The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Genealogy

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 10-18-2004, 07:20 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
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.
__________________

__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-18-2004, 07:43 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
"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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-18-2004, 10:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 853
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.
__________________
Kelly D
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-18-2004, 10:58 PM
wymanda's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 1,436
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.
__________________
Everything I write here is my opinion and I mean no offence by it.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-18-2004, 11:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-19-2004, 09:45 AM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 306
Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-22-2004, 06:43 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 127
Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-27-2004, 08:23 AM
Iain's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 306
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-11-2005, 05:54 AM
hillary_nugent's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Australia
Posts: 3,048
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...
__________________
I came. I saw. I posted.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-11-2005, 08:45 AM
Eliza's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Singapore, Singapore
Posts: 641
Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-11-2005, 09:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 1,083
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 05-12-2005, 01:55 AM
msfroyste's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the northeastern corner of a state, United States
Posts: 551
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.
__________________
" I do what I please, and I do it with ease." - Martha Stewart
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-12-2005, 09:09 AM
GrandDuchess's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Somwhere, Sweden
Posts: 3,407
Quote:
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.
__________________
Sofia's Blog (my blog)
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 11-30-2005, 05:52 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 888
Quote:
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 11-30-2005, 06:34 AM
msfroyste's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: the northeastern corner of a state, United States
Posts: 551
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.
__________________
" I do what I please, and I do it with ease." - Martha Stewart
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-19-2008, 10:50 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 41
Kangra-Lambagraon. 6400 years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-20-2008, 01:26 PM
magnik's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by SIDOROFF View Post
Kangra-Lambagraon. 6400 years.
Kangra-Lambagraon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
KANGRA-LAMBAGRAON ROYAL FAMILY

The House of Capet not so old as above circa IX - X century. They from Robertians. From Capet we have de Bourbons.

Noble:(maybe posted before I don't know)
Orsini family
Orsini family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Orsini)
Orsini
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 05-07-2008, 10:42 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,216
I believe the oldest,functioning,Monarchy as well as Imperial Family,at present is Japan.

Before,that honour befell to Persia/Iran,I remember the 2500 anniversary celebrations in Persepolis in the early 70ties.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 05-08-2008, 07:58 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,423
Correct Lucien, but I think we are after longest/oldest unbroken lines of descent. Persia/Iran, like China, had a series of dynasties rather than a continuous related line.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-02-2008, 12:28 AM
Prince of Chota's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Neuilly, France
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by bct88 View Post
I believe that the oldest is Denmark. The first king I believe was Gorm the Old in the 900s.
I thought Gorm was like 870 or something. Anyway, ninth century.

Denmark is the oldest in Europe. The oldest reigning family in the world is believed to be Japan (House of Yamato). According to tradition it is more than 2600 years old, although most scholars think it is only 1700 or 1800 years old.

Oddly enough actress Tilda Swinton comes from one of the oldest families in Britain (look into the Swinton Baronets).
__________________

__________________
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
Royal, Princely and Noble Families of Germany & Austria 2 Dulce Elena Royal Families of Germany and Austria 234 10-20-2014 02:50 AM
Princely and Noble Families of Hungary and Bohemia Adrienna Royal Families of Germany and Austria 42 10-06-2014 07:05 PM
Italian Noble and Princely Families 2: July 2007- Warren Royal Families of Italy 509 09-20-2013 11:11 AM
Italian Noble and Princely Families 1: June 2004 - July 2007 Lord Williams Royal Families of Italy 206 07-20-2007 05:48 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:18 PM.

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]