|
The Queen still Duchess of Edinburgh?
16 Aug 2006 02:13:16 -0700
alt.talk.royalty
previous
chas8391...
|
I was wondering if the Queen is still Duchess of Edinburgh? And is
Princess Anne still Princess Anne of Edinburgh? I would think Princes
Charles, Andrew and Edward, being peers, would no longer be Princes of
Edinburgh.
Breton...
|
The Queen's former title as Duchess of Edinburgh merged with the Crown
upon her accession. Prince Charles and Princess Anne were styled as HRH
pierre_aronax...
|
It can not have merged with the crown since she never was Duchess of
Edinburgh in her own right.
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
Breton...
|
You are correct. I should have said that the title fell into disuse.
Having acquired the title of Duke of Normandy, I should imagine that
she had no further use for "Edinburgh".
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
Francois R. Velde...
|
Sovereigns of the large island situated north of Cherbourg have neither
been nor claimed to be dukes of Normandy since 1259.
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
Frank R.A.J. Maloney...
|
I may be wrong, but I think Breton was yanking somebody's chain, or taking
the mickey out, as residents of that anonymous island are sometimes wont to
Breton...
|
I was "extracting the michael", but, to your substantive point, the
CJ Buyers...
present Sovereign of the large island north of Cherbourg indicates in
her web site that all such Sovereigns have been, and the current one
is, Duke of Normandy. In another thread there was much discussion of
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
|
As you have been explained, the present Sovereign of that island, or
rather those who speak for her on her website, who are humans, are
simply wrong on that point.
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
CJ Buyers...
|
this point (the taking the mick thing), but no one is able to find any
dependable authority on the point either way.
Francois R. Velde...
|
The present sovereign indicates no such thing; an anonymous employee
of a website run in her name has made the mistake you mention. The
present sovereign's styles and titles are well known. They do not
include the title in question, nor have those of her predecessors for
over 700 years. At the least, as anyone who is familiar with the
concept of merging titles can understand, the kings of England could
not have been claiming the title of duke of Normandy while they claimed
that of king of France (officially from 1340 to 1801).
CJ Buyers...
|
Those familiar with the merging of titles are also familiar with the
duchy of Lancaster. They are also familiar with the concept of holding
a duchy without necessarily using the title associated with it on a
continuous basis.
pierre_aronax...
|
Of course, you know the non-merging of the Duchy of Lancaster kneened a
specific act of the sovereign? No such act from the purpotred English
claimants to the French crown for a Duchy of Normandy they had
renounced anyway and ceased to include in their style some 80 years
before they discovered they were "king of France".
And such thing is unknown for a French fief (although it could have
happened in the case of Brittany if the specific provision taken for
the marriage of the Duchess Anne had happlied).
|
|
There is no "dependable authority" to prove a negative. There is no
pierre_aronax...
symmetry between the two positions. It is not a matter of no dependable
authority "either way". It is up to those who positively claim a fact to
provide evidence. Please cite some official document where a sovereign
pierre_aronax...
of England/Great Britain/United Kingdom since 1259 uses the style of "duke
of Normandy" or claims to be such. Until then, this "duke of Normandy"
business remains a myth.
|
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
|
The fact that the title "duke of Normandy" was relinquished from the
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
style of the English sovereign after a treaty by which he had renounced
in 1259 the duchy of Normandy, and the fact that none of his successors
had ever use that title in any kind of official document (and,
CJ Buyers...
CJ Buyers...
moreover, the fact that the said successors had claimed during more
pierre_aronax...
than four centuries a royal title which was incompatible with the title
of Duke of Normandy) seem sufficient evidences that the English
sovereigns did never claim that title since 1259: I don't see what
other kind of evidence of a negative anyone can want.
CJ Buyers...
|
Wrong. The channel islands were excluded from that treaty, so the
effects of it cannot apply.
pierre_aronax...
|
No relation to the fact that the English king did renounce the dignity
of Duke of Normandy, actualy removed that title from his style and
never used it again during some 750 years. Yhe Channel Islands ceased
to be part of the Duchy of Normandy, who was no more claimed by Henry
III heirs.
If an other title of "Duke of Normandy", distinct from the dignity
moving from the French Crown which had been hold by previous English
king, was introduced in the CI in 1259, that need to be documented:
CJ Buyers...
|
Huff and puff all you want but it is of no moment. H.M.'s website is
good enough for me.
pierre_aronax...
|
That's indeed your only argument but it is a flaw and comes from a
confusion in your mind: HM is an authority for questions who depend of
HM's authority (for example the style of her close relatives). But
History is not a part of the royal prerogative: HM's website is
powerless to change the past, and it can be (and had been) wrong on it.
In the present case, History is that "Duke of Normandy" was a French
peerage renounced by the man who claim to enjoyed it in 1259. He could
nevertheless had maintained it unjustly and without reason (as the
English kings indeed later did for their claim on the French crown),
but he did quite the contrary: he removed the title to which he had
recognized to have no more right from his style, and none of his
successors ever used it again during almost 750 years. Then Royal
Insight came.
CJ Buyers...
|
You simply do not understand the very basis of your own argument.
Indeed, there was a surrender, but the surrender was accomplished by
the Treaty of Paris, which excluded and has no application whatever to
=?iso-8859-1?B?SmFuIEL2aG1l?=...
|
OK. So when did the Channel Islands cease to be part of France? Or are
pierre_aronax...
|
I think on has to make a distinction between when they ceased de facto
to be part of France and when it was recognized by the French crown.
For what is of when it was recognized by the French crown, I don't
think it was by the treaty of Paris: all what the treaty of Paris can
have done is to implicitly recognize the *possession* of the islands by
Henry III (since they were not the islands to which he renounced,
although that was later contested by the French part). I have pointed
to evidences that, until the edge of the Hundred Years War, the French
King seems to have still considered it was moving from his crown.
After the French defeat at Poitiers, the treaty of Bretigny-Calais
tried to clear the situation: the deal was that the French crown would
renounce any sovereignty on the possessions of the English King in
France, which would be now hold in entire sovereignty. In exchange,
Edward III would have to renounce his claim to the French crown.
The English possessions were of course before all the Duchy of
Aquitaine (that's why, after the treaty, in 1362, Edward created is
firstborn son Prince of Aquitaine, since he no more considered
Aquitaine as part of "his" kingdom of France). I have not checked if he
made any mention of the Channel Islands, but that is quite possible.
However, the validity of the treaty is dubious since both parts did not
fulfil their obligations and later ignored it (the English King
maintained his claim to the French crown, and the French king continued
to consider Aquitaine as a French fief).
pierre_aronax...
|
In the treaty of Bretigny, the following words could probably apply to
the CI:
"Item est acorde que le Roy d'Angleterre et ses hoirs auront et
tendront toutes les isles, adjacens aus terres, paiis, et lieux avant
nommez, ensamble avecques toutes les autres illes, les quelles le dit
Roy d'Angleterre tient a present".
|
For what is of the de facto secession of the Islands from France, I
would say it was probably progressive and began in 1205, after the rest
of the Duchy was conquered by the French.
|
they still part of France today?
pierre_aronax...
|
Fortunately not, otherwise it would not be a so exotic place for French
tourists.
Pierre=20
Jim McQuiggin...
|
You are undoubtedly right in theory. Unfortunately, most people don't
read theory. Practice is frequently different. There is a statue of HM
King George VI in Niagara Falls that was dedicated at the time of his
visit there in 1939. The inscription reads, "King of Canada".
pierre_aronax...
|
I am not surprised: I have seen myself in France numerous inscriptions
commemorating visits of King and Queen of *England* [SIC!] during the
last century. Not to speak of the fact that Victoria Regina referred
herself to herself as such.
It all depends of what we are speaking about. Rather than theory, I am
speaking of right and of legality, which are also practical things in
their own way.
I do not claim that people in the Channel Island do not have toasts
were they call Elizabeth II "our Duke", and I do not claim that people
can not erect statues of her with en inscription reading "Duke of
Normandy", "Queen of the Scots" or "Lady Di's Mother-In-Law".
But a toast or an inscription on a statue are not official documents.
Period.
|
|
|
Jan B=F6hme
|
the Channel Islands. It dealt with the continental parts of the duchy
pierre_aronax...
|
That can not be a "continuing duchy" since there was no other Duchy
than the French one before 1204. If a new one emerged in 1259, it was a
new one, not a continuing one.
<=2E..>
|
pierre_aronax...
|
Just give an example of the use of the title of "duke of Normandy" you
Francois R. Velde...
|
You surely noticed that all the statements you quoted are mere assertions,
without any documentation.
Breton...
|
Yes, they are, but I would argue that the documentation consists of
CJ Buyers...
pierre_aronax...
various mentions of the Queen being described on her own Royal web site
as Duke of Normandy. I am sure that those who wrote those many
references must have some fairly strong reason for making the
allegation. So in the absention of anything one way or the other to
CJ Buyers...
refute them, I am assuming they must have some basis for being written
down.
pierre_aronax...
|
In breef: "that's true, because I read it on the Queen's website".
CJ Buyers...
|
Nope, because the people writing the website do so on the basis of
their own knowledge, access to information, and documents. This access
is likely to be greater than either yours or mine.
pierre_aronax...
|
Argumentum auctoritatis infinissimum est.
CJ Buyers...
|
Gagular simbun sari rajamun.
Christopher Buyers
|
|
|
|
|
I have asked them twice if they have any documentation for their assertions.
I never received a reply.
|
Francois R. Velde...
|
You have your standards, I have mine.
|
claim to have been made "from time to time" and you will save a lot of
energy.
Of course, the fact that the website claims without any reference that
it is a continuing status does not prove at all that it is.
|
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
|
I'm affraid there is a confusion here: in French "un diplomatist" is a
specialist of charts and historical documents, as opposed to "un
diplomate" (as an ambassador for example).
Whatever it can be in English, I didn't pretend to be one myself but I
suspected he would not consider a website as a diplomatic document.
|
pierre_aronax...
|
All those are not diplomatic documents: they have no juridical effects.
Beside, they can testify for today, not for the past.
|
pierre_aronax...
|
No, because it is perhaps your only source, but that is not for that a
document.
|
of Normandy.
France has no claim on what titles or assumptions H.M. makes in
relation to those islands that remained with the English Crown. No more
than President Putin on the use of the title Duke or Malakoff or Poland
on that of Prince of Warsaw.
When HM issues proclamations or formal documents in the U.K. she does
not mention anything specific about any of her other realms and
territories. She does not mention that she is Queen of Australia or
Queen of Canada. She does not say whether she is Defender of the Faith
in Canada or New Zealand, but not in Australia. When she issues
proclamations or formal documents in Australia, she does not indicate
anything whatever about where else she reigns. That does not mean the
Queen of Australia is not Queen of Jamaica or Canada, does it?
The position stated in HM's website seems to have been followed
throughout the last 750 years. Such things as the Royal toast and the
references made from time to time to the duchy of Normandy have been
pierre_aronax...
pierre_aronax...
|
Yes, that is true: on that I was wrong, the use of "Duchy of Normandy"
in that 16th century act is undisputable. However, that does not prove
at all the use of the title "Duke of Normandy" by any of the two queens
Elizabeth: "in our Duchy of Normandy" means nothing more than that, a
territorial description of the place concerned by the act.
The queen can say a place is situated "in our county of Kent" without
meaning by that she is the Countess of Kent.
|
going on long before the website was ever designed. H.M. has not
invented anything there. You may disagree with it, but that is quite a
different matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
say.
Sacha...
|
Indeed we do not. If we say anything of the sort it's 'extracting the
Michael'. ;-)
Frank R.A.J. Maloney...
|
Actually I was thinking of a vastly less polite or erudite version. Great
big smiley right back atcha!
|
|
|
|
|
Mindy...
|
HM The Queen is still the Duchess of Edinburgh since she is married to
The Duke of Edinburgh. The title didn't merge into the crown since, as
Pierre states, she isn't Duchess of Edinburgh in her own right. But,
of course, there is little reason for her to call herself Duchess of
Edinburgh.
|
|
The Prince Charles of Edinburgh and HRH The Princess Anne of Edinburgh
upon birth. (they got the HRH's thanks to letters patent issued about a
week before Charles' birth). When the King died and Elizabeth succeeded
to the Throne, they dropped the "of Edinburgh"; Prince Charles became
Duke of Cornwall automatically at that point. Princess Anne became HRH
The Princess Anne, likewise, until her title changed many years later
to HRH The Princess Royal. Prince Charles became PoW later on as well.
Gufone...
|
Would it really have been "The" Prince Charles? I would think simply
"Prince Charles of Edinburgh," like Princess Alexandra of Kent (child
of a royal Duke). I thought "The" was only used for the children of
the sovereign when they are indeed the sovereign. Is that right?
Breton...
|
I wouldn't swear to it but I think that all princess and princesses of
the Blood are referred to with the "The".
(Gary Holtzman) garyholtzman...
|
Goood thing you didn't swear. :) Only children of a sovereign are "The
Prince/ss", thus The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, but Prince Michael of
Kent (not The Prince Michael). However, evidence has been presented in this
thread that The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is an exception.
|
|
|
|
Sacha...
|
The Queen is still Duchess of Edinburgh (and I believe there's a Clematis of
that name!) and I don't think any of her children have ever been 'of
Edinburgh'. Princess Anne is now The Princess Royal.
Anne...
|
From their births until 6th February 1952 the two elder children of HM were
known as Prince Charles of Edinburgh and Princess Anne of Edinburgh, similar
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell...
|
What changed that would make The Queen no longer The Duchess?
the_verminator...
|
errrr... maybe the fact that the monarch can hold no title of himself?
|
Where the children ever Edinburgh Princes & Princess? How would they be so?
Children of British Dukes to not bear such titles.
chas8391...
|
That would be a surprise to the woman who used to be known as HRH
Princess Elizabeth of York, the daughter of the Duke of York.
Tom Wilding / Stephen Stillwell...
|
I should have said non-Royal dukes ---
CJ Buyers...
|
H.M.'s website is an official website indicated by the suffix given it.
Since H.M. is not in the habit of writing or designing her websites,
any more than she writes or prepares her documents, that authority can
certainly be depended on just as much as any document drafted by a
clerk and issued in her name or a legal judgement made by a justice in
her absence.
pierre_aronax...
|
If HM take someday in an official document the title of "Duke of
Normandy" in a document (although that would not make her the Duke of
Normandy for that), something she had never done until today, that
would not change the past and the fact that "Duke of Normandy" was a
French peerage, hold as such by the English Kings, renounced by them in
1259, consequently removed from their titles and never used until now
by them and their successors. That would be an historical error, no
more.
|
The Channel Islands were excluded from the Treaty of Paris and
consequently anything associated with them is not bound by its terms.
pierre_aronax...
|
If the Channel Islands were excluded (even implicitly) from the Treaty
of Paris, the Treaty of Paris can not have changed their juridical
status: so, they are still part of the France (and, indeed, in the
century following 1259, some seem to have think they were. In fact, I
would be curious to find an evidence that some thought they were not).
Even in that case, that would not change the fact that the Treaty of
Paris integrated the renunciation of the King of England to the
dignities of Duke of Normandy, Count of Poitou and Count of Anjou. In
fact, the treaty was made precisely for that. Henry III and his
successors gave later all the signs that those renunciations were
effective and not at all done tongue in check: they ceased definitely
to use those titles in all their acts (including those concerning the
Channel Islands) and never claimed the prerogative associated with them
(particularly in the coronation ceremonies at Rheims were the role of
Duke of Normandy was devolved to something else although they accepted
to take their own role as Duke of Aquitaine).
|
The onus is on those who claim otherwise to demonstrate their claim by
citing some official document. Until then, their claim is a bogus.
pierre_aronax...
|
Which claim is bogus exactly? The claim that Henry III ceased to use
the title of Duke of Normandy after a treaty by which he had renounced
all his French peerages except Aquitaine (precisely to obtain his
recognition as Duke of Aquitaine)? Or the claim that no other of his
CJ Buyers...
|
You keep missing the point, over and over and again. The operative
phrase is "French peerage".
The Channel Islands were no longer French. That portion of the duchy of
pierre_aronax...
|
But we are not speaking of possession of or suzerainty on the CI, we
are speaking of the dignity of Duke of Normandy. That dignity was a
French peerage and was hold as such by the English Kings: that was that
dignity they claimed by keeping the title of Duke of Normandy from 1204
to 1259.
(Beside, it is difficult to see how the CI ceased to be French in 1259:
the King of France renounced perhaps implicitly to their possession,
but how they can have change of suzerainty by a treaty were they are
not even mentioned remain a mystery. But that's an other question
anyway).
Francois R. Velde...
|
As I read the treaty (the relevant text is at
the king of England renounced those islands that were held by the
king of France; I suppose that the Channel islands were not, and
hence were excluded from the renunciation.
pierre_aronax...
|
I read it also like that, but possession is not sovereignty. The King
of England had possessed the islands until 1259 under French
sovereignty. What he kept in 1259 was their *possession*, exactly as he
kept the possession of his other territories in the South of France.
But how can the French *sovereignty* have disappeared by virtue of a
treaty which makes no expliciteI read it also like that, but possession
is not sovereignty. The King of England had possessed the islands until
1259 under French sovereignty. What he kept in 1259 was their
*possession*, exactly as he kept the possession of his other
territories in the South of France. But how can the French
*sovereignty* have disappeared by virtue of a treaty which makes no
explicit mention of the islands.
As I have pointed in a previous message,
the French part has considered the islands as moving from the French
Crown at least until the beginning of the Hundred Years War: in may
1337, Philip VI confiscated all the French fiefs of Edward III.
Consequently, in October 1338, he gave the lordship of the Norman
Islands (what you call today in English the Channel Islands) to his son
John (later King John II), who happened to be already Duke of Normandy
(note that it was an entirely distinct gift however, so the islands
were not reunited with a Duchy from which they had ceased to depend 77
years earlier). The islands could not have been confiscated if they had
not been regarded as feudal territories moving from the crown.
Of course, the grant was without long lasting effects, but it is
indicative of what was at the time the opinion of the French
authorities on the legal statute of the Channel Islands.
|
But this is not about possession of the islands, as you remarked,
it is about a title that has been renounced in 1259, and never used
since. The facts are simple.
CJ Buyers...
|
As you say, the Channel Islands were not part of the treaty, so please
explain how the treaty can apply to them. Thus, for any part of the
pierre_aronax...
|
<=2E..>
Actually, it's you who need to explain us how that treaty can have
CJ Buyers...
severed the link between the islands and France, of which they had been
part previously.
CJ Buyers...
|
Your train of argument is now getting quite bizarre. Even Velde, on
whose website you depend, takes that as obvious!
pierre_aronax...
|
Are you depending of his argumentation?
CJ Buyers...
|
Obviously not, as I said your train of argument is now getting quite
bizarre.
|
|
|
|
treaty to apply, that part must be expressly refer to them or include
them. Where does it do that?
An exclusion, is an exclusion. That fact is even simpler.
|
|
|
Normandy was, as a consequence of the treaty, no longer a part of the
"French" duchy of Normandy.
pierre_aronax...
|
So there were two duchies of Normandy, a French one and a non-French
one? And the non-French one emerged from the seas in 1259? That without
any kind of documented creation of course? And to celebrate its birth,
the English Kings removed "Duke of Normandy" from their titles and
decided to never use that title again?
|
|
successors never used it again, even for acts concerning the Channel
Islands? Those two claims had been proven ad satietatem.
Guy Stair Sainty...
|
Mr Buyers expects you to prove a negative; he says the Queen is Duchess of
Normandy and you have to prove that she has said she is not. Which of course she
will not, since as you rightly point out neither she nor any of her
predecessors on the throne for almost 750 years have used this title or
claimed this duchy. But if you think he will ever admit that ghe is mistaken on
this, or on any other matter, you may have to wait a very long time, just as you
can be sure that as long as this exchange continues he will always endeavor to
have the last word.
CJ Buyers...
|
Your comprehension remains as ever I see - nil.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Francois R. Velde...
|
By letters patent of Oct. 22, 1948 they "hold and enjoy the titular dignity
of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names in addition
to anyothe rappellations and titles of honour which may belong to them".
Calling any prince "of X" is a matter of custom and convenience.
|
chas8391...
|
That would be a surprise to the woman who used to be known as HRH
Princess Elizabeth of York, the daughter of the Duke of York.
|
|
to Prince Richard of Gloucester, etc, as seen in books published then.
Sacha...
|
|
|
|
