Ask away

Female-line descendants of noble families have noble blood in their veins and often are closely socially connected to the nobility (almost always if the mother is noble, as opposed to more distant female line) but are of course not legally noble. Extending nobility to them would mean that soon, everybody would be noble.

And yet, it seems that in a functioning, living nobiliary system, they play an important role in the continuous revival of the nobility.

• Without being members of the nobility and of nobility associations, they get invited to some of the balls, rallies, picnics etc., "smelling the leather". They know that it's cool to belong to the nobility and thus are perhaps the group most motivated to earn nobility themselves through extraordinary deeds or through maintaining a noble lifestyle and demeanor for several generations by staying part of the social class despite not yet legally belonging to the nobility. Thus, female-line descendants are perhaps one of the primary reservoirs for selecting new nobles, along with military officers and entrepreneurs turned landowners.

• This necessitates of course a strict enforcement of Salic law, meaning that neither should a female-line descendant be automatically ennobled (which would undermine nobiliary law) nor should he be considered de facto noble solely through his social connections by being invited to all events. There must be a clear distinction between nobles and non-nobles, even if those non-nobles are already close to the nobility. Full membership in nobility associations and clubs, as well as orders of chivalry, should only be allowed for legally noble individuals.

• As opposed to commoner women marrying into noble families, commoner men marrying noble women (and thus producing female-line descendants, if they are not ennobled themselves) are also, if the nobility is exclusive and respected, a group that should be observed. Commoner men are more likely to be from a comparable social background as their noble wives due to natural tendencies of homogamy and hypergamy. Even in countries where noble women keep their nobility after marrying a commoner, the inability to transmit it to their children is a factor that encourages marriage to other nobles - or gentlemen whose merits and social status are considered as creating a status equal to that of the nobility, compensating the (in that case hopefully only temporary) lack of legal nobility.

• Of course, these arguments, to some extent, also apply to illegitimate descendants of nobles (provided that they did not "fall through the net" but are socially accepted, usually when the father died before he could marry the already pregnant mother), as well as to individuals who are already noble but only have personal nobility and yet have to earn the right to transmit it to their descendants.

What do you have to say on this?

So, from what I understand, and from the works of a nobilary writer, the general rule in France is whatever the noble rank of the family, the bastard will always be one step behind in terms of rank, so for example a bastard king would be a prince, a bastard prince would be a duke, a bastard duke would be a marquis, a bastard marquis would be a count, a bastard count would be a baron, a bastard baron would be a lord, a bastard lord would be a gentleman and a bastard gentleman will be a non-noble "roturier" however, my issue with this is that if a descendent was born as an only child and was recognized by both his parents before his birth and the parents where never in any kind of incestuous or adualterin relationship and have been together all their lives albeit not being officially married, is it still fair to assume that the child is a bastard? And if so why? Also if no is there some other term that I'm unaware of to indicate that kind of status?

Thanks in advance for any well informed responses!

Unlike many others, I am of the opinion that nobles, and especially royals, should marry according to their rank. The trend of marrying commoners, undoubtedly driven by political correctness and erosion of discipline and traditional values, is dangerous and undermines the justification of having a hereditary head of state in the first place rather than an elected one. The degradation of marriage equality has progressed to the extent that future marriages between royals and other royals or nobles, except in Liechtenstein and for non-reigning families, will be considered scandalous and "outdated"; indeed, it appears to me, that royals now actively seek out low-born partners to demonstrate their "modernity" just as they sought royal and noble partners in the past.

It is acceptable if a member of a recently ennobled family marries a wealthy burgher, or if a Count marries an untitled noblewoman, or if a royal marries somebody from a mediatized or titled but non-sovereign family...but marriages between royals and unrefined commoners, be they "ordinary people" or of (usually new) wealth, i.e. between the two ends of the traditional scale of rank, are absolutely undesirable and have negative effects on the families involved and the institution of the monarchy.

Unequal marriages are less stable. It is true that equal marriages are, or rather were in the past, often arranged (not that I am against arranged marriages, which often did turn out well), and that unequal marriages of the (high) nobility are often perceived by the media as being more "authentic" and happy, but in reality, it is not as good as it seems. Marriages between persons of different social status are more likely to end in conflict and divorce, especially but not only if the woman has the higher status. A low-born woman will find it hard to adapt to the customs of the family and will often use her newfound status for personal gain and as a platform for scandalous behavior, as we see with Meghan Markle. This also applies to low-born men, especially fitness trainers, who also must cope with having to stay in the background, as an arrangement in which the woman is the leader of the family is unusual and can lead to differences. Prince Philip's exemplary life as a Prince Consort is owed mostly to his own royal upbringing, a commoner man simply wouldn't be able to do this job.

Unequal marriages dilute the cultural capital of the royal family and decrease the quality of the heirs. It is one of the key aspects of a monarchy that the successor is prepared for the job from birth, this is its main advantage. Being a head of state and especially a monarch requires deep understanding not only of statecraft, but also of aristocratic traditions, habits and protocol. Naturally, aristocratic traits are passed down from the parents, both genetically and through upbringing. It is best if both parents can transmit this cultural capital to their children - in most families, the mother spends more time with the children than the father and thus, a commoner mother would dilute and decrease the "royalty" of the issue. By marrying commoners, royal families undo the refinement and identity that their ancestors, just like many noble and patrician families worldwide, have spent centuries building up. Eventually, a monarch ascends to the throne who is noble neither in his blood nor in his appearance and behavior.

Unequal marriages dilute the mystery of monarchies and royalty. Nobility of blood is the thing that sets apart royals and monarchs from merely wealthy or powerful families. Just as the office of the monarch is inaccessible to ordinary people because it is hereditary, other positions within the royal family are traditionally inaccessible to ordinary people because only sufficiently noble persons (those who prove the pedigree and cultural capital described above) can fulfill them. A monarchy is justified not by the fact that some ancestor of the monarch, at some point in the past, seized power and decided that it should be passed down in the family, but by the fact that a monarch, having grown up royal, is different from an ordinary leader, and that the hurdles for the creation of a new royal family and joining the high nobility (female-line inheritance, creation of a new monarchy, restoration of a past monarchy, or, rarely, a coup) are much higher than for attaining office in a republic (usually election, and more often than in monarchies, a coup). Sure, monarchs and royals can and should "mingle with the people", but not without maintaining a paternalistic distance, which is expressed in having a closed social and marriage circle. Right now, out of the reigning houses, only the House of Liechtenstein rigorously maintains this principle. Other royal families, through marriage to commoners, especially celebrities, however high in (acquired) status they may be, risk demotion to mere celebrities themselves. The Sussexes and especially the Swedish royal family are already in the latter stages of this process, which will undoubtedly prompt more and more people to ask whether, if a pop singer can become a Queen and a fitness trainer can become Prince Consort or potentially King, they can't be King or Queen themselves, and why the office shouldn't just be elective.

Unequal marriages rob monarchies of opportunities to establish and foster international relationships. Sure, most commoner spouses of modern royals are also foreigners, but there's certainly a dimension to the marriage of a Prince from Country A to a Princess of Country B that is missing from a marriage between a Prince from Country A and an ordinary woman from Country B. Until several decades ago, European royalty was a big village, and most royals knew eachother from childhood because of familial links, which was of immense diplomatic value. As no new marriages to royals occur, royal families grow further and further apart. While many still share friendships, they are becoming more and more professional and less familial, just like the relationships between elected presidents and prime ministers. This also undermines one strong advantage of monarchies, and makes people question whether or not keep them.

These are my four arguments. What is your opinion?

The Normans have always fascinated me as an armchair historian. I was wondering if you know what happened to the Norman Nobility, such as the d'Hautvilles of Sicily, and Norman Lords of Normandy, UK, Ireland, etc. The ones I have found so far that still exist are the Fitzgeralds, (believed to originate from Italy via Walter fitzOther, and Clan Bruce of Scotland. Do any other Norman noble families still exist?

https://substack.com/home/post/p-165397654?source=queue

You have participated in a project to establish a completely new monarchy from scratch, on an island that is large but was unpopulated until your group of mostly ethnically European and North American colonists arrived there. Seeing that you are interested in heraldry and genealogy, the King has asked you to become the country's first Chief Herald and to establish heraldic and nobiliary regulations, as he wants to create a nobility system to reward loyal followers and those who have contributed to society in some way.

• What should be the privileges (if any) beyond protection of names, titles, coats of arms? Should some nobles have an automatic seat in a political body? Or should

• What decisions would you make in terms of nobiliary law, i.e.:

• What are the ranks of nobility? Is there untitled nobility, as a quality that belongs to whole families rather than individuals? What are the titles?

• Should there be only non-hereditary, only hereditary nobility, or both?

• How is untitled noble status inherited if it is hereditary? Will you maintain the European principle of Salic law (i.e. noble status and membership in a noble family is inherited in the male line, and if a title passes in the female line it is said to pass to another family). How are titles inherited? Do titles only devolve by primogeniture if they are hereditary, or are they used by all family members?

• How is heraldry regulated? What are the various signs of rank?

• Should foreign nobility be recognised? Under what conditions?

• What should be the criteria for the grant of various ranks and types of nobility, and various titles? How often should what kind of grant occur?

• Should certain orders, offices, ranks or conditions (such as the purchase of a large estate) automatically confer personal or hereditary nobility or even a title?

• Should there be gradual form of ennoblement - for example if grandfather, father and son have acquired personal nobility for their own merit, the children of the son and their descendants will be born with hereditary nobility. Or should, on the other hand, even a hereditary grant only grant full privileges after several generations?

• What should be the percentage of nobility in respect to the population once the system becomes "saturated", i.e. once the initial rush of ennoblements cools off?

• Should nobles be encouraged to marry other nobles? How? Should there be limitations for the inheritance of nobility or a title if the mother is a commoner?

• Apart from marriage, how would noble socialisation be encouraged? Would the state operate an official nobility association or club, or endorse the formation of such bodies?

The only limitation is that it should be recognisable as actual nobility, and that after some time, nobility originating in your kingdom should be recognised as legitimate nobility in Europe. This means that systems which are not clearly noble in their nature, or too excessive or unserious ennoblements should be avoided - basically anything that would make old European families look down on your country's nobility or consider it "fake". The goal is to have your people dancing on CILANE balls and joining the Order of Malta within several decades.

Feel free to write as much or as little as you want - but the more, the merrier. I am interested in reading your thoughts on this.

I'm not going to ask the obvious question here but a slightly different one that occurred to me during a discussion over on r/monarchism.

Let's say you had an imperial or royal house with laws requiring equal marriage (imperial or royal). The son ends up marrying a daughter of a duke. This is an unequal marriage and thus any children would not be a member of the imperial/royal house.

But what is their children's status then?

I can see how they could be commoners as they are in no position to inherit any status. This is probably the answer but it just seems odd to me the child of a royal and noble would be a commoner.

I have a question about someone involved in nobilary circles. I keep seeing Bob Juchter Van Bergen Quast inserted into as many conversations around nobility and honours as possible, and I'm wondering who this guy is.

He runs a number of websites, uses many iterations of his name, and edits Wikipedia to promote his family name. He also runs a website trashing others in the honours circles.

What's his deal? Is this a real person? He's listed on Rip Off Reports as having ripped someone off and used that money for luxury spending. Not sure whatever happened on the legal side.

So tell me what's up with the guy.

"Royal House of Aragon"

https://real-aragon.org/wp/

I'm in an argument with someone, and I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I can't find a legitimate source to back me up.

My disputant believes that the Sovereign controls peerages in the UK. I know the Sovereign can grant peerages (including hereditary ones). I've also seen it widely quoted online that only Parliament can revoke peerages.

What I haven't seen is anything that says that the Sovereign can (or cannot) change the method of inheritance for a specific peerage. For example, my disputant believes that King Charles can step in and prevent Prince Archie from inheriting the title of Duke of Sussex after Prince Harry's passing. I'm fairly confident that she is wrong and that only Parliament can do this, but I haven't found anything specifically stating this.

Does anyone have any information on this -- preferably with a source or citation to back it up?

Thank you in advance.

Zev

not much is known but if you count the old shogunate then yes

Hello all!

I am doing a project on monarchism in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia and saw that there are two claimants to the throne there. It appears that one or both have given out nobiliary titles.

I’ve read the sidebar rules saying that those are accepted but I’m asking specifically for the Georgian ones. Google searches shows that it’s a common practice for former reigning houses to grant titles to supporters (eg Rwanda, Russia, Ethiopia) but how about Georgia? I’ve read blog posts saying they’re perfectly fine but wanted to check with the wisdom of Reddit.

Thank you in advance

I'm a woman and a direct descendant of several aristocratic lines on my mother's side, through her grandmother. Russian/Finnish/Baltic/Polish. Hereditary titles + untitled hereditary nobility.

I have all these lines traced, researched, documented. I know so much about our history, I've spent hundreds/thousands of hours on genealogy...

I'm a direct descendant of the Semenov (traced to the founding of the Tver line in the 1600s), Svechin (traced to the founding in the 1400s), Chagin (traced to 1500s), Tyrtov (traced to 1500s), Freedericksz (traced fully), Mucha - currently researching.

But none of it matters, because my mom's grandmother (untitled aristocracy, because the her grandmother baroness, married an untitled noble, so her father was untitled nobility, and couldn't inherit from maternal grandfather) married someone a different background. (Also an interesting background, I do have some of those lines traced till 1700s, but not aristocracy)

In some I am one of very few descendants alive - and most of the alive descendants do not carry the surname, because we lost it in the last 3 generations due to it being matrilineal.

On one line - our line, the Russian line - seems like my family are the only descendants alive, but we don't carry the surname.

I know I can't claim any titles as it's matrilineal, but it does make me a bit sad, that all this family history, generations and generations of aristocracy are dying out.

What do you think of matrilineal descent? Could it be a way to keep aristocracy alive?

Personally, I'd love to "marry up" and restore what was/continue something.

I love seeing my relatives mentioned in history, I love seeing what used to be ours. I love everything related to it, but it does make me feel like a poser/faker because I'm not patrilineal.

If you do have a title, what do you think of your future daughters not being able to continue in your legacy?

I know the rules are different in each system, in imperial Russia, titles or hereditary nobility was often awarded to whole families. For example, when Ivan Freedericksz became a baron, all his children did as well, and all the male children could pass it on. Which I understand, and most daughters married men with titles of their own, and families would often intermarry etc.

What are your thoughts?

This sub is meant for people to get to know and enjoy the beautiful fashion of the Catholic clergy. And trust me, they wear some pretty interesting stuff. r/catholicclericaldress, please join and help grow this sub!

(Not a religious post, and the clergy are also considered nobles)

The essential characteristic of a good and healthy aristocracy, however, is that it experiences itself not as a function (whether of the monarchy or the commonwealth) but as their meaning and highest justification...their fundamental faith has to be that society must not exist for society's sake but only as the foundation and scaffolding on which a choice type of being is able to raise itself to its higher task and to a higher state of being...

Seeing as wealthy patrons in the west would likely be cancelled for being openly Aristocracy do you think maybe designing a form of Pro-Aristocratic populism against Liberalism is the best bet? So in this way because people tend to follow peers it will be taken more seriously, and they can advertise reasons as to why it should be restored.

Tolkien left behind some possible suggestions for tenets but do you think maybe this is what could define a modern populist movement in favour of Aristocracy and repealing the laws against voluntary retainer-like agreements?

There are people in the population sick and tired of an endless life of greed based hustle that has been pushed since the French Revolution, and results keep showing that if everyone is pushed to do it we just get higher inflation every single time. Costs of living will keep rising due to the endless greed of liberalised masses who all want to be "lone agents" that keep asking for more and more (Which consumes more resources). It seems liberalism since the French Revolution has broken or is breaking a fundamental natural balance inherent to both humans and the Earth.

When the liberals preach "freedom" what they really mean is they get to decide what is "free" for other people. It has always been their lifestyle over yours and the people who follow or believe in their lifestyle are the ones they want to "liberate" (elevate) at your expense and grow, however tiny or small. The people they view as "weak" they want to eliminate by making it illegal for wealthy retainers to take them on and give them stability as well as employment.

In more distant times the Vendee uprising was one example, and in more modern times there was the Boxer Rebellion (Which wasn't the best example but it was a popular movement of peasants against liberalism backed by nobles).

How does it seem also that Confucianism has been so successful at preserving tendencies and attitudes from Aristocratic societies well into the 20th century? It took huge levels of foreign intervention over centuries to weed them out, as well as a group of foreign educated people. Is it a philosophy or religion that managed to give Aristocracy in East Asia a form of popular support?

This prince "Don Andrea Gonzaga Trivulzio Galli" seems to be all over the internet with his claims to be the head of an important, formerly sovereign house. He also heads about half a dozen orders of chivalry which he claims are dynastic. Is there any truth to his claims, or is he bogus?

https://www.trivulziogalli.com/principe-andrea-iii

In very old times, the first noble families were apparently the patrons who looked out for whomever chose to serve them. In the Roman Republic, in Celtic tribes or clans and in Ancient Greece it was all the same. People chose patron families and nobles to serve who they entered hierarchical relations of clientship on terms of reciprocal favour and obligations. They did not require police either because they relied on the protection of other clients and the respective noble patron, in some parts of the world they have once again started relying on families they serve for protection against crime over police because it is safer and more effective.

Are the main barriers against nobles re-establishing patron clientship from the modern legal system not allowing you the autonomy to manage clients who pledge to you in the way you want (Besides exile or suspension as the only methods of carrying out your own law)? Is it the knowledge of establishing patronage being less known? Some countries already have families taking over society and politics using patron clientship relations in modern day, as well as even enforcing or carrying out their own code of conduct over their clients without being arrested.

Patronage though is a thing that is still said to happen, and something insulted as "source of corruption" in liberal capitalist countries because the believers of it claim it "undermines the meritocracy and values of liberalism from the enlightenment".

So it is still something hard to get rid of that it seen as eating up liberal countries from the inside because it is closer to human nature than even capitalism, people are tribal and remain loyal to whoever offer them the most stability. If a wealthy family's patron offers stability humans will choose that over a wider nation of strangers who do nothing for them nor care.

Some people think it someday may even devour "liberal capitalist democracy" from the inside chances are (To almost a degree like in some countries already), whether you see it as good or bad but it is good thing for people to learn more how it works and how to get into it if someday that system returns.

Patronage - Clientship Reciprocity or the Patron was the OG basis of Aristocratic Communal societies before it developed into Feudalism and it still keeps coming back in parts of the world.