Members of the Royal Family

[RoyalProtocol]

Originally Posted by Roslyn

It's an interesting list. Thanks for compiling it and posting it, RoyalProtocol.

Thanks, it's still a work in progress but we're getting there!

[muriel]

Originally Posted by tommy1716

Technically members of the royal family can vote, but they choose not to so as not to be seen comprimising the Queen and the Monarchy's political neutrality. I would imagine that apart from the Queen's children and maybe grandchildren and the couisnes who carry out official duties may not vote but the rest of the "family" probably could. I remember reading somewhere (the Daily Mail or The Telegraph) that Lord Linley attend a Conservative Party fundraiser not long ago.

Many thanks, Tommy. Thats very useful information.

[EllieCat]

In the list, Lady Divina Lewis should be Davina surely?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by muriel

Members of the BRF are not allowed to vote in the British General Elections. My question was really at what stage are the members of the family considered not close enough to the throne and allowed to vote in the elections?

I remember when they lowered the voting age in Britain in 1969 having a discussion in class about the fact that Princess Anne would actually be able to vote in the next General Election but that Prince Charles, as a royal duke (Duke of Cornwall) wouldn't.

It was also reported, in our papers (and I still have the cutting somewhere I think) reporting that she had stated that she wouldn't be exercising that right. That was in 1970 when she came to Australia with her parents and Prince Charles. There was a lengthy piece on her in our local paper as she came to the small town where I was at school, with the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh but not Charles (he wasn't allowed to fly on the same plane as the Queen) and that paper included her saying that she wouldn't vote although fully entitled to do so.

One of the reasons for creating the sons Dukes was so that they couldn't vote in or stand for election to the House of Commons.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by EllieCat

In the list, Lady Divina Lewis should be Davina surely?

Amended.

[branchg]

Although divorced, both Sarah, Duchess of York and The Earl of Snowdon are considered extended members of the royal family as well.

[RoyalProtocol]

Originally Posted by branchg

Although divorced, both Sarah, Duchess of York and The Earl of Snowdon are considered extended members of the royal family as well.

As a rule I have only included those who are currently married into the Royal Family, Sarah and Tony are divorcees and therefore not actual members of the RF, but they are still extended members,

perhaps they could be added in italics at the end of the list

[AnnEliza]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

Sengreal, they would not be not considered to be of royal blood, since they are descendants of a person who was not married to a royal. Camilla, Sarah and Diana are all descendants of children "born on the wrong side of the blanket", to put it politely.

Most of their ancestors would have been given titles but would have been considered noble/aristocratic, versus royal

Does this mean someone descended legitimately marriage from a monarch is considered royal? Or would you just say they have royal blood? For example, I am descended legitimately from Edward III (through female but legitimate lineage), so I would think that I could say I have royal blood, but not that I am royal. Very diluted royal blood.

[Mermaid1962]

I would think that to be considered truly "royal", someone would have to have Royal Highness or Imperial Highness or Majesty as an actual title. Serene Highnesses and His/Her Highnesses aren't considered royal.

For example, The Princess Royal's children aren't technically royal, even though their grandmother is the Queen.

Originally Posted by AnnEliza

Does this mean someone descended legitimately marriage from a monarch is considered royal?

[AnnEliza]

That certainly makes sense to me. Although British princes and princesses are titled His/Her Royal Highness, so I'd say they are royal, also (the children of the monarch.) And the grandchildren who are children of the monarch's sons -- Princes William and Harry, and Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie all have HRH, and so do Prince Edward's children, though he and his wife prefer not to use those titles. As I understand it, it's because children take their titles from their fathers that Princess Anne's children are not HRH.

Besides, I also read that most people with European ancestry could, if they had the resources, trace their lineage back to a European king somewhere. One source pointed out that kings and princes had more opportunity to sire children, and that they were richer and better nourished than peasants, thus more likely to have healthy children. And if they acknowledged illegitimate children they often gave them titles and lands, so they had wealth and an advantage for survival also, so a better chance of having lots of descendants.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Royal Highness, Imperial Highness and Majesty are not titles, however. They are honorifics and have nothing to do with titles.

Serene Highness and His/Her Highness may not be recognized in the UK today, but in other European countries, this prefix denotes members of a ruling family who could be and are considered royal.. Hapsburgs, Wittelsbachs and Hohenzollerns come to mind.. as do the Grimaldis of Monaco. And when they visit The Queen, you can bet they are treated with the respect due a Serene Highness.

Just because The Princess Royal's children do not have HRH before their name does not mean they are not royal. As the grandchildren of the Queen, they are royals regardless of titles, or a lack thereof.

Being royal is about the bloodline, not about prefixes.

Before 1714, the title of prince and the style of HRH was not customary in usage. Sons and daughters of the sovereign were not automatically or traditionally called a prince or princess. The only exception was The Prince of Wales, as the heir to the throne.

Would you say that none of Edward III's children were royal? Or Henry VII's? Or James I's?

The title of prince is at the will of the sovereign, who can both grant and revoke the title through Letters Patent or Orders in Council.

After the accession of George I, it became customary for the sons of the sovereign and grandsons of the sovereign in the male line to be titled Prince and styled His Royal Highness. Great-grandsons of the sovereign were princes styled His Highness. It was an adoption of German royal custom that these honorifics were employed, because George I was Hanoverian. The style of HRH was limited in 1917, and has been changed several times since Queen Victoria's time.. including in 1948, when George VI issued Letters Patent granting the style to the children of The Princess Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh. Otherwise, Prince Charles would not have even been a prince until his mother's accession.

Royalty should be considered only through the bloodline.. not from the title or honorific a person holds. If keeping to the British system, I would say that royals are the children and grandchildren of the sovereign (through the male or female line). All those descendants further removed, should be considered "of royal blood".. with the exception, of course, for the male-line descendants who are in direct succession to the Crown.

This means that not only are Peter and Zara Phillips royal, but that the children of The Princess Margaret are also royals as the grandchildren of George VI. Any Phillips or Armstrong-Jones children, however, would be of royal blood as the great-grandchildren of a sovereign. Any children of Prince Harry, the Princesses of York, or the Wessex children will be of royal blood, and not royal themselves. The only difference would be if Prince Harry happens to come into the direct line of succession.. then his children would become royal.

So.. the question regarding Diana, Princess of Wales.. should she be considered a royal because of her ancestry? No.

She was a royal descendant, and therefore had some royal blood, but she was not a royal herself. She was, however, an aristocrat with distinguished lineage.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by AnnEliza

Besides, I also read that most people with European ancestry could, if they had the resources, trace their lineage back to a European king somewhere. One source pointed out that kings and princes had more opportunity to sire children, and that they were richer and better nourished than peasants, thus more likely to have healthy children. And if they acknowledged illegitimate children they often gave them titles and lands, so they had wealth and an advantage for survival also, so a better chance of having lots of descendants.

I mean no disrespect, AnnEliza, but this did make me chuckle. I find it humorous in an odd sort of way, that most authors and genealogists who write about this subject often overlook the simplest explanation: Death.

Yes, the nobility had all the advantages you speak of and did have a better chance of survival due to their elevated circumstances.. but the real reason every American today (with an English ancestor) can trace his lineage back to Edward III, is because of a little killer called The Black Death.

Bubonic plague has been called many things throughout history, but it devastated Europe on more than one occasion, and considerably reduced the gene pool.

In the 6th and 7th centuries, it wiped out half of Europe.. from 1348-1350, 30 to 60% of the population died.. to put that in perspective, the entire population of England only comprised 5-6 million people in 1348. After 1350, there were an estimated 2.5-3 million left.

And it continued to wreak havoc off and on until the 18th century. In 1603, it killed 38,000 Londoners alone.. and that was before the Great Plague of 1665-1666.

When you reduce the gene pool by such large numbers, you are going to get fewer and fewer surviving bloodlines.. so if you're living today and have a European ancestor, the chances that you descend from a royal or noble bloodline is almost a given.. because they were the ones that had the means to survive.

In fact, the only reigning king to die of the Black Death (1348-1350) was King Alfonso of Castile.. and that was because he was fighting a war with the Moors at the time.

[mammacats]

You put my answer better than I could QC. Princess Anne made the decision at the time of her first marriage to not let her children be princess/prince since she married a commoner. I thought that was a little unfair to her children because being royal is something her children can't escape no matter how much they may wish too.

[Mermaid1962]

So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?

Technically, I would say yes, that was an error.. or it may have been that she simply wanted a more private life for her children, and saying that they weren't "royal" was a good way to achieve that goal.

She certainly insisted that her husband be granted a title before her first child was born.. she thought it was only proper that the grandchildren of George VI be born with a title.. or so I've heard..

Hence, Antony was created Earl of Snowdon.. and David was born Viscount Linley. Obviously, being the daughter of a King, The Princess Margaret could not pass on her HRH to David and Sarah, but she did ensure they were born with titles.

They are still royals, IMHO.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by mammacats

You put my answer better than I could QC. Princess Anne made the decision at the time of her first marriage to not let her children be princess/prince since she married a commoner. I thought that was a little unfair to her children because being royal is something her children can't escape no matter how much they may wish too.

At the risk of getting too far off topic, The Princess Royal had no choice in the matter. Because she is female, she could not pass on her HRH to her children. Female lines are excluded from the Letters Patent of 1917.

However, both The Princess Anne and Mark Phillips turned down the Queen's offer of a title for him, which would have automatically given a title to Peter Phillips and a courtesy title of "Lady" to Zara.

But the offer was made to them at the time of their marriage.

[MRSJ]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?

I think she meant it more like official royal duties then royal blood-

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?

I had never heard that comment from Margaret but have heard Anne say that her children aren't royal they simply have the Queen for a grandmother. She made that comment in the 80s at some point.

As Anne, Peter and Zara have all said the same thing - they aren't royal - I don't think Peter and Zara are royal but they are members of the royal family. That is their own personal opinions so I will stick with their view point. Zara has corrected reporters etc who have called her 'royal' and I do think she should know whether or not she is royal.

[KittyAtlanta]

Hummmm...I can't remember where, but it has been said that Zara was miffed at her father for not taking the title, as she would then have had a title.

[Mermaid1962]

This is my understanding as well. They're members of the extended royal family but not "royal."

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

As Anne, Peter and Zara have all said the same thing - they aren't royal - I don't think Peter and Zara are royal but they are members of the royal family. That is their own personal opinions so I will stick with their view point. Zara has corrected reporters etc who have called her 'royal' and I do think she should know whether or not she is royal.