I ran across a site that offers for a price to contact Scottish or French nobles who will sell the titles of baron and count, respectively. The Scottish ones come with land too. A) Do the ones selling these titles then lose them themselves? I gather they do but they sell these lower titles because they themselves have the higher ones like duke and marquis, so they don’t need the lower titles.
B) I thought that in the British Commonwealth only the monarch could grant titles. Therefore how can a Scottish noble sell a title he has, or are there special rules for Scotland? C)If one had the title of Scottish baron, could one attend Parliament or the new Scottish plarliament? And if so D)would he have to be a citizen of the British Commonwealth? E) Is the queen still the queen of the whole Commonwealth, like of Canada, New Zealand, and Australia? F)
Is the British Commonwealth what they call the British Empire after some date? G) Is the queen also empress?
H) When will there be another Durbar?
[Moderator Hat ON]
I think this is better suited to General Questions.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I’ll leave A, B, and C to someone else.
D) There is no such thing as citizenship in the British Commonwealth. Each country in the Commonwealth has its own rules for citizenship and nationality.
E) The Queen is the Head of the Commonwealth. Some Commonwealth countries are constitutional monarchies, and the Queen is the formal head of state for those countries. (Click here for info on Commonwealth realms.)
There are also Commonwealth countries which are republics. They recognize the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth (which is the essential condition for membership in the Commonwealth), but the Queen does not have any role under the constitutions of those countries. India was the first Commonwealth republic. (Click here for more info on the Commonwealth.)
F) The name gradually changed from “British Empire” to “British Empire and Commonwealth” to “the Commonwealth.” The change began in the 1920s, when the British Government recognised that several of the self-governing Dominions (Canada, Newfoundland, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) were of equal status with the United Kingdom. Then, as the de-colonialization process occurred, most of the former colonies achieved independence and the term “British Empire” dropped out of use.
G) Upon India achieving independence in 1947, King George VI dropped the title “Emperor.” The current Queen has never held the title.
H) Probably never, since the monarch is no longer Emperor/Empress of India. The last Durbar, in 1911, was to mark the coronation of King-Emperor George V.
And what, if I may ask, is a Durbar?
From the Concise OED:
So, it’s a formal event to recognize/celebrate the ruling prince, monarch or emperor. The 1911 Coronation Durbar, attended by King-Emperor George V and Queen-Empress Mary, was a major event, emphasising British rule over India. It was one of the “last hurrahs” of the British Empire in India. WWI, the growth of the Congress Party and the independence movement, and Mr. Gandhi soon followed.
Given the Durbar’s association with foreign British rule and hereditary rulers, I doubt that the Republic of India will be having another one any time soon.
Sorry, forgot to mention that Edward, Prince of Wales, visited Indian in 1921-22, and there would have been durbars for him as well, but on a lesser scale than the Coronation Durbar of 1911.
Real British titles (Duke, Marquis, Earl, Viscount, Baron) cannot be sold. They can only be granted by the monarch, and when she grants them it includes details of who can inherit the title (usually only male descendants of the original title holder). The Scottish titles you’re talking about are probably Lord of the Manor titles. It really just means that you own a piece of property, except that the title can be sold independently of the land, so really it just means that you own nothing but the Lord of the Manor title, which is worthless. It’s a scam. This site http://www.baronage.co.uk has a lot of info on it, since it really seems to annoy them.
I don’t know about the French titles.
Ariadne is correct, but I would add that old and respected firms like Burke’s Peerage also offer to serve as broker for individuals to purchase titles http://www.burkes-peerage.com/index1.htm This site also has information of French Titles. Methinks that if someone found themselves seriously considering such a purchase it is a sign that you’ve got more money than than you know what to do with it.
Looks like a good job, with one exception:
My understanding is that some Scottish (and a couple of Irish) titles don’t quite correspond with the standard Anglo-Welsh-Irish rules. Scotland, prior to union, had “greater barons” who were hereditary nobility and equivalent to English barons (i.e., buck-private Lords), and “lesser barons” who were the equivalent of Laird of the Manor. The title here ran with the land, like an easement, and therefore could (and sometimes was) sold. Ireland, so I’m given to understand, still has three hereditary knighthoods, not conferring nobility but passed down in the male line like baronetcies.
It’s probably worth noting that Elizabeth the Queen Mother, 101 years old, is still officially Queen-Empress (dowager, not regnant), since she was crowned Empress of India when her husband became King-Emperor, and you keep the title for life. Needless to say, with Britain not interested in annoying India unnecessarily, it’s virtually never mentioned.
As for the lesser titles, it’s the tradition for the heirs to hold them “by courtesy,” so that the Duke of Cumberland, who is also Marquess of Holdershire, Earl Cravenly, Viscount Hull, and Lord (Baron) Wigglesworth (all these are arbitrary, hypothetical titles for the sake of example), is customarily known by the Cumberland title, and his son, who is nothing in the peerage, becomes honorary Marquess of Holdershire during his father’s life. I think his son would get the Cravenly title, also by courtesy only.
That is how Lord John Russell, who was the son of the 19th Century Earl Russell, was a leader in the House of Commons. He himself was a commoner while his father was alive, merely styled Lord by courtesy, though he stood to inherit an Earldom.
I’m curious about this point. My understanding is that on 15 August 1947, George VI became an ex-emperor of India.
The India Independence Act of July 1947 resulted in the role of emperor being made redundant, and George VI took the title of Head Of Commonwealth. Instead of signing his name GRI he took to using GR.
It is therefore not impossible that Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, is no longer dowager Empress of India.
Right. George VI and his wife were no longer Emperor and Empress of India.
But, as I understood it, they retained the generic titles Emperor and Empress (i.e., as of the British Empire), though as you point out they dropped them from everyday use.
Anybody with more familiarity with royalty care to resolve this question?
Burke’s says that in the UK, Queen Elizabeth II is
“By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Queen, Defender of the Faith”
Burke’s also says that George VI dropped “Emperor of India” from his official name on June 22, 1948.
There are still members of the Imperial Order of the Crown of India. And it’s a select group.
Its members are the present queen, the Queen Mum, Princess Margaret, and Princess Alice.
No one has been named to this order since August 14, 1947.
It’s my recollection that the title of “Emperor/Empress” was associated solely with British rule over India, not over the British Empire generally. So when India became independent, the title was abandoned.
In support of this analysis, see Chambers Biographical Dictionary
If George VI abandoned the title, I can’t imagine the Queen Mum still has it, but I’ll do some checking tomorrow. (Perhaps APB will check in before then and give us the scoop.)
Just found this:Indian Independence Act, 1947, 10 &11 Geo. 6., c.30
[/quote]
7. Consequences of the setting up of the new Dominions
(2) The assent of the Parliament of the United Kingdom is hereby given to the omission from the Royal Style and the words “Indiae Imperator” and the words “Emperor of India” and to the issue by His Majesty for that purpose Proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm.
[/quote]
So it looks like the title was abandoned as of the date of Indian independence, and George VI would have stopped using it. If so, I doubt very much that the Queen Mum would still have the title, since she had it only by virtue of being married to the Emperor.
Debrett’s says that the Queen Mum
is
Her Majesty Elizabeth Angela Marquerite LG, LI, CI, GCVO, GBE
or
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.
I asked a royalty expert I work with and he said that the Queen Mother, when she was Queen would sign her name Elizabeth R.I. up until 1948. (R for Queen and I for Empress using Latin). After 1948, she just went back to signing her name Elizabeth R.
My understanding is that she is no longer an Empress, for the reasons that others have given above.
Your general comments about courtesy titles are correct but your particular example isn’t quite right. ‘Lord’ John Russell was referred to as such because he was a younger son of the 6th Duke of Bedford. As you say, he was therefore able to sit in the House of Commons. The Russell earldom was granted to him in his own right in 1861, at which point, of course, he ceased to sit in the Commons and entered the Lords. This was the peerage which his great-grandson, Bertrand, inherited in 1931.
Not unless you were elected- there is no House of Lords in the Scottish Parliament.
It seems that even having a title is no bar to being in the House of Commons - as the House of Lords is no longer a heridary seat, if you can get yourself elected by the ‘commoners’ I think you can enter the House of Commons.
Someone will probably cite me to tell me thats wrong, but thats how I understand it…
Right, I’ve done a bit of poking around on the “Emperor” thing. I don’t have a direct cite, but I think that the reason the term came into use was to distinguish between the monarch’s constitutional status concerning those parts of India under direct British rule, and those parts which were ruled by the Indian princes, but who recognized British dominion over them
The normal title for the monarch historically was “king” or “queen.” For those parts of India under direct British rule, that term worked fine - the Crown was represented by the Governor General of India, a post created by British statute.
However, there were several hundred Indian principalities which were not under direct British rule. They continued to be ruled by the Indian princes/rajahs/maharajahs for internal matters. However, the princes accepted British suzereinty for all matters of external affairs.
That was a quasi-feudal relationship, and seems to have been achieved via the exercise of the royal prerogative, rather than by statute. Since the titles of the Indian princes translated as “kings” in some instances, the Brits needed a title for the monarch which reflected her superior status - hence, “Empress.” Her representative exercising her authority as suzerain of the Indian princes was the viceroy (although in practice the same person was appointed viceroy and governor-general of India.)
By contrast, all of the late 19th century Dominions (Canada, Australia, etc.) achieved home rule by means of statutes passed by the British Parliament. Since the monarch was exercising statutory powers with respect to those dominions, she was not termed “Empress” but rather Queen. For example, Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada, not the Empress of Canada.
I hope that’s not too mudddled. If I find anything more definitive I’ll post it.