The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > General Royal Discussion > Royal Ceremony and Protocol

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #561  
Old 05-17-2011, 06:33 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
Maybe according to the British system. But he never was British. And in Mainland Europe a different system was in existance which put people into a class system. On top of the "Stände-Gesellschaft" (the German word for it) were the souverains and their families, topped by the Imperial famiy in the Holy Roman Empire and the monarchs of the countries of the other parts of Europe. Then came the nobility, which included all members of noble families. Second "class" were the clerics and third the "burghers" - La bourgeoise who had rights within the cities they lived in (some were called patricians, according to the Ancient Roman system). All others were "commoners", most of which were "owned" by their landowners as they belong to the "common land" which was given to nobles or clerics by the king including the people who lived there.

Thus calling a German member of Royality a "commoner" is denegrading him.
Exactly as such Henrik was not a commoner
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #562  
Old 05-17-2011, 06:35 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
I have generally followed the British standard of what a commoner is.. and according to that standard, a person is a commoner if they do not personally hold a peerage.

.
Can you point out where this standard is? I had always thought that the British system was that you had Royalty and everyone else, regardless of whether they had a title or not, were commoners. The commoners were then divided up between aristocracy, clergy, etc Though there weren't any hard divisible lines between them
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #563  
Old 05-17-2011, 08:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearghas View Post
Can you point out where this standard is? I had always thought that the British system was that you had Royalty and everyone else, regardless of whether they had a title or not, were commoners. The commoners were then divided up between aristocracy, clergy, etc Though there weren't any hard divisible lines between them

Actually no - the British are divided between nobles - those who could have a seat in the unreformed House of Lords and Commoners - those who could vote for and be elected to the House of Commons. Most royals are actually commoners e.g. Princess Anne can vote and could be elected to the House of Commons so she is a royal commoner. Diana was also a commoner - as again she could be elected to the House of Commons.

William, until the morning of the 29th April was also a commoner - a royal commoner but still a commoner. He is now a noble. Kate is still a commoner - but she went from being a garden or ordinary type commoner to being a royal commoner but she is still a commoner. She can still vote for and be elected to the House of Commons.

The vast majority of British people have always been commoners with fewer than 1000 being nobles. Of the Royal Family the following are not commoners - The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Duke of Cornwall, The Duke of Cambridge, The Duke of York, The Earl of Wessex, The Duke of Gloucester and The Duke of Kent. The rest of them are commoners - including those with the style of HRH Prince/Princess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #564  
Old 05-20-2011, 01:54 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,004
Excuse me...

...for not having read all the pages of this thread, just in case my question was already answered!

But, why are some earls referred to as Earl Spencer, Earl Percy, etc, and others are Earl of Whatever, and Lord Snowdon seems never to be referred to as Earl Snowdon or Earl of Snowdon? Or is it all good?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #565  
Old 05-23-2011, 06:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Hello Ladongas,

So far as English titles are concerned, I was always taught that it all depends on what the individual's title is; in other words, in what terms the Earldom has been granted - basically whether or not there is a 'geographical' element to the title: [If there is a geographical element to the earldom, then the word 'of' is used.]

So far as Diana's brother is concerned, The full title of the Earldom is 'The Earldom of Spencer', based on the surname, not a geographical 'Earldom'. Thus, the incumbent is simply known as 'Earl Spencer'. The Earl's family surname is also 'Spencer'. The reason for this can be seen in the fact that The first Earl Spencer, was a John Spencer, who was initially created Baron Spencer and Viscount Spencer in 1761 and then 'advanced' to the Earldom of Spencer in 1765. [There is no 'geographical' element to the Earldom]

Princess Margaret's husband, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, was granted the Earldom of Snowdon [geographical place].

Earl Percy bears [one of the] subsidiary titles of the Duke of Northumberland. [Note the Dukedom is Northumberland, a 'geographical' one].

[the house of Percy was founded by William de Percy, around the time of the Domesday book. Note that there is no geographical designation; later the family was granted the Dukedom].


I hope this helps,

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #566  
Old 05-24-2011, 08:41 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
I read it once a bit differently, can't recall where but checked on Wikipedia if it makes sense and it does, so here is another explanation.

The Earls without the "of" are mostly those who are from an old family with baronet or baron status. Thus the common usage was that they used their family name plus a geographical part (which was skipped when they were elevated to Earldom).

Eg Baron Cadogan of Oakley, head of the reknown but before him untitled Cadogan family became Earl Cadogan.

Sir Robert Shirley, 7th baronet, inherited the Barony of Ferrers of Chartley through his mother's line and was created Earl Ferrers in 1711.

James Waldegrave, 2nd Baron Waldegrave and 5th Baronet Waldegrave of Hever Castle became Earl Waldegrave in 1729.

John Spencer, grandson of the Spencer Earl of Sunderland, but not his grandfather's heir, was created Baron Spencer of Althorp and Viscount Spencer in 1761 and Earl Spencer and Viscount Althorp in 1765.

Allan Bathurst, Baron Bathurst of Battlesden became Earl Bathurst in 1772.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #567  
Old 05-24-2011, 11:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,004
Thank you, dear Diarist!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diarist View Post
Hello Ladongas,

So far as English titles are concerned, I was always taught that it all depends on what the individual's title is; in other words, in what terms the Earldom has been granted - basically whether or not there is a 'geographical' element to the title: [If there is a geographical element to the earldom, then the word 'of' is used.
I had a feeling that it was something to do with place names, but you have made it nicely clear for me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #568  
Old 06-03-2011, 03:30 PM
Next Star's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 873
I always thought commoners had no title at all rather it be royal or noble
.It is does not make sense to me to call a count a commoner or even a duke one either.Yes Mrs.Wills is a commomer she holds no title royal or
noble at all unless her husband is granted a title by a reigning monarch.
__________________
Patience is a virtue.
Reply With Quote
  #569  
Old 06-03-2011, 04:37 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
A Duke in Britain is a noble but only the Duke is noble in his family - not his wife or children - so the Duke of Hogwarts is noble but the Duchess of Hogwarts is not noble (but is an aristocrat).

As the Duke of Hogwarts probably has a subsidiary title, such as Earl of Godric's Hollow, his eldest son will use that title as a courtesy but it is not a substantive title so the son isn't a noble but is an aristocrat. The son will become a noble when he inherits all his father's titles. Thus there are people with titles who aren't noble - simply because they use a title 'by courtesy' while someone else holds the actual title.

It mightn't make sense in one way but does in another as the son using the title actually isn't the title holder and thus is no different to his siblings who are also commoners (although called Lord or Lady).

Throughout British history you will often come across people with 'titles' sitting in the House of Commons and that is because despite the title they use they are still commoners e.g. in the 19th C the eldest sons of many Dukes etc sat in the House of Commons while their fathers sat in the House of Lords but the instant their fathers died they had to give up their seats in the Commons to go to the Lords. This was because there weren't a lot of acceptable careers for young aristocrats (and eldest sons weren't encouraged to have military careers) but politics was acceptable and even expected - tradition being a major reason as the nobility had always been the leading advisers of the monarch. So the eldest son could wait at home twiddling his thumbs and wasting the family fortune or have a seat in the Commons, learning the job of being a politician until they became the actual title holder.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #570  
Old 06-03-2011, 05:28 PM
Esmerelda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,215
Love the Harry Potter analogy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #571  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:02 PM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
I learned early on through this forum that Diana, Princess of Wales was incorrectly called “Princess Diana” during and after her marriage, as she never was a princess in her own right. (But was The Princess of Wales)



But now I have a question about the correct titles of princesses today.
Letizia of Spain is The Princess of Asturias, so isn’t it incorrect to call her “Princess Letizia,” like I have seen often? I know different countries have varying ways of titling, but still, I am curious. I guess in the same way, Felipe is The Prince of Asturias, so is it wrong to call him “Prince Felipe”? I read somewhere that the Spanish heir to the throne is the only one to be titled “Prince” before their name (rather than Infante), but I’m not sure how accurate that is.


Similarly, what about the princess consorts of Monaco? They become “The Princess of Monaco”, but I’ve always heard “Princess Grace” and soon-to-be “Princess Charlene.” Do these women really become princesses in their own right, or is it just habit to put the word “princess” in front of someone’s name if it is in their official title?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #572  
Old 06-07-2011, 11:57 AM
Furienna's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Örnsköldsvik, Sweden
Posts: 1,225
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
A Duke in Britain is a noble but only the Duke is noble in his family - not his wife or children - so the Duke of Hogwarts is noble but the Duchess of Hogwarts is not noble (but is an aristocrat).
That's funny, because I always thought, that "noble" and "aristocrat" was the same thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Baroness View Post
But now I have a question about the correct titles of princesses today...
It sure is different in different countries. Here in Sweden, a prince's wife is correctly titled "princess", even if she didn't have a title in her own right. For example, our king's mother was known as Princess Sibylla.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #573  
Old 06-07-2011, 12:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Lalala, Spain
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Baroness View Post
But now I have a question about the correct titles of princesses today...
The ways of titling in the UK have nothing to do with the titles in Spain. Felipe as you said is the only named Prince Felipe in the SRF, her sisters are Infanta Elena and Infanta Cristina, if he had had any brothers they would have been Infantes. Felipe's main title is the Prince of Asturias but it's correct to call him Prince Felipe. Letizia shares her husband's titles by law and the Spanish Royal Household allowed last year to name a center "Princess Letizia". Traditionally, the women marrying Spanish Infantes(the last three monarchs before Juan Carlos married already being Queen/King ) were called Infanta First Name, nothing like Princess Michael of Kent in Spain, so I guess princess Letizia is correct.

Since 1978, in Spain an infante(male or female) can't share his or her titles with his/her spouse(unlike a British prince, a princess wouldn't share her title). The Prince or Princess of Asturias has always shared his/her title with his/her spouse regardless of their genre. As you can see completely different from the UK

I don't know about Monaco but my theory is that as they are the Sovereign's wives they are called Princess First Name like the Queens consorts are called Queen First Name.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #574  
Old 06-07-2011, 12:58 PM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
Thanks for your replies! What you said is basically what I believed. The UK just does things more formally I guess (you have a title and that's what you are called) - other countries like Spain seem to have more "wiggle room"

That's interesting though that a Princess of Asturias (in their own right, like Leonor potentially in the future) will share their title with their husband. I think that's how things should be done - partners (at least the heirs) should be able to share their titles no matter the gender. Or else do like the Netherlands with The Prince of Orange and Princess Maxima.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #575  
Old 06-07-2011, 12:59 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super Baroness View Post
Similarly, what about the princess consorts of Monaco? They become “The Princess of Monaco”, but I’ve always heard “Princess Grace” and soon-to-be “Princess Charlene.” Do these women really become princesses in their own right, or is it just habit to put the word “princess” in front of someone’s name if it is in their official title?
In Monaco, the wife of a reigning Prince is "Princesse de Monaco", not "Princess X". In Grace's case, she was "Grace, Princesse de Monaco" upon marriage to Rainier. After the birth of Prince Albert, Rainier issued a decree stating Grace was elevated to a Princesse de Monaco in her own right. At that point, she was officially "HSH Princess Grace de Monaco".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #576  
Old 06-23-2011, 03:06 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6
Royal Titles

Hello fellow royal watchers!

Greetings from Los Angeles~

I am new to the forum and need to ask a some question about titles~

I have Googled and Googled this and just can find the answers~

What is the difference between a duke/ess, count/ess, earl and down the line~

Why is Price Charles now a duke?

Why are Prince Edward and Princess Sophie a count/ess and not a duke/ess?

Thank you~

Snowball
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #577  
Old 06-23-2011, 03:30 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
The difference between a Duke and an Earl is one of degree.

Charles has been a Duke since the early hours of the 6th February, 1952 when he automatically became the Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay as the eldest son and heir apparent of the monarch.

William has recently be made a Duke - by Letters Patent - the official way that people get titles - because that is the traditional thing that happens to males in close line to the throne on or before their wedding days. In time it is expected that Harry will also be made a Duke.

Why Edward is an Earl - simple - that was what he and the Queen decided to do in 1999 - with the understanding that when the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh have both died and assuming that Charles becomes King then the Duke of Edinburgh title will be recreated for Edward.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #578  
Old 06-23-2011, 04:44 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 414
The Prince Charles is The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Cornwall etc...

The wife of the Prince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, is Sophie, the Countess of Wessex - she ist NOT a Princess

Prince William is since his Weddingday The Duke of Cambridge (gift of the Queen).

"THE" is the actual Titelholer : "THE" befor "Prince" = this Person is a son / daughter of a Queen/King

Thats why its only "Prince William" but "the Prince Edward"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #579  
Old 06-23-2011, 04:48 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,704
Sophie - as the wife of a Prince is a Princess but she isn't Princess Sophie because in Britain only the princesses born as such are Princess 'own name'. The others are Princess husband's name - like Princess Michael of Kent. As Edward has another title Sophie uses the feminine form of that title but if Edward hadn't been given a title on his wedding day she would known as The Princess Edward - as the wife of The Prince Edward (not to be confused with that other Prince Edward aka The Duke of Kent.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #580  
Old 06-23-2011, 04:53 AM
Nice Nofret's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Switzerland
Posts: 414
Well yes, that's what I meant -- not Princess in her own right
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions about British Styles and Titles summrbrew2 British Royals 2550 12-17-2014 06:32 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Major Royal Events 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:53 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]