Titles Of Nobility And Aristocracy


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
20th Century Queen Consorts

Queen Geraldine of Albania born Countess Géraldine Margit Virginia Olga Mária Apponyi de Nagy-Appony

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother born Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon

Queen Fabiola of the Belgians born Doña Fabiola de Mora y Aragón

Tsaritsa Margarita of Bulgaria born Doña Margarita Gómez-Acebo y Cejuela
 
1 Alaouite dynasty of Morocco descended from Al-Hassan Ad-Dakhil who was hoped to be a descendant of greatest Islamic Prophet Muhammad.
2 House of Saud of Saudi Arabia descended from Saud ibn Muhammad ibn Muqrin that traces its origin to the Arabian tribe of 'Amir ibn Saasaa--- a tribe that swore allegiance to Prophet Muhammad and his immediate successors.
3 The Hashemites of Jordan claim to trace their ancestry from Hashim ibn 'Abd Manaf the great-grandfather of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad.
This really does not contradict my statement that the Arab countries did not develop an indigenous system of titled nobility, and consequently there are not likely to be many Arab royals who are descended from nobility. Descendance from the Prophet Muhammad is not the same thing as the concept of nobility, nor is descendance from a particular tribe.

The closest thing to a concept of nobility that the Arab world developed indigenously is the concept of a sheikh, but a sheikh really is not a noble. Sheikhs are either members of the royal house, or tribal chieftains, or influential Islamic scholars.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that non royal but aristocratic wives of monarchs or princes is what the OP is askig about. Of course there are many European princes in the last century who have married wives who were of noble but not royal birth... but I think he's asking about noble families who "roes to royalty"...
 
I don't think that non royal but aristocratic wives of monarchs or princes is what the OP is askig about. Of course there are many European princes in the last century who have married wives who were of noble but not royal birth... but I think he's asking about noble families who "roes to royalty"...

The House of Savoy and the House of Romanov are two great examples. :flowers:
 
Last edited:
Ennoblement

Hello.


Apart from the UK, the Vatican, Belgium and San Marino, In which countries can those not marrying into the royal family can still be ennobled? Can titles be passed between distant relatives akin to abdication in favor of?
 
Hello.


Apart from the UK, the Vatican, Belgium and San Marino, In which countries can those not marrying into the royal family can still be ennobled? Can titles be passed between distant relatives akin to abdication in favor of?

Spain.

And to note in 2006 Spain passed a law that introduced equal primogeniture among its nobility, not simply for the throne. Meaning the eldest child of the noble is eligible to inherit no matter their gender. Something we do not see in the UK and other countries with nobility. In Scotland (those titles created before the union of thrones) there are a few where a woman can inherit, but only male preference.

And yes the King still creates new noble titles in Spain.


In Spain the title does not automatically pass to the heir on death. They actually have to pay taxes to take the title.

No abdication per say but:

-the heir to the title has 2 years to claim the title following the death of the holder. If they don't, anyone who is a child, grandchild or male line descendent can lay claim to the title. It must be done within 40 years of the person dying.

-A noble can actually cede their title during their life time. But this can only be done with their subsidiary titles. Their senior most title must go to their direct heir (eldest child). We saw this with the Duchess of Alba who held the Guiness record for most titles. She ceded titles to each of her children.
 
Olivia de Borbón is heiress to the the Duchy of Seville ,she will be one day the 6th Duchess,her father Don Francisco de Borbón is the current 5th Duke of Seville.
 
Since 2017 and at 23 years old, Princess Victoria of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, 20th Duchess of Medinaceli is the most titled aristocrat in Spain.
 
Since 2017 and at 23 years old, Princess Victoria of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, 20th Duchess of Medinaceli is the most titled aristocrat in Spain.

I always thought the Duke of Alba held that record?
 
I always thought the Duke of Alba held that record?

Yup well during the time of Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart, 18th Duchess of Alba she was the most titled aristocrat. Victoria Eugenia Fernández de Córdoba, 18th Duchess of Medinaceli just came in second.

But since her death, she ceded more titles to her children and also her heir the current Duke of Alba ceded some to his youngest son.
 
Marquess

Hello!

I would be very thankful for help.
I'm not sure if you I can ask a question about Marquess in this forum. I have a fork made in 1895 in Sheffield. It has a brand that I wonder about. It's the crown, it's a crown for a Marquess?

Best regards

Per
 

Attachments

  • A38DD8CD-839D-456B-A957-744E2A0A0D73.jpg
    A38DD8CD-839D-456B-A957-744E2A0A0D73.jpg
    192 KB · Views: 50
United titles (Marquess and Earldom)

Are there any peerage holder that use combined titles that are ranked differently? There's a precedence when the titles are united but both of these titles are similarly ranked. For example: William Alexander Sidney Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke, 15th Earl of Montgomery.

What about Marquess and Earl?

Let's take Lord Mountbatten's title "Earl Mountbatten of Burma" as an example. Lord Mountbatten's elder daughter, Patricia inherited his title. This is very rare hence why I'm interested. The late Patricia Mountbatten, 2nd Countess Mountbatten married Baron Brabourne. As a consequence, the peerage title "Baron Brabourne" became subsidiary to that of the Earldom. But what if Patricia married someone with a higher ranked title? What if she married a marquess? What if Patricia the 8th Marquess Townshend. What would happen to the earldom when it was passed to Patricia's heir? Would it be "absorbed" and become one of the subsidiary titles of the Marquess Townshend? Or would it be united like the Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Montgomery?

Earldom as subsidiary title: Nicholas Louis Philip Townshend, 10th Marquess Townshend and his eldest son/heir apparent, Edward Louis Alexander Townshend, Earl Mountbatten

Earldom became united with Marquessate: Nicholas Louis Philip Townshend, 10th Marquess Townshend, 3rd Earl Mountbatten of Burma"

Is there precendence for this?

Thank you in advance.
 
First, it differs per country. The British and Spanish system, although they have similarities (a peerage system in which there is only one title holder), work differently - and the differences with the continental systems in which all (male-line) descendants carry the same title is even larger.

In het peerage system, in most cases it seems that people use their highest title; and many times only one even if their various titles are of the same rank. If the other titles aren't used by the titleholder they can be used by their heir (and heir's heir).

An example of someone with two 'similarly ranked' titles is Edward. Nobody calls him 'The Earl of Wessex and Forfar', while he is both. James continues to use 'Viscount Severn' - I cannot think of a case in which a 'same level' title is used for the heir but it would be interesting to see if someone can think of one. In William's case, we'll have to see whether they will use 'The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge' once Charles is king or that they will normally stick to 'Cornwall'.
 
First, it differs per country. The British and Spanish system, although they have similarities (a peerage system in which there is only one title holder), work differently - and the differences with the continental systems in which all (male-line) descendants carry the same title is even larger.

In het peerage system, in most cases it seems that people use their highest title; and many times only one even if their various titles are of the same rank. If the other titles aren't used by the titleholder they can be used by their heir (and heir's heir).

An example of someone with two 'similarly ranked' titles is Edward. Nobody calls him 'The Earl of Wessex and Forfar', while he is both. James continues to use 'Viscount Severn' - I cannot think of a case in which a 'same level' title is used for the heir but it would be interesting to see if someone can think of one. In William's case, we'll have to see whether they will use 'The Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge' once Charles is king or that they will normally stick to 'Cornwall'.

George V was known as The Duke of Cornwall & York after his father's succession & before he was made Prince of Wales

Regarding post 55 there was the Countess-Duchess of Sutherland. The earldom was hers but the dukedom was created for her husband. So not quite an answer to the question.
 
Last edited:
In terms of the UK, I can't think of any peers who were known by combined titles that were ranked differently. I believe the highest ranking title was preferred and only equally-ranked titles were combined.

This is somewhat peripheral to your question, but sometimes Scottish and Irish peers used a lower-ranking title while sitting in the House of Lords because their Scottish/Irish titles did not automatically entitle them to a seat.

For example, the Queen's maternal grandfather the 14th Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne (a Scottish title) sat in the House as Baron Bowes of Streatlam (a lower-ranking title created in the peerage of the UK). Or at least he did until 1937 when his son-in-law George VI made him Earl of Strathmore & Kinghorne in the peerage of the UK, which allowed him to sit as an earl.
 
Similarly peripheral to the question in post 55 would be the curious case of the Jacobite peers. Known by one title in the kingdoms of GB or Ireland & another (often higher) at the exiled court of James II.
 
The Duke of Leinster is the premier title in the peerage of Ireland and the subsidiary titles are Marquess of Kildare and Earl of Offaly.

The current 9th Duke ,Lord Maurice FitzGerald (b1948) succeeded his father in 2004.Sadly his only son Thomas FitzGerald, Earl of Offaly was killed in a car accident in 1997 and was unmarried. The Duke also has 2 daughters and 3 sisters but none of them can succeed him. The heir to the dukedom is his nephew Edward FitzGerald.
 
Deleted post.


See the attached file for a discussion on the legal status and regulation of the nobility or the peerage in the following jurisdictions:



  1. The United Kingdom
  2. Spain
  3. Belgium and Netherlands
  4. Denmark and Sweden
 

Attachments

  • 1egal-status-nobility-peerage.doc
    70 KB · Views: 27
Last edited:
None of the current Continental monarchs have elevated persons outside the royal family into the hereditary nobility. Even in the UK in the last 50 years only three non-royals were given a hereditary peerage. Two of these were elder gentlemen without children. So effectively also in the UK the unofficial policy is followed that there are no elevations into the peerage outside the royal family. This confirms the general impression: the Nobility is a historic institute with historic rules. There are no new elevations so it will slowly phase out.

Spain still has a lively nobility with modernised rules which differ quite a lot from the other nobiliary systems, but also there the number of new hereditary nobles is limited. Most new hereditary creations were from the first years of King Juan Carlos.

Changing rules to allow ladies to pass their noble titles is a contradiction with the unwritten policy of slowly phasing out the Nobility.

But changing rules to allow both male and female members of existing noble houses to pass their noble titles would not be comparable to phasing out the elevations of new families into the hereditary nobility. It would be comparable to the Netherlands changing the rules of its hereditary nobility to allow fathers to pass on their titles to all of their recognized children whether born inside or outside of marriage, or Germany changing its rules to allow titles which are part of legal names to be passed on by mothers and fathers alike.
 
But changing rules to allow both male and female members of existing noble houses to pass their noble titles would not be comparable to phasing out the elevations of new families into the hereditary nobility. It would be comparable to the Netherlands changing the rules of its hereditary nobility to allow fathers to pass on their titles to all of their recognized children whether born inside or outside of marriage, or Germany changing its rules to allow titles which are part of legal names to be passed on by mothers and fathers alike.


I think Duc's point was that, if the nobility is being effectively phased out in the Netherlands, it wouldn't make sense to introduce a rule that would in practice increase the number over time of people holding nobiliary titles.


As he said, the nobility is now recognized in Europe merely as a historical institution (a relic of the past if you will), so it doesn't make sense to "modernize" its succession rules to fit modern concepts of gender equality, even though the Spanish parliament for example did it in 2006.

The situation of the succession to the Crown is different, however, in my humble opinion, because it has constitutional implications as the King or Queen who occupies the throne is the Head of State (and not merely a "relic of the past").
 
Last edited:
I think Duc's point was that, if the nobility is being effectively phased out in the Netherlands, it wouldn't make sense to introduce a rule that would in practice increase the number over time of people holding nobiliary titles.

As he said, the nobility is recognized now in Europe merely as a historical institution (a relic of the past if you will), so it doesn't make sense to "modernize" its succession rules to fit modern concepts of gender equality, even though the Spanish parliament for example did it in 2006.

According to that interpretation (though I disagree with it), the nobility is not being phased out in the Netherlands. My point was that a new rule to "modernize" rules of succession that will in practice increase the number over time of people holding nobiliary titles has indeed been introduced, albeit only in favor of male-line descendants.


I think only the UK, Spain and Belgium still create new peerages outside of the royal family.
In the UK new peerages are for the life of the holder and are not hereditary (except those for the RF). Life peerages are recommended by the government. Not sure what the mechanism is in Spain or Belgium.

Unlike the UK, however, there is no house of peers and titles of nobility do not award any legal privileges.
 
. My point was that a new rule to "modernize" rules of succession that will in practice increase the number over time of people holding nobiliary titles has indeed been introduced, albeit only in favor of male-line descendants.


I probably missed your point in earlier posts, but my understanding is that the succession rule in place is the same as the historic rule, i.e. transmission in male-line only. The only difference over time has been transmission to all vs. transmission to the firstborn son, but that affects only the transmission of titles as untitled children of a noble man are still considered noble in the Netherlands or Belgium (which is a difference for example from post-1809 Swedish nobility, where only the title holder is legally noble).

Are you perhaps referring to the transmission of nobility to adopted sons? That is the only recently introduced rule I can think of that would potentially increase the number of members of the nobility in comparison to what their numbers would otherwise have been under the historic (legacy) rules.

And, yes, to the extent that new elevations to the nobility no longer occur outside the Royal Family, new recognition of (ancient) nobility is becoming rarer, and noble families are dying out in male line, I agree with Duc that the nobility is being phased out in the Netherlands.
 
Last edited:
I probably missed your point in earlier posts [...] Are you perhaps referring to the transmission of nobility to adopted sons? That is the only recently introduced rule I can think of that would potentially increase the number of members of the nobility in comparison to what their numbers would otherwise have been under the historic (legacy) rules. [...] I agree with Duc that the nobility is being phased out in the Netherlands.

I think these are the parts of my earlier posts which you missed:

While that was the excuse used by the Government, the reality was that for male nobles, the Government opened the doors by taking away the legitimacy limitations on hereditary nobility and allowing men to pass their titles to their out of wedlock and adopted children. Considering that approximately one in two children in the Netherlands is born to unmarried parents, the change is likely to radically increase the number of male-line descendants who are allowed to inherit titles of nobility.

But changing rules to allow both male and female members of existing noble houses to pass their noble titles would not be comparable to phasing out the elevations of new families into the hereditary nobility. It would be comparable to the Netherlands changing the rules of its hereditary nobility to allow fathers to pass on their titles to all of their recognized children whether born inside or outside of marriage [...]


and noble families are dying out in male line,

Are they, though? What is the number of noble families that have died out since the above referenced rule change?
 
Last edited:
It occurs to me that under the Dutch Civil Code, the child of a nobleman must carry the surname of their noble father to inherit his nobility. So, the change in the Netherlands to give nobility to male-line descendants born out of wedlock will, in all likelihood, increase the number of members of the nobility much more rapidly than a hypothetical change to give women equal rights to transmit nobility would have, because approximately one in two children is now born to unmarried parents whereas only a small minority of children carry the surname of their mother.
 
Is there any example where there were two extant peerage titles (each held by different holders) with the same territorial designation?

I wonder if the male line of the Marquess of Cambridge (created in 1917) didn't die (extant). Would the Queen re-create the historic Duke of Cambridge (reserved for members of the Royal family) for Prince William or would she bestow other Dukedom with different territorial designation? It wouldn't be a "conflict" if there two Cambridges as long as they are not of equal rank or am I wrong?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marquess_of_Cambridge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Cambridge



Thanks in advance!
 
:previous:

As a rule there are not supposed to be two British peerage titles designated with the same place name or family name, but the issue can be resolved by qualifying the newer peerage with a different territorial designation. For example, a Baron Blank of Blanktown and a Baron Blank of Newtown can coexist.

The "of" in Peerages
 
Unfortunately they may hold the title, they are not the right heirs. In the book the decline and fall of the duke of leinster, talks about how Edward 7th Duke of leinster isn't even a FitzGerald. His father was hugo charteris lord elcho. They are pretenders trying hold on it
 
Back
Top Bottom