hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Jan 23, 2017 23:24:23 GMT
Scots law is the same as most of Europe on this point, it is English that is different. The children of Robert II, King of Scots, and Euphemia Ross were legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents. There is more information on the legal background here: www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/legmatsub.htm
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Mar 30, 2013 19:50:28 GMT
does anyone know how the Letters Patent were written? i assume to the heirs male of his body You are correct: "and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten".
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Dec 16, 2011 10:13:47 GMT
The Imperial Family are essentially prisoners of the 1947 Imperial House Law and of the American-inspired 1947 Constitution. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no provision in either for retirement, i.e., abdication. Like the British situation, the emperor is the emperor, whether he likes it or not, because that is what the law says he is. That is indeed the current law, but in the past English kings were able to retire: Caedwalla, King of Wessex, abdicated in 688, and went to Rome, where he was baptized. Ethelred, King of Mercia, abdicated in 704. Offa, King of Essex, abdicated in 709 and retired to Rome. Ine, King of Wessex, abdicated and retired to Rome in 726. Sigeric, King of Essex, abdicated in 798 and retired to Rome.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Oct 28, 2011 10:08:44 GMT
The was a similar case in Portugal. In 1371 King Fernando I of Portugal married Leonor Teles de Menezes (though she was already married to someone else). They had two sons, who died in infancy, and a daughter Beatrice, who was born in 1372, and married (aged 11) to the King of Castile in 1382. When Fernando I died the following year, the King of Castile claimed Portugal and invaded, but was defeated two years later, and an illegitimate uncle of Beatrice was proclaimed King of Portugal.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Oct 27, 2011 13:45:35 GMT
Has their ever been a case where the only Princess was married off to a future king, with the belief that her brother would rule the kingdom she was...leaving. But the brother died before he could rule or have children, leaving her the only direct descendant of their father? I'd assume since she was married, and potentially Queen, the kingdom would go to her Uncle or someone similar? This sort of situation did arise a few times during the Mediaeval period, and, tragically, the result was often civil war. One of the best known cases is that of the Empress Matilda. She was the daughter of Henry I, King of England & Duke of Normandy. His only legitimate son was drowned in 1120, so he named his daughter Matilda as his heiress, but when Henry I died in 1135, the throne was seized by Matilda’s cousin, Stephen of Blois. Matilda was married twice, both times to foreign rulers. Her first husband was the Emperor Henry V, and her second was Geoffrey V, Count of Anjou. Because of these marriages she was usually referred to as Empress Matilda or Countess Matilda, to avoid confusion with Stephen’s wife, Queen Matilda. The Empress easily conquered Normandy, but her invasion of England produced a long civil war. Finally, in 1153, Stephen’s son Eustace died, and Stephen agreed to recognized Matilda’s son as his heir. Stephen died suddenly the following year, apparently of appendicitis, and he was succeeded by Matilda’s son, Henry II, even though Matilda herself was still alive.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Feb 20, 2011 11:39:14 GMT
deserves all the awards it can get This is true.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Aug 2, 2010 21:38:47 GMT
The abolition of sovereign monarchies in much of Africa (not only the Commonwealth ones but also Tunisia, Libya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Central Africa Empire, Rwanda, Burundi) suggests that attitudes to monarchy on the African continent are flexible. All the countries mentioned by Aidan were formerly under British control and the survival of their traditional governments was due to the British policy of indirect rule. Native states were largely left to govern themselves, not just in Africa, but also in Asia. Returning to the original post, here are another couple of links: www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=421980 www.thedailymaverick.co.za/article/2010-07-29-zuma-deposes-two-kings-names-six-more-illegitimate
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Jul 10, 2010 9:53:03 GMT
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Jun 12, 2010 11:08:39 GMT
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Jun 5, 2010 10:57:18 GMT
Thank you for posting that link. Some comments:
"After Britain’s recent election, as politicians from the Labor, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat parties struggled to negotiate a ruling coalition, Queen Elizabeth’s presence reminded Britons that the country retained institutions that would prevent it from really melting down."
The Queen merely accepted the resignation of one Prime Minister and appointed another. Only one person was in a position to form a new government. To suggest that there was any possibility of "melting down" goes too far.
"Although a ceremonial president can fill this role, as in Israel or Germany, the monarch has a unique claim on the public imagination."
The German president resigned on 31 May 2010.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on May 30, 2010 7:57:51 GMT
I see that Ian Paisley is now a Lord.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on May 22, 2010 12:34:21 GMT
Another story is that the new government wants more supporters in the House of Lords and so has asked for a 100 new life barons.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Mar 27, 2010 9:56:56 GMT
It is worth pointing out that there is nothing new about life peerages. Previous creations include:
1362 Prince of Aquitaine 1377 Earl of Huntingdon 1385 Marquess of Dublin 1386 Duke of Ireland 1390 Earl of Rutland 1397 Duchess of Norfolk 1414 Duke of Bedford & Earl of Kendal 1414 Duke of Gloucester & Earl of Pembroke 1416 Duke of Exeter 1514 Earl of Surrey 1618 Countess of Buckingham 1641 Countess Rivers 1644 Duchess of Dudley 1660 Countess of Chesterfield 1660 Countess of Guildford 1673 Duchess of Portsmouth, Countess of Fareham, & Baroness of Petersfield 1674 Viscountess Bayning of Foxley 1674 Baroness Belasye of Osgodby 1679 Viscountess Corbet of Linchlade 1680 Countess of Sheppey 1686 Countess of Dorchester & Baroness of Darlington 1688 Countess of Stafford 1688 Baroness Shelburne 1716 Duchess of Munster, Marchioness & Countess of Dungannon, & Baroness of Dundalk 1719 Duchess of Kendal, Countess of Feversham, & Baroness of Glastonbury 1721 Countess of Leinster 1722 Countess of Darlington & Baroness of Brentford 1722 Countess of Walsingham & Baroness of Aldborough 1740 Countess & Baroness of Yarmouth 1758 Countess of Brandon
After 1758, no life peerages were awarded for almost a century, until 1855, when Queen Victoria created Baron Wensleydale. But the new peer was refused admission by the House of Lords. Acts of Parliament were required before life peers could sit in Parliament, namely the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (1876) and the Life Peerages Act (1958). The first lord created under the Life Peerages Act (1958) was Baron Fraser of Lonsdale, on 1 August 1958. Peers created under the Appellate Jurisdiction Act (1876) were called Law Lords, and the first of these to be made was Baron Blackburn, on 16 October 1876.
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Mar 15, 2010 22:32:01 GMT
Although in theory peerages are the gift of the monarch, in reality they are controlled by the prime minister. Some prime ministers are more liberal than others: Salisbury (in office for 5009 days): created 87 new hereditary peerages. Rosebery (477): 7. Balfour (1242): 17. Campbell-Bannerman (854): 20. Asquith (3166): 76. Lloyd George (2146): 90. Bonar Law (211): 7. Baldwin (2640): 67. MacDonald (2480): 72. Chamberlain (1078): 21. Churchill (3161): 89. Attlee (2283): 84. Eden (645): 18. Macmillan (2473): 46. Douglas-Home (363): 12. Wilson (2835): 6. Heath (1354): 0. Callaghan (1124): 0. Thatcher (4226): 4. Major (2347): 0. Blair (3708): 1. Brown (1045): 0. website.lineone.net/~david.beamish/admintable.htm
|
|
hovite
Member of the Court
Posts: 40
|
Post by hovite on Jan 28, 2010 1:41:56 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.
|
|