If so, then there would be no distinction between being a child of a sovereign and (say) a great-great-grandchild of a sovereign -- as long as the person descends from the house through a legitimate male line, and an unbroken succession of *equal* marriages.
I ask because of the different rules applying to other royal or imperial houses -- e.g. Russia, the UK, and Denmark. The highest rank and titles in the first two have traditionally been restricted to children and grandchildren through sons of sovereigns. Male-line great-grandchildren have been princes with the qualifying rank of only Highness -- exceptions being those born direct heirs to thrones (e.g. King Edward VIII of Great Britain).
And thanks to Letters Patent issued by King George V, this is now a discontinued practice in Great Britain: the Earl of Saint Andrews was not born HH Prince George of Kent. Moreover, some members of the British royal family entitled to style themselves with the title Princ(ess) are using lesser titles -- e.g. the children of the Earl of Wessex.
Evidently the Danish royal house has been more restrictive than the British, in that grandchildren through younger sons of sovereigns are only Highnesses -- although they are princes. This is true even of great-grandchildren through eldest sons -- unless they are born direct heirs to the throne (e.g. King Frederik IX).
If the Danish system applied to Bavaria, the children of Prince Luitpold and Prince Adalbert (younger sons of King Ludwig I) would have been only Highnesses. But even granted that they would have been Royal Highnesses in the British system, their own children would have been only Highnesses (since their nearest sovereign ancestor would have been only a great-grandfather).
The man we know in history as King Ludwig III did not succeed to the Bavarian throne until 1913, by which time he was already a grandfather. This means that his children would have been elevated in their qualifying rank from Highness to Royal Highness only then. And only the children of his eldest son (Crown Prince Rupprecht) would have been Royal Highnesses in the Danish system.
But even granted that his grandchildren through Prince Franz (who in 1912 married Princess Isabella of Croÿ) would have become Royal Highnesses in the British system, his great-grandchildren (excepting possibly those through Rupprecht) would have been only Highnesses.
And the grandchildren of Prince Regent Luitpold through his younger sons (Prince Leopold, who married Archduchess Gisela of Austria, daughter of Emperor Franz Joseph, and Prince Arnulf, who married Princess Theresa of Liechtenstein) would have forever remained only Highnesses -- just like the grandchildren of his younger brother, Prince Adalbert (1828-1875).
As it was, it all appears to have been a moot point, since Bavaria allowed the full style HRH Prince(ss) for all cadet members of the royal (if not ducal) house -- correct?
Well: we know that neither of the two "mad" kings (the sons and successors of Maximilian II) ever married and had children of his own.
Ludwig II and Otto, between them, failed to produce a single heir to the throne. So it was up to their cousins to secure the continuance of the royal dynasty by marrying and having children. Since they themselves never bred any princes or princesses of their own, perhaps it was poetic justice that there will were Wittelsbachs of the next generation (and the generation after) who were born Royal Highnesses ...
As I understand, Crown Prince Rupprecht married twice -- his first wife (Duchess Marie Gabrielle in Bavaria) dying young before becoming crown princess. So all five of their children were born during the regency period of his grandfather, Prince Luitpold. But despite the fact that their nearest sovereign ancestor within the house of Wittelsbach, as of their births, was their patrilineal great-great-grandfather (King Ludwig I), all were styled from the beginning with the title Princ(ess) of Bavaria, with the qualifying rank of Royal Highness.
I'm assuming this to have been the case -- correct?
« Back to index