|
Foreign Titles in the UK
21 Jun 2006 11:38:11 -0700
alt.talk.royalty
previous
Joseph McMillan...
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
Actually the question over whether the British Sovereign could create someone a
life peer was answered in the decisive negative, before the reign of the present
sovereign and the Peerage Act which introduced Life Peers.
Al...
|
Actually I thought the dispute was only over life peers being able to
vote in parliament not a dispute that life peers could be created.
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
Sit. Yes, in a sense that is true; but the sovereign already had a convenient
way of creating titles without an automatic seat, by doing so in the Peerage of
Al...
|
True but there is a significant difference between a life title without
seat and a hereditary title without seat.
|
Ireland (they could of coruse vote for a representative peer).
What upset the peerage, and led to the whole argument, was what was seen as a
bad precedent, the creation of a life title. An earlier creation of a life
title, that of Duchess of Dudley by Charles I, never came before the Cttee of
Privileges because there was no question of a woman sitting anyway (indeed there
still remains a question over the details of this creation and there is no
record of the having received the great seal). The temporary solution which
Al...
|
Well the Dudley case aside I thought there were a number of other
mistresses over several centuries that had life titles created in their
favour. Are you disputing that any of these creations were for life?
Are all the LP (where they exist) perfectly regular with the standard
remainder? What about the Duchess of Portsmouth, Countess of
Yarmouth or the closest to the timeframe Wensleydale Peerage Case the
Duchess of Inverness?
|
allowed for the creation of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary was considered a
compromise.
|
Francois R. Velde...
|
"Except to the extent authorised by the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 or the
Life Peerages Act 1958, a limitation by letters patent of the dignity [peerage]
for the life of the patentee is invalid." (Halsbury's Law of England, vol 35 par
924).
Since "peerage may be defined as a dignity to which is attached the right to a
summons by name to sit and vote in Parliament" except as limited by statute
(ibid., par 902), the decision in the Wensleydale Peerage Case that the letters
patent could not entitle the grantee to sit in Parliament imply necessarily that
the letters patent did not validly grant a peerage.
See also ibid par 926: "Recourse to an Act of Parliament must be had when the
desired limitations of the dignity are such as cannot be validly granted by
letters patent".
Thus the sovereign's power to create honors is limited to some extent.
|
|
|
|
Further to the question of the use of foreign titles by British
subjects (and whether these titles emanate from the British or foreign
crown), I ran across the following guidance on this subject provided to
case workers of the Home Office's Immigration and Nationality
Directorate, at
CJ Buyers...
mjcar...
|
Joseph
A very interesting document, thanks.
A couple of comments:
The annex as published by the Home Office contains inaccuracies. For
instance, it is difficult to see how in 1932 George V could have
revoked a Royal Warrant relating to the Lord Rothschild's Austrian
title that was dated 1938.
CJ Buyers...
|
Most probably the date is either 1928 or 1918. Lionel Walter died
unmarried 27th August 1937, so 1938 is very unlikely.
|
I wonder why the Duke of Portugal's Portuguese comital title was the
subject of a Royal Warrant but none of his other foreign titles appears
George Lucki...
LughaidhN...
|
There appears to be some genealogical information on the family here:
Oh, my goodness!!
|
|
Good observation. No it wasn't common practice at all. My curiosity has been
piqued by this reference.
I've made a brief search of my references (I'll have more time this evening)
and I can't find mention of that ennoblement or any matriculation for any
family like that in Samogitia. I also checked out von Klingspor but haven't
had a chance to look at Royal Prussia. Generally the Polish King would have
to receive parliamentary permission to confer a title and there is no
indication of this having happened. The same held true for matriculations of
foreign nobility and any titles. I know one of the Vasa Kings of Poland
sometimes conferred 'Swedish' nobility as pretenders to the Swedish throne
and I haven't looked at that yet either.
In any case this is for me, at this point, something I would like to find
out more about and I'm wondering if the Samogitian document is available in
some way. If I can find out more I'll return to this thread.
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
Could this have been a way for the King to avoid having to obtain authorisation
from the Polish parliament?
|
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
So would it seem that the British Sovereign has granted licenses for titles that
never existed?
George Lucki...
|
Yes, it would seem so.
So, in a roundabout and curious way maybe Chris Buyers was correct (in these
cases only) when he says that the British King grants 'foreign titles' as
the fount of honour of all titles for British subjects by virtue of the
issuance of a Royal Licence. If the original foreign title did not exist
according to the laws of the state that was purported to create it then I
guess the British King in fact created a new 'foreign title' recognized only
in Britain.
George Lucki
LughaidhN...
|
And to carry it a step further, George, can it be construed that titles
which never existed in the first place but have been "recognized" in
the armorial diplomas of, for example, the Chief Herald of Ireland,
have actually been created by the Republic of Ireland contrary to its
constitution?.
|
|
The list you have given is very interesting; some of these titles are known to
exist and are listed today in the standard reference sources for those
countries, even though permisson was not given to bear and use them, others not.
I am particularly surprised at the alleged grant by the Prince of Monaco!
|
George Lucki
LughaidhN...
|
Many thanks, George. I shall look forward to your further postings with
regard to this matter.
|
|
to have been?
Of those whose rights were preserved in 1932, at least Lord Cottesloe
(b 1927) and Lady Brydgette van de Wyck (nee Bentinck, 1916), Sophie,
Countess Gaetani dell'Aquila d'Aragona (nee Bentinck, 1924) and
Isabellle, Countess zu Ortenburg (nee Bentinck, 1925) are still living.
I am also very jealous of Baron de Hochpied's former status as a
"Magnet of Hungary"!
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
And the title of Count de Salis, whose ancestor received by royal license the
right to use the title for himslef and his heirs and successors, is sitll being
used today in all relevant legal documents. There are other instances of British
subjects with foreign titles having them used in the London gazette and in
invitations issued by the Queen, to functions at Buckingham Palace.
Bill Kautt...
|
Although never gazetted and not official, the Cabinet, Chief Secretary
for Ireland, the RIC and the British army all referred to George Noble
Plunkett using his Papal title of Count Plunkett. Likewise, Constance
Francois R. Velde...
|
His application for a royal licence was turned down in 1911 (National
Archives, HO 45/10665/216252), on the standard grounds that the Pope was
not a sovereign.
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
Although Edward VII granted "private permission" for Lord Ashburnham to wear the
insignia of the Order of Pius IX in the "presence of the King and the Pope".
CJ Buyers...
|
... and that practice ended, probably because it had no validity in law.
|
Francois R. Velde...
|
The king totally approved of the stated position: he said himself that the duke
of Cumberland or king Manoel II (by then deposed) might as well be granting titles.
Even when the Lateran Treaty made this position untenable, it was the Foreign Office's
intention to grant only "restricted permission" for papal decorations, i.e., the
George Lucki...
|
Sorry. Actually, my tongue was firmly in cheek. It was a perhaps too subtle
jab at Chris Buyers' faulty argument.
No, if the King was misled or mistaken in the existence of the title for
which the Royal License was given then in my mind the licence is without
value. By analogy if permission was given to wear the French Legion of
Honour to someone who had never been awarded it, that person was still never
a recipient of that order. Permission to wear can't confer a foreign order
and permission to use a title can't create it.
With Ireland - clearly the Chief Herald has no authority to create titles
and self-styled titles that were purported to be recognized remaind purely
CJ Buyers...
|
Not just in this, but in virtually every case.
George Lucki...
|
Christopher, I should fess up. My statement was a tongue in cheek one,
CJ Buyers...
|
I do not speak Polish, so have no idea what "fess up" means. Please do
try to use English.
|
pointing out what I think is teh faultiness of your argument. Your following
points rrelative to licences themselves cause me far less difficulty. Not
everything title, style or rank a person was able to use in their homeland
might be accepted or it might even be the case that King allowed the use of
a title that on the face of it might appear as somewhat high or lower than a
direct literal translation.
CJ Buyers...
|
Whatever. Either way, all this simply recognises the fact that whatever
prevailed in the original grant, in the original political enitity,
that existed at the time of the original creation, is incapable of
applying.
|
|
1) The "foreign" rules may be completely disregarded. Examples include,
H.H. Princess Edward of Saxe-Weimar and H.S.H. Princess Victor of
Hohenlohe.
George Lucki...
|
I agree here that the foreign rules might be disregarded. It is difficult to
equate clearly even homonymous ranks from different lands. Qualiifications
CJ Buyers...
|
Difficult? Sometimes virtually impossible. Simply look at the Aga Khan,
the Rajah Muda of Sarawak, or Maharaja Duleep Singh.
|
may or may not be accepted, etc.
CJ Buyers...
|
Indeed, not. So why not anything else?
|
|
2) The titles granted are whatever the British sovereign decides it
should be. Distinct foreign ranks such as Prinz or Furst, dovetailed
into a single rank and title of "Prince". Graf, of whatever degree or
precedence, granted as a single rank of "Count". Freiheer or Baron,
deemed "Baron".
3) Whatever the styles followed by foreign courts completely
disregarded. Excellency, Illustrious, Wellborn, and so on, given no
place whatever.
And last but not least,
4) Changes in the law of the foreign country where the title may have
originated, completely disregarded. A country becoming a republic,
abolishing the nobility in that state or banning the use of titles,
having no effect whatever on the British subject.
George Lucki...
|
Agreed on this point as well, except that it would have effect in the
country that had banned the use of the title.
CJ Buyers...
|
How can it have effect exactly? A British subject arrives in Austria
with his "foreign title" in his passport. The Austrian authorities
accept him into their country on that passport. What exactly are they
banning and when?
Christopher Buyers
|
George Lucki
|
|
self-styled. The Irish heraldic office only hurt its own reputation by
issuing such diplomas.
George Lucki
|
decorations would only be allowed to be worn on purely Roman Catholic occasions,
not at Courts or Levees. I don't know what the actual practice has turned out to be.
|
(Gary Holtzman) garyholtzman...
|
Does the UK still take the position that the Pope is not a sovereign? Or, for
that matter, does the UK care anymore whether the granteur of a title is a
sovereign?
Francois R. Velde...
|
That changed with the Lateran treaty. In fact, the Lateran treaty meant that
the Home Office could not use the "pope-not-sovereign" excuse to turn down
applications for Royal Licences for papal titles. This prompted the HO to
suggest putting an end to the whole business of Royal Licences altogether,
a suggestion that found favor with George V; hence the warrant of 1932 which
was brought up by Joseph MacMillan a few weeks ago in this thread.
More on this shortly.
|
|
|
|
Markievicz was always 'the Countess Markeivicz' in the records of those
offices--I haven't pulled her court-martial record, so I can't say if
CJ Buyers...
|
As far as I can see, this specifically deals with *peerages*, not
titles.
Francois R. Velde...
|
A peerage is a title.
CJ Buyers...
|
Velde logic as usual.
An Archbishopric of England is a peerage, so please feel free to make
all the assumptions you want about the peerage, based on the method of
appoinment of Archbishops.
George Lucki...
|
His brother later King John Casimir as a pretender to the Swedish throne
used the mechanism of 'Swedish ennoblements' to reward for example personal
secretaries that accompanied him in exile during the Swedish invasion of
Poland, and these he did not need bring to the Polish parlaiment, which
would not have been possible in any case at that time. They were nonetheless
later ratified (with some apparent reluctance). Without this ratification
they would not have been recognized in Poland, and certainly Sweden would
not have recognized them either.
In this case we have a title for which there seems to be no record of the
grant of the baronial title, nor any indication that thuis family
subsequently appears in the ranks of the Polish nobility bearing this title.
Wherever else this family may have come to some prominence - in
Poland/Lithuania they were apparently completely obscure.
Francois R. Velde...
|
This is what I can quickly trace:
Charles S. de Rutzen (d. 1873)
m. 1822 Mary Dorothea Philips (d. 1860), daughter and heiress of Nathaniel Philips of Slebech Park, Pembr.
Francois R. Velde...
|
This page:
lists the family archives. According to the description,
"Charles Frederick (1795-1874), Baron de Rutzen of Germany, was born at Niederbattan
(perhaps Niederbayern, Bavaria). He met Mary Dorothea Phillips (1797-1860), the daughter
and heiress of Nathaniel Phillips of Slebech, Pembrokeshire, in Rome, Italy, in 1821.
They were married in 1822, and became Lords of the Manors of Slebech, Minwear, Newton,
Narberth and Robeston Wathen, and of the Manors or Reeveship of Lampeter Velfrey and
Llanddewi Velfrey."
Two further remarks, related to the foreign titles question:
* the coat of arms linked upthread shows supporters, to which the "baron"
was not entitled under the English law of arms.
* "baron de Rutzen" (so styled) was presented to HM by the Russian ambassador
on May 11, 1836 (Court Circular of the following day; in an article of
July 11, 1836 he is described as "Russian by birth").
* the "baron de Rutzen" (so styled in the Time, quoting the London Gazette)
was sheriff of Pembrokeshire in 1856.
* His son, also sheriff, was styled "Frederick Leopold Sapieha Manteuffel de
Batzen (commonly called Baron Frederick de Rutzen)" in 1870 and 1871 (when
his father was alive). His other son Rudolph was also sheriff, styled simply
"baron de Rutzen" by the Gazette (as quoted in the Times) in 1891, 1892, 1894 and
1895.
* the first member of the family is styled "baron de Rutzen" in various lawsuits
(Baron de Rutzen and Wife v. Farr in 1838, bishop of St David v. baron de Rutzen
in 1861).
There is substantial evidence that this title was in use in Britain long before the
Royal license and authority of 1918.
|
Frederick Leopold Sapieha Manteuffel de Rutzen, baron de Rutzen (1825-90)
George Lucki...
|
Not at all. The existence of a titled family of this name is news to
me. Kaszprzycki (quoting Uruski) makes mention of a member of the von
Rutzen family receiving confirmation of nobility in 1842; however,
whilst I can find references to an untitled family named
Rützen-Kosickau, I can find no record of a baronial title.
This family may well be part of the Baltic Nobility (and the person in
question might have been a so-called Baltic baron) but I do not have
access to the Baltic Nobility rolls (Matrikel der Einzelritterschaften
und der Geschlechtsregister) to check; I have, however, encountered,
more than one member of the Baltic Nobility who claimed a title to
which he had no right.
Consequently it remains a very real possibility that this title simply
does not exist. If this is indeed the case it would not be the first
example of foreign recognition of a non-existent Polish title. Among
the more notable examples are the recognition in the 1920s, by a
Spanish Cronista, of the right to an existing Polish princely title by
an untitled family of the same surname and the recognition in the
1950s, by the College of Arms, of an alleged right to the
(non-existent) Piast title of "Count".
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
But the recognition by a Cronista had no effect because it was beyond his
authority, this not including any right or jursidictrion over titles - their use
in a document does not given them any recognition in Spanish law.
The grant of a royal license is a very different matter. Mr Buyers in this
context made the good point that even the abolition of suppression of titles in
the jurisdction where the title was originally granted will have no effect on
the right of the royal license holder to its use in the UK. Whether the Crown
would revoke a license upon discovering the original claim to the title was
false is another matter.
|
Rafal Heydel-Mankoo
|
George Lucki...
|
RHM>Not at all. The existence of a titled family of this name is news to
me. Kaszprzycki (quoting Uruski) makes mention of a member of the von
Rutzen family receiving confirmation of nobility in 1842; however,
whilst I can find references to an untitled family named
Rützen-Kosickau, I can find no record of a baronial title.
RHM>This family may well be part of the Baltic Nobility (and the person in
question might have been a so-called Baltic baron) but I do not have
access to the Baltic Nobility rolls (Matrikel der Einzelritterschaften
und der Geschlechtsregister) to check; I have, however, encountered,
more than one member of the Baltic Nobility who claimed a title to
which he had no right.
GL> About 1 in 3 families of the Baltic Nobility are titled. A huge number.
There are about as many titled families there as in the whole of
Poland/Lithuania. With the incorporation fo Livonia and Courland into the
Commonwealth the courtesy use of former baronial or comital titles by these
families continued as an exception to the legal rejection of most titles. So
many prominent Baltic families appeared in Polish records with their
original titles. It does not appear that this von Rutzen family made much of
a mark in Poland.
RHM> Consequently it remains a very real possibility that this title simply
does not exist. If this is indeed the case it would not be the first
example of foreign recognition of a non-existent Polish title.
GL > Agreed.
George Lucki
|
Rudolph William Henry Erard (1828-Apr 19, 1915), unm.
Albert de Rutzen, (1831-1913), kn. Dec 1901, Metropolitan Police Magistrate
m. 1872 Horatia Augusta Stepney Gulston (d. 1924)
Alan Frederick James kia 7 Aug 1916 age 40
m. 1908 Eleanor Etna Audley Thursby-Pelham (d. 1945)
Major Baron John Frederick Foley de Rutzen kia Oct 1944
m. 1932 Sheila Victoria Katrin Philipps (b. 1912)
Victoria Ann Elizabeth Gwynne (1933-1976)
~1957 Sir Francis John Vernon Hereward Dashwood (b. 1925)
Edward John Francis, b 25 Sept 1964
Emily Jane, b 1958
Georgina Helen, b 1960
Caroline Sarah, b 1962
Gwendoline Mary (d. ?), m. 1911 Reginald E. Maffett
Emmelina Louisa (d. 1939) m. 1913 Sir Frank Newnes
Violet Frances (d. 1966), m. 1903 to Colonel Sir Randle Mainwaring (d. 1944)
There is also a Johann Friedrich Adalbert Baron Rutzen (1864-1941) in Eastern Prussia.
A coat of arms can be seen here:
the dexter supporter appears to be a Teutonic knight. The arms impale those of Philips.
The other daughter of Nathaniel Philips married in 1819 Viscount Anson, later earl of Lichfield.
|
George Lucki
|
|
Any assertion about all titles ought to be valid for peerages,
because peerages are titles. If it is not valid for peerages, it is
not valid for all titles (though it may be valid for some).
|
There are titles, including those that involve that of Lord or Lady,
that are clearly not peerages.
|
CJ Buyers...
|
siblings of the parent of a successor to a title, which then allows
them to use courtecy titles. No Act of Parliament is required nor a
seat in Parliament is at issue.
|
CJ Buyers...
|
Thereafter, they and their wives are entitled Lord and Lady "whatever
designation they choose", not just during their occupation of the
bench, but for life.
Consequently, it should be plain that the conferral of *titles* for
life on certain individuals, including various ladies in earlier times,
though they may not necessarily be defined as peerages, are not
necessarily invalid.
As a general rule, one ought to be very careful of mistaking the
necessarily stricter requirements and rules for membership of the
legislature, with those for titular honours in general.
Francois R. Velde...
|
As a general rule, one ought to be very careful in not making
unqualified assertions about a whole class (such as "The British
sovereign is at perfect liberty to create whatever restrictions he
feels he should impose on a title") if one did not intend it to
apply to a subset of the class (such as the subset of titles
known as peerages). This is especially true when the whole
paragraph uses only examples taken from the subset.
|
|
she was called that in 1916. I just find it interesting that there was
some minor 'recognition' (although not official) of a foreign title,
otherwise why not call him Mr Plunkett?
Bill
|
|
|
ew=3DBinary>:
*****
Titles (Foreign)
General guidance
1=2E George V took the view that the use in this country of foreign
titles of nobility should in due course be discontinued and, in 1932,
he revoked the Royal Warrants listed in the fourth column of the
attached Annex which had allowed the use of the foreign dignitaries and
titles set out in the second and third columns of the Annex. The
current holder, his son and grandson where named could continue to use
the title for his own lifetime.
2=2E Apart from these exceptions official recognition is not given to the
use of foreign titles by British citizens and care should be taken not
to address any British citizen (whether by naturalisation or otherwise)
by such a title.
CJ Buyers...
|
Not quite correct, given the numerous examples in the Court Circular,
Army Lists, official letters, and the latest honours lists testify.
However, I suppose the strictly legal position would be that they
aren't "foreign" titles, but those allowed by the British sovereign
that may be of foreign origin. How foreign were the titles borne by
Princess Edward of Saxe Weimar or Princess Victor of Hohenlohe?
|
Foreign titles held by applicants for naturalisation
3=2E While there is nothing to prevent a British citizen in the United
Kingdom from using a foreign title for private purposes, such a title
cannot be officially recognised. When an application is received from a
person who appears to hold a foreign title, the caseworker should:
=B7 seek confirmation of its authenticity from the Honours Department
of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and
=B7 write, as below, addressing him by his title, to warn him that it
will not receive official recognition
"The Secretary of State thinks it right to point out that if you become
a British citizen
your foreign title will not receive official recognition in this
country and that in accordance with the established practice it will be
omitted from the certificate. I am to request that you will
specifically acknowledge your acceptance of this position."
4=2E Enquiries should not be put in hand until the applicant has
acknowledged his acceptance of the position.
5=2E Similarly, if an alien who uses a foreign title enquires about
becoming naturalised and appears to be residentially qualified, the
answer to his enquiry should include a warning about the use of his
title if naturalisation is granted and a request for a letter
confirming that he accepts the position.
*****
Four points seem relevant to previous discussion of this general
question:
- As in the WWI actions previously discussed, the phraseology indicates
that it is the *use* of the title rather than the possession of it that
is the point at issue.
CJ Buyers...
|
Hardly surprising, since the quoted text also includes the phrase "if
an alien who uses a foreign title". Nothing here explains or deals with
the legal status of possession one way or the other. That isn't the
purpose. It simply explains the procedures to be used by naturalisation
offices, with a little background here and there.
|
- Despite the royal revocation of the previous royal warrants
recognizing foreign titles, "there is nothing to prevent a British
citizen in the United Kingdom from using a foreign title for private
purposes."
CJ Buyers...
|
Indeed, "private purposes". No more, no less, than anyone can call
himself the Emperor of China or the "Poobah of Upper
Nowhere-by-Middle-stump".
|
- There is a recurring use of the phrase "in the United Kingdom," which
underlines that the use and enjoyment of titles by British citizens
outside the UK is a completely separate matter.
CJ Buyers...
|
Hardly surprising, given that the quotations come from a "Home Office"
website.
|
- When a foreign nobleman is naturalized in the UK, he is not required
to renounce his title or submit it for British royal approval; he must
simply acknowledge that it will not receive official recognition.
CJ Buyers...
|
One isn't required to renounce that which isn't recognised. One simply
has to accept what happens as a price of becoming a British citizen.
CJ Buyers...
|
British law doesn't allege anything over foreign law. As one has said,
again and again, it is over the British subject, that it has power
over.
|
|
Joseph McMillan
|
|
