User talk:68.231.164.27

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Succession

Duchess of Saxony, yes or no? This should be a title for the pre-Windsors, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Victoria was a Duchess in Saxony. All British royals descended from Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, including Elizabeth II but excluding her descendants, would've also been Dukes and Duchesses in Saxony if George V hadn't renounced all German titles for himself and his descandants. If The Duke of Edinburgh hadn't renounced his princely titles, Elizabeth II and her male-line descendants would've also been Princes of Greece and Denmark. Surtsicna (talk) 08:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

So why doesn't Wikipedia mention this in their styles, only casually glance over the issue in relation to WWI? Surely, some standardization is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Victoria never used the titles of Duchess in Saxony and Princess of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, because she acquired them when she was already Queen of the United Kingdom. She used her highest, monarchical title instead of courtesy titles acquired by marriage. Her children rarely (if ever) used the titles of Duke in Saxony and Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha because their British royal titles ranked higher than their German ducal titles. We can mention that they held those titles, but they surely didn't use them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wanting to see all titles, not just regnant, but even the honorary. HM the Queen today has all of these articles about her wonderful titles and positions, but you'd think we'd see this title included for the Albertine period of the BRF, what with the inclusion of all the French titles for the government back in the day, as they are listed on Wikipedia. I myself know much less about the German titles and situation, the whole present establishment descended from Sophia of Hanover. It would help me and others less familiar with this brand of the modern Monarchy. I know the title is in her article but the circumstances of the German dynasties with respect to their Continental holdings, are all rather hazy. I know much more about the French dynasties and their Continental connections with England, but maybe it's just not that interesting in this case. I don't know why Victoria inherited when there was a legitimate male heir to the throne. This is bewildering. The same thing happened to the Windsors, with Elizabeth instead of some male Windsor. It's like Parliament is increasing the Royal turnover rate for dynasties, so none of them are dyed in the wool elements of the establishment. Consequently, it is rather tiring to cultivate sympathy for nobodies on the throne, although I'm a hopeful monarchist.

There are some articles which list all titles of a deceased British royal - List of titles and honours of Mary of Teck for example. Why did Victoria succeed? Victoria succeeded because her father was the eldest of the younger brothers of William IV and William IV had no children at all. Since Victoria's father was dead and she was his only child, she was the representative of him and his line. Ernest Augustus of Hanover was younger than Victoria's father and so Victoria was "older" than him in the eyes of cognatic primogeniture. Since the throne of Hanover was restricted to men only (just like the French throne), Ernest Augustus succeeded there as William IV's closest male relative. In the United Kingdom, however, women can succeed if they have no brothers - this has been a rule since the 12th century. Victoria and Elizabeth had no brothers and therefore they were both rightful heirs to the throne. Surtsicna (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The male line was still in existence and still is today. It's quite strange to hear tabloid reports of the present heir to Hanover in Germany, instead of acknowledge that a male heir is desired to prolong a dynastic hold on the throne. It's not like the Tudors here, in this situation. What becomes of all the male Hanoverians and Saxons? This is just Parliament's stranglehold on the Monarchy and they've been doing it since they booted Jamie from the Throne, so there is no intention of a change any time soon? Is there an actual stipulation or clause written somewhere, that forces each dynasty to do this, a contract of Constitutional Monarchy? The Throne is divorced from reproductive pass/fail, but is wholly arbitrary? It couldn't go either way, could it? I want to know if this is as official as the ban on Roman Catholicism.

Yes, but cognatic primogeniture doesn't care about the strict male line. Agnatic primogeniture does. The UK follows and has always followed (just like it's predecessors followed) cognatic primogeniture: if a person has no sons, then that person is to be succeeded by the eldest daughter. The parliament has not plotted against the monarchy or whatever you're trying to say and I hope you won't edit the article to reflect your opinion. Let's continue this discussion here please. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

All right then, you want to say Parliament had nothing to do with forcing Henry Tudor onto the nation by marrying Elizabeth of York, even though there were viable claimants in both Houses of Lancaster and York that were of the Plantagenet dynasty? You're saying Parliament didn't interfere and demolish the Plantagenets by skillful use of the Tudors? I'm not necessarily addressing the Commons on this issue of royal right, but the Lords want concessions out of the Crown and will only get it for so long as they dictate the succession. What I'm getting at, is that England very clearly was an agnatic primogeniture succession country until the "solution" to the Wars of the Roses. I could not imagine any dynasty handing over their power so easily, unless the parliamentary establishment put handicaps on the succession. There is no law of the land that could prevent agnatic succession in the UK before the Williamites redefined the Monarchy and the natural desire of a Royal Family is to prolong their own kind for as long as God allows.

Oh, I hate conspiracy theories so much. England has not practiced agnatic primogeniture since the Norman conquest. You forgot that Matilda was designated heir of Henry I and that both Stephen and Henry II based their rights on their mother's succession rights. The parliament doesn't dictate succession, nor does the Cortes in Spain (and Spain practices and has always practised cognatic primogeniture). The throne is not held by a dynasty, it's held by the rightful heir. Henry VII was not forced to marry Elizabeth of York. He was monarch by the right of conquest and his marriage to Elizabeth simply strenghten his children's succession rights. The parliament has nothing to do with succession to the Crown or a peerage title. Surtsicna (talk) 10:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

So, you are telling me that dynasties willingly abdicate their power to other people? That's not the English history I know. Monarchs wouldn't even give in to their own blood, much less one not in their family! Whig history tends to besmirch those who refuse to give up their power to new people they could control, but it is telling that Parliament owes the Magna Carta to the French and yet, Parliamentarians like to rewrite our history to make it seem like the Dutch are the fountainhead of freedom, since William of Orange and the Bill of Rights. Did you notice how both the Catholic and Protestant English hated the Stuarts? The Catholics tried to blow up the King and replace him with his daughter, Princess Elizabeth, who would be married to somebody they liked better, while the Protestants themselves used the very same daughter to promote Sophia of Hanover. The via media Anglicans were willing to use a Carolean descendent like Mary or Anne, so long as they were married to a husband they approved of. You are obviously reading some other country's tradition.

---