Oldest Royal and Noble Families - Page 3

kelly9480 · #41 10-18-2004, 08:20 PM

I didn't say she was following Blair's lead on titles. I said she is suspected to be following his lead on how she releases information -- policy by press release. If that's the case, (and right now, it depends on whether the sovereign has to formally issue LP on fancy paper), then Louise isn't entitled to be HRH because EIIR said she'd be treated like the daughter of an earl. It's purely a legal debate as to whether EIIR has the power to not bother with the LP.

I consider their sources to be very credible when it comes to this. They've apparently looked for anything that states that the monarch can only regulate titles by LP and apparently haven't found any. It's a question of whether it's forbidden even if it's not specifically written down. Which of course brings in English Common Law, and that's where the hang up is. Just because it hasn't been done by monarchs, does that automatically mean it can't be done.

Julian · #42 10-18-2004, 08:43 PM

"Ididn't say she was following Blair's lead on titles. I said she is suspected to be following his lead on how she releases information -- policy by press release. If that's the case, (and right now, it depends on whether the sovereign has to formally issue LP on fancy paper), then Louise isn't entitled to be HRH because EIIR said she'd be treated like the daughter of an earl. It's purely a legal debate as to whether EIIR has the power to not bother with the LP."

That's what I also meant to say, that she's "suspected" to be following his lead on how he releases information. The sovereign has always done this by LP or Royal Warrant. If she was about to change her procedure, and assuming there was room for her to legally switch away from the normal methods she has used and other sovereigns have used, would there really be no explanation from the Palace on that? I for one can't conceive it.

"I consider their sources to be very credible when it comes to this. They've apparently looked for anything that states that the monarch can only regulate titles by LP and apparently haven't found any. It's a question of whether it's forbidden even if it's not specifically written down. Which of course brings in English Common Law, and that's where the hang up is. Just because it hasn't been done by monarchs, does that automatically mean it can't be done."

You can also reverse the same faulty logic and leave yourself nowhere: i.e., just because it hasn't been done by monarchs, doesn't mean that the silence on this particular issue in law allows the monarch to do it. Or that the monarch would even want to suddenly start doing it.

As to them or their sources, enough said already.

kelly9480 · #43 10-18-2004, 11:50 PM

That's the heart of the debate, though. Just because it hasn't been done before, does it mean it can't be done at all? If it can be done, does that mean that Louise is not entitled to HRH?

I'm looking forward to the legal arguments for and against the question of whether EIIR can do it (the question is not really whether she has done it with Louise, just if she can). If they post the source and where they got it, there's no problem on sources, though intrepretations of the source may differ in the end.

wymanda · #44 10-18-2004, 11:58 PM

I would say the only test would be that when Louise is older if she demanded the HRH as her right. It would then be up to a court to determine if the Press Release was valid in depriving her of it. I know there was some contention as to whether the L'sP depriving the Duchess of Windsor of HRH were legal. When Lady Patricia Ramsay (Princess Patricia of Connaught) gave up her HRH on her marriage she was still entitled to all the rank & privilege of a Princess but was styled as the daughter of an Earl or non royal Duke.

Julian · #45 10-19-2004, 12:46 AM

There was definitely some contention about the basis for denying the Duchess of Windsor the HRH since this also went to the issue of Common Law and whether the monarch's prerogatives as the "fount of all honours" was something that couldn't trump Common Law in this area. If, of course, they had ever contested it outright, which GVI and his advisors knew would never happen.

The present case of Lady Louise seems very unique though and with no exact basis of comparison to know how her style has been reached nor where what it may become in future. If they want to keep it low-key, then they'll keep on finding reasons to leave her as Lady Louise even after Edward becomes Duke of Edinburgh which IMO will just be very strange as well. If they want to be modern then indeed let them also be consistent about it and also recreate Edward's Edinburgh and Wessex titles as inheritable by Louise by special remainder, and let her use Countess of Wessex as the courtesy title.

Iain · #46 10-19-2004, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly9480

It's a question of whether it's forbidden even if it's not specifically written down. Which of course brings in English Common Law, and that's where the hang up is. Just because it hasn't been done by monarchs, does that automatically mean it can't be done.

When the English royal family died out in 1603 the throne passed to James VI, King of Scots who became the first King of Great Britain. The Kingdom of England as people knew it ceased to exist and was replaced by the United Kingdom therefore English common law has no jurisdiction over the U.K. monarchy. Unfortunately, as is typical in the so-called "United" Kingdom, England simply breakes, changes or ignores the rules as it sees fit.

Julian · #47 10-22-2004, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain

When the English royal family died out in 1603 the throne passed to James VI, King of Scots who became the first King of Great Britain. The Kingdom of England as people knew it ceased to exist and was replaced by the United Kingdom therefore English common law has no jurisdiction over the U.K. monarchy. Unfortunately, as is typical in the so-called "United" Kingdom, England simply breakes, changes or ignores the rules as it sees fit.

Iain, this didn't happen until 1707, during the reign of Queen Anne. Until then, all the Stuart monarchs from James I and VI to Anne I were styled as King/Queen of England, Scotland, Ireland, and France. The Act of Union (1707) transformed Queen Anne into Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen of France. If you check on the current validity or use of English Common Law within the bounds of England, I think you'll probably find many instances where it continues to come into play as a matter of still valid law.

Iain · #48 10-27-2004, 09:23 AM

Julian, I perhaps didn't make myself clear. When James VI became King of England he was called "King of Great Britain" A title he himself is said to have thought up. You are right to say that the United Kingdom came into being in 1707 but Queen Anne on the other hand became Queen of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." Either way, English law should have had no bearing on the new order.

hillary_nugent · #49 05-11-2005, 06:54 AM

the Danish are the oldest European royal family but i think the Japanese are the oldest royal family...i heard something on TV about that...but i'm not 100% sure...

Eliza · #50 05-11-2005, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent

the Danish are the oldest European royal family but i think the Japanese are the oldest royal family...i heard something on TV about that...but i'm not 100% sure...

Yes, you're right. The Imperial Japanese Family are the oldest royal family.

lashinka2002 · #51 05-11-2005, 10:51 AM

I have a question & I'm sure one of your posts answered it but I didn't understand it.
What's the point of naming Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor if she's only going to get married and take on her husbands name. Do they expect her husband to take the name Mw?
I'm confused.

msfroyste · #52 05-12-2005, 02:55 AM

the japanese royal family is the oldest and continuously reigning royal family. in the middle east, there are royal/noble families that can trace their lines as far back to the Prophet Mahommad and to ancient kings and queens of persia, mesopotamia, egypt, etc.

GrandDuchess · #53 05-12-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lashinka2002

I have a question & I'm sure one of your posts answered it but I didn't understand it.
What's the point of naming Lady Louise Mountbatten Windsor if she's only going to get married and take on her husbands name. Do they expect her husband to take the name Mw? I'm confused.

"Lady" is not a name that one can give a person - Lady is a honorary style that comes for female members of a family of a peerage. She is styled Lady Louise as the is the daughter of an Earl, that's just how it is. And they have also chosen not to give her any additional titles, as they want to raise her as normally as possible.

galuhcandrakirana · #54 11-30-2005, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillary_nugent

the Danish are the oldest European royal family but i think the Japanese are the oldest royal family...i heard something on TV about that...but i'm not 100% sure...

You are right with it..Japanesse Imperial family is the oldest imperial/royal family in the world
Imperial History

The Chrysanthemum Throne: A History of the Emperors of Japan by Peter Martin. The Japanese imperial dynasty can be traced back some 1,600 years, making it the world's oldest hereditary monarchy. This first general study of the institution throughout its history includes material previously available only in Japanese.

msfroyste · #55 11-30-2005, 06:34 AM

the japanese imperial family is the world's oldest continuous monarchy. the persian monarchy, if you count all of the families/tribes, was the longest monarchy. i believe it went back some 2500+ years.

SIDOROFF · #56 04-19-2008, 11:50 PM

Kangra-Lambagraon. 6400 years.

magnik · #57 04-20-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF

Kangra-Lambagraon. 6400 years.

Kangra-Lambagraon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
KANGRA-LAMBAGRAON ROYAL FAMILY

The House of Capet not so old as above circa IX - X century. They from Robertians. From Capet we have de Bourbons.

Noble:(maybe posted before I don't know)
Orsini family
Orsini family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Orsini)
Orsini

lucien · #58 05-07-2008, 11:42 AM

I believe the oldest,functioning,Monarchy as well as Imperial Family,at present is Japan.

Before,that honour befell to Persia/Iran,I remember the 2500 anniversary celebrations in Persepolis in the early 70ties.

Warren · #59 05-08-2008, 08:58 AM

Correct Lucien, but I think we are after longest/oldest unbroken lines of descent. Persia/Iran, like China, had a series of dynasties rather than a continuous related line.

Prince of Chota · #60 06-02-2008, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bct88

I believe that the oldest is Denmark. The first king I believe was Gorm the Old in the 900s.

I thought Gorm was like 870 or something. Anyway, ninth century.

Denmark is the oldest in Europe. The oldest reigning family in the world is believed to be Japan (House of Yamato). According to tradition it is more than 2600 years old, although most scholars think it is only 1700 or 1800 years old.

Oddly enough actress Tilda Swinton comes from one of the oldest families in Britain (look into the Swinton Baronets).