Author Topic: What constitutes true royalty?  (Read 27485 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline charley

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
What constitutes true royalty?
« on: August 07, 2007, 11:23:06 AM »
I was wondering when Nicholas II abdicated he no longer held the royal title of Czar, was he still royalty? Is royalty in the blood or title?

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #1 on: August 07, 2007, 12:10:25 PM »
Technically, he was not czar [or tsar] he was Emperor of Russia. Peter the Great abolished that title in 1725. Of course he ramained a Romanov and as such was still royal. He was born royal. He died royal.  He simply was no longer a ruling royal.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #2 on: August 07, 2007, 02:17:53 PM »
Others would claim he died merely as Nicholas Romanov or Citizen Romanov or Colonel Romanov as his titles were lost with the abolition of the monarchy. He certainly was the former Tsar and one time Tsarevich and Grand Duke.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #3 on: August 07, 2007, 02:35:24 PM »
The monarchy was abolished.  Royal families remain just that- royal.  Romanovs were inter-related to many European royal families, so I would say they remained royal. And to those who care, they still are. The pretentions of the present claimant illustrate this concept.
 Yes, he was no longer Emperor and the  rule of government changed, but he remained a Romanov. What he was called was definitely a drop in status though!  Much like "Citizen Capet" he remained a Bourbon. One of the oldest royal families in Europe.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #4 on: August 07, 2007, 02:42:47 PM »
one of the oldest former royal families

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #5 on: August 07, 2007, 03:06:26 PM »
Former, dmitry ?  Spain has a Borbon king, does it not?
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #6 on: August 07, 2007, 03:24:29 PM »
yes and he was restored ... if he had not been people would be talking about the former royal house ... and a pretender

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #7 on: August 07, 2007, 03:51:00 PM »
He was not "restored".  He was never king to begin with.  Neither was the monarchy abolished,  Spain reaimed a monarchy  throughout  El Caudillo's rule.  Pretender? I think not. His father was the legitimate heir and just stepped aside to ease the transition. In any case, any other "pretenders" were also Bourbons.  Or Borbons as the case may be.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #8 on: August 07, 2007, 09:37:13 PM »
pointless continuing

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #9 on: August 07, 2007, 09:59:18 PM »
Then why do you continue  in the discussion, dmitri? The suibject of this thread is "What constitutes royalty?"
 What, then do you think constitutes royalty?  Is Otto von Habsburg good enough for you? He does not reign, never has, but I doubt very much he would be rejected in any royal circles.  He still grants the Golden Fleece, and has a tremedous amount of respect, even from non-royalists.
 The Savoys, I will give you, are a bit shady, but most "royals" in European culture are accepted for whatever value they, or their heritage have to offer.
 Rights, pregotives and power may have passed, but still, there is "royalty" in most cases. Whether or not they reign.
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Offline dmitri

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 2018
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #10 on: August 07, 2007, 10:17:32 PM »
"Royalty" who do not reign are pretenders. Dr.Otto von Habsburg was born royal and relinquished his status. He would be the first to admit that his son is only a pretender and that the Austro-Hungarian Empire is defunct and will never be restored. He is a special case. The reigning ones are the important ones. The rest are just representatives of a once royal past. That is why those from defunct and deposed royalty seize the opportunity to marry into a reigning house. Without this they have nothing but meaningless and worthless titles. Prince Lorenz of Belgium is far more important than a worthless "Archducal" title. A commoner that marries into a reigning royal house has a meaningful title that those who descend from former royal houses do not possess. Their titles have meaning, the others cling to what might have been. There is a huge difference and you know it. As for dispensing honours it is a quaint custom among non-reigning houses. Their worth is dubious at best. The Spanish Golden Fleece is far more highly valued than the bauble handed out by the descendants of a once reigning dynasty. Former royals cling to their titles and baubles as that is all they have, nothing else.

Offline Robert_Hall

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 6649
  • a site.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #11 on: August 07, 2007, 11:36:36 PM »
Dmityi why are you so contentious?  The Habsbug Fleece is no mere " baubble".  By contrast, the Spanish is a dime a dozen, given to almost anybody, not according to the original charter of the Order. Many royals, reigning or not, have both.  Although only Catholics who marry into the Habsburgh family  recieve it from Otto. We could go around in circles over this, but the Spanish is a State order, whereas the Habsburgh's in a family one. Orders are irrelevent, however.  The topic  is  "what constitutes royalty?" Is it genealogy, power, prestige ?
 The Romanovs had all that and are still considered "royal" without them.
 
Life may not be the party we expected, but while we are here, might as well dance..

Do you want the truth, or my side of the story ?- Hank Ketchum.

Alixz

  • Guest
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #12 on: August 08, 2007, 09:17:56 AM »
From what Robert has said, it looks to me as if royalty is in the blood.  You are born royal or you are not.

One may marry into a royal house and have a title conferred upon them as in Diana, Princess of Wales, but Diana was never a royal princess and when she and Charles divorced, she was no longer Princess of Wales, she had never been "made royal".  (Can that even be done??)

Even among royal families, only those born directly to someone who is royal are automatically royal and then only if the parents are married and married to someone of equal stature (that is why there were so many "morganatic" marriages whose offspring though partly royal could not inherit.) Otherwise all of the "bastards" who have been conceived over the centuries would be royal.

Nicholas lost his "royal prerogatives" when he abdicated, but he was still a Romanov and he was still royal (or actually imperial).

But it is far more confusing that that.  What about those princes of lesser blood who were elected to the thrones of so many countries during the 19th century.  They were indeed royal in their own countries but not an heir, yet they could be elected to a high position in another country and become the royalty of that country and then be actually, in order of precedence, higher than their sibling who was not yet a ruling monarch but still only an "heir".

And then there is the example of Alexandra and Dagmar of Denmark.  Both married into ruling families and both were sisters in a ruling family, yet Dagmar would take precedence over Alexandra as Dagmar was now an Imperial Highness and Alexandra was a "Royal Highness".  Alexandra would not be Imperial until Victoria became Empress of India and passed on the title to her son and heir.

And as to those "imperial" and/or "royal" titles that are so much in contention today.  Most have been married so many times and divorced so many times to both royal and non royal spouses that the royal blood is so thinned that it is almost untraceable.  Just the fact that these descendants of royalty married someone of "unequal status" takes their children out of the royal running.

With the exception of the current pretender to the non existent throne of Imperial Russia (who is actually not an exception because there is some discussion as to the equal status of spouses in this case, too) if any of the these royal title holders went to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks, it would cost them about $4 USD, just like it would cost you and me. (Except that I don't drink coffee  ::) )

So I guess the definition of "true royalty" is one has to be born to parents who are of royal blood and who have married equally so that both sides are royal.

Can one become "un-royal"?  I guess one can renounce one's royal rights and prerogatives, but one can do nothing about one's blood or one's blood relations.  (And we all have that problem to some degree  8) )


Offline TampaBay

  • Velikye Knyaz
  • ****
  • Posts: 4214
  • Being TampaBay is a Full Time Job.
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #13 on: August 08, 2007, 10:43:53 AM »

Can one become "un-royal"?  I guess one can renounce one's royal rights and prerogatives, but one can do nothing about one's blood or one's blood relations.  (And we all have that problem to some degree  8) )


This is exatly the question discussed on a Windsor thread dealing with Lady Louise Windsor, daughter of the Edward and Sohpie Wessex.

TampaBay
"Fashion is so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we should stop going to the mall.

Offline charley

  • Boyar
  • **
  • Posts: 208
    • View Profile
Re: What constitutes true royalty?
« Reply #14 on: August 08, 2007, 03:31:22 PM »
It really is complex and I am not sure who sets the standard here. The dictionary states that royalty is someone descended from or related to a king or line of kings. That would mean that equal or unequal marriage would not affect the status of royalty.  Whether or not someone is a pretender to a throne would not make him royalty would it? I wonder how this relates to the idea that royalty is something ordained by God. Nicholas was ordained by God to rule. One of the Popes, I think Pius X was very much against Democracy and very promonarchy. Was royalty the same in all countries? If some African, Voodoo practicing tribe had a King, would he be the same type of royalty as Nicholas was, with his elaborate Coronation, blessed by God and the Russian Orthodox Church? Where does royalty start? If a man in this African tribe killed the King and took over, would his desendants be royalty? I think it definitely is tied in with God somehow.