Theoretical question about British monarchy

[matt_mcl]

Say King Cecil is on the throne. He is married to Queen Cecilia and they have a son, Prince Adam. King Cecil dies. Prince Adam becomes King and Queen Cecilia becomes the dowager queen mother.

Now say a wealthy foreigner (il conte Eduardo Tozzi) marries Queen Cecilia. Does he get any automatic titles for being the Queen's husband?

[C K Dexter Haven]

No.

Parliament would probably grant a title to him, as a recognition and honour, but he would have no inherent right to a title simply by marrying the Queen Dowager.

In your example, of course, he is already a count (British: earl), so already has a title on his own.

[Northern Piper]

This has actually happened on two occasions in the distant past that I know of. On both occasions, the husband was not granted a separate title.

The first was the marriage of Dowager Queen Katherine, widow of Henry V, and mother of Henry VI (Emma Thompson played her in the Branagh movie.) She married Edmund Tudor, the ancestor of Henry Tudor, who became Hnery VII. I don't think Edmund was granted a new title as a result; not sure what title he held.

The second case was Dowager Queen Katherine Parr, the only one of Henry VIII's six wives to survive him. She married the Earl of Seymour, and later died in childbirth. He was executed in the reign of Queen Mary I (Bloody Mary), under the usual suspicions of treachery and treason. Again, as far as I know, he wasn't given a separate title.

There is also the issue of whether a man who marries a queen who reigns in her own right should be given only a courtesy title, or be called King (the crown matrimonial), with joint ruling powers. When Mary I married Philip of Spain, he argued for the Crown matrimonial. I don't think he got the formal recognition, but he was proclaimed as King Philip of England, in the consort sense. This whole issue of the Crown matrimonial was one of the reasons Elizabeth I stayed single.

(She also had the bad example of her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, who married Lord Darnley and gave him the Crown matrimonial. He was a complete dolt, and the existewnce of two monarchs at the same time caused various crises in Scottish politics - until Lord Darnley was conveniently blown up at Kirk'o'Fields.)

William and Mary was not an example of the Crown matrimonial, as they both had a claim to the throne and were proclaimed as joint monarchs.

It's early in the morning for me, and I may have got some of the details wrong - will poke about a bit.

[Akatsukami]

jti writes:It's early in the morning for me, and I may have got some of the details wrong
Mmmm, a couple, I think.
The first was the marriage of Dowager Queen Katherine, widow of Henry V, and mother of Henry VI (Emma Thompson played her in the Branagh movie.) She married Edmund Tudor, the ancestor of Henry Tudor, who became Hnery VII. I don't think Edmund was granted a new title as a result; not sure what title he held.
Actually, I believe that Katherine married Owen Tudor, Edmund's father (and Henry's grandfather). Owen did not hold a peerage, and, SFAIK, was never granted one. Edmund was later made Earl of Richmond, and his younger brother, Jasper, Earl of Pembroke (after the accession of -- or seizure of the crown by -- his nephew, he was created duke). Their creations can probably be traced to the fact that they were half-brothers of Henry VI.
The second case was Dowager Queen Katherine Parr, the only one of Henry VIII's six wives to survive him. She married the Earl of Seymour, and later died in childbirth.
No, that was the Lord High Admiral Seymour (Thomas, I think his given name was), who again, I believe, never held a peerage, although his brother, Earl of Hertford and Duke of Somerset, did. FWIW, the Seymours wer brothers of Henry's third wife, Jane Seymour.
There is also the issue of whether a man who marries a queen who reigns in her own right should be given only a courtesy title, or be called King (the crown matrimonial), with joint ruling powers. When Mary I married Philip of Spain, he argued for the Crown matrimonial. I don't think he got the formal recognition, but he was proclaimed as King Philip of England, in the consort sense.
Victoria, I believe, wanted Albert to have the title of "king consort", but "prince" was as far as Parliament was willing to go. Elizabeth II, SFAIK, didn't make an issue of it.


I don't recall when George of Denmark (husband of Anne Stuart, later Queen Anne) died, but I think it was before Anne's accession, so the question didn't arise.



------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[Keeves]

Why are you people digging up such old ancient history? It seems clear to me that if the husband of the actual current queen regnant has no special title (ie, Prince Philip) then certainly the husband of the ex- queen consort (as described in the OP) would not get any special title. Am I missing something?

[Rodd Hill]

Actually, Keeves, Phillip does have a special title: that of Duke of Edinburgh.

IIRC, this was conferred by George VI after Phillip married his daughter, Elizabeth, while she was a mere Princess Royal (which sounds like a cruise ship, doesn't it?).

Phillip is also royal in his own right, being a sprig of Greek royalty.

Admittedly, you don't hear him referred to as "Prince Consort", or anything like that. I wonder if the Queen were to die in a terrible corgi accident, would we start to refer to Phillip as the "King Father" or "King Dad?"

I'm sure that even a commoner who married a monarch (or monarch-to-be) would get some kind of title. I've always liked "Lord of the Isles," myself. Very Highland and mysterious.

[matt_mcl]

Ok, for my next question. Suppose Sir Cecil defeats King Dan of Savagia and crowns himself King of Savagia. Can he do this if his (Cecil's) father is still living, or does his father become King instead? If not, what is the father?

[Akatsukami]

Hey, if Sir Cecil's army is powerful enough to bump Dan off the throne of Savigia, he can do anything he wants. :)


More seriously, it all depends on:
[list=a] Where Cecil's the Elder's domain is;
What the laws of that domain and/or its suzerain(s) are;
If Cecil the Elder is sovereign, or someone's vassal or subject.[/list=a]
I can't think of any exact precedent for the situation, largely because the sort of fortification that any rural baron was capable of throwing up in a matter of weeks was capable, in a pre-gunpowder age, of ressting a besieging army for months, years, or until every in the besieging army died of cholera. (After gunpowder came into use in Europe, fortresses got much more expensive, but so did siege trains. You had to be playing at least at the Hohenzollern/Savoyard level to afford a decent example of either). The best armies at pre-gunpowder siege, the Assyrians,and Romans, succeeded mostly by carrying out atrocities of such magnitude on resisters that people surrendered at the drop of a fasces.


The best analogy that I can think of off the top of my head would be the conquest of southern Italy and Sicily by the Hauteville brothers. Tancred de Hauteville was certainly alive when he sent out his youngest sons to earn their bread by the sword; I don't know if he still was when Robert Guiscard made himself duke of Apulia.
Tancred did live and die a poor Norman knight.

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[Stoid]

These are very interesting questions. Being a fan of the Tudor era, I've always wondered about this. Elizabeth didn't want anyone messing with her power, but wasn't it entirely WITHIN her power to decide how much power her husband did or did not have?

And what the hell does "king CONSORT" really MEAN, anyway? And why do women who marry the king automatically become queens, but not the reverse?

By the way, I know that Elizabeth also didn't want to play any favorites among countries, there being so much upheaval in the world and all, and marrying would have certainly required she do that. I'm just wondering about the whole consort/real king thing and who decides. Or at least, who decided back then.



------------------
*************
I am #1. Everyone else is #2 or lower.

[Diceman]

"Consort" refers to the spouse of an aristocrat. Cecil covered this somewhere, but I don't feel like looking it up. Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen Regent, meaning she is queen by her own right. This is opposed to a Queen Consort, who is only a queen because she is the king's wife. When Liz 2 dies, her son Charles will become king. If he remarries (let's assume it's Camilla Parker-Bowles (sp?)), then Queen Camilla would be a queen consort.

As to the husbands of Mary/Anne/Elizabeth/etc, the reason you don't have a King Consort is because the Parliment didn't want to have a king who was subordinate to the queen. (In other words, it was sexism. Not that I disagree with their decision ;)). Thus, you get Prince Consort, and QE2's main man is Prince Phillip, instead of King Consort Phillip.

------------------
"I had a feeling that in Hell there would be mushrooms." -The Secret of Monkey Island

[jayron 32]

Phillip is also royal in his own right, being a sprig of Greek royalty.

Not to be picky, but "Greek Royalty" is a myth: The Greek Royal Family is decended exclusively from a German royal house. When Germany unified circa 1871, it left a lot of royal families without kingdoms. Around this time, the Ottomans were driven back, and the resulting newly independant states (under the guise of the Metternichian Conservatism still prevalent at the time) were given Kings, usually German princes who would have been heirs to small German states that no longer existed. Greece was among these; so the Duke of Edinburgh is German Royalty by decent. (incedentally, there was a single country in the post-Ottoman balkans ruled by a native king: Albania and King Zog I. No one cared much about it, or him, and he is merely a footnote to history)

------------------
Jason R Remy

"What we've got here is a failure to communicate"
Warden in _Cool Hand Luke_

Suppose Sir Cecil defeats King Dan of Savagia and crowns himself King of Savagia. Can he do this if his (Cecil's) father is still living, or does his father become King instead? If not, what is the father?

It would probably depend on how King Cecil made his claim to the Savagian crown. If he was simply conquering it by force of arms, then Cecil himself would be considered to have the authority; ie his victory on the battlefield would show that God favored him as king over Dan. But if Cecil were claiming that he had a hereditary right to the throne (saying, for example, that King Dan's grandfather, King Ralph, was the illegitimate son of the royal gardener and therefore the kingship should have been passed down via Ralph's younger brother Raoul, who was Cecil's grandfather) then Cecil's father (Raoul's son) would have first claim before Cecil.

[Akatsukami]

Ummm, Jason, this is, well, wrong.


The Greek monarchical line (and the current pretender, Constantine II (or XIII, depending on whether you buy the Megara Idea)) is of Danish descent, not German (in fact, George I of Greece was the brother of Alexandra, wife to Edward VII). You may be thinking of Otto of Bavaria, who was king of Greece for a couple of decades before George, and who was driven out by a coup.


Very few German monarchs (whatever their title) lost their thrones in the unification of Germany (the only one that I can think of off-hand was George V of Hanover (Victoria's cousin), and that was some years before the formal declaration of the Empire). The German Empire was a federal monarchy (in theory, at least); the south Germans wouldn't have adhered to it otherwise.


In 1917, when it looked like Germany might be winning WWI, mediatized German princes and scions of ruling houses were made kings of where-all and whichever by the Germans...and these kings, and all of the ruling houses of Germany, didabdicate after Germany finally lost the war. Some German princelings did end up ruling in the Balkans -- and elsewhere (Leopold of Sigmarinen-Hohenzollern (only distantly related to the ruling house of Prussia) was elected king of Spain, although he disavowed the election).


Ahmed Zogu seized power after an election and declared himself Zog I in 1928; post-Ottoman, to be sure, but rather late in the day (Wilhelm of Wied had nominally been king in 1914 - 1918, but he was only in the country for a few months). The Karadjordjevichi (Petrovichi) and Obrenovichi, both native families, had taken turns ruling Serbia for more than a century before that (the feud between was quite decisively decided by the murder of King Alexander Obrenovich in 1903). The current Karadjordjevich pretender, Alexander Karadjordjevich II, is, IIRC, an insurance executive in Chicago.

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[Northern Piper]

Drat, I knew I shouldn't try to post royal geneology so early in the morning!

Akatsukami is correct - it was Owen Tudor who married the Dowager Queen Katherine Valois, and the Seymour who married the Dowager Queen Katherine Parr was not an Earl.

With regard to why there is the fuss about "King Consorts", I agree with Diceman - sexism is the root of it. At that time, the wife came under the legal control of the husband, so when a queen regnant married, there was always the concern that her husband would become the king regnant. Since royalty tended to marry other royalty or high members of the local nobility, this would cause a problem: either the country would come under the control of a foreign monarch (as was the concern about Philip of Spain), or under the control of a domestic noble, elevated above his peers (Lord Darnley's elevation was a case in point). Either way, a recipe for trouble.

This morning, I'm a bit more wide awake, and I checked the point about George of Denmark that you raised, Akatusukami. He was still alive in 1702 when Anne became Queen; died in 1708. I've never seen him referred to as anything but "Prince George of Denmark." I think he was made a Knight of the Garter, but I don't know if he ever got any other titles.

With respect to Matt's follow-up question, my understanding is that in the feudal period, a distinction was made between possessions that a noble inherited from Dad, and those he just went out and conquered. The inherited possessions went to his first-born son, while the conquered possesions went to his second-born son.

For example, William the Conqueror inherited the Duchy of Normandy from his father, and conquered England. When he died, his eldest son Robert of Curthose became Duke of Normandy, and his second son, William Rufus, became William II of England.

One other example, along the lines Mike mentions, was Bonnie Prince Charlie's invasion of Scotland in 1745. Charlie's father, the Old Pretender, was still alive. When Charlie unfurled the standard at Glenfinnan in August, 1745 (see my post in MPSIMS of August 18), he stated he was taking possesion as Regent for his father, whom he proclaimed as James VIII (III of England).

[Akatsukami]

jti writes:This morning, I'm a bit more wide awake, and I checked the point about George of Denmark that you raised, Akatusukami. He was still alive in 1702 when Anne became Queen; died in 1708. I've never seen him referred to as anything but "Prince George of Denmark." I think he was made a Knight of the Garter, but I don't know if he ever got any other titles.
Thanx, jti. None of the sources readily available to me assign him any particular official title, either.

It would seem, in reply to the OP, that the queen dowager's husband, if she re-marries, doesn't get any kind of (automatic) title. Of English queens regnant, the roster is:
Mary I: her husband, (King) Philip of Spain, was also proclaimed King of England, but it was agreed that he should have no share in the government, and couldn't succeed her.
Elizabeth I: never married.
Mary II: her husband, Prince William of Orange, was crowned joint monarch of England as William III -- but he was in the queue for the succession, behind Mary, her sister Anne, and their issue (Mary had no children; Anne had 17 (!), but none survived her or had children of their own).
Anne: her husband, George of Denmark, seems not to have gotten a title.
Victoria: asked for the title "king consort" from Parliament for her husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was refused, eventually gave him the title of "prince consort" by letters patent.
Elizabeth II: I believe that Philip has been granted the style of "Prince of the United Kingdom", but that the title of "prince consort" has not been granted to him.

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[Fretful Porpentine]

Anne had 17 (!), but none survived her or had children of their own).

One minor quibble: IIRC, Anne had 17 pregnancies, many of which ended in miscarriage.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Williamanmary the Orange, my favorite of all the kings of England.

Honi soit que mal y pense.

[Akatsukami]

Fretful Porpentine quotes me as saying:Anne had 17 (!), but none survived her or had children of their own).
and replies:
One minor quibble: IIRC, Anne had 17 pregnancies, many of which ended in miscarriage.
My source on Queen Anne (http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal00693) credits her with seventeen children: five live births, ten stillborn, and three unnamed but not explicitly called stillborn (a pair of stillborn twin boys is counted as one birth). Miscarriages are not explicitly mentioned, although I daresay that they could easily be hidden in the last two categories (the twins are the only ones stated to have appeared less than full term).

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

[John W. Kennedy]

I have always heard that William III became King because Mary II, as a good Xtian wife, insisted on not being superior to her hubby.

I believe EIIR is "Queen Regnant", not "Queen Regent".



------------------
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams

[DSYoungEsq]

Honi soit que mal y pense
Isn't that "Honi soit qui mal y pense?"

[sunbear]

In most countries the spouse of an active queen becomes a prince. "Here Prince, come along now, two feet behind me."

[Northern Piper]

I have always heard that William III became King because Mary II, as a good Xtian wife, insisted on not being superior to her hubby.

John,

I did a bit of poking around, and I think it's a bit more complex than that.

Mary did seem to be a retiring sort, who relied primarily on William to take the active "manly" role. However, there was also some high-level politics involved.

One of the reasons William got involved in English politics was that he wanted England to intervene on the side of the Dutch in the wars against France. If Mary were the sole Queen, and he would simply be her consort, and would not have had any independent political authority. Whereas, by being King in his own right, he had the authority to get England inolved in the continental war.

There was also William's own ego - in one book, he was quoted as saying he was not content to be "His Lady's Usher of the Chamber," or words to that effect. After all, he was the grandson of Charles I, with his own claim to the English throne (although ranking behind the various descendants of James II (VII)).

[Northern Piper]

I have always heard that William III became King because Mary II, as a good Xtian wife, insisted on not being superior to her hubby.

John,

I did a bit of poking around, and I think it's a bit more complex than that.

Mary did seem to be a retiring sort, who relied primarily on William to take the active "manly" role. She appears to have been unwilling to take the throne without his joint participation. Once they were proclaimed as joint monarchs, she left all the executive duties to William, except when he was out of the country.

However, there was also some high-level politics involved.

One point was that Mary was sensitive to accustations that she was usurping her father's throne. Having William as joint monarch, under a parliamentary act of succession, created a counter-argument.

William's political goals also came into play. One of the reasons William got involved in English politics was that he wanted England to intervene on the side of the Dutch in the wars against France. If Mary were the sole Queen, and he were simply her consort, and he would not have had any independent political authority. Whereas, by being King in his own right, he had the authority to get England inolved in the continental war.

One of the earlier suggestions to solve the problem was that William should be declared by Parliament to be Regent, on behalf of his absent father-in-law, James II (VII). This proposal failed in the House of Lords by 51-49.

There was also William's own ego - I found one reference quoting him as saying that he was not content to be "His Lady's Usher" for the rest of his life. After all, he was the grandson of Charles I, with his own claim to the English throne (although ranking behind the various descendants of James II (VII)).

[Polycarp]

JTI posted:
that in the feudal period, a distinction was made between possessions that a noble inherited from Dad, and those he just went out and conquered. The inherited possessions went to his first-born son, while the conquered possesions went to his second-born son.

Close, but no cigar.

The inherited possessions, like the title, were entailed and passed to the first-born son, as stated. The other possessions were within the royal or noble person's disposition by will, and could go to whomever he saw fit. Ordinarily this was the offspring other than the first-born son, since they were not otherwise provided for.

Apropos of nothing, Charles is Duke of Cornwall as heir apparent to the throne of England. When Elizabeth dies and he succeeds, Prince William automatically becomes Duke of Cornwall. (Prince of Wales is a gift of the sovereign, not an automatic inheritance.) This is, I believe, the only case where an English title passes from one person to another on the death of a third person.

William and Mary came to the throne, technically at least, as joint monarchs, as a result of "The Glorious Revolution" sometimes also referred to as "The Bloodless Revolution" (not hardly!).

Charles I was the king who lost his head to Oliver Cromwell's crowd. His sons were Charles II and James II. Charles II ("the Merry Monarch") died without legitimate issue, and James became king. Problem with James: he was VERY Catholic. I think his second wife was a princess of France (writing from memory here, not research), which only increased the nervousness of the now-very-Protestant English.

Mary was a daughter of James II by his first marriage, and was very Protestant. She was also married to the very Protestant William of Orange. James II's Catholic wife gave birth to a son who would be raised very Catholic, and the English decided they didn't want him or his dad and all their popishness to rule England. Accordingly, they offered the crown to William (well, he WAS the man, after all! :P) if he would come and take it. IIRC nary a shot was fired (sword drawn?); William was deemed king by "right of conquest" as it were, and Mary deemed Queen by right of birth (placating those who thought the line should follow lines of descent -- so long as it skipped the Catholics). William and Mary were jointly regnant, at least in theory. Mary died first, and without offspring. After William died the crown went to Anne, Mary's sister, and a (Protestant) daughter of James II.

James II's little boy went on to become "The Pretender" to the throne. The Scots considered him their rightful king, and manny a battle was fought over the succession, culminating at Culloden (::moment of silence: :) when the Scots resistance was finally crushed, as was a whole way of life involving the clans.

Disclaimer: written from memory of books long past, without refreshing my research.

-Melin
(returning to lurk mode)

[SkeptiJess]

Only one teensy quibble, Melin --the second wife of James II was Mary of Modena. Modena was a minor Italian Duchy. James' MOTHER (the wife of the ill-fated Charles I) was Henrietta Maria of France. Damn good job without looking it up, though!

------------------
Jess
Full of 'satiable curtiosity

[Northern Piper]

Melin, I respectfully disagree with your description of the respective claims of William and Mary. While both had hereditary claims, and William came over with armed force, their claim to the throne was based on an Act of Parliament: the Bill of Rights.

After James fled, a convention was summoned (not a Parliament, since it was not summoned by the King). The Convention offered the throne jointly to William and Mary, provided they would accept the conditions set out in the Bill of Rights. They accepted those conditions, and gave royal assent to the Bill of Rights. In essence, it was a constitutional amendment, changing the line of succession.

[Northern Piper]

p.s. - welcome back.

[Northern Piper]

here's a cite for the English Bill of Rights: http://wwlia.org/uk-billr.htm

[Akatsukami]

melin (I second jti; welcome back, even if only in passing) writes:. IIRC nary a shot was fired (sword drawn?)[in the Glorious Revolution]
As much as it pains me to do so on the occasion of your stopping by, I have to point out that the Scots and Irish might well disagree with that statement.


Incidentally, I have heard (i.e., no evidence whatsoever) that, after the Battle of the Boyne between James Stuart and William of Orange, a soldier in the (losing) Irish army called out: "Switch kings with us and we'll fight you again!" (William was a bad general, but not nearly as bad as James). Any truth to this, or merely a story too good to be questioned?

------------------
"Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away."

As much as it pains me to do so on the occasion of your stopping by, I have to point out that the Scots and Irish might well disagree with that statement.

::grins:: Well, true, which is why I made the ironic "not hardly" comment after calling it the "Bloodless Revolution." And Culloden, which is where things more or less ended up, was hardly "bloodless." Guess I should have been more clear -- thanks for the clarification.

-Melin

[torq]

I believe that Philip has been granted the style of "Prince of the United Kingdom", but that the title of "prince consort" has not been granted to him.

I recall hearing/reading somewhere that he has not sought the title of Prince Consort.

Evidently it's still associated very strongly with Albert (who AFAIK is the only person to have actually held it), and either he doesn't feel comfortable assuming it or he doesn't feel that it would go over well if he tried.

[Rich Hall]

Speaking of royalty, what is with these groups of teenage and slightly older girls accompanying the princes on vacation trips? Does the queen approve and they properly chaperoned?

[Northern Piper]

I just now noticed that I posted an early draft and the final draft of my comments to John W. Kennedy - my apologies. (But they really shouldn't have the "Clear Fields" button so close to the "Submit Reply" button.)

[Konrad]

Of course this all depends on what country you're talking about. I remember that there was one case of a Polish girl, the only surving heir probably, being crowned king.

They couldn't let a queen rule the country, now could they?

[DSYoungEsq]

Of course this all depends on what country you're talking about. I remember that there was one case of a Polish girl, the only surving heir probably, being crowned king.
They couldn't let a queen rule the country, now could they?
So far as I know, and can discover, the only female head of state in Polish history was Queen Jadwiga, born in 1373, the daughter of Louis of Hungary, and grandniece of Casimir III (the Great), who was the last of the Piast dynasty to rule Poland. Louis had been granted the crown in Poland in return for a grant of privileges to the Polish nobility. His younger daughter was Jadwiga.
She ascended to the throne in 1384 at the age of 11, and was married two years later to Jagiello of Lithuania, who agreed to be Christianized and took the name of Wladislaw.

In all my research, I didn't see anyone say anything about Jadwiga being 'king' not 'queen' except for one site that called her 'King (sic.)' of Poland. No explanation was made.

Does anyone know more?

[Polycarp]

I don't know but have a hunch that the King Jadwiga thing is a case of a legal fiction, at which the Middle Ages were at least as good as modern lawyers are. I do know that Elizabeth II, like Victoria, Anne, the two Marys and Elizabeth I before her, is Duke (not Duchess) of Normandy, albeit the distinction only applies to the Channel Islands. The logic here is that the Duchy of Normandy is 1. subject to the Salic Law, which prevents inheritance by or through females, and 2. irrevocably tied to the English inheritance laws, which do not object to them. So Elizabeth is considered legally male insofar as her right to inherit the sovereignty of the Channel Islands goes.

[sunbear]

Rich: I think the girls have to virgins to go on those free princely vacations.And they have to come back virgins too. Otherwise no allowance for the prince for 2 weeks.

I do know that Elizabeth II, like Victoria, Anne, the two Marys and Elizabeth I before her, is Duke (not Duchess) of Normandy, albeit the distinction only applies to the Channel Islands. The logic here is that the Duchy of Normandy is

1. subject to the Salic Law, which prevents inheritance by or through females, and

2. irrevocably tied to the English inheritance laws, which do not object to them. So Elizabeth is considered legally male insofar as her right to inherit the sovereignty of the Channel Islands goes.

Now this is interesting, and something that I didn't know. How come they didn't employ that same legal fiction when Victoria became Queen so as to allow her to inherit Hanover, instead of having that title pass to her uncle?

-Melin

[Northern Piper]

Probably because Hanover was completely independent of the U.K. The British Parliament had no authority to legislate for Hanover, unlike the Channel Islands, which had been under English control since 1066. The U.K. and Hanover just happened to have the same person as monarch, until their different laws of inheritance separated their royal lines.

[Northern Piper]

Polycarp (may I call you ManyFish?)

I'm afraid I disagree with your comments about entail governing the succession of titles:

The inherited possessions, like the title, were entailed and passed to the first-born son, as stated. The other possessions were within the royal or noble person's disposition by will, and could go to whomever he saw fit.

I think you're confusing the concept of primogeniture, which governed the succession of titles and land in the feudal period, with the common law concept of an entail, which was a legal estate in land that evolved in the 13th and 14th century. As well, I disagree with your comments about the power of a land-holder to dispose of property by a will, at least in the feudal period, because land could not at that time be the subject of a will.

Under true feudalism, a land-holder did not "own" land, at least by modern understandings of the term. He held the land from his lord, in return for an obligation of military service to the lord. In the early beginnings of feudalism, this was purely a personal relationship between the lord and the land-holder. Upon the death of the land-holder the land reverted to the lord, who could then re-assign it to someone else.

Over time, the custom arose that upon the death of the land-holder, the land-holder's heir had a right to have the lord re-assign the land to him. By custom, the heir was the eldest surviving son of the deceased land-holder - the principle of primogeniture. Thus, the example I gave of Robert succeeding William the Conqueror as Duke of Normandy. William held the Duchy as a vassal of the King of France, and by the feudal custom it went to the eldest surviving son, Robert, under the terms of that feudal grant.

If William had acquired some other possession by conquest, one that had an overlord, in theory the disposition of that property on William's death would have had to be by the consent of the overlord, a point made by Akatsukami. (I say in theory, because the strength of the feudal ties varied considerably from region to region.) Since the overlord's consent was required, this was not a will. If the overlord accepted the arrangement, the second son would do homage to the overlord for the land.

What was unique about William's position vis-a-vis England was that he had conquered a completely independant kingdom, with no feudal overlord. Thus he was completely free to dispose of it as he pleased on his death, subject only to practical political constraints such as the Witan (no longer very effective) and the respective abilities of his sons.

So, what about the entail? This arose after the period of classic feudalism. In England, fedualism gradually evolved, with feudal tenures coming to look more and more what we would today call propery rights in the land. As feudal theory receded, land-holders began to look for ways to make temporary dispostions of their land within the family, for example to give land to a son during the father's lifetime, but without alienating it entirely.

The statute known as De Donis Conditionalibus, 13 Edw. I, c. 1, enacted in 1285, was one response to this trend. De Donis dealt with conditional transfers of land. It did not itself create the entail as a separate legal interest in land, but in an important court case in 1312 (Yearbook of 5 Edw. II), the Court of Common Pleas interpreted it in a way that the entail became an interest in land, mid-way between an estate in fee simple and a life interest. This was the beginning of the entail in English law. It was only from this point on that individual parcels of land could be entailed.

Primogeniture continues to govern the descent of titles in the U.K. today. Whether a particular parcel of land is entailed depends on the history of dispositions with respect to that land. One key difference between primogeniture and the modern entail is that an entail can be ended, by the agreement of the various interested parties, and the land converted back to a fee simple. That can't be done with a title.

(The above is a rough paraphrase/precis from Milsom, "Historical Foundations of the Common Law," 2nd ed., 1981.)

[sunbear]

Well, this sure goes on and on, and it still isn't a Great Debate, more like a lecture.

[Northern Piper]

Sunbear,

I'm sorry to be long-winded, but you've got to consider how rarely there's anyone who's interested in feudalism and the entail (sniff!) - I thought I'd finally found someone I could talk to about Duke Robert and William Rufus (snuffle!) - someone who would [i]understand[/] (blow nose).

I'll just go away and try and figure out the difference between propellors, rotors and screws in the helicopter thread ...

::: slinking away :::

[Northern Piper]

::: popping back up :::

Before I go, is there anyone interested in knowing that I checked out the statutes from the reign of Bloody Mary, and I found that after she married Philip of Spain they were cited as the statutes of Philip & Mary, and that the statutes refer to him as King Philip, and at least one says that it is enacted by the "King and Queenes Majesties," which implies that Philip was more than just a consort?? (See "An Acte touching Comissions of the Peace and Gaole Delyverye in Townes Corporate, not being Counties in themselfes," 2 & 3 Philip & Mary (1555), c. xviii.)

No, I didn't think so ...

::: slinking away again :::