What Will Happen To The Extended Royal Family?

[Chatleen]

These days it seems to be the trend for the european royals to marry "ordinary" people, what ever ordinary means And of course are the young royals entitled to marry out of love, just like anyone else.

It makes me wonder though, what will happen to the close bonds between the various european royal houses. By now most of them are 1st or 2nd cousins, but in the generations to come, those family-relations will be still more distant.

I do feel, that's a shame I would like the idea of Princess Victoria of Sweden and Prince Nikolaus of Greece to marry, or mayby Prince William of England and Princess Theodora of Greece

[tiaraprin]

Well, besides the loss of ties you speak about, the British Royals are now limiting even more who becomes an official "Royal". Edward's daughter is Lady Louise and there has been talk that the titles will only go to the first child of the ruling King or Queen.

[Josefine]

I think that norway, denmark, Norway and sweden always will be close more as close friends then family ties

[Chatleen]

I may need to be a little more specific on my original question, because I do think, that ties of friendship will continue between several of the famlies.

One of the things I find really interesting regarding the royal families are their genealogies; how the families relates to one another. The families are surrounded by a very special charisma, which among other things is due to their histories as the head of states in Europe.

But time changes, and I might just have to get use to the thought of no more mixing blood between these families

[Chatleen]

Originally posted by tiaraprin@May 30th, 2004 - 10:57 am
Well, besides the loss of ties you speak about, the British Royals are now limiting even more who becomes an official "Royal". Edward's daughter is Lady Louise and there has been talk that the titles will only go to the first child of the ruling King or Queen.

This has been the case in Denmark for some years now. The young royals have to be very close to the throne to keep their title, if they marry a "commoner".

I think the late Queen Ingrid, the mother of Queen Margrethe II, stressed the importance of keeping the royal family small. I do wonder, why she did that, though. Mayby to avoid fights over the throne, or to keep a distance at scandalous behaving relatives???

Mayby, that's what the english royal family is hoping for

[wymanda]

Originally posted by Chatleen+May 31st, 2004 - 2:28 am--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Chatleen @ May 31st, 2004 - 2:28 am)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-tiaraprin@May 30th, 2004 - 10:57 am
Well, besides the loss of ties you speak about, the British Royals are now limiting even more who becomes an official "Royal".&nbsp; Edward's daughter is Lady Louise and there has been talk that the titles will only go to the first child of the ruling King or Queen.

[/b][/quote]
I understood that Lady Louise's title was Edward & Sophie's choice as was the rank Edward took when he married. Remember that when Prince Phillip passes on Edward will become Duke of Edinburgh as Charles & Andrew have waived their claim on the title for themselves and their descendants.

[tiaraprin]

Originally posted by wymanda+May 30th, 2004 - 6:57 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (wymanda @ May 30th, 2004 - 6:57 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I understood that Lady Louise's title was Edward & Sophie's choice as was the rank Edward took when he married. [/b][/quote]
While it is true that Edward and Sophie wanted their daughter to be just Lady Louise, the Queen is trying to streamline the number of royals. This comes from the controversy of Queen's yearly allowance from the government. People did not think they were getting their money's worth from some and were angered about how many were on the list. Now Princess Michael can't whine anymore that everyone is on it but her!!! :P

[A.C.C.]

Originally posted by tiaraprin+May 30th, 2004 - 7:52 pm--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (tiaraprin @ May 30th, 2004 - 7:52 pm)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

I understood that Lady Louise's title was Edward & Sophie's choice as was the rank Edward took when he married.

While it is true that Edward and Sophie wanted their daughter to be just Lady Louise, the Queen is trying to streamline the number of royals. This comes from the controversy of Queen's yearly allowance from the government. People did not think they were getting their money's worth from some and were angered about how many were on the list. Now Princess Michael can't whine anymore that everyone is on it but her!!! :P [/b][/quote]
Yes, it was Edward and Sophie's decision to make Louise a Lady and not a Princess. In the next generation, the title of HRH and Prince and Princess will probably be limited to children of the monarch and their children (if male, as it is now). I doubt cousins of the monarch will be HRH's, but who knows. Anyway, in Britain, I doubt just the heir will be HRH. And the only people paid by the British gov. for royal duties is The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh. The Queen pays Her children (except Charles) for their "royal work", but i'm not sure about Her cousins like the Dukes and Duchesses of Gloucester and Kent.

[yvr girl]

A couple of points. The Queen covers the civil list amount for the Gloucesters and the Kents. The use of HRH has been limited since the reign of George IV (at the same time that the family name was changed to Windsor.)

The children of the Monarch are entitled to the HRH, as well as the grandchildren of the Monarch in the male line. The present Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are grandchildren of George IV, thus they are still Royal Dukes and HRH. When they pass their titles on, the dukedoms will become non-royal. That is why the children of the current dukes are Lord and Lady not HRH.

I have heard that it was Edward and Sophie's choice for their children not to be HRH, I believe that was actually announced when Edward was created an Earl.

[A.C.C.]

Originally posted by yvr girl@Jun 5th, 2004 - 8:57 pm
A couple of points.&nbsp; The Queen covers the civil list amount for the Gloucesters and the Kents.&nbsp; The use of HRH has been limited&nbsp; since the reign of George IV (at the same time that the family name was changed to Windsor.)

The children of the Monarch are entitled to the HRH, as well as the grandchildren of the Monarch in the male line.&nbsp; The present Dukes of Gloucester and Kent are grandchildren of George IV, thus they are still Royal Dukes and HRH.&nbsp; When they pass their titles on, the dukedoms will become non-royal.&nbsp; That is why the children of the current dukes are Lord and Lady not HRH.

I have heard that it was Edward and Sophie's choice for their children not to be HRH, I believe that was actually announced when Edward was created an Earl.

I don't want to be knit-picky, but it was George V not George IV who established the letters patent of 1917 that is still in place today. Since The Queen has not changed and shows no signs of changing it, Louise is technically and legally a princess, but she is known as Lady Louise because of her parents wishes.

[Josefine]

i have been thinkning about this and i beleive that thay needed new blood becouse most of them are cousins or second cousins

it may be so that later on their children or grand children will marry one and other tjhey neet at weddings or othe events and not as close family but as friends

[Claire]

I think we will see the end of the 'extended" British Royal family as soon as Queen Elizabeth II dies. Reason been it is Charles wishes to limited the amount of royals. It also ties in with the want of New Labour. I think that the British parliament has been playing with this idea for a while which is why the Earl of Wessex sort to make his own way in the first place.
Needless to say, Charles wants to go back to the central family - like George VI, the Queen Mother and their two daughters. This model was an idealic scenerio, unfortunately that was the 1940's and Charles still thinks it'll work. What will happen when Charles becames king? I expect the Gloucesters, Kents and Alexanderia Ogilvy to be told to stop royal engagements or drastically shorten them to personal patronages. Then they will be kicked out of Kingsington Palace.
Anne, Andrew and Edward would thus full the roles of these 'minor' royals. In short they would vanish from our sights. It is thus undertandable why Anne and Edward have choosen a life for their children that would give them the opportunity to live noramal lives. I pity Beatrice and Eugenie through, they might be useful if there are no royal women doing duties, but when or if William and Harry marry, they will became obsolute. If I was them I would seriously start thinking of long term career opportunties.

[Elsa M.]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/...fprincess.html


By Suzy Menkes International Herald Tribune
Tuesday, December 21, 2004


There they are, in all their glory: the new European princesses. The sad departure of the future Queen Diana suggested that it was all over for monarchical glamour and that the Hollywood Princesses Nicole and Gwyneth had filled the vacant slot.

But now that celebrity has become commonplace, the commoners turned royal are fighting back.

Is there anyone more regal than the future Queen of Denmark? Mary Donaldson, who is Australian, has slid effortlessly into the royal role since she met her destiny, named Fred, in a bar in Sydney during the 2000 Olympic Games. Their wedding last summer, when the adoring Prince Frederick shed tears of joy, was the best Danish fairy tale that Hans Christian Andersen never wrote.

The same royal crowd showed up for the Spanish wedding of the television newscaster Letizia Ortiz and Prince Felipe. This was a wet blanket event, not just because Madrid was uncharacteristically pouring rain, but because the parents glowered and the public did not rate it as a romantic match.

France and Italy came up with a joint union between the French actress Clotilde Coureau and Prince Emmanuel Philibert of Savoy (no relation to the hotel chain), who is the grandson of the last king of Italy. Clotilde was heavily pregnant when they married in September, so it was Valentino to the rescue! The court couturier to European princesses (think Marie Chantal of Greece) produced a delicately shaped dress; add a large bouquet clutched to the stomach and the wedding photos will never embarrass Vittoria Cristina Adelaide Chiara Maria, born three months later.

By July, Valentino had garnered for a dinner in his French chateau a blond royal duo: Princess Mette-Marit of Norway (with Crown Prince Haakon) and Maxima of Holland, the Argentine wife of Prince Willem-Alexander. Both have done what princesses should do: produce an heir, who, in these egalitarian days, can be of either sex. Mette-Marit, whose son by a previous relationship had sent shock waves through Scandinavia, produced a mini-princess in August. Maxima, who had ducked a scandal by disinviting her father (with his connections to the Argentine junta of old) to the royal wedding, also produced a daughter.

The new crop of royals are creating plenty more princesses destined for the throne. The role model is Victoria of Sweden, who battled anorexia and is now fulfilling royal duties while having a relaxed private life. Her sister Madeleine has the glamour, but not the future title. The sad story of Princess Masako of Japan, who has been overwhelmed by the royal court, may still have a happy ending for her daughter, Princess Aiko - if her husband, Prince Naruhito, can win the nation over to the idea of a woman on the Chrysanthemum throne.

For Valentino, the new blood introduces a contemporary glamour. "They are modern royalty, not stiff princesses that we saw years ago," he says. "I know a lot of them very well. I think they are fresh and very modern and monarchy in the future has to be like this."

For Colombe Pringle, editor of the French magazine Point de Vue, there are pitfalls as well as joys for the new princesses. She cites the Asian-born Alexandra of Denmark, who is divorcing Prince Joachim. Pringle says that smart professional women do not find it easy to integrate into an insular royal court, where the job description is to produce an heir and a "spare," smile and do charity work.

Mathilde of Belgium fills that role to perfection and was voted as top princess by Point de Vue's readers.

"She is very classic, a blond between Grace Kelly and Claudia Schiffer and very sweet-natured," Pringle says of Mathilde, who married Crown Prince Philip in 1999. Elizabeth, born in 2001, is the first female heir to the throne under the new gender equality laws that leave her brother, Gabriel, second in line.

Pringle also says she believes that the princess factor comes from the element of mystery that ordinary young women acquire when they "enter the parlors and start to dream." And that restraint is the allure of the new young royals.

Flora Fraser, the author of "Princesses," about the six daughters of George III, believes that those who marry into a royal family have a clearly defined role.

"It's a very orderly process - what princesses are meant to do is to produce little princes who become big kings," Fraser says. "If you look at Europe, Caroline of Monaco" (married to Ernst of Hanover) "is the best global princess. She really cares about what charities she supports and uses her intelligence."

Fraser makes her biography of the 18th-century princesses into a powerful feminist tale. Left in a social limbo by their father's fits of madness, they mostly remained unmarried and chose their own partners, one even producing an illegitimate son, although that scandal was buried.

Like those princesses driven by circumstances to be independent women, Fraser finds an energy in those now entering the monarchy without a drop of royal blood.

"They are energetic when you look at the languid Edwardian princesses," Fraser says, citing the new breed of "working" princesses who have made careers in banking.

"Queen Charlotte educated herself and her daughters," Fraser says of George III's wife. "Now, rather than just thinking frocks and castles, these are women who can really bring something to the fairy tale -– their intelligence."

All of which does not stop people from believing that a marriage between the handsome Prince William and the gorgeous Charlotte Casiraghi, daughter of Princess Caroline, would be made in heaven. And that a tiara can turn even Paris Hilton into a princess.

[Alexandria]

Thanks Elsa M. for this article.

There are however numerous errors in this article, both major and minor -- although I'm sure my journalism professors would say that any error in an article is a major one and that there are no "minor" errors when it comes to getting your facts right and reporting things accurately.

By July, Valentino had garnered for a dinner in his French chateau a blond royal duo: Princess Mette-Marit of Norway (with Crown Prince Haakon) and Maxima of Holland, the Argentine wife of Prince Willem-Alexander. Both have done what princesses should do: produce an heir, who, in these egalitarian days, can be of either sex. Mette-Marit, whose son by a previous relationship had sent shock waves through Scandinavia, produced a mini-princess in August. Maxima, who had ducked a scandal by disinviting her father (with his connections to the Argentine junta of old) to the royal wedding, also produced a daughter.

Ingrid Alexandra was born in January, not August. Maybe the writer is confused with the fact that her parents were however married in August?

And the author couldn't possibly be referring to Catharina-Amalia either, who was born in December.

And why is Haakon mentioned as a Crown Prince but his wife only a Princess?

And Willem is a Crown Prince yet he is referred here as only a Prince.

Ditto for a later mention of Naruhito and Masako of Japan, who are the Crown Prince and Crown Princess, too

Other mistakes:
Phillippe and Mathilde's daughter's name is Elisabeth with an 's' not a 'z.' (First rule of journalism school is to always ask how to spell a person's name. Even something as simple as John Smith can have many, many variations, such as Jon Smith, John Smythe, etc.)

Letizia's full name before her marriage should be Letizia Ortiz-Roscalano, as in Spain you get the last names of both mother and father.

I'm really disappointed that such accessible, everyday information could be mucked up so royally. It's not as if this reporter was writing about something more difficult like the kind of china and the producer of the china Queen Margrethe got on her wedding day; it's names and titles and their proper spellings.

[Elsa M.]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

Letizia's full name before her marriage should be Letizia Ortiz-Roscalano, as in Spain you get the last names of both mother and father.

I'm really disappointed that such accessible, everyday information could be mucked up so royally. It's not as if this reporter was writing about something more difficult like the kind of china and the producer of the china Queen Margrethe got on her wedding day; it's names and titles and their proper spellings.

You are right, Alexandria, on your comments about accuracy in journalism and I could not agree more with you on that point.

(Let me, however, make a little remark. In Spain, the last name of a person belongs to the mother side; however, it is still the father's name - that is, the penultimate name - that is the most important, so there's no error in naming the Princess of Asturias as Letizia Ortiz. Her complete name, however, is Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano)

[norwegianne]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

I'm really disappointed that such accessible, everyday information could be mucked up so royally. It's not as if this reporter was writing about something more difficult like the kind of china and the producer of the china Queen Margrethe got on her wedding day; it's names and titles and their proper spellings.

Ah, but then you haven't seen Hello Magazine's biography of King Harald... I mean, it is NOT hard to check the date when the Germans invaded Norway, one of the most important dates in recent Norwegian history... yet they have managed to push it back three years...

Born on February 21, 1937, at the royal estate of Skaugum just outside Oslo, Harald was six years old when Germany invaded Norway on April 9, 1943.

But back on topic.

The older generation of Royals are more closely related than the younger one, King Harald is King Albert's cousin, Queen Elizabeth's second cousin, Queen Margrethe's second cousin, and so on. But it has been at family events that the younger generation, who are not as closely related, have got to know each other to that degree that they think of each other as friends. Which means that they will most likely spend time together, and that their children will have the same networking chances.

They are in a unique position. I know that Crown Prince Haakon has stated several times, about Frederik of Denmark, that it is good to have someone else to talk to, who knows a bit about what it is like.

But you also have the Dutch royals, who aren't as closely related to the others, and they seem to be included just fine...

*shrugs*

[Josefine]

i also saw a interview with victoria made for her 25th birthday when she held a birthday party and young royals from different royal houses was invited
she said that their support is very important for her
they are the only once that know what her role mean and can give her some support in this mather
they do talk to one and other about royal things when they met up at different gatherings