What constitutes true royalty?

Alixz, nice try but- Diana was a "Royal Highness during her marriage and remained,  Diana, Princess of Wales after that. [she was not, however technically "Princess Diana"]. She was still a "Highness". Just not a royal one.
  Bokassa of the CAE prooclaimed himself "Emperor" and was accorded that style whilst he "reigned", so, "royalty" is more of a concept than a reality, I think.  As his was a one time dyanasty, I doubt his family would be considered "royal" at all.  There are many African, Asian and Middle Eastern  royals,  who determines what to call them? It used to be the British Foreign Office which accorded honours and salutes [determining status]  Who knows who does it now. Generally, people are called what they wish to be called [witness Zsa's  prince] and if they can afford the pretentions.
 European royals, like most others  carry a heritage of history, genealogy and actual rule at some point. As for "equal marriages", that idea is redundant and is not much longer in place. Nowadays it seems more like corporate mergers.

Sir Robert, Lord Hall,

Are there not some "families-Royal Houses" that still require equal marriages (Hohenzollern, Romanoa and Romanov) or require approval of the reigning Monarch-Head of House/Family (England & Sweeden & Hapsburg)?

TampaBay

TB, who are the "Romanoa"? Last I read, yes, though.  Romanov, Habsburgs and Hohenzollern do prefer "equal" marriages.  Interesting, as they no longer reign whereas the ones that DO reign do not! Other than the UK I do not know much about marriage approval by the sovereign. Some countries do require approval from  their parlaiments though. 

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.

There was a quote from, I think, the time of Edward VII's coronation. There were numerous African royals represented there in 1911 and some of the European royal families didn't agree with their placement--in some cases, African rulers were placed ahead of European princes/dukes. In Edward's view, the African royals were either Kings or plain black men and since they were Kings, they deserved the precedence over non-reigning white men.

God really has nothing to do with it- historically.  Kings were choosen by the for their ability to lead the  country, tribe or whatever entity  was involved.  And neither does race really matter.   Right now, the Kiing of Thailand  would have prescedence as he is the longest reigning. For many years it was the Emperor of Japan.  During the time of "Empire it was important to respect all sovereign princes, [or whatever they called themselves, especially in India] just to keep the peace if nothing else. That is still true today.

Robert,

I am in error.  After I posted the point about Diana, I remembered that she was still Diana, Princess of Wales because she was the mother of the "heir and the spare".  So one can be made royal (as in Diana's case) and then un-made as well and just be "highness".  Hmmmm.

 But I did know that she was never Princess Diana although the media always referred to her as such.

Wallis Simpson was created Duchess of Windsor and was "highness" but not royal highness.  I remember a story about the Duke and his frustration over her not being made equal to him.  Or do I remember incorrectly here, too.    I hope not, but its been a long time since I read that one.

Again, you hit the mark with your "corporate mergers".   

And I too remember the African kings and the whole placement at the coronation predicament.

And originally, I suppose that kings were chosen for their ability to lead, but after they got the job they were determined at all costs to keep it in the family. 

And Charley, "pretenders" are just that.  Someone who pretends to be the heir to the throne.  Most often they are not who they claim to be like Anna Anderson. Or the one who claimed to be the heir in Russia in the 1700's (I can't remember his name now) or the one who claimed to be the dauphin after the French revolution.  Revolution and upheaval always brings out the "pretenders".

Heir apparent and heir presumptive are two different horses.  The heir apparent is the next in line by the law of the country in which he/she lives and heir presumptive is one who is presumed to heir because there either is no heir apparent or the heir apparent has died or entered into a morganatic marriage or some other such folly.

God really has nothing to do with it- historically.  Kings were choosen by the for their ability to lead the  country, tribe or whatever entity  was involved. 

What about the idea that the Tsar was ordained by God to rule and wasn't his coronation more religious, than political?
Also, who chose these Kings and was that the start of the royal line? If someone is in line for the throne, does that mean that the people can get rid of him and replace him with a commoner as King? Some people have said that even if the Romanov's (Tsar and kids) had survived the revolution, they would not be eligible for the throne because the Tsar abdicated? If there was a direct descendant from Nicholas, could the Russian people decide that this person would be fit to rule and restore the monarchy?

The idea of a religous connection is  simply a justification. An endosrement, so to speak.  PR work. Boyars choose a Romanov through a compromise from conflict with disputes from previous  ruling dynasties. It was a political decision, embellished, like most, with trappings of grandeur.  The Church was just a functionary,. Peter  even abolished the Patriarchy, so it's was really irrelevent. As for any real religous role- well,  the title was not sacrosanct was it? Look at the Romanov succession from  the begining. It did not pass fatehr to son very often did it? Not quite as "sacred" as one might wish. Constantine  and Michael both declined the throne. For political reasons.  Too bad Nicholas did not.

Robert,

The British do care though.  Perhaps not about equal marriages as there are very few ruling houses left who can be considered equal, but they certainly care about "pedigree".

I can't see Wills marrying just anyone he meets in a bar.  Doesn't his intended still have to be of good family with good character and (maybe this doesn't matter anymore) but not divorced?  No skeletons allowed?

It seems to me that royalty is not necessarily synonymous with wearing a crown as King or Queen. If the Russian people decide they want a King or Queen instead of whatever system they have now, they could have another revolution and put someone on the throne. Maybe this is not possible? Who would decide the legality of it? I think the Russian people would turn to the Church to decide. Then it seems to go back to a relegious issue.

Charley,

This is a truly interesting question and one that deserves a lot more thought.

I think most "kings" became kings through strength and dominance over their own country men.  Look at the War of the Roses.  Both sides claimed to be the true king, but one was superior in battle and in the strength of his army and so became the one king.

After winning by force, most all kings then turned to their various religions, as Robert said, to validate their positions with the protection of their god or gods.  It was good PR.

However, as heads of the family, the kings then turned to cementing their position and that of their family by producing an heir.  Then they also began to create the trappings of royalty and the grand ceremonies to separate themselves from the "common man".

People supported the new king in order to survive and live in relative peace and harmony and for the protection that having a strong central king would provide them.

As the years went by and either the king left no supportable heir, or their were too many "claimants" because of royal indiscretions, either a battle was again necessary or the people would vote on the person they wanted to be their next king as the boyars did after the Time of Troubles in Russia when they picked young Michael Romanov.  And they picked him because he was vaguely related to Anastasia Romanova who was the wife of Ivan the Terrible.  Again, the boyars were looking for that touch of previously confirmed "royal Blood".

Once a person became king either through strength of arms or election, the mantle of "royalty" then settled on him.  He will still bleed red if stabbed and probably will die like any other man in a combat situation, but an aura of "difference" from ordinary men begins to be perceived around him as that happens both he and his "subjects" begin to accept that aura as "God given".  Again good PR.

When, in the early days, having "favor with the gods" was taken much more seriously than it is in our time, the ordinary man would surly follow a person who had that favor.  Even if, to us, it was only perceived as the god's favor, to them it was a reality.

I have more thoughts on this, but will stop now to let someone else comment and/or correct me.  Again, this is a most interesting topic.  Thank you, Charley, for bringing it up.

So, in a way then, if you are placed above all by the citizens of a country, you become royalty.  I think about Queen Elizabeth who has no real power and does not really sit on a true throne, but is still royalty and is treated as such. The British people, for the most part, love their Queen and seem to keep the monarchy around. I wonder who the first "King" was?

Charley,
Do you mean the first king of Britain or the first king ever?

I suppose that the first king ever was the cave man who could club his fellow cavemen into submission.   

But every country has its most remembered "king".  The Caesars of Rome, Attila the Hun, the Pharaohs of Egypt -  each country had it own kings and its own history of how those kings were chosen.  But right of brute force or by election or by conqueror (like the Ptolemies of Egypt who were Greek and came into Egypt with Alexander the Great)  Who, to my mind, was not so great as he went around subjugating others and never ruled his own kingdom in person and died very far from home.

So when you ask, "Who was the first king?", I think we have to look at each society and its place in history   

I think that every society in history no matter how far back we go had a "leader" whom everyone else looked to for protection and instruction.  This person may not have been called "king" or "Khan" or "Sultan" or "Pharaoh or Kaiser or Tsar, but he was undeniably in charge.

You are doing fine, Alixz.  There are many books on the concept and history of kingship and monarchy, but the consesus would be  "kings"  started in the ancient  civilaszations of China, Persia, Egypt, etc. All pre-Christian.  As for the first "Christian" king, other than the Roman [Byzantine] Emepror, I think, without looking it up at the moment, it would be Clovis {France} around 840's. There were also English pre-Norman kings in England, even though it was not called that [ Wessex, Sussex, etc.] All of these were tribal leaders  who took control after the withdrawal of Rome.
 Alixz, the British do not really care. At least the ones I know. The class system is not what it is cracked up to be.  Now, even what school tie one wears  does not matter. If William were to match up with some lucky [?] girl in a pub, I think the public would love it and be very accepting.
 Btw, we have gone over the relevance of the monarch in another thread.  The Queen  is not just a  postage stamp figure.  She validates every act that the government does.  Without her, nothing can become law. The monarchs of Denmark and The Netherlands have played extremely important roles in government crises.
 Until something replaces the institution, most have a function.
 

Robert,

Thanks for the input.

No matter how far back we go we will most likely find that one individual whether by strength or greater intelligence or just hokus pokus got to be in charge.  Ultimately that person and his descendants got to be king.

They say "it is good to be king"