General Questions About Royalty and Monarchies

[Tatiana Maria]

With cases like Bourbon Two Scillies, The Duke of Castro actually broke an agreement with the Duke of Calabria to name his daughter his "successor".

Naming his daughter as his successor was not a breach of agreement between the two claimants, since the agreement explicitly did not reference the disputed headship:

"Their Royal Highnesses, Prince Carlo of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duke of Castro and Prince Pedro of Bourbon Two Sicilies, Duke of Noto, reiterate the fact that in the Dynastic Family agreement signed in Naples on January 25th 2014, there is no mentioning of any references to the Headship of the Royal House of Bourbon Two Sicilies and that all allegations and inferences to that respect are without any foundation".

The agreement did reference mutual recognition of the claimants' assumed titles, so that by awarding the title Duchess of Calabria to his daughter while it remained in use by the other claimant and his wife, he arguably did break the agreement.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Do you have any specific examples in mind here? I could find one example of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud,_Hereditary_Prince_of_Denmark#Heir_presumptive

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden aired his feelings in regard to his daughter being made his heiress over his son by Parliament, most recently in 2003. You will find articles on his remarks in this thread.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...uccession-1979-constitution-change-10379.html

Prince Laurent of Belgium apparently expressed resentment at being bypassed by his older sister in an interview for Het Laatste Nieuws in the late 1990s, though I have not found a direct quotation.

Thank you by the way for the thoughtful discussions you have started.

 

[Futurist]

King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden aired his feelings in regard to his daughter being made his heiress over his son by Parliament, most recently in 2003. You will find articles on his remarks in this thread.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...uccession-1979-constitution-change-10379.html

Prince Laurent of Belgium apparently expressed resentment at being bypassed by his older sister in an interview for Het Laatste Nieuws in the late 1990s, though I have not found a direct quotation.

The issue that I have with the Swedish case is that an actual person was stripped of their birthright. He was an infant at the time, but still. It would have been better to do this before his birth or, alternatively, to limit it to future generations.

(Though if we're going to be honest, if a country is going to have a monarchy, maybe an elective monarchy along the lines of Cambodia should be given a strong look. After all, why exactly should elder children always be favored over younger children if younger children could, in some cases, be more competent than their elder siblings are?)

Thank you by the way for the thoughtful discussions you have started.

No problem! I try my best!

 

[Futurist]

You might be interested in the position statement on this issue delivered by a previous UK government.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldhansrd/text/131206-0002.htm




Claims to defunct royal thrones are rarely legal, thus Heavs's point would still be relevant by analogy.



Hugo Klynstra's rights to inherit the legal title (HRH Prince) and surname (de Bourbon de Parme) of his father were recognized by a Dutch court of law pursuant to the Dutch nobility law, which differs from the scenario discussed in Heavs's post of a child simply beginning to call themselves by a title which was never legally theirs.

In contrast, Duke of Parma, as well as King of Spain, the other non-legal title assumed by Hugo's father, would be fitting examples if Hugo were to claim them, as they are not legally recognized for either Hugo or his father.

Thanks for your link here! And Yeah, good point distinguishing between legally recognized and legally unrecognized titles.

 

[Stefan]

The issue that I have with the Swedish case is that an actual person was stripped of their birthright. He was an infant at the time, but still. It would have been better to do this before his birth or, alternatively, to limit it to future generations.

That was not possible because of the legal work which had to be done to change to succession law. It had to be approved a second time by a new elected Parliament (the election took place in autumn 1979) before coming into effect.
So one can say that Prince Csrl Philip was simply born at the wrong time. Had he been born a few months later the law had already been changed.

 

[Futurist]

That was not possible because of the legal work which had to be done to change to succession law. It had to be approved a second time by a new elected Parliament (the election took place in autumn 1979) before coming into effect.
So one can say that Prince Csrl Philip was simply born at the wrong time. Had he been born a few months later the law had already been changed.

Well, they could have theoretically began the process of changing this law even sooner than they actually did in real life!

 

[Somebody]

There was never any expectation that CP would be the future king. The new law had already been approved but needed a second approval. That was known at the time of his birth, so while I generally agree that these things should not apply to living people (as much as possible). In this case, it made sense, because it would have been even weirder if the change had only applied to those born after 1980 - because in that case if Madeleine had been a boy, Victoria as a girl would have been superseded by one of her younger brothers but not by the other. The intention from the start was clearly that it would apply to the children of Carl Gustaf.

 

[Futurist]

There was never any expectation that CP would be the future king. The new law had already been approved but needed a second approval. That was known at the time of his birth, so while I generally agree that these things should not apply to living people (as much as possible). In this case, it made sense, because it would have been even weirder if the change had only applied to those born after 1980 - because in that case if Madeleine had been a boy, Victoria as a girl would have been superseded by one of her younger brothers but not by the other. The intention from the start was clearly that it would apply to the children of Carl Gustaf.

That makes sense; thank you for this explanation!

 

[Mbruno]

There was never any expectation that CP would be the future king.

Maybe the Royal Court had a different expectation. Didn't they display the Crown Prince's crown at CP's christening?

 

[Futurist]

The Brazilian Empire was a Latin American monarchy and, like the Portuguese monarchy, it didn't use agnatic primogeniture, but rather male-preference cognatic primogeniture.

For example, if Emperor Pedro II of Brazil had not been deposed, he would have been succeeded by his daughter, Princess Isabel.

Thanks for clarifying this part.

 

[Futurist]

Question: Which royal houses (either current or former) have historically used agnatic primogeniture at any point in time? I can think of:

-France. Interestingly enough, there was no equal marriage requirement here.
-The various Italian kingdoms
-The various German kingdoms
-Italy
-The German Empire. There was also an equal marriage requirement.
-Austria-Hungary after Maria Theresa's death. There was also an equal marriage requirement.
-Russia after Tsar Paul. It allowed female succession, but only after all of the eligible males had run out. There was also an equal marriage requirement.
-Spain after Philip V and before Ferdinand VII changed the Spanish succession laws back to what they were before Philip V.
-Japan in the modern era. Though royals of illegitimate descent (through the use of concubines) were also allowed to inherit the Japanese throne until 1947.
-Portugal early on in its history, maybe? I know that they had succession crises in the late 1300s and late 1500s once their male lines ran out. They ultimately ended up getting new kings based on illegitimate male lines of royal descent (though in the second case, there was also a 60 year period of Spanish rule in Portugal between 1580 and 1640 or so, after which point the House of Braganza came to power in Portugal).
-England between 1400 and 1461.

Anyway, which additional examples of this were there?

 

[Futurist]

Also, one more question: Other than Franz, Duke of Bavaria ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz,_Duke_of_Bavaria ), which royalty in recent times was LGBT? I primarily prefer to focus on after 1945 here. I know that there were rumors about Italian King Umberto II's sexuality, but nothing definitive has been established in this regard, if I recall correctly.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Question: Which royal houses (either current or former) have historically used agnatic primogeniture at any point in time?

I recall that in the 19th century or thereabouts, virtually all of the hereditary royal houses of Europe used either strictly agnatic primogeniture or semi-Salic primogeniture wherein female succession was allowed only after all agnatic lines had run out. The sole exceptions, if my recollection is correct, were the royal houses of Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain.

Outside of Europe, at present, the vast majority of hereditary monarchies exclude women and girls from the line of succession.

Maybe the Royal Court had a different expectation. Didn't they display the Crown Prince's crown at CP's christening?

But the first vote had already taken place before Crown Prince Carl Philip's birth. Wasn't the outcome of the second vote taken for granted? The decision to display the Crown Princely crown may have been a protocol issue (as he was, technically, the crown prince at the time of his christening), or a protest against the impending change in succession.

 

[Futurist]

I recall that in the 19th century or thereabouts, virtually all of the hereditary royal houses of Europe used either strictly agnatic primogeniture or semi-Salic primogeniture wherein female succession was allowed only after all agnatic lines had run out. The sole exceptions, if my recollection is correct, were the royal houses of Spain, Portugal, and Great Britain.

Outside of Europe, at present, the vast majority of hereditary monarchies exclude women and girls from the line of succession.

Thanks for this information. Also, I just want to make sure: This trend/pattern began in the early 1300s when the direct Capetian male line ran out in France and thus the French came up with the agnatic succession that was allegedly based on Salic Law in order to allow the Valois to inherit the French throne, correct? After that point, it was only a matter of most other European royal houses copying the French, right?

 

[Suzzanah]

Royal Life in This Decade

Events within the Royal family have appeared as bickering and fighting. Conflict is the way we express differences of opinion as are discussion and negotiation. Many Royals may feel the strain of the glass houses that they live in. The queen pressed forward open information and photos with the media. With all that media exposure there have been growing pains. Too much information, lack of privacy and the general media circus have all been issues. Moving forward the social medias must be accountable for their behavior. Individuals must be be aware how they affect others. The aftermath of Coronavirus has wrecked havoc to countries and their people. Entire sectors of society are missing. Through this chaos displaying grace, dignity, poise, kindness, patience and honesty are most important. In order to solve the worlds' problems we must work together as best we can. In essence we must move forward and WAGE PEACE.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

HM also created Andrew the Duke of York on his wedding day. It seems to be a tradition in the British royal family. With this practice also, the bride becomes titled at the time of marriage. Hence why we have The Duchess of Cambridge rather than Princess William. The same applied to Sarah and Sophie on their wedding days.

A Prince was not always created Duke of York on his wedding day.
Prince Frederick Augustus (1763-1827) was the second son of King George III.
Frederick was created Duke of York and Albany on November 27, 1784.
He married Princess Frederica of Prussia in 1791.
Thus he already was Duke of York before his wedding day.

 

[An Ard Ri]

A Prince was not always created Duke of York on his wedding day.
Prince Frederick Augustus (1763-1827) was the second son of King George III.
Frederick was created Duke of York and Albany on November 27, 1784.
He married Princess Frederica of Prussia in 1791.
Thus he already was Duke of York before his wedding day.

His uncle too

Prince Edward, Duke of York and Albany a grandson of George II and was created Duke of York and Albany in 1760 .
He died unmarried in 1767.

Edward, Duke of York (1739-1767)

 

[LauraS3514]

A Prince was not always created Duke of York on his wedding day.
Prince Frederick Augustus (1763-1827) was the second son of King George III.
Frederick was created Duke of York and Albany on November 27, 1784.
He married Princess Frederica of Prussia in 1791.
Thus he already was Duke of York before his wedding day.

Also: Prince Albert was created Duke of York in 1920, married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923.

Prince Henry created Duke of Gloucester 1928, married Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott in 1935.

Prince George created Duke of Kent October 12, 1934, married Princess Marina of Greece on November 29, 1934. This is the closest parallel.

It was Queen Elizabeth II who started the "tradition" of giving her sons and grandsons titles on their wedding days - thus saving their wives from being known as "Princess Husband's Name."

 

[An Ard Ri]

It was Queen Elizabeth II who started the "tradition" of giving her sons and grandsons titles on their wedding days - thus saving their wives from being known as "Princess Husband's Name."

And King Juan Carlos seems to have followed this tradition

He granted HRH The Infanta Doña Elena on the 3rd of March 1995 the title of Duchess of Lugo for life ahead of her Wedding day.

He also granted HRH The Infanta Cristina the title of Duchess of Palma de Mallorca on 26 September 1997 ahead of her Wedding.
This title was revoked by by King Felipe VI in June 2015.

 

[Denville]

Also: Prince Albert was created Duke of York in 1920, married Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923.

Prince Henry created Duke of Gloucester 1928, married Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott in 1935.

Prince George created Duke of Kent October 12, 1934, married Princess Marina of Greece on November 29, 1934. This is the closest parallel.

It was Queen Elizabeth II who started the "tradition" of giving her sons and grandsons titles on their wedding days - thus saving their wives from being known as "Princess Husband's Name."

It may have simply been that in earlier times, it was expected that a Prince would get a royal dukedom so most princes got them when they were young men. but in the mid 20th C, there was less inclination to give out titles, so it became a tradition that when a prince got married, he was considered a mature man and given a title - so Andrew became DOY and Ed became earl of Wessex, on their wedding days.

 

[Toledo]

And King Juan Carlos seems to have followed this tradition

He granted HRH The Infanta Doña Elena on the 3rd of March 1995 the title of Duchess of Lugo for life ahead of her Wedding day.

He also granted HRH The Infanta Cristina the title of Duchess of Palma de Mallorca on 26 September 1997 ahead of her Wedding.
This title was revoked by by King Felipe VI in June 2015.

Is interesting to compare Spanish and UK title traditions for grandsons of a monarch. In the UK they are automatically princes but not in Spain, which they automatically are called Grandes of Spain. Being a Grande (literally grand or great) is higher than Duke and considered as equal in marriageable status to the king or queen's family. The tradition was calling Grandes as cousins of the king/queen.

Different from other European nobility where the dukes, marquises, counts et al are below the royal family and marriage is considered an unequal union.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Is interesting to compare Spanish and UK title traditions for grandsons of a monarch. In the UK they are automatically princes but not in Spain, which they automatically are called Grandes of Spain. Being a Grande (literally grand or great) is higher than Duke and considered as equal in marriageable status to the king or queen's family. The tradition was calling Grandes as cousins of the king/queen.

Different from other European nobility where the dukes, marquises, counts et al are below the royal family and marriage is considered an unequal union.

In Spain the only Prince or Princess is the Prince or Princess of Asturias.The Prince or Princess of Asturias is also Prince(ess) of Girona, Duke/Duchess of Montblanc, Count/Countess of Cervera, and Lord/Lady of Balague

The other children of the Monarch and children of the PoA are also Infante/Infanta
The children of an Infante or Infanta are styled His or Her Excellency Don/Doña (Lord/Lady)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Is interesting to compare Spanish and UK title traditions for grandsons of a monarch. In the UK they are automatically princes but not in Spain, which they automatically are called Grandes of Spain. Being a Grande (literally grand or great) is higher than Duke and considered as equal in marriageable status to the king or queen's family. The tradition was calling Grandes as cousins of the king/queen.

Different from other European nobility where the dukes, marquises, counts et al are below the royal family and marriage is considered an unequal union.

In the days when the Spanish monarchy still imposed an equal marriage requirement (up to the late 20th century), monarch's grandchildren who were Spanish subjects and born from equal marriages were created HRH Infanta/Infante of Spain.

Marriage to a non-royal Grande did not qualify as an equal marriage, though. The marriage of Infanta Luisa Teresa to the Duke of Sessa (all Spanish dukes and duchesses are grandes) was treated as unequal, and Luisa Teresa was not permitted to share her royal rank and title with her husband.

In Spain the only Prince or Princess is the Prince or Princess of Asturias.The Prince or Princess of Asturias is also Prince(ess) of Girona, Duke/Duchess of Montblanc, Count/Countess of Cervera, and Lord/Lady of Balague

Indeed, during most of Spanish history the title of Prince or Princess was reserved for a kingdom's heir or heiress and their spouse, being the equivalent of the Scandinavian title of Crown Prince.

The Bourbons, however, sometimes employed the title for further related family members who were born from equal marriages but were not children or grandchildren of a monarch. Perhaps they were influenced by foreign royal traditions.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/infantes.htm#non

 

[JR76]

(all Spanish dukes and duchesses are grandes)

The Duke of Fernandina is not a grandee.

 

[Izzie]

Interesting topic and very relevant

https://www.nettyroyal.nl/miscellaneous/the-changing-world-of-royalty-criticism/

 

[teamxp2001]

Many royal houses throughout history have used this system, including the British Royal Family, the House of Bourbon in France, and the Habsburg Dynasty. For those who aren't familiar, Agnatic primogeniture is a system of inheritance where the eldest male child inherits the throne or property.
SnapTik

 

[Blog Real]

I will ask here a question about monarchies and royal families. If a King dies, what will happen to his wife? As long as the children are minors, will the Queen be able to remarry? and if she marries while the children are minors, will they be able to continue living with their mother? Constitutionally, how could this issue be resolved?

 

[Muhler]

Well, at least for Denmark. Yes, the widow can remarry despite her children being underage.

The mother will continue do what she has always done, being their mother and raise them and also raise them into their future role and otherwise care for them.
In the meantime a Rigsforstander will be appointed. The Rigsforstander will also be responsible for the Heir being prepared and educated so that he/she can take over at eighteen and become the next monarch.

The Queen will however not be able to keep her title as Queen when she remarries. She will probably get another title, to be determined by the Rigsforstander.
But she will in every other way still be the parent of the royal children and no doubt get an apanage and a residence befitting of their station, not her station. Her conditions is an entirely different matter. What matters most to the monarchy and the state is her children.

But she can't take her children with her, at least not the Heir, and leave the country. Her children in general and the Heir in particular de facto belongs to the state.

So I think the most sensible and practical solution would be for her to simply remain unmarried until her children have become adults.
She could still see someone and probably to a large extent even live with someone without being married. It need not even be a secret, as long as it's done in a sensible manner - and her sweetheart knows his place! (I think the public will be pretty attentive to that!)
And once the youngest has become an adult, the Queen can remarry, having truly done her duty. Provided the whole thing has been done with the interests of the children and the monarchy put first, I think she would be praised and respected to high heaven.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I will ask here a question about monarchies and royal families. If a King dies, what will happen to his wife? As long as the children are minors, will the Queen be able to remarry? and if she marries while the children are minors, will they be able to continue living with their mother? Constitutionally, how could this issue be resolved?

That would naturally differ from monarchy to monarchy.

In the principality of Monaco, the house laws stipulate that the widowed spouse of a sovereign prince(ss) would lose guardianship of their children upon remarriage.

 

[doro]

Why the royal families are called "Gotha" in French?

I've always to know, why the royals are called in French "Gotha"? Ex.: "mariées du Gotha", etc.