Oldest Royal and Noble Families

[wymanda]

Julian,
I agree with you!
I hope that when the Edinburgh dukedom is recreated for Edward that a "special remainder" be created so Louise can inherit

[kelly9480]

It's likely that both W&H will be married fathers before EIIR passes on, so most ppl like to speculate on what will happen then. Sorry for thinking that's what you were talking about.

I don't know that Ed refused. Supposedly, it was made known to EIIR that the public didn't want another dukedom. Who make that known and what they based it on is beyond me, but that's the rumor going around. Either way, it was felt that since Ed is the only male descendant who bothers with the Award Scheme, and the Award should have a Duke of Edinburgh heading it, Ed should eventually get the Edinburgh title. It was a convenient way of getting around the issue, though it does make me wonder about precedence (dukedoms that leave the royal house have a place in the table of precedence, earldoms do not).

Over at ATR, there's a new school of thought that the press release where EIIR granted her consent that the Wessex spawn be known as Earl's kids has the same effect as an LP. Apparently, any document EIIR issues on titles has the same weight as an LP, despite not being on fancy paper. If that's true (and it's just speculation right now), Louise isn't entitled to be HRH because EIIR said she wanted them styled as Earl's kids. This school of thought cites Blair's making of policy by press release as evidence that EIIR can do it as well. I didn't read all the back and forth on the issue, but if you google the archives, it should be the next most recent time it's been brought up (someone brought it up a day or so ago and was told to google, so that should be the most recent).

I remember reading about Beatrice and Eugenie being "encouraged" to drop their HRHs when they come of age. It was in the Telegraph and Sarah made it clear she intended for her daughters to remain princesses.

If the UK moves to the kind of monarchy where only children of the sovereign and heir-apparent carry out duties, it would make sense to force Harry's kids into permaneny non-royal status. The UK public doesn't like it when RHs are in the commercial world, so if they're to be in the commercial world (and Charles fully intends to shed ppl), they'll need to drop the HRH status. Of course, all of this is up in the air until EIIR dies.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

It's likely that both W&H will be married fathers before EIIR passes on, so most ppl like to speculate on what will happen then. Sorry for thinking that's what you were talking about.

I don't know that Ed refused. Supposedly, it was made known to EIIR that the public didn't want another dukedom. Who make that known and what they based it on is beyond me, but that's the rumor going around. Either way, it was felt that since Ed is the only male descendant who bothers with the Award Scheme, and the Award should have a Duke of Edinburgh heading it, Ed should eventually get the Edinburgh title. It was a convenient way of getting around the issue, though it does make me wonder about precedence (dukedoms that leave the royal house have a place in the table of precedence, earldoms do not).

Over at ATR, there's a new school of thought that the press release where EIIR granted her consent that the Wessex spawn be known as Earl's kids has the same effect as an LP. Apparently, any document EIIR issues on titles has the same weight as an LP, despite not being on fancy paper. If that's true (and it's just speculation right now), Louise isn't entitled to be HRH because EIIR said she wanted them styled as Earl's kids. This school of thought cites Blair's making of policy by press release as evidence that EIIR can do it as well. I didn't read all the back and forth on the issue, but if you google the archives, it should be the next most recent time it's been brought up (someone brought it up a day or so ago and was told to google, so that should be the most recent).

I remember reading about Beatrice and Eugenie being "encouraged" to drop their HRHs when they come of age. It was in the Telegraph and Sarah made it clear she intended for her daughters to remain princesses.

If the UK moves to the kind of monarchy where only children of the sovereign and heir-apparent carry out duties, it would make sense to force Harry's kids into permaneny non-royal status. The UK public doesn't like it when RHs are in the commercial world, so if they're to be in the commercial world (and Charles fully intends to shed ppl), they'll need to drop the HRH status. Of course, all of this is up in the air until EIIR dies.

Firstly, it is verboten around here to mention other websites. If you don't believe me, I can PM you the messages I got from [moderator] Josefine which went on and on about the exact forum you have just referred directly to above. The funny part is, now that you've brought up a ludicrous argument being made there about the Queen, the PM (politics is supposedly also not allowed here, btw) and how the Queen makes announcements, it goes back to my original point months ago about "consider the source" regarding that newsgroup. Why anyone on this latest occasion would reach the wild conclusion that the Queen is taking her cues from Blair's methods on how she makes her decisions regarding styles and titles in her own family, is beyond me. The nicest I can say is, it's very faulty logic. As you may gather, I never google their archives and I prefer to take my information from credible sources.

[kelly9480]

I didn't say she was following Blair's lead on titles. I said she is suspected to be following his lead on how she releases information -- policy by press release. If that's the case, (and right now, it depends on whether the sovereign has to formally issue LP on fancy paper), then Louise isn't entitled to be HRH because EIIR said she'd be treated like the daughter of an earl. It's purely a legal debate as to whether EIIR has the power to not bother with the LP.

I consider their sources to be very credible when it comes to this. They've apparently looked for anything that states that the monarch can only regulate titles by LP and apparently haven't found any. It's a question of whether it's forbidden even if it's not specifically written down. Which of course brings in English Common Law, and that's where the hang up is. Just because it hasn't been done by monarchs, does that automatically mean it can't be done.

[Julian]

"Ididn't say she was following Blair's lead on titles. I said she is suspected to be following his lead on how she releases information -- policy by press release. If that's the case, (and right now, it depends on whether the sovereign has to formally issue LP on fancy paper), then Louise isn't entitled to be HRH because EIIR said she'd be treated like the daughter of an earl. It's purely a legal debate as to whether EIIR has the power to not bother with the LP."

That's what I also meant to say, that she's "suspected" to be following his lead on how he releases information. The sovereign has always done this by LP or Royal Warrant. If she was about to change her procedure, and assuming there was room for her to legally switch away from the normal methods she has used and other sovereigns have used, would there really be no explanation from the Palace on that? I for one can't conceive it.

"I consider their sources to be very credible when it comes to this. They've apparently looked for anything that states that the monarch can only regulate titles by LP and apparently haven't found any. It's a question of whether it's forbidden even if it's not specifically written down. Which of course brings in English Common Law, and that's where the hang up is. Just because it hasn't been done by monarchs, does that automatically mean it can't be done."

You can also reverse the same faulty logic and leave yourself nowhere: i.e., just because it hasn't been done by monarchs, doesn't mean that the silence on this particular issue in law allows the monarch to do it. Or that the monarch would even want to suddenly start doing it.

As to them or their sources, enough said already.

[kelly9480]

That's the heart of the debate, though. Just because it hasn't been done before, does it mean it can't be done at all? If it can be done, does that mean that Louise is not entitled to HRH?

I'm looking forward to the legal arguments for and against the question of whether EIIR can do it (the question is not really whether she has done it with Louise, just if she can). If they post the source and where they got it, there's no problem on sources, though intrepretations of the source may differ in the end.

[wymanda]

I would say the only test would be that when Louise is older if she demanded the HRH as her right. It would then be up to a court to determine if the Press Release was valid in depriving her of it. I know there was some contention as to whether the L'sP depriving the Duchess of Windsor of HRH were legal. When Lady Patricia Ramsay (Princess Patricia of Connaught) gave up her HRH on her marriage she was still entitled to all the rank & privilege of a Princess but was styled as the daughter of an Earl or non royal Duke.

[Julian]

There was definitely some contention about the basis for denying the Duchess of Windsor the HRH since this also went to the issue of Common Law and whether the monarch's prerogatives as the "fount of all honours" was something that couldn't trump Common Law in this area. If, of course, they had ever contested it outright, which GVI and his advisors knew would never happen.

The present case of Lady Louise seems very unique though and with no exact basis of comparison to know how her style has been reached nor where what it may become in future. If they want to keep it low-key, then they'll keep on finding reasons to leave her as Lady Louise even after Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh which IMO will just be very strange as well. If they want to be modern then indeed let them also be consistent about it and also recreate Edward's Edinburgh and Wessex titles as inheritable by Louise by special remainder, and let her use Countess of Wessex as the courtesy title.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by kelly9480

It's a question of whether it's forbidden even if it's not specifically written down. Which of course brings in English Common Law, and that's where the hang up is. Just because it hasn't been done by monarchs, does that automatically mean it can't be done.

When the English royal family died out in 1603 the throne passed to James VI, King of Scots who became the first King of Great Britain. The Kingdom of England as people knew it ceased to exist and was replaced by the United Kingdom therefore English common law has no jurisdiction over the U.K. monarchy. Unfortunately, as is typical in the so-called "United" Kingdom, England simply breakes, changes or ignores the rules as it sees fit.

[Julian]

Originally Posted by Iain

When the English royal family died out in 1603 the throne passed to James VI, King of Scots who became the first King of Great Britain. The Kingdom of England as people knew it ceased to exist and was replaced by the United Kingdom therefore English common law has no jurisdiction over the U.K. monarchy. Unfortunately, as is typical in the so-called "United" Kingdom, England simply breakes, changes or ignores the rules as it sees fit.

Iain, this didn't happen until 1707, during the reign of Queen Anne. Until then, all the Stuart monarchs from James I and VI to Anne I were styled as King/Queen of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France. The Act of Union (1707) transformed Queen Anne into Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen of France. If you check on the current validity or use of English Common Law within the bounds of England, I think you'll probably find many instances where it continues to come into play as a matter of still valid law.

[Iain]

Originally Posted by Julian

Iain, this didn't happen until 1707, during the reign of Queen Anne. Until then, all the Stuart monarchs from James I and VI to Anne I were styled as King/Queen of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France. The Act of Union (1707) transformed Queen Anne into Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen of France. If you check on the current validity or use of English Common Law within the bounds of England, I think you'll probably find many instances where it continues to come into play as a matter of still valid law.

Julian, I perhaps didn't make myself clear. When James VI became King of England he was called "King of Great Britain" A title he himself is said to have thought up. You are right to say that the United Kingdom came into being in 1707 but Queen Anne on the other hand became Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Either way, English law should have had no bearing on the new order.

[Josefine]

rouyal house does that mean the same family

[hillary_nugent]

the Danish are the oldest European royal family but i think the Japanese are the oldest royal family...i heard something on TV about that...but i'm not 100% sure...

[Eliza]

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent

the Danish are the oldest European royal family but i think the Japanese are the oldest royal family...i heard something on TV about that...but i'm not 100% sure...

Yes, you're right. The Imperial Japanese Family are the oldest royal family.

[lashinka2002]

I have a question & I'm sure one of your posts answered it but I didn't understand it.
What's the point of naming Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor if she's only going to get married and take on her husbands name. Do they expect her husband to take the name Mw?
I'm confused.

[msfroyste]

the japanese royal family is the oldest and continuously reigning royal family. in the middle east, there are royal/noble families that can trace their lines as far back to the Prophet Mahommad and to ancient kings and queens of persia, mesopotamia, egypt, etc.

[GrandDuchess]

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

I have a question & I'm sure one of your posts answered it but I didn't understand it.
What's the point of naming Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor if she's only going to get married and take on her husbands name. Do they expect her husband to take the name Mw? I'm confused.

"Lady" is not a name that one can give a person - Lady is a honorary style that comes for female members of a family of a peerage. She is styled Lady Louise as the is the daughter of an Earl, that's just how it is. And they have also chosen not to give her any additional titles, as they want to raise her as normally as possible.

[Josefine]

can we get how long the different royal house has been regent
like the bernadotte dynasty its from 1918

[galuhcandrakirana]

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent

the Danish are the oldest European royal family but i think the Japanese are the oldest royal family...i heard something on TV about that...but i'm not 100% sure...

You are right with it..Japanesse Imperial family is the oldest imperial/royal family in the world
Imperial History

The Chrysanthemum Throne: A History of the Emperors of Japan by Peter Martin. The Japanese imperial dynasty can be traced back some 1,600 years, making it the world's oldest hereditary monarchy. This first general study of the institution throughout its history includes material previously available only in Japanese.

[msfroyste]

the japanese imperial family is the world's oldest continuous monarchy. the persian monarchy, if you count all of the families/tribes, was the longest monarchy. i believe it went back some 2500+ years.