Discussion:
Renunciation of German titles by British royals
(too old to reply)
TwoBsBob
2004-02-20 19:30:33 UTC
Permalink
When George V asked his relatives with German titles to adopt British
titles, did they have to, individually, formally renounce their
titles/names? Was there any form of legal paperwork or anything like
that involved (as one would need nowadays for a legal name change) or
was it just a matter of them agreeing not to use the German names
anymore and use the new British ones in stead?
Gidzmo
2004-02-20 22:19:16 UTC
Permalink
When George V asked his relatives with German titles to adopt British titles,
did they have to, individually, formally renounce their titles/names?
was it just a matter of them agreeing not to use the German names anymore and
use the new British ones instead?

See: http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~canyon/prince.html#From%201911%20to%201919

It looks to me (from reading the text below) that the relatives involved simply
agreed to use the British titles instead of the German ones. The German ones
probably would have become irrelavant after World War 1.

• Grant of 22 June 1911

Adolphus, 2nd Duke of Teck (1868-1927): a) granted the style "Highness" by
King George V (22 June 1911)

b) Six years later, Adolphus stopped using his German titles and styles, and
the style "Highness" at the request of King George V, and agreed to accept by
Royal Licence and Authority (14 July 1917), the surname of Cambridge (for him
and his issue).

c) created Marquess of Cambridge (UK Peerage) by King George V's Letters Patent
(16 July 1917).

Note: IIRC, the Carisbrooke and Milford Haven titles came into being at about
the same time.

• Royal Proclamation of 17 July 1917
a) King George V adopted the name of Windsor for his Royal House and Family.
It was approved by the Privy Council on 17 July 1917

b) relinquished and discontinued for himself and for and on behalf of Queen
Victoria's descendants who were subjects of the United Kingdom, the "use of the
Degrees, Styles, Dignities, Titles and Honours of Dukes/Duchesses of Saxony and
Princes/ Princesses of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and all other German Degrees,
Styles, Dignities, Titles, Honours and Appellations" to which they were
entitled.

Thus, all the concerned individuals* (and their descendants) retained their
German titles, but chose not to use them from this date.

*Who was affected by this Proclamation:
Hesse and by Rhine (for Battenberg relatives)
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (for himself, his issue, and his appropriate relatives),
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg (for Princesses Helena Victoria and
Marie Louise),
Württemberg (for Teck relatives)
James Dempster
2004-02-21 07:08:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
When George V asked his relatives with German titles to adopt British titles,
did they have to, individually, formally renounce their titles/names?
was it just a matter of them agreeing not to use the German names anymore and
use the new British ones instead?
See: http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~canyon/prince.html#From%201911%20to%201919
It looks to me (from reading the text below) that the relatives involved simply
agreed to use the British titles instead of the German ones. The German ones
probably would have become irrelavant after World War 1.
Snip of the details
Post by Gidzmo
Hesse and by Rhine (for Battenberg relatives)
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (for himself, his issue, and his appropriate relatives),
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg (for Princesses Helena Victoria and
Marie Louise),
Württemberg (for Teck relatives)
I recall reading somewhere (possibly here) that some of the
Battenbergs have continued to use their Battenberg titles outside the
UK.

James
James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
Block2Block
2004-02-21 08:24:59 UTC
Permalink
I recall reading somewhere (possibly here) that some of the Battenbergs have
continued to use their Battenberg titles outside the UK.

Don't know how that could have been possible--the Battenbergs were HSH in all
of Europe.

The only exception was the UK:
Queen Victoria granted GD Louis of Hesse, Prince Christian of Schleswig, and
Prince Henry vonBattenberg HRH status prior to their marriages (to Princesses
Alice, Helena, and Beatrice).

Result: they were Royal Highnesses only within the UK; they were Serene
Highnesses to the rest of Europe.

Of course, once the 1917 LP took effect,
several members of the family lost HRH status:
Battenberg relatives (Hessian relatives, who became Marquesses of Carisbrooke
and Milford Haven).

Saxe-Coburg/Gotha relatives
--George V and his immediate family all had British titles.
--Charles (who had inherited Saxe-Coburg from his uncle Alfred) lost the Albany
titles because he was on the wrong side during the war.

Schleswig/Holstein (not sure what titles were given to Princesses Helena
Victoria and Marie Louise, unless it was simply Princesses of the UKGBNI)

Teck relatives--Queen Mary's relatives living in Britain. Aldophus, 2nd Duke
of Teck, became the Marquess of Cambridge. One of Mary's brothers became the
Earl of Athlone.
Stephen Stillwell/Tom Wilding
2004-02-21 13:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Block2Block
I recall reading somewhere (possibly here) that some of the Battenbergs have
continued to use their Battenberg titles outside the UK.
Don't know how that could have been possible--the Battenbergs were HSH in all
of Europe.
Queen Victoria granted GD Louis of Hesse, Prince Christian of Schleswig, and
Prince Henry vonBattenberg HRH status prior to their marriages (to Princesses
Alice, Helena, and Beatrice).
Result: they were Royal Highnesses only within the UK; they were Serene
Highnesses to the rest of Europe.
Of course, once the 1917 LP took effect,
Battenberg relatives (Hessian relatives, who became Marquesses of Carisbrooke
and Milford Haven).
Saxe-Coburg/Gotha relatives
--George V and his immediate family all had British titles.
--Charles (who had inherited Saxe-Coburg from his uncle Alfred) lost the Albany
titles because he was on the wrong side during the war.
Schleswig/Holstein (not sure what titles were given to Princesses Helena
Victoria and Marie Louise, unless it was simply Princesses of the UKGBNI)
This would not have been the case -- at the time of the change it was not
"Northern Ireland" but simply Ireland.

-- Stephen Stillwell
manuel
2004-02-21 20:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Queen Victoria Eugenia of Spain refused to change her surname
Battenberg to Mountbatten. King Alfonso XIII said something like he
had married a Battenberg and she would continue to be a Battenberg.
Her children had the surnames "de Borbón y Battenberg".
Post by Block2Block
I recall reading somewhere (possibly here) that some of the Battenbergs have
continued to use their Battenberg titles outside the UK.
Don't know how that could have been possible--the Battenbergs were HSH in all
of Europe.
Queen Victoria granted GD Louis of Hesse, Prince Christian of Schleswig, and
Prince Henry vonBattenberg HRH status prior to their marriages (to Princesses
Alice, Helena, and Beatrice).
Result: they were Royal Highnesses only within the UK; they were Serene
Highnesses to the rest of Europe.
Of course, once the 1917 LP took effect,
Battenberg relatives (Hessian relatives, who became Marquesses of Carisbrooke
and Milford Haven).
Saxe-Coburg/Gotha relatives
--George V and his immediate family all had British titles.
--Charles (who had inherited Saxe-Coburg from his uncle Alfred) lost the Albany
titles because he was on the wrong side during the war.
Schleswig/Holstein (not sure what titles were given to Princesses Helena
Victoria and Marie Louise, unless it was simply Princesses of the UKGBNI)
Teck relatives--Queen Mary's relatives living in Britain. Aldophus, 2nd Duke
of Teck, became the Marquess of Cambridge. One of Mary's brothers became the
Earl of Athlone.
James Dempster
2004-02-22 07:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Block2Block
I recall reading somewhere (possibly here) that some of the Battenbergs have
continued to use their Battenberg titles outside the UK.
Don't know how that could have been possible--the Battenbergs were HSH in all
of Europe.
I didn't say they used HRH Battenberg titles, did I. In the UK they
ceased to be allowed to style themselves Princes and Princesses of
Battenberg (whether with HRH or HSH) and have tended not to do so, but
outside the UK I believe there is evidence that they have styled
themselves Princes/Princesses of Battenberg.

James
James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.
Rick
2004-02-22 10:22:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dempster
Post by Block2Block
I recall reading somewhere (possibly here) that some of the Battenbergs have
continued to use their Battenberg titles outside the UK.
Don't know how that could have been possible--the Battenbergs were HSH in all
of Europe.
I didn't say they used HRH Battenberg titles, did I. In the UK they
ceased to be allowed to style themselves Princes and Princesses of
Battenberg (whether with HRH or HSH) and have tended not to do so, but
outside the UK I believe there is evidence that they have styled
themselves Princes/Princesses of Battenberg.
James
The Princes of Battenberg that were resident in Britain in 1917 were not
banned from using those titles, they were ASKED by The King to stop using
them. They agreed and from the date of the George V's renunciation of his
German titles they (the Battenbergs) began using their British peerage
titles instead.
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-22 13:27:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Dempster
Post by Block2Block
I recall reading somewhere (possibly here) that some of the Battenbergs have
continued to use their Battenberg titles outside the UK.
Don't know how that could have been possible--the Battenbergs were HSH in all
of Europe.
I didn't say they used HRH Battenberg titles, did I. In the UK they
ceased to be allowed to style themselves Princes and Princesses of
Battenberg (whether with HRH or HSH) and have tended not to do so, but
outside the UK I believe there is evidence that they have styled
themselves Princes/Princesses of Battenberg.
As one of their number once styled himself Prince Jekyll and Lord
Hyde!

It seems to me that the only one with the right to do so would have
been Prince Franz Joseph, he not being a British subject.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Graham Truesdale
2004-02-27 23:55:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by James Dempster
Post by Block2Block
I recall reading somewhere (possibly here) that some of the Battenbergs have
continued to use their Battenberg titles outside the UK.
Don't know how that could have been possible--the Battenbergs were HSH in all
of Europe.
I didn't say they used HRH Battenberg titles, did I. In the UK they
ceased to be allowed to style themselves Princes and Princesses of
Battenberg (whether with HRH or HSH) and have tended not to do so, but
outside the UK I believe there is evidence that they have styled
themselves Princes/Princesses of Battenberg.
As one of their number once styled himself Prince Jekyll and Lord
Hyde!
It seems to me that the only one with the right to do so would have
been Prince Franz Joseph, he not being a British subject.
I take it that Assen, Count of Hartenau (1890-1965) was not a HSH
Prince of Battenberg, as his mother was an opera singer. But did the
House of Battenberg have House Laws laying down who was or was
not an ebenbuertig wife? If not, why could a marriage to a charwoman
not produce a HSH Prince son?
Francois R. Velde
2004-02-28 00:20:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Graham Truesdale
I take it that Assen, Count of Hartenau (1890-1965) was not a HSH
Prince of Battenberg, as his mother was an opera singer. But did the
House of Battenberg have House Laws laying down who was or was
not an ebenbuertig wife? If not, why could a marriage to a charwoman
not produce a HSH Prince son?
I don't believe morganatic houses could establish house laws. If
titles could not pass to the issue of certain marriages, that would
be the result of the law of the state in which said titles
were created. (Of course, the Battenbergs could set up a fidei-commis
and lay down marriage conditions for members to enjoy claims thereon.)
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Graham Truesdale
2004-02-28 22:39:18 UTC
Permalink
In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham Truesdale
Post by Graham Truesdale
I take it that Assen, Count of Hartenau (1890-1965) was not a HSH
Prince of Battenberg, as his mother was an opera singer. But did the
House of Battenberg have House Laws laying down who was or was
not an ebenbuertig wife? If not, why could a marriage to a charwoman
not produce a HSH Prince son?
I don't believe morganatic houses could establish house laws. If
titles could not pass to the issue of certain marriages, that would
be the result of the law of the state in which said titles
were created. (Of course, the Battenbergs could set up a fidei-commis
and lay down marriage conditions for members to enjoy claims thereon.)
Were the Battenberg titles created in Hesse? If so, did Hessian
law say that the HSH title could not pass to the children of Prince
Alexander's marriage?
Gidzmo
2004-03-01 17:58:11 UTC
Permalink
From ***@virgin.nospam.net
on 02/28/2004
Were the Battenberg titles created in Hesse? If so, did Hessian law say that
the HSH title could not pass to the children of Prince Alexander's marriage?

The Battenberg title was created in Hesse for Julia Hauke, who had married
Prince Alexander of Hesse.

Louis II (brother of Alexander and Tsarina Marie of Russia) gave Alexander's
bride the title of "HSH Countess of Battenberg" originally, then later upgraded
it to "HSH Princess of Battenberg."

Apparently, the titles could pass to the children, because the children were
styled as HSH Prince vonBattenberg.

Henry vonBattenberg was elevated to HRH status by Queen Victoria when he
married her youngest daughter (Beatrice). But the HRH status was only good in
the UK--Liko was HSH everywhere else.

I'm not sure if Louis vonBattenberg (who married Princess Victoria of Hesse)
was raised to HRH status in the UK.

Princess Ena (Liko and Beatrice's daughter) was elevated to HRH just before her
marriage to King Alfonso XIII of Spain.

Same situation for HSH Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein (unrelated House,
but same circumstances re: the HRH). He married Princess Helena and was
granted HRH status--but the status was only good in the UK. "HSH" everywhere
else.
James D-T
2004-03-01 23:08:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
on 02/28/2004
Were the Battenberg titles created in Hesse? If so, did Hessian law say that
the HSH title could not pass to the children of Prince Alexander's marriage?
The Battenberg title was created in Hesse for Julia Hauke, who had married
Prince Alexander of Hesse.
Louis II (brother of Alexander and Tsarina Marie of Russia) gave Alexander's
bride the title of "HSH Countess of Battenberg" originally, then later upgraded
it to "HSH Princess of Battenberg."
Actually, I think that she was created first "Her Illustrious
Highness" (H Ill. H)as Countess, and then upgraded to HSH when given
princely rank.
Post by Gidzmo
<rest of posting snipped>
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-21 07:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
When George V asked his relatives with German titles to adopt British titles,
did they have to, individually, formally renounce their titles/names?
was it just a matter of them agreeing not to use the German names anymore and
use the new British ones instead?
See: http://mypage.uniserve.ca/~canyon/prince.html#From%201911%20to%201919
I am afraid that the wording used in the text on that website is quite
misleading.

The idea that one "agrees to accept" a Royal license to use a name is
quite wrong. It all works the other way around. In effect one applies
and is granted a Royal license for a new name.

If you look carefully at some of the references given, they are no
more than references to discussions on this forum. They have no
official or legal standing.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-21 07:25:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by TwoBsBob
When George V asked his relatives with German titles to adopt British
titles, did they have to, individually, formally renounce their
titles/names? Was there any form of legal paperwork or anything like
that involved (as one would need nowadays for a legal name change) or
was it just a matter of them agreeing not to use the German names
anymore and use the new British ones in stead?
It wasn't just a matter of simply agreeing the use of German titles
and using the British ones instead. After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted. Since they all adopted English
surnames, it follows that some legalities may have had to be followed
in order to do so. Perhaps the announcements in the London Gazette
were sufficient for that purpose, perhaps there are some other legal
instruments. One would probably have to ask the individual families
themselves.

The Tecks and Battenbergs did not just renounce their German titles,
some of them also renounced British titles, including "His or Her
Highness" at the same time.

In the case of the Tecks, some of their foreign titles were Austrian,
not German.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Andy.III
2004-02-21 10:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc? Did the laws of the other countries even allow for renouncements?

My belief has always been that tho they may have renounced the use of said
titles in the British Empire that in actuality they retained full right to
their title.


Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-21 16:01:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
Post by Andy.III
Did the laws of the other countries even allow for renouncements?
The laws of those countries, for the most part, had abolished any
titles by the end of the Great War.
Post by Andy.III
My belief has always been that tho they may have renounced the use of said
titles in the British Empire that in actuality they retained full right to
their title.
Firstly, any such states that may have recognised such titles ceased
to exist at the end of the Great War.

Secondly, they travelled everywhere on passports with their British
names and titles and were accepted as such, including Germany, other
parts of Europe and elsewhere. So I guess it applied in many more
places than just the British Empire. Anywhere on the face of the
planet that recognised and accepted British passports I guess.

If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but
nobody has come up with anything legal or concrete.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Andy.III
2004-02-21 16:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
Post by Andy.III
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit
them to
Post by Andy.III
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
Unless George V granted the Titles they bore renouncing them to George V would
be no more valid than me renouncing my US cirizenship to Vatican Ciry or San
Marino.
Post by Andy.III
Post by Andy.III
Did the laws of the other countries even allow for renouncements?
The laws of those countries, for the most part, had abolished any
titles by the end of the Great War.
But the renouncements took place before November 1917 so they were still legal
in those countries.
Post by Andy.III
Post by Andy.III
My belief has always been that tho they may have renounced the use of said
titles in the British Empire that in actuality they retained full right to
their title.
Firstly, any such states that may have recognised such titles ceased
to exist at the end of the Great War.
Which *may* have extinguished their right to said titles AT THAT TIME but would
play no part in making the renouncements valid betweeen the time they were made
and the end of the granting authorities of the titles. For instance, when
Phillip "renounced" his titles.. did he do so to the King of England or the
King of Greece?
Post by Andy.III
Secondly, they travelled everywhere on passports with their British
names and titles and were accepted as such, including Germany, other
parts of Europe and elsewhere. So I guess it applied in many more
places than just the British Empire. Anywhere on the face of the
planet that recognised and accepted British passports I guess.
Chris- I am speaking of the limited time frame from the time of the
renouncements to the end of WWI so I seriousl;y doubt any trips to Germany.




Andy.III
"Extremism in the destruction of intolerance is NOT a vice"
Peter Tilman
2004-02-21 20:32:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
Firstly, any such states that may have recognised such titles ceased
to exist at the end of the Great War.
Which *may* have extinguished their right to said titles AT THAT TIME but would
play no part in making the renouncements valid betweeen the time they were made
and the end of the granting authorities of the titles. For instance, when
Phillip "renounced" his titles.. did he do so to the King of England or the
King of Greece?
Well, he's not particularly likely to have done so to the King of England,
since the last one of those died in 1702.
Gillian White
2004-02-21 20:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Tilman
Well, he's not particularly likely to have done so to the King of England,
since the last one of those died in 1702.
But could you not argue that ever King since then has been both King of
England and King of Scotland, or are these titles now superseded by their
status as sovereign of the overall nation i.e. Great Britain & Northern
Ireland?

Gillian
Peter Tilman
2004-02-21 21:12:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Peter Tilman
Well, he's not particularly likely to have done so to the King of England,
since the last one of those died in 1702.
But could you not argue that ever King since then has been both King of
England and King of Scotland, or are these titles now superseded by their
status as sovereign of the overall nation i.e. Great Britain & Northern
Ireland?
The latter option. Just as the Kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to
exist when they were merged into the Kingdom of Great Britain, so their
Sovereign ceased to be Sovereign of them and became Sovereign of the new
Kingdom. (Some Scots don't seem to know this, however, and think that The
Queen is "Elizabeth, Queen of Scots" or some such nonsense.)
Gillian White
2004-02-21 21:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Tilman
The latter option. Just as the Kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to
exist when they were merged into the Kingdom of Great Britain, so their
Sovereign ceased to be Sovereign of them and became Sovereign of the new
Kingdom. (Some Scots don't seem to know this, however, and think that The
Queen is "Elizabeth, Queen of Scots" or some such nonsense.)
In that case, a few changes need to be made to the atr British Royalty FAQ,
which seems to be under the impression that Elizabeth II is the monarch of
England only :-)

Gillian
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-21 22:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Peter Tilman
The latter option. Just as the Kingdoms of England and Scotland ceased to
exist when they were merged into the Kingdom of Great Britain, so their
Sovereign ceased to be Sovereign of them and became Sovereign of the new
Kingdom. (Some Scots don't seem to know this, however, and think that The
Queen is "Elizabeth, Queen of Scots" or some such nonsense.)
In that case, a few changes need to be made to the atr British Royalty FAQ,
which seems to be under the impression that Elizabeth II is the monarch of
England only :-)
The FAQ say:

"The full titles of Queen Elizabeth II are:
United Kingdom: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Her other Realms and
Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith "
In the section "Is the queen also separately queen of any territories which
are not independent countries?", it also says:
"Finally, there is the case of Scotland. In opening the new Scottish
Parliament on Jul 1, 1999, its Presiding Officer Sir David Steel stated that
it was "constitutionally correct" to refer to the queen as "Queen of Scots",
from which it might be inferred that devolution had had the effect of
separating the Scottish Crown from that of the United Kingdom. He did not
give any justification for this statement, and it appears to be incorrect.
Clause I of the Acts of Union of 1707 united the former Scottish and English
crowns "forever" in the crown of the United Kingdom. The Scotland Act of
1998, which created the new Scottish Parliament, incorporated the Acts of
Union in clause 37, and in Schedule 5 specifically stated that the Crown,
including the succession, and the Union were among the "reserved matters"
that were defined, in clause 29, to be outside the competence of that
Parliament."
Isn't it clear?
Gillian White
2004-02-21 22:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Isn't it clear?
Oh that bit is perfectly clear, but other sections are in error.

From the BritFAQ :

Q. Who were the monarchs of England?
A. This list of kings and queens from Egbert, King of Wessex to Elizabeth
II....

Q. Have there ever been monarchs who abdicated?
A. Of England's forty two monarchs since 1066, from William the Conqueror to
Elizabeth II...

From the WorldFAQ :

Q. Are there other monarchies in the world besides England?
A. We're glad you asked this question because it certainly seems to many
people that the United Kingdom (aka England)...

Is that last answer serious?

It appears to be a common problem though, because the biography sections
contain a reference to the following books :

'Uncrowned King : Albert, Prince Consort of England'
'Vicky : Princess Royal of England and German Empress'

Was Albert not the Prince Consort of Great Britain & Northern Ireland?

Was Vicky a Princess Royal of England only? I know the title was never used
in Scotland, but by the time of her mother's reign, there was no longer such
a thing as the Kingdom of England, only the Kingdom of Great Britain.

Gillian
Don Aitken
2004-02-21 23:19:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 22:40:57 GMT, "Gillian White"
Post by Gillian White
Post by Pierre Aronax
Isn't it clear?
Oh that bit is perfectly clear, but other sections are in error.
Q. Who were the monarchs of England?
A. This list of kings and queens from Egbert, King of Wessex to Elizabeth
II....
Q. Have there ever been monarchs who abdicated?
A. Of England's forty two monarchs since 1066, from William the Conqueror to
Elizabeth II...
Q. Are there other monarchies in the world besides England?
A. We're glad you asked this question because it certainly seems to many
people that the United Kingdom (aka England)...
Is that last answer serious?
It appears to be a common problem though, because the biography sections
'Uncrowned King : Albert, Prince Consort of England'
'Vicky : Princess Royal of England and German Empress'
Was Albert not the Prince Consort of Great Britain & Northern Ireland?
Was Vicky a Princess Royal of England only? I know the title was never used
in Scotland, but by the time of her mother's reign, there was no longer such
a thing as the Kingdom of England, only the Kingdom of Great Britain.
Even inside the UK, the correct and careful use of such terms as
"United Kingdom" in any context other than the strictly legal is a
recent development, dating from about the 1930s, when modern Scottish
nationalism became a live political issue. Anything written before
that date, even by historians, is likely to use "England". Disraeli
famously signed the 1878 Treaty of Berlin as "Prime Minister of
England", to the dismay of his Foreign Office advisers. And A.J.P.
Taylor, in the preface to his volume of the "Oxford History of
England", published in 1965, had to point out that "when the Oxford
History was launched a generation ago 'England' was still an
all-embracing word. It meant indiscriminately England and Wales, Great
Britain, the United Kingdom, and even the British Empire."

Virtually everywhere else, the word "England" is still used in this
broader sense, and most British people are not too worried by it.

Even so, I think that François should make a few corrections!
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Francois R. Velde
2004-02-22 06:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Even so, I think that François should make a few corrections!
One could change "Who were the monarchs of England?" to "Which monarchs ruled
over England" and "Of England's forty two monarchs" to "Of the forty two
monarchs who ruled over England". Maybe "monarchs of England" is an ambiguous
short-hand, but England did not disappear in 1707: it still exists, and has had
monarchs from Egbert to the present.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-21 23:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Pierre Aronax
Isn't it clear?
Oh that bit is perfectly clear, but other sections are in error.
Q. Who were the monarchs of England?
A. This list of kings and queens from Egbert, King of Wessex to Elizabeth
II....
Q. Have there ever been monarchs who abdicated?
A. Of England's forty two monarchs since 1066, from William the Conqueror to
Elizabeth II...
The two examples above are easy to understand: the monarchs of England here
are intended to be the kings of England and their successors the kings of GB
and of the UK.
Post by Gillian White
Q. Are there other monarchies in the world besides England?
A. We're glad you asked this question because it certainly seems to many
people that the United Kingdom (aka England)...
Is that last answer serious?
Yes: "England" is used by the ignorant questionner, who is corrected in the
answer.
Post by Gillian White
It appears to be a common problem though, because the biography sections
For whose titles the FAQ are not in fault.

Pierre
Gillian White
2004-02-21 23:43:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
For whose titles the FAQ are not in fault.
Indeed, hence the reason why I said 'it appears to be a common problem'.

Gillian
Gillian White
2004-02-21 23:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
The two examples above are easy to understand: the monarchs of England here
are intended to be the kings of England and their successors the kings of GB
and of the UK.
Easy to understand, but inaccurate nonetheless.

Gillian
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-22 11:51:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Pierre Aronax
The two examples above are easy to understand: the monarchs of England
here
Post by Pierre Aronax
are intended to be the kings of England and their successors the kings of
GB
Post by Pierre Aronax
and of the UK.
Easy to understand, but inaccurate nonetheless.
Isn't the Queen of the UK the monarch of England?

Pierre
Peter Tilman
2004-02-22 13:31:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Gillian White
Post by Pierre Aronax
The two examples above are easy to understand: the monarchs of England
here
Post by Pierre Aronax
are intended to be the kings of England and their successors the kings of
GB
Post by Pierre Aronax
and of the UK.
Easy to understand, but inaccurate nonetheless.
Isn't the Queen of the UK the monarch of England?
No, she's the monarch of the UK, of which England is a constituent part.
She's no more the monarch of England than she is the monarch of
Lincolnshire, Stockton-on-Tees or Piccadilly Circus.
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-23 12:24:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Tilman
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Gillian White
Post by Pierre Aronax
The two examples above are easy to understand: the monarchs of England
here
Post by Pierre Aronax
are intended to be the kings of England and their successors the
kings
Post by Peter Tilman
of
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Gillian White
GB
Post by Pierre Aronax
and of the UK.
Easy to understand, but inaccurate nonetheless.
Isn't the Queen of the UK the monarch of England?
No, she's the monarch of the UK, of which England is a constituent part.
So, it seems that she is indeed the monarch of England...
Post by Peter Tilman
She's no more the monarch of England than she is the monarch of
Lincolnshire, Stockton-on-Tees or Piccadilly Circus.
Is Piccadilly Circus a constituent part of the UK in the same sense as
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Pierre
Peter Tilman
2004-02-23 13:27:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
No, she's the monarch of the UK, of which England is a constituent part.
So, it seems that she is indeed the monarch of England...
No, she isn't. England is a constituent part in that it is one of the parts
that make up the UK, in the same way that the counties are parts of the UK,
and the boroughs and cities are parts of the UK. Just as the UK could be
described as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so it could be
decribed as Surrey, Warwickshire, Flintshire, Yorkshire, Westmorland,
Kincardineshire, etc, and she definitely isn't monarch of any of those.

Even if England had existence as a quasi-sovereign entity, like the states
of the US, she still wouldn't be monarch of it, in the same way that the US
President isn't head of state of California, New York or Mississippi.

If you really want to describe her in relation to England, then I suppose
you could call her "the monarch ruling in England" or "the monarch whose
rule covers England", but it's far easier and more accurate to call her the
monarch of the UK, which is what she is.
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
She's no more the monarch of England than she is the monarch of
Lincolnshire, Stockton-on-Tees or Piccadilly Circus.
Is Piccadilly Circus a constituent part of the UK in the same sense as
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
For the purposes of ruling over it, yes. England as a sovereign entity
ceased to exist in 1707, and is legally merely a large administrative
division of the United Kingdom. You can no more be monarch of an
administrative division than you can a city square.
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-23 14:25:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Tilman
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
No, she's the monarch of the UK, of which England is a constituent part.
So, it seems that she is indeed the monarch of England...
No, she isn't. England is a constituent part in that it is one of the parts
that make up the UK, in the same way that the counties are parts of the UK,
Really? Is UK made of England, Scotland, Walles and NI in "the same way"
that it is made of counties? I would not say that counties are "constituent"
part of the UK, rather administrative divisions of the UK.
Post by Peter Tilman
and the boroughs and cities are parts of the UK. Just as the UK could be
described as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so it could be
decribed as Surrey, Warwickshire, Flintshire, Yorkshire, Westmorland,
Kincardineshire, etc,
I don't think so but would be curious to know what Mr Aitken thinks about
that.
Post by Peter Tilman
and she definitely isn't monarch of any of those.
Even if England had existence as a quasi-sovereign entity, like the states
of the US, she still wouldn't be monarch of it, in the same way that the US
President isn't head of state of California, New York or Mississippi.
I didn't say that the Queen was the "head of State" of England: that would
obviously be wrong since England is not even a State. I said she was its
monarch.
The US President is not the "head of State" of California", but probably he
can be said to be "head of State in California".
Post by Peter Tilman
If you really want to describe her in relation to England, then I suppose
you could call her "the monarch ruling in England" or "the monarch whose
rule covers England", but it's far easier and more accurate to call her the
monarch of the UK, which is what she is.
In a list which must begin with Egbert and end with her, it would be
obviously improper.
Post by Peter Tilman
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
She's no more the monarch of England than she is the monarch of
Lincolnshire, Stockton-on-Tees or Piccadilly Circus.
Is Piccadilly Circus a constituent part of the UK in the same sense as
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
For the purposes of ruling over it, yes.
And for other purpose, like being a constituent part of it?
Post by Peter Tilman
England as a sovereign entity
ceased to exist in 1707, and is legally merely a large administrative
division of the United Kingdom. You can no more be monarch of an
administrative division than you can a city square.
Not even of a "constituent" administrative division?
It is wrong for other countries. For example, Castille is no more than a
part of Spain, and not a sovereign entity; nevertheless, the King of Spain
is also, at least in principle, King of Castille.

Pierre
Peter Tilman
2004-02-23 14:57:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Really? Is UK made of England, Scotland, Walles and NI in "the same way"
that it is made of counties? I would not say that counties are
"constituent"
Post by Pierre Aronax
part of the UK, rather administrative divisions of the UK.
I think we're using different meanings of the word "constituent" here. One
meaning, the one you seem to be using, is "that makes a thing what it is",
and the other, which I'm using, is "that makes up". By the first definition,
England is not a constituent part of the UK, as the UK is not made what it
is by being defined as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It
happens to be made up of them, and so by the second definition they are
constituent parts, but they aren't essential or basic factors in its
composition, in that way that, for instance, the states are essential
factors in the composition of the USA.

England is just a division (whether you call it that, or a country, or a
nation, is irrelevant) of the UK. England is to the UK as, for example, a
District is to a County - the District I live in (some of the time),
Guildford Borough, is part of the County of Surrey, and so could be said to
be a constituent part of Surrey, but Surrey isn't defined or constituted as
a collection of Boroughs, but exists in and of itself, in the same way that
the UK exists in and of itself, and just happens to include England. Just as
the Chief Executive of Surrey County Council couldn't said to be anything
"of Guildford Borough", The Queen isn't anything "of England".
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
Even if England had existence as a quasi-sovereign entity, like the states
of the US, she still wouldn't be monarch of it, in the same way that the
US
Post by Peter Tilman
President isn't head of state of California, New York or Mississippi.
I didn't say that the Queen was the "head of State" of England: that would
obviously be wrong since England is not even a State. I said she was its
monarch.
A monarch is just a head of state who happens to be a King, Queen, Prince,
or something similar.
Post by Pierre Aronax
The US President is not the "head of State" of California", but probably he
can be said to be "head of State in California".
Just as The Queen could be said to be "monarch in England" but not "monarch
of England".
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
If you really want to describe her in relation to England, then I suppose
you could call her "the monarch ruling in England" or "the monarch whose
rule covers England", but it's far easier and more accurate to call her
the
Post by Peter Tilman
monarch of the UK, which is what she is.
In a list which must begin with Egbert and end with her, it would be
obviously improper.
In a list of monarchs throughout history, something like "monarchs ruling
over England" would be a good option ("people ruling over England" would be
even better, as it would allow Oliver and Richard Cromwell to be included).
When describing The Queen at the present time, "monarch of the United
Kingdom" is best, as it accurately describes her current position.
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
She's no more the monarch of England than she is the monarch of
Lincolnshire, Stockton-on-Tees or Piccadilly Circus.
Is Piccadilly Circus a constituent part of the UK in the same sense as
England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
For the purposes of ruling over it, yes.
And for other purpose, like being a constituent part of it?
So you're asking if Piccadilly Circus is a constituent part of the UK for
the purposes of being a constituent part of it? That's a rather pointless
question, to be honest.
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Peter Tilman
England as a sovereign entity
ceased to exist in 1707, and is legally merely a large administrative
division of the United Kingdom. You can no more be monarch of an
administrative division than you can a city square.
Not even of a "constituent" administrative division?
It is wrong for other countries. For example, Castille is no more than a
part of Spain, and not a sovereign entity; nevertheless, the King of Spain
is also, at least in principle, King of Castille.
Only because he has "King of Castille" amongst his titles. The Queen doesn't
have "Queen of England" amongst hers, and if you included it as one of her
titles regardless of this, you'd have to include "Queen of Wessex", "Queen
of Mercia", "Queen of Northumbria", etc, as well, which is clearly nonsense.
Don Aitken
2004-02-23 16:23:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Pierre Aronax
Really? Is UK made of England, Scotland, Walles and NI in "the same way"
that it is made of counties? I would not say that counties are
"constituent"
Post by Pierre Aronax
part of the UK, rather administrative divisions of the UK.
I think we're using different meanings of the word "constituent" here. One
meaning, the one you seem to be using, is "that makes a thing what it is",
and the other, which I'm using, is "that makes up". By the first definition,
England is not a constituent part of the UK, as the UK is not made what it
is by being defined as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It
happens to be made up of them, and so by the second definition they are
constituent parts, but they aren't essential or basic factors in its
composition, in that way that, for instance, the states are essential
factors in the composition of the USA.
The only statutory definition of "England" is in fact by the
enumeration of its counties (Local Government Act 1974). "United
Kingdom" is merely defined as meaning "Great Britain and Northern
Ireland" (Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927).
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-24 08:59:06 UTC
Permalink
Don Aitken <don-***@freeuk.com> wrote in message news:<***@4ax.com>...

<...>
Post by Don Aitken
The only statutory definition of "England" is in fact by the
enumeration of its counties (Local Government Act 1974). "United
Kingdom" is merely defined as meaning "Great Britain and Northern
Ireland" (Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927).
And what is the definition of Great Britain?

Pierre
Don Aitken
2004-02-24 15:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
<...>
Post by Don Aitken
The only statutory definition of "England" is in fact by the
enumeration of its counties (Local Government Act 1974). "United
Kingdom" is merely defined as meaning "Great Britain and Northern
Ireland" (Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927).
And what is the definition of Great Britain?
I knew somebody would ask that! I think it is probably in the
Interpretation Act 1978, which is not online. I will check when I have
the opportunity.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Uwe
2004-02-24 08:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
I didn't say that the Queen was the "head of State" of England: that would
obviously be wrong since England is not even a State. I said she was its
monarch.
The US President is not the "head of State" of California", but probably he
can be said to be "head of State in California".
So is Mr Schwarzenegger currently the head of State of California and
Mr Bush jr. head of State in California?
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-25 10:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uwe
Post by Pierre Aronax
I didn't say that the Queen was the "head of State" of England: that would
obviously be wrong since England is not even a State. I said she was its
monarch.
The US President is not the "head of State" of California", but probably he
can be said to be "head of State in California".
So is Mr Schwarzenegger currently the head of State of California and
Mr Bush jr. head of State in California?
Is Mr Schwarzenegger a Head of State at all?

Pierre
James D-T
2004-02-25 19:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Uwe
Post by Pierre Aronax
I didn't say that the Queen was the "head of State" of England: that would
obviously be wrong since England is not even a State. I said she was its
monarch.
The US President is not the "head of State" of California", but probably he
can be said to be "head of State in California".
So is Mr Schwarzenegger currently the head of State of California and
Mr Bush jr. head of State in California?
Is Mr Schwarzenegger a Head of State at all?
Pierre
Think "play on words": He is the head of (the) State of
California...he's governor of the state!

James
Robert Hall
2004-02-26 02:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by James D-T
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Uwe
Post by Pierre Aronax
I didn't say that the Queen was the "head of State" of England: that would
obviously be wrong since England is not even a State. I said she was its
monarch.
The US President is not the "head of State" of California", but probably he
can be said to be "head of State in California".
So is Mr Schwarzenegger currently the head of State of California and
Mr Bush jr. head of State in California?
Is Mr Schwarzenegger a Head of State at all?
Pierre
Think "play on words": He is the head of (the) State of
California...he's governor of the state!
James
That is a debateable point, the man is indeed governor..until the next
recall election. California politics have become a world stage circus,
whereas we used to keep the show to ourselves. Oh well, we gave the
world Nixon & Reagan, we desrve it I suppose. Glad I spend so much
time abroad.
Uwe
2004-02-26 09:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by James D-T
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Uwe
So is Mr Schwarzenegger currently the head of State of California and
Mr Bush jr. head of State in California?
Is Mr Schwarzenegger a Head of State at all?
Pierre
Think "play on words": He is the head of (the) State of
California...he's governor of the state!
It is still an interesting question whether sub-national states can
(or do) have heads of state.
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-26 09:55:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uwe
Post by James D-T
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Uwe
So is Mr Schwarzenegger currently the head of State of California and
Mr Bush jr. head of State in California?
Is Mr Schwarzenegger a Head of State at all?
Pierre
Think "play on words": He is the head of (the) State of
California...he's governor of the state!
It is still an interesting question whether sub-national states can
(or do) have heads of state.
Indeed, I really don't know. For what is of Germany, if I am correct, the
"heads" of the landers are considered to rank as ministers, not as head of
State, isn't it?

Pierre
Don Aitken
2004-02-26 15:11:29 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:55:45 +0100, "Pierre Aronax"
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Uwe
Post by James D-T
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Uwe
So is Mr Schwarzenegger currently the head of State of California
and
Post by Uwe
Post by James D-T
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Uwe
Mr Bush jr. head of State in California?
Is Mr Schwarzenegger a Head of State at all?
Pierre
Think "play on words": He is the head of (the) State of
California...he's governor of the state!
It is still an interesting question whether sub-national states can
(or do) have heads of state.
Indeed, I really don't know. For what is of Germany, if I am correct, the
"heads" of the landers are considered to rank as ministers, not as head of
State, isn't it?
Australia is a bit of an oddity. The states have Governors, who act as
"heads of state" distinct from the heads of government, but they are
appointed by, and act on behalf of, the actual "head of state", who is
also head of state of the country as a whole, although with different
legal personalities in each capacity.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-26 15:59:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:55:45 +0100, "Pierre Aronax"
<...>
Post by Don Aitken
Australia is a bit of an oddity. The states have Governors, who act as
"heads of state" distinct from the heads of government, but they are
appointed by, and act on behalf of, the actual "head of state", who is
also head of state of the country as a whole, although with different
legal personalities in each capacity.
So the Queen is nevertheless the head of state of each state, isn't it?

Pierre
Rick
2004-02-27 02:00:37 UTC
Permalink
The govenours of each state represent the crown (whether king or queen) in
exactly the same way they had in 1899. The state of Queensland is the only
state in Australia that has the monarch written into its constitution as the
'Head of State' (of Queensland).
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Don Aitken
On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:55:45 +0100, "Pierre Aronax"
<...>
Post by Don Aitken
Australia is a bit of an oddity. The states have Governors, who act as
"heads of state" distinct from the heads of government, but they are
appointed by, and act on behalf of, the actual "head of state", who is
also head of state of the country as a whole, although with different
legal personalities in each capacity.
So the Queen is nevertheless the head of state of each state, isn't it?
Pierre
Gillian White
2004-02-26 15:37:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uwe
It is still an interesting question whether sub-national states can
(or do) have heads of state.
Scotland does not have a separate Head of State, but the First Minister is
effectively in charge of the Scottish Parliament, just as Tony Blair is in
charge of the Westminster Parliament.

Gillian
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-26 16:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Uwe
It is still an interesting question whether sub-national states can
(or do) have heads of state.
Scotland does not have a separate Head of State, but the First Minister is
effectively in charge of the Scottish Parliament, just as Tony Blair is in
charge of the Westminster Parliament.
Is Scotland a sub-national state?

Pierre
Gillian White
2004-02-26 22:57:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Is Scotland a sub-national state?
It is part of the United Kingdom, but has some devolved political power, a
separate legal system and a separate education system, among other things.

Does that make it a sub-national state? I'm not really sure...

Gillian
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-27 10:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
Post by Pierre Aronax
Is Scotland a sub-national state?
It is part of the United Kingdom, but has some devolved political power, a
separate legal system and a separate education system, among other things.
Does that make it a sub-national state? I'm not really sure...
Neither am I!

Pierre
Graham Truesdale
2004-02-27 23:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gillian White
It appears to be a common problem though, because the biography sections
'Uncrowned King : Albert, Prince Consort of England'
Was Albert not the Prince Consort of Great Britain & Northern Ireland?
No, he was Prince Consort of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Ireland.
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-22 09:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit
them to
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
Unless George V granted the Titles they bore renouncing them to George V would
be no more valid than me renouncing my US cirizenship to Vatican Ciry or San
Marino.
Not really, the law is that the King is font of ALL honour. Any titles
conferred by a foreign sovereign or state are borne by approval or
grant of the King. One accepts and recognises that when one takes out
British naturalisation. So the King's right to withdraw use of the
titles ensued as early as that point, not 1917 when they renounced the
titles themselves.
Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-22 11:10:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Unless George V granted the Titles they bore renouncing them to George V would
be no more valid than me renouncing my US cirizenship to Vatican Ciry or San
Marino.
Not really, the law is that the King is font of ALL honour. Any titles
conferred by a foreign sovereign or state are borne by approval or
grant of the King. One accepts and recognises that when one takes out
British naturalisation. So the King's right to withdraw use of the
titles ensued as early as that point, not 1917 when they renounced the
titles themselves.
Of course, all this from a British point of view: that leaves open the
question of the validity of the renunciation from the point of view of the
authorities who actually conferred the title.

For example, it would be interesting to know what was the point of view of
the Grand Duke of Hesse about the Battenberg title: did he really considered
that it had vanished?



Pierre
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-22 15:44:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Unless George V granted the Titles they bore renouncing them to George V
would
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
be no more valid than me renouncing my US cirizenship to Vatican Ciry or
San
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Marino.
Not really, the law is that the King is font of ALL honour. Any titles
conferred by a foreign sovereign or state are borne by approval or
grant of the King. One accepts and recognises that when one takes out
British naturalisation. So the King's right to withdraw use of the
titles ensued as early as that point, not 1917 when they renounced the
titles themselves.
Of course, all this from a British point of view: that leaves open the
question of the validity of the renunciation from the point of view of the
authorities who actually conferred the title.
For example, it would be interesting to know what was the point of view of
the Grand Duke of Hesse about the Battenberg title: did he really considered
that it had vanished?
I do not think it matters very much, since the principal gentleman in
question had become a British subject as early as 1868.

Of course, one can go on believeing that one has some sort of
jurisdiction over someone who has renounced his nationality and taken
out something else, but it has little or no practical effect in the
real world. Otherwise, citizenship of the USA doesn't exist and
everybody is "masquerading" as US citizens, but are citizens of
somewhere else!

Of course the Battenberg title had not vanished since Prince Franz
Joseph was still around and he wasn't a British subject.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-23 10:30:34 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by Christopher Buyers
Not really, the law is that the King is font of ALL honour. Any titles
conferred by a foreign sovereign or state are borne by approval or
grant of the King. One accepts and recognises that when one takes out
British naturalisation. So the King's right to withdraw use of the
titles ensued as early as that point, not 1917 when they renounced the
titles themselves.
Of course, all this from a British point of view: that leaves open the
question of the validity of the renunciation from the point of view of the
authorities who actually conferred the title.
For example, it would be interesting to know what was the point of view of
the Grand Duke of Hesse about the Battenberg title: did he really considered
that it had vanished?
I do not think it matters very much, since the principal gentleman in
question had become a British subject as early as 1868.
Of course, one can go on believeing that one has some sort of
jurisdiction over someone who has renounced his nationality and taken
out something else, but it has little or no practical effect in the
real world. Otherwise, citizenship of the USA doesn't exist and
everybody is "masquerading" as US citizens, but are citizens of
somewhere else!
Of course the Battenberg title had not vanished since Prince Franz
Joseph was still around and he wasn't a British subject.
My point is that the renunciation was certainly void from the point of
view of the authority who granted the title: the opinion of the King
of the UK can have an effect on the use of the title in his
juridiction, not on his existence.

Pierre
Gidzmo
2004-02-23 22:23:50 UTC
Permalink
the principal gentleman in question had become a British subject as early as
1868.

Actually, IIRC, two Battenbergs became British citizens:
a) Prince Louis (m. Princess Victoria vonHessen, Princess Alice's daughter)

b) Prince Henry (aka "Liko", m. HRH the Princess Beatrice, Queen Victoria's
youngest daughter).
Of course the Battenberg title had not vanished since Prince Franz Joseph was
still around and he wasn't a British subject.

What has Prince Franz Joseph to do with the Battenbergs?
Don Aitken
2004-02-24 00:48:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
the principal gentleman in question had become a British subject as early as
1868.
a) Prince Louis (m. Princess Victoria vonHessen, Princess Alice's daughter)
b) Prince Henry (aka "Liko", m. HRH the Princess Beatrice, Queen Victoria's
youngest daughter).
Of course the Battenberg title had not vanished since Prince Franz Joseph was
still around and he wasn't a British subject.
What has Prince Franz Joseph to do with the Battenbergs?
There were four Battenberg brothers (and one sister):

1. Louis, b. 1854, later 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.
2. Alexander, b. 1857, Prince of Bulgaria 1879-86, who died in 1893,
leaving issue a son and a daughter. The son died in 1965, the
daughter, who married an American, in 1935.
3. Henry, b. 1858, d. 1896, father of the Marquess of Carisbrooke etc.
4. Franz Joseph, b. 1861, d. without issue in 1924.

So, when lines 1 and 3 became Mountbattens, lines 2 and 4, not being
British, remained Battenbergs. Actually, Alexander's children used the
titles Count and Countess von Hartenau, but Franz Joseph was Prince
von Battenberg until his death. Their sister, Princess Marie, lived
until 1923, but presumably did not use the Battenberg title after her
marriage in 1870.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-24 16:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
the principal gentleman in question had become a British subject as early as
1868.
a) Prince Louis (m. Princess Victoria vonHessen, Princess Alice's daughter)
b) Prince Henry (aka "Liko", m. HRH the Princess Beatrice, Queen Victoria's
youngest daughter).
Of course the Battenberg title had not vanished since Prince Franz Joseph was
still around and he wasn't a British subject.
What has Prince Franz Joseph to do with the Battenbergs?
1. Louis, b. 1854, later 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.
2. Alexander, b. 1857, Prince of Bulgaria 1879-86, who died in 1893,
leaving issue a son and a daughter. The son died in 1965, the
daughter, who married an American, in 1935.
3. Henry, b. 1858, d. 1896, father of the Marquess of Carisbrooke etc.
4. Franz Joseph, b. 1861, d. without issue in 1924.
So, when lines 1 and 3 became Mountbattens, lines 2 and 4, not being
British, remained Battenbergs. Actually, Alexander's children used the
titles Count and Countess von Hartenau, but Franz Joseph was Prince
von Battenberg until his death. Their sister, Princess Marie, lived
until 1923, but presumably did not use the Battenberg title after her
marriage in 1870.
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having
married before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom,
retained her maiden name throughout her lifetime.

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Gidzmo
2004-02-24 21:39:39 UTC
Permalink
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having married
before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom, retained her
maiden name throughout her lifetime.

Queen Ena was the daughter of Prince Henry, who married Princess Beatrice of
the UK (but not without the promise that Henry and Beatrice would live with
Queen Victoria).

I don't think the 1917 name change from Wettin to Windsor would have affected
Ena because:
a) she had married into a foreign Royal House.
b) she was excluded from the British succession upon her marriage to King
Alfonso XIII (who was a Roman Catholic).

(as noted by Don Aitken, in answer to my previous question on the Battenbergs,
with some expansion on his answer)
There were four Battenberg brothers and
one sister (children of Prince Alexander vonHessen/Princess Julia
1. Louis (1854-1921), later 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.
*Married 1884 Victoria vonHessen (daughter of Princess Alice and GD Louis IV).
Father of:
Princess Alice (mother of Prince Philip)
Princess Louise (Queen of Sweden)
George, 2nd Marquess of Milford Haven
Louis, Earl Mountbatten of Burma (father of the current Countess)
2. Alexander (1857-1893), Prince of Bulgaria 1879-86, (a son and a daughter).
The son died in 1965, the daughter, who married an American, in 1935).

*Prince Alexander had married an opera singer (another morganatic marriage in
the family). The son and daughter were styled Count/Countess of Hartenau.
Alexander, Marquess of Carisbrooke
Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain
Lord Leopold Mounbatten
Prince Maurice vonBattenberg

*Prince Maurice d. 1914 (during the war, but before the 1917 family name
change). Hence, he remained styled as "Prince" while his brothers became a
Marquess and a Lord.
4. Franz Joseph (1861-1924) d. without
issue
5. Princess Marie (1852-1923), presumably did not use the Battenberg title
after her marriage in 1870 (d. without issue).
Don Aitken
2004-02-24 23:56:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having married
before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom, retained her
maiden name throughout her lifetime.
Queen Ena was the daughter of Prince Henry, who married Princess Beatrice of
the UK (but not without the promise that Henry and Beatrice would live with
Queen Victoria).
I don't think the 1917 name change from Wettin to Windsor would have affected
a) she had married into a foreign Royal House.
b) she was excluded from the British succession upon her marriage to King
Alfonso XIII (who was a Roman Catholic).
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is
consistently referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Anne
2004-02-25 00:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having married
before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom, retained her
maiden name throughout her lifetime.
Queen Ena was the daughter of Prince Henry, who married Princess Beatrice of
the UK (but not without the promise that Henry and Beatrice would live with
Queen Victoria).
I don't think the 1917 name change from Wettin to Windsor would have affected
a) she had married into a foreign Royal House.
b) she was excluded from the British succession upon her marriage to King
Alfonso XIII (who was a Roman Catholic).
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is
consistently referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.
Didn't Ena remain a Battenberg? Her children were Borbon y Battenberg, as
Don Juan's children were/are Borbon y Borbon, and Juan Carlos' children
Borbon y de Greca.
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-25 07:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having married
before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom, retained her
maiden name throughout her lifetime.
Queen Ena was the daughter of Prince Henry, who married Princess Beatrice of
the UK (but not without the promise that Henry and Beatrice would live with
Queen Victoria).
I don't think the 1917 name change from Wettin to Windsor would have affected
a) she had married into a foreign Royal House.
b) she was excluded from the British succession upon her marriage to King
Alfonso XIII (who was a Roman Catholic).
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is
consistently referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.
Don, I think thatmay be the designation of Ena's children. She may
have been something like "de Battenberg y Saxe Coburgo Gotha" or
something similar.

Cheers,
Christopher
Don Aitken
2004-02-25 15:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having married
before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom, retained her
maiden name throughout her lifetime.
Queen Ena was the daughter of Prince Henry, who married Princess Beatrice of
the UK (but not without the promise that Henry and Beatrice would live with
Queen Victoria).
I don't think the 1917 name change from Wettin to Windsor would have affected
a) she had married into a foreign Royal House.
b) she was excluded from the British succession upon her marriage to King
Alfonso XIII (who was a Roman Catholic).
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is
consistently referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.
Don, I think thatmay be the designation of Ena's children. She may
have been something like "de Battenberg y Saxe Coburgo Gotha" or
something similar.
Yes, I suspect you are right. I've never been 100% clear about Spanish
surname customs.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Graham Truesdale
2004-02-28 22:39:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having married
before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom, retained her
maiden name throughout her lifetime.
Queen Ena was the daughter of Prince Henry, who married Princess Beatrice of
the UK (but not without the promise that Henry and Beatrice would live with
Queen Victoria).
I don't think the 1917 name change from Wettin to Windsor would have affected
a) she had married into a foreign Royal House.
b) she was excluded from the British succession upon her marriage to King
Alfonso XIII (who was a Roman Catholic).
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is
consistently referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.
Don, I think thatmay be the designation of Ena's children. She may
have been something like "de Battenberg y Saxe Coburgo Gotha" or
something similar.
Yes, I suspect you are right. I've never been 100% clear about Spanish
surname customs.
Is anyone here 100% clear about Scottish surname customs? I think
that a married woman there continues to use her maiden name for
some purposes. Can we think up a situation in which this issue
might arise for one of the MountBattenBergs?

Are the issues the same for the Teck/Cambridge family?

I think someone upthread said that the Gotha continued to list
these families under their German titles. Does this also apply
to those born after 1917, so that one could find solemn references
to: -
1. TSH Princess Tatiana & Prince David of Battenberg (born
1917 and 1919)
2. TSH Princesses Patricia & Pamela of Battenberg (born
1924 & 1929)
3. HSH Princess Iris of Battenberg (born 1920)
4. HSH (was this the correct style?) Pss Mary of Teck (born
1924).
( I note that no child was ever born with the name Cambridge
in the Athlone branch).

If so, how long did this last? What about the GHdA?
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-29 08:16:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by manuel
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Christopher Buyers
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having
married
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom, retained
her
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
maiden name throughout her lifetime.
Queen Ena was the daughter of Prince Henry, who married Princess
Beatrice of
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
the UK (but not without the promise that Henry and Beatrice would live
with
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
Queen Victoria).
I don't think the 1917 name change from Wettin to Windsor would have
affected
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
a) she had married into a foreign Royal House.
b) she was excluded from the British succession upon her marriage to
King
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
Alfonso XIII (who was a Roman Catholic).
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is
consistently referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.
Don, I think thatmay be the designation of Ena's children. She may
have been something like "de Battenberg y Saxe Coburgo Gotha" or
something similar.
Yes, I suspect you are right. I've never been 100% clear about Spanish
surname customs.
Is anyone here 100% clear about Scottish surname customs? I think
that a married woman there continues to use her maiden name for
some purposes. Can we think up a situation in which this issue
might arise for one of the MountBattenBergs?
Are the issues the same for the Teck/Cambridge family?
I think someone upthread said that the Gotha continued to list
these families under their German titles. Does this also apply
to those born after 1917, so that one could find solemn references
to: -
1. TSH Princess Tatiana & Prince David of Battenberg (born
1917 and 1919)
2. TSH Princesses Patricia & Pamela of Battenberg (born
1924 & 1929)
3. HSH Princess Iris of Battenberg (born 1920)
4. HSH (was this the correct style?) Pss Mary of Teck (born
1924).
( I note that no child was ever born with the name Cambridge
in the Athlone branch).
That same "someone" said that the German titles were still recognised
in Spain, so I suppose one best start placing Don and Dona before the
Christian names, adding "y" and mother's surname, etc., etc.

Lots of people are listed under an old family name in the Gotha, does
that mean every one listed therein enjoys the same, styles titles and
rank?

The idea that the the Athlone branch should be continued to be known
by foreign titles would make the old Earl turn in his grave.
Apparently, as the husband of a Royal Princess a Dukedom was mooted
for him in 1917. He rejected that because he said he couldn't afford
the status. He was then offered a Marquessate. Refused point blank
because it sounded "foreign". Then settled joyously on Earl because
nothing could sound more British!

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Gidzmo
2004-02-25 20:05:54 UTC
Permalink
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is consistently
referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.

What about BEFORE marriage? Ena's father was a Battenberg. Had she not
married, the changes that affected Alexander and Leopold would have affected
her: she would have become Lady Victoria Eugene Mountbatten.

Beatrice was a Wettin prior to her marriage.

Maurice's status was never changed because he died during the war. Alexander
and Leopold's status changed, as noted upthread.
jlk7e
2004-02-26 06:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is consistently
referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.
What about BEFORE marriage? Ena's father was a Battenberg. Had she not
married, the changes that affected Alexander and Leopold would have affected
her: she would have become Lady Victoria Eugene Mountbatten.
Beatrice was a Wettin prior to her marriage.
No, she was not. The Battenbergs/Mountbattens are morganauts of the
House of Hesse, which does not share a male line ancestor with the
Wettins. They are, rather, descended from the medieval Dukes of
Brabant.
Don Aitken
2004-02-26 15:11:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Don Aitken
And because she was never a Wettin in the first place. She is consistently
referred to as "Borbon y Battenberg" as Christopher
implied.
What about BEFORE marriage? Ena's father was a Battenberg. Had she not
married, the changes that affected Alexander and Leopold would have affected
her: she would have become Lady Victoria Eugene Mountbatten.
Beatrice was a Wettin prior to her marriage.
No, she was not. The Battenbergs/Mountbattens are morganauts of the
House of Hesse, which does not share a male line ancestor with the
Wettins. They are, rather, descended from the medieval Dukes of
Brabant.
Shome confusion here, shurely? Henry, and therefore Ena, were
Battenbergs, but Beatrice, as a daughter of the Prince Consort, was a
Wettin prior to her marriage, as stated.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Gidzmo
2004-02-27 20:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Shome confusion here, shurely? Henry, and therefore Ena, were Battenbergs, but
Beatrice, as a daughter of the Prince Consort, was a Wettin prior to her
marriage, as stated.

Prince Henry--Battenberg

Prss Beatrice, Victoria and Albert's youngest daughter--Wettin prior to
marriage.

Princess Ena, daughter of Henry and Beatrice, was born a Battenberg. Had she
married AFTER the 1917 LP, she would have lost the HRH status and become Lady
Victoria Eugene Mountbatten.

As noted, her surviving brothers were:
Alexander Mountbatten, Marquess of Carisbrooke (formerly Prince Alexander von
Battenberg)
Lord Leopold Mounbatten (formerly Prince Leopold Mountbatten).

Prince Maurice vonBattenberg was not subject to the LP, as he died in 1917.
Had he survived the war, he would have been renamed Lord Maurice Mountbatten.

Question: Weren't Leopold and Maurice hemophiliacs? I'm fairly sure that
Leopold Mountbatten was.
Uwe
2004-02-26 09:50:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
the principal gentleman in question had become a British subject as early as
1868.
a) Prince Louis (m. Princess Victoria vonHessen, Princess Alice's daughter)
b) Prince Henry (aka "Liko", m. HRH the Princess Beatrice, Queen Victoria's
youngest daughter).
Of course the Battenberg title had not vanished since Prince Franz Joseph was
still around and he wasn't a British subject.
What has Prince Franz Joseph to do with the Battenbergs?
1. Louis, b. 1854, later 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.
2. Alexander, b. 1857, Prince of Bulgaria 1879-86, who died in 1893,
leaving issue a son and a daughter. The son died in 1965, the
daughter, who married an American, in 1935.
3. Henry, b. 1858, d. 1896, father of the Marquess of Carisbrooke etc.
4. Franz Joseph, b. 1861, d. without issue in 1924.
So, when lines 1 and 3 became Mountbattens, lines 2 and 4, not being
British, remained Battenbergs. Actually, Alexander's children used the
titles Count and Countess von Hartenau, but Franz Joseph was Prince
von Battenberg until his death. Their sister, Princess Marie, lived
until 1923, but presumably did not use the Battenberg title after her
marriage in 1870.
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having
married before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom,
retained her maiden name throughout her lifetime.
Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Did the complete line 1 become Mountbattens? Alice married also prior
to 1917 (a greek prince). Although Prince Philip chose the name
Mountbatten, I am not sure whether his mother has ever been a
Mountbatten at all.
Don Aitken
2004-02-26 15:11:31 UTC
Permalink
On 26 Feb 2004 01:50:16 -0800,
Post by Uwe
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
the principal gentleman in question had become a British subject as early as
1868.
a) Prince Louis (m. Princess Victoria vonHessen, Princess Alice's daughter)
b) Prince Henry (aka "Liko", m. HRH the Princess Beatrice, Queen Victoria's
youngest daughter).
Of course the Battenberg title had not vanished since Prince Franz Joseph was
still around and he wasn't a British subject.
What has Prince Franz Joseph to do with the Battenbergs?
1. Louis, b. 1854, later 1st Marquess of Milford Haven.
2. Alexander, b. 1857, Prince of Bulgaria 1879-86, who died in 1893,
leaving issue a son and a daughter. The son died in 1965, the
daughter, who married an American, in 1935.
3. Henry, b. 1858, d. 1896, father of the Marquess of Carisbrooke etc.
4. Franz Joseph, b. 1861, d. without issue in 1924.
So, when lines 1 and 3 became Mountbattens, lines 2 and 4, not being
British, remained Battenbergs. Actually, Alexander's children used the
titles Count and Countess von Hartenau, but Franz Joseph was Prince
von Battenberg until his death. Their sister, Princess Marie, lived
until 1923, but presumably did not use the Battenberg title after her
marriage in 1870.
There was one other Battenberg after 1917. Queen Ena of Spain, having
married before the name change and in accordance with Spanish custom,
retained her maiden name throughout her lifetime.
Did the complete line 1 become Mountbattens? Alice married also prior
to 1917 (a greek prince). Although Prince Philip chose the name
Mountbatten, I am not sure whether his mother has ever been a
Mountbatten at all.
That's correct. She married in 1903. Her sister, the Queen of Sweden,
however, *was* a Mountbatten, since she did not marry until 1923.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-26 16:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On 26 Feb 2004 01:50:16 -0800,
<...>
Post by Don Aitken
That's correct. She married in 1903. Her sister, the Queen of Sweden,
however, *was* a Mountbatten, since she did not marry until 1923.
Does that (being a Montbatten vs a Battenberg) have effect in the heraldry
of the princesses?

Pierre
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-28 08:40:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uwe
Did the complete line 1 become Mountbattens?
No, not all Battenbergs became Mountbattens. Those who had married
before that date and those who were not British subjects were
unaffected.

Indeed not all members of families of German origin, and connected
with the British Royal Family in 1917, renounced their names or titles
either.

Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein neither renounced his titles or
changed his name.

Count Gleichen and his sisters renounced their titles but retained
their German name.
Post by Uwe
Alice married also prior
to 1917 (a greek prince). Although Prince Philip chose the name
Mountbatten, I am not sure whether his mother has ever been a
Mountbatten at all.
You are absolutely right, which makes the Prince's alleged quip about
an amoeba with regard to the dynastic name difficult to credit.
Perhaps it is Lord Mountbatten's family that tend to braodcast the
story!

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Francois R. Velde
2004-02-21 20:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
[...]
If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but
nobody has come up with anything legal or concrete.
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything of
the sort for your assertion above?
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-22 09:10:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
[...]
If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but
nobody has come up with anything legal or concrete.
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything of
the sort for your assertion above?
For what exactly?

That they were British subjects?

That Germany and Austria became republics?

That states outside the British Empire did not recognise the German
titles? If so which, Japan, Argentina or the USA?
Francois R. Velde
2004-02-22 20:46:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
[...]
If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but
nobody has come up with anything legal or concrete.
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything of
the sort for your assertion above?
For what exactly?
For the assertion above, yours, that they renounced, to their sovereign.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-24 16:01:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
[...]
If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but
nobody has come up with anything legal or concrete.
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything of
the sort for your assertion above?
For what exactly?
For the assertion above, yours, that they renounced, to their sovereign.
But surely you are not disputing that they were British subjects?

For goodness sake, the last Duke of Teck, first Marquess of Cambridge
even served as a British diplomat at the British Embassy in Vienna
while Franz Joseph was Emperor!

Cheers,
Christopher Buyers
Francois R. Velde
2004-02-24 20:12:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
[...]
If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but
nobody has come up with anything legal or concrete.
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything of
the sort for your assertion above?
For what exactly?
For the assertion above, yours, that they renounced, to their sovereign.
But surely you are not disputing that they were British subjects?
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything
of the sort for your assertion above, that they renounced to their sovereign?
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-25 07:01:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
[...]
If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but
nobody has come up with anything legal or concrete.
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything of
the sort for your assertion above?
For what exactly?
For the assertion above, yours, that they renounced, to their sovereign.
But surely you are not disputing that they were British subjects?
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything
of the sort for your assertion above, that they renounced to their sovereign?
Stop being so childish.
Francois R. Velde
2004-02-25 13:54:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
[...]
If there is evidence to the contrary, I would love to see it, but
nobody has come up with anything legal or concrete.
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything of
the sort for your assertion above?
For what exactly?
For the assertion above, yours, that they renounced, to their sovereign.
But surely you are not disputing that they were British subjects?
Speaking of something legal or concrete, have you yet come up with anything
of the sort for your assertion above, that they renounced to their sovereign?
Stop being so childish.
I've asked a simple question three times, you've refused three times to answer
it. I must conclude that these "renunciations", whose wording you have
described in the past, continue to be complete figments of your imagination, and
that are incapable of applying to yourself the same standards that you would
apply to others.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-02-22 15:27:02 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posting.google.com>, Christopher Buyers
says...
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
Post by Andy.III
Did the laws of the other countries even allow for renouncements?
The laws of those countries, for the most part, had abolished any
titles by the end of the Great War.
This is incorrect; neither Austria nor Germany abolished titles; they
legisated to change their status - in Austria their use was (and remains)
banned; in Germany they became part of the name. But in 1918 and for at
least 2 1/2 decades afterwards, a number of European monarchies maintained
jurisdictions capable of according recognition to foreign titles. The Holy
See has continued to recognize all nobiliary titles and so has the SMOM.
Spain continues to maintain a system under which a foreign titleholder
who became Spanish could be authorized to use the title in Spain.

My belief has always been that tho they may have renounced the use of said
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
titles in the British Empire that in actuality they retained full right to
their title.
Firstly, any such states that may have recognised such titles ceased
to exist at the end of the Great War.
Secondly, they travelled everywhere on passports with their British
names and titles and were accepted as such, including Germany, other
parts of Europe and elsewhere. So I guess it applied in many more
places than just the British Empire. Anywhere on the face of the
planet that recognised and accepted British passports I guess.
A passport is not proof of a right to a title (as is shown by the irish
situation where assumed names may be used in passports), although the
use of a title in a passport may be difficult to obtain without such
recognition.

Neither the Battenbergs nor the Tecks continued to use their German
titles, but then neither do some British peers or holders of courtesy
titles use theirs. This does not mean they are not entitled so to do.
Both Battenbergs and Tecks continued to appear under those names in the Almanach
de Gotha, a private publication but nonetheless an indication
of the general continental acceptance that these titles did not cease to
exist (anymore than did the titles of the various deposed royals who were
purportedly deprived of the use thereof).

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
manuel
2004-02-22 19:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Guy > >
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
This is incorrect; neither Austria nor Germany abolished titles; they
legisated to change their status - in Austria their use was (and remains)
banned; in Germany they became part of the name. But in 1918 and for at
least 2 1/2 decades afterwards, a number of European monarchies maintained
jurisdictions capable of according recognition to foreign titles. The Holy
See has continued to recognize all nobiliary titles and so has the SMOM.
Spain continues to maintain a system under which a foreign titleholder
who became Spanish could be authorized to use the title in Spain.
The situation in Spain is not that simple. Recognition of foreign
titles is the exception presently. Only titles recognised by the State
where they were given are allowed. A German or Austrian title would
not be authorised to use it in Spain, even if the holder becomes
Spanish, because the titles are no longer legal in their countries.
Some Spaniards with Italian noble titles have tried to have their
titles recognised in Spain but, as Italy is a republic, its use has
not been authorised in Spain. The applicant must show a certificate
given by the legal authorities of the country stating that the title
is still legal in that country.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
A passport is not proof of a right to a title (as is shown by the irish
situation where assumed names may be used in passports), although the
use of a title in a passport may be difficult to obtain without such
recognition.
You have posted many times that the passports of Alfonso and Gonzalo
de Borbón (having the HRH)were a proof of their royal status. Am I
wrong?
jlk7e
2004-02-23 01:50:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by manuel
Guy > >
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
This is incorrect; neither Austria nor Germany abolished titles; they
legisated to change their status - in Austria their use was (and remains)
banned; in Germany they became part of the name. But in 1918 and for at
least 2 1/2 decades afterwards, a number of European monarchies maintained
jurisdictions capable of according recognition to foreign titles. The Holy
See has continued to recognize all nobiliary titles and so has the SMOM.
Spain continues to maintain a system under which a foreign titleholder
who became Spanish could be authorized to use the title in Spain.
The situation in Spain is not that simple. Recognition of foreign
titles is the exception presently. Only titles recognised by the State
where they were given are allowed. A German or Austrian title would
not be authorised to use it in Spain, even if the holder becomes
Spanish, because the titles are no longer legal in their countries.
Some Spaniards with Italian noble titles have tried to have their
titles recognised in Spain but, as Italy is a republic, its use has
not been authorised in Spain. The applicant must show a certificate
given by the legal authorities of the country stating that the title
is still legal in that country.
1) What is the Italian government's official position on noble titles?
2) Does the Spanish government recognize French titles? 3) Are not
many German titles relics of the Holy Roman Empire? As such, the
granting authority has been defunct since 1806, and yet these titles
were officially recognized for a century or so thereafter. So I'm not
sure why the governments of the Republic of Austria and the Federal
Republic of Germany have any special right to determine their legality
outside their own borders. (The same would apply, I imagine to some
Italian titles)
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-23 14:32:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by manuel
Guy > >
<...>
Post by jlk7e
1) What is the Italian government's official position on noble titles?
2) Does the Spanish government recognize French titles?
I can think to no recent example (perhaps Mr Sainty will), but obviously he
can since French governement recognizes French titles.
Post by jlk7e
3) Are not
many German titles relics of the Holy Roman Empire? As such, the
granting authority has been defunct since 1806, and yet these titles
were officially recognized for a century or so thereafter. So I'm not
sure why the governments of the Republic of Austria and the Federal
Republic of Germany have any special right to determine their legality
outside their own borders. (The same would apply, I imagine to some
Italian titles)
Actually, Spain DOES recognize today the use of some HRE titles, but they
have become in fact Spanish titles. For example there is a title of "Count
of the Holy Empire" (conde del Sacro Imperio), whose bearer is Don
Pedro-José de Rojas y Bernaldo de Quiros, and a title of "Count of the Holy
ROman Empire" (Conde de Sacro Romano imperio), whose bearer is Don Cesar del
Alcazar y Silvela. Both are considered in Spain as transmissible by
primogeniture even in female line! (In fact, both present bearers descend
from the first grantee only through two female alliances). Not very coherent
IMHO.

Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-02-23 16:19:03 UTC
Permalink
In article <403a0e92$0$27771$***@nan-newsreader-03.noos.net>, Pierre Aronax
says...
Post by Pierre Aronax
Post by jlk7e
Post by manuel
Guy > >
<...>
Post by jlk7e
1) What is the Italian government's official position on noble titles?
2) Does the Spanish government recognize French titles?
I can think to no recent example (perhaps Mr Sainty will), but obviously he
can since French governement recognizes French titles.
Post by jlk7e
3) Are not
many German titles relics of the Holy Roman Empire? As such, the
granting authority has been defunct since 1806, and yet these titles
were officially recognized for a century or so thereafter. So I'm not
sure why the governments of the Republic of Austria and the Federal
Republic of Germany have any special right to determine their legality
outside their own borders. (The same would apply, I imagine to some
Italian titles)
Actually, Spain DOES recognize today the use of some HRE titles, but they
have become in fact Spanish titles. For example there is a title of "Count
of the Holy Empire" (conde del Sacro Imperio), whose bearer is Don
Pedro-José de Rojas y Bernaldo de Quiros, and a title of "Count of the Holy
ROman Empire" (Conde de Sacro Romano imperio), whose bearer is Don Cesar del
Alcazar y Silvela. Both are considered in Spain as transmissible by
primogeniture even in female line! (In fact, both present bearers descend
from the first grantee only through two female alliances). Not very coherent
IMHO.
One petition (still being adjudicated) for a succession to a HRE title has
proceeded with a declaration from the Prince of Lievhtenstein that the
holder is the legitimate heir (the P of L considering that his is the
only surviving HRE state); I cannot remember all the details but was told
this by the lawyer acting for the petitioner.

The majority of titles recognized in Spain are Pontifical, but include also
San Marino titles (the title of Marques de Olivara, granted in 1976 and
approved in 1982); the last Italian title fully authorized was that of
Marques de Tejada, created as a Two Sicilies title in 1736 and authorized
in 1968; this was preceded by authorization for three Italian baronial
titles, Prata, Castelmuzzo and S. Stefano del Sole, authorized in 1967.

I am without my latest Elenco, as I think there have been some further
successful petitions - I will check when I get my hands on it.

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Don Aitken
2004-02-23 20:22:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
says...
[snip]
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Pierre Aronax
Actually, Spain DOES recognize today the use of some HRE titles, but they
have become in fact Spanish titles. For example there is a title of "Count
of the Holy Empire" (conde del Sacro Imperio), whose bearer is Don
Pedro-José de Rojas y Bernaldo de Quiros, and a title of "Count of the Holy
ROman Empire" (Conde de Sacro Romano imperio), whose bearer is Don Cesar del
Alcazar y Silvela. Both are considered in Spain as transmissible by
primogeniture even in female line! (In fact, both present bearers descend
from the first grantee only through two female alliances). Not very coherent
IMHO.
One petition (still being adjudicated) for a succession to a HRE title has
proceeded with a declaration from the Prince of Lievhtenstein that the
holder is the legitimate heir (the P of L considering that his is the
only surviving HRE state); I cannot remember all the details but was told
this by the lawyer acting for the petitioner.
That is an interesting suggestion. What about Luxembourg?
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Francois R. Velde
2004-02-24 20:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
One petition (still being adjudicated) for a succession to a HRE title has
proceeded with a declaration from the Prince of Lievhtenstein that the
holder is the legitimate heir (the P of L considering that his is the
only surviving HRE state); I cannot remember all the details but was told
this by the lawyer acting for the petitioner.
That is an interesting suggestion. What about Luxembourg?
Luxemburg is a 1815 creation.

Not that the argument makes much sense, IMO. The principality of Liechtenstein
being only one of the many constituent states of the HRE with no authority over
titles of the HRE before its dissolution, how could it have gained such authority
after its dissolution? Besides, the cities of Hamburg and Bremen (not to mention
the Free State of Bavaria) can claim legal continuity with the HRE as well.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
jlk7e
2004-02-29 22:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
One petition (still being adjudicated) for a succession to a HRE title has
proceeded with a declaration from the Prince of Lievhtenstein that the
holder is the legitimate heir (the P of L considering that his is the
only surviving HRE state); I cannot remember all the details but was told
this by the lawyer acting for the petitioner.
That is an interesting suggestion. What about Luxembourg?
Luxemburg is a 1815 creation.
Not that the argument makes much sense, IMO. The principality of Liechtenstein
being only one of the many constituent states of the HRE with no authority over
titles of the HRE before its dissolution, how could it have gained such authority
after its dissolution? Besides, the cities of Hamburg and Bremen (not to mention
the Free State of Bavaria) can claim legal continuity with the HRE as well.
If Bavaria can, how about Saxony?
Frank Johansen
2004-02-29 23:06:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by jlk7e
Post by Francois R. Velde
Not that the argument makes much sense, IMO. The principality of Liechtenstein
being only one of the many constituent states of the HRE with no authority over
titles of the HRE before its dissolution, how could it have gained such authority
after its dissolution? Besides, the cities of Hamburg and Bremen (not to mention
the Free State of Bavaria) can claim legal continuity with the HRE as well.
If Bavaria can, how about Saxony?
What is now Land Hamburg, Land Bremen and Land Bayern in the
Bundesrepublik exsisted as states at the dissolution of the HRE in 1806.
During that time they have been fully sovereign or semi-sovereign
under various reichs, but, basically the current government of these
Länder are the legal successors of their governments in 1806.

That is not the case with Land Sachsen. During their days as part of
East Germany, Sachsen was divided into Bezirke with no respect for the
borders of previous states.

Regards
Frank H. Johansen
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-02-23 08:56:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by manuel
Guy > >
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
This is incorrect; neither Austria nor Germany abolished titles; they
legisated to change their status - in Austria their use was (and remains)
banned; in Germany they became part of the name. But in 1918 and for at
least 2 1/2 decades afterwards, a number of European monarchies maintained
jurisdictions capable of according recognition to foreign titles. The Holy
See has continued to recognize all nobiliary titles and so has the SMOM.
Spain continues to maintain a system under which a foreign titleholder
who became Spanish could be authorized to use the title in Spain.
The situation in Spain is not that simple. Recognition of foreign
titles is the exception presently. Only titles recognised by the State
where they were given are allowed. A German or Austrian title would
not be authorised to use it in Spain, even if the holder becomes
Spanish, because the titles are no longer legal in their countries.
Some Spaniards with Italian noble titles have tried to have their
titles recognised in Spain but, as Italy is a republic, its use has
not been authorised in Spain. The applicant must show a certificate
given by the legal authorities of the country stating that the title
is still legal in that country.
This is only true since 1968; before 1968 it was necessary only to prove
the descent and the entitlement under the original patent; from 1968
onwards the petitioner was required to produce a statement from the relevant
authority of the state concerned that he or she was indeed the heir. Indeed,
since that date, no such statements have been forthcoming from Italy,
etc. That does not disprove my general point, however, that Spain has a
procedure for the recognition of foreign titles for Spanish citizens so
I am not clear why you would challenge that.
Post by manuel
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
A passport is not proof of a right to a title (as is shown by the irish
situation where assumed names may be used in passports), although the
use of a title in a passport may be difficult to obtain without such
recognition.
You have posted many times that the passports of Alfonso and Gonzalo
de Borbón (having the HRH)were a proof of their royal status. Am I
wrong?
How can one "prove" royal status? What these passports demonstrate is that
the French Foreign Ministry, as an act of courtesy, have accorded the heads
of those dynasties formerly reigning in France certain titles in their
passports. No other category of royal person with French citizenship is
granted such a privilege. I have never suggested this has any effect or
relevance in French nobiliary law since these are not "noble" titles
anyway, but titles of pretension, associated with a royal claim.

The Battenberg and Teck titles, on the other hand, are or were not titles
of pretension, but titles of nobility, subject to national laws on nobiliary
titles and their use.

The two matters are wholly unconnected; why do you draw a parallel?

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
manuel
2004-02-23 18:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by manuel
Guy > >
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
This is incorrect; neither Austria nor Germany abolished titles; they
legisated to change their status - in Austria their use was (and remains)
banned; in Germany they became part of the name. But in 1918 and for at
least 2 1/2 decades afterwards, a number of European monarchies maintained
jurisdictions capable of according recognition to foreign titles. The Holy
See has continued to recognize all nobiliary titles and so has the SMOM.
Spain continues to maintain a system under which a foreign titleholder
who became Spanish could be authorized to use the title in Spain.
This is only true since 1968; before 1968 it was necessary only to prove
the descent and the entitlement under the original patent; from 1968
onwards the petitioner was required to produce a statement from the relevant
authority of the state concerned that he or she was indeed the heir. Indeed,
since that date, no such statements have been forthcoming from Italy,
etc. That does not disprove my general point, however, that Spain has a
procedure for the recognition of foreign titles for Spanish citizens so
I am not clear why you would challenge that.
Read what you have posted. You said: "Spain CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN a
system under which a foreign titleholder who became Spanish could be
authorized to use the title in Spain".
I posted that it is not the situation PRESENTLY. You answered that it
was until 1968. So I do not see the contradiction.
Why 1968? Did you mean 1988? See this "dictamen" from the Council of
State, where you can read all the requirements for a foreign title to
be used in Spain.

http://www.boe.es/g/es/iberlex/bases_datos_ce/doc.php?coleccion=ce&id=2001-517
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by manuel
You have posted many times that the passports of Alfonso and Gonzalo
de Borbón (having the HRH)were a proof of their royal status. Am I
wrong?
How can one "prove" royal status? What these passports demonstrate is that
the French Foreign Ministry, as an act of courtesy, have accorded the heads
of those dynasties formerly reigning in France certain titles in their
passports. No other category of royal person with French citizenship is
granted such a privilege. I have never suggested this has any effect or
relevance in French nobiliary law since these are not "noble" titles
anyway, but titles of pretension, associated with a royal claim.
I was talking about their Spanish passports, not about the French
ones.
Pierre Aronax
2004-02-23 19:12:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by manuel
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by manuel
Guy > >
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
This is incorrect; neither Austria nor Germany abolished titles; they
legisated to change their status - in Austria their use was (and remains)
banned; in Germany they became part of the name. But in 1918 and for at
least 2 1/2 decades afterwards, a number of European monarchies maintained
jurisdictions capable of according recognition to foreign titles. The Holy
See has continued to recognize all nobiliary titles and so has the SMOM.
Spain continues to maintain a system under which a foreign titleholder
who became Spanish could be authorized to use the title in Spain.
This is only true since 1968; before 1968 it was necessary only to prove
the descent and the entitlement under the original patent; from 1968
onwards the petitioner was required to produce a statement from the relevant
authority of the state concerned that he or she was indeed the heir. Indeed,
since that date, no such statements have been forthcoming from Italy,
etc. That does not disprove my general point, however, that Spain has a
procedure for the recognition of foreign titles for Spanish citizens so
I am not clear why you would challenge that.
Read what you have posted. You said: "Spain CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN a
system under which a foreign titleholder who became Spanish could be
authorized to use the title in Spain".
I posted that it is not the situation PRESENTLY.
The situation in Spain is not that simple. Recognition of foreign
titles is the exception presently. Only titles recognised by the State
where they were given are allowed.
How does that contradict the affirmation of Mr Sainty that "Spain continues
to maintain a system under which a foreign titleholder who became Spanish
could be authorized to use the title in Spain" (particularly considering the
"could")?

Pierre
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-02-24 18:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by manuel
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by manuel
Guy > >
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
This is incorrect; neither Austria nor Germany abolished titles; they
legisated to change their status - in Austria their use was (and remains)
banned; in Germany they became part of the name. But in 1918 and for at
least 2 1/2 decades afterwards, a number of European monarchies maintained
jurisdictions capable of according recognition to foreign titles. The Holy
See has continued to recognize all nobiliary titles and so has the SMOM.
Spain continues to maintain a system under which a foreign titleholder
who became Spanish could be authorized to use the title in Spain.
This is only true since 1968; before 1968 it was necessary only to prove
the descent and the entitlement under the original patent; from 1968
onwards the petitioner was required to produce a statement from the relevant
authority of the state concerned that he or she was indeed the heir. Indeed,
since that date, no such statements have been forthcoming from Italy,
etc. That does not disprove my general point, however, that Spain has a
procedure for the recognition of foreign titles for Spanish citizens so
I am not clear why you would challenge that.
Read what you have posted. You said: "Spain CONTINUES TO MAINTAIN a
system under which a foreign titleholder who became Spanish could be
authorized to use the title in Spain".
I posted that it is not the situation PRESENTLY. You answered that it
was until 1968. So I do not see the contradiction.
Why 1968? Did you mean 1988? See this "dictamen" from the Council of
State, where you can read all the requirements for a foreign title to
be used in Spain.
It continues to maintain this system; the requirement that the country
of origin of the title must state that the petitioner is the heir, does
not invalidate the basic principle. Why do you believe it does.

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Christopher Buyers
2004-02-23 07:09:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
says...
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
Post by Christopher Buyers
After renouncing their German
titles there was a gap, in some cases of several months, before the
new British titles were granted.
To whom were the renunciations made? Did the Tecks, for example, submit them to
Austria, etc?
To their King and sovereign, i.e. King George V. They were all British
subjects.
Post by Andy.III
Did the laws of the other countries even allow for renouncements?
The laws of those countries, for the most part, had abolished any
titles by the end of the Great War.
This is incorrect; neither Austria nor Germany abolished titles; they
legisated to change their status - in Austria their use was (and remains)
banned; in Germany they became part of the name.
Sorry, what is this an exercise in semantics or some serious comment.
Austria apparently didn't abolish titles but banned them. Big
difference!
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
My belief has always been that tho they may have renounced the use of said
Post by Christopher Buyers
Post by Andy.III
titles in the British Empire that in actuality they retained full right to
their title.
Belief yes, but according to what law and what evidence do the titles
continue elsewhere? And where is that elsewhere, exactly? Certainly
not in places such as the US, the USSR, Japan or Brazil. Soeven by
your tenuous form fo argument the titles did not have force in a lot
of places other than the British Empire.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Christopher Buyers
Firstly, any such states that may have recognised such titles ceased
to exist at the end of the Great War.
Secondly, they travelled everywhere on passports with their British
names and titles and were accepted as such, including Germany, other
parts of Europe and elsewhere. So I guess it applied in many more
places than just the British Empire. Anywhere on the face of the
planet that recognised and accepted British passports I guess.
A passport is not proof of a right to a title (as is shown by the irish
situation where assumed names may be used in passports), although the
use of a title in a passport may be difficult to obtain without such
recognition.
The titles on the passports in question are their legal British ones,
which has nothing whatever to do with assumed names.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Neither the Battenbergs nor the Tecks continued to use their German
titles, but then neither do some British peers or holders of courtesy
titles use theirs. This does not mean they are not entitled so to do.
Both Battenbergs and Tecks continued to appear under those names in the Almanach
de Gotha, a private publication but nonetheless an indication
of the general continental acceptance that these titles did not cease to
exist (anymore than did the titles of the various deposed royals who were
purportedly deprived of the use thereof).
Well, lets not begin to discuss the erros in Gotha here, or else we
will be at it for years to come.
Phillip DUKE
2004-02-23 08:00:41 UTC
Permalink
What was the reasoning on banning titles in Austria?
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-02-23 09:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Phillip DUKE
What was the reasoning on banning titles in Austria?
politics; there had been a left wing revolution and the new government wanted
to do away with all outward signs of royalty or nobility.

Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
edespalais
2004-02-23 03:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Phillip DUKE
What was the reasoning on banning titles in Austria?
politics; there had been a left wing revolution and the new government wanted
to do away with all outward signs of royalty or nobility.
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
not only left wing, besides that what has all this to do with: Renunciation
of German titles by British royals
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...