General Questions About Royalty and Monarchies


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

kcc

Commoner
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
50
Questions About Royals and General Miscellania

what message boards do you think the royals, we all enjoy following, read. on the miller sisters board their was a poster who attended university with prince nicholas of greece,i think i read somewhere that the duke of sax-coburg posted on a board(not sure which one)and on alt talk royalty their is a horrible little man (racist,sexist and so on),the count gudenus. does anyone know of others?
 
Originally posted by kcc@May 20th, 2004 - 11:00 am
what message boards do you think the royals, we all enjoy following, read. on the miller sisters board their was a poster who attended university with prince nicholas of greece,i think i read somewhere that the duke of sax-coburg posted on a board(not sure which one)and on alt talk royalty their is a horrible little man (racist,sexist and so on),the count gudenus. does anyone know of others?
I sincerely doubt that the Poster known as the duke of Saxe-Coburg is a Coburg because the head of the family Prince Andreas has never changed his surname to Herzog von Sachsen-Coburg ...

there are no other dukes of Saxe-Coburg ...

as for Count Gudenus - sadly, he is a member of the Gudenus family. He is in his 60s, lives in France, and is married to a Vietnamese woman, and has one daughter.
 
thank you for the reply marlene.i forgot to mention the poster on this board who claims to be a member of the schornborn-wiesentheid family,is he the genuine article or a no-acount count.
 
His birthday and everything matches up, but that doesn't really prove anything.
 
poor things if they read this forum what would they think of us that follows them
 
anniversaries in the year 2005

some anniversaries in the year 2005

25th anniversaries
Birthday
Prince Hamzah of Jordan (1980)

40th anniversaries
Birthday
Countess Sophie of Wessex (1965)
Princess Stéphanie of Monaco (1965)
Infante Cristina of Spain (1965)

50th anniversaries
Birthday
Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg (1955)
Prince Lorenz of Belgium (1955)

60th anniversaries
Birthday
Prince Hans Adam II of Liechtenstein (1945)
 
have i missed any birthday anniversaries
what about wedding or as regents
 
Not sure if you mean this but November 22, 2005 will mark the 30th anniversary of the swearing-in of King Juan Carlos.
 
Princess Lilian of Sweden (1915) - 90 years old on 30 August 2005!
 
Jackswife said:
Not sure if you mean this but November 22, 2005 will mark the 30th anniversary of the swearing-in of King Juan Carlos.
yes i was thinking about these kind of things
 
June 7, 2005 will be the centennial of, in want of a better word, the ending of the Swedish-Norwegian union, Norway's independence and making of our own nation, and thus the centennial of the Norwegian royal family :) The Norwegian royal family was "elected", meaning that Prince Carl of Denmark demanded a referendum deciding if Norway was going to be a republic or a monarchy. And the little royal family came to Norway in November 1905 to a wore-down palace(the Swedish king didn't stay in it so often).

I think there will be celebrations throughtout the year, also in other countries than Norway, such as UK (since Queen Maud was British, and King Olav was born there), Sweden and Denmark (since King Haakon was Danish).

Anyway, it's a big thing in Norway that involves a lot of royal activity :D
 
In Great Britain,The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh will attend a lot of activities to mark 60th anniversary of the end of the World War II.
On celebrating the independence of Norway,King Harald and Queen Sonja will visit Great Britain,Sweden,USA,Denmark.
 
How does a royal family start?

How does a monarchy start? who chooses the royal family? basically how is it determined what family should be royal and how royal families started.
 
In case of Norway: The current royal family was elected by the people in 1905. The man elected to be the king was the Danish Prince Carl who was married to the British Princess Maud. In this case I think major league politics played a part, as the newly independent Norway depended on the major players in Europe to be able to stand on their own legs at first. Carl and Maud, who were related to most of Europe's royal families: Great Britain, Russia, Greece, Denmark, Sweden, Prussia... had an excellent starting point.

Earlier in Greece they elected Prince Vilhelm of Denmark for many of the same reasons the Norwegians elected his nephew: his connections.

Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte was adopted by the Swedish king as his successor.

Belgium became a monarchy of its own when the heir to the throne of the Netherlands was a female, as far as I understand it. The line to the throne back then in Belgium could only come to a male.


Monarchies in Europe tend to go far back, and at one point in history one of the chiefs gathered more power than the others. Or at various other points in the years to come when someone was more political clever than his opponents, or something like that.

(You also have the story of the English cricket star who was offered the throne of Albania.)
 
Could you elaborate on that cricket star being offered the throne of Albania. When did that happen? It seems a little weird to me.
 
norwegianne said:
Belgium became a monarchy of its own when the heir to the throne of the Netherlands was a female, as far as I understand it. The line to the throne back then in Belgium could only come to a male.
No, that was Luxembourg when Wilhelmina became the Dutch Queen.

Belgium became independent from The Netherlands in 1830 after the Belgian Revolution.

And The Netherlands is official a monarchy since 1815. But in 1579 The Netherlands became independent, because the Eight Years' War which was lead by Willem, Prince of Orange. After Willem was murdered, his son became the leader as stadtholder. All stadtholders (holland, zeeland, friesland) that follow were members of the family van Oranje-Nassau ( the present royal family). In 1794 Napoleon won the war with The Netherlands and made of the country a Kingdom, with his brother as King. When Napoleon was gone, the family van Oranje-Nassau came back and the son of the last stadtholder became king.
 
hi to all, i am new to this forum and i have a bunch of questions for people under the monarchial system. i think im a monarchist but i live in america so i haven't experienced to be under a system like that. i may sound ignorant but its not wrong to ask. here are my questions:
-do you curtsy when you see a royal? i dont think i can stomach curtseying to somebody just because they were born royal. in fact, the royals should maybe acknowledge the people for paying them to be their kings and queens.
-if somebody has a title like lord or lady, count/countess, etc., do they use it in real life? do they write their name as Lord X blah, blah, blah in signing credit cards and writing checks?
-do theses nobles with title get preferential treatment at work or at school? i would hate it if your boss or your principal shows preferential treatment towards a kid with a "Lord" attached to his name or to a kid with a really well known last name.
-do these noblemen actually feel entitled and look down on commoners? i am not talkin about a royal family. of course some of them could be snobs because they are prince or princesses, etc. but im talking about, for a lack of term, your "minor" noblemen ( your lords, barons, and a really old last name).
-do you guys "respect" your monarchs? if yes what makes you respect them? sure, well all need to respect each other but you know what im talking about.
- why do you have a monarchy? is it because the ancestors of these ruling dynasties established your country and made it the way it is right now through war and conquest. i think that is the reason why europe has monarchy.

thanks for viewing or answering my questions. it is greatly appreciated.
 
Hi, I'm new too with some questions and I would like to know if any royals of this century or this past century were disabled vets or just disabled. If so, how did it affect or not affect their ability to serve as royals?

Thanks,
David
 
well i'll answer your first question. As an American, you must never, ever bow/curtsy. Now if you really like the monarch and want to show a little more respect, you can bow your head a little. But if you bow/curtsy that will be seen as weird.
 
I'm a newb myself and there is one thing I would like to have clarified since I've never got anyone to answer it before.

Here's the question - thos baldrics or sashes or whatever you wish to call them, is there a reason that some people wear them from left to right and others wear them from right to left? I've noticed this on many pictures and no one's been able to answer the question. Hopefully someone can do so here.

Thanks and I'm enjoying the forums and the photos.
 
Lisele said:
I'm a newb myself and there is one thing I would like to have clarified since I've never got anyone to answer it before.

Here's the question - thos baldrics or sashes or whatever you wish to call them, is there a reason that some people wear them from left to right and others wear them from right to left? I've noticed this on many pictures and no one's been able to answer the question. Hopefully someone can do so here.

Thanks and I'm enjoying the forums and the photos.

it depnds on the country. for example: Denmark and Sweden both have pale blue sashes (as well as Greece, but theirs is tiny bit different). Sweden wear theirs on their right shoulder while Denmark wear theirs on their left shoulder. that's how you tell the differen between the two countries.
however, Iceland also wear theirs on their left shoulder, and as far as I know, no one else has the same or similar sash.

hope I've been of some help :confused:
 
Answers

Hallo aj00192557!

In answer to your first question: Yes I do bow when I am in the presance of a member of a Royal family. I always acknowledge their position as a member of a Royal family. For me ther are no boundaries: Christian Royals, Muslim Royals, Hindu Royals, Bhuddist Royals etc. Of course I take my own Royal House with most sincerity. I don't think that 'the royals should acknowledge the people for paying them to be their kings and queens.' Monarchs are not paid by anyone to be 'their kings and queens'. Monarchs recieve an amount of money from the elected/nominated governments of their countries to allow them to live the way they are entitled, and to perform the countless duties with which their lives are filled. Fulfilling these duties is, acknowledgement enough.

Number two: Any title, Baron, Lord, Viscount, Count, Earl, Marquis, Duke etc is entirely real life, thus it is used. If a person (in the British peerage), doesn't wish to have their title, they have a certain amount of time after succeeding to the title to disclaim it for life. Anyone not in possession of a genuine title, should not use it. These are bought from title mills, usually in countries where there are no real titles, to increase self-importance. It is an entirely futile venture, and deserves no more discussion. But simply, yes. Those who hold real title, use them if they are allowed. (Titled families of Germany, who aren't recognised as members of reigning Royal houses, aren't permitted to use titles, but are permitted to include the title within their name eg: Graf Claus von Stauffenberg (translation: Count Claus of Stauffenberg), becomes Claus Graf von Stauffenberg.

Number three: In a professional environment, nobles generally recieve no preferential treatment. If they di, it certainly isn't advocated by the government. But when acting in their capacity as the head/member of a noble family, then their title is reguarded in the highest fashion. Eg: at a coronation, the Lords etc assemble and are presented in order of precedance (highest to lowest), etc. Those are the times when titles people recieve preferential treatment.

Number four: In the modern world, barely any "look down" on "commoners". If so, it has become more a case of the richer nobles, recognising themselves as such. Eg: Does Donald Trump, or Tom Cruise etc ever look down on someone simply because they're rich?? I think we can find a similar answer somewhere there..

Number five: I respect and love my Monarch. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by Grace of God Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Queen of Australia (I use two of her 27 monarchies because I am a citizen of both, and therefore, she is my Queen twice over), is a remarkable person and ruler. Her Majesty has moved and adapted with changing times over her 79 years of life, and 53 as Queen, and at the same time shown amazing consistancy, genuine feeling and interest for her subjects. But Her Majesty doesn't need to prove herslef to anyone. For there is one un-deniable truth - for us, she is The Queen.

Number six: Great Britain is a Monarchy, because throughout history, as the people developed through civilisation, leaders emerged, and/or were chosen by God. Those leaders then lead their people to inhabit lands which became kingdoms. And then after a very long time, we still see the descendants of those original leader sitting on the thrown throughout the world.

Australia is a Monarchy because that was the system of government that the country that brought Australia into the modern world had as it's own. But Australia wasn't quite a country, it was a colony of Great Britain. In 1901, the colonies became a group of federated states, and under the Crown, would function together under one federal government, with each state also having it's own government. Up until the 1950's, with most of the population being Anglo-celtic, or of anglo-celtic descent, it was natural to think of England as the mother country. Many still do today. But with the high level of non-British immigration, the culture has become far more diverse, with all of the various backgrounds. But still the Monarchy remains intact.

There was a referendum regarding the issue of Australia becomming a republic in 1999, in which the Australian people voted against the idea. To be truthful, there aren't really that many people who genuinely wanted a republic, it was simply a matter of ticking a box, (a practice many many Australians do without any real consideration). Given the facts however of the state of our Monarchy, there would have been fewer still who'd have voted for a republic.

Lisele:

Please never be tricked by thinking that each country only has one 'sash'. Those sashes, are part of the insignia worn of an Order of Knighthood. Generally, it is the highest grade of the order which has 3 pieces of insignia: The Breast star, The Sash, and the Pendant (a small weight at the bottom of a sash, which depicts of shows the motif of the order eg: the Danish Order of the Elephant has a small jewelled Elephant on the end of the sash).

Many rules and conventions apply to the awarding of these orders, and the wearing of the insignia. Most orders are worn from right to left. However, it is generally the senior orders where the sashes are worn left to right. Two examples are The Order of the Garter, and The Order of the Thistle. They are the highest orders of knighthood of the United Kingdom, and are worn over the left shoulder.
I hope that helps.
 
Reina said:
well i'll answer your first question. As an American, you must never, ever bow/curtsy.

aj00192557;

It is entirely your own choice. It is not against the rules of the world to bow or curtsy to a member of a Royal family just because you are an American. Such a gesture is one of acknowledgement of the persons' position, while they are obviously not your Royal, it cannot be denied that in their own country, they have great importance. If you choose to recognise that importance, then you aren't forbidden to do so based on your nationality.

Yet, I would never bow to President Bush, he is an elected politician, not a member of a Royal family. If America had a Royal family, then I'm sure I'd pay appropriate compliments:)
 
Thank you Von Schlesian for taking time to write this long post. You make very good points.
Also you explanation of German titles is the clearest I had so far. So thank you again.
 
Von Schlesian said:
There was a referendum regarding the issue of Australia becomming a republic in 1999, in which the Australian people voted against the idea. To be truthful, there aren't really that many people who genuinely wanted a republic, it was simply a matter of ticking a box, (a practice many many Australians do without any real consideration). Given the facts however of the state of our Monarchy, there would have been fewer still who'd have voted for a republic.

.

The main reason why Australia voted against the republic was because they didnt like the style of government that was being offered, not because they wanted to keep the Queen, where the president has too much power. I believe most people wanted a republic, but wanted a Prime Minister who doesnt have all the power. IN my personal opinion, i think we should have a republic, i dont think Queen Elizabeth is relevant to Australia anymore. She really hasnt been for the past 50 years.

The case for the rejection of the republic was "Why fix whats not broken" not about keeping the Queen because shes apparently relevant to us.
 
To aj00192557, here are my answers to your questions.

Question number 1:
It depends on the situation. If I am for example present at a congratulatory call for a name day or birthday of a member of the Royal Family, which are held on the courtyard outside the Royal Palace, I don’t, because then you stand squeezed in a big crowd in a very public situation. But if I would be for example invited by the Court to attend an official ceremony or festivity, and the right kind opportunity would present itself (for example if I would be introduced to a member of the Royal Family, or present for a dinner - in the salon when the Royal Family enters and the guests give room), then I would. When one is present at an official occasion in the presence of one or several member of the Royal Family in Sweden, it is the custom to rise from the seats when they enter and take their seats, and when they have reached their places everyone sings the King’s song. It’s personal preference whether to just rise and stand still when they pass, or if you wish to curtsy. I myself choose to save my curtsies for the occasion that I would ever be invited to a “smaller” and not so public function in the presence of royals (like I described in the beginning), then when one would be closer and in the eye sight of them, it feels like the right time to curtsy.

Question number 2:
Yes, titles in the Swedish nobility are used by their holders, but only as an honorary thing... I don’t think that they sign checks or things like that with their titles, since they are strictly honorary titles these days. Since the year 2003, the Swedish nobility holds no legal status as they have done throughout history. This means that since that year, the nobility has lost all official links and connections that they have held with the Swedish state, government and crown (their last privilege also went with that). The titled Swedish nobility consists of the Count/Countess (in Swedish Greve/Grevinna) and Baron/Baroness (in Swedish Friherre/Friherinna).

Question number 3:
In general society, the nobility receives no preferential treatment whatsoever. The nobility is today quite assimilated into the normal population. The only time the titled nobility are treated as such is at Court, to which some (those closest to the Royal Family I would say) are invited to attend some ceremonies and occasions. When they attend official functions at Court or by the State, I would say that their positions are considered by courtesy for something like the table placing etc.

Question number 4:
We all live in a modern world, I don’t think the majority of people look down on anyone merely on the basis of family heritage, titles or money (with some exceptions of course, there’s always the odd chap here or there). In Sweden, were equality is one of the signums for a modern country, it is the strive for an equal society that has driven forward all the changes in things like abolishing the official status of the nobility, abolishing the old way of titling people etc.

Question number 5:
I have a very deep respect and “love” (in whatever way you can “love” someone you don’t know, even if it’s not the romantic kind here) for my monarch, His Majesty King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden. I admire and honour the way he has ruled as King; how he has really been a very modern monarch, despite what he was once born into.

In the very beginning of his reign, the Government and Parliament changed the Constitution drastically, really changing the monarch’s role, stripping the monarch of so many functions and tasks – but he moved on, and with dignity and a modern outlook accepted the new role of the monarch that had been created. And what a great job he has done, managing to combine the few constitutional tasks he still holds, while striving to be a modern monarch and Royal Family, really living with the times, and working for the people and Sweden’s best. He has certainly lived up to his wonderful motto, “For Sweden With the Times”.

The King was born into the old kind monarchy, and the old way of Court – a world where the laws concerning the Royal Family were very strict (for example, females didn’t have rights to be in the succession to the throne, and the members of the Royal Family had to marry a royal in order not to loose their titles and places in the succession) and the rules and protocol of Court were enormously strict (the Royal Family he was born into led a very secluded and privileged life, surrounded only by the chosen few). I really admire how King Carl Gustaf when he succeeded to the throne, managed to modernise the old Court, taking it into the new and modern world, but still keeping the dignity around it, and keeping the good bits of the old and traditions.

Question number 6:
The Swedish monarchy is part of our history. There have been different dynasties on the throne throughout history, but after 1 000 years of having a (official) monarchy of various kinds, the Royal House has become part of the Swedish identity (at least to me).
 
Last edited:
Reina said:
well i'll answer your first question. As an American, you must never, ever bow/curtsy. Now if you really like the monarch and want to show a little more respect, you can bow your head a little. But if you bow/curtsy that will be seen as weird.

Incorrect.
If you are introduced to a royal then you show respect and bow/curtsy. Everytime I read the excuse «as an American, you must never, ever bow/curtsy» makes my hair go straight!
In a foreign kingdom or country you should follow the local customs. You can wear a t-shirt showing your belly button in LA but not likely in Windsor Castle or the Vatican - even if you are an American. You can drink and drive in Hillbillies country but not likely in Saudi Arabia. You can wear a gun in USA but not in Canada.
 
My thanks to everyone who has enlightened me and straightened me out on the various sashes/baldrics/orders and how they are worn. As I said, I could never get an answer before now.

Since the subject's come up anyway - I am an American/Canadian and I have a very international family (literally) and since a lot of the members of my family have served in the diplomatic corps, I was brought up to curtsy to royalty. I was brought up to know the formal modes of address. Regardless of your nationality, not bowing or curtseying to a member of a royal family is viewed IMHO as disrespect period. If I went to Rome and met the pope, I would curtsey - OUT OF RESPECT - and I'm not even Catholic. That's what it boils down to, respect. But those are what I was taught and brought up with.
 
Back
Top Bottom