cygnus
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,303
I am pretty sure that British peerage rules for Royalty and Nobility are somewhat different. Plus, Victoria's mother, Princess of Leningen (?), had a rather complicated past in terms of marriages, geography, titles and ranks (in a given system). Also, as you mentioned, Victoria and her mother were not on best terms to say the least, which leads to conclusion that Victoria would seek a reason not to grant her the Queen Mother title, rather than look for loopholes to do so.
Lady Mary's son (what ever that shrimp's name is), is not a "royalty" but "nobility", with direct lineage as a grand-son of Robert from his oldest daughter, is a "substantive peer". Substantive peers were/are allowed to grant "courtesy titles" to immediate family members. I am 95% sure that is correct.
However, if you have information that it is not correct, i would luuuuuuve to see it, because i love this segment of european and british history, and any info would help.
It is true that the children of peers are entitled to courtesy titles, but these are not granted buy the peer, but by custom ie a peer cannot refuse to grant his direct heir one of his subsidiary titles- they just have them. Likewise the Earl of Grantham didn't grant his daughters the title of "Lady"- they were entitled to it as daughters of an Earl. A Peer has no more power to grant titles than anyone else- you are entitled to one or you are not, by courtesy or right. Whether or not you chose to use your title, if you have one, is up to you
http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-peerage/courtesy-titles (Debrett's is pretty much the standard in issues dealing with nobility)
And yes, Queen Victoria didn't exactly try hard to grant her mother a title, but as it turns out, she couldn't have been granted either Queen Mother or Queen Dowager anyways, as she had never been a Queen the rules are strict on that. She was HRH The (Dowager) Duchess of Kent.
Last edited: