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
 
  #261  
Old 01-04-2014, 06:16 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post

Also, wouldn't the questioning of a possible Romanov-Ligne union contradict the laws of other powerful sovereign houses such as the Hapsburgs, Orleans-Braganza and Bourbon-Parma? I mean these houses also possess strict house laws in terns of dynastic unions, but they considered the Lignes to be their equals in terms of dynastic union.. wouldn't the questioning of a possible Romanov-Ligne union invalidate these already established dynastic unions?
It is very difficult to say,because neither of those families/de Ligne marriage occurred during their actual reign,but later,so one could not know how they would be treated...

I share your opinion about de Ligne family...their place is in the group B,but technically,they not there...

In case of Russia/de Ligne marriage I don't think Romanovs would allow it at first,but,maybe some solution could be found like in the Romanov/Beauharnais case,which was very special...
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #262  
Old 01-06-2014, 11:41 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
true.. unlike that of the Bagrations, Yusupovs, and even the Radziwills, the Lignes never got the chance to marry a scion of an actual ruling house during the height of the practice of morganatic marriages.. So we don't know if they are truly considered equal like they are now..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
In case of Russia/de Ligne marriage I don't think Romanovs would allow it at first,but,maybe some solution could be found like in the Romanov/Beauharnais case,which was very special...
ah, yes.. possibly..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
I share your opinion about de Ligne family...their place is in the group B,but technically,they not there...
couldn't agree more.. imho, the Lignes are far more illustrious than most of the virtually unknown mediatised comital houses.. can't help to compare such instances with that of the world in ASOIAF where families like the Greyjoys were considered higher than say the Hightowers, when it fact the later possess far more wealth and prestige than the other..

aside from the Lignes, the only other family that is in the third section which can be considered dynastic equals to "higher-ranked" families would be the Rohans.. the Kinskys, Radziwills, Czartoryskis or Batthyánys, well possibly, but very unlikely.. not sure about the Visconti di Modrones, Medici di Ottajanos or Gonzaga di Vescovatos though.
.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #263  
Old 01-06-2014, 06:53 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427

I'm afraid all of your touting on their behalf won't raise the status of any of the families you've been campaigning for in the marriage equality stakes. While you (and I) hold the Lignes eminently acceptable, if they weren't on the list (or in Part II), they weren't on the list and no number of testimonials extolling their noble virtues would make any difference. Unless of course there was a pressing reason for doing so, in which case a neat sleight of hand aka pragmatism was the order of the day.

I was surprised during my own research some time ago to discover that the principle of marital equality supposedly enjoyed by the Mediatised Houses wasn't necessarily applied equally. For example, in 1900 the Hasburgs drew up some new and complex House Rules concerning Imperial marriages and at the same time attached to them two lists of "approved" Mediatised Houses (those from within Austria and those from without). Some didn't make it, although they had been Mediatised with Imperial approval in 1806 or 1815 or whenever. Tough, the Habsburgs wanted that little extra "exclusivity" to separate them from the royal pack so if a family wasn't on the list, they weren't let in the door. Life could be so unfair, even for a Mediatised Imperial Count.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #264  
Old 01-07-2014, 06:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post

I'm afraid all of your touting on their behalf won't raise the status of any of the families you've been campaigning for in the marriage equality stakes. While you (and I) hold the Lignes eminently acceptable, if they weren't on the list (or in Part II), they weren't on the list and no number of testimonials extolling their noble virtues would make any difference. Unless of course there was a pressing reason for doing so, in which case a neat sleight of hand aka pragmatism was the order of the day.
Couldn't agree more with you about this...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
I was surprised during my own research some time ago to discover that the principle of marital equality supposedly enjoyed by the Mediatised Houses wasn't necessarily applied equally. For example, in 1900 the Hasburgs drew up some new and complex House Rules concerning Imperial marriages and at the same time attached to them two lists of "approved" Mediatised Houses (those from within Austria and those from without). Some didn't make it, although they had been Mediatised with Imperial approval in 1806 or 1815 or whenever. Tough, the Habsburgs wanted that little extra "exclusivity" to separate them from the royal pack so if a family wasn't on the list, they weren't let in the door. Life could be so unfair, even for a Mediatised Imperial Count.
Yes,we discussed earlier that list Habsburgs made in 19th century,and only acceptable were mediatized Princes,not Counts... :( unlike in Russia and some other countries...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #265  
Old 01-09-2014, 12:38 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Just to clarify such misinterpretations, I myself is not pursuing any form of campaign for certain houses and apologized if it came off that way for some reason.. We are merely discussing the possibilities and probabilities of other houses acceptance to other higher ranked families.. We very much aware of such things but we never thought that discussion of other houses illustrious pedigrees and their possible acceptance to other higher ranked families would go out as a form of folly campaign.. We all know that no form or amount of discussion would change their rank among houses, and i think it would be absurd for someone to think as such anyways, am i correct my good sirs?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Couldn't agree more with you about this... Yes,we discussed earlier that list Habsburgs made in 19th century,and only acceptable were mediatised Princes,not Counts... :( unlike in Russia and some other countries...
True.. Were there any objections to such rule imposed by the Habsburgs themselves? I guess not..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #266  
Old 01-09-2014, 12:46 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
unlike in Russia and some other countries...
Did the Romanovs made any specification of which mediatised houses are acceptable to them like the Habsburgs? Or all mediatised (both princely and comital) houses are considered good enough for them? Same goes for the Hohenzollerns?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #267  
Old 01-09-2014, 10:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
Did the Romanovs made any specification of which mediatised houses are acceptable to them like the Habsburgs? Or all mediatised (both princely and comital) houses are considered good enough for them? ?
Here is what Prince Nikolai Romanov said about Russian marriage rules:

"Russia, with its very Germanic notion of dynastic propriety, found itself accepting all the Almanach de Gotha rulings.

And so if some unfortunate Russian Grand Duke wanted to marry a Princess Obolensky, descendant of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, who reigned in Russia, at the time his Romanov ancestors were probably still lurking in the woods, draped in pelts or wading through the marshes of East Prussia or Pomerania, he would have had to change his plans.

That marriage would have been impossible, but an Austrian lady, say a daughter of an Illustrious Highness, Count von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen, lord of the county of Rohrau, Freiherr zu Prugg und Pürrhenstein, lord of Starkenbach, Jilenice, Sadowa & Storckow, would have been acceptable!"

So,for a Grand Duke Countess von Harrach would have been in some sort of way acceptable,unlike Princess Obolensky!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
Same goes for the Hohenzollerns?
It's a little bit different thing in Prussia...a marriage between King Friedrich Wilhelm III and Countess Auguste von Harrach was treated morganatic,despite the fact that her family belonged to the equal ones,but the Countess in question didn't belong to the main branch that achieved that honor and status and therefor was not treated equal...otherwise,she probably would have been...

It is also difficult to say something more because Hohenzollern family in Prussia did not have any document left in which they say something about equal marriage family rules apart from the fact that Head of the family decides with the votes from the rest!

Here is a quote from "Morganatic and Unequal Marriages in Germany" for Auguste:

"Auguste belonged to a junior branch of the family, descended from Otto Friedrich (d. 1639), younger son of Karl I Bernhard who was created count in 1627. It was the elder branch, descended from Karl Leonhard (d. 1645) that became reichsständisch (albeit as a personalist) in 1752. It was the head of the elder branch who received in Austria in 1830 (six years after the marriage) the qualification of Erlaucht pursuant to the German Confederation's decision of 1829 conferring such treatment to mediatized comital families. Auguste was 5th cousin once removed with the head of the elder branch."
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #268  
Old 01-12-2014, 11:33 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
So,apart from the reigning christian families,only marriages with these non-ruling families were accepted as equal,with the proof of their ancestry:


-Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

-Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein
How about the other branch of the house such as Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, are they also considered equal in some way?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #269  
Old 01-12-2014, 05:43 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
How about the other branch of the house such as Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, are they also considered equal in some way?
Yes,as altgräflich Counts(had the title before 1582)...Before being styled zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn in 1834 as Prussian Princes,they were also part of Sayn-Wittgenstein(Berleburg)Ludwigsburg line which was mediatized in 1806...

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclop...-Mediatization

So,based on that,all branches of the Sayn Princely family were considered equal...not speaking about de-morganized ones...
For example,in a correspondence with Emperor Nicholas II Princess Leonilla zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn signed herself as "your devoted friend and cousin..."
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #270  
Old 02-02-2014, 07:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: LONDON, United Kingdom
Posts: 802
Ask Windsor

Just puzzled about this:-

1. If the rules have now changed and had Prince William had a daughter she would of been Queen:-

Not including George in this as he will be King his wife Queen Consort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT

Is it not true to say:-

Example:

1. If William (as King) has 3 further Sons, their Wives will be 3 PRINCESSES;

2. If William (as King) has 3 Daughters, their husbands will be MR SMITH, MR JONES, MR CLARK.

So how have things changed???

Many thanks.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #271  
Old 02-02-2014, 09:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
The rules have changed and if the girl was born first,she would have been the Queen one day...but,instead,Prince George was born...

I think in the titles department things did not change...
They might have been offered a title,but I think it's the choice of the sovereign to decide...as for wives,they automatically become Princesses upon their marriage...
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #272  
Old 02-10-2014, 11:47 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Marc is absolutely correct, this has been the practice for British royals for generations.

Wives of British princes automatically take the female equivalent of their husband's title BUT they are not accorded the title of 'Princess' before their given names UNLESS they are Princesses by birth themselves. eg, when Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles, Prince of Wales, she became Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, the same as when Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz became Princess Michael of Kent when she married Prince Michael of Kent. Diana was NEVER Princess Diana, Princess of Wales but after her divorce with Charles, she had all the rights to address herself as The Lady Diana, Princess of Wales, with the title of "Lady" owed to her birthright as a daughter of an Earl. However, princesses by birth who married into the family are allowed to use such title as in the case of Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, she being a Princess of Greece and Denmark by birth. Another case concerns the late Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, who was born Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott. Following the Duke's death she was allowed by HM The Queen to address herself as 'Princess Alice' (as opposed to 'Dowager Duchess'), a privilege granted to very few.

As for royal princesses who marry untitled individuals, the monarch can grant them titles such as in the cases of Antony Charles Robert Armstrong-Jones, who was created Earl of Snowdon upon his marriage to Princess Margaret, thus the princess becoming HRH Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. If the couple chose not to accept a title, the wife then takes her husband's name but keeps her royal titles, eg HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honorable Lady Ogilvy, or if a total commoner, say if Princess Beatrice marries her boyfriend, and he is not granted a title, she will be HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Clark, but that is upon her own decision.

Now, it would be very different if the princess herself is the heir apparent.. say Prince George is followed by a sister and he someday chose to renounce his claim, then his sister would be the heir apparent to the throne. This will be a special case as princesses who are heir-apparent usually have their futures husband's title(s). Prince Philip was created Duke of Edinburgh when he married the then Princess Elizabeth but Philip was born a royal prince of Greece and Denmark, titles he renounced to become a British citizen in order to marry Elizabeth.

King George VI and the Queen Mother resented the fact that Princess Elizabeth was to marry a foreign prince as they wanted her to marry a British noble which from what i have read, possible candidates chosen by the King and Queen were William Cavendish, Marquess of Hartington, son of the 10th Duke of Devonshire (who later married Kathleen Kennedy, sister to President JFK); John Scott, Earl of Dalkeith later 9th Duke of Buccleuch; John Spencer-Churchill, Marquess of Blandford later 11th Duke of Marlborough and John Spencer, Viscount Althorp later 8th Earl Spencer (father of Diana, Princess of Wales) but the young Princess Elizabeth was was also said to be enamored by other highborn lords such as Hugh FitzRoy, Earl of Euston, later the 11th Duke of Grafton; Henry Herbert, Lord Porchester, later the 7th Earl of Carnarvon (also rumored to be Prince Andrew's biological father) and Patrick Plunket, later the 7th Baron Plunket.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #273  
Old 05-21-2014, 04:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
As for royal princesses who marry untitled individuals, the monarch can grant them titles such as in the cases of Antony Charles Robert Armstrong-Jones, who was created Earl of Snowdon upon his marriage to Princess Margaret, thus the princess becoming HRH Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon. If the couple chose not to accept a title, the wife then takes her husband's name but keeps her royal titles, eg HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honorable Lady Ogilvy, or if a total commoner, say if Princess Beatrice marries her boyfriend, and he is not granted a title, she will be HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Clark, but that is upon her own decision.
.
Just for the sake of curiosity, what if Princess Beatrice married, ley's say, Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, Duke of Värmland ? Would she be known as:
  1. HRH Princess Beatrice, Duchess of Värmland ?
  2. HRH Princess Beatrice of Sweden and the United Kingdom, Duchess of Värmland ?
  3. HRH Princess Beatrice of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland ?
  4. HRH The Duchess of Värmland ?
  5. None of the above ?
Thanks for the explanation.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #274  
Old 05-21-2014, 07:42 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
It mostly depends on how the two countries and their sovereigns agree...But,under normal circumstances,as she is not a direct nearest heir to the throne,I assume her title would be "HRH Princess Beatrice of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland",of course if sovereigns do not agree otherwise depending on the heir situation...just like some Archdukes of Austria are also Princes of Belgium for dynastic purposes...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #275  
Old 05-21-2014, 10:02 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,377
It's tricky....

Typically speaking, in the past when British princesses have married into foreign royal families they've largely ceased to use their British titles (unless they hold a title in their own right, and not just through being the monarch's child/grandchild) and taken on their husband's titles.

So, for example, Queen Victoria's eldest daughter remained Princess Royal throughout her lifetime, while also going through a number of German titles in accordance to her husband's position. At the end of her life, she was both Princess Royal and the German Empress.

In contrast, Princess Maud of Wales ceased to be Maud of Wales upon her marriage and because Princess Carl of Denmark (later to be the Queen of Norway).

In Beatrice's case, I would think that she would become HRH Princess Beatrice of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland. She would likely still remain a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, she just wouldn't use that title.

As neither she nor Carl Philip are expected to ever actually inherit the thrones of their respective realms, I kind of doubt that either would be required to renounce their place in the succession or their citizenships.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #276  
Old 05-22-2014, 05:37 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
In Beatrice's case, I would think that she would become HRH Princess Beatrice of Sweden, Duchess of Värmland. She would likely still remain a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right, she just wouldn't use that title.

As neither she nor Carl Philip are expected to ever actually inherit the thrones of their respective realms, I kind of doubt that either would be required to renounce their place in the succession or their citizenships.
I think you are right about this...It would be a different situation/story if one of them was expected to likely inherit the throne!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #277  
Old 05-29-2014, 11:29 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 727
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
but aren't these families mediatised? so therefore, they are not truly considered non-ruling in essence..

So, for a marriage of a member of the Imperial Family to be equal the spouse had to belong to one of the following...
Just thought of the marriage in 1815 between Archduke Joseph of Austria,Palatine of Hungary and Princess Hermine von Anhalt-Bernburg-Schaumburg-Hoym...

Princess Hermine belonged to a mediatized branch of the Anhalt family which lost their sovereignty in 1806...and still this marriage was at that time considered fully equal by the Habsburg standards...
__________________

__________________
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





Popular Tags
belgium carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:01 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]