Question: Following a previous discussion about **I would like** vs **I would have liked**, I have a similar question.

What is the difference between

> 
> I wanted to come to your party but I couldn't 
> 
> 
> I would have liked to come to your party but I couldn't.
> 
> 
>

Answer: 
I've answered essentially the same question over at english.stackexchange.com: [Why is “our today's meeting” wrong?](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/251561/why-is-our-todays-meeting-wrong)

Usually, a noun phrase in English must have exactly one determiner: you can say "I drove this car" or "I drove my car", but not "I drove car" or "I drove this my car".

Certain nouns (such as plural nouns and proper nouns) don't need determiners: "I love bees", "I love milk", "I love Paris", "I love biology". But it's never acceptable for a noun phrase to have more than one determiner (with possible extremely rare exceptions).

"Our last week's meeting" is unacceptable because the noun phrase "meeting" has two determiners, "our" and "last week's". It would also be unacceptable to say "the today's meeting" or "our the meeting".

Here are some phrases which may *seem* to have multiple determiners, but don't actually:

* your father's home - this noun phrase has only one determiner, namely, "your father's". Meanwhile, the phrase "your father" is also a noun phrase which only has one determiner, namely, "your".
* the brass men's wristwatches - the determiner of this noun phrase is "the", and "brass" and "men's" are adjectives.
* an old people's home - the determiner of this noun phrase is "an". The phrase "old people's home" is an idiom which acts as a simple noun, even though it looks like it contains a determiner.
> 
> Our last week's meeting 
> 
> 
> 

is a little akward, but I for one do **not** think that it is incorrect.

The answer by Tanner Swett says "it's never acceptable for a noun phrase to have more than one determiner." However, [the Wikipedia article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_determiners#Combinations_of_determiners) lists eight different "common" cases where multiple determiners are acceptable. Specifically:

> 
> * A definite determiner can be followed by certain quantifiers (*the many problems, these three things, my very few faults*).
> * The words all and both can be followed by a definite determiner (*all the green apples, both the boys*), which can also be followed by a quantifier as above (*all the many outstanding issues*).
> * The word all can be followed by a cardinal number (*all three things*).
> * The word some can be followed by a cardinal number (*some eight packets*, meaning "approximately eight").
> * Words and phrases expressing fractions and multiples, such as *half, double, twice, three times*, etc. can be followed by a definite determiner: *half a minute, double the risk, twice my age, three times my salary, three-quarters the diameter*, etc.
> * The words such and exclamative-what can be followed by an indefinite article (as mentioned in the section above).
> * The word many can be used with the indefinite article and a singular noun (*many a night, many an awkward moment*).
> * The words each and every can be followed by a cardinal number or other expression of definite quantity (*each two seats, every five grams of flour*).
> 
> 
> 

...

> 
> As with other parts of speech, it is often possible to connect determiners of the same type with the conjunctions and and or: *his and her children, two or three beans*.
> 
> 
> 

The same answer says that "I drove this my car" is wrong. The form "this" followed by a possessive is now rare, but was once more common, especially in formal writing. In particular sentences such as:

> 
> It is a mistake to regard aspects of **this our present society** as unchangeable rules.
> 
> 
> 

were sufficiently common to be a style marker in the writings of the late Robert A Heinlein. 

Since the question title asks about using "two possessives in a row", this can certainly be proper. 

> 
> * This was John's father's watch.
> * This was King Mark's wife's cousin's castle.
> 
> 
> 

are both quite correct.