The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > Current Events Archive

Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 01-15-2011, 03:04 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by wbenson View Post
That list of royal family members is a list of persons whose names and images can't be trademarked, according to this document. I'm not sure it has any other significance.

They didn't have to include Sarah under a list headed Royal Family. They could have used a separate heading - 'former royals' or 'others' but she is clearly listed, on an official government website under the list of members of the Royal Family.
__________________

__________________
  #22  
Old 01-15-2011, 06:16 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,235
"Others" and "former royals" aren't covered by the corresponding legislation, which applies to "representation[s] of Her Majesty or any member of the Royal family." Perhaps it's an indication into how the palace views her status generally, but perhaps it's just an attempt to keep the image and name of the mother of the Queen's granddaughters from being used improperly.
__________________

__________________
TRF rules and FAQ
  #23  
Old 01-15-2011, 06:43 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
The fact that the legislation covers Sarah but only relates to members of the royal family supports the supposition that the government and the Queen (who had to approve the legislation) consider her a member of the family.
__________________
  #24  
Old 01-15-2011, 07:39 PM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
I agree, Mr. Benson. It has no significance beyond trademark protections for the Queen's granddaughters. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
  #25  
Old 01-15-2011, 10:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
I agree, Mr. Benson. It has no significance beyond trademark protections for the Queen's granddaughters. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

The granddaughters are named specifically.

The list states 'Members of the Royal Family' and the legislation is only relevant to the members of the royal family and Sarah is listed as one of those people.

It most assuredly has significance as it is an official list given by the UK government on their website of a list of people covered by legislation that only relates to the royal family. That list had to be approved by both the Queen and the government and Sarah's name is listed as belonging to the royal family. No getting away from the fact that on an official government website she is listed as belonging to the royal family.

Sure a cigar is just a cigar - so an official government list of members of the royal family is just that - a government list of the members of the royal family and Sarah is on that list.
__________________
  #26  
Old 01-16-2011, 10:59 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
She's on the list. So what? Yes, it's an official document but what does it mean? Ultimately nothing. She's still a former princess who's skated on the fact that she got to keep the style Duchess of York but she doesn't dare call herself an actual member of the royal family.
__________________
  #27  
Old 01-16-2011, 11:28 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, United States
Posts: 2,146
What happens if Andrew remarries?
Then will Sarah have to give up the title Duchess of York?
There can't be two, can there? So what name would she have, in that event?
__________________
  #28  
Old 01-16-2011, 12:36 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Galway, Ireland
Posts: 323
Mirabel, I'm open to correction but I read previously that legally Sarah can always call herself Sarah, Duchess of York (like any married woman who separates but doesn't revert back to their maiden name). If Andrew were to remarry his new wife would be HRH (Name) The Duchess of York.
Sarah isn't THE Duchess of York.
Somehow I don't think that will ever be an issue, Andrew seems happy with his lot.
__________________
  #29  
Old 01-16-2011, 11:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by sliver_bic View Post
She's on the list. So what? Yes, it's an official document but what does it mean? Ultimately nothing. She's still a former princess who's skated on the fact that she got to keep the style Duchess of York but she doesn't dare call herself an actual member of the royal family.

Why not if the government does on its official website in relation to legislation that only applies to the royal family and had to be signed by the Queen (who also had to approve all addenda etc) so the Queen also had to approve her name being on this list.

As the Queen would have approved her name appearing on an official government list of those in the Royal Family why shouldn't Sarah regard herself as being a member of that family?
__________________
  #30  
Old 01-16-2011, 11:46 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mirabel View Post
What happens if Andrew remarries?
Then will Sarah have to give up the title Duchess of York?
There can't be two, can there? So what name would she have, in that event?

Sarah can call herself Sarah, Duchess of York until she remarries and nothing can change that, short of legislation requiring all ex-wives to revert to their maiden names.

She isn't using a title but a style - the same style as used by the divorced wife of any peer, and the same style as the divorced Diana used - Diana, Princess of Wales (not a title but a style). They both lost their titles when they were divorced as they ceased to be The Princess of Wales and The Duchess of York.

There can be two, three or however many are necessary. If Andrew remarries his wife will be HRH The Duchess of York and Sarah would be Sarah, Duchess of York. It happens all the time where through divorce or death there are multiple people with the same title. Take the title/style Countess Spencer. The present Earl has been married and divorced twice and both wives can use the names Victoria, Countess Spencer and Caroline, Countess Spencer. Had he married his recent fiancee she would have become The Countess Spencer but that would have had no effect on the rights of his divorced ex-wives to use Countess Spencer as part of their names.
__________________
  #31  
Old 01-16-2011, 11:48 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bronx, United States
Posts: 421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why not if the government does on its official website in relation to legislation that only applies to the royal family and had to be signed by the Queen (who also had to approve all addenda etc) so the Queen also had to approve her name being on this list.

As the Queen would have approved her name appearing on an official government list of those in the Royal Family why shouldn't Sarah regard herself as being a member of that family?
Of course she is a part of it through her daughters but I mean that she'd never dare call herself part of the "official" family, in royal terms. She's not part of official functions for a reason, there is a line that separates her just like for Diana and Mark Phillips.
__________________
  #32  
Old 01-18-2011, 09:55 AM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
silver, it's no use. People see what they want to see in terms of this, in spite of the very careful explanations both here and contained in the legislation.

It's in Sarah's best interest to continue to portray herself as a Royal insider of one form or another, and her teeming throngs of ardent fans will brook no argument that does not conclude with her still being Royal, and Andrew's wife. It's as though the past nineteen years, since she was caught out with her financial advisor, simply never happened.

Every time the Duke of York bends over to scratch his left ankle, it does not signify that he intends to repeat his error of marriage to Sarah - but there are those who, deeply enmeshed, consider it to be so.

And you stated it very well - there is a line that separates her, just as it does for Mark Phillips. But no matter how insightful your statement, it falls on fallow ground.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
  #33  
Old 01-18-2011, 12:45 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada, Canada
Posts: 980
Where are people here saying that Sarah is still Andrew's wife, or that Andrew is about to remarry Sarah?

As for the list, I don't think it means that Sarah is still royal--having lost the HRH, I don't think being on a list of "Royals" is enough to reinstate her.

That being said, Sarah is on that list and Mark Phillips isn't--they are both divorced from members of the royal family, but there must be a reason Sarah is on that list and he isn't. I assume it's because, as much as people sometimes don't like it, Beatrice and Eugenie are still fairly high on the list of succession--and Sarah is their mother.
__________________
  #34  
Old 01-18-2011, 03:23 PM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
rmay.....

More than once, more than one posting party here has stated that because of Sarah's continued residence under Andrew's roof and the presumption of continued use of her, er, charms, that Sarah and Andrew have a de facto common-law marriage. Now I'm not sure if these individuals who post this have advanced degrees in law which cover UK circumstances, or how it is that they know that this couple are intimate, but there you are. And as to them remarrying.....well, it's repeatedly remarked on here by the ardent followers, who seem to snatch at every movement of Andrew's to draw the conclusion that a remarriage is simply inevitable. And I mean, literally every movement - or non-movement: each and every thing he does is seized upon as proof positive of his endless devotion to Sarah and their imminent remarriage.

And has been stated earlier - and oddly, seems to be continually ignored in the rush to use this Web site of "evidence" of, well, a lot more than it is: there are trademark issues regarding the Queen's granddaughters that this inclusion on the list covers.

As I said earlier...sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
  #35  
Old 01-18-2011, 05:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
The Queen's granddaughters yes - and they are listed. So are Peter, Autumn and Zara Philips - but not Mark Philips but Sarah is - why Sarah and not Mark - the father of Peter and Zara - the father of two of the Queen's grandchildren? Why the ex-wife of the Queen's son but not the ex-husband of the Queen's daughter?

Why are people ignoring the very fact that this is an official list attached to a piece of legislation and that the Queen herself had to sign that legislation?
The Queen and the government had to create the list and the Queen and the government put Sarah on that list?

Obviously you disagree with the Queen and the government's list of who is a member of the royal family and that is your right. Personally I will go with the government and the Queen to decide who is a member of the family and they say Sarah is. I had assumed that Sarah was no longer a member of the family until I saw this list and realised that the government and the Queen obviously must see her as a member of the family to cover her in this legislation - legislation that only applies to member of the royal family.
__________________
  #36  
Old 01-18-2011, 05:46 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
My thoughts on Sarah vs Mark on list, could Sarah be on because she still carries style of Duchess allbeit divorced, while Mark carries non such title/style? Just a guess....
__________________
  #37  
Old 01-18-2011, 06:07 PM
Naggi's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dusseldorf, Germany
Posts: 789
I was not aware that Sarah continued to be a member of the royal family after her marriage. But just one question: wouldn't this actually mean that she should receive a yearly apanage from the government? Sorry but I am a little confused here as I thought that the Duchess doesn't receive any payments of that sort.
__________________
  #38  
Old 01-18-2011, 06:22 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,443
In Britain only two people get any payments from the government - the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh. The rest are supported by the Queen or the Duke of Cornwall. The Civil List only pays money to the monarch and the spouse of the monarch.

The Queen reimburses any government money given to members of the Royal Family (as up until 1992 the government did make payments to members of the family but rather then repeal those pieces of legislation the Queen and government felt it easier for her to simply reimburse the government).

Charles supports himself and his family from the income of the Duchy of Cornwall estate.

Sarah never received any money from the government, even when married to Andrew, although he did then but that money is now amongst the money that the Queen reimburses.
__________________
  #39  
Old 01-18-2011, 06:25 PM
Naggi's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dusseldorf, Germany
Posts: 789
Thank you Iluvbertie I was not aware of this.
__________________
  #40  
Old 01-19-2011, 01:59 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Omaha, United States
Posts: 1,601
Cool

Bertie, did Mark Phillips remarry and if he did, could that be the reason he is not on the List? I honestly don't know if he's married at present or not. Now I'm curious.
__________________

__________________
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sarah, Duchess of York current events 16 - 1 June 2011- 31 December 2013 Zonk Current Events Archive 1176 01-01-2014 02:30 PM
Prince William current events 24: January - 29 April 2011 Zonk Current Events Archive 202 04-28-2011 07:00 PM
Sarah, Duchess of York current events 14: October 2009 - December 2010 Zonk Current Events Archive 618 01-01-2011 10:32 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg ottoman poland pom prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince felix prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess of asturias queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:47 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]