Oldest Royal and Noble Families


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
The change of name to Mountbatten-Windsor happened in the late fifties, so the Duke of Edinburgh was hardly any crotchety old man then. William's children will all be HRH unless they opt to do what Prince Edward did, ditto Prince Harry's. If Lady Louse is only Windsor and not M-W then likewise any daughters of William's or Harry's will also be only Windsor assuming they are not born styled as princesses. Assuming of course all that happens only after Charles succeeds.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Following the idea that only "male line descendants" retain the name Windsor, Anne is clearly M-W as she is a female line descendant!
Does anyone know where a copy of the Letters Patent could be found?
 
I forgot about Edward and that series. Yes, he used just Windsor and it seems that generation are only using that and not the M-W. It's interesting he preferred Windsor while at the same time his wife was still working as Sophie Wessex.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Found it! In 1952, Queen Elizabeth II confirmed her grandfather's decision that the royal family's surname would continue to be Windsor. Her Majesty declared on 9 April 1952 that it was:

her Will and Pleasure that She and Her Children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that Her descendants other than female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Windsor.

A few years later, HM The Queen modified this statement by issuing Letters Patent in February 1960 which stated in part:

while I and my children will continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, my descendants, other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attributes of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess, and female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor.

Did this mean that the name of some members of the royal family changed from "Windsor" to "Mountbatten-Windsor"? Some people contend that the goal of this declaration was meant to not only change the surname of the children of HM The Queen but those of her male-line descendants as well. At Princess Anne's wedding in November 1974, Anne signed the marriage register 'Anne', without a surname. It was the registrar who filled in her names as 'Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor'. According to a Buckingham Palace statement issued in October 1975, the specific addition of the surname 'Mountbatten-Windsor' was "the Queen's decision that this should be done". Further, HM The Queen consulted with the acting Prime Minister to confirm whether all her children would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. She received the following reply:

"The effect of Your Majesty's Declaration is that all the children of Your Majesty who may at any time need a surname have the surnames of Mountbatten-Windsor."
(Prince Philip: A Biography, by Denis Judd, London: Michael John, 1980, page 196)

It would seem that the surname of HM The Queen's children is whatever HM wishes. Legally and constitutionally, however, the Queen cannot do as she wishes. The surname of the Queen's children is Mountbatten-Windsor in practise and has appeared three times: at Princess Anne's first marriage in 1974, on Prince Andrew's marriage register in 1986, and when the banns were read prior to Princess Anne's second marriage to Commander Laurence in 1992. (When the Prince of Wales married in 1982, he signed the register as "Charles P" and the registrar filled in his name as "His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George The Prince of Wales".) Nonetheless, the family name remains legally Windsor because there hasn't been any modification or clarification to the Letters Patent of 1960.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Queen seems to have changed her mind several times about this issue.
 
Julian said:
The change of name to Mountbatten-Windsor happened in the late fifties, so the Duke of Edinburgh was hardly any crotchety old man then. William's children will all be HRH unless they opt to do what Prince Edward did, ditto Prince Harry's. If Lady Louse is only Windsor and not M-W then likewise any daughters of William's or Harry's will also be only Windsor assuming they are not born styled as princesses. Assuming of course all that happens only after Charles succeeds.
Click to expand...

As of right now, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be styled HRH automatically (the LP issued by George V). So, unless EIIR alters this, only William's eldest son will be HRH and the other children will be MWs. Harry's children will be MW unless Charles is on the throne. They will be the male-line great-grandchildren, and will be just like Lord Freddie in terms of style.

The MW use only began occuring in the 70s, by which time Philip was a crochety old man.

Wymanda said:
Following the idea that only "male line descendants" retain the name Windsor, Anne is clearly M-W as she is a female line descendant!
Click to expand...

Anne is a child of EIIR, so her surname is Windsor, legally. Her children are female-line descendants. The gender of the individual doesn't alter whether they are male or female-line, the gender of the parent does.

For example, my brother and sisters and I are female line descendants of our maternal grandfather because we descend from him through a female (our mother). We are male line descendants of our paternal grandfather because we descend from him through a male (our father). The fact that three of us are female and one is male doesn't affect whether we are male or female line descendants. The gender of the parent we trace the descent through is all that matters.
 
kelly9480 said:
As of right now, only the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales will be styled HRH automatically (the LP issued by George V). So, unless EIIR alters this, only William's eldest son will be HRH and the other children will be MWs. Harry's children will be MW unless Charles is on the throne. They will be the male-line great-grandchildren, and will be just like Lord Freddie in terms of style.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm talking about, is what they will be styled when Charles is on the throne. The LP of George V is what allowed the younger son of the late Duke of Kent and his daughter to be Prince and Princess of the U.K., as is also the reason why the present Duke of York's daughters are also. Even if William and/or Harry have children during their grandmother's lifetime, and William's younger and Harry's are styled only Lord/Lady or whatever you are alluding to, once Charles succeeds, William is elevated to heir and Harry's children as grandchildren of the new monarch become princes/princesses of the U.K. by right under those LP of GV.

The question mark over all this is the unfortunate one that Edward "Wessex" has created with his choice of (a) waiting for a royal dukedom to be recreated later for him by Charles, supposedly the Edinburgh dukedom and (b) the choice not allow Louise to be styled as a princess of the U.K. albeit she's the daughter of a son of the present monarch and fully entitled to be so. Will this approach create some kind of low key model that Harry for instance will feel forced to follow with his own children? What about Louise herself? It makes no sense to me that she is being called not only not a princess but also only "Lady Louise Windsor" when in fact she's Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, being of the generation when this surname comes into effect. And what about when her own father is elevated to a royal dukedom? Still only "Lady" and still refusing to use "Princess", even though her cousins Eugenie and Beatrice are? Finally, if they really want to be modern, then why not recreate the Edinburgh title so it can be inherited by females as well in case Louise is an only child? There are inconsistencies being created at this point IMO which began with Edward refusing the title of a royal duke at his wedding, and have grown with the choice of styling for his daughter. (I know there can be made a case for her being only "Lady" since she's also the daugher of an earl, but that's the lesser title, and it's unusual at least in the RF to choose to go by a lesser title). All just my perspective of course, and I tend to be surprisingly traditional on this issue!
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
"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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
kelly9480 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
 
hillary_nugent said:
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...
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right. The Imperial Japanese Family are the oldest royal family.
 
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.
 
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.
 
lashinka2002 said:
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.
Click to expand...
"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.
 
hillary_nugent said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe the oldest,functioning,Monarchy as well as Imperial Family,at present is Japan.:japanstandard:

Before,that honour befell to Persia/Iran,I remember the 2500 anniversary celebrations in Persepolis in the early 70ties.:iranflag:
 
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.
 
bct88 said:
I believe that the oldest is Denmark. The first king I believe was Gorm the Old in the 900s.
Click to expand...

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).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Q
Is this interesting?
Replies
5
Views
2K
CyrilVladisla
CyrilVladisla
R
King of Andorra
Replies
5
Views
1K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Blog Real
St. George′s Church and the Mausoleum of Royal Family
Replies
2
Views
571
Blog Real
Blog Real
Marengo
Royal, Princely and Noble Families of Germany & Austria 3: 2023 -
2
Replies
37
Views
3K
iceflower
iceflower
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tatiana Maria
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom