Posted by William F on 9/5/2008, 22:02:36, in reply to "Re: Definitions of Royalty"
66.67.27.241
This is an interesting debate. Maybe the correct question is who and what families and individuals fit under the term "monarchy?" Luxembourg, and even Monaco would be considered monarchical states.
Then under the term "monarchy" you have States which have or have had both royalty and nobility. In places like Great Britain the designation of who is royalty and who is nobility is more clear cut. Although in Britain I believe if one is royal and a peer that also makes them a member of the nobility.
It can get confusing.
For me the most confusing has been the old German states. There the lines between royal and nobility are less clearly marked. In Germany I consider those houses and families, including those that were/are mediatized (sp), as royal. Or another way to put it those families that were deemed equal in terms of the marriage laws.
For example, I consider the Grand Ducal house of Hesse and by Rhine as "Royal" because they held sovereignty and its members were considered equal to marry into any other European royal house. Two of its members married into the Russian royal family and became Czarinas.
--Previous Message--
:
: My answer to that is that the Grand Dukes of
: Luxembourg are not best examples of
: individuals who in obvious terms were not at
: all royal.
:
: The Sovereign Princes of Monaco are much
: more suitable examples of such.
:
: That the Luxembourg case is one 'at the
: fence' when interpreting the meaning of the
: royalty concept, has one obvious root in the
: fact that the Grand Duke, while not a king,
: holds the style HRH, whereas of course
: younger children of Grand Dukes Adolf and
: William IV did not, afaik.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
:
: Do you consider the Grand Dukes of
: Luxembourg royal?
:
:
:
:
