General Things About Royals


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

SheriBeri

Commoner
Joined
Mar 24, 2006
Messages
30
City
new to Sharjah
Country
United Arab Emirates
I have several questions that don't seem to fit anywhere else.

What is the difference between Her Royal Highness, Her Serene Highness and Her Highness?

Which royals still provide true dowries? What types of items go in a dowry?

If royals marry commoners, what is the highest title the commoner can attain? If a Prince marries and later becomes King, does his bride change titles as well?

Do royals always have to pass the crown to the eldest child in line or can they make a choice?

Are most royals figureheads or do they actually rule? (i.e Parliament, councils, etc).:confused:
 
De-Ranking a Queen

I just read on one of the threads that Juliana's birthday is coming up. It calls her Princess (former Queen). How do you get demoted from Queen?:eek:
 
SheriBeri said:
What is the difference between Her Royal Highness, Her Serene Highness and Her Highness?

The style His/Her Royal Highness ranks below His/Her Imperial Highness (referring to an Imperial House which is above a Royal House) but above His/Her Highness & His/Her Serene Highness (referring to Princely or Ducal Houses which are below that of a Royal House).

Order by abbreviation...

HIH
HRH
HGDH
HSH
HH


"MII"
 
Last edited:
SheriBeri said:
I just read on one of the threads that Juliana's birthday is coming up. It calls her Princess (former Queen). How do you get demoted from Queen?:eek:

HRH the Princess Juliana, former Queen of the Netherlands was 'demoted' of the style Her Majesty upon her abdication in 1980.

As such, she became Her Royal Highness the Princess Juliana Emma Louise Wilhelmina van Oranje-Nassau. HRH then held this title until her passing in 2004.


"MII"
 
Last edited:
SheriBeri said:
Which royals still provide true dowries? What types of items go in a dowry?
I don't think this custom is practised anymore in Europe. I don't know about the rest of the world though.
SheriBeri said:
If royals marry commoners, what is the highest title the commoner can attain? If a Prince marries and later becomes King, does his bride change titles as well?
The titles of people who marry into a Royal Family is usually decided by the monarch. But the wife of a King is generally titled Queen Consort, meaning she's not a Queen in her own right but the spouse of a monarch.
SheriBeri said:
Do royals always have to pass the crown to the eldest child in line or can they make a choice?
In Europe this is regulated by law in all the countries, the monarch does not decide this. There are different types of laws for this, some countries still put males before females in the Line of Succession, other have totally gender neutral laws.
SheriBeri said:
Are most royals figureheads or do they actually rule? (i.e Parliament, councils, etc).:confused:
In Europe most monarchs are today of a representative kind - they do not rule their countries - but in some countries they still have some political powers left (such as presiding a Council of State, signing laws, dismissing and accepting government ministers, calling for general elections, appointing government formers etc etc).
 
I have a question about (Her Highness) princess Alexandra of Denmark. Has she ever been called "Her Royal Highness"? I thought that maybe she lost that title after the divorce...
 

liliawodna said:
I have a question about (Her Highness) princess Alexandra of Denmark. Has she ever been called "Her Royal Highness"? I thought that maybe she lost that title after the divorce...
Yes, Alexandra become Her Royal Highness when she married Joachim (as you can see under Marital Status in this link: http://kongehuset.dk/artikel.php?dogtag=k_en_fam_ale). After the divorce she lost the 'Royal' so she's now Her Highness as you write and was also given a title of countess in her own right.

 
Royal Titles

Thank you for so many great enlightening answers. Three more.
Why is Prince Philip of England a Prince instead of King Consort?
If Queen Elizabeth steps down, what will her title and his title become? Can she pass Charles and give the throne to William? :confused:
 
Last edited:
SheriBeri said:
Thank you for so many great enlightening answers. Three more.
Why is Prince Philip of England a Prince instead of King Consort?
If Queen Elizabeth steps down, what will her title and his title become? Can she pass Charles and give the throne to William? :confused:
Britain has no precedent for a "King Consort", so that title doesn't exist.
In the unlikely event of the Queen stepping down, any title apart from Duchess of Edinburgh would be between her and her successor.

The Monarch does not determine the succession; the rules are laid down in the Act of Settlement which states that the most senior Protestant descendant of the Electress Sophia of Hanover will succeed to the throne. After Elizabeth II that is the Prince of Wales, followed by William and Harry, then the Duke of York etc etc. The Act of Settlelement can only be changed by the Parliament.
 
Succession

Wow Warren, now I know why you are called Super Moderator. Where do you find all that info??:p
 
SheriBeri said:
Wow Warren, now I know why you are called Super Moderator. Where do you find all that info??:p

Warren knows all, and I do mean all ;)

Warren said:
Britain has no precedent for a "King Consort", so that title doesn't exist.
In the unlikely event of the Queen stepping down, any title apart from Duchess of Edinburgh would be between her and her successor.

I've always thought it was as the titles King was ranked higher than Queen a spouse could not outrank the 'blood royal' (if you follow me)

Please correct my ignorance if applicable

And sorry absolutely had to get rid of the suggestion to post :p
 
It's silly really. Why should a queen be outranked by a king? Because that's how it has to be, since a king's wife becomes queen but a queen's husband can't become a king. The husband of the legendary queen Victoria of England was known as prince Albert, not king Albert. And the current English queen Elizabeth's husband is known as prince Philip, not as king Philip. And it's the same thing in Denmark. Queen Margarethe's husband is known as prince Henry, not as king Henry. And when/if our Swedish crown princess Victoria gets married, her husband will not be king either, right? But why can't the titles of queen and king be equal, so that the monarch couple always are king and queen, no matter who was the one to inherit the crown?
 
Royal Titles

Furienna, sounds like a good plan. I wonder why K&Q can't be called same even if only one is in power. Anybody got the answer?
 
It's probably an old-fashioned thing. Back in the day, a man always had higher rank than a woman, so a king always had higher rank than a queen. So to emphasize, that a queen was the monarch, her husband had to remain a prince, so that she could keep her high rank. It shouldn't have to be so today though. I hope future ruling queens can call their husbands kings, not princes.
 
Furienna said:
It's probably an old-fashioned thing. Back in the day, a man always had higher rank than a woman, so a king always had higher rank than a queen. So to emphasize, that a queen was the monarch, her husband had to remain a prince, so that she could keep her high rank. It shouldn't have to be so today though. I hope future ruling queens can call their husbands kings, not princes.

Perhaps when succession throughout all monarchies is determined by absolute Primogeniture and the titles of nobility can pass through daughters as well as sons?
Until then what is the need to change something which only affects individuals titles as opposed to their lives (ie. when a younger brother ascends to the throne over an older sister)?

EDIT: Although maybe someday in the near future? Re-reading info on the Belgium Royal Family Prince Lorenz was created a Prince of Belgium in 1995, a first step?
 
Last edited:
justi said:
... Re-reading info on the Belgium Royal Family Prince Lorenz was created a Prince of Belgium in 1995, a first step?
This was the second stage of dynastic future-proofing. When the law of succession was changed under King Baudouin in 1991 Princess Astrid became third in line to the throne after her father and unmarried brother Prince Philippe. In the event that Philippe or Prince Laurent never married (or married and had no surviving children) provision had to be made to secure the dynasty. When Astrid was given succession rights her children (then Amedeo, Maria Laura and Joachim) became Princes and Princess of Belgium. Prior to 1991 they were Habsburg Archdukes and Archduchess. Their full titles became 'Prince or Princess of Belgium, Prince or Princess Imperial and Archduke or Archduchess of Austria-Este, Prince or Princess Royal of Hungary and Bohemia', with the formal style of Imperial and Royal Highness (unlikely to be used in Belgium!).

Archduke Lorenz, whether because he had earned his stripes or to tidy things up, was made a Prince of Belgium by King Albert four years later.
 
Last edited:
justi said:
Perhaps when succession throughout all monarchies is determined by absolute Primogeniture and the titles of nobility can pass through daughters as well as sons?
Until then what is the need to change something which only affects individuals titles as opposed to their lives (ie. when a younger brother ascends to the throne over an older sister)?
Because it's stupid. I don't think it makes sense, that a queen's husband should only be a prince. The queen's sons should be princes, not her husband.
 
I have a question about Prince Philip that I've been wanting to find the answer out for a while: how is he related to the Greek royal family???
Thanks to anyone who can explain!
 
Prince Philip's father was a son of a Greek Monarch. George I, I think. This in turn makes him second cousins once removed to Constantine II. The lines look like this:
George--Constantine I--Paul--Constantine II
George--Andrew--Philip
 
UserDane said:


Yes, Alexandra become Her Royal Highness when she married Joachim (as you can see under Marital Status in this link: http://kongehuset.dk/artikel.php?dogtag=k_en_fam_ale). After the divorce she lost the 'Royal' so she's now Her Highness as you write and was also given a title of countess in her own right.

And should she remarry, she would lose the title of Princess, but retain that of "The Countess of Frederiksborg", thus her style would be Her Excellency, The Countess of Frederiksborg.
 
I read that Maxima might become Princess Consort rather than Queen as Hollands last 2 Queens would have been the monarch, and Camilla is planning on using Princess consort rather than Queen as well.
What do you all know about this?
 
LaPlusBelle said:
Prince Philip's father was a son of a Greek Monarch. George I, I think. This in turn makes him second cousins once removed to Constantine II. The lines look like this:
George--Constantine I--Paul--Constantine II
George--Andrew--Philip

So Philip's father is the brother of the current King of Greece's grandfather?
 
Aussie Princess said:
I read that Maxima might become Princess Consort rather than Queen as Hollands last 2 Queens would have been the monarch, and Camilla is planning on using Princess consort rather than Queen as well.
What do you all know about this?
I don't know if I can answer this question really, but from what I have heard and understood - the Government of The Netherlands wants the title of Prince/ess of Orange to exclusively belong only to the heir to the throne, and thus Máxima would be titled simply just Princess Máxima (even if most people still call her the Princess of Orange).

I've also understood that there are some wishes for her not to become titled Queen, but perphaps a Dutch member could explain that?

When it comes to Camilla, they announced at the time of the wedding that she wants to be titled Princess Consort once Charles becomes king. This is a new title never heard of, and I personally think it's rather rediculous to invent new titles like that, Camilla should rightfully be Queen Consort. But perhaps she will one day, if all turns out well with the public etc.
 
JessRulz said:
So Philip's father is the brother of the current King of Greece's grandfather?

Yup.
And as to the Camilla thing, I think they're just waiting for the animosity against Camilla to die down even further, and so others realize how absurd it is to deny the wife of the future King the title of Queen. I mean, I loved and idolized Diana as much as the next person, but we all need to move on.
 
Determining Royalty

What DOES determine royalty lines in the case of someone like Princess Diana, who, if Charles became king, she WOULD become Queen? What was her background to cause her to be Queen (wish she had lived for that).:(
 
SheriBeri said:
What DOES determine royalty lines in the case of someone like Princess Diana, who, if Charles became king, she WOULD become Queen? What was her background to cause her to be Queen (wish she had lived for that).:(

Diana, Princess of Wales was born into one of England's most distinguished families.

An aristocrat by birth, Diana was descended of King Charles II of Great Britain, through his illgitimate son, the Duke of Grafton.

Also, amongst her fine dedigree were the...

- Dukes of Grafton (FitzRoy family) - as mentioned above.
- Dukes of Bedford (Russell family)
- Dukes of Abercorn (Hamilton family)
- Dukes of Marlborough (Churchill family)
- Earls of Sunderland (Spencer family)
- Earls Spencer (Spencer family)

This made for fine Queen Consort material...a titled aristocrat, someone "accustomed" to court life & society.

Diana had all the right requirements, one could say.


"MII"
 
Last edited:
SheriBeri said:
What DOES determine royalty lines in the case of someone like Princess Diana, who, if Charles became king, she WOULD become Queen?

From the acceptance that Kate Middleton is getting in the royal circles, I don't think strict pedigree matters that much these days-of course the British Royal Family doesn't want any skeletons in the closet but marrying by bloodlines is as far as I can tell definitely out.

Traditionally royals only made equal marriages (i.e., to a princess) although the British royal family was a bit ahead of their times to allow the younger members to marry from outside the royal ranks. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, a daughter of the Scottish aristocracy, originally married a second son. It would have been interesting to see if George VI had been allowed to marry her if he had been the heir.

When Charles married Diana, there was still a push for the British heir to at least marry from the aristocracy which hard as it is to believe was a lot more lenient than the royals-only rule of 70-80 years before. It was the failure of that marriage that made a lot of royal families re-think how they defined acceptability in the wife of the future monarch.

Although it must be said that Harald of Norway and Carl Gustaf of Sweden had already broken new ground by marrying commoners in the 60s and 70s.
 
Question as far as Laws of Sucession goes, for example, in my instance I would think Laws of Sucession only apply to Claimants, as I do not see how one can take himself to Court over his own family nevertheless himself.

I did see though Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia took himself to Court, but I do not see any benefit other than a Claimaint sueing for rights over an assumed extict dynasty. Best Wishes, -King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia
 
kingfernidad said:
Question as far as Laws of Sucession goes, for example, in my instance I would think Laws of Sucession only apply to Claimants, as I do not see how one can take himself to Court over his own family nevertheless himself.

I did see though Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia took himself to Court, but I do not see any benefit other than a Claimaint sueing for rights over an assumed extict dynasty. Best Wishes, -King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia
The German court declared it had no jurisdiction over internal House rules, therefore the Headship of the House of Hohenzollern rightfully remains with Prince Georg Friedrich.
It was a disaffected uncle who was challenging George Fredrich's right to be Head of the House.
The Court took a similar stance in the Leiningen case: House rules are internal family matters. The Court will only intervene in estate inheritance disputes.
 
Last edited:
Warren said:
The German court declared it had no jurisdiction over internal House rules, therefore the Headship of the House of Hohenzollern rightfully remains with Prince Georg Friedrich.
It was a disaffected uncle who was challenging George Fredrich's right to be Head of the House.


That makes perfect sense that no Court shall have jurisdiction over internal house rules as in like any other mans house, the problem is how does one go to court for head of a household in one other mans house? I figure the judgement would be "if" Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia were of the House of Hohenzollern he would be granted head of that household, but, they do not have any relation, therefore cannot just assume head of that house. Best Wishes, -King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia


rmc08.0.jpg
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom