Members of the Royal Family

[Diarist]

..........Gabriella, the Ogilvies, and even more remote relatives like the Fifes and Mountbattens, like they are members of the Royal Family, in the meaning of the Sovereign's family. They are Elizabeth II's and the mentioned full members of the Royal Family's descendants and closest cousins. They are all of Royal blood and the closest people to the throne by their places in the order of succession. They are mentioned as members of the Royal Family by the Court officials, like in some reports in the Court Circular. ..........

Actually, only members of the Royal Family who perform official Royal Duties are mentioned in the Court Circular. Thus, the activities of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are NOT mentioned in the Court Circular unless the particular activity concerned is one connected with the Sovereign or other other official activities....

This is one thing that has apparently always grated with Princess Michael. If Prince Michael and Princess Michael are (say) included as guests at a State Banquet, then this will be noted in the Court Circular, but otherwise they are not mentioned. In June of each year, the Court Circular notes that the Queen has graced Ascot Races with her presence. One year, Princess Michael actually requested the newspapers to record fact that she was present. Which they did, on the Court and Social page, BUT of course this was not part of the Court Circular, which has to be printed by newspaper editors in the exact form that it has been received from BP etc. Princess Michael never made this particular request again!!

As I have recorded elsewhere. the Queen decides who is a member of the Royal Family. This includes both Royals who undertake official Royal Duties [i.e. those who receive Civil List or 'equivalent payments] and also includes Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. The rest of the family, even those who are very closely in the line of succession, are Royal relatives. They are still regarded as very important in some cases - for example, when Peter Philips joins a Sandringham shooting party, he is still addressed very formally as 'Sir' even though he has no royal title.

So far as ex-members of the Royal Family are concerned, it was specifically provided that Diana, Princess of Wales, was still regarded as part of the Royal Family following her divorce and it was also announced that she would still recieve important 'royal' invitations. By contrast, Sarah was NEVER regarded as part of the extended royal family after her divorce. Neither was Lord Snowdon, although he remains on cordial relations with the Royal Family.

I hope that this helps.

Alex

 

[Tyger]

It is derived from a person's patrilineal or matrilineal line of descent. [...] Official by this status, which is derived from their line of descent from a monarch.

As I have recorded elsewhere. the Queen decides who is a member of the Royal Family.

How are these two statements compatible?

 

[Molly2101]

It is derived from a person's patrilineal or matrilineal line of descent. Beatrice and Eugenie, like also the Waleses, young Wessexes, Gloucesters and Kents, are male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign (Elizabeth II and George V) and that's why they are Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom by birth, with the style Royal Highness...

Regarding your comment of them being Royal Family members because of their HRH title, would you then not consider Lady Louise and Viscount Severn members of the Royal Family? Are you listing Louise and James with the Philips' etc.? I am just curious, not arguing your point. I know, legallly, they are a Princess and Prince but chose (or rather their parents chose) to not use their royal title, thus placing them among the ranks of Peerage children, but considering they are grand-children of the Sovereign, they are technially members of the Royal Family, aren't they? While we're on the subject, I do wish Edward and Sophie had just chosen to have them styled as HRH, just to save all this confusion!

 

[branchg]

Traditionally, only those individuals holding the style and title of HRH or HH were officially members of the royal family. Everyone else was considered an extended member of the family, but not royal.

 

[kbk]

Regarding your comment of them being Royal Family members because of their HRH title, would you then not consider Lady Louise and Viscount Severn members of the Royal Family? Are you listing Louise and James with the Philips' etc.? I am just curious, not arguing your point. I know, legallly, they are a Princess and Prince but chose (or rather their parents chose) to not use their royal title, thus placing them among the ranks of Peerage children, but considering they are grand-children of the Sovereign, they are technially members of the Royal Family, aren't they? While we're on the subject, I do wish Edward and Sophie had just chosen to have them styled as HRH, just to save all this confusion!

Viscount Severn and Lady Louise are male-line grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II, so they have status of Prince and Princess of Blood and formally are Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom with the right to use the style Royal Highness. So, they are full members of the Royal Family. Their parents chose for them to be styled with no-Royal titles, but they are still entitled to use it. They will be junior and much less important members of the Royal Family in the future, in a similiar position as the Kents are today. The Duke and Duchess of York did not the same and their daughters are known as Princesses and HRH and they will probably play some role in the RF and the realms' public life, like Princess Alexandra of Kent played in the beginning of EII's reign.

 

[branchg]

Viscount Severn and Lady Louise are male-line grandchildren of Queen Elizabeth II, so they have status of Prince and Princess of Blood and formally are Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom with the right to use the style Royal Highness.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent, James and Louise would automatically be entitled to the rank and style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as male-line grandchildren of The Queen. However, when Edward married Sophie the Palace announced their future children would not hold royal rank, instead being styled as the children of an Earl, with the agreement of The Queen.

Technically, a change in the status of future male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign under the 1917 Letters Patent requires new Letters or a Royal Warrant to be issued. Since The Queen has not done so, legally they retain the right to assume royal rank as adults.

More likely, however, Charles will issue new Letters Patent once he is King downgrading the status of male-line grandchildren to Lord/Lady Windsor, with only the children of the heir to the throne holding royal rank. This is the real reason for the change for Louise and James.

 

[kbk]

Actually, only members of the Royal Family who perform official Royal Duties are mentioned in the Court Circular. Thus, the activities of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are NOT mentioned in the Court Circular unless the particular activity concerned is one connected with the Sovereign or other other official activities....

As I have recorded elsewhere. the Queen decides who is a member of the Royal Family. This includes both Royals who undertake official Royal Duties [i.e. those who receive Civil List or 'equivalent payments] and also includes Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. The rest of the family, even those who are very closely in the line of succession, are Royal relatives. They are still regarded as very important in some cases - for example, when Peter Philips joins a Sandringham shooting party, he is still addressed very formally as 'Sir' even though he has no royal title.

So far as ex-members of the Royal Family are concerned, it was specifically provided that Diana, Princess of Wales, was still regarded as part of the Royal Family following her divorce and it was also announced that she would still recieve important 'royal' invitations. By contrast, Sarah was NEVER regarded as part of the extended royal family after her divorce. Neither was Lord Snowdon, although he remains on cordial relations with the Royal Family.

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.

For an another example, I found that: http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Coats%20of%20arms/ANNEX%20C%20-%20Royal%20Family%20Aug11.pdf In this appendix to the guidelines of use of the Royal coat of arms and names, there are Her Majesty The Queen, His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh, Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, His Royal Highness The Prince Henry of Wales, His Royal Highness The Duke of York, Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice of York, Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York, Their Royal Highnesses The Earl and Countess of Wessex, Viscount Severn, The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Phillips, Miss Savannah Phillips, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tindall, The Viscount and Viscountess Linley, The Honourable Charles Armstrong-Jones, The Honourable Margarita Armstrong-Jones. The Lady Sarah Chatto and Mr. Daniel Chatto, Mr. Samuel Chatto, Mr. Arthur Chatto, Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Kent, Their Royal Highnesses Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, Sarah, Duchess of York listed as "members of the Royal Family".

Peter and Zara Phillips, as well as the Linleys (and the Lascelleses when they lived), are not only considered as VIPs in some cases, but as grandchildren of a Sovereign, they also enjoy precedence among other members of the Royal Family and before the Clergy, top of the Queen's gov. and peers. For example, until his recent death, the Earl of Harewood was the last person among the Royal Family males in the top of the order of precedence, immediately after Prince Michael.

As I have recorded elsewhere. the Queen decides who is a member of the Royal Family. This includes both Royals who undertake official Royal Duties [i.e. those who receive Civil List or 'equivalent payments] and also includes Prince and Princess Michael of Kent

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.

Under the 1917 Letters Patent, James and Louise would automatically be entitled to the rank and style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK as male-line grandchildren of The Queen. However, when Edward married Sophie the Palace announced their future children would not hold royal rank, instead being styled as the children of an Earl, with the agreement of The Queen.

Technically, a change in the status of future male-line grandchildren of The Sovereign under the 1917 Letters Patent requires new Letters or a Royal Warrant to be issued. Since The Queen has not done so, legally they retain the right to assume royal rank as adults.

More or less, that's exactly what I said, so I don't know why you are quoting a part of my post?

More likely, however, Charles will issue new Letters Patent once he is King downgrading the status of male-line grandchildren to Lord/Lady Windsor, with only the children of the heir to the throne holding royal rank. This is the real reason for the change for Louise and James.

If Charles did so, there would not be enough number of HRHs in the RF to deal with all this charity events and engagements, openings, meetings, balls and concerts, etc., etc.

 

[expat]

Just a little question. Why do people have to be HRHs to deal with charity events and engagements etc etc? Does that mean that the royal family are born to do nothing else but cut ribbons and go to balls and concerts. Yes, I remember what Queen Mary said, but these are modern times, do we need Prince Charles when he is King, instead of cutting down on HRHs to increase them because no one else could open a ball or concert. When this is written down, it seems a bit ridiculous to me and I am not against a monarchy. I heard the pretender to the Portuguese throne declare some time ago that the Portuguese royal family is he, the Duke of Braganza, his wife, his children and his brothers and that is all, I don't think that he will ever be King of Portugal as it is firmly republican and has been for many years, but I like his thinking about who is a member of the royal family. There are people related to the royal family, cousins and others but they are not The Royal Family and a dearth of people to open events is no reason not to cut down on the number of HRHs.

 

[branchg]

The real issue is one of responding to the widely held sentiment, correct or not, that the royal family is too large and expensive. Most Britons want to see it downsized and less visible.

Except for military and charitable activities, most members of the royal family aren't slaving away doing public duties these days. It's less relevant than it once was.

 

[NGalitzine]

Well military and charitable duties are the primary public role of the BRF and most members of the BRF have pretty full schedules. I dont think there are too many people who want the family to be less visible, or to see the latest reality star fulfilling a public role replacing an member of the BRF.
The BRF will be funded by a % of revenues from the Crwon Estate so no tax money will be involved in funding the family.

 

[Molly2101]

Thank you kbk for that link to those members who can use the Royal coat of arms. I had not realised it was so many people, nor did I realise that Sarah could still use it. What I did notice though was they wrongly styled Prince Harry as The Prince Henry of Wales, when the use of "The" is reserved for children of the Sovereign. He's not "The" just yet! I wish they had called him Prince Henry instead of Harry...

Regarding your comment about not having enough HRH to do charities by the time Charles comes to the throne, this is not necessarily true. You would have Andrew and his daughters (who may have jobs but they could still do charitable work), Edward and Sophie, Anne, William and Catherine (and at some point their children), Harry and his spouse (and his children at some point). That in itself is quite a lot. Or so I think so!

 

[branchg]

I would think there is a mistake on that list. Diana was not permitted to use the Royal Arms upon divorce (although she was permitted a royal coronet on her personal coat of arms, signifying her status and precedence), so why would Sarah?

 

[Molly2101]

That is a mighty fine question regarding Sarah actually being entitled to use it...Who actually runs the Royal Family website? Is it anyone within the palace?

Regarding the members of the family, this link below just goes to show that ANYONE can make up a page on Wikipedia and alter it, add what they wish and create what they wish. Example follows:

Princess Charlotte of Wessex

Though on a note, I wish they had called Louise, Charlotte, hah.

 

[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/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Coat_of_Arms_of_Sarah_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.

Regarding your comment about not having enough HRH to do charities by the time Charles comes to the throne, this is not necessarily true. You would have Andrew and his daughters (who may have jobs but they could still do charitable work), Edward and Sophie, Anne, William and Catherine (and at some point their children), Harry and his spouse (and his children at some point). That in itself is quite a lot. Or so I think so!

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.

 

[Grandduchess24]

When Sarah ferguson married prince Andrew she became, HRH princess? sarah,duchess of York and now divorced from prince Andrew she is just the duchess of York,mother of the princesses of York Beatrice and Eugenie .

 

[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.

 

[Molly2101]

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/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Coat_of_Arms_of_Sarah_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.

But surely because the York girls and the Gloucester and Kent families already have the HRH title, it would not be retracted?

 

[Zonk]

I don't think Charles will do anything with the titles of the York Princesses (whose titles can't go onto the next generation) or with the Kents and Gloucesters (whose sons become His Grace when they assume the Dukedom's of Kent and Gloucester). What's he going to say....thanks for all of your hard work and dedication to the family...I am taking away the HRH's?

I don't think so.

 

[kbk]

Surely the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and Prince Michael will not be taken away their status. They represent the older generation of the Royal House than Prince Charles (they are male-line grandchildren of George V and paternal first cousins of the Queen). That's because they were HRHs and hard working members of the RF (except for PM maybe) for all their long lives and could not be doing anything else if they were suddenly stripped off the top. But its not a problem with the York girls, as they are still juniors, getting a proper university education now and with best prospects for the future as commoner royal relatives. It already happened in the past, that a Prince of Blood Royal by birth, Prince Alastair of Connaught, became a commoner when George V restricted the titles in his family to Sovereign's children, male-line grandchildren and the PoW's eldest son's eldest son in 1917. So, I think it can happen again and there will be no drama about it.
I think the most possible way is that there will be only the Sovereign's children and the PoW's or the heiress apparent' heir or heiress with the titles of Princes and Princesses and styles of HRHs.

 

[branchg]

Charles is not likely to remove anyone's right to hold HRH Prince/Princess if they are currently using it. The point is to define the future royal family as the monarch and their consort, their children, and the heir's children by restricting royal rank to those individuals.

Everyone else would hold whatever titles or courtesy styles they are entitled to use or have inherited.

 

[branchg]

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]

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.

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]

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

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/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Coat_of_Arms_of_Sarah_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'.

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/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Coat_of_Arms_of_Sarah_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

 

[royal-blue]

"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?

 

[TLLK]

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.

 

[Ish]

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.

 

[TLLK]

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.

 

[royal-blue]

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.

 

[cepe]

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.