Tsar Alexander III (1845-1894) and Empress Marie Feodorovna (Dagmar) (1847-1928)

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Tarlita

But i do not know where an Archduchess ranks. Just below a Grandduchess i think.
For some the rankings are very important. Heirachy is very important among some royals certainly those from Dagmars generation.

I would msay an Archduchess and a Grand Dcuhess have the same reank. Both whee mebers iof imperial Families and as difference all female members of the austrian imperial Family where Archduchesses whereas in Russia it where in Russia it was limited.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Queen Victoria disagreed with that one insisting that the Crown Princess aka HRH The Princess of Wales took precedence ahead of the Grand Duchess Marie who was only married to the second son. Victoria was adamant that the wife of the heir to the throne took precedence over all the Grand Duchesses.

From Hansard 25 March 1881 it is interesting that the British parliamentary motion of condolence on the death of her father was entitled to:

HRIH The Duchess of Edinburgh

& not HIRH The Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna. Duchess of Edinburgh

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Durham

From Hansard 25 March 1881 it is interesting that the British parliamentary motion of condolence on the death of her father was entitled to:

HRIH The Duchess of Edinburgh

& not HIRH The Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna. Duchess of Edinburgh

Being addressed with her husband's title is as expected in the European context, but the choice of HRIH as opposed to HIRH is interesting. I wonder which was normally used in marriages like these.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Being addressed with her husband's title is as expected in the European context, but the choice of HRIH as opposed to HIRH is interesting. I wonder which was normally used in marriages like these.

Being addressed like this by her husbands title is what Brits do,no other European house except the non-Reigning perhaps.All other Houses name one by their name.

And,the HR came before the IH due to her marriage to a HRH.

[Curryong]

But Imperial wasn't used in the context of British Royal stylings was it, except in the context of Queen Victoria as Empress of India, where she signed documents Victoria RI? Perhaps, as with the precedence row with the Prss of Wales, Queen Victoria had insisted that Marie's British styling should come first in the CC and therefore Hansard followed.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Being addressed with her husband's title is as expected in the European context, but the choice of HRIH as opposed to HIRH is interesting. I wonder which was normally used in marriages like these.

I suspect in other examples of imperial Russian princesses marrying into royal houses the title would be HIRH to denote the I outranking the R.

British royalty of course is very different. It was always the Queen-Empress / King-Emperor, not the other way round, when British monarchs were emperors of India.

The title of emperor has always sounded a bit suspect to British ways of thinking. Emperor was felt to be a foreign, un-british title, more suited to upstarts like Napoleon or associated with despotic rulers like Russian Tsars or Chinese Emperors.

Victoria was mocked for accepting the new outlandish title Empress of India & her own grandfather King George III had flat out refused to accept the title Emperor of the British Isles.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by lucien

Being addressed like this by her husbands title is what Brits do,no other European house except the non-Reigning perhaps.All other Houses name one by their name.

Actually, several of the reigning European houses continue to address a princess whose husband uses a royal title with her husband's title:

Princess Caroline of Monaco is addressed as the Princess of Hanover.
Princesses Marie-Astrid and Margaretha of Luxembourg are addressed as Archduchess Marie-Astrid of Austria and Princess Margaretha of Liechtenstein.
Princess Barbara of Liechtenstein is addressed as Princess Barbara of Yugoslavia.

By way of contrast:

Princess Astrid of Belgium is addressed with her own title and not as Archduchess Astrid of Austria-Este.
Princess Benedikte of Denmark is addressed with her own title and not as Princess Benedikte of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg.
Princess Birgitta of Sweden is addressed with her own title and not as Princess Birgitta of Hohenzollern.

However, things have changed over the last century and a half. The Belgian, Danish, and Swedish princesses of the 19th century who married foreign princes were addressed with their husbands' titles.

Originally Posted by Durham

I suspect in other examples of imperial Russian princesses marrying into royal houses the title would be HIRH to denote the I outranking the R.

British royalty of course is very different. It was always the Queen-Empress / King-Emperor, not the other way round, when British monarchs were emperors of India.

The title of emperor has always sounded a bit suspect to British ways of thinking. Emperor was felt to be a foreign, un-british title, more suited to upstarts like Napoleon or associated with despotic rulers like Russian Tsars or Chinese Emperors.

Victoria was mocked for accepting the new outlandish title Empress of India & her own grandfather King George III had flat out refused to accept the title Emperor of the British Isles.

Interesting. I wonder what they thought of the popular use of the term "British empire".

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Interesting. I wonder what they thought of the popular use of the term "British empire".

Me too. Sounds a bit demeaning towards the indian title. Like: An english Queen is so much more, than an indian Empress...

[Curryong]

I have read that Queen Victoria was anxious that she should not be eventually outranked by her own daughter Vicky and son in law Fritz after Wilhelm I became German Emperor in 1871. She certainly took a great interest in the passage of the Royal Titles Act.

Another viewpoint on the title Empress of India. Victoria had already adopted it!

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._India_1837-61

[Durham]

Originally Posted by victor1319

Me too. Sounds a bit demeaning towards the indian title. Like: An english Queen is so much more, than an indian Empress...

I think the point of those who lampooned Victoria's new title - there's a famous Punch magazine cartoon called new crowns for old - was that the title king/queen was more than good enough for Victoria. The Conservative prime minster Disraeli was an avowed imperialist who wanted to flatter Victoria. His great liberal rival Gladstone wouldn't have touched that title with a barge pole.

No British monarch, whatever the size of their empire, needed another title particularly one that sounded so alien & foreign to British ears.

As I said the word emperor (caesar, tsar, kaiser etc) has a lot of negative connotations in Britain that maybe it just doesn't have elsewhere in Europe.

Victoria's grandfather George III wanted to stick with the historical title of king because he felt it was a noble title of great lineage & in no way a lesser title to that of any emperor.

Victoria's concern about her status vis a vis Vicky seems odd considering that the British monarch was already recognised in law as rex in regno suo est imperator (an emperor in his own land).

[CyrilVladisla]

It was interesting to learn that King George III had been presented with the possibility of using the title of Emperor of the British Isles.

[Tarlita]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Queen Victoria disagreed with that one insisting that the Crown Princess aka HRH The Princess of Wales took precedence ahead of the Grand Duchess Marie who was only married to the second son. Victoria was adamant that the wife of the heir to the throne took precedence over all the Grand Duchesses.

Yes I remember reading about Grand Duchess Marie insisting on outranking the Princess of Wales. The arguments with Queen Victoria must have been interesting at the time.

[Curryong]

In my biography of Prince Alfred by John Van Der Kiste there are references to the debates about Marie's styling and precedence. He writes 'the Tsar wished his daughter to be styled Imperial not Royal, 'as in all civilised countries' to which the not yet Imperial Queen indignantly retorted that she did not mind whether her daughter in law was called Imperial or not, so long as Royal came first..'

Then there were debates as to which of Marie's titles should come first. 'Should she be Grand Duchess of Russia or Duchess of Edinburgh? The Queen felt out of her depth and referred it to her Private Secretary Ponsonby. He was amused by the fuss and quoted Dr Johnson to his wife. 'Who comes first, a louse or a flea?'

[Durham]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

It was interesting to learn that King George III had been presented with the possibility of using the title of Emperor of the British Isles.

Poor old George never got a good press.

On this though he was absolutely right. There was no way British people would have wanted their monarch to have the same title as Bonaparte or the "Autocrat of All the Russias".

Emperors were despots.

Ironically off course poor old George has gone down in US history as the tyrant

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Curryong

In my biography of Prince Alfred by John Van Der Kiste there are references to the debates about Marie's styling and precedence. He writes 'the Tsar wished his daughter to be styled Imperial not Royal, 'as in all civilised countries' to which the not yet Imperial Queen indignantly retorted that she did not mind whether her daughter in law was called Imperial or not, so long as Royal came first..'

Then there were debates as to which of Marie's titles should come first. 'Should she be Grand Duchess of Russia or Duchess of Edinburgh. The Queen felt out of her depth and referred it to her Private Secretary Ponsonby. He was amused by the fuss and quoted Dr Johnson to his wife. 'Who comes first, a louse or a flea?'

What a wonderful quote.

I sometimes wonder from what I know of Marie whether she was secretly obsessed with status because in her heart of hearts she felt inadequate. After all her mother in law's empire was three times the size of her father's.

[lucien]

This thread is about Tsar Alexander III,Sasha,not "a show of look what I know" that has nothing,not in the least,to do with Alexander III.Spasibo.

[Durham]

Originally Posted by lucien

This thread is about Tsar Alexander III,Sasha,not "a show of look what I know" that has nothing,not in the least,to do with Alexander III.Spasibo.

I'm sorry that you were unable to phrase this in a rather more courteous manner however I take your point & will not post here again.

[duchessrachel]

I want to read the book "Tsar Alexander III: His Life and Reign" by Margarita Nelipa, but I can only find one copy and it is $74.95, and used. Does anyone know where I can get this book cheaper? I have looked at abebooks.com and thriftbooks.com and they don't have it. Why is it so expensive?

[victor1319]

Originally Posted by duchessrachel

I want to read the book "Tsar Alexander III: His Life and Reign" by Margarita Nelipa"..."Why is it so expensive?

Hi Duchess Rachel!

I have looked for it and the problem seems to be, that there is no e-book of it. And nothing in Libraries... I found nothing!

This here is expensive too, albeit a bit cheaper:
Nelipa, Margarita - Alexander III; his life and reign, van Hoogstraten Online Shop

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by victor1319

Hi Duchess Rachel!

I have looked for it and the problem seems to be, that there is no e-book of it. And nothing in Libraries... I found nothing!

This here is expensive too, albeit a bit cheaper:
Nelipa, Margarita - Alexander III; his life and reign, van Hoogstraten Online Shop

Thank you so much!