Members of the Royal Family

[branchg]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

When she married she became HRH The Duchess of York. She was never HRH Princess Sarah Duchess of York. When she divorced she became Sarah, Duchess of York.

Sarah's full title and style upon marriage was "HRH The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York, Countess of Inverness and Baroness Killyleagh".

With divorce, she lost her royal rank as HRH Princess of the UK, but retained her former titles as styles (Sarah, Duchess of York, Countess of Inverness and Baroness Killyleagh) consistent with practice for the divorced wife of a Peer.

She is still considered to be an extended member of the royal family as the mother of two Princesses of the Blood.

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by kbk

I did not say that Prince Michael's day to day engagements are recored in the Court Circular and I understand why. But, when I said that they are mentioned in the CC as members of the Royal Family, along with some other persons we can surely call royal relatives, as you said, I meant such occassions when they attend a larger particular event, when there is a gathering of Royals, such as State banquets, weddings (for example, Prince William's) and Trooping the Colour. The Michael of Kents are also always mentioned when they attend the Queen's garden parties in the season. And when the CC records such event like Prince William's wedding, there is clearly stated that such persons like Peter and Zara Phillips, the St Andrewses, etc., are other "members of the Royal Family". But, of course, it is unqestionable that they are not members of, as I called them, the official Royal Family, but only of the extended Royal Family.

I don't think there is any dispute between us on this point, kbk. I hope you do not think I was in disagreement with you on the point about Prince Michael.

To [try!] to make it easier for people to understand, the rule is that only the official engagments of full, working members of the Royal Family are recorded in the Court Circular; however, any member of the BRF who undertakes an engagement on behalf of the queen will have his or her activities reported, and anyone who is present at an official royal engagement are correctly included in the Court Circular.

Originally Posted by kbk

Are you suggesting that Prince and Princess Michael are considered as full members of the Royal Family because the Queen decided so? I think PM "has it" from his birth as a Prince of Blood and it was never under the Queen's consideration whether he is or not a member of the so-called official Royal Family.

It is a well settled fact that the Queen alone decides who is member of the Royal Family. It is also recorded as such on the offical royal family website.

I think that the reason people tend to get a bit muddled is because there seem to be various different degrees of 'what consitutes a member of royal family'. There is also the difficulty posed by the fact that you can be a very close 'royal relative' and 'high up in the line of succession' but still not a member of the royal family - a case in point is Zara Phillips - grandchild of the queen, high up in the order of succession but not included as a member of the Royal Family, but obviously a member of the 'royal family ' in the wider sense.

There was also the interesting situation following the divorces of Diana and Sarah. As the mother of the future king, Diana was always going to remain 'close to the throne'. Thus BP was careful to announce [following the divorce] that Diana was still to be treated as a member of the BRF and that she would receive invitations to major royal events. But even this membership of the royal family was to one extent qualified - Diana was actually removed from the Royal Enclosure list at Royal Ascot and was no longer entitled to appear in the Royal Enclosure.

With Sarah's divorce, there was never an announcement that she was to continue to be treated as a member of the Royal family. I presume that one reason for this was because the two York Princesses were seen by the Queen even in the days of the 1990's as going to be of diminishing importance to the BRF. Who knows - perhaps even in those days, the Queen was thinking in those days what is only being talked about now - i.e. that Beatrice and Eugenie were not to have any royal roles. Who knows? As a second reason I do wonder whether the Queen decided that Diana was to remain a member of the BRF in recognition of the fact that Diana was not entirely at fault over the breakdown of her marriage. I don't really want to go into an 'all Diana's lovers scenario' but what I would like to mention is that at the time of Diana's divorce, The Times carried articles with quotations attributed to Buckingham Palace sources [i.e. not just 'rumour mongers'] that the Queen, recognising Charles's culpability in the breakdown of his marriage, was herself funding a large part of Diana's divorce settlement, [under English Law, there is NO right for a mother in law's funds to be assessed in a divorce settlement] because the Queen - and I quote - 'wanted Diana to be treated generously'. I would speculate that part of that 'generous treatment' could well have included Diana's place in the British Royal Family.



Hope some of this helps,

Alex

[Diarist]

Originally Posted by expat

Just a little question. Why do people have to be HRHs to deal with charity events and engagements etc

Actuall, epat, British social life shows that you Don't have to be an HRH! Each week, my post includes all manner of invitations to so-called Society and Charity events 'hosted' by non-royal members of the aristocracy or even non-titled people who are simply prominent in their own field. English social life is full of little fundraisers such as garden fetes and parties and 'charity sales' that are all opened by 'Lady-so-and-so' - local dignataries in other words, and I suppose should the BRF really contract, then these people will presumably merely 'step up their activities'.

Alex

Originally Posted by kbk

Dear Molly, Sarah, Duchess of York has no right to use the Royal Coat of Arms. She has her own coat of arms, which is that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Ferguson.svg. It was given to her father, and she has it after him. When she was married to Prince Andrew, I believe it was additionally impaled with his personal version of the Royal Coat of Arms.
The list I've linked here is not a list of members of the Royal Family or Royal relatives who has their Royal Coat of Arms, but only an appendix to the 'Guidance on the use of Royal Arms, names and images', a document produced by the Lord Chamberlain's office. It is about using the Royal symbols and names by the public, not by the Royal themselves. And when I quoted the appendix, I did not mean that Sarah Ferguson is considered a full royal at the Court. I wanted only to show an interest thing, where her name is listed in the context of the Royal Family. I think it's because she still remains the York title. This is an extended list of the RF members, and she definitely is a member of the extended RF.

We are talking here about a possible situation that King Charles would restrict the Royal titles and styles only to the children of the Sovereign and the eldest's one's heir or heiress. This would exclude the York girls and the young Wessexes, and also the Queen's cousins from Gloucester and Kent families.

Yes, I agree. The document is really a 'protection' of the Royal Coats of Arms, rather than an indication of membership of the BRF. By way of general interest -and indeed this is the real purpose of the document kbk has referred to - various companies - producers of souvenirs to mark royal events or even to sell as reminders of a visit, say, to Windsor, and, come to that, manufacturers of goods, have to be stopped from using 'Royal Coats of Arms' without permission, and the document refefed to by kbk does just that, in other words it regulates the use of Roya Coats of Arms. Indeed, far from entitling Sarah to use the Royal Coat of Arms, the document also would stop Sarah trying to do just that!

The Appendix is not well-drafted. I have a copy in my old Civil Service file of guidance, and Prince Henry is shown correctly and above Sarah, Duchess of York, it actually says 'former members of the Royal family'.

Originally Posted by kbk

Dear Molly, Sarah, Duchess of York has no right to use the Royal Coat of Arms. She has her own coat of arms, which is that http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...h_Ferguson.svg. It was given to her father, and she has it after him. When she was married to Prince Andrew, I believe it was additionally impaled with his personal version of the Royal Coat of Arms.

kbk, please could you re-check this point? In my Guidance manual, it says that Sarah's Coat of Arms was actually granted [ coats of arms are never given] to her by the Royal College of Arms, and is therefore not derived from any Coat of Arms granted to her father - in fact, the note in my guidance manual goes on to record that at that time [c.1986] Major Ferguson had NOT been granted his own coat of arms. I would therefore be grateful if you could revisit this point.

Thanks

Alex

[Meraude]

Isn't Sarahs coat of arms just a variant of the Clan Fergusson crest? Clan Fergusson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia