Previous Message
Yes in a social setting in the UK and at court they appeared to have been treated as equals (royals) or at least were given precedence according to their (foreign) title, which makes sense.
Perhaps in a legal sense a title is invisible outside one's own territory, in social and even official circles it seems it is not. Previous Message
The "rules of precedence"? Do you mean in a purely social and private setting where the host gives precdence according to title? Of course that's possible, but Cole is also referring to legal and formal standing inside the UK. A legal logic in a monarchy and ceertainly in a republic. "Foreign" is foreign and invisible on legal documents (even though I was harangued otherwise round here by certain others insisting that Markle had a "formal" right in the U.S. to have "Princess" on all government-issued docs. because the "emoluments" clause doen't actually prohibit it. Although the emoluments clause is irrelevant. A foreign legal style is legally invisible outside the domain where it was issued.) Previous Message
Well as far as I know that does not seem to have been the practise at least. The UK was littered with foreign royals, exiled or otherwise and all seem to have continued using their titles during their stay and in stride. Rightfully so. They were never considered part of the British aristocracy of course but the rules of precedence applied regardless of nationality. Previous Message
It’s my understanding that British residents are barred from using foreign titles in any official capacity (although I suppose they could be used in private social settings).How were the Roumanian & Greek royal families styled during their exile in the UK?
149
Message Thread
« Index
on 17/10/2026, 03:55:08, in reply to "