Which democracies still have a "nobility"? and sundry other monarchy questions

Factual Questions
1

Not referring to frivolous-but-still-official monarchies such as Britain, Canada, or Spain, but rather to those countries that have become republics but still have some nobles running around. I know, for example, that the Queen of Spain was a Greek princess, even though Greece is a republic and has no monarch as such. How many of these are there? Do any of them get upkeep from the state for historic reasons or whatnot, or in general do they have jobs?

Do the heads of a former royal family typically style themselves King or Queen, or Prince or Princess, or something else?

Also, does the former king, now president of Hungary, referred to using his royal title (although he’s not king anymore) ore as President Firstname Lastname?

Are there any countries that have a monarch but no nobles (besides Canada, Australia, etc…), or nobles but no monarch?

Finally, I know that before Andorra became a republic, the president of France was considered co-Prince of Andorra (along with the Bishop of Urgell in Spain). Did Mitterrand ever have to do anything “princely” for state visits and whatnot? Did it embarrass him?

2

Europe is awash with people who use titles created by former monarchies which have since been replaced by Republics – Italy, France, various German states. And there are titles created by the Holy Roman Emperor.

In many cases these titles have been formally abolished by law but are still used socially (in some circles, anyway). In other cases the titles may still have some legal recognition but they confer no privilege or right.

If, somehow, all your ancestors are so undistinguished that none of them has managed to acquire a hereditary title, you can simply invent a title for yourself. In most European countries this is lawful, if meaningless, so long as it is not part of a fraud. (But note that in the UK it is illegal.)

Members of deposed royal families vary in their attitudes to their deposition. Some refuse to accept it, still use their titles and even hold court (usually in exile). Others accept the march of history with a good grace (and perhaps even with relief). There may be some who receive some kind of pension from the successor state, but I would guess that it’s not common.

You’re thinking of Bulgaria, not Hungary. So far as I know the ex-king doesn’t use any royal titles.

And so far as I know Andorra is not a republic – it is still a co-principality. I don’t know how the President of France is treated when he visits Andorra (if, indeed, he ever visits) but he is certainly treated in a pretty princely fashion in France.

3

The number of french authentic noble families is estimated around 3000 (don’t know how many people it means).

The main pretendant to the throne of France (there’s another one, much less known, for obscure reasons…the descendant of the Don Carlos you refered to in your other question, IIRC) call himself “Count of Paris”, and hand out (irregular) titles to his sons. French law still recognize titles in some way when they are perfectly regular according to former laws. I don’t know to which extent but I know one can’t add a title on an official document if he’s not the lawful “owner” of this title (and there can be only one owner, contrarily to Germany where, IIRC, the title is now part of the name, hence all descendants have the samle title). Courts also have sometimes to decide on some obscure nobility issues, and one can have his (legal according to former laws, once again) title officially registered by the ministery of justice.
And yes, the french president is still co-prince of Andorra. Until Mitterand days, Andorra sent once a year a delegation with the yearly tribute/taxes, which consisted in things like a couple of sheep, 10 hens, or things like that. And they had a ceremony at the President’s palace. I used to find this custom really fun, but unfortunately, Mitterrand abolished it and replaced it by a monetary payment (the equivalent of 200 US dollars or so) which is no fun…Perhaps he abolished it at the request of the Andorrans who were fed up with briging their poultry to Paris, I don’t know…I don’t know what happen when (and if) a co-prince visit Andorra…

4

Andorra is independent of Spain and France, but kept the co-princes as their joint head of state:

5

Actually, I checked, and it seems that both De Gaulle and Mitterrand visited Andorra. I don’t know what happenned, though. I also found that the two co-princes only met twice during the last 700 years, once in 1974 (not in Andorra) and once in 1993 when Andorra introduced a constitutionnal system, for the celebrations.

6

Since I am a little lazy today I’ll first of all point you to this thread were I recently answered these questions partially. It’s not quite on the topic of the OP, but buried in there you’ll find some tidbits that are relevant.

GQ Thread “Modern Aristocracy”

In the most simple way the answer is; most often they do not style themselves king and queen, but sometimes they do style themselves prince, princess and further down the scale. In most fallen monarchies it would be illegal to style themselves king or queen or same such title. In some cases, such as the Former King of Afghanistan the use of “Former” is enough to avoid constitutional quandaries. In other cases it doesn’t matter since the monarch in question is exiled anyway and certain political motives warrant a continued use of the title. The late former Shah of Iran would be a case in point.

Another way that is sometimes used to avoid political strife while holding on to claims to thrones and such is to style oneself ‘Protecor of [Name of House/Throne/Land]’ or ‘Senior member of [Name of House/Throne/Land]’. For instance; since the Wittelsbach family are the closest linear descendants to the House of Stuart, Franz, Duke of Bavaria is ‘Senior Representative of the House of Stuart’ which is a subtle way of saying that he is the chief claimant to the throne of Scotland. Given that there is a lady sitting on that very throne, this might come across as somewhat offensive should he start styling himself King of Scotland. His full title with claims and awards might be an impressive example as to use of titles by previously landed nobility that were once kings, but are now reduced to mere dukes.

It runs as follows:

[ol]FRANZ Bonaventura Adalbert Maria, DUKE OF BAVARIA, Duke of Upper and Lower Bavaria, and of the Upper Palatinate, Duke of Franconia and Swabia, Electoral Count of the Rhine

Senior Representative of the House of Stuart, of the Dukes of Modena, and of the Kings of Cyprus and Jerusalem,

Grand Master Order of Saint Hubert, and of the Order of Saint George for the Defence of the Immaculate Conception, of the Orders of Maximilian Joseph, Saint Michael, Theresia, Saint Elizabeth and Saint Anne, Bailiff Gd Cross Hon & Dev Sov Mil Order of Malta, Kt Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece,[/ol]Most of Europes nobility need jobs these days, or at least they have them so that they don’t get idle and bored. If they don’t they are most probably busy with the administration of the familly estate and fortune - which is a job as well you know. Many work in banking and quite a few in the film and television industry, but you’ll usually find that their choice of industry has similar spread as the average European.

As re Hungary I think you’ve got it a little mixed up. It’s neighboring Bulgaria that has it’s former king as democratically elected head of state, namely Simeon II of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, who ruled Bulgaria as infant King or Czar from 1943-46 and is now prime minister. As he puts it himself in this article from The Washington Times he himself prefers to be called ‘Mr’, but the older generation apparently insist on calling him ‘His Majesty’ whatever way he wants to have it.

Sparc

7

FYI, Hungarians, like Japanese and Koreans, put their family names first.

8

And chief pretender to the throne of England, right? The two lines were merged with James VI/James I, so I am under the impression that you can’t be a claimant to the throne of Scotland without also being a claimant to the throne of England.

9

Actually, I think this is theoretically possible. While James VI and I inherited both thrones, it doesn’t follow that the rules of succession in both kingdoms were the same in every respect. Supporters of the Stuarts would not recognise as valid the union between Scotland and England which created a single kingdom or the Act of Succession which adopted new rules of inheritance for the throne of that kingdom. Just as William IV was King of Great Britain and King of Hanover, but two different people inherited these thrones on his death, so two different people could have inherited the English and Scottish thrones at some point.

10

matt-the King of Hungary-are you sure you’re not thinking of the King of Bulgaria? The former Tsar Simon who is now prime minister?

Because he’s the one who is now president-Hungary hasn’t had a king since 1918.

11

Some would see it that way acsenray, that would be one part of the rub with such a claim.

But you see this is how it goes.

[ol]James I had a son;

Charles I who had a son;

Charles II, who had no son, but a brother;

James II, who had a a son that eventually became ‘the old pretender’ and a daughter;

Mary II who married William of Orange who became;

William III but they had no kids. Mary had a sister though;

Anne who had lots of kids but none survived[/ol]

At this point the powers that were felt that there were no suitable heirs in line and went back to James kids to see what they could dig up. Thus enter the Wittelsbach family

[ol]James I had a daughter;

Elizabeth who married a Wittelsbach (Fredrick V, King of Bavaria) and they had a daughter;

Sophia Hanover who had a son;

George who became king and had a son;

George II who had a grandson;

George III (Mad King George) who had son;

George IV (original eh?) who had no children, but he did have a brother;

William IV who was all in all a fun guy albeit somewhat eccentric and without suitable issue alive at his death. Hang on though; he had a niece by his younger brother Edward though, a certain;

Victoria[/ol]Confused? I am.

Let’s try to grasp it.

Somewhere in all that mess of throne shifts the seniority of the English kings and queens went gaga as regards the Stuart lineage and the other kids of Elizabeth and Fredrick became their seniors. Meanwhile the throne of England (and by that Scotland) had passed into the hands of the Hanover family, who as of Vicky’s son Edward VII became the Windsor family - the current royal family.

Why do we care? Well, we used to care so that we could entertain ourselves with palace coups by digging up heirs with stronger claim than the present ruler. Nowadays that tends to be rare though. However should QEII abdicate and no one want her place or say that the whole royal family got snake bit in some freak occurrence of mass snake bites, there would be a need for fresh stock to put on the thrones of the UK, therefore one tends to want to note the precedence that this would happen with. Being the eldest Stuart alive gives you pretty fair chance of being that alternative – which might be more of a curse than a blessing. You would of course have to weed all that out with some other equally possible claimants to ascendance.

Sparc

12

But weren’t the Jacobite supporters of the Stuarts more concerned with getting back the throne of England than they were the throne of Scotland? I was under the impression that if there are any supporters of any supposed Stuart pretender today, what they are interested in is replacing the Windsors on the English throne.

13

:smack: Bulgaria, not Hungary. I feel like such a … North American. (At least I know where Canada is. :wink: )

Anyway, sparc, this is all very interesting. A little while back, someone posted a list of several thousand people in line of succession to the British throne, starting with Queen Elizabeth and going all the way down to Joe Schmedlap (well, Joe Van Schmedlap, typically) in West Arschfick, Germany.

14

He he. Now you’re getting there. See, the Jacobites (if you can say that they still exist in any real way) do claim that Franz is the true king of England, Ireland, Scotland and France. They call him Francis II. Here’s a kooky homepage were you can read all about it.

But I think we are drifting way off topic as matt_mcl did sort of point out.

Sparc

15

Almost everyone has always agreed that, if (although it’s a big ‘if’)one discounts the terms of the Act of Settlement, the Dukes of Bavaria are the heirs male of the Stuarts as kings of both England and Scotland. In practice, the rules of succession in England and Scotland were the same by 1603, for, although there was some dispute as to the exact basis of both successions, the Stuarts themselves were always adamant that they held both thrones on the basis of strict male primogeniture. Indeed, James VI’s claim to the English throne had depended on the argument that male primogeniture overrode the Tudor statutes that, according to one interpretation, ought to have barred his succession. Thus, any Jacobite claim to the Scottish throne will always be one which can also apply to the English throne.

(That said, one could envisage someone constructing an argument based on obscure technicalities that concluded that the constitutional settlement in Scotland in 1689 was valid whereas that in England was not, or vice versa, but no one, to my knowledge, has ever considered that possibility and it is not the sort of the argument that is likely to appeal to either the Jacobite or the Hanoverian loyalists.)

As for the Dukes of Bavaria, they have long made it clear that, while they are happy to acknowledge that they have the best claim to the English and Scottish thrones on the basis of hereditary descent, they also concede the validity of the Hanoverian claim made on the basis of statute.

To get back to the OP, the nobilities of Europe are still sufficiently numerous to have made it worthwhile for one publisher to revive the Almanach de Gotha.

http://www.almanachdegotha.com/main_page.htm

16

How can the be through strict male primogeniture if there were a couple of women in the line of descent from the Stuarts to the Bavarians?

17

Because if we’re being pedantic, primogeniture merely means that succession is by birth order. Male primogeniture in England (and Scotland) means that men take priority over women, who may nevertheless succeed if there is no male heir. Strict male primogeniture therefore means that this rule is followed without exceptions.

18

Hey, I wasn’t complaining.

19

Um, George IV DID have a daughter, Princess Charlotte. She died in childbirth. Her widower, Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha arranged to have his widowed sister, Princess Victoire, marry his wife’s uncle, the Duke of Kent. Their only child was Queen Victoria.

Later, Leopold was elected to be King of the Belgians.

Also, George III had thirteen children, but hardly any of them were suitably married, or had offspring. After Charlotte died, there was sort of a competition to produce an heir. Ultimately, the Duke of Kent’s daughter became Queen. It also ended the connection to the throne of Hanover, which had the Salic Law-so that throne passed to her uncle, the Duke of Cumberland (and a real creep).

It’s really interesting to read about it all.

20

As for royal genealogy this online database is a good source to start at. It’s kind of huge and confusing to navigate, but If you know what your looking for you’ll get a hang of it pretty fast.

Sparc