Titles Of Nobility And Aristocracy

[Mbruno]

Deleted post.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Deleted post.

See the attached file for a discussion on the legal status and regulation of the nobility or the peerage in the following jurisdictions:

1. The United Kingdom
2. Spain
3. Belgium and Netherlands
4. Denmark and Sweden

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

None of the current Continental monarchs have elevated persons outside the royal family into the hereditary nobility. Even in the UK in the last 50 years only three non-royals were given a hereditary peerage. Two of these were elder gentlemen without children. So effectively also in the UK the unofficial policy is followed that there are no elevations into the peerage outside the royal family. This confirms the general impression: the Nobility is a historic institute with historic rules. There are no new elevations so it will slowly phase out.

Spain still has a lively nobility with modernised rules which differ quite a lot from the other nobiliary systems, but also there the number of new hereditary nobles is limited. Most new hereditary creations were from the first years of King Juan Carlos.

Changing rules to allow ladies to pass their noble titles is a contradiction with the unwritten policy of slowly phasing out the Nobility.

But changing rules to allow both male and female members of existing noble houses to pass their noble titles would not be comparable to phasing out the elevations of new families into the hereditary nobility. It would be comparable to the Netherlands changing the rules of its hereditary nobility to allow fathers to pass on their titles to all of their recognized children whether born inside or outside of marriage, or Germany changing its rules to allow titles which are part of legal names to be passed on by mothers and fathers alike.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

But changing rules to allow both male and female members of existing noble houses to pass their noble titles would not be comparable to phasing out the elevations of new families into the hereditary nobility. It would be comparable to the Netherlands changing the rules of its hereditary nobility to allow fathers to pass on their titles to all of their recognized children whether born inside or outside of marriage, or Germany changing its rules to allow titles which are part of legal names to be passed on by mothers and fathers alike.

I think Duc's point was that, if the nobility is being effectively phased out in the Netherlands, it wouldn't make sense to introduce a rule that would in practice increase the number over time of people holding nobiliary titles.


As he said, the nobility is now recognized in Europe merely as a historical institution (a relic of the past if you will), so it doesn't make sense to "modernize" its succession rules to fit modern concepts of gender equality, even though the Spanish parliament for example did it in 2006.

The situation of the succession to the Crown is different, however, in my humble opinion, because it has constitutional implications as the King or Queen who occupies the throne is the Head of State (and not merely a "relic of the past").

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I think Duc's point was that, if the nobility is being effectively phased out in the Netherlands, it wouldn't make sense to introduce a rule that would in practice increase the number over time of people holding nobiliary titles.

As he said, the nobility is recognized now in Europe merely as a historical institution (a relic of the past if you will), so it doesn't make sense to "modernize" its succession rules to fit modern concepts of gender equality, even though the Spanish parliament for example did it in 2006.

According to that interpretation (though I disagree with it), the nobility is not being phased out in the Netherlands. My point was that a new rule to "modernize" rules of succession that will in practice increase the number over time of people holding nobiliary titles has indeed been introduced, albeit only in favor of male-line descendants.

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

I think only the UK, Spain and Belgium still create new peerages outside of the royal family.
In the UK new peerages are for the life of the holder and are not hereditary (except those for the RF). Life peerages are recommended by the government. Not sure what the mechanism is in Spain or Belgium.

Unlike the UK, however, there is no house of peers and titles of nobility do not award any legal privileges.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

. My point was that a new rule to "modernize" rules of succession that will in practice increase the number over time of people holding nobiliary titles has indeed been introduced, albeit only in favor of male-line descendants.

I probably missed your point in earlier posts, but my understanding is that the succession rule in place is the same as the historic rule, i.e. transmission in male-line only. The only difference over time has been transmission to all vs. transmission to the firstborn son, but that affects only the transmission of titles as untitled children of a noble man are still considered noble in the Netherlands or Belgium (which is a difference for example from post-1809 Swedish nobility, where only the title holder is legally noble).

Are you perhaps referring to the transmission of nobility to adopted sons? That is the only recently introduced rule I can think of that would potentially increase the number of members of the nobility in comparison to what their numbers would otherwise have been under the historic (legacy) rules.

And, yes, to the extent that new elevations to the nobility no longer occur outside the Royal Family, new recognition of (ancient) nobility is becoming rarer, and noble families are dying out in male line, I agree with Duc that the nobility is being phased out in the Netherlands.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

I probably missed your point in earlier posts [...] Are you perhaps referring to the transmission of nobility to adopted sons? That is the only recently introduced rule I can think of that would potentially increase the number of members of the nobility in comparison to what their numbers would otherwise have been under the historic (legacy) rules. [...] I agree with Duc that the nobility is being phased out in the Netherlands.

I think these are the parts of my earlier posts which you missed:

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

While that was the excuse used by the Government, the reality was that for male nobles, the Government opened the doors by taking away the legitimacy limitations on hereditary nobility and allowing men to pass their titles to their out of wedlock and adopted children. Considering that approximately one in two children in the Netherlands is born to unmarried parents, the change is likely to radically increase the number of male-line descendants who are allowed to inherit titles of nobility.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

But changing rules to allow both male and female members of existing noble houses to pass their noble titles would not be comparable to phasing out the elevations of new families into the hereditary nobility. It would be comparable to the Netherlands changing the rules of its hereditary nobility to allow fathers to pass on their titles to all of their recognized children whether born inside or outside of marriage [...]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

and noble families are dying out in male line,

Are they, though? What is the number of noble families that have died out since the above referenced rule change?

[Tatiana Maria]

It occurs to me that under the Dutch Civil Code, the child of a nobleman must carry the surname of their noble father to inherit his nobility. So, the change in the Netherlands to give nobility to male-line descendants born out of wedlock will, in all likelihood, increase the number of members of the nobility much more rapidly than a hypothetical change to give women equal rights to transmit nobility would have, because approximately one in two children is now born to unmarried parents whereas only a small minority of children carry the surname of their mother.

[osterleyp]

Is there any example where there were two extant peerage titles (each held by different holders) with the same territorial designation?

I wonder if the male line of the Marquess of Cambridge (created in 1917) didn't die (extant). Would the Queen re-create the historic Duke of Cambridge (reserved for members of the Royal family) for Prince William or would she bestow other Dukedom with different territorial designation? It wouldn't be a "conflict" if there two Cambridges as long as they are not of equal rank or am I wrong?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Cambridge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Cambridge



Thanks in advance!

[Tatiana Maria]

As a rule there are not supposed to be two British peerage titles designated with the same place name or family name, but the issue can be resolved by qualifying the newer peerage with a different territorial designation. For example, a Baron Blank of Blanktown and a Baron Blank of Newtown can coexist.

The "of" in Peerages

[brian caudill]

Unfortunately they may hold the title, they are not the right heirs. In the book the decline and fall of the duke of leinster, talks about how Edward 7th Duke of leinster isn't even a FitzGerald. His father was hugo charteris lord elcho. They are pretenders trying hold on it

[Queen Cutie]

I have read/heard somewhere that in terms of the British aristocracy, an earl whose title originates from a surname, e.g. Earl Spencer, outranks or is otherwise superior to an earl whose title originates from a place name. Is this true?


(Sorry if this question has been asked and answered before.)

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Queen Cutie

I have read/heard somewhere that in terms of the British aristocracy, an earl whose title originates from a surname, e.g. Earl Spencer, outranks or is otherwise superior to an earl whose title originates from a place name. Is this true?


(Sorry if this question has been asked and answered before.)

Never heard of this. Titles are ranked in terms of their length of standing.

[Sionevar]

Originally Posted by Queen Cutie

I have read/heard somewhere that in terms of the British aristocracy, an earl whose title originates from a surname, e.g. Earl Spencer, outranks or is otherwise superior to an earl whose title originates from a place name. Is this true?

(Sorry if this question has been asked and answered before.)

No, this is not correct. Within any given grade, a title is ranked based on i) which national peerage it belongs to and ii) its creation date.

I believe Earl Spencer himself has made this claim several times, for reasons that aren't hard to guess, but just because he says it, doesn't mean it is true :)

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Queen Cutie

I have read/heard somewhere that in terms of the British aristocracy, an earl whose title originates from a surname, e.g. Earl Spencer, outranks or is otherwise superior to an earl whose title originates from a place name. Is this true?


(Sorry if this question has been asked and answered before.)

Not that I know. British Earls are ranked among themselves first according to which peerage their title belongs to, the ranking being (in descending order of precedence):

1. Peerage of England
2. Peerage of Scotland
3. Peerage of Great Britain
4. Peerage of Ireland
5. Peerage of the United Kingdom

Within the same peerage, they are ranked then by seniority with older titles (by date of creation) outranking newer ones.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Sionevar

No, this is not correct. Within any given grade, a title is ranked based on i) which national peerage it belongs to and ii) its creation date.

I believe Earl Spencer himself has made this claim several times, for reasons that aren't hard to guess, but just because he says it, doesn't mean it is true :)

When has Charles Spencer said this?

[Queen Cutie]

Many thanks for the replies to my question. Most informative.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

It occurs to me that under the Dutch Civil Code, the child of a nobleman must carry the surname of their noble father to inherit his nobility. So, the change in the Netherlands to give nobility to male-line descendants born out of wedlock will, in all likelihood, increase the number of members of the nobility much more rapidly than a hypothetical change to give women equal rights to transmit nobility would have, because approximately one in two children is now born to unmarried parents whereas only a small minority of children carry the surname of their mother.

With the start of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg (today's Benelux countries under the Crown of Willem I of Orange-Nassau, King of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of Luxembourg) there were around 550 noble families in the newly established Peerage.

As of today, there are less than 300 noble families in said Peerage. More than 1/3 of these families effectively live outside the Netherlands (mainly in the former Southern Netherlands, now Belgium, so continue in the municipal registries of a foreign country). In 1939 was the last elevation of a Dutchman into the hereditary Nobility.

Since WWII, despite some incorporations of foreign Nobility and some recognitions of older existing Nobility pre-1792, more than 40 noble families have become extinct. So the conclusion is justified that with the Nobility Act 1994 the existing practice since since WWII to "phase out the Nobility" has become official policy.

By the way, back then in 1994 a majority in Parliament was willing to open succession via a female line when a lady appears to be the last holder of a noble title. But consultation amongst the Nobility itself and an advice by the High Council of Nobility learned they themselves preferred continuation of the existing "male only" inheritance, exactly to stress the historic character of the Nobility: a "glass dome" has been placed over the Nobility.

Even in Belgium and Spain, with an active nobiliary policy, there are hardly new hereditary noble creations, it almost exclusively are life Peerages since decades.

[An Ard Ri]

Such a shame that the Dutch Monarch can no longer award titles as in the UK/Spain and Belgium.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

Such a shame that the Dutch Monarch can no longer award titles as in the UK/Spain and Belgium.

The Dutch monarch can still grant titles of nobility to members or former members of the Royal House. And, as Duc said, it is possible to recognize preexisting nobility held by families in the Low Countries prior to 1795 and to incorporate foreign titles into the nobility of the Netherlands subject to certain restrictions, e.g., the country where the title was awarded must have or have had at the time of the award a nobiliary law that is similar to that of the Netherlands.