A reigning monarch and his/her consort, or a former monarch upon abdication and his/her consort, are obviously royal by default. In addition however to the king and queen, or the queen and the prince consort, who else can be considered royal ?
Depending on the definition one adopts, the class of "royals" may include:
1) All persons in the line of succession to a throne and their respective consorts, who, in the UK for example, would mean hundreds of people.
2) All persons in the line of succession to a throne who also hold the title of prince/princess or equivalent (e.g. infante/infanta or archduke/archduchess) and their respective consorts unless untitled (as is the case of many male consorts of royal princesses).
3) All persons holding the style of HRH, who are not necessarily the same group as in (2) above as some princes/princesses are only HHs and there are also sometimes HRHs who are not in the line of succession.
4) All persons who are official members of a Royal House, who again do not necessarily coincide with the group in (3) above as sometimes an HRH may not be a Royal House member (e.g. Felipe VI's sisters).
Personally, I tend to prefer definition # 2, meaning that, to me, Prince Constantijn, Princess Märtha-Louise, Infanta Elena and Princess Anne for example would all be considered "royals", but their respective children and, in the case of Anne or Märtha-Louise, also their husbands would not. On the other hand, both Prince Joachim, Princess Marie and Prince Joachim's children (HHs) would all be royals.
The most controversial issue with definition # 2 is, however, that HRHs or HHs outside the line of succession would not be considered royals, e.g. Irene and Christina of the Netherlands, or Birgitta of Sweden, or Princess Margriet's children. Amedeo of Belgium, on the other hand, although no longer in the line of succession to the Belgian throne, could still be considered royal as an archduke of Austria-Este in the line of succession to the extinct Austro-Hungarian throne.
Anyway, to eliminate the controversy, one could come up with an alternative definition 2.1 where all HRHs and HHs are automatically "royal" regardless of succession rights. Being on the line of succession would still be required though for a royal as defined in 2.1 to be also considered a "dynast".
What do you guys think ?
Depending on the definition one adopts, the class of "royals" may include:
1) All persons in the line of succession to a throne and their respective consorts, who, in the UK for example, would mean hundreds of people.
2) All persons in the line of succession to a throne who also hold the title of prince/princess or equivalent (e.g. infante/infanta or archduke/archduchess) and their respective consorts unless untitled (as is the case of many male consorts of royal princesses).
3) All persons holding the style of HRH, who are not necessarily the same group as in (2) above as some princes/princesses are only HHs and there are also sometimes HRHs who are not in the line of succession.
4) All persons who are official members of a Royal House, who again do not necessarily coincide with the group in (3) above as sometimes an HRH may not be a Royal House member (e.g. Felipe VI's sisters).
Personally, I tend to prefer definition # 2, meaning that, to me, Prince Constantijn, Princess Märtha-Louise, Infanta Elena and Princess Anne for example would all be considered "royals", but their respective children and, in the case of Anne or Märtha-Louise, also their husbands would not. On the other hand, both Prince Joachim, Princess Marie and Prince Joachim's children (HHs) would all be royals.
The most controversial issue with definition # 2 is, however, that HRHs or HHs outside the line of succession would not be considered royals, e.g. Irene and Christina of the Netherlands, or Birgitta of Sweden, or Princess Margriet's children. Amedeo of Belgium, on the other hand, although no longer in the line of succession to the Belgian throne, could still be considered royal as an archduke of Austria-Este in the line of succession to the extinct Austro-Hungarian throne.
Anyway, to eliminate the controversy, one could come up with an alternative definition 2.1 where all HRHs and HHs are automatically "royal" regardless of succession rights. Being on the line of succession would still be required though for a royal as defined in 2.1 to be also considered a "dynast".
What do you guys think ?