When Do Ex-Royals Cease To Be Royal ?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Having an aristocrat title and having wealth are two different things. Note that fabulous Blenheim Palace would have gone lost for an impoverished Duke of Marlborough when he would not have made a very profitable marriage. Imagine thay the Spencer-Churchills have left Blenheim and reside in some countryside mansion in Britain or France, they should no longer be known as the Dukes of Marlborough?

 

[Rudolph]

The Duke of Marlborough lives in a country where his title is legally recognised. For British Peers there is no debate.

It becomes more clouded with German nobles and royals, whose country doesn't recognise them as being noble, nor royal and their titles are just part of their legal name.

It's a hundred years since German titles have been recognised.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I'm not overlooking those things Laurels, and I know ex King Constantine for example has been supported by many loyal followers in the decades since the Greek monarchy was abolished and he in his turn helped Greeks in Britain and served as a beacon of hope to Greek royalists.

I was being a bit flippant in my response in the above post but really the question is posed by the thread. How long can it go on for?

Is Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece's eldest grandson going to hand the torch to his grandson and he to his? Will Georgi Romanov, the male claimant to the Russian throne die a contented old man knowing that his great grandson will carry on his role?

As a history buff, I adore royalty in all its forms and I'm a confirmed monarchist, but really, does a monarchy go on into perpetuity when the last person to be a king or Emperor was one's great, great, great, great grandfather? We aren't at that stage yet with some, (Michael of Romania for example is still with us and was King) but in the future....?

D

France hasn't had a monarchy since the 1870s and has two, maybe three sets of pretenders to boot. All of them are considered Royal by the relevant authorise including the French state. There will always be those out there who will give credence to such claims regardless of the antiquity or how far fetched such claims are - there are after all still Jacobites and some who considered a bloke living in a campervan in Australia to the rightful Plantagenet King of England....

Some choose to go along with such claims depending on their upbringing, temperament, and how much they free time they have on their hands.

 

[Lee-Z]

Imo there are two different questions with regards to when a royal family ceases to be royal:
- from politic perspective: when nobility/royalty is abolished in a country
- from perspective of their royal peers: depending on the almanac de Gotha

for royals among themselves imo a royal never ceases to be royal just because they don't reign a country

 

[Rudolph]

^^^ You're probably right. Queen Elizabeth II certainly considers Constantine of Greece to be royal.

I have no issues with anyone claiming to be royal. It doesn't impact my life. I like the history of it anyway, but for me I'd be a little sheepish to go around calling myself His Imperial and Royal Highness The Prince of Prussia, when Germany hasn't been a monarchy for a hundred years.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

^^^ You're probably right. Queen Elizabeth II certainly considers Constantine of Greece to be royal.

I have no issues with anyone claiming to be royal. It doesn't impact my life. I like the history of it anyway, but for me I'd be a little sheepish to go around calling myself His Imperial and Royal Highness The Prince of Prussia, when Germany hasn't been a monarchy for a hundred years.

Constantine is technically a Danish Prince without succession rights by virtue of his male line decent from Christian IX of Denmark and therefore technically a junior member of a reigning family. From a purely genealogical perspective (one that a lot of the German families still view as legit) the Hanover and Saxe-Coburg families are members of the BRF with succession rights - they are just barred from using their British titles under UK law for historic reasons related to WWI. the Hanovers also are the last RF to have the privilege of marrying into a reigning RF, the Grimadi's of Monaco. the Coburgs are also related to the RF of Belgium, the former RF of Bulgaria, and the King of Sweden is a matrilineal Coburg. I wouldn't have any problem with Prinz Georg Freiderich using the style HI&RH - the R reflects the history of Prussia (which was literally wiped off the map by the allies post WWII - which was strange as they did not do the same to Savoia-Piedmont!) a very important state of the HRE and in European history; and The I reflects the role the house of Hohenzollern played in the creation of modern Germany.

 

[Rudolph]

What about this scenario. Just say Germany decides it becomes a monarchy again, but it decides to have a different family on the throne and not Georg Friedrich.

What would GF's status be at foreign courts?

 

[Pranter]

It's always been interesting to me to have a Prince of Greece (like the DoE) but he wasn't even ethnically Greek best I can tell. IIRC his parents were not..his mother was a Battenburg his father was Danish.


LaRae

What about this scenario. Just say Germany decides it becomes a monarchy again, but it decides to have a different family on the throne and not Georg Friedrich.

What would GF's status be at foreign courts?

Can you really just ignore a previously ruling family? Just replace them? Maybe legally you could...but I don't think that just makes the former family not royal.


LaRae

 

[Stefan]

What about this scenario. Just say Germany decides it becomes a monarchy again, but it decides to have a different family on the throne and not Georg Friedrich.

What would GF's status be at foreign courts?

He would stil remain a Prince of Prussia and A royal Highness as head of the Royal House of Prussia. He himself also doesn't use the Imperial Hghness but only Royal Highness.

 

[Lee-Z]

Isn't it also true that there are Princes who have never reigned a country? I think in the NL there are the titles Prince de Chimay and Prince van Waterloo (Wellesley familiy), so there are more princes in the NL than just the princes of Oranje-Nassau and the princes of Bourbon-Parma...
So if a princely family has once reigned as king (or queen) and looses that title because the government of the country choses a different form of government, they will still be princes, right?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

So, His Grace Maurice FitzGerald, the 9th Duke of Leinster must adapt "a lesser title" because fate meant that his family could not maintain their Downton Abbey-esque estates?

So His Excellency Don Marco von Hohenlohe-Langenburg y Medina Fernández de Córdoba, the 19th (!) Duke of Medinaceli, has to give up that immensely illustrious title because his predecessor has put all the family's treasures in a Fundación, so he does not own the properties himself?

A peerage is not corresponding with money, a bankrupt Earl Spencer is still an Earl Spencer.

The British aristocracy has never been abolished, and the Spanish nobility was abolished but has been restored. In both countries, the noble titles legally correspond with the person, not the properties.

Isn't it also true that there are Princes who have never reigned a country? I think in the NL there are the titles Prince de Chimay and Prince van Waterloo (Wellesley familiy), so there are more princes in the NL than just the princes of Oranje-Nassau and the princes of Bourbon-Parma...
So if a princely family has once reigned as king (or queen) and looses that title because the government of the country choses a different form of government, they will still be princes, right?

Some countries that abolished their monarchies have also abolished titles of nobility (Austria), others have not (France).

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

It's always been interesting to me to have a Prince of Greece (like the DoE) but he wasn't even ethnically Greek best I can tell. IIRC his parents were not..his mother was a Battenburg his father was Danish.

Given that Greece has been subject to massive waves of both inward and outward migration, that the present PM of Greece's family has Turkish ancestry, and that The definition of Greekness had been open to interpretation for some time I'd say such talk is wrong headed and ahistorical. Most modern Greeks are of south Slavic and Turkic decent and Greeces upper class have always had a habit of marrying outside the tribe so to speak, so there's actually nothing unusual about Philips ancestry in the grand sweep of Greeces history

Also, even if nobility is abolished as a legal concept, many continue to use their titles as a social nicety and have developed their own internal regulation for disputes and conflicts over titles - property can be handled by the regular law courts

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Isn't it also true that there are Princes who have never reigned a country? I think in the NL there are the titles Prince de Chimay and Prince van Waterloo (Wellesley familiy), so there are more princes in the NL than just the princes of Oranje-Nassau and the princes of Bourbon-Parma...
So if a princely family has once reigned as king (or queen) and looses that title because the government of the country choses a different form of government, they will still be princes, right?

In German and a number of other European languages there is a linguistic discintion between a prince of a royal family (Prinz - I only know the German so I'm using that as an example) and a prince of the nobility (Furst - it was a rank below duke/herzog), since English titles are based on the French system this linguistic discintion gets lost in translation. Most of those princely titles you mentioned are non Royal princes ie nobles not royals. They would No longer have any legal sanction to use said title but would probably keep doing so for social reasons and as a matter of family pride

 

[Denville]

So, His Grace Maurice FitzGerald, the 9th Duke of Leinster must adapt "a lesser title" because fate meant that his family could not maintain their Downton Abbey-esque estates?

So His Excellency Don Marco von Hohenlohe-Langenburg y Medina Fernández de Córdoba, the 19th (!) Duke of Medinaceli, has to give up that immensely illustrious title because his predecessor has put all the family's treasures in a Fundación, so he does not own the properties himself?

A peerage is not corresponding with money, a bankrupt Earl Spencer is still an Earl Spencer.

I said royals, but I really don't think that it matters..

By the way, I read years ago that a Viscount from a very old family was serving in the Met (London Metropolitan Police) in the 1980's. He was an Inspector. None of his colleagues knew of his title until after his retirement. He was proud of his family and heritage but felt it would be a bar to his life as a policeman. He cut his cloth accordingly.

Quite sensible.

 

[Curryong]

D

France hasn't had a monarchy since the 1870s and has two, maybe three sets of pretenders to boot. All of them are considered Royal by the relevant authorise including the French state. There will always be those out there who will give credence to such claims regardless of the antiquity or how far fetched such claims are - there are after all still Jacobites and some who considered a bloke living in a campervan in Australia to the rightful Plantagenet King of England....

Some choose to go along with such claims depending on their upbringing, temperament, and how much they free time they have on their hands.

Yes, but the bloke in the campervan in Australia isn't walking around calling himself His Majesty the Lord King Richard IV, is he, (insisting upon it as a form of address) or if he is, then, knowing Aussies, he is probably bringing huge ridicule upon himself as well as a stay in a nice quiet mental institution somewhere? (Joke.)

In part the above just illustrates the point of my previous post about how long do the descendants of ex monarchs go on using their titles and regarding themselves as royalty before it all becomes meaningless and indeed somewhat pretentious, some sort of strange hobby. I'm not referring here to the aristocracy of any nation but descendants of monarchs in countries where monarchy has been completely abolished for almost a hundred years now with no prospect of it returning, and where the State doesn't recognise their claims and even titles of nobility have to be made part of a person's surname in order to be used.

How long do these people (descendants) cling on to the remnants, titles, a way of life and of address, that has completely disappeared from their native countries? One hundred years, two hundred, three? How long before, in today's world, the whole thing becomes something of a joke, not to fellow royals, whether in the Almanach or not, but to their fellow citizens?

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Honesty I don't think they ever stop being Royal. I guess the cutoff could be the end of the main male line of the family, as I assume that is what we mean by a RF - a male decent dynastic line. This was the case for most of history but many deposed houses are now circumventing the process of genealogical attrition by altering house law to allow for female succession so that's no longer the kiss of dynastic death it was, and besides if the main branch runs out than the claims pass to another junior branch of the family, or to another Royal family related in the female line...

I actually can't think of any Royal family that has ceased to be Royal while its members are still alive. They may well choose to abandon claims and adopt a discreet lifestyle but as long as they are around they will always be a potential focal point of opposition to republican regimes and/or a subject of sentiment and nostalgia. From what I can tell the most common pattern of events is that hypothetical claims pass to either junior branches of the dynasty or to another RF who may well decide it's better to let sleeping dogs lie.

The best example of this is the Jacobite claim to the British throne, there are still nominal pretenders who are members of the RC Wittlesbach family in Bavaria, who in pure legitimist terms are the real monarchs instead of the current Hannover/Saxe-Coburg/Glucksburg pretenders squatting at Buck House They are not Stuarts, their main claim comes from Charles I's daughter Henriette Anne, after the last male legitimate decendant of James II died out in 1807 I think, so technally the Stuart's died out at that point but their hypotheticial legal claims did not. Most people don't know about them, they have no interest in pressing any hypothetical claims against Elizabeth II, and are quite happy in Bavaria. But they are if you accept a more legitimist interpretation of the theory of hereditary succession - it depends on what you choose to believe and how strict your views on hereditary succession are. Now aren't we all glad that David and Wallis had no children...

Even in the most die-hard republican of countries there will always be monarchists and those outside your country who may well be willing to humour you...

(I guess that the concept of state succession may have something to do with this as well, with former Royal and dynastic claims passing to any republican regimes that succeed them... Anyone who has a background in constutional law or political science here who can comment?)

 

[Rudolph]

^^^^

The best example of this is the Jacobite claim to the British throne, there are still nominal pretenders who are members of the RCWittlesbach family in Bavaria, who in pure legitimist terms are the real monarchs instead of the current Hannover/Saxe-Coburg/Glucksburg pretenders squatting at Buck House

Which just shows how absurd all of this is.

Succession to the British throne is governed by parliament. It doesn't matter one iota about 'Jacobite claimants'

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

That's my point. For many part of the point of monarchy is the rejection of such ungodly horrors like popular sovereignty and equal citizenship and hence the attraction of flogging a dead horse. We might as well be debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but as far as I can tell this is how it works more often than not. Welcome to the world of royalty, splitting hairs since Adam was in short pants.

 

[Denville]

The Duke of Marlborough lives in a country where his title is legally recognised. For British Peers there is no debate.

It bec
It's a hundred years since German titles have been recognised.

True, I think that it is a bit silly to go on using titles in a republic,. but re say the Marlboroughs, suppoising they DID give up their titles and turn the estate over ot the Nation or sell it, and live in a smaller house, so what? it woudln't make any great difference to the world at large,,,

 

[Denville]

That's my point. For many part of the point of monarchy is the rejection of such ungodly horrors like popular sovereignty and equal citizenship and hence the attraction of flogging a dead horse. We might as well be de)

But supposing 25 people in the UK want to recognise the Stuarts or the Plantagenets or the Ancient Saxons as kings.. I dont really think it is going to happen. For one thing, the succession is laid down in law... but even if they dont accept the will of the people, nothing is going to happen because nobody cares apart from the 25 people.
My feeling is that yes of course, even several generations down the line form being on the throne, you can say that the X's are royal but they are not living as royals, they are not making any claims, tehy are not doing representational or charity work in hopes of being seen as royal or having a restoration.. If a few hundred people still want to see the great Grandson of the King of X as a royal and wish he coudl be restored, it really is not likely to do any harm to anyone...

 

[EllieCat]

how long do the descendants of ex monarchs go on using their titles and regarding themselves as royalty before it all becomes meaningless and indeed somewhat pretentious, some sort of strange hobby. I'm not referring here to the aristocracy of any nation but descendants of monarchs in countries where monarchy has been completely abolished for almost a hundred years now with no prospect of it returning, and where the State doesn't recognise their claims and even titles of nobility have to be made part of a person's surname in order to be used.

How long do these people (descendants) cling on to the remnants, titles, a way of life and of address, that has completely disappeared from their native countries? One hundred years, two hundred, three? How long before, in today's world, the whole thing becomes something of a joke, not to fellow royals, whether in the Almanach or not, but to their fellow citizens?

My own idea would be that to be Royal, the consanguinity should stop at a grandchild, male or female, of the Monarch, whoever that might be. And if there are no more Monarchs of a country, then tough biccies. I also think that a Princess (daughter of the Monarch) then her children should be Prince and Princesses too, like Sweden. But I know Royal families of the World will take no notice of my opinion (and rightly so) so it's all moot anyhow!

 

[Denville]

well the BRF is cutting back on the use of titles for the less close members of the Family, so that just because someone's great granddad was a Prince or King does not mean that the Prince title goes on in perpetuity. That's been the case for a long time now. And in the case of Edward, his children aren't using the Prince and Princess titles..
If the descendants of non reigning families want to go on with the Prince titles forever and ever that's rather silly but it doesn't really affect anyone...

 

[Iluvbertie]

The LPs for the BRF were set in 1917 although the Queen did extend them in 2012 to cover all of William's children, instead of just the eldest son who was covered under the 1917 LPs.

I do think that there is no need for any grandchildren, other than of the heir apparent to have HRH so I do hope that Harry's children aren't given that styling and eventually that the LPs are introduced to limit the HRH to only the children of the heir apparent and the heir apparent's children. Now that they have first born as the heir apparent that should be simple enough.

Of course Andrew would kick up a fuss if his girls were to lose HRH but as they aren't doing royal duties there is no need for them to have it anyway.

It should even be possible to issue the new LPs to say something like 'from 1st January, 2017 new HRHs will be limited to - children of the monarch, children of the heir apparent, children of the heir apparent to the heir apparent.' This would mean that no one was actually stripped of their existing titles but only William's children would be HRH into the future and then only George's and not Charlottes (who won't be under the existing LPs anyway)

 

[Pranter]

Hmmm I always thought Harry's children would have the HRH...as would all children of the future monarch, not just the heir.

I think it should remain that all children of the heir/monarch receive HRH. The grandchildren of the monarch maybe not....but all children yes.


LaRae

 

[Denville]

I think it would be very wrong to take the HRHs away from B and Eugenie. They may not mean anyting to outsiders but they are part of their heritage. I'm sure the queen would never do it.

 

[Countessmeout]

Hmmm I always thought Harry's children would have the HRH...as would all children of the future monarch, not just the heir.

I think it should remain that all children of the heir/monarch receive HRH. The grandchildren of the monarch maybe not....but all children yes.


LaRae

When his father is king, Yes. As it stands. The LP had to be extended as George and Charlotte are great-grandkids. When Charles is king, same rules apply, all male line grandkids are HRH.

I don't see why you would strip anyone of the HRH. What does it cost? Nothing. Bea and Eugenie don't get paid or other perks for HRH. 2 HRH or 102 HRH, cost the same.

 

[Pranter]

Well I wouldn't strip them of the HRH. When I say grandchildren (maybe not needing HRH) of the monarch I'm speaking about grandchildren of William.


LaRae

 

[Osipi]

The only reason the LPs were extended to include George and Charlotte stems to one thing. Old age. Great grandchildren which include a future heir to the throne resulted from the longevity of the current monarch. It would look odd, I think, to have the third in line to the throne without a HRH while Great Uncle Andrew, who is much further down the line in succession, has a HRH as a son of a monarch.

Things are changing. I never knew some of my grandparents let alone my great grandparents. Today I am a great grandmother and no where near HM's age. (I'm 64).

 

[Iluvbertie]

Under the existing LPs, George would have had the HRH anyway as he is the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Without the 2012 LPs Charlotte would have been born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and only become Princess Charlotte when her grandfather becomes King.

The new LPs were issued so that the future monarch would be born with HRH – as they knew that the changes to the Succession to the Crown Act were coming which would have seen a first born girl become the future monarch. It wouldn’t have made sense for a future monarch to be born as Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and then her younger brother be born with HRH – hence the new LPs.

Harry’s children won’t be HRH’s in the present reign without new LPs if the rumours of a smaller royal family are correct it is possible that his won’t have HRH at all. Charles may not like it but he can’t have it both ways – if he is to strip Andrew’s girls then he can’t give it Harry’s children – who would also only be the children of the second son of the monarch.

Place in the line of succession has nothing to do with HRH's either as there are a number of HRH's below non-HRH's in the line of succession e.g. Princess Alexandra has over 30 non-HRH's ahead of her in that line.

 

[duke of poliganc]

i think there is never a time a person cease to be royal as long as he is descended in the male line from a marriage that is approved by the royal house law . grand duchess Maria Vladimirovna mother Princess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Moukhransky was a royal princess in her own right and the last Georgian king from whom she descended in the male line was Constantine II who died in 1505