The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 07-30-2009, 05:40 AM
RoyalProtocol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
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!
__________________

__________________
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
59 Years of Dedicated and Devoted Service

God Save The Queen!



Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-30-2009, 08:03 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,080
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommy1716 View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-30-2009, 03:57 PM
EllieCat's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Invercargill, New Zealand
Posts: 236
In the list, Lady Divina Lewis should be Davina surely?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-30-2009, 05:10 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-31-2009, 03:46 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by EllieCat View Post
In the list, Lady Divina Lewis should be Davina surely?
Amended.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-31-2009, 11:42 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Although divorced, both Sarah, Duchess of York and The Earl of Snowdon are considered extended members of the royal family as well.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-31-2009, 12:43 PM
RoyalProtocol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
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
__________________
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
59 Years of Dedicated and Devoted Service

God Save The Queen!



Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-01-2010, 03:38 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by iowabelle View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-01-2010, 11:57 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,217
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnEliza View Post
Does this mean someone descended legitimately marriage from a monarch is considered royal?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-02-2010, 12:42 PM
AnnEliza's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Seattle, United States
Posts: 325
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 12-03-2010, 12:02 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
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.
__________________
Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 12-03-2010, 12:49 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnEliza View Post
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.
__________________
Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 12-03-2010, 01:32 AM
mammacats's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Salem, United States
Posts: 49
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 12-03-2010, 01:45 AM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,217
So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 12-03-2010, 02:31 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
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.
__________________
Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 12-03-2010, 02:37 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by mammacats View Post
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.
__________________
Ś i vethed...nā i onnad. Minlū pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 12-03-2010, 11:04 AM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
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-
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 12-03-2010, 06:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mermaid1962 View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 12-03-2010, 06:51 PM
KittyAtlanta's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: KittyLand Junction, United States
Posts: 2,918
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 12-03-2010, 08:14 PM
Mermaid1962's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NearTheCoast, Canada
Posts: 5,217
This is my understanding as well. They're members of the extended royal family but not "royal."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Relationships between Members of the Spanish Royal Family kil Royal Family of Spain 458 02-14-2014 08:46 AM
Interviews with Members of the Royal Family SpiffyBallerina Royal House of Sweden 92 02-08-2014 07:16 PM
Relationships between members of the British Royal Family Ava Elizabeth British Royals 215 11-28-2013 01:18 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events dutch royal history fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympics ottoman poland pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess marilene princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:41 AM.

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]