User logged in as manuel
Guy, discussing about noble titles and titles (royal or noble) for members of the family are different discussions.
: The Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian and Serbian
: monarchies all included constitutional
: prohibitions against the creation of noble
: titles. This was precisely because while
: these countries wanted to be monarchies -
: and were pressured to be so by the Powers,
: all but one of which were themselves
: monarchies - none of them wanted the
: establishment of an hereditary nobility.
: That is why there was not one instance of
: the creation of a noble title.
We are not discussing about noble titles, but about titles for members of the family. In the Greek case, we have the cases of Aspasia and her daughter, for example. And daughters of Prince Michael, another example.
The Kaiser, in exile, authorised her unequal granddaughers to be titled and styled royal, another example.
: Spanish creation does not follow the proper
: forms, then it is not valid. That is why
: neither Alfonso XIII nor the Count of
: Barcelona created titles while in exile,
: because the creations could not follow the
: proper forms (at least that was the excuse
: they gave when asked, on occasion, to do
Once more, except for members of the family. You have firmly defended the right of Emanuela to be Duchess of Segovia (and I agree). Now, according to your "new" theory, the title is not valid.
And the Count of Barcelona created her daughter Duchess of Badajoz (Franco authorised its use by a Decree) and agreed his nephew to be created Duke of Cadiz. He had offered him the title years before being created, but he refused, because he thought he deserved "more".
: Creations by the king of Italy had to be
: signed by the minister of the royal
: household; Umberto II maintained this post
: while in exile insuring his patents did
: follow the proper forms (although never
: recognised by the republic, of course).
Umberto created his grandson Prince of Venice.
« Back to index