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
 
  #121  
Old 09-29-2005, 11:38 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
and by Lord Louis Mountbatten himself, whom I suspect never got over the loss if the title 'prince' before his first name......
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old 09-30-2005, 03:17 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo
Well, in other european countries one would not be ashamed when the fiance is a prince of Greece and Denmark, on the contrary I think. The spanish never asked Queen Sophie to change her name in Miss Sophie von Sleswich-Holstein, as the english did of Prince Phillip for example, english snobbery at its worst indeed! I believe in those years Greece was even an ally against communism!
It wasn't quite that simple. As Von Schlesian pointed out, this was a political decision made for what was believed to be the best interest of the monarchy. After all, it was the immediate post-war period, and a foreigner with a foreign title and close German relations whether marrying the heiress presumptive may not have gone down so well (plus the GRF was known -- whether rightly or wrongly -- to have German sympathies since the time of Constantine I) . Thus attempts were made to try and mitigate any possible damage by making Philip a British subject prior to the marriage. As it turns out, this wasn't wholly necessary because he was already a British subject as descendant of the Electress Sophia as per the Act of Settlement.

Additionally (and a little off-topic), it can and has been argued that hís renunciation of his Greek title wasn't necessary valid in that country.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old 09-30-2005, 03:19 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathalian
Yes, I understood...but, he has almost the same power as the Queen....???? I think of Prince Phillip...I now that he hasn´t the same power as the Queen...but, he has a lot right?? Do you have any idea of Princes consorts who became more popular that the Queen it self?
IIRC, Prince Claus was voted most popular member of the DRF a few years prior to his death.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old 09-30-2005, 03:20 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
and by Lord Louis Mountbatten himself, whom I suspect never got over the loss if the title 'prince' before his first name......
No, he never did & lamented about it in his later years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old 09-30-2005, 10:26 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
No, he never did & lamented about it in his later years.
I know..I could only wonder what it must have been like to have your princely title taken away and reduced to a peerage under the British system. If that had not happened, Patricia and Pamela would have been their TSH Princesses of Battenberg, as would have the rest of the direct male line descendents and their children.

I do enjoy the tidbit of his bragging to his cousin the Prince of Coburg, or the Prince of Hanover, can't remember which, that "the blood of Battenberg has risen from the banks of the Rhine and is now head of the most important throne in Europe", after QEII ascended the throne. Apparently Queen Mary was told of this and went straight to Churchill to remind him the name is Windsor and it should stay Windsor.

But, later on he did have his day when the Queen changed the name to Mountbatten-Windsor for her descendents. I believe Anne signed her first marriage registry using this name.

If I am not correct by this, please let me know.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old 09-30-2005, 05:26 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
I believe Anne signed her first marriage registry using this name.

If I am not correct by this, please let me know.
She signed simply "Anne". However the registry filled in with the required fields as to names, occupation, etc named her as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old 09-30-2005, 05:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by selrahc4
She signed simply "Anne". However the registry filled in with the required fields as to names, occupation, etc named her as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.
Thank you, that is what I was referring to in my post. When she filled out the necessary lines, she used both last names.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old 09-30-2005, 05:48 PM
selrahc4's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: , United States
Posts: 760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
Thank you, that is what I was referring to in my post. When she filled out the necessary lines, she used both last names.
She didn't fill out the lines, they were pre-filled, probably by the registrar. All the bride and groom and their witnesses had to do was sign their names below.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old 09-30-2005, 07:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Quote:
I know..I could only wonder what it must have been like to have your princely title taken away and reduced to a peerage under the British system.
The Princely title wasn't worth anything after Germany became a Republic. As it was, his title was that of a cadet member of a cadet morgantic branch of the House of Hesse, which itself was a junior state in the German Empire. Thus the argument can be made that a British aristocratic style (and later title, as he didn't become a member of the peerage until later) was much more noteworthy. After WWI the Battenberg titles, if used, would only be ones of pretension.

If that had not happened, Patricia and Pamela would have been their TSH Princesses of Battenberg, as would have the rest of the direct male line descendents and their children.
Quote:
I do enjoy the tidbit of his bragging to his cousin the Prince of Coburg, or the Prince of Hanover, can't remember which, that "the blood of Battenberg has risen from the banks of the Rhine and is now head of the most important throne in Europe", after QEII ascended the throne.
He was full of himself, and it was that kind of commentary that earned him the dislike of QM.
Quote:
Apparently Queen Mary was told of this and went straight to Churchill to remind him the name is Windsor and it should stay Windsor.
But, later on he did have his day when the Queen changed the name to Mountbatten-Windsor for her descendents. She made the comment that if Philip had any last name it was Glucksburg, and not Battenberg (or something along those lines).
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old 10-01-2005, 10:35 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marmalade
ref Lord Louis Mountbatten
I do enjoy the tidbit of his bragging to his cousin the Prince of Coburg, or the Prince of Hanover, can't remember which, that "the blood of Battenberg has risen from the banks of the Rhine and is now head of the most important throne in Europe", after QEII ascended the throne. Apparently Queen Mary was told of this and went straight to Churchill to remind him the name is Windsor and it should stay Windsor. If I am not correct by this, please let me know..
It was Prince Ernst August of Hanover who heard about Mountbatten's boast and informed Queen Mary.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old 10-01-2005, 09:01 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
The Princely title wasn't worth anything after Germany became a Republic. As it was, his title was that of a cadet member of a cadet morgantic branch of the House of Hesse, which itself was a junior state in the German Empire. Thus the argument can be made that a British aristocratic style (and later title, as he didn't become a member of the peerage until later) was much more noteworthy. After WWI the Battenberg titles, if used, would only be ones of pretension.


If that had not happened, Patricia and Pamela would have been their TSH Princesses of Battenberg, as would have the rest of the direct male line descendents and their children. He was full of himself, and it was that kind of commentary that earned him the dislike of QM. But, later on he did have his day when the Queen changed the name to Mountbatten-Windsor for her descendents. She made the comment that if Philip had any last name it was Glucksburg, and not Battenberg (or something along those lines).
.
I don't think anyone would have cared had they been allowed to still use the Battenberg titles. It is not like the world was going to spin off it's axis...

That is really not the case regardless. There are many families whose duchies, or kingdoms have disappeared within Germany over the past 120 years and they still use their titles, and rightfully so. Who cares if the German government today recognizes or does not recognize their titles? It's not like such a big deal in the sense of someone trying to stop them from using their titles.

Any title with deference to highness in it, be it royal, serene, imperial, etc... is what separates succinctly the line between being royal vs. simply being aristocratic in plain terms.

To go from an HSH, which of course is on low pecking order of the royal highness list anway, to a mere peerage in Great Britain was a stinging rebuke. And yes, I do know what happened as to why the titles changed and so forth.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old 10-01-2005, 09:02 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
It was Prince Ernst August of Hanover who heard about Mountbatten's boast and informed Queen Mary.
.
Thank you Warren! :)

I knew you would be able to help me with that one.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old 10-01-2005, 10:47 PM
iowabelle's Avatar
Royal Highness
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Des Moines, United States
Posts: 2,405
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
It was Prince Ernst August of Hanover who heard about Mountbatten's boast and informed Queen Mary.
.
I wonder why he chose to be a busybody and tell Queen Mary. Hmmm, a little royal intrigue!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old 10-01-2005, 11:58 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Quote:
I don't think anyone would have cared had they been allowed to still use the Battenberg titles. It is not like the world was going to spin off it's axis...
That wasn't the feeling in Britain in 1917. The anti-German sentiment was very strong, and there was even talk of renaming the German Shephard!
Giiven this atmosphere, the RF was trying to portray itself as completely British. Thus the decision was made because it was felt that it was the best thing to do. If the Battenbergs and the other German princelings wanted to live in Britain, then they had to become British subjects and forgo the titles of the enemy (titles which would have no validity after 1918 anyway). Simple.

Quote:
That is really not the case regardless. There are many families whose duchies, or kingdoms have disappeared within Germany over the past 120 years and they still use their titles, and rightfully so.
Rightfully so? According to what criteria?

Some do and some don't. These are titles of pretension and no one is obliged to address them as such or accord them the style of HRH/HSH etc. In fact, it is insulting to the legitimate governments of these nations to do so (I'm thinking of the Greek situation in particular). Those who do use their former titles, do it for social and/or historical reasons only. The titles are not recognized legally (they are actually illegal in Germany), and this is gotten around by using the ones title as ones last name (Austria has a much stricter policy with regards to titles).
Quote:
Who cares if the German government today recognizes or does not recognize their titles?
Uh... maybe the legitimate government of Germany and many of its people care?

Quote:
It's not like such a big deal in the sense of someone trying to stop them from using their titles. Any title with deference to highness in it, be it royal, serene, imperial, etc... is what separates succinctly the line between being royal vs. simply being aristocratic in plain terms.
You're confused. Highness, Serene Highness, Imperial Highness, etc. are not titles. They are styles. And many noble families who are not royal bore and continue to bear (in Belgium, for example) different variations of Highness.
Quote:
To go from an HSH, which of course is on low pecking order of the royal highness list anway, to a mere peerage in Great Britain was a stinging rebuke. And yes, I do know what happened as to why the titles changed and so forth.
Firsltly, Serene Highness is not on the "royal higness list". One who bears such a style is not Royal. They are from a Princely or Ducal family. For instance, the Grimaldis and the Lichtenstiens are soveriegn Princely families, not royal families. There is a difference. Secondly, Serene Highness is not necessarily "low" on the pecking order. In some cases it ranked/ranks above Royal Highness -- it all depends on the House and the given situation. Thirdly, it wasn't really a rebuke if one takes into consideration that the the German titles and style had no value after the war, particularly the title of Battenberg, as it wasn't its own fiefdom (so there were no historical ties with a people, etc.).

Finally, in Britain, being a member of the British nobility was far more noteworthy than a minor princeling of a minor, morganaut branch of a minor German House. (During Queen Victoria's time even the more senior German prinelings were referred to disdainfully in England as 'German beggers'). Mountbatten would not had the opportunities he had if had remained a pretend Prince Louis of Battenberg.

And, FYI, the Mountbattens did use their Battenberg title on occassion for social reasons when in Germany.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old 10-02-2005, 03:04 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle
I wonder why he chose to be a busybody and tell Queen Mary. Hmmm, a little royal intrigue!
That's harsh! Prince Ernst August was a good friend of Queen Mary, and alerted her to Mountbatten's boast as a friend would.
Two Royal old-timers keeping the over-ambitious parvenu in his place? :)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old 10-02-2005, 01:09 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
see post below
I know they did, but thank you for posting that as people may or may not have realized that. :)
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 10-02-2005, 01:11 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 1,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren
That's harsh! Prince Ernst August was a good friend of Queen Mary, and alerted her to Mountbatten's boast as a friend would.
Two Royal old-timers keeping the over-ambitious parvenu in his place? :)
Oh to have been a fly on the wall when this news was relayed back to Dickie Mountbatten... :)

He always was a little full of himself..but it makes for good reading about him..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 10-02-2005, 01:12 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bristol, United Kingdom
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Australian
What title is higher? Lady or Dame?
Hopefully this paper will help:

1. This is a summary of the main elements of British titles. The system is complex and I haven’t considered every possible permutation, only the most common.

2. Most people with titles and honours show their correct style at the top of any correspondence with us so you can’t normally go wrong by following them.

3. There are three main groups of titles:

· Peerage titles
· Baronetcies
· Knighthoods.

4. The first two groups are hereditary titles (except for life peerages) which mean that they can be passed on to the next generation, usually in the male line. It’s now very rare for any hereditary peerages or baronetcies to be created. Life peerages and knighthoods are created on a regular basis and these titles die with their holders.

5. A general principle of British titles is that if a woman without a title marries a man with one, she will assume his title. So Miss Jane Smith marries the Duke of Bristol and becomes the Duchess of Bristol. However, if a man without a title marries a woman with one, he will not assume her title. So Mr John Smith marries the Countess of Cardiff but remains plain Mr Smith.

Peerage titles

Although people talk about ‘the peerage’, there are technically five peerages. They are the peerages of:

· England
· Scotland
· Ireland (i.e. before the creation of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland)
· Great Britain
· United Kingdom

With a few exceptions, all peerages created since 1801 have been peerages of the United Kingdom.

Grades of Title

There are five grades or ‘degrees’ of the peerage. They are in descending order of seniority:

Male Form & Female Form:

1 Duke, Duchess
2 Marquess (or Marquis), Marchioness
3 Earl, Countess
4 Viscount, Viscountess
5 Baron, Baroness

Note: All present day life peers have the rank of Baron or Baroness.

Peers v Courtesy Peers

1. There are two sorts of peer. The actual holder of the title (who until recently was entitled to sit in the House of Lords in most cases) and a ‘courtesy peer’. The eldest or only son of a duke, marquess, earl or viscount is known by courtesy by one of his father’s more junior titles, assuming he has one.

2. To understand this, you need to know that most peers who are dukes, marquesses, earls or viscounts will have a junior peerage title. For example, the Duke of Bedford also has the junior titles of Marquess of Tavistock and Baron Howland. The Duke’s son is known by courtesy as Marquess of Tavistock, or informally as Lord Tavistock. The Duke’s grandson is known by courtesy as Baron Howland, or informally as Lord Howland. But neither the Marquess nor the Baron has ever been entitled to sit in the House of Leeds because they are courtesy peers, as opposed to the Duke who is a ‘proper’ peer. When the Duke dies, his son will become the next Duke of Bedford and his grandson the next (courtesy) Marquess of Tavistock.

3. In the case of the Marquess of Bath, the next most junior title is Viscount Weymouth. So the Marquess’s eldest son is styled by courtesy Viscount Weymouth. Before the reform of the House of Lords in 1999, the Marquess would have been entitled to sit in the House of Lords.

4. The distinction between a peer and a courtesy peer is reflected in the more formal 4way in which you write to the former. Peers, as opposed to courtesy peers, are entitled to the following prefixes before their titles:

5. Other than a Duke, you may not know if, say, the Earl you are writing to is a peer in his own right (and so entitled to the Rt Hon prefix) or is a courtesy peer, in which case he isn’t. So the simplest thing is not to use the prefixes unless they have made their preferences known in correspondence with the Bank.

6. Another way of simplifying matters is to bear in mind that all peers and courtesy peers from the rank of Marquess to Baron can be correctly addressed as Lord XYZ. So if writing to the Marquess of Abergavenny, you can simply address the letter to Lord Abergavenny, and start the letter with Dear Lord Abergavenny, yours sincerely etc. Bear in mind that it’s always wrong to say ‘Dear’ followed by Most Hon, Rt Hon, Hon etc. So you would never write saying Dear Rt Hon Lord Howe – it would just be Dear Lord Howe – although it would be correct to address a letter to Rt Hon Lord Howe, 1 Acacia Avenue etc.

7. There are ultra formal styles for starting and ending letters to peers but they are not used today very often in routine correspondence.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 10-02-2005, 01:55 PM
michelleq's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Philadelphia Region, United States
Posts: 771
I find it quite amusing that there are many HSH's are more wealthy than the HRH's. I do notice that the German Princely and Royal Houses mix quite well socially.
__________________
"Love thy neighbor as thyself"
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 10-02-2005, 03:32 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 898
Quote:
I know all that already, they do teach world history in the United States. :)

Well, if you know that already, one would assume you would understand why the Battenbergs had to rennounce their German titles. However, it may be just me, but you don't seem to get it.

Quote:
Rightfully so? According to what criteria?

According to the families' own criteria.

That doesn't make it rightfully so. It's not a right accorded to them by law. Rather, it's a moral sentiment on your part -- a sentiment that members of the former German houses may or may not share.

Quote:
I do not think they really care how the German government feels about titles. I believe the German government has far more important things to worry about. They are not harming anyone by using their titles. Maybe they do not care if their government recognizes or not their titles.
Again, titles are used in Germany only used as a part of ones last name for historical reasons and/or social reasons. Titles are not used offially and legally because titles are *not* legal. And I don't think that you can speak to as to whether members of former houses "care" about the German government's position on the useage of titles. That being said, the German state turns a blind eye to the social use of titles because the situation in Germany was a bit different than in other countries where monarchies have been abolished. More specifically, the various thrones were not abolished so-much by popular revolt, but rather by the terms of peace treaty. Thus many of the families were able to hold on to their properties and wealth because they weren't forced into exile, and there isn't the kind of animosity that there is towards those families that have been expelled from their countries. That being said, there were cases where German peoples in the various states demanded the overthrow of their various rulers.


Quote:
Uh... maybe the legitimate government of Germany and many of its people care?

Again, so what? I do not think many citizens and the government would care if the Princes of Hanover used their titles, which they do, unless they were being nuisances to the government in some way.


Again, as I stated previously, it depends on the situation. Some care and some don't. I found your previous statement (in your last post) of "Who cares" as rather nonchalant, and was merely pointing out that legitimate governments and the citizens of these places who often suffered terribly under some of these regimes might "care". Moreover, as stated above, in Germany things are a little different for historical reasons than say in a country like Greece.

Regardless, the original discussion was about the Battenbergs. *They* lived in Britain and the British people certainly *did* care whether they used their German titles or not. That's why *they* had to renounce, and that's the whole point of this discussion.

Quote:
You're confused. Highness, Serene Highness, Imperial Highness, etc. are not titles. They are styles. And many noble families who are not royal bore and continue to bear (in Belgium, for example) different variations of Highness.
Quote:

I am not confused and would very much appreciate not being labeled as such. I may be from a country in which royalty does not exist, but I have studied European history in-depth and am educated.


No one is claiming that you don't know history or that you are uneducated. Rather, my observation and comment was based on your erroneous understanding of titles, styles, and who qualified as royalty. Once again, Highness, Serene Highness, Imperial Highness, etc. are not titles. They are styles. And many noble families who are not royal bore -- and continue to bear (in Belgium, for example) -- different variations of Highness. Also, contrary to your previous claim, Serene Highness is not necessarily "low" on the pecking order. In some cases it ranked/ranks above Royal Highness -- it all depends on the House and the given situation. It's not a big deal, though. We're all here to learn and share information and knowledge. I wastrying to be helpful by explaining the difference.



Quote:
Firsltly, Serene Highness is not on the "royal higness list". One who bears such a style is not Royal. They are from a Princely or Ducal family. For instance, the Grimaldis and the Lichtenstiens are soveriegn Princely families, not royal families. There is a difference. Secondly, Serene Highness is not necessarily "low" on the pecking order. In some cases it ranked/ranks above Royal Highness -- it all depends on the House and the given situation. Thirdly, it wasn't really a rebuke if one takes into consideration that the the German titles and style had no value after the war, particularly the title of Battenberg, as it wasn't its own fiefdom (so there were no historical ties with a people, etc.).
Quote:

They are royal. The Royal family of Monaco is royal. Maybe not in the eyes of QEII, who once said they do not count, but they are royal.


No, that is incorrect. They are not royal, (although many Americans erroneously think otherwise) Any scholar on the subject will tell you so. Monaco is a Principallity,not a Kingdom. Thus the Grimaldis are a Sovereign Princely family, with the style of Serene Highness (which in France was higher than a simple Highness). It has nothing to do with what QE thinks -- it is what it is (as per its protection treaties dating back to the 17th century). The only member who can claim to be "royal" is Princess Caroline via her marriage to Hanover, and even that is a nebulous claim since Hanover no longer exists as a separate entitity.

Quote:
Value or not after WWI or WWII, if they used their titles, God bless them then. It is a small concession to those innocent royals who lost everything during both wars and were just as displaced as many people were
.

Some members of former Houses were "innocent" and some were not (for instance, many were actively involved with the Nazis). Regardless, the individuals being discussed were not displaced. By making such erroneous statements I'm afraid you're confusing history. Rather than being displaced, the Battenbergs lived in Britain, and had their lives there well before the war. In fact, Mounbatten's father was First Sea Lord in the British Navy, but was forced to resign because of his German background. By holding on to their pretend titles their loyalty would be (and was) questioned. This, in turn, would have compromised the stability of the monarchy, which did not want to be viewed as German for obvious reasons. In short, if one really knows and understands the history and psychology of the time, then one would be cognizant of the fact that, at the time, it was important for them to renounce their German titles (or at least why it was felt that it was important). If they wanted to hold on to their German titles they could have gone back to Hesse. They chose not to.

Quote:
Who are we to define who is royal and who is not? I am just a commoner after all.
:)

We do not define. The rules of the game are already well established. And in those countries that the monarchy no longer exists, there is technically no more royalty or nobility unless certain individuals or families are recognized as such by the legitimate regime.

Quote:


Finally, in Britain, being a member of the British nobility was far more noteworthy than a minor princeling of a minor, morganaut branch of a minor German House. (During Queen Victoria's time even the more senior German prinelings were referred to disdainfully in England as 'German beggers'). Mountbatten would not had the opportunities he had if had remained a pretend Prince Louis of Battenberg.

Maybe in Britain they think it is more noteworthy, but maybe around the rest of Europe they could not care less. The British peerage system may not have been looked upon as the top level of the social peocking order from any foreign royal's perspective.
. What was considered noteworthy in Britain at the time *is* what mattered because that is where the Battenbergs lived. They didn't live in "the rest of Europe". Moreover, it doesn't really matter what foreign royals/houses thought of the British Peerage at the time because 1). many houses had lost their thrones or were sitting on highly unstable ones; 2). many did not even have titles of nobility in their states; 3). many had been mediatized long ago; and 4). Britain was at the pinnacle of its power and was the pre-eminent state in Europe. The British monarchy and its aristocracy are allive and well, while many others have ende-up in the dustbin of history. The Battenbergs did well to rennounce their German titles, as they accomplished much in Britain by doing so.


Quote:
And, FYI, the Mountbattens did use their Battenberg title on occassion for social reasons when in Germany.
I know they did, but thank you for posting that as people may or may not have realized that.
Yes, actually I mentioned it (with example) here a few weeks ago. It's a tid bit that most people don't know.

Also, can you please try to use the quote system when responding to messages? It makes them easier to read and responding to. Thanks.
__________________

__________________
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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions about British Styles and Titles summrbrew2 British Royals 2451 06-24-2014 09:35 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 Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta sofia jewellery jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 PM.

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]