The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #901  
Old 04-21-2011, 10:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by IloveCP View Post
Was Diana considered a commoner even though she had the title of a "Lady"?The same thing with Mathilde.

Yes. In Britain only the holder of the title is noble. Even some royals are actually commoners e.g. The Countess of Wessex is still a commoner but a royal commoner.

The easy way to determine whether or not, in Britain, a person is a commoner or not is to ask this simple question - 'could that take a seat in the unreformed House of Lords?' If yes then they are noble but if no then they are/were a commoner so Diana was always a commoner. She went from being an ordinary commoner to a royal commoner.

The reason for saying the 'unreformed House of Lords' is that the other question would be to ask if they could stand for a seat in the House of Commons but that answer has changed now. Yes, except for the Queen the others can vote and stand for political office, just like any other subjects but they choose not to do so.

I wonder if Britain ever went to compulsory voting - as we have here in Australia - if they would excempt the royals down to a certain place in the line of succession?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #902  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:17 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,226
I am not sure where to put the question,but my question regards the formal consent given by the Queen when she allows to marry the royals who are in line to the throne.Does it include all her relatives or only those staying in line to the throne?As I understand for those standing in line to the throne it's obligatory to receive Queen's permission to wed.
How about the second marriage?I mean when someone being in the line to the throne(widower or divorced) marries again or for the second marriage it is not requested.
Correct me if I 'm wrong in this matter.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #903  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:35 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
Whenever a descendent of George II marries, regardless of how that person stands in line of succession, they must seek the monarch's permission to contract a legal marriage. The only exceptions are those who are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses (which actually excludes all of them as Queen Alexandra was a descendent of such a princess but no one has challenged the RMA under those terms).

It doesn't matter whether the person is contracting a second marriage, or will be marrying a RC or is a RC themselves - no permission = no legal marriage.

Charles sought and was granted permission to marry Camilla, as did Anne when she married Tim.

The highest profile non-English 'royal' to formally seek permission in recent years is Prince Ernst of Hanover when he married Princess Caroline of Monaco. Even though he lost his right to claim the throne in a King Ralph scenario their daughter Alexandra still has that right as she is the product of a legal marriage and is being raised as a Protestant.

Say for instance that Harry decided to marry Chelsy and the Queen said 'no' but they went ahead anyway. Then William died before Kate had their first child. Harry could still become King but any child born of his marriage to Chelsy would have no claim - of course once he became King he could give himself permission and then marry Chelsy legally but...the children born before that happened would still have no rights as they would still be seen as illegitimate.
Reply With Quote
  #904  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:50 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Riga, Latvia
Posts: 2,226
Thank You for the reply.I know that a royal marrying a Catholic loses his/her place in the line to the throne or if converts to Catholic faith.How about converting to other religion?Will it cause the lost of any privileges or moving out from the line to the throne?
Reply With Quote
  #905  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:55 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
Thank You for the reply.I know that a royal marrying a Catholic loses his/her place in the line to the throne or if converts to Catholic faith.How about converting to other religion?Will it cause the lost of any privileges or moving out from the line to the throne?
The monarch must be in communion with the Church of England so if a royal converted to a religion that wasn't in communion with the Church of England they would also be ineligible to claim the throne if the opportunity presented itself.
Reply With Quote
  #906  
Old 04-23-2011, 10:03 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Whenever a descendent of George II marries, regardless of how that person stands in line of succession, they must seek the monarch's permission to contract a legal marriage. The only exceptions are those who are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses (which actually excludes all of them as Queen Alexandra was a descendent of such a princess but no one has challenged the RMA under those terms)....
Since there are thousands of descendants of King George II, surely not every one in the line of succession actually ask the Queen for permission? So I'm assuming it's only those in the immediate family (down to 1st cousins, 2nd cousins?) that bothers to ask for permission to marry?

And if that's the case, then maybe the list of succession as listed at various places (such as Line of succession to the British throne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?) can be slimmed down to include those who gotten the formal permission. Of course it may be difficult to find out who received permission and who didn't, and is probably pointless anyway as there's just about no chance for them to ascend anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #907  
Old 04-23-2011, 09:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
There are 1000s yes but the vast majority are descendents of British princesses who married into foreign royal houses and are thus exempt.

If they are a descendent who isn't from a foreign royal house then any marriage they contract is not a legal marriage at all if they don't ask permission.

However going back to the descendents of George II the interesting thing is that any daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses and thus their descendents are exempt. When we look at his son only one of them had issue and that was Frederick Prince of Wales and again his daughters either were unmarried or married to foreign royal houses and except for his eldest son the other sons either had no issue or no grandchildren so after two geneartions the only descendents that are relevant are those from George III himself. Of course we know that his sons had lots of children but not from legitimate marriages. His eldest son's only child died in childbirth. The next two sons didn't have surviving issue. The fourth son of course fathered Victoria, the fifth became King of Hanover whose desendents still ask for permission to marry, the sixth son became Duke of Cambridge and had three children - two daughters who married into foreign royal houses and a son who had no issue, the other sons have no descendents and the only daughters either didn't marry, had no issue or married into foreign royal houses.

Thus despite the many children from George II and George III today there are only two lines who ask permission and that is the present British royal family and the Hanoverians and they themsevles could argue exemption on the basis of being descended from Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Prince Philip - all of whom were/are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses. The current Hanoverians are descended from Victoria's daughter Vicky.

So even though there are 1000s of descendents, mainly from Victoria, they are actually all exempt. Those in the BRF do ask - all of them and the Hanoverians but none of the others because they are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses.

Eliminating anyone on that list because they didn't ask permission won't work as if they are British they asked permission and if they are not British they don't need to as they are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses e.g. do you see the King of Norway asking permission of the British Queen to marry - no but he is also exempt being descended from a British Princess who married a Danish prince.
Reply With Quote
  #908  
Old 04-23-2011, 10:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, especially the part about exemptions for issues of British princesses who married into foreign royal families! Fascinating stuff for sure!
Reply With Quote
  #909  
Old 04-29-2011, 10:00 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,459
I have a strange question; if something were to happen to Charles and it was William who would succeed next and QE2 was still alive when William ascended the throne, how would QE2 be known as? Would she simply be HM Queen Elizabeth or something different?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #910  
Old 04-29-2011, 10:33 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I have a strange question; if something were to happen to Charles and it was William who would succeed next and QE2 was still alive when William ascended the throne, how would QE2 be known as? Would she simply be HM Queen Elizabeth or something different?
If William became King, then HM would be known as "the late Queen Elizabeth II".
Reply With Quote
  #911  
Old 04-29-2011, 10:49 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
I have a strange question; if something were to happen to Charles and it was William who would succeed next and QE2 was still alive when William ascended the throne, how would QE2 be known as? Would she simply be HM Queen Elizabeth or something different?

Why would the Queen still be alive though?

She has said that she believes that a monarch is a job for life. She made that promise when she turned 21 and has never suggested that she would step down.

However, if the government decided to 'retire' monarchs at 90 then they would have to work out a title - - but Queen Elizabeth would make sense.
Reply With Quote
  #912  
Old 04-30-2011, 08:12 AM
Josefine's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: , Sweden
Posts: 9,359
prince daniel of sweden were called duke of Duke of Västergötland instead of prince i thought this were wrong but then i saw it were not prince philip but Duke of Edinburgh why is that is duke "higher" william is now duke not prince

help out a swede and tell me how it works
Reply With Quote
  #913  
Old 04-30-2011, 09:27 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
In Britain a Duke is a 'peer of the realm' and thus used to have a role in the government etc. The title of Duke is also one that can be passed to children etc

Princes are secondary titles and can be held by all children of a royal Duke but only the eldest son can inherit the Dukedom - Prince is the royal equivalent of Lord for the non-royal titled folk.

Prince is not one of the levels of the nobility - Dukes are nobles while princes aren't.

Queen Victoria wasn't too keen on creating her sons Dukes but it was also pointed out to her that if she didn't then they couldn't take a seat in the House of Lords but they could stand for and be elected to the House of Commons as they would be technically commoners and not Lords. It was also part of the reasoning behind making Edward VIII Duke of Windsor as plain HRH Prince Edward could stand for election to the House of Commons but HRH The Duke of Windsor, as a peer of the realm couldn't do so.
Reply With Quote
  #914  
Old 04-30-2011, 06:27 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,165
I believe that HM would never abdicate/resign, but I wonder how affairs of state would progress if she were permanently incapacitated. Would PoW do the red boxes and open the Parliament?

Elderly people now live for much longer times after being diagnosed with a fatal or dementing or incapacitating disease, so future monarchs as well as HM are more likely to 'linger' than those in past centuries.

Well, I hope that HM will be like her mother who (reportedly) was wearing a red dress and hosting a drinks party two weeks before her demise.
Reply With Quote
  #915  
Old 04-30-2011, 06:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,328
If the Queen was mentally incapacitated Charles would be Prince Regent and would carry out all her duties - red boxes, signing legislation, conducting State Visits etc as happened when George III was incapacitated and George IV did that job for the last decade or so of his father's reign - as well as for a short period earlier in the reign.
Reply With Quote
  #916  
Old 05-01-2011, 04:18 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Chesterfield, United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Hello! I'm new here and this is my first post so I hope I have chosen an appropriate place for it - if not Administrators please feel free to move it.

Following the creation of Prince William of Wales as Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Lord Carrickfergus on Friday, I have been thinking a lot about Royal Titles and have a few questions/discussion points which I thought I would share with you:

1. All current Royal Dukedoms (i.e. Cambridge, Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) are held with a subsidary Earldom and Barony, whilst the Royal Earldom of Wessex and the Earldom of Snowdon (which was created for the husband of a Princess and will pass to the grandson of the King) are held with a subsidary Viscounty. This made me wonder whether is is simply tradition that the titles be created in this configuration (i.e. that a Royal Duke will also be an Earl and a Baron), if it is just the Queen's preference or if there is another reason?

2. Does the rank of the subsidary titles matter at all? For example, the Dukedom of Kent is on its way out of the Royal Family and will soon cease to be a "Royal" Dukedom. Assuming that the Earl of Wessex is created Duke of Edinburgh as is expected and that this title similarly passes out of the Royal family to a son of Viscount Severn, would the fact that that the subsidary ranks to the new Dukedom of Edinburgh were an Earldom and a Viscounty, rather than an Earldom and Barony like the Kent Dukedom has, make the title more senior or important? (I hope that makes sense!)

3. It also made me wonder why no one in the Royal Family has a Royal Marquessate - either as a main title or as a subsidary one? Has there ever been a Royal Marquess?

4. Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the primary reason for the Royal Dukes having more than one title is to represent that the UK is composed of several consituent countries (i.e they have a title representing England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland) however I was thinking that, particularly in this day and age, if this is to be truly representative (or as representative as a titled member of a 'Royal' Family can be!) shouldn't there also be a title to represent Wales? I mean, I know the Duke of Cambridge will presumably eventually be invested with the title Prince of Wales when he becomes heir to the throne, but at present (despite living in Wales, which only adds to the irony) he went from being someone whose official title was "of Wales" to someone whose official titles no longer mention Wales? How much harder would it have been for the Queen to have added in the Viscounty of Bangor or the Marquessate of Wrexham (for example)?

I look forward to reading your comments on the above!

"Lord Pemberley"
Reply With Quote
  #917  
Old 05-07-2011, 06:53 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Pemberley View Post
1. All current Royal Dukedoms (i.e. Cambridge, Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) are held with a subsidary Earldom and Barony, whilst the Royal Earldom of Wessex and the Earldom of Snowdon (which was created for the husband of a Princess and will pass to the grandson of the King) are held with a subsidary Viscounty. This made me wonder whether is is simply tradition that the titles be created in this configuration (i.e. that a Royal Duke will also be an Earl and a Baron), if it is just the Queen's preference or if there is another reason?
Personally, I believe it has to do with recent tradition. The first Duke, Earl, Baron creation in recent history began with Queen Victoria's son Leopold, Duke of Albany - who was also created Earl of Clarence and Baron Arklow - although it wasn't quite "tradition" at that point.

Leopold's nephew, eldest son of Edward VII, was created Duke of Clarence and Avondale and Earl of Athlone (no barony), but his younger son (later George V) was created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney.

George V's 2nd son was also created Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killarney, and in due time, he became George VI.

The next creation was for Prince Philip, who upon marriage to (then) Princess Elizabeth, was created Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich.

The Queen has continued this tradition with The Prince Andrew, Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.

Obviously, since The Prince Edward is slated to gain the Duke of Edinburgh title eventually, there was no need to create another dukedom for him upon his marriage and therefore he was made an Earl instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Pemberley View Post
2. Does the rank of the subsidary titles matter at all? For example, the Dukedom of Kent is on its way out of the Royal Family and will soon cease to be a "Royal" Dukedom. Assuming that the Earl of Wessex is created Duke of Edinburgh as is expected and that this title similarly passes out of the Royal family to a son of Viscount Severn, would the fact that that the subsidary ranks to the new Dukedom of Edinburgh were an Earldom and a Viscounty, rather than an Earldom and Barony like the Kent Dukedom has, make the title more senior or important? (I hope that makes sense!)
The rank of a subsidiary title will only be reflected in the heir apparent's courtesy, as far as I can tell. Rank in the order of precedence is usually determined by the date of the title's creation, so it wouldn't matter much whether the duke in question held a viscounty or a barony as a subsidiary title.

However, when talking about members of the BRF, it is the Queen's perogative to set the order of precedence as she sees fit.

When Alexander Windsor becomes Duke of Gloucester and George Windsor becomes Duke of Kent, these two titles will indeed pass out of the realm of "Royal Dukedom".. but both have earldoms as the senior subsidiary titles, and both have baronies for further use as courtesies (for the eldest grandson).

The unknown is whether The Prince Edward will retain his current titles and gain the dukedom of Edinburgh in its entirety (i.e. Earl of Merioneth, Baron Greenwich), or just be given the ducal title and keep the Earldom of Wessex and Viscounty Severn.

Regardless of the titles Edward is given, however, the Lord James, Viscount Severn will become a courtesy Earl on his father's elevation (either Earl of Wessex or Earl of Merioneth).

The presence of a viscounty as opposed to a barony doesn't make one title more senior than the other.. when viewed from the date of creation, the new Duke of Edinburgh title will not be nearly as senior as those of Gloucester and Kent.. but the man himself will be much more senior in his proximity to the throne.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Pemberley View Post
3. It also made me wonder why no one in the Royal Family has a Royal Marquessate - either as a main title or as a subsidary one? Has there ever been a Royal Marquess?
I don't believe marquessates have ever been quite as popular in Britain as earldoms have been. Nevertheless, there have been several royal marquessates over the course of history:

In England:

I suppose the first Royal Marquess was also the first hereditary peerage ever given to a woman - Anne Boleyn, Marquess of Pembroke.

Historians cannot be sure exactly how the title ceased to exist, and there are 3 possibilities: a) it merged with the crown on Anne's marriage to Henry VII - b) it was forfeited on 15 May 1536, when she was found guilty of high treason - or c) it became extinct on 19 May 1536, when Anne died without a male heir.

Whether this could be considered a true "Royal Marquessate" I guess depends on how you perceive it.

George II was created 1st Duke of Cambridge, Marquess of Cambridge, Earl of Milford Haven, Viscount Northallerton and Baron Tewkesbury in 1706.

Great Britain:

Prince Frederick of Wales (son of George II) was created 1st Duke of Edinburgh, Marquess of the Isle of Ely, Earl of Eltham, Viscount of Launceston and Baron of Snaudon in 1726.

Prince William (son of George II) was created Duke of Cumberland, Marquess of Berkhamstead, Earl of Kennington, Viscount Trematon and Baron Alderney in 1726.

Scotland:

James Stewart (son of James III) was created Marquess of Ormond at his baptism in 1476. He was later created Earl of Ross (1481) and Duke of Ross (1488).

Charles I of England was created Duke of Albany, Marquess of Ormond, Earl of Ross and Lord Ardmannoch at this baptism on 2 December 1600.

United Kingdom:

This is another questionable "royal" marquessate.. but HSH Prince Adolphus, Duke of Teck, the brother of Queen Mary, was created 1st Marquess of Cambridge, Earl of Eltham and Viscount Northallerton in 1917. He took the surname Cambridge at the same time the BRF became the House of Windsor.

He was married to the daughter of the Duke of Westminster, and while not strictly a member of the BRF, he was the brother-in-law of the King.. so I guess his title could be considered "royal" in some fashion.

His son George, succeeded as 2nd Marquess, but the titles became extinct when he died without male heirs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Pemberley View Post
4. Correct me if I am wrong but my understanding is that the primary reason for the Royal Dukes having more than one title is to represent that the UK is composed of several consituent countries (i.e they have a title representing England, Scotland and (Northern) Ireland) however I was thinking that, particularly in this day and age, if this is to be truly representative (or as representative as a titled member of a 'Royal' Family can be!) shouldn't there also be a title to represent Wales? I mean, I know the Duke of Cambridge will presumably eventually be invested with the title Prince of Wales when he becomes heir to the throne, but at present (despite living in Wales, which only adds to the irony) he went from being someone whose official title was "of Wales" to someone whose official titles no longer mention Wales? How much harder would it have been for the Queen to have added in the Viscounty of Bangor or the Marquessate of Wrexham (for example)?
I don't think it would have been hard at all for the Queen to create a Welsh title for Prince William, but as the heir to the throne is The Prince of Wales, his title alone denotes the historic importance of the position of Wales within the UK.

Prince William did not lose his designation "of Wales", even though his new style is HRH The Duke of Cambridge.. and as you point out, eventually he will be The Prince of Wales in his own right.. at least everyone expects he will be invested with that title when Charles becomes king.

Besides.. a princely title trumps all the others anyway, regardless of their location.. and I'm not so sure the Welsh people would welcome another BRF title in Wales.. maybe someone else can better explain, but at one time the Welsh wanted their independence from the UK.. I haven't heard what the recent feeling is on the matter..

Welcome to the Forum, Lord Pemberley :)
__________________
Ú i vethed...nâ i onnad. Minlű pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #918  
Old 05-15-2011, 10:35 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 72
Monarch's spouse

The wife of the King is always the Queen Consort, but the husband of the reigning Queen is not a King.
Is this covered by law or just a matter of unwritten convention?
Reply With Quote
  #919  
Old 05-15-2011, 11:14 AM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daz_Voz
The wife of the King is always the Queen Consort, but the husband of the reigning Queen is not a King.
Is this covered by law or just a matter of unwritten convention?
No one can be higher then the reigning monoarch- a King is higher then a Queen thus when a Queen is reigning there can not be a King ( I believe it's the rules/law)

Others here may be able to add to this but I believe Queen Victoria wanted to make her husband Albert a King Consort but would have needed an act of parliament and they refused ....
Reply With Quote
  #920  
Old 05-15-2011, 06:17 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daz_Voz View Post
The wife of the King is always the Queen Consort, but the husband of the reigning Queen is not a King. Is this covered by law or just a matter of unwritten convention?
Technically, its a matter of convention.

The title "King Consort" does exist, but has seldom been used or given to the husband of a Queen Regnant. It is only a symbolic title and has no constitutional function. "Prince Consort" is generally what has been used in the past.

In the event that a king consort were to outlive his wife, he would remain a king in the same way that a queen dowager remains a queen after being a consort. He would retain the style His Majesty and would remain a member of the royal household, but he would not have any succession rights to the throne.

Such was the position of Francis, Duke of Cadiz. He was the husband of Queen Isabella II of Spain, and was formally King Consort of Spain. Isabella abdicated in 1870, and their son Alfonso XII became King in 1874.. Francis' title while his wife was monarch was HM The King of Spain, Duke of Cadiz. After her abdication (until his death in 1902) his title was HM King Francis of Spain, Duke of Cadiz.

The only instance of a King Consort in English history was during the reign of Queen Mary I, who granted the title of King Consort to her husband, Philip II of Spain. Of course, that title did not grant him any sovereign rights or rule in England, but most of the proclamations and documents from Mary I's reign were issued in both of their names, as King and Queen of England.

When Mary, Queen of Scots, married Lord Darnley, she proclaimed him "King of Scots" on the evening before their wedding. Legally, she was not able to grant him this title without the consent of the Scots Parliament, but the title was never formally challenged. That title too, did not grant him any rights of rule or succession.

Queen Victoria did want to make Albert "King Consort", but Parliament refused because he was a foreigner. She made him Prince Consort instead in 1857.

In the UK, there is no automatic right of the consort of a Queen Regnant to receive any title. Elizabeth II did not create the Duke of Edinburgh a Prince of the United Kingdom until 1957, and she has never formally designated him as "Prince Consort" or "King Consort".

Other monarchies throughout the world have their own precedents and traditions.. in Cambodia, for instance, they have used the title "King-father", in the same way the British use "Queen Mother". That title applied to a King Consort who outlived the Queen Regnant and was the father of the succeeding monarch.
__________________

__________________
Ú i vethed...nâ i onnad. Minlű pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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 1115 01-14-2015 02:50 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 10:59 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 King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
belgium best outfit brussels camilla carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death denmark duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll funeral hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit photo session picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince floris prince of wales princess claire princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary style princess mette-marit queen elizabeth ii queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sayn sofia hellqvist state visit stockholm sweden the hague victoria wedding willem-alexander


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]