General Questions & Random Facts about the British Royal Family

[Iluvbertie]

Of course I don't believe they have apparition skills or that there is Floo Network in the Royal palaces' fireplaces.

But there are already trains in use who can carry both THE passengers and their staff, no need to engage special ones.

I'm sure the number of passengers (including the staff) per one carriage is much smaller in the Royal train than in even the Pro Mega First Business Lux First class carriage in a non-Royal train. Not to mention that the train crew is doubled when there are two trains heading to, let's say, Norfolk, one Great Northern and one Royal train. Same direction, same line, double costs of operating the train, including the costs of crew and maintenance, not to mention electricity. I know, I know - actually, the Queen uses the public transport twice a year, while heading to Sandringham for Christmas and coming back to London after the holidays. It's an annual tradition. Maybe she could use the public transport more often?

Anyway, even the Queen should use her train only if there is a real economic, strategic or security reason to do it. and the tradition should die out with the Queen, the train becoming a museum attraction.

The term 'royal train' is actually misleading. It is one or two carriages added to a normal train that is fitted out with an office set up etc so that the staff can continue to work, the royal can practise his/her speech or do any other preparation for the engagements.

If they are going to use the sleeping carriage for overnight then they add that carriage.

 

[kbk]

I didn;t know that. Thanks! I've thought it is a full set of train carriages with its own locomotive.

 

[wbenson]

I didn;t know that. Thanks! I've thought it is a full set of train carriages with its own locomotive.

There are locomotives designated for pulling it, but I believe on the other ~350 days a year they're used however the operator wants.

 

[royal-blue]

Is there a list anywhere of all the patronages held by each member of the BRF? I read that Philip and Anne have the most after the Queen but it would be interesting to see the numbers.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The BRF website I believe contains them all. You search each individual member and a list is produced of their patronages.

 

[tommy100]

http://www.royal.gov.uk/CharitiesandPatronages/Search Charities and Patronages.aspx

You can search the official British Royal Family website here using different members of the Royal Family or region of the UK/International or by type of organisation.
Using 'The Queen' 625 patronages are returned
768 for Philip
476 for Charles with an additional 10 listed as 'The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall'
103 for Camilla
332 for Anne
166 for Andrew
67 for Edward
75 for Sophie
35 for William
3 shared for William and Harry
15 for Harry
12 for Catherine and 3 shared for William and Catherine
155 for the Duke of Gloucester
63 for the Duchess of Gloucester
129 for the Duke of Kent
73 for the Duchess of Kent and 2 shared
111 for Princess Alexandra

It should be pointed out that Military links such as being a Royal Colonel, Honorary Air Commodore etc are also listed and that there is some duplication in organisations listed especially where a member of the RF is linked to the same organisation but in different countries/regions.

 

[royal-blue]

http://www.royal.gov.uk/CharitiesandPatronages/Search Charities and Patronages.aspx

You can search the official British Royal Family website here using different members of the Royal Family or region of the UK/International or by type of organisation.
Using 'The Queen' 625 patronages are returned
768 for Philip
476 for Charles with an additional 10 listed as 'The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall'
103 for Camilla
332 for Anne
166 for Andrew
67 for Edward
75 for Sophie
35 for William
3 shared for William and Harry
15 for Harry
12 for Catherine and 3 shared for William and Catherine
155 for the Duke of Gloucester
63 for the Duchess of Gloucester
129 for the Duke of Kent
73 for the Duchess of Kent and 2 shared
111 for Princess Alexandra

It should be pointed out that Military links such as being a Royal Colonel, Honorary Air Commodore etc are also listed and that there is some duplication in organisations listed especially where a member of the RF is linked to the same organisation but in different countries/regions.

Many thanks for the info!

Plus Beatrice has 4. (9 according to her father's website, while Eugenie has 3)

It looks like there will be a very large number of organisations left without royal patrons after HM and DofE leave us. Perhaps it would be wise for them to pass just a few each year to the younger generations.

 

[Skippyboo]

The search also includes honorary membership too. For example, searching Duchess of Cambridge brings up the honorary membership for Wimbledon. Royals such as the Queen, Philip, Charles and Anne who have been doing it for a long time probably have a large number of these types of honorary memberships


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[royal-blue]

There is plenty of scope for Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Camilla to dramatically increase the number of patronages they hold.

 

[Queen Camilla]

The 30 somethings and 20 somethings need to pick up most of charities from The Queen & Prince Philip, that way they will have a long association with the organization as president/patron.

Followed by the 50 somethings.

 

[Osipi]

The 30 somethings and 20 somethings need to pick up most of charities from The Queen & Prince Philip, that way they will have a long association with the organization as president/patron.

Followed by the 50 somethings.

I think we're going to be seeing a different trend with the royals and their charities and patronages as time passes. I've already seen it in motion and think it'll be the wave of the future that instead of taking on individual charities and patronages, I think we'll see more and more foundations established that may cover multiple causes with some even being global.

For example. Harry and Walking with the Wounded does fall under the armed forces category of the Royal Foundation of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry and its a passion personal to Harry but yet through his work with WWTW, it led to the Invictus games and participation in other events globally to benefit all service people. (I've noticed lately here in the US that getting the message out to aid and support our Wounded Warriors is more pronounced and I'd like to think that perhaps in a small way, Harry has had a part in giving it momentum) It is the same with Charles' Prince's Trust. Several different organizations and causes benefit from it. William's efforts in conservation has global support from other foundations such as the NBA.

Times have vastly changed from when The Queen and the DoE were building up their causes. What any royal does in support of a cause has the capability of reaching millions instantly and I do believe that they will take full advantage of this.

 

[Skippyboo]

The shift for the younger royals is towards shorter more event wise patronages and using foundation money to support various causes.
Harry was the patron for the Walking with the Wound polar challenges but he is not the patron of the charity itself. Also look at the 100 Women in Hedge Fund where the patronage is for a limited amount of years and rotates from W, K & H based on whose charity its supporting that year.

I always found it strange that the Queen is the patron of Wimbledon but she doesn't like tennis and has only been there a couple of times. Watching the matches over the years, the royals I associate with it are the Duke & Duchess of Kent and now Will&Kate.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Queen Camilla]

In 1997 where did the Royal Family spend Easter?

Specifically, did Prince Charles, William and Harrry spend it at Balmoral or Windsor or?

Thanks

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The Duke of Strathearn

The title Duke of Strathearn does not exist.
Prince Henry, the fourth son of Frederick Henry, Prince of Wales, was the Duke of Cumberland and Strathearn.

 

[wyevale]

I’m always amazed how, in this era of hyper-sensitivity with regard to ethnic & cultural roots, this kind of “joke” is considered funny, or even “acceptable”.
Most British citizens with distant ancestors in other countries would rightly consider it patronising, dog-whistle-y, or just plain weird if other people refer endlessly to the fact that their great-great-great-great gradnfather (for reasons of brevity, I might have left out one “great”) just happened to be born and brought up in Saxe-Coburg, but apparently the Windsor family have to accept this form of casual RACISM - to call it by its proper name - as a given.

Netflix’s “The Crown” blew even harder on the dog whistle of “Germanic guilt by association” by dedicating an entire episode of series 2 to imply that Prince Phillip carries some obscure but virulent “Nazi gene” in his blood line, which by implication, sullies the reputation of later generations.

Indeed, the Queen’s none-too-bright ex-daughter-in-law allegedly referred to her long-suffering in-laws as “the Germans”, a boutade which apparently greatly amused vast throws of the London smart set, of the sort who would burn their Waitrose Platinum loyalty card rather than refer to (say) the illustrious Freud dynasty as “the Austrian Jews” or Sir Mo Farah as “the Somali Muslim”.

Quite rightly, even the UKIP high (sic) command took serious umbrage when the white trash girlfriend of recent leader Henry Bolton made some deeply disparaging remarks about Meghan Markle’s mixed race heritage.

Apart from being a deeply obnoxious remark, it displayed a profound ignorance about the nature of reigning dynasties, including our own gaggle of Windsor oddballs.

Since time immemorial, royal dynasties have tended to marry “foreigners”, originally for reasons of diplomatic strategy or territorial acquisition, and until World War Two, this was the norm. Since 1947, only a small number of minor Windsors have married someone from outside the British Isles; although many of the European royal houses have kept at it: Queen Maxima of the Netherlands is Argentinian, Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is an Ozzie, and (the still much respected) Dowager Queen of Spain, Sofia, was brought up in Athens, and had to convert to Catholicism from Greek Orthodoxy. And hey, our very own Gordon Brown nearly ended up as Prince Consort of the Heiress to the defunct throne Romania, Princess Margerita.

And yet no-one in those countries, in a century or so, will bang on incessantly about the foreign roots of some of their long since dead royal spouses...

.... so what’s the big deal about the Windsors being “German”?

 

[Osipi]

Thanks wyevale. I really enjoyed reading this post and to be very, very honest, I had a good laugh at the way some people still tend to think of things like "bad Nazi genes" and other uneducated remarks.

Truth be known, anyone with any kind of European ancestry probably carries that "bad Nazi gene" also. I find this article interesting.

"In 2013, geneticists Peter Ralph and Graham Coop showed that all Europeans are descended from exactly the same people. Basically, everyone alive in the ninth century who left descendants is the ancestor of every living European today, including Charlemagne, Drogo, Pippin and Hugh."

https://www.theguardian.com/science...-genetic-ancestry-charlemagne-adam-rutherford

 

[AdmirerUS]

In 1997 where did the Royal Family spend Easter?

Specifically, did Prince Charles, William and Harrry spend it at Balmoral or Windsor or?

Thanks

Slim pickings. Getty shows none of them. But Zara and Serena both had great hats. https://www.gettyimages.ca/photos/m...hrase=march 30 1997 windsor&sort=best#license

 

[Gawin]

In 1997 where did the Royal Family spend Easter?

Specifically, did Prince Charles, William and Harrry spend it at Balmoral or Windsor or?

Thanks

All I can find is an Associated Press article (published 25 March 1997) stating William and Harry spent their spring break in Kenya. I don't know if they returned to the UK in time for Easter which fell on 30 March.

According to the Court Circular Prince Charles spent 27 March in Paris. He isn't mentioned again until 4 April when he visited The Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood, Middlesex.

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular

Perhaps someone who has access to British newspapers from that time period can answer your question.

 

[Gawin]

.... so what’s the big deal about the Windsors being “German”?

This a very interesting post. When you think about it, the Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Norwegian, and (former) Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian royal families all originated in Germany. The Windsors aren't unique in that respect.

The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, and Norway were all occupied by Germany during World War II. But people there don't make caustic comments about their royal family's German background. Why is it an issue for some Britons, even if done tongue-in-cheek?

 

[wyevale]

Why is it an issue for some Britons, even if done tongue-in-cheek?

For SOME it is 'tongue-in-cheek', for others [Republicans] it is NOT. They consider it helpful to belittle the Royal family in ANY and ALL ways they can, hoping that some mud 'sticks'.

 

[Simone T]

Who was 6th in line for the throne when Queen Elizabeth was crowned?

I heard something today about a 6th in line for the throne when Queen Elizabeth was crowned and possibly his wife having passed this year on a news snippet during the royal wedding. Anyone have any idea who that might have been?

 

[Biri]

As far as I can count, It was her youngest first cousin, then 9-year-old Lord Richard Windsor (current Duke of Gloucester).

Heir - Queen's son, Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall, then five (got the title of Prince of Wales when he was nine).
2nd - Queen's daughter, Princess Anne, then three.
3rd - Queen's only sister, Princess Margaret, ten 23-year-old, unmarried and childless.
4th - Queen's only living uncle (apart from the Duke of Windsor) Henry, Duke of Gloucester, then fifty-three, fourth child and third son of King George V and Queen Mary.
5th - Queen's first cousin, William Windsor, Earl of Ulster, Duke of Gloucester older son, then twelve (he was killed in air crash in 1972; he died unmarried and childless).

 

[Denville]

yes certainly the D of Gloucester's wife has not recently died?

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

As far as I can count, It was her youngest first cousin, then 9-year-old Lord Richard Windsor (current Duke of Gloucester).

Heir - Queen's son, Prince Charles, Duke of Cornwall, then five (got the title of Prince of Wales when he was nine).
2nd - Queen's daughter, Princess Anne, then three.
3rd - Queen's only sister, Princess Margaret, ten 23-year-old, unmarried and childless.
4th - Queen's only living uncle (apart from the Duke of Windsor) Henry, Duke of Gloucester, then fifty-three, fourth child and third son of King George V and Queen Mary.
5th - Queen's first cousin, William Windsor, Earl of Ulster, Duke of Gloucester older son, then twelve (he was killed in air crash in 1972; he died unmarried and childless).

It was not William Windsor, Earl of Ulster or Lord Richard Windsor. As male-line grandchildren of the monarch, they were entitled to the style of HRH and title of Prince of the UK under the 1917 Letters Patent. So they were actually TRH Princes William and Richard of Gloucester, and yes, Richard was 6th at that time.

 

[Mbruno]

I heard something today about a 6th in line for the throne when Queen Elizabeth was crowned and possibly his wife having passed this year on a news snippet during the royal wedding. Anyone have any idea who that might have been?

I believe it was the current Duke of Gloucester, Prince Richard. His wife is pretty much alive and was at Harry's wedding yesterday.

Incidentally, if the succession to the Crown were based on agnatic (male-only) primogeniture, Prince Richard would be the King today as he is the most senior male descendant in male line of King George V. Agnatically, he should be also the head of the House of Windsor as Queen Elizabeth's descendants actually belong agnatically to a different royal house, even though the Queen chose to ignore that fact and call her family "Windsor" anyway.

 

[Denville]

Yes they were prince Will and P Richard of Gloucester. however, the D of Gloucester's wife, birgitte has not died, as far as I know

 

[Biri]

Denville was probably thinking about Duke's mother.

 

[Biri]

It was not William Windsor, Earl of Ulster or Lord Richard Windsor. As male-line grandchildren of the monarch, they were entitled to the style of HRH and title of Prince of the UK under the 1917 Letters Patent. So they were actually TRH Princes William and Richard of Gloucester, and yes, Richard was 6th at that time.

When they both were born (During World War II); their grandpa, King George V, was already dead; The King was already their uncle, King George VI.

 

[alvinking]

Denville was probably thinking about Duke's mother.

welll the mother of the Duke of Gloucester was Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.She passed away at age 102 in 2004. She along with the Queen Mother were the members of the BRF to have reached the age of 100. After the death of her husband, and when her son married, she did not want to be known as the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester, but rather as Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Eventhough she wasn't a Princess of the blood, the Queen allowed her to be known as a Princess in her own name, though she wasn't created princess of the uk with letter of patent. it was more like an authorized courtesy title

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

When they both were born (During World War II); their grandpa, King George V, was already dead; The King was already their uncle, King George VI.

You hold the highest position you ever had throughout your life, that is why they were still entitled to the grandchildren of the monarch throughout the reigns of George VI and Elizabeth II. This is why their coronets are those of a monarch's grandchild; such is the same for the Kents and will be for the Yorks and Wessexes when the Queen passes.