The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 02-11-2011, 06:20 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
I'm a bit confused. If only the holder of a title is a noble, then Anne Boleyn was not born a noble, right? I'm just trying to understand.

Definitely not - she was a woman to start with.

She was raised to noble status in her own right when created Marquess of Pembroke but until then she was a commoner.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-11-2011, 06:24 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 3,022
Anne’s mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of the second Duke of Norfolk and the sister of the third. Her father, Thomas, was a merchant. Thereby, she was born a commoner.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-11-2011, 08:21 PM
rob2008's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 124
Elizabeth II was only half royal since her mother was a commoner. However, Philip was a genuine born royal which improves the stock. Ironically, Philip was married with the name Lt Mountbatten. This non-royal style was engineered to satisfy public opinion. Philip went to the lengths of renouncing his royal status shortly before marrying the heir to the UK throne. In the same way, Camilla's title of Princess of Wales is simply not used.

Compare:
Philip and Elizabeth - two royals - have stuck together.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12424132

The marriages of Camilla, Diana, Fergie, Armstrong-Jones, Mark Phillips, Alexandra Fredericksborg did not last.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-11-2011, 09:43 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
Well, I find this all very interesting - especially the part about Elizabeth II being a commoner until she took the crown (and Princess Anne as well). One would think a Princess was not a commoner. That Prince Philip was royal whereas Queen Elizabeth was a commoner...I had no idea.

What a strange system, beleaguered with intricacies.

Is the Queen in agreement with the idea that she was a commoner until her coronation?

Since this is the British system, Prince Philip's mother was royal - but wouldn't have been royal under the British system, correct? Because the two houses she belonged to are German - and the Germans have different rules? (Am I getting this or am I totally off?)

So a marriage between a commoner (Elizabeth II) who becomes royal and a royal works out, whereas other kinds of commoner/royal marriages do not?

Would Anne Boleyn or Diana Spencer be considered aristocrats then? Certainly Princess Anne must be an aristocrat.

I find the calculation-of-royal (as a fractional process or otherwise) so interesting.

So, Elizabeth, Princess of Wales was a commoner when she married royal Prince Philip? And marrying him did not make her royal? Nor the titles she held? This is so confusing.

The rule about the House of Lords is also confusing. Elizabeth isn't eligible for it now, is she? So Queens are the exception to the rule?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-11-2011, 11:49 PM
Vasillisos Markos's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Crete, United States
Posts: 1,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
Elizabeth II was only half royal since her mother was a commoner.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but I don't bellieve that is quite right. At the time of Elizabeth's birth in 1926, her mother was a Royal Highness due to her marriage with Prince Albert so Elizabeth II was born to two royals. Elizabeth the Queen Mother was raised to royal rank when she married. Before that she was a commoner albeit from a very distinguished and aristocratic family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Well, I find this all very interesting - especially the part about Elizabeth II being a commoner until she took the crown (and Princess Anne as well). One would think a Princess was not a commoner. That Prince Philip was royal whereas Queen Elizabeth was a commoner...I had no idea. \

So a marriage between a commoner (Elizabeth II) who becomes royal and a royal works out, whereas other kinds of commoner/royal marriages do not? So, Elizabeth, Princess of Wales was a commoner when she married royal Prince Philip? And marrying him did not make her royal? Nor the titles she held? This is so confusing.
Iluvbertie can explain it better but I believe she wrote Elizabeth was a royal commoner, not just a commoner. And Elizabeth II was never styled as the Princess of Wales. She was born Elizabeth of York and was heiress presumptive when her father took the throne but she was never invested as the Princess of Wales. Indeed, I don't believe there is any precedent for a Princess of Wales in her own right, just Pss of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 02-12-2011, 07:53 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Well, I find this all very interesting - especially the part about Elizabeth II being a commoner until she took the crown (and Princess Anne as well). One would think a Princess was not a commoner. That Prince Philip was royal whereas Queen Elizabeth was a commoner...I had no idea.

What a strange system, beleaguered with intricacies.
There is a different concept of being one of the "Common Men" (including women) in Britain than in other countries. In most European countries there used to be different classes of people which were especially named. 1. class ("Stand" in German) was the aristocracy. That within divided in Royality and the higher and lower aristocracy. 2. class was the clerus. 3. Class was the Bourgeoise or the "free burghers" 4. Class the pheasants or unfree people. In Europe "commoners" were members of the 3.and 4. class. (That all changed with the upcoming of democracy and the idea of equality of the people, except that a lot of people still want to see a difference between people and people.)

These classes of course existed in Britain as well, but they have nothing to do with the term "common" or "commoner". The idea in Britain was that there was the souverain on top. The monarch had peers and at first he was one of them, the first among his peers. From this pool of peers emerged the idea of a parliamentary system. A good article about this development is Parliament of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

All other people, the Royal family as well as the wifes of peers to the lowliest scullery maid was a commoner, as they were not the peers of the monarch.

But - of course that didn't mean they were equal. Feudalism in Britain had his own rulkes of rank (of which a lot are still in exiistence). Of course a Royal princess and daughter of the monarch has had a much higher station in society than a peer of the rank of Viscount or even duke , though he was a peer and she a commoner. This station in life, call it rank or precedence still is determined through the closeness to the monarch or a peer. Thus the term "Precedence of the daught of a duke" is socially determined and has a certain meaning, as well as the term "Royal Highness and rank of a prince or princess of the UK". The daughter of a duke has a higher rank than a Baron, even though he is a peer and she is a commoner. But she holds a rank of the higher nobility and he one of the lower. So in a line-up according to rank a duke's daughter would be ahead of the Baron.

In Europe a Royal princess or a Count's daughter would be of the 1. Class - nobility thus a noble woman and of course not a member of the 4. Class - commoners. In Britain she would be a member of the highest social rank
but still be called a commoner.

Just to explain that the term "Commoner" has different meanings in Britain and Europe in times of feudalism.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-12-2011, 08:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi View Post
Well, I find this all very interesting - especially the part about Elizabeth II being a commoner until she took the crown (and Princess Anne as well). One would think a Princess was not a commoner. That Prince Philip was royal whereas Queen Elizabeth was a commoner...I had no idea.
Basically in Britain everyone is a commoner unless they could take a seat in the House of Lords (and Elizabeth couldn't do so so hence she was a commoner - but royal).

Quote:
What a strange system, beleaguered with intricacies.

Is the Queen in agreement with the idea that she was a commoner until her coronation?
I am sure she realises that technically she was a commoner until her accession (6th February 1952) which was 18 months before her coronation. She became the Queen the instant her father died, not when the Crown was put on her head.

Quote:
Since this is the British system, Prince Philip's mother was royal - but wouldn't have been royal under the British system, correct? Because the two houses she belonged to are German - and the Germans have different rules? (Am I getting this or am I totally off?)
Philip's mother was born a Princess in her own right and married a Prince in his own right so was regarded as a Princess but not a Princess of the UK. Just as William would be recognised as a Prince in Denmark but not as a Prince of Denmark (since the changes in their rules in 1953), or Frederick isn't a Prince of the UK but both are recognised as Princes so Alice was recognised as a Princess but 'of Greece' after her marriage to HRH Prince Andrew of Greece. Whatever her birth status she married the son of a King and thus there was no question that she was a Princess.

Quote:
So a marriage between a commoner (Elizabeth II) who becomes royal and a royal works out, whereas other kinds of commoner/royal marriages do not?
The difference is probably in the fact that Elizabeth, although technically a commoner, was also a royal. Being royal doesn't stop a person being a commoner. Elizabeth was clearly raised within the British royal establishment and Philip was also largely raised in similar families and with similar connections - his grandmother lived in Kensington Palace. The change in lifestyle wasn't as great and they both understood the requirements of marriage within that sphere.

There are three groups - royals, nobles and commoners. Royals can be both noble and commoner - Philip, Charles, Andrew and Edward have all been enobled, as they have been given titles. The rest of them are commoners. The Queen now is above them all. Unless they are noble they are commoners - although royal commoners.

Quote:
Would Anne Boleyn or Diana Spencer be considered aristocrats then? Certainly Princess Anne must be an aristocrat.
They would be regarded as aristocrats as the daughters of nobles. All of these ladies had fathers who had titles and thus the children of these men were certainly aristocrats.

Quote:
I find the calculation-of-royal (as a fractional process or otherwise) so interesting.
I don't understand this comment.

Quote:
So, Elizabeth, Princess of Wales was a commoner when she married royal Prince Philip? And marrying him did not make her royal? Nor the titles she held? This is so confusing.
Elizabeth was born royal. She was born an aristocrat as the daughter of a duke. She was still a commoner as she couldn't take a seat in the House of Lords in her own right. She didn't need to be 'made royal' as she was born royal as a male line grandchild of a King - in the same way that Beatrice is a royal today - both were born as the eldest daughter of The Duke of York.

Elizabeth, on her marriage held no titles in her own right except HRH The Princess Elizabeth. On her marriage she added Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich. Until she became Queen these were her only titles - HRH The Princess as the daughter of the King and the others as a wife.

Quote:
The rule about the House of Lords is also confusing. Elizabeth isn't eligible for it now, is she? So Queens are the exception to the rule?
Elizabeth is above the House of Lords now. She could never take a seat as she never had a title in her own right. The monarch doesn't sit in the House of Lords or have the right to vote on any decision there - so no Elizabeth isn't eligible to sit in the House of Lords.

With the new House of Lords, since 1999, her husband and sons are also no longer eligible but Philip, Charles and Andrew had all taken their seats before the 1999 reforms. Had they not had titles entitling them to seats in the Lords they could have stood for election to the Commons. Now they can do that - as can many of the other people who had previously had seats in the Lords - such as Diana's brother.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 02-12-2011, 09:15 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 728
Even Catherine Middleton can trace her ancestry to noble persons,nearest ones died in 17th century and also some others...The nearest was Talbot family and through them she is distantly related to most other noble Houses...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 02-12-2011, 11:27 AM
Lucrezia's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 29
Nonetheless, she is a commoner. Nobility is not only a matter of the blood, as my mother said.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-12-2011, 03:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucrezia View Post
Nonetheless, she is a commoner. Nobility is not only a matter of the blood, as my mother said.
Yes,and sadly,one with the most distant noble connections...the rest of the "commoners" who married into the royal family had more or less noble background in recent generations(Lady Diana,Queen Mother,Sarah Margaret Ferguson,Alice of Gloucester),unlike Catherine Elizabeth...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 02-13-2011, 02:55 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,324
Oh, thank you so much, Kataryn, Iluvbertie, VasillosMarkos, for all your help. I still don't think I've got it (totally) but it is becoming clearer.

My comment about "fractional" royalty was in response to post #23, in which it is stated that Elizabeth II is only "half-royal," a notion I had never heard before (that of being half or quarter royal...as obviously, if one an be half-royal, they can be a quarter-royal and so on).

In a later post, someone says that since Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was elevated to the status of HRH the Queen by her husband (did I get that right) that certainly Elizabeth II was born royal (which is what I had always assumed, so was surprised to hear the half-royal part).

But I never knew that one could be a royal commoner before. And obviously, I have been misunderstanding the term "commoner" all my life!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-14-2011, 03:37 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Yes,and sadly,one with the most distant noble connections...the rest of the "commoners" who married into the royal family had more or less noble background in recent generations(Lady Diana,Queen Mother,Sarah Margaret Ferguson,Alice of Gloucester),unlike Catherine Elizabeth...
Why sadly? That's how life is: people have no choice when it comes to their birth. From then on they can do something to better their life. Which is what Catherine Elizabeth Middleton has done: went to good schools, worked hard, got the results of her exams she needed to choose the right university for her, met another student who found her to his liking and is now marrying her university sweetheart after years of being not only his love, lover but his best and most loyal friend. These are achievements she is responsible for. That was something she could actively work and live towards: to become a academic with honors and to become a lovable personality the right man wants to marry.

Now to be "sad" that she wasn't born the daughter of a duke or a Royal princess is just so... well, undemocratic. As if the Human Rights had never been proclaimed...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-14-2011, 03:40 AM
Lady Meg's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: District of Columbia USA/London, UK, United States
Posts: 172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Even Catherine Middleton can trace her ancestry to noble persons,nearest ones died in 17th century and also some others...The nearest was Talbot family and through them she is distantly related to most other noble Houses...
I love how everyone thinks that Kate is related to the Talbot family when it cannot be substantiated. The only source that outlined her supposed ancestry was The Daily Mail. If you did the research and looked it up -- there are two generations that do not pan out.
Those who use the official books which were written over a decade ago such as Burke's Peerage know that her supposed ancestor William Davenport and Grace Alloway are NOT listed anywhere except for those newspapers, etc just put out.
This claim that William Davenport was a son of Elizabeth Talbot and Henry Davenport has not been proven as correct. In the article from the Daily Mail it states the Kate is a descendant of Elizabeth Knollys by Sir Thomas Leighton, their daughter Elizabeth Leighton married a Sherrington Talbot; their son Sherrington Talbot married a Jane Lyttelton -- this is ALL correct up to this point.. then it goes off with some undocumented names that don't seem to add up as they are not mentioned in both of the sources below and others. In the Daily Mail article it then goes on to state that their supposed daughter Elizabeth Talbot marries a William Davenport. Crofts Peerage's Sherrington Talbot who married Jane Lyttelton doesn't even mention an Elizabeth Talbot who married a William Davenport. The same goes for the book Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 838. But then if you go over to Burke's Peerage here Burke's Peerage there is a mention of an Elizabeth Talbot, daughter of a Sharington Talbot, but there is NO mother and NO mention of that Elizabeth Talbot who married Henry Davenport ever having a William Davenport that went on to marry a Grace Alloway and it only states

"Henry Davenport Esq who m 82 Oct 1665 Elizabeth dau of Sharington Talbot Esq of Lacock co Wilts and d. in July 1698 leaving with other daus who died unmarried, a dau Mary m 1st to the Rev William Hallifax DD who rf in 1720 and 2ndly to the Rev Prideaux Sutton of Itreedon co Worcester and two sons Sharington the elder a major general in the army who rf unm in Ireland 5 July 1719 and Henry Davenport Esq baptized 26 Feb 1677 8 who m 1st Mary Lucy dau of Daniel Charden Esq and had by her a son Sharington of whom presently and two daus Mary Elizabeth m to John Mytton Esq of Halftone and Mary Luce rf unm Mr Davenport m 2ndly Barbara second dau of Sir John Ivory of Ireland by Aline his wife dan of Sir John Talbot of Lacock co Wilts and by her who rf in 174ft left at his decease in 1731 a son William in holy orders DD rector of Bree don who m Mary dau of John Ivory Talbot of Lacock and had issue The only son of the first marriage".
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-14-2011, 06:37 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Well, not "everyone" thinks that and certainly not everyone is interested...
I have no doubt that if Catherine becomes the mother of a future king or queen, historians will trace her ancestry and do that seriously. Till then, I believe it's moot, as Catherine has the support of HM and if she is noble enough a human being to appeal both to william and the souverain, that should be enough for us lowly commoners. My opinion, of course.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-14-2011, 08:19 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Meg View Post
I love how everyone thinks that Kate is related to the Talbot family when it cannot be substantiated. The only source that outlined her supposed ancestry was The Daily Mail.
I don't read Daily Mail ;-)

I fount it in:

http://www.genealogics.org/index.php
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-14-2011, 07:23 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,354
It seems like anyone who marries a royal has royal blood somewhere in their background, even if it's a drop of it. Some individuals have more of it than others. Others may have it on the fringes, so to speak. It seems like they are drawn to each other. If there was a question about whether royal blood runs in someone veins or if they were related to nobility , wouldn't DNA answer the question one way or another or at the very least show a link?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-14-2011, 08:01 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,248
Nuclear DNA isn't reliable as proof of ancestry once you get back around 4 or 5 generations (at that point, any similarity in the genetic structure is more likely to be from random chance than from hereditary factors). You can go farther back with mitochondrial DNA, but that only helps if someone has a matrilineal line to the supposed ancestor. In any case, they'd need a sample to compare it to.
__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-17-2011, 09:58 AM
rob2008's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 124
Due to his lineage, Philip was more royal than Elizabeth when they married. I believe he used to tease her about this. However there is no disputing they have both always been royal as well as Royal, even if at some time technically "Commoners". I would rather that royalty protected their lineage instead of what they think will benefit their popularity. It is far better for the dynasty, for the constitutional process and for the country if Princes only married Princesses who are able to employ an appropriate "common touch"; rather than marry a non royal woman ("Commoner") who then adopts a "royal air".
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-17-2011, 10:43 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
If only their were enough Princess/Princes in the world.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-17-2011, 12:38 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427

There are literally hundreds in the Germanic royal and princely families, plus dozens of Austrian Archdukes and Archduchesses. As their titles tend to pass down through the male lines from generation to generation, there's more than enough supply of princes and princesses to meet the demand.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
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
The Duchess of Cambridge: Will she become more popular than Diana? tipha01 The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 1215 08-24-2013 08:01 PM
Catherine Middleton Jewellery (to April 2011) HRHAmy Royal Jewels 151 04-29-2011 07:39 AM
Catherine Middleton Wedding Tiara suggestions and musings Duchessmary Prince William and Catherine Middleton - The Royal Wedding, 29 April 2011 1392 04-29-2011 05:52 AM
Which name do you prefer for Kate (Catherine) Middleton? ysbel Prince Harry and Prince William 78 06-10-2007 06:23 PM




Popular Tags
belgium 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 jewellery 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 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 claire 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 04:16 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]