Mac

JJ.... such cutely. I am looking forward. that someday we will face the Princess Jay of Schulenberg.

we do not yet know who are the artists and athletes and such, in the past, that the Schulenberg princelings hosted in their (probably Baroque) palace... castrate singers? or young men from the circle of Frederick II the Great...

root title. this is a thing I felt immediately having something wrong. However, it took a while for me to consider what this is... The root title cannot easily be "Duke" von Schulenberg. In H Roman system, holder of duchy of S, will be Duke and bears such as honorific too. But, dukes of small domains are a veritable rarity there. Besides, already the count of Schulenberg has held the domain of Schulenberg, without being Duke. Even Fürst is, in german system, a bit lower than Herzog = Duke. And, Schulenberg is held by Prince of Schulenberg, without him being titled "Duke". so, the 'root' title is not "Duke" von Schulenberg. The concept here obviously attempts to capture something else than Duchy and Duke. And should probaböy find another word than "Duke"... the root presumably is the ownership, earlier the holdership, of the domain of Schulenberg. Earlier centuries, such domain is merely held by feudal right, as Fief, as vassal of the overlord (the overlord could be, e.g the Duke of Pomerania, or, the King of Germany aka HRE). Not technically owned (yet in those centuries), but held by vassal as fief granted by the overlord. Fiefs evolved as owned properties as development of the vanishing feudal system and the generalizing effect of 'capitalist' ownership to replace the 'ancien regime'-type feudal rights. So, in the 1900s, the Prince of Schulenberg already is treated as owner of the domain (formerly, fief) of Schulenberg - and they have had possibilities to sell parts of it to third parties. Therefore, my answer to the question “What’s a root title?” would be: the fief of Schulenberg. Not the "Duke von Schulenberg". And, the word 'title' comes here in its other meaning or connotation, "title to land". In other words, this title is not attachable as honorific to one's name, but it is a materiality in law which could be expressed in a document, property ownership record. Kris actually says something that expresses this: “That’s the title we got for the land we owned". my interpretation is that it means: title for the fief of Schulenberg. title for the domain of Schulenberg.

I believe that the Schulenberg family of Prussia would look askance at such upstarts as the Hungarian, non- Germanic, Esterhazy - the worst in Esterhazy line is they were not even medieval Barons but received such rank only in the 1500s, which is nouveau indeed Besides, as Schulenberg are of princely rank already during the reign of Joseph I, they naturally view with pity such noblemen whose princely title came from Joseph's little bro and successor, the Hispanic Carolus VI, so much time later. "...The Esterházys arose among the minor nobility of the northern part of the Kingdom of Hungary (today's southwest Slovakia), ... the name Zerházi (de Zerhásház / de Zyrház / de Zyrhas). Their first known ancestor was Mokud (Mocud) from the Salamon clan, who was a military serviceman and landowner in the Csallóköz region of Western Hungary (today Žitný ostrov in southwestern Slovakia), and Pristaldus, a judicial office-holder in the court of Béla III of Hungary. ....in 1539 the wealth of Ilona Bessenyei de Galántha.... Her son, Ferenc Esterházy (1533–1604) inherited the coat of arms and title of his mother and the full surname of the family became Eszterházy de Galántha, Galanta being a small town east of Bratislava (Hungarian: Pozsony, German: Pressburg), now capital of Slovakia. this Ferenc Zerházy (1563–1594), was elevated to the title of baron of Galántha and took the name Esterházy. the Esterházy family was consistently loyal to the Habsburg rulers. The Esterházys received the title of Graf (Count) in 1626, and the Forchtenstein line received the title of Fürst (Prince) from the Holy Roman Emperor in 1712" during the reign of Carolus VI ... My help in counting the generations is princes of Langenburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohenlohe-Langenburg and those of Leiningen. Both of which, genuine Germans, also, were upgraded to comital rank already in the Middle Ages. In these stories, Schulenberg is mentioned as nobility from the state of Prussia. This led me to expect Schulenberg domains are in the territory of the former DDR (= East Germany), the commie state which certainly confiscated all private properties. Because, in West Germany, all domains in principle stayed as property of their princely owners.

"have a crown?”: princes and dukes bear a coronet. “a mantle” ermines in cape fur... or something

nice history of title. If Kris is the 14th Fürst, then the princely (and ducal?) title got created, not in Middle Ages, but something around the year 1700. Perhaps it is created by his august majesty, Joseph I, Holy Roman Emperor. Joseph, as well as his dad and his younger bro, were emperors who made serious PR work to gain goodwill from other mighty potentates. The Russian Tsar Peter I's friend (and fuckee), Menshikov, received one of those Holy Roman princely titles in those (early 1700s) same days too - a diplomatic gesture of HREmperor to help the powerful Tsar, so the Tsar did not personally need to look like an overindulgent lover. Also Menshikov is grateful. In Middle Ages, this sort of landowners with a domain of merely several villages or so, did not yet get to become Prince. In those days, a small province, such as worth an English shire or an American county, is the usual requisite for princely title. However, it is perfectly plausible that a late-medieval Holy Roman Emperor ended up to erecting a baron, or barons (a few cousins sharing the same fief of some villages), of Schulenberg, to be Counts of Schulenberg, as a thank for some helpful action such as supporting the emperor in one of those civil wars in Germany. A count created in -say- 1703 as Fürst (so, born in about the 1650s), tends to have approx some 10 generations of direct descendants, to end up to a guy born in the 1970s. An ignorant someone could say that then the 1970s-born should be 11th Prince. However, this is generally not so, chiefly because a few times within 10 generations, a younger brother succeeds his elder brother, and/or other such things happen - thus some generation(s) do have more than one 'the nth Prince' in the lineage. (I am going to totally forget the relatively old and yet very extant family of counts von der Schulenburg in this case and context. Clearly they are a different family, from some other corner of Germany - and we see that the names do have the very real and important difference between -berg and -burg.) A sad consequence of the patriarchate-style usages of these old titles is the fact that JJ cannot (easily) obtain his own title by marrying Kris. By marriage, JJ cannot become another Prince of Schulenberg. But if JJ changes her gender officially to female, then by marriage she would be Fürstin von Schulenberg, Prinzessin von Schulenberg. No children ensue?

Such a cute testament Now, the King should create a marquessate (Brentwood) for George Granger, and create a Barony (or new viscountcy), named "of Haversham", to George with proviso that the new (viscountcy/barony) will be inherited by Alexander (and his tail male) upon the death of George, passing to George's other hers only if Alexander's male progeny line goes extinct. The newly added wealth is going to support easily several new peerages. I am also thinking that in due time, the young Elizabeth should marry Davina's son, in order to become Duchess, and to bring Hanoverian royal blood to the ducal branch of Suffolk.

the Prince Regent of Denmark and the King of Sweden are close kinsmen of King George III. As son of king George's late sister Caroline Mathilde, the Prince Regent of Denmark (Frederik) is king George's nephew. the King of Sweden, Gustav IV Adolph, is son of king George's first cousin, Sofia Magdalena (who is alive at this time). Gustav IV's grandmother, in other words, dowager queen Sofia Magdalena's mother, was the late queen Louise, one of paternal aunts of King George III, Louise being daughter of George II and queen Caroline.

Sadly, I see a grave planning problem in their plans as they are currently laid out. The very important thing as to English peerage law is that it should be arranged that the mariage takes place before the child be born. Otherwise, the child will never be entitled to be heir to peerages and noble rank. The wedding as late as in July is going to be at risky timing. It is early Winter now, and the child was already conceived sometime in the Autumn. Normal pregnancy is about 9.5 months. The child will be born sometime in June or July, if the gestation goes normally. But if the child happens to be born prematurely, say two months ahead, it is still the late Spring. I say that the wedding needs to be in March, at latest. This is already because of the legal need to ensure that the child (boy, hopefully) is born to the already married couple and not even a moment after the matrimony. Because of the English peerage law. Moreover, it will not be seemly, in aristocratic wedding with a hundred and more audience, that the bride displays to be in her last stages of pregnancy, i.e heavily pregnant and being waddling to the altar.

there was a piece of Californian rudeness at display: "...senator from state of Virginia"... because polite people would say: "....from the Commonwealth of Virginia..."

there is the small historicity problem that in the 1790s, there was not alive any such thing as 'His Most Faithful Majesty'. Instead, there existed Her Most Faithful Majesty, Queen Maria, sovereign of Portugal and the two Algarves, in the very position meant in the text.

Would we soon (how soon?) see Wade as political candidate? candidate in election of the US senate... in California? and which party?

I want to remind that Will is NOT biologically descended from Tonto. Thusly Will cannot have inherited genetically anything from Tonto. -- remember that Will is son of Brad, whose father was NOT Billy Schluer, but Mr Carmichael. Billy Schluter was son of Tonto, but as should be remembered, Brad was not his son biologically. It should be clear that a husband's genes are not inherited by his wife's son sired by another man. Merely the surname passes...

Norway is a nice country which has some cute criminal law about child pornography. I am of the opinion that Michael should be delivered to face Norwegian justice on the matter of child pornography he photographed.

poor Will. Both his own biological mother and his biological paternal grandmother have been bat crazy women, i.e clearly and attestedly mentally ill. if Will were a real person and not a novel character, this sort of genetic burden would probably mean that he cannot be anything else than mentally ill. That Will is a resourceful, relatively well adjusted boy in the novel, requires the use of artistic license. Regarding biological heritage, as I understand it, Will is not directly descended from Tonto in any way, so it cannot be genetical if he resembles Tonto.

Why did Granger not take the boatload of mutineer representatives as prisoners? I mean, with some luck, eliminating them from the Nore mutiny, would possibly have weakened the numbers of the mutineer leadership enough to even hve the mutiny to collapse.