The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #701  
Old 06-22-2016, 11:11 AM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Also the Duke of Edinburgh title was first created for the future George III in 1726. George III made John Spencer the 1st Earl Spencer in 1765. So the Edinburgh title is older.
if he inherited it you would be right but it was a New creation if he weren't HRH the duke of norfolk would outrank him

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Well, He got a new title from King George VI and later made a Prince of the U.K., surely a Royal dukedom trumps the courtesy title from being an earl's daughter.

and that makes diana right her title which her family holds from the 1st Earl Spencer in 1765 tell now is much older than him been created a duke in 1947 or a prince in 1957
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #702  
Old 06-22-2016, 11:34 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 18,121
I've attempted to avoid this discussion but citing a piece of Tina Brown fiction as fact, and then stating because she's CBE that means she's reliable is just too much to ignore.

What needs to be known is that Tina Brown chose to publish and release her book on the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, after being offered a lucrative deal to write this "biography". If that doesn't SCREAM I want money then I don't know what does.

Did she ever actually meet Diana?!

Her CBE was for overseas journalism because she's not been in the UK since 1984!

She left The New Yorker, then went on to create her own magazine which halted in 2002, she then went on to TV to host a series of specials for CNBC but eventually left that because of her Diana deal.

Regardless of being made a prince in 1957, in 1947 he was made The Duke of Edinburgh which is a title older than the Spencer clan. If that statement was ever said, which I can honestly believe it never was.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #703  
Old 06-22-2016, 11:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
There is no doubt the Spencers are one of the grandest families in England. And to play devil's advocate, Diana is a descendant of the Stuarts, although illegitimate. That makes her related in some form to practically to every catholic royal house in Europe.
Reply With Quote
  #704  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:02 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
There is no doubt the Spencers are one of the grandest families in England. And to play devil's advocate, Diana is a descendant of the Stuarts, although illegitimate. That makes her related in some form to practically to every catholic royal house in Europe.
Diana is a descendant of the Stuarts and their mistresses.
Prince Philip is a descendant of the Stuarts and their legal spouses.
Reply With Quote
  #705  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,380
True, although both Henry Fitzroy and and Charles Lennox were made dukes by their father, Charles II.
Reply With Quote
  #706  
Old 06-22-2016, 12:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
True, although both Henry Fitzroy and and Charles Lennox were made dukes by their father, Charles II.
And Prince Philip's ancestor created an earldom for Diana's ancestor.
Reply With Quote
  #707  
Old 06-22-2016, 02:13 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
The whole discussion has a starting point that Diana would have bitten to the Duke of Edinburgh that her ancestry would outrank him, which is most unlikely and -if she did- totally laughable as indeed Prince Philip is one of the most blueblooded royal persons walking around.

Fact is that an Earl's daughter married the future King, became the second lady of the country, on her way to become Queen. She divorced and that was it. She left the Royal House, quitted the royal firm. That is all. Then as a bonus being granted a peerage, after all what had happened in the nasty break up, was really not to be expected.
Reply With Quote
  #708  
Old 06-22-2016, 07:43 PM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Regardless of being made a prince in 1957, in 1947 he was made The Duke of Edinburgh which is a title older than the Spencer clan. If that statement was ever said, which I can honestly believe it never was.
order of precedence in england is ordered according to the date of creation of the title prince philip duchy was a recreation he didn't inherited it the title became extinct in 1900
Reply With Quote
  #709  
Old 06-22-2016, 07:59 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,326
Well the newest Royal Duke is higher in precedence than the older regular peer. Philip is the highest rank man in the UK.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #710  
Old 06-22-2016, 08:09 PM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
What needs to be known is that Tina Brown chose to publish and release her book on the 10th anniversary of Diana's death, after being offered a lucrative deal to write this "biography". If that doesn't SCREAM I want money then I don't know what does.

Did she ever actually meet Diana?!

Her CBE was for overseas journalism because she's not been in the UK since 1984!

She left The New Yorker, then went on to create her own magazine which halted in 2002, she then went on to TV to host a series of specials for CNBC but eventually left that because of her Diana deal.
The biography was based on over 250 interviews with men and women - members of Diana's intimate circle, associates in her public life and partners in her philanthropy. if she wanted to write a fictional novel she wouldn't bother with interviewing more than 250 and i didn't find anything that question her credibility releasing her book on the 10th anniversary of Diana's death doesn't scream I want money if someone released a book on 100th anniversary of WWI it wouldn't scream to me that he chose it only because of the money

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
Well the newest Royal Duke is higher in precedence than the older regular peer. Philip is the highest rank man in the UK.
i already know that . like i said before without the HRH the duke of norfolk
could outrank the duke of edinburgh
diana's title the spencer family had holded in unbroken line since 1765 so her title is a lot older than philip titles in 1947 and 1957
Reply With Quote
  #711  
Old 06-22-2016, 08:45 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,401
No, her brother's title is older than Philip's. Diana did not have a title, she had a courtesy title only as the daughter of an Earl. The peerage belonged/belongs to her brother.

Yes, if Philip was not a HRH, he would be out ranked by the Duke of Norfolk. But then again every non-royal Duke is. It is the senior non-royal peerage in the UK. But the Spencers may have an older title, but they have a lesser title. In the ranking of peerages, earls come third behind Dukes and Marquis. The highest Earl would still come well after the lowest Duke. The highest earls are the lord steward (Earl Dalhousie) and lord chamberlain (Earl Peel). Followed by the master of horse, Lord Vestey (he is unique in that he is a Baron, but due to his position as master of the horse, he ranks with the earls, and one of top 3 earls, in precedence). Then they go by order of creation. Earl Spencer is number 16 among the earls of Great Britain.
Reply With Quote
  #712  
Old 06-23-2016, 02:18 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke of poliganc View Post
yes he has the most royal ancestors in the entire royal house but he can't trumps diana with a title he gave up he is like children of morganatic marriage maybe have the most royal lineage but still it doesn't worth a thing without a title


Quote:
Originally Posted by duke of poliganc View Post
and that makes diana right her title which her family holds from the 1st Earl Spencer in 1765 tell now is much older than him been created a duke in 1947 or a prince in 1957


Quote:
Originally Posted by duke of poliganc View Post
i already know that . like i said before without the HRH the duke of norfolk
could outrank the duke of edinburgh
diana's title the spencer family had holded in unbroken line since 1765 so her title is a lot older than philip titles in 1947 and 1957

You've made a few statements here that all get to the same point: Diana's family somehow outranks Philips.

Your whole argument though is hinged on some kind of ludicrous omissions though.

1. The title Duke of Edinburgh was first created in 1726, the title Earl of Spencer was first created in 1765. So actually, Duke of Edinburgh is an older title than Earl Spencer, if we're being technical.

2. The title Duke is higher than the title Earl, so the lowest ranked Duke is higher than the highest ranked Earl (with the exception of the Earl of Wessex). So even if he wasn't an HRH, Philip would have still been higher than the Spencers.

3. Philip was created a British Prince in 1953, but that's not how he became a royal. He was born a royal. He is the only son of the son of a King of Greece, who himself was the son of a King of Denmark. Philip has Royal ancestors on both sides of his family, and they are all very close and recent relatives - including the fact that his grandfather was a king, his uncle was a king, 3 of his cousins were kings, and 1 of his cousins was a queen consort.

4. Philip's marriage is not and has never been morganatic. This is for two reasons; first, morganatic marriage does not exist, nor has it ever existed, within Britain; and second, because at no point was Philip not an equal match to his wife. He gave up his foreign titles sure (although there is no indication that he did so legally), but that didn't make him less a royal.

5. Finally, while being a Prince of Greece may not be an older title than being an Earl of Spencer, Philip is a male-line descendant of Christian IX of Denmark, whose line and title goes a fair ways further back than the Spencers do. The Spencers were mere knights when Christian IX's ancestor, Christian I, ruled Denmark.
Reply With Quote
  #713  
Old 06-23-2016, 02:26 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
There is no doubt the Spencers are one of the grandest families in England. And to play devil's advocate, Diana is a descendant of the Stuarts, although illegitimate. That makes her related in some form to practically to every catholic royal house in Europe.

While this is true, the DoE (and the Queen) is related to just as many of the Catholic Royal Houses, and the non-Catholics.

Almost every reigning family in Europe is descended from either Queen Victoria or King Christian IX, and every reigning family and most of the non-reigning families have a common ancestor in Johan Willem Friso of Orange, regardless of religion.

And since JWF was born a generation later than Charles II and James II, it means that Philip's relationship is typically closer than Diana's, and is more likely to be through legitimate lines (as Charles had no legitimate children, and James' legitimate children's children had no children themselves).
Reply With Quote
  #714  
Old 06-23-2016, 03:16 AM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 3,401
Ish you are right save for one point: Philip's DOE title is not older. The age of the title is based on the point of its most recent creation. Example, Duke of Norfolk: There has been a Duke as early as 1397 but in the order of precedence, it is only dated to the early 1500's due to attainders and forefeitures. The current line has been unbroken since the 2nd Duke of Norfolk who received the title in 1514. His father was the first duke but his titles were forefeit, so the line broke. While it isn't considered a recreation, in that it was inherited eventually by his son, it does mean the dukedom dates from the 2nd duke.

While the first creation of the DOE was in the 1700's it has been recreated. The 1726 merged with the throne with Prince Frederick. The 1764 was created for George III's brother (Duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh) and was inherited by his son but his son died without heir, so it went extinct. Then we come to Victoria's son Alfred whose only son committed suicide so it went extinct. Created for Philip. So it only dates back to 1947.

The Earl Spencer has been created only once. It was created in 1765 and had moved unbroken down the family.

But yes, Earl is a much more minor title to Duke (marquis comes between even) which is more important then age.
Reply With Quote
  #715  
Old 06-23-2016, 03:19 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
And since JWF was born a generation later than Charles II and James II, it means that Philip's relationship is typically closer than Diana's, and is more likely to be through legitimate lines (as Charles had no legitimate children, and James' legitimate children's children had no children themselves).

James II's legitmate son had legitimate children. The son didn't inherit the throne because his very birth triggered the 'Glorious Revolution' to drive out the Roman Catholic King and his equally RC son. The Old Pretender however, was most definitely born to parents who were legally married.
Reply With Quote
  #716  
Old 06-23-2016, 03:50 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
Again, the whole starting point is the assumption that Diana has thrown her apparently superior ancestry into da' face of a male agnate of the Kings of Denmark, the oldest ruling Royal House in Europe. Most unlikely Diana would act like that to her father-in-law ánd if she did, she made herself utterly laughable with that claim. Best conclusion: the whole assumption is too ludicrous for words and has never happened.
Reply With Quote
  #717  
Old 06-23-2016, 05:05 AM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
You've made a few statements here that all get to the same point: Diana's family somehow outranks Philips.

Your whole argument though is hinged on some kind of ludicrous omissions though.

1. The title Duke of Edinburgh was first created in 1726, the title Earl of Spencer was first created in 1765. So actually, Duke of Edinburgh is an older title than Earl Spencer, if we're being technical.

2. The title Duke is higher than the title Earl, so the lowest ranked Duke is higher than the highest ranked Earl (with the exception of the Earl of Wessex). So even if he wasn't an HRH, Philip would have still been higher than the Spencers.

3. Philip was created a British Prince in 1953, but that's not how he became a royal. He was born a royal. He is the only son of the son of a King of Greece, who himself was the son of a King of Denmark. Philip has Royal ancestors on both sides of his family, and they are all very close and recent relatives - including the fact that his grandfather was a king, his uncle was a king, 3 of his cousins were kings, and 1 of his cousins was a queen consort.

4. Philip's marriage is not and has never been morganatic. This is for two reasons; first, morganatic marriage does not exist, nor has it ever existed, within Britain; and second, because at no point was Philip not an equal match to his wife. He gave up his foreign titles sure (although there is no indication that he did so legally), but that didn't make him less a royal.

5. Finally, while being a Prince of Greece may not be an older title than being an Earl of Spencer, Philip is a male-line descendant of Christian IX of Denmark, whose line and title goes a fair ways further back than the Spencers do. The Spencers were mere knights when Christian IX's ancestor, Christian I, ruled Denmark.
no i'm not saying Diana's family somehow outranks Philips. i'm saying that she meant when she said "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip." that her title which her family hold since 1765 is a lot older than Dukedom created in 1947 or a prince in 1957 there is much difference between having an older title and having a higher title .
and i didn't say that prince philip marriage is morganatic but i said it's like if his parents marriage was morganatic like you know a child of a morganatic marriage may have a lineage of kings and emperors and is from a male line descendants but because his parents marriage was morganatic he doesn't hold titles that reflect that and prince philip gave up his foreign titles and is legally only a British duke and prince
Reply With Quote
  #718  
Old 06-23-2016, 09:09 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke of poliganc View Post
no i'm not saying Diana's family somehow outranks Philips. i'm saying that she meant when she said "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip." that her title which her family hold since 1765 is a lot older than Dukedom created in 1947 or a prince in 1957 there is much difference between having an older title and having a higher title .

Diana held no title. The title was held by her grandfather, her father and her brother.
Reply With Quote
  #719  
Old 06-23-2016, 09:24 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,920
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke of poliganc View Post
no i'm not saying Diana's family somehow outranks Philips. i'm saying that she meant when she said "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip." [...]
Lady is no title but a form of address connected to her position as daughter of an Earl. Note that the first 14 years of her life Diana was no Lady at all, but Honourable, as daughter of a Viscount.

1961-1975 The Honourable Diana Spencer (as daughter of Viscount Althorp)
1975-1981 Lady Diana Spencer (as daughter of the Earl Spencer)
1981-1996 Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (as spouse of the Heir)
1996-1997 Diana, Princess of Wales (as former spouse of the Heir)
Reply With Quote
  #720  
Old 06-23-2016, 09:27 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
James II's legitmate son had legitimate children. The son didn't inherit the throne because his very birth triggered the 'Glorious Revolution' to drive out the Roman Catholic King and his equally RC son. The Old Pretender however, was most definitely born to parents who were legally married.

I didn't say otherwise. I said James's legitimate children's children didn't have children.

James II had 3 legitimate children - Mary, Anne, and James.

Mary had no surviving children and Anne's 1 surviving child died before becoming an adult. James had 2 legitimate children, Charles and Henry.

Henry was a Catholic bishop who had no acknowledged children. Charles (I was wrong, but my point remains), had no legitimate children, but one surviving illegitimate daughter, Charlotte, and it is believed her 3 (also illegitimate) children died without having had children.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
diana princess of wales, princess diana, 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 1353 11-17-2016 02:00 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 38 09-17-2016 06:06 AM
Questions about British Styles and Titles summrbrew2 British Royals 2920 05-25-2016 12:48 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 05:24 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit 2016 catherine middleton style countess of wessex coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dom duarte duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll felipe vi grand duchess josephine-charlotte grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf's birthday king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


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- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:29 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises