Re: Monaco Guest List- Lots of dodgy 'royals'

On Jul 9, 10:45 am, "Nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx" <nicholas...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Where there's a clear heir to an abolished throne it's standard for
Royal-watchers and current Royal Families to treat them as such. The
length of time a throne has been abolished is not relevant. If one
could find an heir to the Pharaohs or King David he'd get the same
treatment. 1861 isn't actually that bad as abolitions go. There's been
no French King since 1848. The Irish were trying to dig up heirs to
Irish Gaelic Kingships as late as the '90s despite the fact that a)
most of then were closer to 500 years dead then a mere 150 and b)
since they used tanistry as a succession law there no way to tell the
Rightful King of Leinster from his cousins. This latter scheme failed,
largely because it was completely hopeless and subject to fraud, but
it didn;t change anybody's mind in cases where there's an unbroken
tradition.

You're allowed to think it's ridiculous, and refuse to use the
courtesy titles abolished Royals claim, just as you're allowed to
refuse to use any title. The Chief, who was associated with several of
those dodgy Irish titles I mentioned,

This is nothing but defamation and calumny. The opposite is the truth
- I am proud of my record of fearless opposition to dodgy tiles and
those who use them, e.g. Betty Battenberg. I have never had any
"association" with dodgy titles, Irish or not.

certainly seems to survive
despite the fact he won;t use the Royal title of the woman he claims
is his sovereign (Elizabeth II).

Another piece of nonsense - I must certainly have never claimed Betty
Battenberg is my "sovereign"!

The Chief

But it's fairly silly of you to
appear on a Royalist newsgroup if you insist that most royals aren't.

Nick

On Jul 8, 9:52 pm, "s.m.m." <smhonol...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:







Here's what I don't understand:

Why do they use "HRH" and so on for pretenders, claimants,people who
would be king or queen or prince or duke or so on if there still were
one, which there isn't?

For instance

'H.R.H. the Duke of Castro (Italy)"

Now isn't it ridiculous to call someone His Royal Highness when he is
one of two claimants to a throne that ceased to exist in 1861???

Does he really have any right to call himself that? Why do they print
it up in official documents?

Or this one:

H.R.H. Louis de Bourbon, Duke of Anjou (France)

of whom wikipedia writes:

"a claimant to the French throne, and considered to be the head of the
French Royal House by Legitimists who consider the renunciation of
Philip V of Spain as invalid."

Is this not utterly absurd? If somebody had not done something in
1700, this person might be the King of France, if there were one,
which there is not and has not been for more than a hundred years, but
then again he might not since there are other claims, maybe better
ones, but he is still a Royal Duke? According to whom? Is he not just
as much an HRH or a Duke as I am, which is to say, not at all? I can
understand individuals of course being interested in their family
trees and ancestors but why should he been on official guest list
issued by a government body as HRH the Duke of Anjou? It seems nuts to
me.

"H.I.R.H. Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia (Germany)"

Ha ha even better, His Imperial and Royal Highness - there is no
German Empire any more, there are no German Princes or Dukes or this
or thats, they were all abolished and isn't it even illegal to use
those (non-existent) titles in Germany and Austria today?

There are many more examples on that list, Russian Grand Duchesses
( no such thing any more), etc. It all seems like a ridiculous bad
joke to me.

.

Relevant Pages