The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1  
Old 10-28-2007, 11:15 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Raleigh, United States
Posts: 74
Former Imperial, Princely and Royal Houses

There seem to be an inordinate number of "former royals" floating around Europe. I have a list of almost three pages worth of princes born between 1986-1992 and I keep finding more. What gets me about all of these people is that they are completely off the radar screen (internet searches for their names only turn up geneaology websites) BUT they manage to find each other. It seems that every mediatized prince is married to a mediatized princess. How do they find each other? Are they all part of some social network that we are left out of? I am completely lost as to how these people manage to connect (quite honestly, I want to know because I want to find them). Does anyone have any idea how these people find each other? Is it via charity organizations or private parties or what? Help me out here.
__________________
I did not become the King's First Minister to preside over the collapse of the British Empire!
-Sir Winston Churchill
До Бо́га высоко́, до Царя́ далеко́ (God is very high up and the Tsar is very far away)
-Russian Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-28-2007, 10:18 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Kivarnath, Antarctica
Posts: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhinala View Post
There seem to be an inordinate number of "former royals" floating around Europe. I have a list of almost three pages worth of princes born between 1986-1992 and I keep finding more. What gets me about all of these people is that they are completely off the radar screen (internet searches for their names only turn up geneaology websites) BUT they manage to find each other. It seems that every mediatized prince is married to a mediatized princess. How do they find each other? Are they all part of some social network that we are left out of? I am completely lost as to how these people manage to connect (quite honestly, I want to know because I want to find them). Does anyone have any idea how these people find each other? Is it via charity organizations or private parties or what? Help me out here.
Can you send me the list of those princes?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-29-2007, 02:45 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,469
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPhinala View Post
It seems that every mediatized prince is married to a mediatized princess. How do they find each other?
Are they all part of some social network that we are left out of?
Yes, they belong to the family and social network called the Gotha, and the likelihood of any of us receiving an invitation is remote.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-30-2007, 03:15 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Raleigh, United States
Posts: 74
haha touche. Do they actually have their own little "gotha" parties? haha that's too amusing. I would die to get in there. :)
__________________
I did not become the King's First Minister to preside over the collapse of the British Empire!
-Sir Winston Churchill
До Бо́га высоко́, до Царя́ далеко́ (God is very high up and the Tsar is very far away)
-Russian Proverb
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-26-2007, 07:20 AM
elisabetteke's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: somewhere, Belgium
Posts: 166
the're is really something like "the Gotha" there is even a book about it. It is called "Almanach de Gotha". It is a really serious thing. It wouldn't surprise me if there where really parties where you can only enter when you're in this book. Almanach de Gotha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This high nobility they meet eachother also at the very expensive schools they go to. If you check, for example, Facebook, you can see that al this high noble young people go to the same schools.
Here is a link tho an online Gotha book. I don't know if it is completely correct and if everyone who should be in there is on this web-page.
An Online Gotha
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-26-2007, 11:44 AM
magnik's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,661
Few more:
Part II, p.10 alt.talk.royalty FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-27-2007, 04:03 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator in Memoriam
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,469
Any German royal or princely wedding is a "Gotha party". As an example, here is a selection of the guests from the wedding of Fürst Alexander of Schaumburg-Lippe, June 2007:

Schaumburg-Lippe Guest List

(can't link directly, so click on 'Special Reports', then 'Alexander and Nadja' at the bottom of the list, then 'Guestlist')
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 02-05-2022, 10:06 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,608
As we are frequently reminded, European deposed houses as a rule refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of current laws, constitutions, and social standards when they affect the house laws, royal status, etc., of their own houses and other deposed houses. (Though in fact it is more complicated than that, as some of them selectively recognize some modernizations but not others.)

My question is do these houses judge the jurisdiction of current legislators by the same standards when current laws etc. affect still reigning houses? For example, do deposed houses refuse to recognize the current Swedish constitution's introduction of gender equal primogeniture (without the consent of the head of the Swedish royal house) and recognize Carl Philip instead of Victoria as the future King of Sweden?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-05-2022, 11:42 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 4,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As we are frequently reminded, European deposed houses as a rule refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of current laws, constitutions, and social standards when they affect the house laws, royal status, etc., of their own houses and other deposed houses. (Though in fact it is more complicated than that, as some of them selectively recognize some modernizations but not others.)



My question is do these houses judge the jurisdiction of current legislators by the same standards when current laws etc. affect still reigning houses? For example, do deposed houses refuse to recognize the current Swedish constitution's introduction of gender equal primogeniture (without the consent of the head of the Swedish royal house) and recognize Carl Philip instead of Victoria as the future King of Sweden?
The King of Sweden has never had the constitutional possibility to consent or not to the changes to the Order of Succession. He has at times voiced his personal objections and regrets about those changes and also previously about the changes to the Instrument of Government, but he has never not publicly accepted those changes. On the contrary he's raised his children to cope with the new reality in the best way possible and reorganized both the Royal family itself and it's possessions to be best suited to the changes in question.
While the Parliamentary inquiry states that the King's historical right as Head of his House gives him the right within limits to organise it according to his wishes, regarding for example titles and status, it nowhere states that this gives him a right to overrule the decisions of the People's representatives.
To finally get to my reply to your question, I've never seen any inclination that members of other royal houses has not accepted those changes. If they didn't they would go against the will of the Head of the House of Sweden and by that also undermine one of the very foundations that many of they themselves have built their own claims of status and position on. This given that one of the many outcomes of the Congress of Vienna, that was signed by all the major powers of Europe, was that mediatized and royal houses had the right to create and uphold their own house laws and that these would be respected by the other houses.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-05-2022, 02:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
The King of Sweden has never had the constitutional possibility to consent or not to the changes to the Order of Succession. He has at times voiced his personal objections and regrets about those changes and also previously about the changes to the Instrument of Government, but he has never not publicly accepted those changes. On the contrary he's raised his children to cope with the new reality in the best way possible and reorganized both the Royal family itself and it's possessions to be best suited to the changes in question.
While the Parliamentary inquiry states that the King's historical right as Head of his House gives him the right within limits to organise it according to his wishes, regarding for example titles and status, it nowhere states that this gives him a right to overrule the decisions of the People's representatives.
To finally get to my reply to your question, I've never seen any inclination that members of other royal houses has not accepted those changes. If they didn't they would go against the will of the Head of the House of Sweden and by that also undermine one of the very foundations that many of they themselves have built their own claims of status and position on. This given that one of the many outcomes of the Congress of Vienna, that was signed by all the major powers of Europe, was that mediatized and royal houses had the right to create and uphold their own house laws and that these would be respected by the other houses.

I agree on the facts, but aren't the circumstances which you describe in relation to the Swedish parliament's decision to introduce equal primogeniture analogous to many of the decisions which deposed houses refuse to accept?

Among those former European monarchies which have for instance voted to demote royalty to commoner status, abolish titles of nobility, or ban gender discrimination, those decisions were likewise made or at least confirmed subsequently by the people's representatives, and the heads of the deposed royal houses were likewise not given the constitutional right to overrule those decisions. In spite of that, the changes are not respected by the deposed houses which lay claim to revoked royal status, use abolished titles, and bypass firstborn daughters to bequeath the headships and major inheritances of their houses to sons or male cousins.

About the possibility that the deposed houses interpret the King of Sweden's actions (such as raising his eldest daughter as a future queen and reorganizing the family properties to pass to her) as indicating his will to accept the changes: I cannot speak for the deposed houses, of course, but in my eyes the king's actions seem no different than the pragmatic steps taken by members of the deposed houses to cope with the reality they did not choose. For instance many members of European deposed houses have taken on ordinary jobs, sold off their inheritances, and raised their children to live like commoners. But in most cases they do not mean for their actions to indicate their acceptance of parliamentary decisions stripping them of royal status.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 02-05-2022, 04:52 PM
duke of poliganc's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: cairo, Egypt
Posts: 641
AFAIK the king of Sweden wasn’t against the introduction of the equal gender amendment to the succession for the throne but he wanted the implementation to be more on the line of the Belgian and Norwegian change of succession rule with the crown prince still have his place in the line of succession being the second born and having an older sister but the change effecting their offspring.
In other words he wanted Carl Philip to remain the crown prince but if he had first born daughter and a son for a second child the daughter would be ahead of her brother.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 02-05-2022, 05:54 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
My question is do these houses judge the jurisdiction of current legislators by the same standards when current laws etc. affect still reigning houses?
I was always under the impression, that the House Laws of these families are only upheld to save the male oriented blood- and especially "nameline" and to do this, the fortune of the family has to stay in one hand, the hand of the first born son.

Nobility laws are harsh: The oldest son gets everything and all the other kids not much more than a good education.

While for Reigning Houses, they have an income from the states they rule. And it is a common wisdom, that the one who pays for everything has a big say in everything...

So, the situation is different! And it is often to be seen, for example for the British Royal Family, that they share their fortune among their offspring, that everybody inherits some chunks and not only the eldest son.

Are these "inheritence customs" of the Reigning Houses accepted among the deposed ones? Why not?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 02-05-2022, 07:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,608
That is a very interesting observation, thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duke of poliganc View Post
AFAIK the king of Sweden wasn’t against the introduction of the equal gender amendment to the succession for the throne but he wanted the implementation to be more on the line of the Belgian and Norwegian change of succession rule with the crown prince still have his place in the line of succession being the second born and having an older sister but the change effecting their offspring.
In other words he wanted Carl Philip to remain the crown prince but if he had first born daughter and a son for a second child the daughter would be ahead of her brother.
King Carl XVI Gustaf's first choice was for Parliament to introduce the (at the time) Danish, Dutch, and British model of succession to the throne, in which a daughter would ascend if and only if there were no sons. So he opposed equal primogeniture in the sense of it not being his most preferred option.

See this post in The Change of the Act of Succession - 1979 Constitution Change for more information.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
The Office of the Marshal of the Realm, i.e. the Royal Court, formally recommended to Parliament in 1977 that it change the Act of Succession to the same system used in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Great Britain. At the time, these three countries allowed a woman to be queen if and only if she had no brothers.

I think it is safe to say that the recommendation of the Royal Court is the recommendation of the King.

Note that in its recommendation, the Office supports introducing equal primogeniture if introducing the Danish/Dutch/British system is unfeasible, but it strongly recommends implementing it for future descendants only and allowing the King's potential future oldest son if born before the change to become king, bypassing Victoria.

Refer to the Riksmarskalksämbetet's comments on page 29 and 15.

om kvinnlig tronföljd Proposition 1977/78:71 - Riksdagen
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 02-05-2022, 09:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 8,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
As we are frequently reminded, European deposed houses as a rule refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of current laws, constitutions, and social standards when they affect the house laws, royal status, etc., of their own houses and other deposed houses. (Though in fact it is more complicated than that, as some of them selectively recognize some modernizations but not others.)

My question is do these houses judge the jurisdiction of current legislators by the same standards when current laws etc. affect still reigning houses? For example, do deposed houses refuse to recognize the current Swedish constitution's introduction of gender equal primogeniture (without the consent of the head of the Swedish royal house) and recognize Carl Philip instead of Victoria as the future King of Sweden?
I think the question is ill-posed. The succession to the Swedish throne is a matter of public law. In fact, it is part of the Swedish constitution and, as such, it can only be changed subject to a qualified constitutional amendment procedure, which excludes a unilateral decision on that matter by the King.

The succession rules of deposed royal houses, on the other hand, are now an entirely private matter that does not concern the legislators of the republic any more than the statutes of any other private association. As long as the deposed houses don't do anything unlawful under the laws of the republic, they are perfectly free to decide their own house rules.

Going back to the Swedish example, it is curious that, whereas the succession rules are part of the Swedish public law. the Parliament of Sweden seems to consider that the titles and styles of the Royal Family (for example who is an HRH or not) are a private matter for the King as Head of the Royal House, rather than Head of State.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 02-05-2022, 10:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 5,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I think the question is ill-posed. The succession to the Swedish throne is a matter of public law. [...]

The succession rules of deposed royal houses, on the other hand, are now an entirely private matter that does not concern the legislators of the republic any more than the statutes of any other private association.
In my second post I provided specific examples of types of public laws which deposed houses have refused to accept.
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
Princely House of Hohenzollern Furienna The Royal House of Prussia and Princely House of Hohenzollern 180 01-20-2023 11:39 AM
Russia: Past and Present Imperial and Princely Families Toledo Royal Genealogy 11 03-21-2011 03:07 PM
Wealth of The German Royal/Princely Houses kcc Royal Families of Austria and Germany 12 12-30-2007 04:35 AM




Popular Tags
abdullah ii africa albert prince consort all tags america arcadie arcadie claret austria british british royal family caroline charles iii claret congo current events danish royal family death denmark duarte pio duchess of kent elizabeth ii emperor naruhito empress masako garsenda genealogy general news grace kelly grimaldi hamdan bin ahmed history india introduction jewels jordan royal family king king charles king philippe king willem-alexander leopold ier matrilineal monaco monarchy mountbatten need help official visit order of precedence portugal prince albert monaco prince christian princess of orange queen alexandra queen camilla queen elizabeth queen margrethe ii queen mathilde queen maxima queen victoria republics restoration royal initials royal wedding silk spain spanish royal family state visit switzerland tiaras visit william woven


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:58 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2023
Jelsoft Enterprises