When Do Ex-Royals Cease To Be Royal ?

[Tyger]

Interesting idea. There is a garbage collector/city worker in Toronto who is a legitimate great great grandson of Queen Victoria.....I wouldnt consider him royal. There is also Hermann Von Leiningen who is banking executive. His father was a Prince Von Leiningen and his mother is the sister of former King Simeon of Bulgaria. I consider him a commoner with interesting ancestors as well since German royalty went out of business in 1918.

I have a male friend who is a nuclear physicist - very old now, haven't seen him for a long while, must be close to 80. Fascinating guy - very compelling. Anyway, his brother was the eldest son and bore the hereditary title of their Polish noble family - they had escaped the killing of the Polish nobility by the Nazis during WWII - or the line passed to him after the killing. In the US he - the titled brother - was a chef who wound up working for wealthy families in the NYC area. He died without issue and the title passed to my physicist friend - who will also die without issue so the line will die out (I believe) - but while he does not advertise his background (and only mentions it with some vodka and the music playing and the lights low) - what a perfect image of the dissipated nobleman in his castle, drinking and exploring the delights of women, old and young. Extremely compelling guy - goes to my point about there being a 'something' in the bloodline. Anyway - its been my experience/fantasy. I am talking about someone who is carrying the inherited title - not just a descendant.

To my mind my friend is nobility but without money or estate (or a country for that matter). If he went back to Poland I would hazzard that he would be 'recognized' as such - were he so inclined - which he isn't. (Though they would hardly rush to reinstate the family estate and wealth, of course) For him its just a curiosity. To me I fancy that I do sense a kind of 'chrism' is on him - a kind of 'marking' that sets him apart from others. He has an interesting impact on people who meet him. Again, just my fancy talking.

 

[KeepMovingForward]

In 1919 royalty and nobility were mandated to lose their privileges in Germany, hereditary titles were to be legally borne thereafter only as part of the surname, according to Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution. He is allowed to call himself a prince therefore his wife is a Princess. Monaco recognizes her German royal titles and her style as a Royal Highness.

According to my understanding of current German law, Germany does not recgonize princely/noble titles (unless they are a legitimate foreign royal such as Queen Elizabeth II). That a German citizen can claim an extinct German title or prefix as part of their surname, call themselves anything they want, or that Monaco officially recognises the claim is irrelevant. The same thing can be said about the Duchess of Windsor. Socially speaking she could claim HRH all she wanted, but George VI specifically restricted the use of HRH to the Duke of Windsor in letters patent. By claiming HRH for the Duchess the Windsor the Windsors showed a lack of respect towards the British monarchy, King George VI, the British government, Parliament, and the people that elected the British government.

If we follow your logic then anyone claiming a style or title is legitimate regardless of whether or not the State recognizes it. I don't agree with that line of thinking.

 

[Lumutqueen]

That a German citizen can claim an extinct German title or prefix as part of their surname, call themselves anything they want, or that Monaco officially recognises the claim is irrelevant.

Except it is Germany themselves and their constitution which allow Ernst August to use his previous title as part of his surname. Also if a reigning royal family accepts the defunct title, as many do in many non-reigning royal cases, then I don't exactly see the problem. You called Caroline "delusional and pretentious", I assume because it was due to her using a title she does not have, you feel the same way about every non reigning royal family who continues to use their previously held titles yes? Follows your line of thinking.

If we follow your logic then anyone claiming a style or title is legitimate regardless of whether or not the State recognizes it..

Actually that's not my line of thinking, you seem to have got confused. If the state by which the title comes from allows the bearer to use it as part of their surname, I have no issue with it. If a title is also recognised by royal families across the globe than I also have no issue, as they know a lot more about titles than me. It is clear that in practically all countries Caroline is accepted as HRH The Princess of Hannover in regards to her seating in royal weddings and events, she sits with deposed royals instead of reigning royals.

 

[KeepMovingForward]

Lumutqueen,

I think you're missing my point completely. As a tenth generation American and fifth generation Texan republicanism runs through my DNA and thus I strongly believe that authority derives from the People. The People of Germany through their legislative processes do not recognize defunct German titles, therefore, I do not recognize defeunct German titles. OTHO, the People of the United Kingdom through Parliament recognize Queen Elizabeth II as their queen, therefore, I recognize her as such. The Queen derives her position from the People of the United Kingdom. The only monarch/head of state that I can think of that this principle does not apply is the Pope in Vatican City, and that is based upon Roman Catholic theology. Even then there are some Roman Catholics who don't recognize B16 as the current pope.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this subject. This horse isn't going to get any deader

Have a nice day

 

[NGalitzine]

When I started this thread I meant families that lost their thrones a long time ago such as the Orleans in France, the Habsburgs in Austria, the Romanovs in Russia and all the German princes. I think when there is no longer anyone alive who can remember when you were on the throne you have well and truly become a commoner who just has an interesting set of ancestors. This is especially true when the last reigning monarch of your line has long been in their tomb and you most likely need to support yourself with some mid level executive job.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Indeed we are going to disagree as your beliefs contradict what almost everyone seems to believe and accept, including ruling houses and governments.
German government does not recognise defunct titles, that is true. But they recognise the use of them in surnames. Or surely by now someone would have told Ernst August and Caroline to stop using them, or written up a new law to complete remove the use of previously held royal or noble titles from names entirely. As far as I know they haven't done this, the use of titles as part of a name is recognised by the German government, I can't speak for the people but i'm sure they'd mention something if they had a grumble, and I believe almost all the reigning monarchs in the world - that's fine and dandy to me.

Last question; I assume then that seeing as other countries with non reigning royal families, who still use their previously held titles but are not recognised by the government, you feel the same way towards? Greece, Italy etc?

 

[platinum69]

Absolutely not....

 

[Mirabel]

I feel the same way. A monarch without a throne is just another resident, imo. Nobody special.

 

[ldmemail]

My question is when do ex-royals or members of families who were once royal cease to be royal. The Romanoffs, Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns ceased to reign after WWI. Roumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Italy ended their monarchies after WWII. It has been even longer since families like the Orleans, Bourbon Two Siclies , Braganzas reigned, not to mention all of the minor reigning & mediatized familes of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. A lot of us have royal or noble families in our ancestry but we don't consider ourselves royal or noble. What period of time has to pass before members of these former royal families come to be thought of as commoners with interesting ancestors and rather pretentious for them to still use royal styles and titles.

I think by definition, one is either royal or not. If one divorces from a royal partner then one could be classed as an ex-royal. Of course I agree that there would have had to have been a crown somewhere in the past, but one's heritage is part of one's makeup and so one never loses it.

 

[NGalitzine]

I think by definition, one is either royal or not. If one divorces from a royal partner then one could be classed as an ex-royal. Of course I agree that there would have had to have been a crown somewhere in the past, but one's heritage is part of one's makeup and so one never loses it.

Well then pretty much everyone in England is royal since most of us seem to have a monarch somewhere in our lineage. 30% of us descend from Edward III and a rather large number descend from Charles II since he took his role as father of the nation rather seriously

 

[AdmirerUS]

Well then pretty much everyone in England is royal since most of us seem to have a monarch somewhere in our lineage. 30% of us descend from Edward III and a rather large number descend from Charles II since he took his role as father of the nation rather seriously

I admire his diligence and dedication. That's as close as I can get to a "harmless joke" on this rather sad day. Thanks in any case, for making me smile.

 

[AnnEliza]

I think by definition, one is either royal or not. If one divorces from a royal partner then one could be classed as an ex-royal. Of course I agree that there would have had to have been a crown somewhere in the past, but one's heritage is part of one's makeup and so one never loses it.

My grandmother would always proudly point out that her grandfather was a German baron. However, he emigrated to the US after the Prussian wars.
I would not consider even his son royal or noble, just that we have an interesting ancestor.

But there is still some meaning for native culture in the Hawaiian royals. I am also part Hawaiian, though no ali'i (royal) blood that I know about.

 

[Kaatje]

This might not be strictly on topic, but a question from some of the discussion...

I understand the former royal family from Greece is related to the Danish monarchy and carry those royal titles, but also use their Greek titles. Pavlos is still referred to as Crown Prince, which would imply he is the heir to a throne. So, if King Constantine passes, will Crown Prince Pavlos style himself "King" even though no such throne exists any longer or will he remain a prince and the presumptive heir should Greece bring back the monarchy?

I don't mean to stir up conflict over legitimacy, but wondered how that worked. Thank you!

 

[NGalitzine]

^^^
As a general rule the heirs do not use their fathers "Kingly" titles. They continue with their own titles and become heads of their families.

 

[Mariel]

The whole concept of the "blood royal" is really what this is based on. when the royals and nobility marry commoners, the royal bloodline is diminished. This is a good thing, as it begins to correct the genetic hazards.

I wonder what goes on behind the scenes in picking mates among these people, who are probably educated about modern science and the genetic hazards of marrying a close relative. In some cases, where marrying equally is still required in order to keep a title, the person must really look hard, under every rock as it were, to see if his prospective spouse is not only equal but also healthy. Probably geneticists are even employed to look hard.
When the present Prince of Prussia had to marry equally, he must have looked hard, and when I see him and his wife together I always see on their faces the look of "I made it!" Fortunately their twin sons no longer have to marry equally.

There IS a mystique of royal blood.

In addition, to me, a royal person, or noble person, earns his or her title by good behavior and cultured education and manners. Some ex-royals behave badly in several different categories, and to me they have forfeited pretension to being royal. The more categories they flub up on, the less royal they become. Finally they are just rich pretentious ignoramuses, if this goes far enough

 

[Daimyo]

In Germany, old defunct titles can be incorporated into the surname..like

Frédéric Prinz von Anhalt (formerly known as Hans Robert Lichtenberg) (husband of Zsa Zsa Gabor) and (adopted adult son (for money consideration) of Princess Marie Auguste of Anhalt)...

BUT it is laughable to call him HRH PRINCE OF ANHALT

Ernst August Prinz von Hannover should also NOT be called HRH PRINCE OF HANNOVER

-----------------------------------------------------------
however, proper ex-Royals (who actually reigned as monarch), such as

Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria (reigning 1943-46) and still living,

King Michael I of Romania (reigning 1927-30 and 1940-47) and still living

King Constantine II of Greece (reigning 1964-1973) and still living

should still, by courtesy, be titled royals for their lifetimes

 

[USCtrojan]

This might not be strictly on topic, but a question from some of the discussion... I understand the former royal family from Greece is related to the Danish monarchy and carry those royal titles, but also use their Greek titles. Pavlos is still referred to as Crown Prince, which would imply he is the heir to a throne. So, if King Constantine passes, will Crown Prince Pavlos style himself "King" even though no such throne exists any longer or will he remain a prince and the presumptive heir should Greece bring back the monarchy? I don't mean to stir up conflict over legitimacy, but wondered how that worked. Thank you!

The same question could be asked of the Serbian royal house. The Hereditary Prince will one day succeed his father the Crown Prince -Aleksander II chose not to use the title, and remained Crown Prince, so what happens to Petar when he becomes head of the house? He is see as heir/ crown prince, but will he use that title or will he simply remain the Hereditary Prince?

 

[fearghas]

The same question could be asked of the Serbian royal house. The Hereditary Prince will one day succeed his father the Crown Prince -Aleksander II chose not to use the title, and remained Crown Prince, so what happens to Petar when he becomes head of the house? He is see as heir/ crown prince, but will he use that title or will he simply remain the Hereditary Prince?

I think your answer would be seen if you llook at the german kings. you had King Ludwig of Bavaria but when he died his eldest son kept the title Crown Prince rather than take on the title of King. When Rupprecht died his son Albrecht simply remained as Duke Albrecht. The Hanoverians were the same when they were dethroned. King George V, Crown prince Ernst August, Prince Ernst August. Basically they just kept the titles they already held. Unless by some chance Serbia, Greece or even Roumania are reinstated, the titles will eventually just be Prince Peter of Serbia etc.

 

[BrazilianEmpire]

When Emperor Pedro II of Brazil died in 1891 (two years after the overthrown of the Brazilian Monarchy by a military coup d'état), his daughter and heiress, Princess Isabel, who was The Princess Imperial of Brazil (title used by the heir(ess) of the Brazilian Throne), titled herself as The Head of the Imperial House of Brazil (although the Monarchist Directory in Rio de Janeiro acclaimed her as Constitutional Empress and Perpetual Defender of Brazil.

Princess Isabel's eldest son, Prince Pedro de Alcântara, who since his birth in 1875 used the title of Prince of Grão-Pará (title used by the firstborn and heir(ess) of The Prince(ss) Imperial) then became The Prince Imperial.

Since then, the first in the Line of Succession to the Brazilian Throne uses the title of Head of the Imperial House of Brazil, while the second in Line uses the title of Prince(ss) Imperial.

Currently, The Head of the Imperial House is Prince Luiz of Brazil, and The Prince Imperial is his younger brother, Prince Bertrand of Brazil.

In Portugal, I think Head of the House will always use the title of Duke (or Duchess) of Braganza, while his (her) heir will use the title of Prince(ss) of Beira.

 

[Stefan]

I think your answer would be seen if you llook at the german kings. you had King Ludwig of Bavaria but when he died his eldest son kept the title Crown Prince rather than take on the title of King. When Rupprecht died his son Albrecht simply remained as Duke Albrecht. The Hanoverians were the same when they were dethroned. King George V, Crown prince Ernst August, Prince Ernst August. Basically they just kept the titles they already held. Unless by some chance Serbia, Greece or even Roumania are reinstated, the titles will eventually just be Prince Peter of Serbia etc.

It's only in some of the Princely Families where the Heir also used the Title Fürst after the death of is father. This is the case in the Houses Schaumburg-Lippe, Waldeck-Pyrmont and Reuß but not in the House of Lippe.
In Bavaria Albrecht was Prince and would have remained so after the death of his father but he opted to use the Title Duke of Bavaria for the Head of the House. Also in Saxony after the death of King Friedrich August III. his second son became Head of the House as the former Crown Prince Georg had renounced his rigths. he choose the use the Title Margrave of Meißen as head of the House which was also done by his son. And in Baden the head of the House is now the Margrave of Baden.

 

[fearghas]

It's only in some of the Princely Families where the Heir also used the Title Fürst after the death of is father. This is the case in the Houses Schaumburg-Lippe, Waldeck-Pyrmont and Reuß but not in the House of Lippe.
In Bavaria Albrecht was Prince and would have remained so after the death of his father but he opted to use the Title Duke of Bavaria for the Head of the House. Also in Saxony after the death of King Friedrich August III. his second son became Head of the House as the former Crown Prince Georg had renounced his rigths. he choose the use the Title Margrave of Meißen as head of the House which was also done by his son. And in Baden the head of the House is now the Margrave of Baden.

And the interesting thing is that the Duke/Margrave titles were their original titles before they were upgraded to King etc

 

[Denville]

Sorry but this reminds me of an ep of Frasier (it was the first one I saw) where he and Niles think that they are descended from the Russian Imperial family- of course they are all excited. It turns out I the end that they were descended from a dubious servant who stole some Royal jewellery and Fraiser says something tragically like "our ancestors were thieves and whores".
My personal feeling is that when it gets to 2 generations away from someone who was actually "working royalty" they're not royal any more. So I suppose King Con II of Greece, his grandchildren can use royal titles if they like but they are not really royal...

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

As a very general rule if you are listed in the ruling and mediatised royal houses section of the Gotha, than you are still regarded as Royal, regardless of the size of your realm or how long your throne had been abolished or even if your country exists anymore. At least that's the case at a courtly/social level - you will still be treated as such at other Royal events. fundamentally it's other royalty who make the decision over who is still Royal or not - laws banning titles don't really matter if you are still seen as such by your peer group so to speak.

 

[Curryong]

I agree, Denville. When it comes to three or four generations after the monarchy has been abolished and the royal family concerned has been exiled from their native land or just let back on sufferance really (like the Greek royals) then it's time to give up, darlings.

If there is no hope of their country ever restoring the monarchy (Russia, Austria or Germany for instance) I do think it's a little bit sad to have Imperial Grand Dukes and Duchesses referring to their children and grandchildren in the old manner, and heirs to non-existent thrones being Crown Princes as old men, with no chance of ever being crowned.

The princely and ducal houses of Germany (apart from the Hohenzollens) are a little different I suppose, in that several are still ensconced on family estates administering them and the families sometimes still live in their Schlosses.

As for the Almanach de Gotha, well, it is a very interesting historical record, especially if you are interested in genealogy, but as a directive on how to live your life three/four generations or more from a vanished throne, rather ridiculous, really.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Gotha is indeed the best instrument. There are also families considered to have an equal standing with royals, which never were "royal" themselves, because their Houses were mediatized. In the Gotha this is described "as having the right to be considered Ebenbürtig by Sovereign or former Sovereign Houses".

Princess Sophie von Isenburg (spouse of Prince Georg Ferdinand of Prussia) or his mother Countess Donata von Castell-Rüdenhausen do not sound equal to a Prussian Prince of the former imperial and royal family, but both Isenburg and Castell-Rüdenhausen were seen as standesgemäss (having an equal standing) because their Houses are enlisted in the Gotha and in the Genealogisches Handbuch des Adels.

 

[Denville]

I agree, Denville. When it comes to three or four generations after the monarchy has been abolished and the royal family concerned has been exiled from their native land or just let back on sufferance really (like the Greek royals) then it's time to give up, darlings.

I
ridiculous, really.

thanks!! It isn't a v considered opinion but I just am feeling it.. I think an ex King, it is polite to use the title, esp if he did his best.. and maybe his kids, but when it comes to grandchildren no. And If theres no hope of restoration, give up using the title and call yourself Mr VOn Hapsburg...
If the German royals still have some land, they can just use a lesser noble title and administer their estates..

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

As for the question of deposed monarchs -they are former heads of state, something that's overlooked by many in this debate. Their heirs and successors are heads of the house which isn't just a title it can involve property management, certain religious functions, and are still part of that countries history - it's a measure of how comfatble a country is with itself is how it deals with former Royal persons.

The stuff about the Gotha is a guideline about etiquette and trust me it's still taken very seriously in Royal circles. how you live your life is up you - philanthropy and humantianirisim is always good, as is being involved with improving and promoting your countries image abroad is also a nice thing to do - just avoid being seen as too Jetset as thats the kiss of death to your credibility as that's part of why so many formerly reinging royals have become an easy punchline because many of them don't have proper work to occupy themselves.

 

[Curryong]

I'm not overlooking those things Laurels, and I know ex King Constantine for example has been supported by many loyal followers in the decades since the Greek monarchy was abolished and he in his turn helped Greeks in Britain and served as a beacon of hope to Greek royalists.

I was being a bit flippant in my response in the above post but really the question is posed by the thread. How long can it go on for?

Is Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece's eldest grandson going to hand the torch to his grandson and he to his? Will Georgi Romanov, the male claimant to the Russian throne die a contented old man knowing that his great grandson will carry on his role?

As a history buff, I adore royalty in all its forms and I'm a confirmed monarchist, but really, does a monarchy go on into perpetuity when the last person to be a king or Emperor was one's great, great, great, great grandfather? We aren't at that stage yet with some, (Michael of Romania for example is still with us and was King) but in the future....?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

thanks!! It isn't a v considered opinion but I just am feeling it.. I think an ex King, it is polite to use the title, esp if he did his best.. and maybe his kids, but when it comes to grandchildren no. And If theres no hope of restoration, give up using the title and call yourself Mr VOn Hapsburg...
If the German royals still have some land, they can just use a lesser noble title and administer their estates..

So, His Grace Maurice FitzGerald, the 9th Duke of Leinster must adapt "a lesser title" because fate meant that his family could not maintain their Downton Abbey-esque estates?

So His Excellency Don Marco von Hohenlohe-Langenburg y Medina Fernández de Córdoba, the 19th (!) Duke of Medinaceli, has to give up that immensely illustrious title because his predecessor has put all the family's treasures in a Fundación, so he does not own the properties himself?

A peerage is not corresponding with money, a bankrupt Earl Spencer is still an Earl Spencer.

 

[Curryong]

Yes, he is, and to be proud of one's family line and ancestral achievements is wonderful.

However, sometimes people have to deal with the hand life has dealt them and if (because of circumstances) His Excellency Don Marco, the 19th Duke of Medinacelli or his equivalent ended up in a tiny council flat somewhere, with an oil painting or two, it would not only be immensely sad but it would also draw a certain amount of ridicule from his neighbours were he to emphasise the grandeur of his ancestry. And if his grandson went to a local state school and used a title there, I hate to think of the teasing he would face.

By the way, I read years ago that a Viscount from a very old family was serving in the Met (London Metropolitan Police) in the 1980's. He was an Inspector. None of his colleagues knew of his title until after his retirement. He was proud of his family and heritage but felt it would be a bar to his life as a policeman. He cut his cloth accordingly.