Discussion:
Hartenau Battenberg ref: Sainty claims
(too old to reply)
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-07 04:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Guy Stair Sainty wrote on Mon, Jun 5 2006 9:15 pm:

" the original grantor of the title of Prince of
Battenberg, in this case, decided to replace that title with the title
of Count
of Hartenau. There is, Mr Buyers, a big difference that you may perhaps
be
capable of comprehending; that the Battenberg title was created by the
Grand
Duke of Hesse, and so as the source of the grant the Grand Duke could
amend it
in certain circumstances - these circumstances were when Prince
Alexander
decided he wished to give up the use of the title and be granted a
lesser one
for himself and his issue, the latter being effectively deprived of the

Battenberg title with which that of Hartenau was substituted. Neither
Queen
Victoria nor her successors played any part in this decision, but one
may be
certain that they respected it. And naturally "Kaiser Bill" accepted
the right
of his fellow sovereign to amend the grant of a title to a member of
his own
family, without having to approve or disapprove it"

And your source, reference or citation, for the official Grand Duchy of

Hesse document which specifies this "replacement" of titles is?

Christopher Buyers
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-07 06:21:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
" the original grantor of the title of Prince of
Battenberg, in this case, decided to replace that title with the title
of Count
of Hartenau. There is, Mr Buyers, a big difference that you may perhaps
be
capable of comprehending; that the Battenberg title was created by the
Grand
Duke of Hesse, and so as the source of the grant the Grand Duke could
amend it
in certain circumstances - these circumstances were when Prince
Alexander
decided he wished to give up the use of the title and be granted a
lesser one
for himself and his issue, the latter being effectively deprived of the
Battenberg title with which that of Hartenau was substituted. Neither
Queen
Victoria nor her successors played any part in this decision, but one
may be
certain that they respected it. And naturally "Kaiser Bill" accepted
the right
of his fellow sovereign to amend the grant of a title to a member of
his own
family, without having to approve or disapprove it"
And your source, reference or citation, for the official Grand Duchy of
Hesse document which specifies this "replacement" of titles is?
Christopher Buyers
Bonne question!
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-20 12:25:23 UTC
Permalink
..

This and other treads seems to have calmed down! Why?
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-07 15:45:52 UTC
Permalink
and Assen never (being the son of a morganatic marriage).
Here at least I was right.
But I am
ready to be corrected if I am wrong.
And even ready to do it myself.
Are the Battenberg titles subject to the laws or morganatic marriages
and if so what were the conditions?
A priori, they were not, since morganatic marriages existed only among the
upper nobility (sovereign or mediatized houses), of which the Battenbergs
were not. However, the grant of the title of prince of Battenberg could
well have included clause requirng equal marriages, as was apparently the
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.talk.royalty/msg/cff327acdcaece31
According to the entry on Alexander von Battenberg in the ADB (vol 45 p.
755), the grand-duke of Hesse gave him on Jan 11, 1889 permission to bear
"henceforth instead of his former family name that of Graf von Hartenau"
("statt seines seitherigen in Zukunft den Familiennamen Graf von
Hartenau") while the Austrian emperor conferred on his wife and their
issue the title of count/ess.
In any event, there is no doubt that whatever happened in 1889 took place
following an act of the grand-duke of Hesse, and therefore provides no
evidence on the validity of unilateral "renunciations".
Is the ADB an official organ of the Grand Duchy of Hesse or of the
Austro-Hungarian Court?

In UK or US terms, what would be the equivalent to the ADB?

Christopher Buyers
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-08 01:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Is the ADB an official organ of the Grand Duchy of Hesse or of the
Austro-Hungarian Court?
In UK or US terms, what would be the equivalent to the ADB?
Can't be bothered. But I keep every scrap that comes my way. People can
satisfy themselves by pulling some of those tomes off the shelves of dusty
libraries with the help of a strongman.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-08 05:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Is the ADB an official organ of the Grand Duchy of Hesse or of the
Austro-Hungarian Court?
In UK or US terms, what would be the equivalent to the ADB?
Can't be bothered. But I keep every scrap that comes my way. People can
satisfy themselves by pulling some of those tomes off the shelves of dusty
libraries with the help of a strongman.
--
I guess the answer to the first question is an emphatic no!

Are the ADB tomes particularly heavy, or only heavy on small minded
men?
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-08 05:38:25 UTC
Permalink
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-08 06:14:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-08 06:34:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-08 11:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-08 12:01:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Kindly check the Archives in Darmstadt.

In Vienna, a private association, the Vereinigung Katholischer
Edelleute in Oesterreich, among the members (1937), only member of the
family: Hartenau-Battenberg, Johanna countess, née Loisinger, Vienna
I, Parkring 18
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-08 14:07:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Kindly check the Archives in Darmstadt.
Not possible for me, unfortunately. But then I didn't make the claim
that the GD of Hesse "exchanged" titles. Though one suspects that a
British person who has never consulted the British National Archives
has never consulted those of Hesse either!
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In Vienna, a private association, the Vereinigung Katholischer
Edelleute in Oesterreich, among the members (1937), only member of the
family: Hartenau-Battenberg, Johanna countess, née Loisinger, Vienna
I, Parkring 18
I thought they lived in Graz. At least there is a Villa Hartenau there.

By the way, the former Prince Alexander Joseph was a Major-General in
the Austro-Hungarian army. Any idea what name and title he is shown
under just before and after his marriage?
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-08 14:39:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Kindly check the Archives in Darmstadt.
Not possible for me, unfortunately. But then I didn't make the claim
that the GD of Hesse "exchanged" titles. Though one suspects that a
British person who has never consulted the British National Archives
has never consulted those of Hesse either!
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In Vienna, a private association, the Vereinigung Katholischer
Edelleute in Oesterreich, among the members (1937), only member of the
family: Hartenau-Battenberg, Johanna countess, née Loisinger, Vienna
I, Parkring 18
I thought they lived in Graz. At least there is a Villa Hartenau there.
By the way, the former Prince Alexander Joseph was a Major-General in
the Austro-Hungarian army. Any idea what name and title he is shown
under just before and after his marriage?
Vienna, the Kriegsarchiv should be able to answer. He was officer -
still at the time of his mariage ? - of the military unit
Dragoner-Regiment Nr. 6, an extremely good regiment! One should also
check here the Militärmatrik of this unit. Perhaps his marriage is
registered. If active officer he furthermore needed the consent to
marry of the Emperor and King.
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-08 15:27:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Kindly check the Archives in Darmstadt.
Not possible for me, unfortunately. But then I didn't make the claim
that the GD of Hesse "exchanged" titles. Though one suspects that a
British person who has never consulted the British National Archives
has never consulted those of Hesse either!
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In Vienna, a private association, the Vereinigung Katholischer
Edelleute in Oesterreich, among the members (1937), only member of the
family: Hartenau-Battenberg, Johanna countess, née Loisinger, Vienna
I, Parkring 18
I thought they lived in Graz. At least there is a Villa Hartenau there.
By the way, the former Prince Alexander Joseph was a Major-General in
the Austro-Hungarian army. Any idea what name and title he is shown
under just before and after his marriage?
Vienna, the Kriegsarchiv should be able to answer. He was officer -
still at the time of his mariage ? - of the military unit
Dragoner-Regiment Nr. 6, an extremely good regiment! One should also
check here the Militärmatrik of this unit. Perhaps his marriage is
registered. If active officer he furthermore needed the consent to
marry of the Emperor and King.
The numbers of regiments were changing at the time, so just to be sure,
do you mean his father Prince Alexander of Hesse's old regiment, the
Kürassier Regiment No 6. Later called the Prince Albert of Prussia,
Regent of Brunswick's Regiment?
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-09 04:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Vienna, the Kriegsarchiv should be able to answer. He was officer -
still at the time of his mariage ? - of the military unit
Dragoner-Regiment Nr. 6, an extremely good regiment! One should also
check here the Militärmatrik of this unit. Perhaps his marriage is
registered. If active officer he furthermore needed the consent to
marry of the Emperor and King.
The Wiener Abendpost obituary (Nov 17, 1893, p. 1) says he was
made a colonel of the dragoons in April 1884, but only entered
active service after his marriage. This is confirmed below:

Wiener Zeitung, 28 Oct 1890, p. 1:
"Se. k. und k. Apostolische Majestät geruhten allergnädigst
[...] anzuordnen die Transferirung: des Obersten Alexander
Grafen von Hartenau des Dragonerregiments Albrecht Prinz von
Preußsen Nr. 6, zum Infanterieregiment Leopold II. König
der Belgier Nr. 27, bei Einbringung in den Präsenzstand dieses
Regiments"

Wiener Zeitung, 29 Apr 1892, p. 2-3:
"Se. k. und k. Apostolische Majestät geruhten allergnädigst
(mit 1. Mai 1892) zu ernennen: [...] zu Generalmajoren: die
Oberste [...]
Alexander Grafen von Hartenau, Commandanten des Infanterieregiments
Leopold II. Köng der Belgier nr. 27 bei gleichzeitiger Ernennung
zum Commandanten der 11. Infanterie-Brigade;"

The Pester Lloyd obit (Abendblatt, same date) states: "er auf Grund
eines grossherzogliches Dekrets den Namen eines Grafen Hartenau
angenommen hatte". No mention of any Austrian conferral on his
spouse. His widow and his son are called Graf/in von Hartenau
in the Jahrbuch der Wiener Gesellschaft (1929).
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-09 05:04:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Vienna, the Kriegsarchiv should be able to answer. He was officer -
still at the time of his mariage ? - of the military unit
Dragoner-Regiment Nr. 6, an extremely good regiment! One should also
check here the Militärmatrik of this unit. Perhaps his marriage is
registered. If active officer he furthermore needed the consent to
marry of the Emperor and King.
The Wiener Abendpost obituary (Nov 17, 1893, p. 1) says he was
made a colonel of the dragoons in April 1884, but only entered
active service after his marriage.
"Se. k. und k. Apostolische Majestät geruhten allergnädigst
[...] anzuordnen die Transferirung: des Obersten Alexander
Grafen von Hartenau des Dragonerregiments Albrecht Prinz von
Preußsen Nr. 6, zum Infanterieregiment Leopold II. König
der Belgier Nr. 27, bei Einbringung in den Präsenzstand dieses
Regiments"
"Se. k. und k. Apostolische Majestät geruhten allergnädigst
(mit 1. Mai 1892) zu ernennen: [...] zu Generalmajoren: die
Oberste [...]
Alexander Grafen von Hartenau, Commandanten des Infanterieregiments
Leopold II. Köng der Belgier nr. 27 bei gleichzeitiger Ernennung
zum Commandanten der 11. Infanterie-Brigade;"
The Pester Lloyd obit (Abendblatt, same date) states: "er auf Grund
eines grossherzogliches Dekrets den Namen eines Grafen Hartenau
angenommen hatte".
Pester Lloyd has certainly a date, a number, a page.
No mention of any Austrian conferral on his
Post by Francois R. Velde
spouse.
A spouse - exceptions - has the same name as her husband, is there a
title it feminised, here "countess"
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-09 05:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
The Pester Lloyd obit (Abendblatt, same date) states: "er auf Grund
eines grossherzogliches Dekrets den Namen eines Grafen Hartenau
angenommen hatte".
Pester Lloyd has certainly a date, a number, a page.
Nov 17, 1893, Abendblatt, p. 1.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-09 05:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
The Pester Lloyd obit (Abendblatt, same date) states: "er auf Grund
eines grossherzogliches Dekrets den Namen eines Grafen Hartenau
angenommen hatte".
Pester Lloyd has certainly a date, a number, a page.
Nov 17, 1893, Abendblatt, p. 1.
--
Said decree could eventually be found in his personal file.
Kriegsarchiv, Vienna, state units
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-09 06:29:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
The Pester Lloyd obit (Abendblatt, same date) states: "er auf Grund
eines grossherzogliches Dekrets den Namen eines Grafen Hartenau
angenommen hatte".
Pester Lloyd has certainly a date, a number, a page.
Nov 17, 1893, Abendblatt, p. 1.
--
Said decree could eventually be found in his personal file.
Kriegsarchiv, Vienna, state units
My facility in German is not the best, so can someone please explain if
there is a difference between the *name* of "Count Hartenau" and the
*title* of "Count Hartenau"?
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-09 07:24:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
The Pester Lloyd obit (Abendblatt, same date) states: "er auf Grund
eines grossherzogliches Dekrets den Namen eines Grafen Hartenau
angenommen hatte".
Pester Lloyd has certainly a date, a number, a page.
Nov 17, 1893, Abendblatt, p. 1.
--
Said decree could eventually be found in his personal file.
Kriegsarchiv, Vienna, state units
My facility in German is not the best, so can someone please explain if
there is a difference between the *name* of "Count Hartenau" and the
*title* of "Count Hartenau"?
The name is - in this case - Hartenau, the title Count [of?]
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-09 07:33:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
The Pester Lloyd obit (Abendblatt, same date) states: "er auf Grund
eines grossherzogliches Dekrets den Namen eines Grafen Hartenau
angenommen hatte".
Pester Lloyd has certainly a date, a number, a page.
Nov 17, 1893, Abendblatt, p. 1.
--
Said decree could eventually be found in his personal file.
Kriegsarchiv, Vienna, state units
My facility in German is not the best, so can someone please explain if
there is a difference between the *name* of "Count Hartenau" and the
*title* of "Count Hartenau"?
The name is - in this case - Hartenau, the title Count [of?]
That would have been my usual understanding. However, the quotation, if
a faithful one, does not mention "title" or "name and title". It only
says "Namen eines Grafen Hartenau".
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-09 10:13:08 UTC
Permalink
Marriage Hartenau /Mountbatten, 1889 February 6. It should be possible
to ask from the Mairie (Etat-civil), Menton, France, une photocopie de
l'Acte de mariage.
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-08 15:00:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Kindly check the Archives in Darmstadt.
Not possible for me, unfortunately. But then I didn't make the claim
that the GD of Hesse "exchanged" titles. Though one suspects that a
British person who has never consulted the British National Archives
has never consulted those of Hesse either!
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
In Vienna, a private association, the Vereinigung Katholischer
Edelleute in Oesterreich, among the members (1937), only member of the
family: Hartenau-Battenberg, Johanna countess, née Loisinger, Vienna
I, Parkring 18
I thought they lived in Graz. At least there is a Villa Hartenau there.
By the way, the former Prince Alexander Joseph was a Major-General in
the Austro-Hungarian army. Any idea what name and title he is shown
under just before and after his marriage?
Vienna, Kriegsarchiv, Militärmatriken, Feldsuperiorat Graz, vol III -
176 one should be able to find a birth of a daughter Marie Therese, one
has no date.
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-08 15:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken from
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) ÖBL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Kindly check the Archives in Darmstadt.
In Vienna, a private association, the Vereinigung Katholischer
Edelleute in Oesterreich, among the members (1937), only member of the
family: Hartenau-Battenberg, Johanna countess, née Loisinger, Vienna
I, Parkring 18
How was the wife of Prince Alexander admitted if there was no Austrian
conferral, as edespalais claims?
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-06-08 12:44:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken fr=
om
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) =D6BL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Not necessarily; it depended on the individual house - for example, in the house
of Austria Archduke Clemens (1904-1974), assumed the title Count von
Altenburg 2 Apr 1931 and, with the approval of the Head of the
Imperial Family, that of Prince von Altenburg 15 Dec 1949 for himself and his
descendants.

One sees that Austrian Archdukes who married without the permission of the head
of the House lost all their imperial titles and styles.

Prince Wilhelm of Liechtestein (born 1922) renounced his title of Prince of
Liechtenstein 11 Jul 1950 and took the title Graf von Hohenau with the
authorization of the Ruling Furst, and was restored to his titles 28 Oct 1980.
His eldest son remains Count of Hartenau; his second son Stefan after marrying
renounced the Hartenau name and title with the authoirsatino of the Sovereign
Prince and took the last name Heildborgh; the youngest son, Heinrich, has been
restored to membership of the House of Liechtenstein.

In Sweden Princes Sigvard, Carl and Lennart, all renounced their Swedish royal
titles and were created Counts Bernadotte af Wisberg (creation 2 July 1951).
Prince Oscar of Sweden (1859-1953) rneounced his Swedish titles on marrying
morganatically and was created Prince Bernadotte and Coutn af Wisberg, his
descendants being just Counts and Countesses. Prince Carl Gustaf (1911-2003),
renounced his titles as Prince of Sweden in 1937 and was created Prince
Bernadotte (Belgium) and his childfren given the titles of Count Bernadotte.

These are just a few of the many examples.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-08 13:16:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken fr=
om
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) =D6BL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Not necessarily; it depended on the individual house - for example, in the house
of Austria Archduke Clemens (1904-1974), assumed the title Count von
Altenburg 2 Apr 1931 and, with the approval of the Head of the
Imperial Family, that of Prince von Altenburg 15 Dec 1949 for himself and his
descendants.
One sees that Austrian Archdukes who married without the permission of the head
of the House lost all their imperial titles and styles.
Prince Wilhelm of Liechtestein (born 1922) renounced his title of Prince of
Liechtenstein 11 Jul 1950 and took the title Graf von Hohenau with the
authorization of the Ruling Furst, and was restored to his titles 28 Oct 1980.
His eldest son remains Count of Hartenau; his second son Stefan after marrying
renounced the Hartenau name
the Hohenau name

One may furthermore not at all an ally of Mr Buyers. Of Mr Sainty may
see it such!
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-08 13:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken fr=
om
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) =D6BL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Not necessarily; it depended on the individual house - for example, in the house
of Austria Archduke Clemens (1904-1974), assumed the title Count von
Altenburg 2 Apr 1931 and, with the approval of the Head of the
Imperial Family, that of Prince von Altenburg 15 Dec 1949 for himself and his
descendants.
One sees that Austrian Archdukes who married without the permission of the head
of the House lost all their imperial titles and styles.
Prince Wilhelm of Liechtestein (born 1922) renounced his title of Prince of
Liechtenstein 11 Jul 1950 and took the title Graf von Hohenau with the
authorization of the Ruling Furst, and was restored to his titles 28 Oct 1980.
His eldest son remains Count of Hartenau; his second son Stefan after marrying
renounced the Hartenau name and title with the authoirsatino of the Sovereign
Prince and took the last name Heildborgh; the youngest son, Heinrich, has been
restored to membership of the House of Liechtenstein.
In Sweden Princes Sigvard, Carl and Lennart, all renounced their Swedish royal
titles and were created Counts Bernadotte af Wisberg (creation 2 July 1951).
Prince Oscar of Sweden (1859-1953) rneounced his Swedish titles on marrying
morganatically and was created Prince Bernadotte and Coutn af Wisberg, his
descendants being just Counts and Countesses. Prince Carl Gustaf (1911-2003),
renounced his titles as Prince of Sweden in 1937 and was created Prince
Bernadotte (Belgium) and his childfren given the titles of Count Bernadotte.
These are just a few of the many examples.
How do these families enter the Hartenau ex Battenberg (properly partly
Mountbatten) business?

Monsieur occupez vous de vos oignons!
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-06-08 14:41:04 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
***@yahoo.fr says...

Ct Gudneus asked: >
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
How do these families enter the Hartenau ex Battenberg (properly partly
Mountbatten) business?=20
Monsieur occupez vous de vos oignons!
Perhaps if he had actually read the comment of his friend Mr Buyers, below, he
would have understood why i gave examples of families where princes marrying
morganatically gave up their rank to take the name and title of their future
morganatic issue.
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-08 13:51:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken fr=
om
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) =D6BL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Not necessarily; it depended on the individual house - for example, in the house
of Austria Archduke Clemens (1904-1974), assumed the title Count von
Altenburg 2 Apr 1931 and, with the approval of the Head of the
Imperial Family, that of Prince von Altenburg 15 Dec 1949 for himself and his
descendants.
One sees that Austrian Archdukes who married without the permission of the head
of the House lost all their imperial titles and styles.
Prince Wilhelm of Liechtestein (born 1922) renounced his title of Prince of
Liechtenstein 11 Jul 1950 and took the title Graf von Hohenau with the
authorization of the Ruling Furst, and was restored to his titles 28 Oct 1980.
His eldest son remains Count of Hartenau; his second son Stefan after marrying
renounced the Hartenau name and title with the authoirsatino of the Sovereign
Prince and took the last name Heildborgh; the youngest son, Heinrich, has been
restored to membership of the House of Liechtenstein.
In Sweden Princes Sigvard, Carl and Lennart, all renounced their Swedish royal
titles and were created Counts Bernadotte af Wisberg (creation 2 July 1951).
Prince Oscar of Sweden (1859-1953) rneounced his Swedish titles on marrying
morganatically and was created Prince Bernadotte and Coutn af Wisberg, his
descendants being just Counts and Countesses. Prince Carl Gustaf (1911-2003),
renounced his titles as Prince of Sweden in 1937 and was created Prince
Bernadotte (Belgium) and his childfren given the titles of Count Bernadotte.
These are just a few of the many examples.
Any examples from Peru?

We are obviously talking about German families here. Nor are we talking
about, in the case of the Battenbergs, members of a sovereign house or
family. At best, Alexander Joseph alone was a former ruling prince.

No need to start another entirely unrelated topic, but as has been
clearly stated before there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage
in Sweden, so those examples are entirely erronesous.
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-08 13:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
ADB is now replaced by NDB. Perhaps some informations can be taken fr=
om
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Huberty. Battenberg, Hartenau do not figure in the (Austrian) =D6BL.
They do not hold any Austrian nobility concession. They obviously
served in the Austrian Army as Foreigners.
So, no Austrian conferral of titles, as Velde claims?
As you suggest: NO
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
From your wording, I guess no license or leave to bear the titles
either?
Same answer!
Isn't the usual procedure in cases of morganatic marriages, for the
wife to be granted a title for herself and her issue, rather than the
husband?
Not necessarily; it depended on the individual house - for example, in the house
of Austria Archduke Clemens (1904-1974), assumed the title Count von
Altenburg 2 Apr 1931 and, with the approval of the Head of the
Imperial Family, that of Prince von Altenburg 15 Dec 1949 for himself and his
descendants.
One sees that Austrian Archdukes who married without the permission of the head
of the House lost all their imperial titles and styles.
Prince Wilhelm of Liechtestein (born 1922) renounced his title of Prince of
Liechtenstein 11 Jul 1950 and took the title Graf von Hohenau with the
authorization of the Ruling Furst, and was restored to his titles 28 Oct 1980.
His eldest son remains Count of Hartenau; his second son Stefan after marrying
renounced the Hartenau name and title with the authoirsatino of the Sovereign
Prince and took the last name Heildborgh; the youngest son, Heinrich, has been
restored to membership of the House of Liechtenstein.
In Sweden Princes Sigvard, Carl and Lennart, all renounced their Swedish royal
titles and were created Counts Bernadotte af Wisberg (creation 2 July 1951).
Prince Oscar of Sweden (1859-1953) rneounced his Swedish titles on marrying
morganatically and was created Prince Bernadotte and Coutn af Wisberg, his
descendants being just Counts and Countesses. Prince Carl Gustaf (1911-2003),
renounced his titles as Prince of Sweden in 1937 and was created Prince
Bernadotte (Belgium) and his childfren given the titles of Count Bernadotte.
These are just a few of the many examples.
Any examples from Peru?
We are obviously talking about German families here. Nor are we talking
about, in the case of the Battenbergs, members of a sovereign house or
family. At best, Alexander Joseph alone was a former ruling prince.
No need to start another entirely unrelated topic, but as has been
clearly stated before there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage
in Sweden, so those examples are entirely erronesous.
Unrelated items permit to save face, as nobody see one in fact has lost
face.
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-06-08 14:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Any examples from Peru?
How pathetic.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
We are obviously talking about German families here. Nor are we talking
about, in the case of the Battenbergs, members of a sovereign house or
family. At best, Alexander Joseph alone was a former ruling prince.
Your question did not limit itself to German families, but in any case the first
two were German (Austria, of course, is a German state in that its royal and
nobiliary traditions originate in those of the German, or "Holy Roman" Empire).
Whether Sweden had morganatic marriages was an relevant as whether
Bulgaria did; the point is that those marrying unequally took different names
and titles which passed to their heirs, rather than just their spouses and
descendants taking the new name and title. I gave Austria and Liechtenstein
as examples; there are also examples in the Two Sicilies (not German either,
but then your question did not limit itself to Germans), with the Roccaguglielma
name and title, and other examples in the Standesherren
families. The Hanau and Horowoitz Princely titles granted by the Elector
Friedrich-Wilhelm to his morganatic wife were subject to marriage rules,
even though merely a noble title, and his eldest son's marriage not meeting that
rule, he lost the Hanau title only to be restored to it in a new creation.
Meanwhile the children of his 7th son never succeeded to the princely title
because of their father's marriage and instead bore the lesser countly title
which had been granted withoput any subjection to these rules.

Thus you have on the one hand examples of royal houses who lost their titles on
making a morganatic marriage to be given new ones, and certain noble titles that
were subject to rules on equal marriage.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
No need to start another entirely unrelated topic, but as has been
clearly stated before there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage
in Sweden, so those examples are entirely erroneous.
They are not erroneuous as proof that a prince marrying unequally may lose his
title, as did Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, with the consent of the sovereign
who granted it originally.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-08 15:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Any examples from Peru?
How pathetic.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
We are obviously talking about German families here. Nor are we talking
about, in the case of the Battenbergs, members of a sovereign house or
family. At best, Alexander Joseph alone was a former ruling prince.
Your question did not limit itself to German families, but in any case the first
two were German (Austria, of course, is a German state in that its royal and
nobiliary traditions originate in those of the German, or "Holy Roman" Empire).
Whether Sweden had morganatic marriages was an relevant as whether
Bulgaria did; the point is that those marrying unequally took different names
and titles which passed to their heirs, rather than just their spouses and
descendants taking the new name and title. I gave Austria and Liechtenstein
as examples; there are also examples in the Two Sicilies (not German either,
but then your question did not limit itself to Germans), with the Roccaguglielma
name and title, and other examples in the Standesherren
families. The Hanau and Horowoitz Princely titles granted by the Elector
Friedrich-Wilhelm to his morganatic wife were subject to marriage rules,
even though merely a noble title, and his eldest son's marriage not meeting that
rule, he lost the Hanau title only to be restored to it in a new creation.
Meanwhile the children of his 7th son never succeeded to the princely title
because of their father's marriage and instead bore the lesser countly title
which had been granted withoput any subjection to these rules.
Thus you have on the one hand examples of royal houses who lost their titles on
making a morganatic marriage to be given new ones, and certain noble titles that
were subject to rules on equal marriage.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
No need to start another entirely unrelated topic, but as has been
clearly stated before there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage
in Sweden, so those examples are entirely erroneous.
They are not erroneuous as proof that a prince marrying unequally may lose his
title, as did Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, with the consent of the sovereign
who granted it originally.
Actually, my original question: your source, reference or citation, for
the official Grand Duchy of Hesse document which specifies this
"replacement" of titles is?

Christopher Buyers
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-09 10:49:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Any examples from Peru?
How pathetic.
Your whole post is pathetic from start to finish. That was the point.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
We are obviously talking about German families here. Nor are we talking
about, in the case of the Battenbergs, members of a sovereign house or
family. At best, Alexander Joseph alone was a former ruling prince.
Your question did not limit itself to German families
It is perfectly obvious to anyone reading this thread, expcept you,
apparently what this thread is about.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
, but in any case the first
two were German (Austria, of course, is a German state in that its royal and
nobiliary traditions originate in those of the German, or "Holy Roman" Empire).
Excuse me. What German state was this on the 2 Apr 1931 and 15 Dec 1949
exactly?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Whether Sweden had morganatic marriages was an relevant as whether
Bulgaria did;
Only if the Prince in question had ruled over Sweden, otherwise the
former is utterly unrelated.

Even then, your post is replete with errors. The surname of all
concerned, fathers and the issue of the non-recognised marriages alike
is Bernadotte, i.e. unchanged. The titles confered were by an authority
in states completely different from Sweden, an in most cases granted a
good time after the marriages. Even the titles you give are wrong - in
some cases it is "Wisborg" and in others "Bernadotte of Wisborg".
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
the point is that those marrying unequally took different names
and titles which passed to their heirs, rather than just their spouses and
descendants taking the new name and title. I gave Austria and Liechtenstein
as examples; there are also examples in the Two Sicilies (not German either,
but then your question did not limit itself to Germans), with the Roccaguglielma
name and title, and other examples in the Standesherren
families.
All irrelevant to this thread.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The Hanau and Horowoitz Princely titles granted by the Elector
Friedrich-Wilhelm to his morganatic wife were subject to marriage rules,
even though merely a noble title, and his eldest son's marriage not meeting that
rule, he lost the Hanau title only to be restored to it in a new creation.
Meanwhile the children of his 7th son never succeeded to the princely title
because of their father's marriage and instead bore the lesser countly title
which had been granted withoput any subjection to these rules.
But is this the actual case with the Battenberg title? If so what *are*
the rules? What sort of person is equal and what sort of person is not,
in the case of this specific title?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Thus you have on the one hand examples of royal houses who lost their titles on
making a morganatic marriage to be given new ones, and certain noble titles that
were subject to rules on equal marriage.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
No need to start another entirely unrelated topic, but as has been
clearly stated before there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage
in Sweden, so those examples are entirely erroneous.
They are not erroneuous as proof that a prince marrying unequally may lose his
title, as did Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, with the consent of the sovereign
who granted it originally.
Well which is it? Did he 1) lose his title because he married
morganatically, 2) did he resign his princely title, or as you
originally claimed 3) did the Grand Duke "exchange" the title of Prince
of Battenberg for Count Hartenau?

Your reasoning is all over the place. As per usual!
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-09 11:38:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Any examples from Peru?
How pathetic.
Your whole post is pathetic from start to finish. That was the point.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
We are obviously talking about German families here. Nor are we talking
about, in the case of the Battenbergs, members of a sovereign house or
family. At best, Alexander Joseph alone was a former ruling prince.
Your question did not limit itself to German families
It is perfectly obvious to anyone reading this thread, expcept you,
apparently what this thread is about.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
, but in any case the first
two were German (Austria, of course, is a German state in that its royal and
nobiliary traditions originate in those of the German, or "Holy Roman" Empire).
Excuse me. What German state was this on the 2 Apr 1931 and 15 Dec 1949
exactly?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Whether Sweden had morganatic marriages was an relevant as whether
Bulgaria did;
Only if the Prince in question had ruled over Sweden, otherwise the
former is utterly unrelated.
Even then, your post is replete with errors. The surname of all
concerned, fathers and the issue of the non-recognised marriages alike
is Bernadotte, i.e. unchanged. The titles confered were by an authority
in states completely different from Sweden, an in most cases granted a
good time after the marriages. Even the titles you give are wrong - in
some cases it is "Wisborg" and in others "Bernadotte of Wisborg".
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
the point is that those marrying unequally took different names
and titles which passed to their heirs, rather than just their spouses and
descendants taking the new name and title. I gave Austria and Liechtenstein
as examples; there are also examples in the Two Sicilies (not German either,
but then your question did not limit itself to Germans), with the Roccaguglielma
name and title, and other examples in the Standesherren
families.
All irrelevant to this thread.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The Hanau and Horowoitz Princely titles granted by the Elector
Friedrich-Wilhelm to his morganatic wife were subject to marriage rules,
even though merely a noble title, and his eldest son's marriage not meeting that
rule, he lost the Hanau title only to be restored to it in a new creation.
Meanwhile the children of his 7th son never succeeded to the princely title
because of their father's marriage and instead bore the lesser countly title
which had been granted withoput any subjection to these rules.
But is this the actual case with the Battenberg title? If so what *are*
the rules? What sort of person is equal and what sort of person is not,
in the case of this specific title?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Thus you have on the one hand examples of royal houses who lost their titles on
making a morganatic marriage to be given new ones, and certain noble titles that
were subject to rules on equal marriage.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
No need to start another entirely unrelated topic, but as has been
clearly stated before there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage
in Sweden, so those examples are entirely erroneous.
They are not erroneuous as proof that a prince marrying unequally may lose his
title, as did Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, with the consent of the sovereign
who granted it originally.
Well which is it? Did he 1) lose his title because he married
morganatically, 2) did he resign his princely title, or as you
originally claimed 3) did the Grand Duke "exchange" the title of Prince
of Battenberg for Count Hartenau?
one should stick to the title of the thread! If one knows someby, that
could interest third partie, one may open a new thread, obviously Hanau
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-09 11:58:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Any examples from Peru?
How pathetic.
Your whole post is pathetic from start to finish. That was the point.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
We are obviously talking about German families here. Nor are we talking
about, in the case of the Battenbergs, members of a sovereign house or
family. At best, Alexander Joseph alone was a former ruling prince.
Your question did not limit itself to German families
It is perfectly obvious to anyone reading this thread, expcept you,
apparently what this thread is about.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
, but in any case the first
two were German (Austria, of course, is a German state in that its royal and
nobiliary traditions originate in those of the German, or "Holy Roman" Empire).
Excuse me. What German state was this on the 2 Apr 1931 and 15 Dec 1949
exactly?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Whether Sweden had morganatic marriages was an relevant as whether
Bulgaria did;
Only if the Prince in question had ruled over Sweden, otherwise the
former is utterly unrelated.
Even then, your post is replete with errors. The surname of all
concerned, fathers and the issue of the non-recognised marriages alike
is Bernadotte, i.e. unchanged. The titles confered were by an authority
in states completely different from Sweden, an in most cases granted a
good time after the marriages. Even the titles you give are wrong - in
some cases it is "Wisborg" and in others "Bernadotte of Wisborg".
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
the point is that those marrying unequally took different names
and titles which passed to their heirs, rather than just their spouses and
descendants taking the new name and title. I gave Austria and Liechtenstein
as examples; there are also examples in the Two Sicilies (not German either,
but then your question did not limit itself to Germans), with the Roccaguglielma
name and title, and other examples in the Standesherren
families.
All irrelevant to this thread.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The Hanau and Horowoitz Princely titles granted by the Elector
Friedrich-Wilhelm to his morganatic wife were subject to marriage rules,
even though merely a noble title, and his eldest son's marriage not meeting that
rule, he lost the Hanau title only to be restored to it in a new creation.
Meanwhile the children of his 7th son never succeeded to the princely title
because of their father's marriage and instead bore the lesser countly title
which had been granted withoput any subjection to these rules.
But is this the actual case with the Battenberg title? If so what *are*
the rules? What sort of person is equal and what sort of person is not,
in the case of this specific title?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Thus you have on the one hand examples of royal houses who lost their titles on
making a morganatic marriage to be given new ones, and certain noble titles that
were subject to rules on equal marriage.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
No need to start another entirely unrelated topic, but as has been
clearly stated before there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage
in Sweden, so those examples are entirely erroneous.
They are not erroneuous as proof that a prince marrying unequally may lose his
title, as did Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, with the consent of the sovereign
who granted it originally.
Well which is it? Did he 1) lose his title because he married
morganatically, 2) did he resign his princely title, or as you
originally claimed 3) did the Grand Duke "exchange" the title of Prince
of Battenberg for Count Hartenau?
one should stick to the title of the thread! If one knows someby, that
could interest third partie, one may open a new thread, obviously Hanau
Hard to tell with the posts of that particular poster, not always easy
to follow. Looks like he got a little confused over Hartenau, Hanau and
Hohenau. Apparently, one of the descendants of Liechtenstein princes is
a Count Hartenau!
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-09 12:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Any examples from Peru?
How pathetic.
Your whole post is pathetic from start to finish. That was the point.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
We are obviously talking about German families here. Nor are we talking
about, in the case of the Battenbergs, members of a sovereign house or
family. At best, Alexander Joseph alone was a former ruling prince.
Your question did not limit itself to German families
It is perfectly obvious to anyone reading this thread, expcept you,
apparently what this thread is about.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
, but in any case the first
two were German (Austria, of course, is a German state in that its royal and
nobiliary traditions originate in those of the German, or "Holy Roman" Empire).
Excuse me. What German state was this on the 2 Apr 1931 and 15 Dec 1949
exactly?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Whether Sweden had morganatic marriages was an relevant as whether
Bulgaria did;
Only if the Prince in question had ruled over Sweden, otherwise the
former is utterly unrelated.
Even then, your post is replete with errors. The surname of all
concerned, fathers and the issue of the non-recognised marriages alike
is Bernadotte, i.e. unchanged. The titles confered were by an authority
in states completely different from Sweden, an in most cases granted a
good time after the marriages. Even the titles you give are wrong - in
some cases it is "Wisborg" and in others "Bernadotte of Wisborg".
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
the point is that those marrying unequally took different names
and titles which passed to their heirs, rather than just their spouses and
descendants taking the new name and title. I gave Austria and Liechtenstein
as examples; there are also examples in the Two Sicilies (not German either,
but then your question did not limit itself to Germans), with the Roccaguglielma
name and title, and other examples in the Standesherren
families.
All irrelevant to this thread.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
The Hanau and Horowoitz Princely titles granted by the Elector
Friedrich-Wilhelm to his morganatic wife were subject to marriage rules,
even though merely a noble title, and his eldest son's marriage not meeting that
rule, he lost the Hanau title only to be restored to it in a new creation.
Meanwhile the children of his 7th son never succeeded to the princely title
because of their father's marriage and instead bore the lesser countly title
which had been granted withoput any subjection to these rules.
But is this the actual case with the Battenberg title? If so what *are*
the rules? What sort of person is equal and what sort of person is not,
in the case of this specific title?
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Thus you have on the one hand examples of royal houses who lost their titles on
making a morganatic marriage to be given new ones, and certain noble titles that
were subject to rules on equal marriage.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
No need to start another entirely unrelated topic, but as has been
clearly stated before there was no such thing as a morganatic marriage
in Sweden, so those examples are entirely erroneous.
They are not erroneuous as proof that a prince marrying unequally may lose his
title, as did Prince Alexander of Bulgaria, with the consent of the sovereign
who granted it originally.
Well which is it? Did he 1) lose his title because he married
morganatically, 2) did he resign his princely title, or as you
originally claimed 3) did the Grand Duke "exchange" the title of Prince
of Battenberg for Count Hartenau?
one should stick to the title of the thread! If one knows someby, that
could interest third partie, one may open a new thread, obviously Hanau
Hard to tell with the posts of that particular poster, not always easy
to follow. Looks like he got a little confused over Hartenau, Hanau and
Hohenau. Apparently, one of the descendants of Liechtenstein princes is
a Count Hartenau!
Could they not be of the same family (the -aufamily), just different
branches. Let hope they are knights Malta. This the origin of a right
royal au-mix up?
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-06-10 20:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Hard to tell with the posts of that particular poster, not always easy
to follow. Looks like he got a little confused over Hartenau, Hanau and
Hohenau. Apparently, one of the descendants of Liechtenstein princes is
a Count Hartenau!
Could they not be of the same family (the -aufamily), just different
branches. Let hope they are knights Malta. This the origin of a right
royal au-mix up?
Actually simply writing quickly, as you well know; there was no mix up and it
was clear enough to anyone with half a brain to what I was referring. Pity that
once again Ct Gudenus feels he has to rush to help out his friend from Croydon.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Donald Renouf
2006-06-11 14:50:41 UTC
Permalink
I always just assumed that Alexander of Bulgaria informally adopted the
style of Count of Hartenau as a more unassuming title after his
deposition, as did several other exiled Sovereigns: Charles X of France
became Count of Ponthieu, Louis-Philippe of the French became Count of
Neuilly, Joseph (Bonaparte) of Spain became Count of Survilliers, etc.,
etc. Just because these men did not use the higher titles to which they
had a right, it doesn't mean they were deprived of them; why should
Alexander be any different?

Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-11 15:22:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Renouf
I always just assumed that Alexander of Bulgaria informally adopted the
style of Count of Hartenau as a more unassuming title after his
deposition, as did several other exiled Sovereigns: Charles X of France
became Count of Ponthieu, Louis-Philippe of the French became Count of
Neuilly, Joseph (Bonaparte) of Spain became Count of Survilliers, etc.,
etc. Just because these men did not use the higher titles to which they
had a right, it doesn't mean they were deprived of them; why should
Alexander be any different?
The trouble with that argument is that although it makes sense, it
appears that he used his title in an official capacity in Austria.

Some secondary sources say that the title was assumed by him with the
sanction of the GD of Hesse. Others, that it was conferred on him by
the Austrian Emperor. However, no actual evidence for either has been
forthcoming.
Post by Donald Renouf
Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
I doubt this whole morganaut claim. At least until someone can give us
some authoritative rules that would apply. If they include stipulations
that the wives had to be noble, then one can think of two, three or
four "Mountbatten" marriages that would equally fall outside such a
rule.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-06-11 16:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Donald Renouf a écrit :

<...>
Post by Donald Renouf
Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me
As already pointed by François, the Hanau, who were also Hessian
morganauts, had marriage requirements. Of course, that does not prove
by itself that the Battenberg had such requirements but since, in the
lack of any documental evidence, we are in the kingdom of the
likelinesses, that is not unlikely.
Post by Donald Renouf
that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
Morganatic unions do not concern somebody's own titles, but his
posterity's titles. Anyway, I am not sure that, even admitting the
Battenberg had marriage requirements, that would be technically
speaking a morganatic marriage: rather something made to look like what
a morganatic marriage is for higher lineages.

Pierre
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-13 06:36:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
<...>
Post by Donald Renouf
Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me
As already pointed by François, the Hanau, who were also Hessian
morganauts, had marriage requirements. Of course, that does not prove
by itself that the Battenberg had such requirements but since, in the
lack of any documental evidence, we are in the kingdom of the
likelinesses, that is not unlikely.
Post by Donald Renouf
that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
Morganatic unions do not concern somebody's own titles, but his
posterity's titles. Anyway, I am not sure that, even admitting the
Battenberg had marriage requirements, that would be technically
speaking a morganatic marriage: rather something made to look like what
a morganatic marriage is for higher lineages.
That is all very well, but what are those likely requirements.

People going down that road are likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
Most of the English marriages by the Mountbattens and Cambridges did
not take place with noblewomen. Even those who had titled fathers, were
not noble themselves.
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-13 09:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
<...>
Post by Donald Renouf
Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me
As already pointed by François, the Hanau, who were also Hessian
morganauts, had marriage requirements.
AUSTRIA. One was not a morganaut but perhaps descendant of a morganatic
marriage.

The Hanau had also Austrian titles - these passed on even if there
originally were requirements, they certrainly were not requirements
bound to an Austrian title - these titles passed on to the wifes and
their children. It had not to be asked what the origins of these wifes
were! A mariage with a proletarian woman, who was a prostitute as
perfect for succeeding in the Austrian titles of a noble Austrian
family. That included children born before marriage.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Of course, that does not prove
by itself that the Battenberg had such requirements but since, in the
lack of any documental evidence, we are in the kingdom of the
likelinesses, that is not unlikely.
Post by Donald Renouf
that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
Morganatic unions do not concern somebody's own titles, but his
posterity's titles. Anyway, I am not sure that, even admitting the
Battenberg had marriage requirements, that would be technically
speaking a morganatic marriage: rather something made to look like what
a morganatic marriage is for higher lineages.
That is all very well, but what are those likely requirements.
People going down that road are likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
Most of the English marriages by the Mountbattens and Cambridges did
not take place with noblewomen. Even those who had titled fathers, were
not noble themselves.
p***@hotmail.com
2006-06-14 12:24:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
<...>
Post by Donald Renouf
Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me
As already pointed by François, the Hanau, who were also Hessian
morganauts, had marriage requirements. Of course, that does not prove
by itself that the Battenberg had such requirements but since, in the
lack of any documental evidence, we are in the kingdom of the
likelinesses, that is not unlikely.
Post by Donald Renouf
that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
Morganatic unions do not concern somebody's own titles, but his
posterity's titles. Anyway, I am not sure that, even admitting the
Battenberg had marriage requirements, that would be technically
speaking a morganatic marriage: rather something made to look like what
a morganatic marriage is for higher lineages.
That is all very well, but what are those likely requirements.
Perhaps marriage in a family holding a count title, has for the Hanau
(just a guess by analogy, I have no source and it is still perfectly
possible that the Battenberg had no requirement of that kind).
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
People going down that road are likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
For my part, I have not preconceived opinion the subject and my purpose
is not to prove that the Mountbatten are necessarily German princes. I
just try to understand if their supposed renunciation had any effect in
the law which governed those titles. If the British Battenberg lost
their princely title due to their marriage, hence be it, I have no
problem by that.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Most of the English marriages by the Mountbattens and Cambridges did
not take place with noblewomen. Even those who had titled fathers, were
not noble themselves.
Although their were not noble in British law, they would certainly have
been considered noble by European standard.

Pierre
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-14 13:10:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
<...>
Post by Donald Renouf
Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me
As already pointed by François, the Hanau, who were also Hessian
morganauts, had marriage requirements. Of course, that does not prove
by itself that the Battenberg had such requirements but since, in the
lack of any documental evidence, we are in the kingdom of the
likelinesses, that is not unlikely.
Post by Donald Renouf
that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
Morganatic unions do not concern somebody's own titles, but his
posterity's titles. Anyway, I am not sure that, even admitting the
Battenberg had marriage requirements, that would be technically
speaking a morganatic marriage: rather something made to look like what
a morganatic marriage is for higher lineages.
That is all very well, but what are those likely requirements.
Perhaps marriage in a family holding a count title, has for the Hanau
(just a guess by analogy, I have no source and it is still perfectly
possible that the Battenberg had no requirement of that kind).
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
People going down that road are likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
For my part, I have not preconceived opinion the subject and my purpose
is not to prove that the Mountbatten are necessarily German princes. I
just try to understand if their supposed renunciation had any effect in
the law which governed those titles. If the British Battenberg lost
their princely title due to their marriage, hence be it, I have no
problem by that.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Most of the English marriages by the Mountbattens and Cambridges did
not take place with noblewomen. Even those who had titled fathers, were
not noble themselves.
Although their were not noble in British law, they would certainly have
been considered noble by European standard.
So one has to ask what were those standards? Nobody has been able to
give any indication of what standards applied in the first place for
these Battenberg (or Teck) titles.

Now it seems, that we are not even talking about anything related to
German, Hessian or Wurtemberg law, but European. Are we then to be
presented the requirements for equal marriage under "European law" at
any stage?
p***@hotmail.com
2006-06-14 18:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
<...>
Post by Donald Renouf
Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me
As already pointed by François, the Hanau, who were also Hessian
morganauts, had marriage requirements. Of course, that does not prove
by itself that the Battenberg had such requirements but since, in the
lack of any documental evidence, we are in the kingdom of the
likelinesses, that is not unlikely.
Post by Donald Renouf
that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
Morganatic unions do not concern somebody's own titles, but his
posterity's titles. Anyway, I am not sure that, even admitting the
Battenberg had marriage requirements, that would be technically
speaking a morganatic marriage: rather something made to look like what
a morganatic marriage is for higher lineages.
That is all very well, but what are those likely requirements.
Perhaps marriage in a family holding a count title, has for the Hanau
(just a guess by analogy, I have no source and it is still perfectly
possible that the Battenberg had no requirement of that kind).
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
People going down that road are likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
For my part, I have not preconceived opinion the subject and my purpose
is not to prove that the Mountbatten are necessarily German princes. I
just try to understand if their supposed renunciation had any effect in
the law which governed those titles. If the British Battenberg lost
their princely title due to their marriage, hence be it, I have no
problem by that.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Most of the English marriages by the Mountbattens and Cambridges did
not take place with noblewomen. Even those who had titled fathers, were
not noble themselves.
Although their were not noble in British law, they would certainly have
been considered noble by European standard.
So one has to ask what were those standards? Nobody has been able to
give any indication of what standards applied in the first place for
these Battenberg (or Teck) titles.
Indeed and perhaps there was none.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Now it seems, that we are not even talking about anything related to
German, Hessian or Wurtemberg law, but European. Are we then to be
presented the requirements for equal marriage under "European law" at
any stage?
Since you made the point that in British law only title holders are
technically noble, I mean by "European standard" the standard, common
to many European countries including France and Germany, by which all
descendants are noble and not only title holders. So, for many purpose
children of British peer are consider nobles in those European
countries, although technically they are not in Britain: take for
example the Grand Master of the Order of Malta.
"European standard" was only a way to speak, and I thought in the
context it was clear: sorry if it was not for everybody.

Pierre
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-14 18:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
<...>
Post by Donald Renouf
Even though Alexander didn't marry as well as the other members of his
family, it would seem staggeringly presumptuous of the morganaut
Battenbergs to regard themselves as having House marriage requirements
after the manner of their ruling and mediatised superiors. It seems far
more likely to me
As already pointed by François, the Hanau, who were also Hessian
morganauts, had marriage requirements. Of course, that does not prove
by itself that the Battenberg had such requirements but since, in the
lack of any documental evidence, we are in the kingdom of the
likelinesses, that is not unlikely.
Post by Donald Renouf
that he chose to be known by a lesser title out of
modesty and a wish not to embarrass his upwardly-mobile relatives, than
that he was somehow deprived of his princely status as a result of his
marriage.
Morganatic unions do not concern somebody's own titles, but his
posterity's titles. Anyway, I am not sure that, even admitting the
Battenberg had marriage requirements, that would be technically
speaking a morganatic marriage: rather something made to look like what
a morganatic marriage is for higher lineages.
That is all very well, but what are those likely requirements.
Perhaps marriage in a family holding a count title, has for the Hanau
(just a guess by analogy, I have no source and it is still perfectly
possible that the Battenberg had no requirement of that kind).
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
People going down that road are likely to shoot themselves in the foot.
For my part, I have not preconceived opinion the subject and my purpose
is not to prove that the Mountbatten are necessarily German princes. I
just try to understand if their supposed renunciation had any effect in
the law which governed those titles. If the British Battenberg lost
their princely title due to their marriage, hence be it, I have no
problem by that.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Most of the English marriages by the Mountbattens and Cambridges did
not take place with noblewomen. Even those who had titled fathers, were
not noble themselves.
Although their were not noble in British law, they would certainly have
been considered noble by European standard.
So one has to ask what were those standards? Nobody has been able to
give any indication of what standards applied in the first place for
these Battenberg (or Teck) titles.
Indeed and perhaps there was none.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Now it seems, that we are not even talking about anything related to
German, Hessian or Wurtemberg law, but European. Are we then to be
presented the requirements for equal marriage under "European law" at
any stage?
Since you made the point that in British law only title holders are
technically noble, I mean by "European standard" the standard, common
to many European countries including France and Germany, by which all
descendants are noble and not only title holders. So, for many purpose
children of British peer are consider nobles in those European
countries, although technically they are not in Britain: take for
example the Grand Master of the Order of Malta.
"European standard" was only a way to speak, and I thought in the
context it was clear: sorry if it was not for everybody.
The systems of "nobility" in Norway, Switzerland, Greece, Rumania,
Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Great Britain, Ireland, Russia
and Poland, are very different from France or Germany. So one can
hardly call it a "European standard".

One would also have to show, by reference to actual laws in either
Hesse or Wurtemberg, that the children of British peers were considered
noble for the purposes of "morganatic laws", for the titles concerned.
Can this be demonstrated?

Christopher Buyers
Donald Renouf
2006-06-15 14:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
As already pointed by François, the Hanau, who were also Hessian
morganauts, had marriage requirements. Of course, that does not prove
by itself that the Battenberg had such requirements but since, in the
lack of any documental evidence, we are in the kingdom of the
likelinesses, that is not unlikely.
Weren't the Hanau "requirements" simply a specific restriction in the
granting of the Hanau (1853) and Horowitz (1855) titles, that they
should descend only to those born of marriages with ladies of at least
comital rank? Whether or not the Battenberg titles had similar
restrictions should be settled by looking at the wording of the 1851
and 1858 grants, which I assume survive.
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-15 15:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Donald Renouf
Weren't the Hanau "requirements" simply a specific restriction in the
granting of the Hanau (1853) and Horowitz (1855) titles, that they
should descend only to those born of marriages with ladies of at least
comital rank? Whether or not the Battenberg titles had similar
restrictions should be settled by looking at the wording of the 1851
and 1858 grants, which I assume survive.
No doubt it may have been such, but outside Austria only.
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-08 15:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Is the ADB an official organ of the Grand Duchy of Hesse or of the
Austro-Hungarian Court?
In UK or US terms, what would be the equivalent to the ADB?
Can't be bothered. But I keep every scrap that comes my way. People can
satisfy themselves by pulling some of those tomes off the shelves of dusty
libraries with the help of a strongman.
--
I guess the answer to the first question is an emphatic no!
Are the ADB tomes particularly heavy, or only heavy on small minded
men?
I'm guessing they are heavier than the tomes in which you found Prince
Alexander von Battenberg's unilateral renunciations (I suppose he
used the word "renounce" point-black!). It was probably filed next
to the duke of Cumberland's "renunciation" you once invented.

You brought up the example of this prince, without the slightest reference
to any tome, heavy or otherwise. Your generosity toward yourself is
admirable: there is no standard you fail to meet that you won't impose
on the rest of the world.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-08 16:20:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Is the ADB an official organ of the Grand Duchy of Hesse or of the
Austro-Hungarian Court?
In UK or US terms, what would be the equivalent to the ADB?
Can't be bothered. But I keep every scrap that comes my way. People can
satisfy themselves by pulling some of those tomes off the shelves of dusty
libraries with the help of a strongman.
--
I guess the answer to the first question is an emphatic no!
Are the ADB tomes particularly heavy, or only heavy on small minded
men?
I'm guessing they are heavier than the tomes in which you found Prince
Alexander von Battenberg's unilateral renunciations (I suppose he
used the word "renounce" point-black!). It was probably filed next
to the duke of Cumberland's "renunciation" you once invented.
You brought up the example of this prince, without the slightest reference
to any tome, heavy or otherwise. Your generosity toward yourself is
admirable: there is no standard you fail to meet that you won't impose
on the rest of the world.
--
Actually, all that I require is that people are able to read and
comprehend simple English and be able to follow threads. Apparently,
there are some who find both activities a little more than taxing.
Those, for example, who supposedly read a document and miss words such
as "prince", or mistake dates such as 22nd October for 9th
November, or insert "Northern Ireland" into the titles of monarchs
89 years before so designated.

Mr Aronax posed the question whether the Tecks and Battenbergs would
have had, from the point of view of German nobiliary rights, a real
possibility of abandoning their princely titles?

To this I posted the following "To see that such a possibility
existed, one doesn't really even have to go outside the Battenberg
family. All one needs to look at is the example of the former Prince
Alexander Joseph, sometime Prince of Bulgaria, and his son. The son,
never considered a Battenberg by Kaiser Bill, the Almanach de Gotha, or
anyone else".

I do not see any reference in this particular question or post about
renunciations. Oh I forgot, it is to be seen in the same place as
"Northern Ireland".

I realise that it is too difficult for you to understand this, but I
did not invent the 1959 edition of Debrett. See p 9 on Prince Ernst
August becoming reigning Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg on the renunciation
of his father.
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-08 19:56:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Actually, all that I require is that people are able to read and
comprehend simple English and be able to follow threads. Apparently,
there are some who find both activities a little more than taxing.
In this instance, comprehending French was required; this may have been
your problem.
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Those, for example, who supposedly read a document and miss words such
as "prince", or mistake dates such as 22nd October for 9th
November, or insert "Northern Ireland" into the titles of monarchs
89 years before so designated.
Mr Aronax posed the question whether the Tecks and Battenbergs would
have had, from the point of view of German nobiliary rights, a real
possibility of abandoning their princely titles?
To this I posted the following "To see that such a possibility
existed, one doesn't really even have to go outside the Battenberg
family. All one needs to look at is the example of the former Prince
Alexander Joseph, sometime Prince of Bulgaria, and his son. The son,
never considered a Battenberg by Kaiser Bill, the Almanach de Gotha, or
anyone else".
I do not see any reference in this particular question or post about
renunciations. Oh I forgot, it is to be seen in the same place as
"Northern Ireland".
Not so, Mr Aronax used the word "renonciation" point-black [sic].

Either you misread him, or else the "possibility" that you claimed to
establish was that of a renunciation (without the slightest document
or reference, from the official publications of the grand-duchy of
Hesse or anywhere else, in keeping with your usual self-generosity).
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
I realise that it is too difficult for you to understand this, but I
did not invent the 1959 edition of Debrett. See p 9 on Prince Ernst
August becoming reigning Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg on the renunciation
of his father.
To use your words, is Debrett an official publication of the German Empire,
or an authority on German titles and claims?

You once spoke of the "father's renunciation of the Hanovarian claim" to
explain why his children might not have been royal highnesses in Germany.
I would ignore that as a harmless slip, if you were to say that's what it
was. But if you go on insisting that the duke of Cumberland renounced his
Hanoverian claim, then I'll ask of you what you so courageously demand of
others than yourself: proof.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-09 05:38:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
I realise that it is too difficult for you to understand this, but I
did not invent the 1959 edition of Debrett. See p 9 on Prince Ernst
August becoming reigning Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg on the renunciation
of his father.
To use your words, is Debrett an official publication of the German Empire,
or an authority on German titles and claims?
That wasn't the point.

You claimed that I had invented the renunciation. Physically impossible
given the date of the publication.

You lied.

Christopher Buyers
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-09 05:56:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
I realise that it is too difficult for you to understand this, but I
did not invent the 1959 edition of Debrett. See p 9 on Prince Ernst
August becoming reigning Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg on the renunciation
of his father.
To use your words, is Debrett an official publication of the German Empire,
or an authority on German titles and claims?
That wasn't the point.
You claimed that I had invented the renunciation. Physically impossible
given the date of the publication.
You lied.
Are you saying that Debrett 1959 alleges "a renunciation of the Hanoverian
claim" by the duke of Cumberland? That should be easy for you to prove.

If you do, then I will gladly acknowledge that you didn't invent it, and we have
all learned a little more about the reliability of your cherished reference.

Then you can move on to document the "renonciation" of prince Alexander of
Battenberg, and finally prove me wrong when you show us where the Tecks and
Battenbergs used the word "renounce". I cannot imagine you will resist the
temptation of such an easy triumph.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-11 04:26:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
I realise that it is too difficult for you to understand this, but I
did not invent the 1959 edition of Debrett. See p 9 on Prince Ernst
August becoming reigning Duke of Brunswick-Luneburg on the renunciation
of his father.
To use your words, is Debrett an official publication of the German Empire,
or an authority on German titles and claims?
That wasn't the point.
You claimed that I had invented the renunciation. Physically impossible
given the date of the publication.
You lied.
Are you saying that Debrett 1959 alleges "a renunciation of the Hanoverian
claim" by the duke of Cumberland? That should be easy for you to prove.
If you do, then I will gladly acknowledge that you didn't invent it, and we have
all learned a little more about the reliability of your cherished reference.
I am saying, very clearly that you claimed that I had invented the
renunciation. Physically impossible given the date of the publication.

You lied.

You can now try to "refine" your lie by adjusting it to apply to
Hannover, but again, you are free to search the web and discover half a
dozen references to Cumberland renouncing Brunswick and Hannover. Some
date the renunciation on the 23rd of October 1917, another 24th of
October 1917, and others the 27th of October. Again, none of them have
been written by me or owe anything whatever to my input.

Again, you lie.

I understand that your website makes a statement to the effect that the
Duke only renounced Brunswick, but offers no citation, does not
reproduce a transcription or present a quotation from any original
source. Is this correct?

Christopher Buyers
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-11 05:27:58 UTC
Permalink
..
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
You can now try to "refine" your lie by adjusting it to apply to
Hannover, but again, you are free to search the web and discover half a
dozen references to Cumberland renouncing Brunswick and Hannover. Some
date the renunciation on the 23rd of October 1917, another 24th of
October 1917, and others the 27th of October. Again, none of them have
been written by me or owe anything whatever to my input.
it would be fine if the authors of the three (sic) renunciations would
refine their statements, by stating renounced .. (place) .. (date).
Furthermore it must be proven those, who renonced actually were at this
place, etc. Some places has to look like (example): Berlin (embassy of
Switzerland, as caretaker of the state ..) ..
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-11 05:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
..
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
You can now try to "refine" your lie by adjusting it to apply to
Hannover, but again, you are free to search the web and discover half a
dozen references to Cumberland renouncing Brunswick and Hannover. Some
date the renunciation on the 23rd of October 1917, another 24th of
October 1917, and others the 27th of October. Again, none of them have
been written by me or owe anything whatever to my input.
it would be fine if the authors of the three (sic) renunciations would
refine their statements, by stating renounced .. (place) .. (date).
Furthermore it must be proven those, who renonced actually were at this
place, etc. Some places has to look like (example): Berlin (embassy of
Switzerland, as caretaker of the state ..) .
True.
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-11 06:38:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
it would be fine if the authors of the three (sic) renunciations would
refine their statements, by stating renounced .. (place) .. (date).
Furthermore it must be proven those, who renonced actually were at this
place, etc. Some places has to look like (example): Berlin (embassy of
Switzerland, as caretaker of the state ..) .
True.
As the Topic are obviously the Cumberland. It would be fine to read any
concerning poster bearing the titulus: Cumberland.

For any green-horn the Hartenau, ex stirpe Battenberg (ref: Mr Sainty
claims), have nothing to do with the Cumberland. Except all like any
prostitute have the honour to descend of the same ape pair
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-11 06:19:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
..
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
You can now try to "refine" your lie by adjusting it to apply to
Hannover, but again, you are free to search the web and discover half a
dozen references to Cumberland renouncing Brunswick and Hannover. Some
date the renunciation on the 23rd of October 1917, another 24th of
October 1917, and others the 27th of October. Again, none of them have
been written by me or owe anything whatever to my input.
it would be fine if the authors of the three (sic) renunciations would
refine their statements, by stating renounced .. (place) .. (date).
Furthermore it must be proven those, who renonced actually were at this
place, etc. Some places has to look like (example): Berlin (embassy of
Switzerland, as caretaker of the state ..) ..
The duke of Cumberland ceded his rights to the duchy of Brunswick to his son on
October 24, 1913 (as described by his son in a letter to the imperial
chancellor, "seine Rechte auf die Regierung im Herzogtum Braunschweig auf mich
zu übertragen"). This cession was announced to the German Bundesrat by the
Brunswick delegate on Oct. 27, 1913 and a motion passed the same day allow the
duke's son to accede in Brunswick.

As is well known, the duke of Cumberland never renounced the "Hanoverian claim"
(see, e.g., the memoirs of his daughter-in-law Viktoria Luise of Prussia).

General references can be found here:
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGBraunschweig.htm#Regency
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-11 06:55:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
The duke of Cumberland ceded his rights to the duchy of Brunswick to his son on
October 24, 1913 (as described by his son in a letter to the imperial
chancellor, "seine Rechte auf die Regierung im Herzogtum Braunschweig auf mich
zu übertragen"). This cession was announced to the German Bundesrat by the
Brunswick delegate on Oct. 27, 1913 and a motion passed the same day allow the
duke's son to accede in Brunswick.
Imperial chancelor, to be understood: secretary general of all the
German States, like Hamburg, Prussia. Copies are therefore to be found
in the achives of the Federal Council, any member of this Council (i.e.
Lubeck,Lippe, etc). Furthermore there may have been some notification
to the Foriegn Powers.

His rights, renounciation can of course not include the renounciation
of those, who also hold certain rights, i.e. his other children, his
sister Pawel, etc.
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-16 19:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
The duke of Cumberland ceded his rights to the duchy of Brunswick to his son on
October 24, 1913 (as described by his son in a letter to the imperial
chancellor, "seine Rechte auf die Regierung im Herzogtum Braunschweig auf mich
zu übertragen"). This cession was announced to the German Bundesrat by the
Brunswick delegate on Oct. 27, 1913 and a motion passed the same day allow the
duke's son to accede in Brunswick.
Imperial chancelor, to be understood: secretary general of all the
German States, like Hamburg, Prussia. Copies are therefore to be found
in the achives of the Federal Council, any member of this Council (i.e.
Lubeck,Lippe, etc). Furthermore there may have been some notification
to the Foriegn Powers.
The text of the renunciation can be found in the Protokolle über die
Verhandlungen des Bundesrats des Deutschen Reichs. 1913. Protokoll der
neunundzwanzigsten Sitzung, Anlage (p. 829). I have added it to my web page
on Brunswick-Luneburg:

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGBraunschweig.htm#Regency

As explained earlier, the renunciation is personal, and concerns only
the duchy of Brunswick, not the Hanoverian claim.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-16 20:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Post by Francois R. Velde
The duke of Cumberland ceded his rights to the duchy of Brunswick to his son on
October 24, 1913 (as described by his son in a letter to the imperial
chancellor, "seine Rechte auf die Regierung im Herzogtum Braunschweig auf mich
zu übertragen"). This cession was announced to the German Bundesrat by the
Brunswick delegate on Oct. 27, 1913 and a motion passed the same day allow the
duke's son to accede in Brunswick.
Imperial chancelor, to be understood: secretary general of all the
German States, like Hamburg, Prussia. Copies are therefore to be found
in the achives of the Federal Council, any member of this Council (i.e.
Lubeck,Lippe, etc). Furthermore there may have been some notification
to the Foriegn Powers.
The text of the renunciation can be found in the Protokolle über die
Verhandlungen des Bundesrats des Deutschen Reichs. 1913. Protokoll der
neunundzwanzigsten Sitzung, Anlage (p. 829). I have added it to my web page
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGBraunschweig.htm#Regency
As explained earlier, the renunciation is personal, and concerns only
the duchy of Brunswick, not the Hanoverian claim.
1) Is it usual for a ruler of two separate states to renounce both in
the same document? One presumes that such a documents would be
addressed to or meant for the government of the state being renounced,
and thus unlikely to be the same government for both.

2) Does HRH style himself King, Crown Prince, or Prince of Hannover or
refer to himself in any Hannovarian capacity?
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-06-16 21:04:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
The duke of Cumberland ceded his rights to the duchy of Brunswick to h=
is son on
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
October 24, 1913 (as described by his son in a letter to the imperial
chancellor, "seine Rechte auf die Regierung im Herzogtum Braunschweig =
auf mich
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
zu =FCbertragen"). This cession was announced to the German Bundesrat=
by the
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Brunswick delegate on Oct. 27, 1913 and a motion passed the same day a=
llow the
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
duke's son to accede in Brunswick.
Imperial chancelor, to be understood: secretary general of all the
German States, like Hamburg, Prussia. Copies are therefore to be found
in the achives of the Federal Council, any member of this Council (i.e.
Lubeck,Lippe, etc). Furthermore there may have been some notification
to the Foriegn Powers.
The text of the renunciation can be found in the Protokolle =FCber die
Verhandlungen des Bundesrats des Deutschen Reichs. 1913. Protokoll der
neunundzwanzigsten Sitzung, Anlage (p. 829). I have added it to my web p=
age
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGBraunschweig.htm#Regency
As explained earlier, the renunciation is personal, and concerns only
the duchy of Brunswick, not the Hanoverian claim.
1) Is it usual for a ruler of two separate states to renounce both in
the same document? One presumes that such a documents would be
addressed to or meant for the government of the state being renounced,
and thus unlikely to be the same government for both.
2) Does HRH style himself King, Crown Prince, or Prince of Hannover or
refer to himself in any Hannovarian capacity?
Perhaps a quick glance at the helpful transcription and translation provided by
Francois might answer that question (the answer being no, he did not).
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Don Aitken
2006-06-17 01:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
The duke of Cumberland ceded his rights to the duchy of Brunswick to h=
is son on
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
October 24, 1913 (as described by his son in a letter to the imperial
chancellor, "seine Rechte auf die Regierung im Herzogtum Braunschweig =
auf mich
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
zu =FCbertragen"). This cession was announced to the German Bundesrat=
by the
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Brunswick delegate on Oct. 27, 1913 and a motion passed the same day a=
llow the
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
duke's son to accede in Brunswick.
Imperial chancelor, to be understood: secretary general of all the
German States, like Hamburg, Prussia. Copies are therefore to be found
in the achives of the Federal Council, any member of this Council (i.e.
Lubeck,Lippe, etc). Furthermore there may have been some notification
to the Foriegn Powers.
The text of the renunciation can be found in the Protokolle =FCber die
Verhandlungen des Bundesrats des Deutschen Reichs. 1913. Protokoll der
neunundzwanzigsten Sitzung, Anlage (p. 829). I have added it to my web p=
age
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGBraunschweig.htm#Regency
As explained earlier, the renunciation is personal, and concerns only
the duchy of Brunswick, not the Hanoverian claim.
1) Is it usual for a ruler of two separate states to renounce both in
the same document? One presumes that such a documents would be
addressed to or meant for the government of the state being renounced,
and thus unlikely to be the same government for both.
2) Does HRH style himself King, Crown Prince, or Prince of Hannover or
refer to himself in any Hannovarian capacity?
Perhaps a quick glance at the helpful transcription and translation provided by
Francois might answer that question (the answer being no, he did not).
The politics of the situation make it clear why not. The Bundesrat was
being asked to ratify the transfer of his rights in Brunswick, which
was an existing state of the Empire, to his son; it would hardly have
given favorable consideration to a document which made a claim to part
of the territories of another member, which is what Hanover was in
German constitutional law. The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, or that it was affected in any way, but the question of this
entirely theoretical title was not allowed to interfere with the
serious stuff.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-17 04:59:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
The duke of Cumberland ceded his rights to the duchy of Brunswick to h=
is son on
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
October 24, 1913 (as described by his son in a letter to the imperial
chancellor, "seine Rechte auf die Regierung im Herzogtum Braunschweig =
auf mich
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
zu =FCbertragen"). This cession was announced to the German Bundesrat=
by the
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Brunswick delegate on Oct. 27, 1913 and a motion passed the same day a=
llow the
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
duke's son to accede in Brunswick.
Imperial chancelor, to be understood: secretary general of all the
German States, like Hamburg, Prussia. Copies are therefore to be found
in the achives of the Federal Council, any member of this Council (i.e.
Lubeck,Lippe, etc). Furthermore there may have been some notification
to the Foriegn Powers.
The text of the renunciation can be found in the Protokolle =FCber die
Verhandlungen des Bundesrats des Deutschen Reichs. 1913. Protokoll der
neunundzwanzigsten Sitzung, Anlage (p. 829). I have added it to my web p=
age
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGBraunschweig.htm#Regency
As explained earlier, the renunciation is personal, and concerns only
the duchy of Brunswick, not the Hanoverian claim.
1) Is it usual for a ruler of two separate states to renounce both in
the same document? One presumes that such a documents would be
addressed to or meant for the government of the state being renounced,
and thus unlikely to be the same government for both.
2) Does HRH style himself King, Crown Prince, or Prince of Hannover or
refer to himself in any Hannovarian capacity?
Perhaps a quick glance at the helpful transcription and translation provided by
Francois might answer that question (the answer being no, he did not).
The duke of Cumberland had announced in July 1878 what styles and titles he
would use. They are exactly those used in this 1913 document. There is no
inference whatsoever to be drawn from the use of styles announced in a
declaration whereby he "fully reserved all his rights, prerogatives and titles".
Post by Don Aitken
The politics of the situation make it clear why not. The Bundesrat was
being asked to ratify the transfer of his rights in Brunswick, which
was an existing state of the Empire, to his son; it would hardly have
given favorable consideration to a document which made a claim to part
of the territories of another member, which is what Hanover was in
German constitutional law. The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, or that it was affected in any way, but the question of this
entirely theoretical title was not allowed to interfere with the
serious stuff.
The fact that neither the duke of Cumberland nor his son renounced the
Hanoverian claim in 1913 was the subject of abundant commentary, since the
Bundesrat's decision was a complete reversal of its prior stance. Hitherto, the
duke's refusal to make any concession on his claim made him and his family's
accession to any German throne incompatible with the internal peace of the
Empire. The duke's offer to renounce his claim to the duchy of Brunswick in
favor of his son Ernst August was turned down in 1906. The same offer (without
a reversionary clause to his eldest son, who had by then died without issue) was
accepted in 1913. Of course, in the meantime Ernst August had married the
Emperor's daughter and taken a personal oath of loyalty to his father-in-law by
entering into Prussian service. Neither act amounted to a renunciation, but it
was taken as sufficient bond for the prince's good behavior.
--
François Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-17 05:05:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.

In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?

If one is looking to gaze upon the brightness of the sun, one does not
look for it in the dead of night, then boldly pronounce that the sun
does not exist, because we didn't see it in the dark!

Christopher Buyers
p***@hotmail.com
2006-06-17 06:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.

Pierre
Francois R. Velde
2006-06-17 06:39:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
I suppose you mean that is not an interesting conclusion.

One cannot prove a negative. It is incumbent on anyone who thinks that
the duke of Cumberland renounced his Hanoverian claim to provide evidence.
A renunciation dated Oct 24 1913 had been cited, I gave the text, the text
contains nothing like a renunciation of the Hanoverian claim. One is at
liberty to produce a document containing a renunciation to the Hanoverian
claim, but given the contemporary discussion on the absence of such a renunciation
(e.g., Kekule von Stradonitz in the Juristische Zeitung of 1913) I would not
expect this to be an easy task. My page on the house laws of Brunswick,
referenced upthread, provides the titles of several books written on this
subject, if anyone wants to pursue this (IMO hopeless) quest.

The fact is that the son of the duke of Cumberland was allowed by the
Bundesrat to accede in the duchy of Brunswick without any renunciation
to Hanover by him or his father.
--
François R. Velde
***@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldica Web Site: http://www.heraldica.org/
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-17 10:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
I suppose you mean that is not an interesting conclusion.
One cannot prove a negative. It is incumbent on anyone who thinks that
the duke of Cumberland renounced his Hanoverian claim to provide evidence.
A renunciation dated Oct 24 1913 had been cited, I gave the text, the text
contains nothing like a renunciation of the Hanoverian claim.
Nobody has been asked you to prove a negative. Just not make
conclusions on the basis of documents that may not necessarily be
expected to deal with Hannover, because they deal with Brunswick. At
best the claim can be that the issue of Hannover wasn't addressed in
that document.
Post by Francois R. Velde
One is at
liberty to produce a document containing a renunciation to the Hanoverian
claim, but given the contemporary discussion on the absence of such a renunciation
(e.g., Kekule von Stradonitz in the Juristische Zeitung of 1913) I would not
expect this to be an easy task. My page on the house laws of Brunswick,
referenced upthread, provides the titles of several books written on this
subject, if anyone wants to pursue this (IMO hopeless) quest.
However, that does not mean that people presenting documents dealing
with Brunswick can necessarily conclude anything on Hannover (or the
planet Mars).
Post by Francois R. Velde
All very well, but how is it possible to
The fact is that the son of the duke of Cumberland was allowed by the
Bundesrat to accede in the duchy of Brunswick without any renunciation
to Hanover by him or his father.
No formal document of renunciation was apparently deemed necessary from
the son. He joined the Royal Prussian Army and took the oath to the
King of Prussia, thereby recognising his rulership of and right to
Hannover.

Christopher Buyers
p***@hotmail.com
2006-06-17 22:28:03 UTC
Permalink
<...>
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by p***@hotmail.com
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
I suppose you mean that is not an interesting conclusion.
Si c'est de moi dont vous parlez, non: il n'y avait pas une ombre
d'ironie dans mon propos: le duc de Cumberland n'est connu que pour
avoir produit un seul acte de renonciation, cet acte dont vous avez
donné le texte ne dit rien du Hanovre, ergo jusqu'à preuve du
contraire il n'a pas renoncé au Hanovre.
Post by Francois R. Velde
One cannot prove a negative. It is incumbent on anyone who thinks that
the duke of Cumberland renounced his Hanoverian claim to provide evidence.
A renunciation dated Oct 24 1913 had been cited, I gave the text, the text
contains nothing like a renunciation of the Hanoverian claim.
C'est bien ainsi que je l'entendais et c'est ce que j'ai voulu dire de
manière, visiblement, trop lapidaire en mon anglais incertain.
Post by Francois R. Velde
One is at
liberty to produce a document containing a renunciation to the Hanoverian
claim, but given the contemporary discussion on the absence of such a renunciation
(e.g., Kekule von Stradonitz in the Juristische Zeitung of 1913) I would not
expect this to be an easy task. My page on the house laws of Brunswick,
referenced upthread, provides the titles of several books written on this
subject, if anyone wants to pursue this (IMO hopeless) quest.
The fact is that the son of the duke of Cumberland was allowed by the
Bundesrat to accede in the duchy of Brunswick without any renunciation
to Hanover by him or his father.
En effet, c'est clair et on ne peut pas prouver mieux. Merci d'avoir
produit le document.

Pierre
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-17 11:01:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
True, in so far as the following. The conclusion will have to be based
on the Duke not having issued any other document. Not on the basis of
the document presented document here.

Does anyone know how the Duke's claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?

Christopher Buyers
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-17 11:14:55 UTC
Permalink
From Mr. Velde's site wed understand, HRH the Duke of Cumberland (then
the head of the House of Hannover and of the House of Braunschweig)
renounced HIS rights on the Throne of Braunschweig in favor of his
(eldest) son (who's bride was a daughter of the German Emperor and King
of Pruassia).
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-17 11:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Does anyone know how the Duke's [obviously HRH the Duke of Cumberland, a British prince] claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?
There probably will not habe been any.

One should probably look on the question, how did the Duke as English
prince react in 1919. Did he claim his rights as English prince
concerning Hannover (stolen British property, etc)?
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-17 11:47:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Does anyone know how the Duke's [obviously HRH the Duke of Cumberland, a British prince] claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?
There probably will not habe been any.
One should probably look on the question, how did the Duke as English
prince react in 1919. Did he claim his rights as English prince
concerning Hannover (stolen British property, etc)?
I don't think he had any property in the UK, as far as I know.

He lost his dukedom 28th March 1919. He had the right to petition for
restoration, but never did. Nor have any of his descendants. As for the
title of British prince, there is no *right* other than the one allowed
by the Sovereign. His grandson was regularly referred to as "HRH Prince
Georg of Hanover".

Christopher Buyers
Guy Stair Sainty
2006-06-17 11:33:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
True, in so far as the following. The conclusion will have to be based
on the Duke not having issued any other document. Not on the basis of
the document presented document here.
Does anyone know how the Duke's claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?
Christopher Buyers
One may see photos of him wearing the Hanoverian orders.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-18 04:57:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
True, in so far as the following. The conclusion will have to be based
on the Duke not having issued any other document. Not on the basis of
the document presented document here.
Does anyone know how the Duke's claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?
Christopher Buyers
One may see photos of him wearing the Hanoverian orders.
Is that as far as it went and all one can show?
p***@hotmail.com
2006-06-18 13:23:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
True, in so far as the following. The conclusion will have to be based
on the Duke not having issued any other document. Not on the basis of
the document presented document here.
Does anyone know how the Duke's claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?
I don't see what it can proove: a claim does not disapear simply
because it is not manifested.

Pierre
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-18 15:35:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
True, in so far as the following. The conclusion will have to be based
on the Duke not having issued any other document. Not on the basis of
the document presented document here.
Does anyone know how the Duke's claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?
I don't see what it can proove: a claim does not disapear simply
because it is not manifested.
I simpy asked the question as to how the claim manifested itself.

Perhaps the claim never manifested itself during the period in
question, hence the defensive reaction?
p***@hotmail.com
2006-06-19 09:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
True, in so far as the following. The conclusion will have to be based
on the Duke not having issued any other document. Not on the basis of
the document presented document here.
Does anyone know how the Duke's claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?
I don't see what it can proove: a claim does not disapear simply
because it is not manifested.
I simpy asked the question as to how the claim manifested itself.
Perhaps the claim never manifested itself during the period in
question, hence the defensive reaction?
I have nothing to defend here (if someone can produce any evidence that
the Hanover prince renounced their right, no problem for me: then we
can move to see if they can renounce etc.): I simply made a general
remark. As I understand it, the question has no relation with the
problem discuss here (I am not sure there is a problem anyway: there is
no evidence at all that the Hanoverians renounced their right, so there
is no need to prove they did not renounce it).
I do not think for that that the question is uninteresting: how can
someone manifest a claim when he has to deal with the State who
contradict his claim? Many situations are possible, but in some case
reciprocal silence can be an elegant solution.

Pierre
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-20 05:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by p***@hotmail.com
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Don Aitken
The fact that the Hanoverian claim is not
mentioned in this document clearly does not mean that it ceased to
exist, ...
Nor that it did.
In fact, isn't it true to say that this document does not touch upon
Hannover one way or the other, and thus we cannot make any judgements,
one way or the other, based upon the document?
We can make the judgement that the Duke of Cumberland did not renounce
his Hannover claim by this instrument.
Since he is not known to have produce any other renunciation, that is
not an uninteresting conclusion.
True, in so far as the following. The conclusion will have to be based
on the Duke not having issued any other document. Not on the basis of
the document presented document here.
Does anyone know how the Duke's claim to Hannover manifested itself
between 1913 and 1918?
I don't see what it can proove: a claim does not disapear simply
because it is not manifested.
I simpy asked the question as to how the claim manifested itself.
Perhaps the claim never manifested itself during the period in
question, hence the defensive reaction?
I have nothing to defend here (if someone can produce any evidence that
the Hanover prince renounced their right, no problem for me: then we
Presumably there has to be a 'Hanover prince' in the first place,
before we can look at renunciation. If nobody is claiming to be a
Hanovarian prince, using such a title, or manifesting a claim, may be
there is nothing to renounce?
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I simply made a general
remark. As I understand it, the question has no relation with the
problem discuss here (I am not sure there is a problem anyway: there is
no evidence at all that the Hanoverians renounced their right, so there
is no need to prove they did not renounce it).
Sorry, but I do not understand what this paragraph actually says.
Post by p***@hotmail.com
I do not think for that that the question is uninteresting: how can
someone manifest a claim when he has to deal with the State who
contradict his claim?
As far as I can see, there is nothing peculiar to Cumberland on that
score. It is a situation faced by nearly every pretender.

Christopher Buyers
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-17 06:39:55 UTC
Permalink
..
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Francois R. Velde
The text of the renunciation can be found in the Protokolle über die
Verhandlungen des Bundesrats des Deutschen Reichs. 1913. Protokoll der
neunundzwanzigsten Sitzung, Anlage (p. 829). I have added it to my web page
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGBraunschweig.htm#Regency
As explained earlier, the renunciation is personal, and concerns only
the duchy of Brunswick, not the Hanoverian claim.
1) Is it usual for a ruler of two separate states to renounce both in
the same document? One presumes that such a documents would be
addressed to or meant for the government of the state being renounced,
and thus unlikely to be the same government for both.
2) Does HRH style himself King, Crown Prince, or Prince of Hannover or
refer to himself in any Hannovarian capacity?
Mr. Velde gives transcriptions (minor errors, could be corrected by any
little German), translations, of the Hannoverian quality was totally
ignore. The prince, who renounced acted mainly as English prince (at
least he considered to be such a prince, for example certainly by
Austria, where he resided as Cumberland)
e***@yahoo.fr
2006-06-17 10:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
Mr. Velde gives transcriptions (minor errors, could be corrected by any
little German), translations, of the Hannoverian quality was totally
ignore.
kindly read: Hannoverian qulity was totally ignored.
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-17 11:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
..
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
Post by Francois R. Velde
The text of the renunciation can be found in the Protokolle über die
Verhandlungen des Bundesrats des Deutschen Reichs. 1913. Protokoll der
neunundzwanzigsten Sitzung, Anlage (p. 829). I have added it to my web page
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/HGBraunschweig.htm#Regency
As explained earlier, the renunciation is personal, and concerns only
the duchy of Brunswick, not the Hanoverian claim.
1) Is it usual for a ruler of two separate states to renounce both in
the same document? One presumes that such a documents would be
addressed to or meant for the government of the state being renounced,
and thus unlikely to be the same government for both.
2) Does HRH style himself King, Crown Prince, or Prince of Hannover or
refer to himself in any Hannovarian capacity?
Mr. Velde gives transcriptions (minor errors, could be corrected by any
little German), translations, of the Hannoverian quality was totally
ignore. The prince, who renounced acted mainly as English prince (at
least he considered to be such a prince, for example certainly by
Austria, where he resided as Cumberland)
Were the Hannovarian titles never used *in Austria*?

What about other members of the family, sons and daughters of the Duke
of Cumberland.

Christopher Buyers
s***@hotmail.co.uk
2006-06-11 07:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Francois R. Velde
Post by e***@yahoo.fr
..
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
You can now try to "refine" your lie by adjusting it to apply to
Hannover, but again, you are free to search the web and discover half a
dozen references to Cumberland renouncing Brunswick and Hannover. Some
date the renunciation on the 23rd of October 1917, another 24th of
October 1917, and others the 27th of October. Again, none of them have
been written by me or owe anything whatever to my input.
it would be fine if the authors of the three (sic) renunciations would
refine their statements, by stating renounced .. (place) .. (date).
Furthermore it must be proven those, who renonced actually were at this
place, etc. Some places has to look like (example): Berlin (embassy of
Switzerland, as caretaker of the state ..) ..
The duke of Cumberland ceded his rights to the duchy of Brunswick to his son on
October 24, 1913 (as described by his son in a letter to the imperial
chancellor, "seine Rechte auf die Regierung im Herzogtum Braunschweig auf mich
zu übertragen"). This cession was announced to the German Bundesrat by the
Brunswick delegate on Oct. 27, 1913 and a motion passed the same day allow the
duke's son to accede in Brunswick.
As far as I am aware, the letter from the son confirms that his father
had ceded him the "right to rule" the duchy of Brunswick. A reigning
sovereign can, for example, cede his right to rule to a regent,
lieutenant-general, or some such other stand-in.

To my understanding of language, that isn't quite the same as
"renouncing a claim" to the duchy of Brunswick.
Post by Francois R. Velde
As is well known, the duke of Cumberland never renounced the "Hanoverian claim"
(see, e.g., the memoirs of his daughter-in-law Viktoria Luise of Prussia).
Nevertheless, you said that I invented the renunciation.

You lied.

Christopher Buyers
Uncle Dickie
2006-06-20 12:44:49 UTC
Permalink
Guy what is the price of a kilo of mince ?

Uncle Dickie
Post by s***@hotmail.co.uk
" the original grantor of the title of Prince of
Battenberg, in this case, decided to replace that title with the title
of Count
of Hartenau. There is, Mr Buyers, a big difference that you may perhaps
be
capable of comprehending; that the Battenberg title was created by the
Grand
Duke of Hesse, and so as the source of the grant the Grand Duke could
amend it
in certain circumstances - these circumstances were when Prince
Alexander
decided he wished to give up the use of the title and be granted a
lesser one
for himself and his issue, the latter being effectively deprived of the
Battenberg title with which that of Hartenau was substituted. Neither
Queen
Victoria nor her successors played any part in this decision, but one
may be
certain that they respected it. And naturally "Kaiser Bill" accepted
the right
of his fellow sovereign to amend the grant of a title to a member of
his own
family, without having to approve or disapprove it"
And your source, reference or citation, for the official Grand Duchy of
Hesse document which specifies this "replacement" of titles is?
Christopher Buyers
Loading...