Rhys-Jones Royal Ancestry
THERON L. SMITH
before the royal wedding of Edward Windsor and Sophie Rhys-Jones
(presumably by now, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.)
Gary Boyd Roberts' article therein, "Royal Descents and American
Cousins of Sophie Helen Rhys-Jones" shows several USA cousins (e.g.,
First Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and President
Theodore Roosevelt, as well as actress sisters Olivia de Haviland
and Joan Fontaine.)
Of more interest to participants in this list are several royal
descents for Sophie (e.g., from Louis IVof France, William the Lion
and James I and II of Scotland, and Henry I and Edward I of England.)
The "best" royal descents appear to be the two from Edward III. Both of
these have 22 generations - one includes John of Gaunt and Colin
Mackenzie and the other Edmund of Langley and (yes!) my wife's
ancestress, Eleanor Holand. These can be extracted from the current
NEXUS and these lines' extensions in Roberts' 1993 book, ROYAL
DESCENT OF 500 IMMIGRANTS.
When someone identifies the most recent common ancestor of Sophie and
Edward, I'd love to know. They are at least 17th cousins, but probably
much closer.
Cheers,
Theron Smith.
Henry Sutliff
"THERON L. SMITH" wrote:
You might want to check the archives for Gen-Royal. Immediately after the
engagement was announced, several descents were posted. If I recall
correctly, the most recent common ancestors of Edward and Sophie were:
Nicholas St. John (d. 8 Nov 1589) of Lydiard Tregoze, Wilts and his wife
Elizabeth Blount (d. 11 May 1597) of Maple Durham, Oxon.
Hope this helps.
Henry Sutliff
THERON L. SMITH
Thanks.
I've also been informed that that Edward's Dukedom is WESSEX - not
Cambridge. The latter was
predicted in the Saurday morning edition of local newspaper.. I shoud have
watched TV before heading
for my computer!
Renia Simmonds
> The current issue of NEXUS (XVI, No. 3 & 4, 1999) arrived the day
> before the royal wedding of Edward Windsor and Sophie Rhys-Jones
> (presumably by now, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.)
Earl and Countess of Wessex, as you will have heard by now.
Renia
THERON L. SMITH
I do know English nobility better than it appears! I corrected Cambridge to
Wessex; then
goofed again on saying DUKE of Wessex!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Renia Simmonds [SMTP:PSim...@cwcom.net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 2:50 PM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Rhys-Jones Royal Ancestry
>
Henry Sutliff
"THERON L. SMITH" wrote:
> Thanks. Renia.
>
> I do know English nobility better than it appears! I corrected Cambridge to
> Wessex; then
> goofed again on saying DUKE of Wessex!
>
According to the ABC news wire, in addition to being created Earl of Wessex,
Prince Edward was created Viscount Severn and will succeed to the title of Duke
of Edinburgh on his father's death.
Henry Sutliff
John Higgins
dies seems unusual for English titles. When the Edinburgh title was created
for Philip in 1947, was it specified that the title would go to a younger
son (on the assumption that the eldest would be Prince of Wales)? What's
the "legal" basis for the title bypassing Charles? I'm just curious....does
anybody know?
John Higgins
jthi...@surfree.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Sutliff [mailto:ss...@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 5:40 AM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Rhys-Jones Royal Ancestry
>
>
>
>
William Addams Reitwiesner
>The part about Edward succeeding as Duke of Edinburgh when Prince Philip
>dies seems unusual for English titles. When the Edinburgh title was created
>for Philip in 1947, was it specified that the title would go to a younger
>son (on the assumption that the eldest would be Prince of Wales)? What's
>the "legal" basis for the title bypassing Charles? I'm just curious....does
>anybody know?
Yes, people know. Those who know are discussing it in the
<alt.talk.royalty> newsgroup, where it is on-topic. 20th century titles
are off-topic in a forum devoted to Medieval genealogy.
But you knew that already :)
William Addams Reitwiesner
wr...@erols.com
"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc."
ED MANN
>
> "THERON L. SMITH" wrote:
>
> > The current issue of NEXUS (XVI, No. 3 & 4, 1999) arrived the day
> > before the royal wedding of Edward Windsor and Sophie Rhys-Jones
> > (presumably by now, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.)
> >
> > Cousins of Sophie Helen Rhys-Jones" shows several USA cousins (e.g.,
> > First Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and President
> > Theodore Roosevelt, as well as actress sisters Olivia de Haviland
> > and Joan Fontaine.)
> >
> > Of more interest to participants in this list are several royal
> > descents for Sophie (e.g., from Louis IVof France, William the Lion
> > and James I and II of Scotland, and Henry I and Edward I of England.)
> >
> > The "best" royal descents appear to be the two from Edward III. Both of
> > these have 22 generations - one includes John of Gaunt and Colin
> > Mackenzie and the other Edmund of Langley and (yes!) my wife's
> > ancestress, Eleanor Holand. These can be extracted from the current
> > NEXUS and these lines' extensions in Roberts' 1993 book, ROYAL
> > DESCENT OF 500 IMMIGRANTS.
> >
> > When someone identifies the most recent common ancestor of Sophie and
> > Edward, I'd love to know. They are at least 17th cousins, but probably
> > much closer.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Theron Smith.
>
> You might want to check the archives for Gen-Royal. Immediately after the
> engagement was announced, several descents were posted. If I recall
> correctly, the most recent common ancestors of Edward and Sophie were:
>
> Nicholas St. John (d. 8 Nov 1589) of Lydiard Tregoze, Wilts and his wife
> Elizabeth Blount (d. 11 May 1597) of Maple Durham, Oxon.
I have this one, can someone post the other:
1 King Edward III of England b: 13 Nov 1312 d: 21 Jun 1377 ref #:
F229:12
+Philippa de Hainault b: 24 Jun 1311 d: 15 Aug 1369 ref #:
Ä103-34
2 [3] Edmund Plantagenet aka: 1st Duke of York b: 5 Jun 1344 d: 1 Aug
1402 ref #: F291:9
+Isabella de Castile b: 1355 d: 23 Nov 1393 ref #: BRF:109
3 [1] Constance Plantagenet b: Abt. 1374 d: 29 Nov 1416 ref #:
F210:8
*2nd Husband of [1] Constance Plantagenet:
+Sir Edmund de Holand aka: Earl of Kent b: 6 Jan 1382/83 d: 15 Sep
1408 ref #: F140:8i
4 Alianor Holand b: Abt. 1405
+Sir James Tuchet aka: 5th Lord Audley b: Abt. 1398 d: 23 Sep 1459
ref #: W12-11
5 [2] Margaret Tuchet ref #: BxP:251
6 Elizabeth
+Sir John Ludlow
7 Alice Ludlow
+Humphrey Vernon
8 Thomas Vernon ref #: (Ä230B-38)
+Eleanor Shirley b: Abt. 1525 d: Bef. 28 Apr 1595 ref #: W122B-13
9 Walter Vernon
+Mary Littleton
10 Sir Edward Vernon
+Margaret Vernon
11 Sir Henry Vernon
+Muriel Vernon
12 Henry Vernon
+Margaret Ladkins
13 Edward Vernon
14 James Vernon
+Lydia Purnell
15 Louisa Vernon
+William MacKinnon
16 William MacKinnon
+ aka: N.N. Frye
17 Harriet MacKinnon d: 7 Dec 1858
+Rev. John Edward Nassau Molesworth b: 5 Feb 1790 d: 21 Apr 1877
18 John Molesworth b: 22 Apr 1818 d: 21 Dec 1886
+Mary Newall d: 7 Sep 1878
19 Lawrence Teesdale Molesworth b: 16 Feb 1864 d: 1 Nov 1941
+Anne Marie Wallace Bournes d: 25 Apr 1933
20 Margaret Patricia Newall Molesworth b: 17 Mar 1904 d: Aft. 1969
+Theophilus Rhys-Jones d: 29 Dec 1959
21 Christopher Rhys-Jones b: 19 Jun 1930
+Mary O'Sullivan
22 Sophie Rhys-Jones b: 20 Jan 1965
--
FWIW; AFAIK; IMHO; YMMV; yadda, yadda, yadda.
Regards, Ed Mann mailto:edl...@mail2.lcia.com
References:
Ä = Weis, _Ancestral_Roots_, 7th ed.
AACPW = Roberts & Reitwiesner, _American Ancestors and Cousins of
the Princess of Wales_, [page].
AAP = Roberts, _Ancestors_of_American_Presidents_, [page] or
[Pres. # : page].
BP1 = _Burke's_Presidential_Families_, 1st ed. [page].
BPci = _Burke's_Peerage_, 101st ed., [page].
BRF = Weir, _Britain's_Royal_Families_, [page].
BxP = _Burke's_Dormant_&_Extinct_Peerages_, [page].
EC1 = Redlich, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol I, [page].
EC2 = Langston & Buck, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
EC3 = Buck & Beard, _Emperor_Charlemagne's_Descendants_, Vol II,
[page].
F = Faris, _Plantagenet_Ancestry_, [page:para].
NK1 = Roberts, _Notable_Kin_Volume_One_, [page].
Ś = Hardy, _Colonial_Families_of_the_Southern_States_of_America_,
[page].
S = Stuart, _Royalty_for_Commoners_, 2d ed. Caveat emptor.
W = Weis, _Magna_Charta_Sureties,_1215_, 4th ed.
WFT = Broderbund's World Family Tree CD, [vol]:[num] Caveat emptor.
WMC = Wurt's Magna Charta, [vol]:[page]
John Higgins
probably hear from you on this. But the original message WAS in this forum,
as were the subsequent clarifications of the title.
There's been much wider wandering from topic in this list than this minor
infraction - without any intervention from the "topic police". I'll try to
be more careful (my messages from Gen-Medieval and Gen-Royal come in
together, and I don't always note the source). But have some patience
please!! :-)
If anybody knows the answer to my query, perhaps you can respond in
Gne-Royal - to keep everybody happy!! :-)
John Higgins
jthi...@surfree.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of
> William Addams Reitwiesner
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 1:21 PM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Rhys-Jones Royal Ancestry
>
>
Catherine S. Ehlers
>Harry:
>
>Thanks.
>
>I've also been informed that that Edward's Dukedom is WESSEX - not
>Cambridge. The latter was
>predicted in the Saurday morning edition of local newspaper.. I shoud have
>watched TV before heading
>for my computer!
Would somebody give me the definitive answer on what Edward is now? One
commentator said he's the EARL of Wessex. Then it was said he's the DUKE
of Wessex. Then he's the EARL again.
Which one is he??? Which are they???
Cathy
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Henry Sutliff [SMTP:ss...@earthlink.net]
>> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 5:50 AM
>> To: THERON L. SMITH
>> Cc: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
>> Subject: Re: Rhys-Jones Royal Ancestry
>>
>>
Leo van de Pas
I understand it is only an Earldom!!!
Also I understand that after the demise
of the Queen (why) and the Duke of Edinburgh,
he becomes Duke of Edinburgh.
Now comes the question. Prince Philip was
created Duke of Edinburgh, now is this
arranged a 'new' creation? In which case
Prince Philip would be 1st (of one creation) Duke of Edinburgh and Prince
Edward would be
1st (of the 1999 creation) Duke of Edinburgh.
How messy. I think tinkering at the existing
system has not been done very well. Also I
heard that Edward and Sophie's children are
not going to be HRH which I see as decrimination.
If, at the same time, had taken away HRH from
Beatrice and Eugenie, then it would have
been 'correct'. What do people think?
Leo van de Pas
At 01:40 PM 6/19/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Harry:
>
>Thanks.
>
>I've also been informed that that Edward's Dukedom is WESSEX - not
>Cambridge. The latter was
>predicted in the Saurday morning edition of local newspaper.. I shoud have
>watched TV before heading
>for my computer!
>
>
John Higgins
interested in was his apparent "future" creation as Duke of Edinburgh.
There is a "legal basis" by which titles pass from person to person: the
letters of patent by which they are created. Although succession is usually
to heirs male (Charles, in this case as son of Philip), letters of patent
can create exception (for example, Lord Mountbatten's earldom which was
specifically allowed to pass to his daughters).
I originally wondered whether there was something special about the creation
of the Edinburgh title for Philip that anticipated a succession to other
than the eldest son. I've learned from other messages today that the
Edinburgh title will apparently go to Edward via a new creation, after both
the Queen and Philip die. The logic seems to be that the title will first
revert to the crown in the person of Charles when he succeeds his mother as
King and his father as Duke. The title would then be available for Edward
(as York was for Andrew after the last Duke of York ascended as George VI).
What I don't now is whether Elizabeth is making a 'future-dated' creation
(unlikely) or whether Edward must rely on the goodwill of Charles (or
William?) or the future politcal situation to get his ducal title - which he
seems to care little about anyway, so why should we? :-)
John Higgins
jthi...@surfree.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: use...@rootsweb.com [mailto:use...@rootsweb.com]On Behalf Of Renia
> Simmonds
> Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 6:06 PM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: Rhys-Jones Royal Ancestry
>
>
> Prince Edward has been created Earl of Wessex, by his mother, the reigning
> monarch. The monarch can bestow titles as s/he pleases, there
> being no legal
> basis for it. The eldest son of a reigning monarch has often been
> Prince of
> Wales, and younger sons variously Dukes of York, Cambridge, etc. For that
> reason, the media seemed to assume that Prince Edward would
> naturally become
> Duke of Cambridge. So he is not presently a Duke, but an Earl.
> The wife of an
> earl is a countess, so Sophie is the Countess of Wesses. As a
> third son, the
> Queen possibly thought of something vaguely hereditary in
> conferring on him the
> Dukedom of Edinburgh after his parents demise.
>
> I suspect the couple chose this title themselves, based on the
> ancient Kingdom
> of Wessex. The bridesmades and pageboys were seen wearing
> medieval tabards, and
> even the bridal gown was vaguely medieval if one looked closely.
> This wedding
> seems to have been the couples celebration of a thousand years or more of
> English history.
>
> Renia
>
> John Higgins wrote:
>
> > The part about Edward succeeding as Duke of Edinburgh when Prince Philip
> > dies seems unusual for English titles. When the Edinburgh
> title was created
> > for Philip in 1947, was it specified that the title would go to
> a younger
> > son (on the assumption that the eldest would be Prince of
> Wales)? What's
> > the "legal" basis for the title bypassing Charles? I'm just
> curious....does
> > anybody know?
> >
> > John Higgins
> > jthi...@surfree.com
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Henry Sutliff [mailto:ss...@earthlink.net]
> > > Sent: Saturday, June 19, 1999 5:40 AM
> > > To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
> > > Subject: Re: Rhys-Jones Royal Ancestry
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "THERON L. SMITH" wrote:
> > >
Leo van de Pas
>jthi...@surfree.com (John Higgins) wrote:
>
>>The part about Edward succeeding as Duke of Edinburgh when Prince Philip
>>dies seems unusual for English titles. When the Edinburgh title was created
>>for Philip in 1947, was it specified that the title would go to a younger
>>son (on the assumption that the eldest would be Prince of Wales)? What's
>>the "legal" basis for the title bypassing Charles? I'm just curious....does
>>anybody know?
>
><alt.talk.royalty> newsgroup, where it is on-topic. 20th century titles
>are off-topic in a forum devoted to Medieval genealogy.
>
>But you knew that already :)
>
>
>William Addams Reitwiesner
>wr...@erols.com
>
common courtesy would expect that there
a answer (instead of a snub) would be given.
This telling off about off-topic seems
rather selective. Where was our self-appointed
guardian of the 'Off-topic' on other
occasions? Lets just begin with the commercialism of Douglas Richardson, or
by now it looks like 'his exploitation of
gen-medieval'?
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
John Carmi Parsons
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Leo van de Pas wrote:
> Also I understand that after the demise
> of the Queen (why) and the Duke of Edinburgh,
> he becomes Duke of Edinburgh.
Technically the Queen IS duchess of Edinburgh (between her marriage and
her accession she was HRH the Pss Elizabeth, Dss of Edinburgh, and as
long as P. Philip remains D. of E., she is Dss).
> Now comes the question. Prince Philip was
> created Duke of Edinburgh, now is this
> arranged a 'new' creation? In which case
> Prince Philip would be 1st (of one creation) Duke of Edinburgh and Prince
> Edward would be
> 1st (of the 1999 creation) Duke of Edinburgh.
> How messy. I think tinkering at the existing
> system has not been done very well.
The monarchy is in a period of transition and it's likely there will be a
lot of such awkward-seeming experiments.
> Also I heard that Edward and Sophie's children are
> not going to be HRH which I see as decrimination.
> If, at the same time, had taken away HRH from
> Beatrice and Eugenie, then it would have
> been 'correct'. What do people think?
It was already likely, even before today's announcement, that Beatrice and
Eugenie will turn out to have been the last cadet grandchildren of a British
Sovereign to be born HRHs, unless Andrew marries again and has children by
a second wife, as it probably would cause certain difficulties among his
children if some of them were HRH and some were not. (There have been
suggestions in the British Press, however, that Beatrice and Eugenie might
surrender their HRHs upon marriage, as Queen Victoria's granddaughter Pss
Patricia of Connaught did in 1905 when she married the Hon. Alexander Ramsay,
a younger son of the earl of Dalhousie.)
Prince Charles has long been reported to favor reforms within the Royal
Family that would see the number of persons styled HRH drastically reduced.
This would be greatly favored by the pending legislation that would reform
the Act of Succession to permit succession to the throne by order of birth
alone, regardless of sex, instead of sons first and then daughters. Once
that reform becomes law (as it is virtually certain to do in the very near
future) there will no longer be any justification for allowing children of
the Sovereign's younger sons to bear the style HRH. The reasons for this
sound complicated but are really fairly straightforward:
Under the present system, codified by letters patent of Queen Victoria in
1864 and of George V in 1917, the style HRH is borne by the Sovereign's
children and the wives of his/her sons; by the children of the Sovereign's
sons and the wives of all such grandsons; and by the eldest living son of
the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. Since under the existing Act of
Succession sons succeed first and then daughters, the obvious intent of
restricting the HRH to the Sovereign's male-line descendants was to ensure
that all those nearest to the throne would be royal from birth, so that
the throne would never be inherited by anyone who was not born HRH. The
present Queen herself is a case in point, as she was born a granddaughter
of George V, the child of his second son, then the duke of York.
Changing the Act of Succession would mean that the sovereignty could pass
equally through daughters as well as sons in order of birth. In that
situation there would be two alternatives: either allow grandchildren in
the female line to be HRH right along with grandchildren in the male line,
or else deny the HRH to all grandchildren save the children of the heir
apparent to the throne. The latter alternative is reportedly favored by
the so-called "Way Ahead Committee" made up of the senior members of the
Royal Family (the Queen, Edinburgh, their children, the Queen Mother, though
I've yet to figure out what it is they're supposed to be way ahead OF).
In other words, in future it is likely that the only Royal Highnesses will
be the Sovereign's children and the children of the Prince of Wales or, as
now seems likely, of a Princess of Wales in her own right should the
Sovereign's eldest child be a daughter.
This obviously opens up another can of worms: why, in such case, should the
wives of the Sovereign's younger sons assume the style HRH? If the Sovereign's
daughters stand equally in the succession with sons, it would be logical either
(a) to allow the spouses of the Sovereign's daughters to assume the HRH or (b)
deny the HRH to the spouses of all younger children of the Sovereign. If the
latter course is chosen, then the new Countess of Wessex may well have become
the last spouse of a Sovereign's younger son to acquire the HRH by marriage.
Reducing the number of HRHs would at least have the benefit of avoiding a
number of potentially embarrassing situations such as have plagued the Royal
Family in recent years. I don't refer here to the marital problems of the
Queen's children, but the escapades of some of the Queen's cousins who bear the
HRH and have got themselves into widely-publicized financial and business
scrapes, whose daughter went public with an out of wedlock pregnancy and
subsequent divorce, or whose son was had up while at university for possession
of weed. Trimming the "royal" element in the Firm would lessen opportunities
for the screaming headlines such stories invariably receive when the words
"Royal," "Prince," or "Princess" can be used. This, reportedly, was one
of the main reasons the Way Ahead Committee favored limiting the use of
the HRH in future.
John P.
Leo van de Pas
Many thanks for your thoughtfull explanation.
One thing though, why couldn't the Queen also
be a 'dormant' Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh
and allow Prince Edward to become Duke of Edinburgh? We have Alice, Dowager
Duchess of
Gloucester, and Brigitte, Duchess of Gloucester.
Leo van de Pas
John Carmi Parsons
Alice's son, is still alive. I take your point, of course, but we can
never claim to be absolutely privy to the way the royals think about these
things. It may be that the queen has decided she wouldn't like to see
another duke of Edinburgh in her own lifetime (pure guesswork on my part).
If so, she's the queen and it's her prerogative to decide these things.
John P.
Leo van de Pas
>Hi Leo:
>
>A complaint was registered because the 2nd edition of Plantagenet Ancestry
was
>delayed in publication. As I pointed out, the 2nd edition was delayed
solely
>to include last minute additions and corrections to the text contributed by
>several parties. There was also another slight delay because Dr. Faris
chose
>to switch to another publisher. I fail to see any connection between that
and
>commercialism. Or have I missed something? I think you're missing the
point.
>The production and authorship of the Faris-Richardson series is a labor of
>love. It's not about commercialism. Get a life, Leo. DR
>
Sorry, I do see your constant 'plugging'
as commercialism. Have you ever heard me
say "my next book is coming out", book
11 and 12 are almost ready for my printer.
And all of these have been produced within
the last two years......
As I have said before, I wonder about
your grasp of the English/American language,
why do you resort to slang like 'get a life'?
As I am typing this message, I must be alive and
it is pretty full. By the way have you seen
my pages on Princess Michael of Kent? A labour
of love, if there ever was one. One on the
House of Windsor is almost finished and a third
one has been set up as well. And, no, we don't
earn a penny with those. By the way, are you
giving your books away? For free? You say it
is your labour of love, not a commercial venture.
I do regard you as 'plugging' when you indicate
that you know the solution of a problem, but
"You must BUY my book, to see what it is"
What is commercialism, if that isn't?
You should have had the courtesy to let
gen-medieval (I understand all the Amy de
Gaveston/Gavaston messages have been collected?)
know what your world-shattering solution is.
As others have pointed out, what if you are
wrong? Another mistake that will be perpetuated
because you put it in print....but then you
seem to have continued, even when pointed out,
other mistakes.
I don't care how many delays, and for what
reasons, you have encountered. I would love
to hear "from (whatever date) the book is
available". Not "in three months time PERHAPS"
and then it is extended and again extended.
You may think you have a life, but in that
one and only life you have, try to do things
correctly and pleasantly....or is that too
much to ask?
Renia Simmonds
monarch. The monarch can bestow titles as s/he pleases, there being no legal
basis for it. The eldest son of a reigning monarch has often been Prince of
Wales, and younger sons variously Dukes of York, Cambridge, etc. For that
reason, the media seemed to assume that Prince Edward would naturally become
Duke of Cambridge. So he is not presently a Duke, but an Earl. The wife of an
earl is a countess, so Sophie is the Countess of Wesses. As a third son, the
Queen possibly thought of something vaguely hereditary in conferring on him the
Dukedom of Edinburgh after his parents demise.
I suspect the couple chose this title themselves, based on the ancient Kingdom
of Wessex. The bridesmades and pageboys were seen wearing medieval tabards, and
even the bridal gown was vaguely medieval if one looked closely. This wedding
seems to have been the couples celebration of a thousand years or more of
English history.
Renia
John Higgins wrote:
> The part about Edward succeeding as Duke of Edinburgh when Prince Philip
> dies seems unusual for English titles. When the Edinburgh title was created
> for Philip in 1947, was it specified that the title would go to a younger
> son (on the assumption that the eldest would be Prince of Wales)? What's
> the "legal" basis for the title bypassing Charles? I'm just curious....does
> anybody know?
>
Brant Gibbard
wrote:
>. Also I
>heard that Edward and Sophie's children are
>not going to be HRH which I see as decrimination.
According to the news, this was specifically requested by the couple
themselves, so there is no discrimination involved.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, Ont.
Brant Gibbard
bgib...@inforamp.net
http://home.inforamp.net/~bgibbard/gen
Toronto, Ont.
Dcrdcr4
Francisco Antonio Doria
>gen-medieval (I understand all the Amy de
>Gaveston/Gavaston messages have been collected?)
>know what your world-shattering solution is.
>As others have pointed out, what if you are
>wrong? Another mistake that will be perpetuated
>because you put it in print....but then you
>seem to have continued, even when pointed out,
>other mistakes.
I don't mind people using whatever I post in the several lists I subscribe to, but there are a few RooitsWeb rules we have to comply to:
- Every material posted has the author's copyright.
- Nobody should post things that are under other people's copyrights. (The exception to this rule is of course scholarly-like quotation, with due attribution of authorship.)
I got those from the last issue of RootsWeb Review, which should be consulted.
In my case I just ask that people refer to the sources because this is a subject full of controversies. In matters having to do with Portuguese and Brazilian genealogy I usually can reach the documentary basis and try to form an opinion on it, but this isn't the case in other situations, so reference to authorship is always needed, as we are relying on other researchers' authorities.
Chico
===========================================================================
Francisco Antonio Doria
Prix Caumont-La Force 1995
(Conféderation Internationale de Généalogie et d'Héraldique.)
Full member, Brazilian College of Genealogists (CBG)
fad...@rio.com.br
All material posted is copyrighted.
Please refer to the author to quote it.
===========================================================================
Eddie Bennett
> The current issue of NEXUS (XVI, No. 3 & 4, 1999) arrived the day
> before the royal wedding of Edward Windsor and Sophie Rhys-Jones
> (presumably by now, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.)
<the rest snipped off>>
Funnily enough, they became Earl & Countess of Wessex. I bet that made him
get his map out.
Eddie Bennett
Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire, UK
Researching BENNETT & FINCH in Middlesex/London (Chelsea & Bethnal Green),
DETTMAR & THOMAS in East London, VAUGHAN in South Wales & USA, HIGHMORE in
Cumberland, Dorset, Somerset & anywhere.
Benjamin Hertzel
> Funnily enough, they became Earl & Countess of Wessex. I bet that made him
> get his map out.
Perhaps it was because the initials of Edward's full name (Edward Anthony
Richard Louis) spell out the word EARL.
Benjamin
THERON L. SMITH
I blame my goof on the Saturday Morning Dallas [Texas] Morning News. Their
prediction was incorrect of course.
Actually, I know about ancient Wessex (the kingdom of the West Saxons).
Didn't good King Alfred the Great come from there?
Emotionally, I like Wessex better than Cambridge! Someone suggested that
Edward himself might have had a vote in picking Wessex!
Cheers.
Theron Smith.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eddie Bennett [SMTP:em...@tutor.open.ac.uk]
> Sent: Monday, June 21, 1999 5:01 AM
> To: GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com
Subject : Re: Rhys-Jones Royal Ancestry
> "THERON L. SMITH" wrote:
>
> > The current issue of NEXUS (XVI, No. 3 & 4, 1999) arrived the day
> > before the royal wedding of Edward Windsor and Sophie Rhys-Jones
> > (presumably by now, Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.)
>
> <the rest snipped off>>
>
> Funnily enough, they became Earl & Countess of Wessex. I bet that made him
> get his map out.
>
Brant Gibbard
SMITH) wrote:
>
>Emotionally, I like Wessex better than Cambridge! Someone suggested that
>Edward himself might have had a vote in picking Wessex!
>
Given that Edward is in "show-biz" himself, and has shown a certain
disdain for the sillier and more stilted apects of Royal protocol, I
wouldn't be in the least surprised if he intentionally picked the
title of the baddy from "Shakespeare in Love" as a sort of joke.
Torkel Kvaal
Leo van de Pas wrote in message
<3.0.2.32.1999062...@mail.iinet.net.au>...
>Dear John,
> Many thanks for your thoughtfull explanation.
>One thing though, why couldn't the Queen also
>be a 'dormant' Dowager Duchess of Edinburgh
>and allow Prince Edward to become Duke of Edinburgh? We have Alice, Dowager
>Duchess of
>Gloucester, and Brigitte, Duchess of Gloucester.
>Leo van de Pas
>
>
Leo, this has nothing to do with the Queen being Dss of Edinburgh (which she
is not, by the way). The problem is that under the present creation of the
dukedom of Edinburgh (1947), Charles is the heir, and this can not be
changed. If Philip dies first, Charles will become Duke of Edinburgh in
addition to all his other titles. This scenario would give two Dukes of
Edinburgh if Edward is created Duke now.
However, if the Queen dies before her husband, Charles will first succeed
his mother as King, then his father as Duke upon his death. In this case,
the title of Duke of Edinburgh will emerge into the crown and be free to
recreate for Edward.
Charles will have to recreate the title for Edward to become Duke of
Edinburgh.
This is why both The Queen and Prince Philip must be dead for Edward to
become Duke of Edinburgh. He will not succeed his father, the title will be
recreated for him.
Torkel Kvaal
BTW, his has been thoroughly discussed at alt talk royalty.