Re: Baby Albert

On Oct 16, 10:23 pm, "Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell"
<thomas.wild...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"CJ Buyers" <susuha...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:1192550068.842429.131200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Oct 16, 1:56 pm, Guy Stair Sainty <g...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <F82Ri.29242$054.15...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Tom Wilding / Stephen
Stillwell
says...

:xbXQi.76$D44...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx







"William Reitwiesner" <wmadd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wmaddams-F95659.22251414102007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <V9-dnVPBToGE5IzanZ2dnUVZ_uDin...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Louis Epstein <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesd...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: "Louis Epstein" <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
:news:c9WdnVh2XdTIj5banZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

According to German Law, Master Albert Windsor is not a prince as all
those positions and titles were abolished in 1918, furthermore, Edward
VII
decreed that he and his decendants would no longer pass German titles
that
they held in the British lines of those houses.

Try again - it was not Edward VII but George V. And the point is that
without the approval of the head of the House of Coburg said
renunciation
has no impact.

Even with the assent of the duke that would be insufficient; one only
needs to
look at what happened when Edward (later E VII), Prince of Wales and
Arthur Duke
of Connaught renounced their S-C-G rights - both princes renounced and
their
renunciation, which included the specific retention of their S-C-G and
other
Saxon titles, were registered with the S-C-G parliament, a necessity for
it to
be legal.

But the legal status at the time was war, not the peace conditions you
give as examples for the Duke of Connaught and Prince of Wales.

What is and is not legal during wartime can be very different.

Your last statement is true - but can you point to any occasion where the
administration of titles changed because of war time from what it was in
peace time?- Hide quoted text -

In most cases, at the conclusion of a war, the victors usually put
some sort of "absolving" wording into the treaties concluded at the
end of hostilities. The loser more or less accepts any changes
implemented during the war against them, their nationals and their
interests.

There are numerous clauses in the Versailles Treaty which do this.
See, for example, the clause on property that I posted earlier.

We have been told repeatedly here by the lawyers that titles are
property.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Baby Albert
    ... those positions and titles were abolished in 1918, furthermore, Edward VII ... to look at what happened when Edward (later E VII), ... Dukeof Connaught renounced their S-C-G rights - both princes renounced and their ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: Baby Albert
    ... those positions and titles were abolished in 1918, furthermore, Edward ... VII ... of Connaught renounced their S-C-G rights - both princes renounced and ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: Different columns
    ... INDEKS column is indexed part for book titles ... TEKST column is for text. ... with containstable i get nothing back, beacuse "war" is on INDEKS and "day" is on TEKST ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.fulltext)
  • Re: New52 Cancellations/Additions (was: Re: #7...)
    ... cancel point - problem to give the writer a wrap up). ... Take at Men at War and stick in G.I. Combat. ... Yet you didn't note that they're swapping four superhero-genre titles ... I'm not a big fan of war stories, though I was a fan of the Howling ...
    (rec.arts.comics.dc.universe)
  • Re: Baby Albert
    ... those positions and titles were abolished in 1918, furthermore, Edward VII ... look at what happened when Edward (later E VII), Prince of Wales and Arthur Duke ... of Connaught renounced their S-C-G rights - both princes renounced and their ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)