I recently found out that I have an extensive royal ancestry. Edward III, II, I, Henry III, King John, Henry II, I, William the Conquerer, all the way back to Charlemagne. I have been told by a friend from England that I might qualify for a royal title if I wasn't American. I am wondering if anyone has any information on this subject? I find it very interesting and would love to see if it is true, but can't find much information on the qualification for titles anywhere online.

Your freind might mean application for abeyant titles. These are titles that have fallen out of peerage, but with female ancestry, the title could still be viable. Research your closest titles and see if their ancestry has become abeyant. Applying for new titles is very rare. Its a one in a million chance. I myself and working for more information of abeyant titles. If you provide your ancestry and question to the Lord Chancellor's office, you will receive an apt reply. They are very courteous. As for a new title, you will need a lot of money, charity work, and yes, must be a British Citizen, or partial resident.

Sarah -
J. E. Lee is well versed in his/her response to you. Although not easy, an abeyant title is more likely to be bestowed than a new one. This in itself carries prestige as a new title would have no history associated with it. In order for an abeyant title to be granted, the original title grant had to have had a Special Remainder clause. Simply put, this means that, in the absence of male heirs, females may inherit the title. This Special Remainder is granted much more frequently in modern times that in the past. A good example would be Earl Mountbatten of Burma. When his title was bestowed, it was clear that he would have no children other than his two daughters. The Special Remainder clause was attached to his title, allowing the current Countess Mountbatten of Burma to inherit the title. Some, however few, much older title carried the Special Remainder clause and are certainly worth investigating.
I would like to respectfully correct an err in J. E. Lee's response: One would NOT have to be a British Citizen, as there is no such distinction. We are considered British subjects (subjects of our Queen); the technicality that we are not citizens of our own land, has long been a hotly debated political issue.
One would, however, be required to be a "subject" of Her Majesty in order to recieve a title. The implication here, is that it would not appear correct for Elizabeth II to run around bestowing titles on those who were not under her command.
AND, United States of America law, constitutionally forbids American citizens from accepting foreign title. One could, however, relinguish American citizenship, as did Queen Noor of Jordan and Princess Grace of Monaco.
Much success to you in all your research!
Rickey Owens-Smith

You are mistaken; the United States Constitution does not prohibit US citizens from holding or accepting titles. There was an amendment proposed at the time of the War of 1812 that would have done what you wrote--prohibit an American citizen from accepting or holding a nobel title--it was never ratified. The U.S Constitution forbids the United States or any state from granting titles of nobility; also a person holding a federal office cannot accept a title, office, present or emolument from a foreign state or head of state without the consent of Congress.
It makes no mention of citizens; several persons holding titles of nobility or curtsey titles are US citizens by birth, including several in line to the British Throne. BTW, Grace Kelly remained a USA citizen her entire life, and her children were born citizens of the USA, although Prince Albert will renounce that citizenship when he becomes the Soverign Prince of Monaco (if he hasn't done so already). FWIW, the Duchess of Windsor remained an American citizen till her death, but was a British subject from the time she married Ernest Simpson.

Chuck -
I appreciate your taking the time to point out my mistake. I have reconsidered, and I do believe you to be absolutely correct in that the U.S. Constitution does nor forbid a citizen from holding a noble title; it does forbid Congress to grant such titles. Your correction makes sense as there are numerous Americans with titles: Princess Yasmin Khan (daughter of the late actress Rita Hayworth), is but one example.
In one of my numerous books, I did read where HSH Prince Rainier announced that his children were Monegasque citizens only. It's probably a topic that he prefered not present itself, but it did, and he made the proclamation. This was done because, as you point out, the children were born American citizens since their mother was American. It's probably much more of a technicality than a practicality. USA in unique in that one is a citizen simply by being born there or if a parent is a citizen. If other nations had the same law, my American cousins who were born of an American military family stationed in Japan, would be Japanese citizens as well, simply because they were born there.
Not surprisingly, citizenship laws vary from nation to nation. Having lived in México, we were considered Mexican "residents" but were not required to relinguish loyalty to our sovereign (in Britain we're technically "subjects" of Her Majesty, not "citizens" of Britain). This was simply financial for the government of México, as foreigners pay various fees for the process of becoming a Mexican "resident". Few would embrace the residency requirement if if meant relinguishing citizenship or loyalty to the mother country. A smart move on the side of the government, in my opinion.
Thanks again Chuck, for taking the time to point me in a more enlightened direction!
Rickey Owens-Smith

Ricky, did you ever get the Martin Newsletter started. I would be interested if you are including Chilton County Martins.

Thanks, Shelia Martin

Hello Shelia -
Surprisingly enough, I was not able to generate a whole lot of interest in a Martin newsletter :(
However, I do have a copy of the book My Martins By The Hundreds and Their Cousins By The Dozens which covers our Chilton County Martin family. If I can look anything up for you, please let me know.
Kind regards,
Rickey

Hi Rickey, well I know now why I can trace the Brehons-Brewsters back to 2,200yrs ago, for an Great Grandfather, a Grandfather, a father and a son; as well as an region where 3 kingdoms there were wisely ruled the area of Dalriata Western Scotland for 2,200 years.....whom relocated them?

Would many believe the legendary King Arthur Pendragon, why would you ask? This entire family was his wife's relatives....not may refuse the Queen Gwenyiviere very little. Hummmm now we come to names, there is King Fergus MacGillicuddy of course; there is Eochaid Muinremuir, I seem to get the r instead of the n in that name. Loarn mac Eirc is the next name and finally Fergus Mor' mac Eirc is the last, whom I have been calling "Eirc Breheny"....of course which is the English Translation of his name.

What is very sad, the facts with the information that I just submitted it is on the internet and in ancient maps as well as writings but few historians nor professional genealogist are knocking on my door about what I know because simply they are more interested in the Tudors, Stewards and others that generate more interest....talk about King Arthur Pendragon, "Oh my he never existed or he was too romanticized was he not, Ohhh was he not a Roman Military Subordinant?" If your an ignorant Italian Film Director that ignores alot of details about Dark Age Scotland, Darkage Ireland and then later what happened in the Midieval Ireland Britain and Scotland then King Arthur Pendragon did not exist simply because his memory faded into legend, if so.....why was both Britain and The Scots so concerned about the Kingdom of Alba Scotland then?

Hello,
Just ran across this post today. I, too, am descended from people that I've read about in history books (much to my astonishment!). Who does one contact about those dormant titles? Thank you.