Baronet. His son,Sir Mark Thatcher,2nd. Baronet got himself in a spot of trouble a few years back. Have a read here; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcher_Baronets . Aidan. I believe that baronetcies are not hereditary knighthoods, strictly speaking, even though holders are called 'Sir." They rank above all knighthoods except the Garter and the Thistle, and holders are not dubbed as are regular knights. The only hereditary knights in the British Isles are Irish - The Knight of Glin (or the Black Knight), The Knight of Kerry (The Green Knight who is also a baronet), and the White Knight (currently dormant).
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 29, 2010 1:39:44 GMT
Aidan, the Earl and Countess of Wessex have a son called James who is called by the curtesy title Viscount Severn. It is expected that HRH The Prince Edward will will be appointed Duke of Edinburgh in due course and James will be epxected to inherit his father's titles. It is true, though, that Royal Title are treated separately. York will revert to the Crown if, and only if, Andrew does not have a male heir when he dies - and he is now only 50 years of age. Edward will be "created" Duke of Edinburgh rather than "appointed," surely - dukes no longer lead armies into battle. Royal peerages were not treated separately in the legislation removing hereditary peers from the House of Lords, though, and no living member of the Royal family received a life peerage (excepting perhaps Lord Snowdon) to sit in the new Lords. Moreover, royal hereditary peerages become ordinary ones in the 3rd generation.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 27, 2010 0:56:03 GMT
Aidan was incorrect in citing the Whitelaw (1983) and Stockton (1984) (and missed Viscount Tonypandy, 1983) peerages as the last hereditary peerages created in the UK. It is true that they were the last ones created for commoners but the hereditary Dukedom of York (1986) and the hereditary Earldom of Wessex (1999) were both created after 1984
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 24, 2010 2:44:53 GMT
Kabaka Ronald Mutebi II of Buganda also has no surname either,so 'of Buganda' can also be like a surname as well. Aidan. He belongs to the Abalasangeye dynasty. Most royal families outside Europe (and, of course, Brazil and Mexico) do not have family or surnames in the Western sense, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 15, 2010 6:52:22 GMT
Under the terms of the marriage treaty between Mary and Philip, he was to be styled "King of England," but the treaty limited his royal authority as king-consort and a number of parliamentary acts defined his subordinate status as he was entitled to exercise them only "for so long as the matrimony endureth".
Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, Mary Queen of Scots second husband, was given the title of King of Scots at a proclamation published at the Cross of Edinburgh on the 30 July 1565, but he was King Consort only, with no royal powers. Mary's first husband, Francis II of France, is also seen as having been King Consort, though her third husband (James Hepburn) is not.
Francis, Duke of Cadiz, was King-Consort to Isabella II of Spain. Peter III was King-Consort to Maria I of Portual, and Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, as Ferdinand II, was King-Consort to Maria II da Gloria of Portugal. The Emperor Francis I was King-Consort of Bohemia and Hungary.
It may be argued that Philip II actually received what is known as the Crown Matrimonial, i.e., the legal concept used to describe a person's right to co-reign equally with his or her spouse, but it is not clear that the others did.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 11, 2010 7:28:30 GMT
If a king marries another royal, will his wife automatically become queen? If a king marries a commoner, will his wife become a queen? If a queen marries another royal, will her husband automatically become queen? If a queen marries a commoner, will her husband become a king. Thank you, Wednesday The answers to your questions depend on the countries concerned. For example, in most European and some African monarchies the wife of a reigning king, whether or not she is a royal birth, becomes queen. This is also the case in some Muslim monarchies (e.g., Jordan) the king's wife may or may not become queen, but in others (e.g. Morocco, Saudi Arabia) this is not the case. Nowadays. a reigning queen's husband rarely becomes king consort, whether or not he was of royal birth, although this has happened in the past (e.g., in Spain, Portugal, England and Scotland). I believe there is no case of a reigning queen's husband being declared queen consort, however.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 1, 2010 9:08:31 GMT
It is customary for divorced women in the UK, including the wives of British peers, to retain their former spouse's name if they wish. In the case of the divorced wife of a peer, the custom is to use her personal name (e.g., Sarah or Diana) with the former title (e..g., Sarah Duchess of York) but without the define article "the;" eg the form of "The Duchess of York" or "The Princess of Wales."
If Andrew remarried, Sarah could still call herself as she does now, but the new wife would be The Duchess of York.
|
|