When Do Ex-Royals Cease To Be Royal ?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.

NGalitzine

Heir Apparent
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
5,276
City
Toronto (ON) & London (UK)
Country
Canada
My question is when do ex-royals or members of families who were once royal cease to be royal. The Romanoffs, Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns ceased to reign after WWI. Roumania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Italy ended their monarchies after WWII. It has been even longer since families like the Orleans, Bourbon Two Siclies , Braganzas reigned, not to mention all of the minor reigning & mediatized familes of Germany and the Holy Roman Empire. A lot of us have royal or noble families in our ancestry but we don't consider ourselves royal or noble. What period of time has to pass before members of these former royal families come to be thought of as commoners with interesting ancestors and rather pretentious for them to still use royal styles and titles.
 
I would guess when the average person doesn't recognize a family as being royal when they talk about them in the past tense. Many of these families the Romanoffs, Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns are still royal because they have generally have married into royal families or nobility considered acceptable and people recognized them as such. If they had broken away from their traditions and consistently married non-royals or common people, they probably wouldn' be considered royal today.

Those of us who are not considered royal or noble probably started out not being royal at all to begin with. In my family's case the mother was the daughter of the gardner or landscaper of the castle and the father was the grandson of the baron. The baron had another son who would claim all the inheritance rights. Not sure if he had other children.

My ancestor because of being born out of wedlock got no such rights even though he was acknowledged as being one of the grandsons of the baron. I believe he was probably paid by his grandfather or his father to leave Poland and go to America to live. He was given enough to live on, it appears. Once he was gone, out of sight, out of mind.

The higher the royal is, the more likely you would retain this title especially if you were recognized as the son or daughter of the royal. If that son or daughter married royally, then this would continue. It would probably not continue if the son or daughter married non-royals or someone of a lower status and then their children married non-royals. Then it would be just interesting family history.

One would have to wonder how many royal children came to America. On my dad's side, the grandson of a Polish Baron came to the United States in 1800. Once he came here, any royal status he had was gone. If he had stayed in Poland, he still would have the royal status but in name only. No money or property. It's just an interesting family story which was passed down the generations. I would imagine someone who is royal would say the same thing.

This is just my guess.
 
Interesting idea. There is a garbage collector/city worker in Toronto who is a legitimate great great grandson of Queen Victoria.....I wouldnt consider him royal. There is also Hermann Von Leiningen who is banking executive. His father was a Prince Von Leiningen and his mother is the sister of former King Simeon of Bulgaria. I consider him a commoner with interesting ancestors as well since German royalty went out of business in 1918.
 
To me it's a matter of legal recognition by the state as well as socially. The Romanovs still have their lineage, but the state itself does not legally recognize them as an official part of the Russian state. In Britain, titles among the British aristocracy and the BRF are legally recognized as part of the official state and government structure.
 
Royal is just someone saying so. The days of the "big sword" are gone. No one is, really, any better than any one else, except their ancestors, through might, took what they wanted to and left the others to forage and pledge alligiance. The Romanovs, the Hohenzollenen's and the Habsburgs are, hardly, royal, today. The Greek "royal family" live everywhere and anywhere, they were never Greek to begin with. If nations allow their "royals" a status that is becuase they like them, and, many are very likable and unoffensive. They toil to make their nations as best as they can.
 
Traditionally, this is where the concept of equal marriages comes into play. To marry a commoner or a subject meant the dilution of the blood royal and was considered a threat to the supremacy of a monarch and the Crown.

Today, with constitutional monarchy and democracy, these ideas are considered old-fashioned and out of step with a modern world.
 
Do you mean legally, or socially? Legally, most countries define who is "royal." I believe the law in Britain states that the monarch, his/her children and grandchildren, and male-line greatgrandchildren are royal. When it comes to countries that no longer have a monarchy, then no one is legally royal. But they may be viewed as "royal" by others in their country.
 
Do you also mean in protocol terms?

In Denmark the general rule is: Once a majesty always a majesty.
If a majesty has had the title of king and/or queen, and been officially acknowledged as such, then he/she may have been overthrown or dethroned but is still addressed and treated as a majesty in DK. - Albeit pretty low on the royal ladder. Reigning monarchs are way higher up the ladder.
So the answer in this context is: You are a majesty for life, unless you abdicate.
 
I guess I mean how long are we expected to treat these people as royal? I dont have a problem granting royal status to King Constantine or King Michael or King Simeon as they were all reigning monarchs and left their countries under duress. I mean more in terms of families like the Romanoffs, the Habsburgs, Hohenzollerns, Braganzas, Orleans, and all the minor German princes etc. There is probably no one in their families who can even remember when they were reigning, and yet socially people still grant them some special status instead of simply Mr or Miss Romanoff or Monsieur or Madam Orleans.
 
Reigning or not a royal is a royal!
 
What makes anyone royal? Other than their ancestors killed more and took more territory. Everyone is the same. Whatever title you want to use.
 
well all German royals and nobility their titles now are purely custom after WW1. and their titles have simply become part of their surnames. as for most countries that no longer have royals or nobility the titles are purely customary and hold no power or position.

so they are not really royal or noble anymore but many of the remaining European noble and royal families still recognize the non royal or noble families out of courtesy. like the Greek royal family they really have no titles anymore because the Greek nation revoked them.
but the other royal family's through relation and friendship still treat them as such

but no one really needs to address Constantine II as your majesty because he is no longer a king but if you want to out of custom or respect go nuts
 
Reigning or not a royal is a royal!

That is where we disagree, at some point these families become just people who had interesting ancestors. My question is how many decades or centuries have to pass before that happens. Families like the Orleans have been out of office for well over a century, and seem to squabble amongst themselves.
 
I was taught that the Habsburg family had to give up their royal privileges and rights after WW1 because it was required to build up a democratic republic. After the war was lost the people wanted to see some change and have a more just and equal political system-individuals born into wealthy/aristocratic families used to have better chances and opportunities in life and a lot of wealth-so of course there were many who critisised the monarchy,made it responsible for hunger and poverty and were angry because the aristocrats were much better off than the average subject...The situation was also quite difficult because CP Rudolph commited suicide in 1889-he was the only male heir and it was not only a huge tragedy for his parents but the whole dynasty-when you add this to the assasination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand (which lead to WW1),the demise of Franz Joseph in 1916 and the frustration of the many different colonies/countries asking for more rights or independence it was just a matter of time till the sytem had to collapse....

However there is still a lot of interest in the Habsburg family in Austria and they are widely appreciated & respected - especially Otto von Habsburg -there are even some ppl who wish that the Danube monarchy is re-installed because they are disappointed by the politicians who are in power now and the believe that back in the old days everything was better...

There are a lot of articles about Austrian history and the Habsburg monarchy online,not only on Wikipedia :)

I find it quite interesting to look at different royal families and see how they coped with modernity and change or why some dynasties had to end....
The Habsburg family had to leave the country,give up their regal prerogratives and parts of their wealth but they got away much better that the Iranian Royal family after the Islamic Revolution.I read a lot about Farah Diba,Soraya and the last Shah and they were treated so badly...I can understand the frustration and anger of the poor people who didn´t have enough to eat while the shahbanu was dressed in Dior and the RF travelled with a large private jet but still I don´t know why they were treated like criminals and most countries refused to give them refuge...It´s really weird that some powerful leaders are welcomed and celebrated and kicked out the next day.Of course the public has reasons to critisise and demand justice but history has shown that violence and bloody revolutions don´t bring lasting peace or democracy.
 
Last edited:
When the royal parent marries a commoner or someone of a different religion (eg catholic) or just a child of the monarch just want to be HH and not HRH like princess Martha Louise of Norway whose daughters carry no title but are grandchildren if the king of Norway . Or the HRH princess marries a commoner and decides that all her decendents not carry the title HRH.
 
In my view the legitimate use of royal or noble styles and titles can only be given by a legitimate state government. A "royal" or aristocrat ceases to be such when the State or legitimate government declares the monarchy abolished, strips them of their title, etc. For instance I find it laughable that Caroline de Monaco regards herself as HRH Princess of Hanover LOL. No Caroline, your husband is Mr. Ernst August von Hanover as the legitimate German (and British) government does not recognise his claimed German (and British) titles. Using HRH Princess of Hanover just makes you look delusional and pretencious :lol: I also found it laughable that the Duchess of Windsor claimed HRH after King George VI refused to grant her that style.
 
Last edited:
Or how about King Constantine, who is certainly not a king, though his wife is a Danish princess. And Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirova, heir to the non-existent Russian throne. And a plethora o German princes, etc. Caroline is not any more pretentious than they.
 
Using HRH Princess of Hanover just makes you look delusional and pretencious :lol:

In 1919 royalty and nobility were mandated to lose their privileges in Germany, hereditary titles were to be legally borne thereafter only as part of the surname, according to Article 109 of the Weimar Constitution. He is allowed to call himself a prince therefore his wife is a Princess. Monaco recognizes her German royal titles and her style as a Royal Highness. In your thinking, all the non-reigning families who continue to call themselves, King, Queen, Prince and Princess etc are "delusional and pretentious".
 
In your thinking, all the non-reigning families who continue to call themselves, King, Queen, Prince and Princess etc are "delusional and pretentious".

That's how I see it, as well.
What use a king without a kingdom?

Once the monarchy is abolished, I don't see the point of people continuing to call themselves King, Queen, Prince, or Princess.
 
Just wondering since she is the heir to the throne of Monaco should she not be recognized as Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline of Monaco. Since Albert has no children is she not next in line?
 
Just wondering since she is the heir to the throne of Monaco should she not be recognized as Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline of Monaco. Since Albert has no children is she not next in line?

She's known as Her Royal Highness The Princess of Hanover, Hereditary Princess of Monaco. The title Her Royal Highness outranks Her Serene Highness, even though she is heir.
 
Just wondering since she is the heir to the throne of Monaco should she not be recognized as Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline of Monaco. Since Albert has no children is she not next in line?

Princess Caroline was HSH Princess of Caroline of Monaco from her birth until her marriage to Prince Ernst of Hanover,since then she has been styled HRH The Princess of Hanover.

Caroline has been heiress presumptive to the throne of Monaco since the accession of her brother in 2005.
 
Reigning or not a royal is a royal!

Interesting thread.

In the course of my life I have had occasion to know people who - in other circumstances - would be identified as either royal or of noble blood. The backgrounds have all been varied but all have had a curious similarity in that they exhibit certain qualities.

In the women I have noted a physical 'fineness' and in their attitudes and carriage a certain hauteur. (Contrasted by a colleague I once had who was a scion of the Vanderbilt family - raised in opulent wealth and privilege - who yet was the salt-of-the-earth kind of person, so loving and caring of others, with such a lovely disposition, that she was called 'the little Buddha').

In the men I have noted a certain charm and charisma - an ability to rally people to themselves - mesmerizing is a word that comes to mind. In one instance, my friend's antecedents by one generation were Scandinavian nobility/royalty who had left for a life in the US with a forbidden lover one generation back. After WWII his parents were approached by the family to have him taken back to Scandinavia to be raised as the heir of this particular family since the line was dying out, My friend was 3 years old at the time and his parents refused to send him back with the family. However, my friend grew up into a man with considerable charisma, and an ability to rally people around him to a cause or idea.

In sum, I have had the experience that there is a 'something' that exists with the descendants of very ancient lines of 'pedigree'. No matter where they find themselves they rise to the top - like the cream - though oft times the cream can curdle and sour, for sure (like my male friend mentioned above - who was a bit unscrupulous - getting his way - even ignobly - any way he could).

My most recent experience was in the Bahamas a few years ago. I met some nouveau riche Russians - fabulously wealthy, the usual, what one would expect - and in the course of many conversations learned of the aristocratic background - or blood-line - of the wife. It seems she came from a line of Russian aristocrats that escaped being killed in the area around Odessa at the time of the Russian Revolution. Our conversations were far-ranging and I came to understand this woman's views about servants and what she was 'owed' and how 'rulership' works that had me appalled. It was jaw-dropping. Talk about 'old world' - it was like walking through the looking-glass into an upside-down world from another time. She was in every sense an old-world Russian aristocrat with all prejudices and backward notions intact. I found myself having a wicked thought (which I will say in the next paragraph).

Back in the US I found myself talking to an older friend - Hungarian and of the old world - a grande dame of a woman even though she has spent most of her life in the US, grown up here, in fact - she still retains the finesse of an older world about her. As I described to my friend what I had encountered with the Russian woman, I was about to say my wicked thought - 'You know what, listening to her, I had an awful realization - ' My friend smiled knowingly and finished my sentence - 'That they all needed to get killed off - it was the only solution.' Stunned, I stared at her and said, 'That was my thought - it was the only way events could move forward - I realized that if I were confronted by a whole horde of people who thought like her - well, I'm not saying I would ever do such a thing but I suddenly understood why they did do it back then.' She nodded, 'Its a sad thing to say, I know, but its true - that's the way those people thought back then and they were not going to change. Confronted with that - what were the choices? The rest is all romantic nonsense. Have no mistake - it was beautiful - but it was rotten at the core.' She was not surprised that the aristocratic notions of superiority by virtue merely of blood-line (with all the attendant archaic notions) would survive into the 3rd and 4th generations. What also impressed me about the family, though, were the extraordinary beauty of the children - their intelligence - and even genius in music and the fine arts. If ever there was a cultured milieu - this woman was creating it around her with her wealth. She had an instinct for it - and it was breath-taking. The result: they were special, of another order. The 'superiority' was - perhaps - justified? Complicated for sure - but always when I have these encounters I am struck by the influence of heredity on all levels, not just on the physical.

So when do royals cease to be royals? Good question.
 
Last edited:
She is still HSH Princess Caroline of Monaco but her father and brother recognise the higher rank of HRH following her marriage to Ernst and that is good enough for me - Monaco - a Principality recognises her as HRH Princess Caroline of Hanover.
 
PC said she never wanted to be a princess. So did PS. They refused titles for their children and they were raised by an American. I always wondered if PC was pressured into marrying Ernst by her father. I think he drove Vincent Lyndon away. She said in several interviews over several years that she had no interest in marrying a prince. I don't think its fair to compare this generation of Grimaldis with other royal families.
 
It also may have something to do with having the funds to sustain the "royal" lifestyle after they no longer reign. Maybe the Greek royal family have the funds to sustain their royal lifestyle and others do not. So, these others go to work and eventually blend into the fabric of common folk? Just a thought...
 
Just curious. If she succeeds her brother would that out rank the Hanover title or even as head of state of could she still use that title?
 
Being a member of a reigning family outranks being a member of a deposed family regardless of being styled HRH or HSH. When she used to attend royal events with her husband, such as the weddings in Copenhagen and Madrid, she was seated with the deposed royals while her brother was seated with members of reigning houses.
Not sure what she would do with her title if she were to succeed to the throne while still married to EA. I suppose she could style herself HRH The Princess of Monaco, Princess of Hanover.
 
I suppose she could style herself HRH The Princess of Monaco, Princess of Hanover.

Even if Caroline succeeds her brother in Monaco she will still be Her Serene Highness The Sovereign Princess of Monaco. Presumably that would still outrank the defunct HRH she holds, of course this depends on if she's still married to Ernst.
 
Thank you all for your answers. That was what I assumed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom