Posted by Johan on 10/5/2008, 8:49:19, in reply to "Re: Definitions of Royalty"
24.132.33.14
Well if you go strict and use Royal only for those related to a reigning King/Queen than that would lead to excluding Imperial families for the Royal definition as well.
In that case you'd make differences between:
Imperial
Royal
Grand Ducal
Princely
Ducal
and nobility
In Dutch we have the word Vorst like the German word Fuerst. As the reiging sovereign in Dutch is called Vorst Albert II and not Prins (=Prinz) the difference becomes clear. It's just that the English and French languages don't make that distinction that probably leads you to a different conclusion.
The Prince de Ligne certainly isn't royal but the Fuerst von und zu Liechtenstein is.
That is because i translate the English word Royal to the Dutch word Vorstelijk and not to the Dutch word Koninklijk.
--Previous Message--
:
: a very charitable definition, I think.
:
: In my view, royalness is not an equal
: opportunities concept anyway, thus there is
: no inherent necessity to allow an equal
: opportunity to each and every sovereign (or
: their supporters) to claim actual
: royalty....
:
: I regard it fortunate (Caligula's were not
: so fortunate) that the actual protagonists,
: sovereigns of Monaco, understand their place
: in the scheme of things, and do not pose a
: claim of explicit royalness. That's
: promising, as to an evidence of them
: actually being relatively sane.
:
:
:
: --Previous Message--
: I guess that every reigning sovereign would
: fit within the Royalty definition.
:
:
:
