Former Imperial, Princely and Royal Houses

[JPhinala]

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.

[PrincessKoreen]

Originally Posted by JPhinala

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?

[Warren]

Originally Posted by JPhinala

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.

[JPhinala]

haha touche. Do they actually have their own little "gotha" parties? haha that's too amusing. I would die to get in there. :)

[elisabetteke]

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

[magnik]

Few more:
Part II, p.10 alt.talk.royalty FAQ

[Warren]

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')

[Tatiana Maria]

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?

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by JR76

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.

[duke of poliganc]

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.

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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?

[Tatiana Maria]

That is a very interesting observation, thank you.

Originally Posted by duke of poliganc

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.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.