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
 
  #81  
Old 10-22-2011, 10:33 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #82  
Old 10-25-2011, 06:15 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
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.




Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
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
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 10-25-2011, 06:37 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Quote:
Originally Posted by expat View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
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'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbk View Post
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:23 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: City on islands, Sweden
Posts: 1,086
Isn't Sarahs coat of arms just a variant of the Clan Fergusson crest? Clan Fergusson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #85  
Old 05-21-2013, 06:26 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 264
"Senior Royals" and "Minor Royals"

it is common to hear different members of the royal family described as either senior royals and minor royals, but is there a strict definition of who is a senior royal?

I ask this as I have just read several different articles about Princess Margaret, who is mentioned as being both a senior royal and a minor royal by different sources. I have also read that Anne is a senior royal but that edward is a monor royal.

Of course the Queen, Philip, Charles and his sons are all senior royals, and the Queen's cousins and the York princesses are obviously minor royals, but what about everyone else?

Are Camilla, Andrew, Anne, Edward and Sophie senior or minor royals?
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 05-21-2013, 06:40 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 1,670
IMO the senior royals are the following: HM, DoE, PoW, Duchess of Cornwall. Anne, Andrew, Edward (not sure where to put Sophie.)

Grey area- William/Kate, Harry due to a part-time royal duties status at this point in time but closest in the line of succession.

Minor royals-Beatrice, Eugenie, Gloucesters, Kents,-Grandchildren not expected to perform royal duties and the cousins.

I believe that the senior royals make up most of the Way Ahead group which has been charting the course that the BRF has undertaken since the mid-nineties. They are the ones who make the decisions for the family's future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 05-21-2013, 07:00 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,182
I would put Andrew, Edward, and even possibly Anne into the grey area as well.

HM, the DoE, PoW, and Camilla are all clearly senior owing to their ranking in their heirarchy.

Anne, Andrew, and the Wessexes are in a grey area because while they're all senior in terms of age and being the Queen's children, they're not in the direct line of succession. Some other states may consider them to be senior but others don't - for example it's been reported that Andrew isn't invited for official visits to Canada because he isn't considered a senior royal.

Similarly, the Cambridges and Harry are in a grey area. They are in a direct line of succession, but they're younger and only perform part time duties. I think their status is similar to that of the Queen's younger children - some will consider them senior others won't.

The Princesses of York, the Wessex children, Gloucesters, and Kents are all minor royals, and not expected to perform duties at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 05-21-2013, 07:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 1,670
Just read the current list of Counsellors of State for the UK. They are the DoE, PoW, DoY, DoC and Prince Harry. Anne and Edward were CoS but have resigned and been replaced by Charles' sons. So we have the Consort and the four adults who are currently closest in the line of succession. Even with this news I'm going to keep the DoC and Prince Harry in the grey area.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #89  
Old 05-21-2013, 07:59 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 264
The Earl and Countess of Wessex are definitely a grey area - they seem to want to remain very low key royals - more on a par to the Queen's cousins than to Anne or Andrew, who are both much better known.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 05-21-2013, 08:00 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,432
Seniority in the BRF is not determined by the amount of work they do in terms of engagements but their influence within the family itself.

HMQ, DoE, PoW and William are the key players IMO; Then Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Cambridge next because they influence their husbands. Wives have been low key in the past.

Prince Harry who will move up when Charles becomes King.

Duke of York

Princess Royal, Earl of Wessex

Countess of Wessex

Minor Royals - The rest.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 05-21-2013, 08:07 PM
princess gertrude's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Columbia, United States
Posts: 2,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by cepe View Post
Seniority in the BRF is not determined by the amount of work they do in terms of engagements but their influence within the family itself.

HMQ, DoE, PoW and William are the key players IMO; Then Duchess of Cornwall and Duchess of Cambridge next because they influence their husbands. Wives have been low key in the past.

Prince Harry who will move up when Charles becomes King.

Duke of York

Princess Royal, Earl of Wessex

Countess of Wessex

Minor Royals - The rest.
Have to agree with this scenario.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 05-21-2013, 08:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Which ones are 'senior' and 'minor' varies depending on who is talking.

Generally 'senior' royals would be the monarch, children of the monarch and heir's children and spouses for most people although I have seen everyone from Andrew down in the line of succession as minor.

To me - senior or major royals - The Queen, Philip, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Harry, Andrew, Edward, Sophie and Anne.

The rest are the 'minor' royals but that criteria will change when William becomes King and Charles' siblings move from 'senior' to 'minor'.

Other people don't make a distinction between royals while some class only The Queen, Philip, Charles, William and Harry as senior royals - not including Camilla or Kate and others include Kate but not Camilla because Camilla won't be the mother of a monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 05-22-2013, 12:09 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 327
For me the senior royals are the Queen, D of E, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, the Prince's sons and Kate.

I would classify the other members of the family as "minor" even though I have a gut feeling the Queen would classify Anne at least as a senior royal.

I know this sort of got discussed on another thread but I don't think a consort's status should be classed by whether that person is the mother or father of a monarch/future monarch. Firstly, as was pointed out in the other thread, the child gets its status through the person who is born royal and not through the consort. But secondly, a woman can be a Queen Consort but be unable to have children.

By any definition I think a Queen Consort should be classed as being a senior royal regardless of their childbearing status.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 05-22-2013, 01:15 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
Just read the current list of Counsellors of State for the UK. They are the DoE, PoW, DoY, DoC and Prince Harry. Anne and Edward were CoS but have resigned and been replaced by Charles' sons. So we have the Consort and the four adults who are currently closest in the line of succession. Even with this news I'm going to keep the DoC and Prince Harry in the grey area.

Anne and Edward didn't 'resign'.

They were automatically replaced as William and Harry reached 21 - just as Margaret, Richard (twice), Edward of Kent and even the late Earl Harewood were replaced as those closer to the throne turned 21.

I suspect that at some point in the future Beatrice will be a CoS simply because The Queen would have to live another 21 years to have anyone else ahead of her in the line of succession take that position.

If CoS's are classed as senior then at times they can be quite some way from the throne e.g. say The Queen dies in the next 5 years (not wanting her to or anything like that) and William and Kate have another 2 children, Harry marries and has twins in that time, Beatrice would be down to 10th but still a CoS until there are four ahead of her in the line of succession over 21. However you wouldn't class 10th as senior - when Anne was a CoS (she was from when she turned 21 until William turned 21) she started as 4th in line and was down to 9th when William turned 21 and she was replaced.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 05-22-2013, 03:32 AM
Jacknch's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Grundisburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,803
I think seniority depends upon blood-closeness to the monarch as well as closeness to the throne. As such, all the Queen's children would be classed as senior as well as the heir's children. I personally consider Anne as being senior even though she is many steps away from the throne. This will naturally change once Charles comes to the throne and Anne's position in my list will be the same as Princess Alexandra's is now.
__________________
J
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 05-22-2013, 04:10 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 353
If Anne, Andrew and Edward are junior royals then Harry is too. None of them are in direct line of succession. (I guess technically, Harry is until July)

I wold say senior royals are the monarch and consort, their children and spouses and adult children and spouses of the heir.

In the Netherlands the members of the Royal House changed when Willem-Alexander became king. It has to do with degrees of separation from the monarch.

As Charles and William become king the Queen's children will move down the pecking order.

The Queens cousins are not children of a monarch, they are grandchildren of George V. The reason that they had such a prominent role in the 50s, 60s and early 70s is because the Queen only had 1 sibling and small children.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 05-22-2013, 04:28 AM
Daimyo's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: San Francisco, United States
Posts: 21
would a more objective definition be to classify anyone with the title HM or HRH (and an adult) as a "senior royal" (20 persons) and anyone else in the extended royal family as a "minor royal"?

HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
TRH The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge
HRH Prince Henry of Wales
HRH The Duke of York
TRH The Earl & Countess of Wessex
HRH The Princess Royal
TRH The Duke & Duchess of Gloucester
TRH The Duke & Duchess of Kent
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
TRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
HRH Princess Beatrice of York
HRH Princess Eugenie of York
HRH Prince James of Wessex (aka Viscount Severn) (when of age)
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (aka Lady Louise) (when of age)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 05-22-2013, 10:45 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 353
Anyone who has an HM or HRH is a member of the Royal Family (although Beatrice and Eugenie do not have their own listing on the royal website) Other people who are not HRH are relatives of the royal family.

I would not consider any of the Queen's cousins to be senior royals. I think we have 3 categories: Senior Royals, Junior Royals, extended family of the royals. Someone like Lady Helen is not royal so she cannot be a junior royal. Her brother will not become a royal duke but a regular duke.

I would classify Senior Royals as those who get invited to Sandringham for Christmas day. There are non-royals who attend as well, but they are all immediate family of senior royals.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 05-22-2013, 10:53 AM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,577
I think there are, and always will be, divided opinions on who is more "senior". Most people deem seniority in relation to fame a.k.a the one's "everyone knows". I disagree with that statement as I believe ALL of the Queen's children (spouses included, except Tim) are senior simply because of their relation to the Monarch. That will change as they become siblings of the Monarch (which I would still say is senior as Princess Margaret would have been seen a senior), but when it is their nephew on the throne they will come down to "minor" status.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daimyo View Post
would a more objective definition be to classify anyone with the title HM or HRH (and an adult) as a "senior royal" (20 persons) and anyone else in the extended royal family as a "minor royal"?

HM The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
TRH The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge
HRH Prince Henry of Wales
HRH The Duke of York
TRH The Earl & Countess of Wessex
HRH The Princess Royal
TRH The Duke & Duchess of Gloucester
TRH The Duke & Duchess of Kent
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent
TRH Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
HRH Princess Beatrice of York
HRH Princess Eugenie of York
HRH Prince James of Wessex (aka Viscount Severn) (when of age)
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (aka Lady Louise) (when of age)
I wouldn't consider any of the bolded members as senior, but that's just personal really.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 05-23-2013, 02:03 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Precedence determines one's place in the ranks of the royal family. The closer to the monarch in blood or succession, the more senior you are.
__________________

__________________
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 letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympics ottoman picture of the month pom president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess letizia princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion princess of asturias queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00 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]