The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #921  
Old 11-20-2012, 07:40 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman
No, by my definition any relative of the Sovereign who holds a royal title (and who thus usually carries out royal engagements) is a member of the royal family. That's very clear from my previous post. I have no idea how you managed to conclude that William does not fit into that pattern, as he is a Royal Highness and a Prince of the United Kingdom.

BTW, by royal title, I mean, of course, a royal title pertaining to the United Kingdom.
That would be because I misunderstood your post. The royal family, is the family of the current Monarch, title or no title.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #922  
Old 11-20-2012, 07:57 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
But wouldn't that include the Queen's maternal cousins as well? By that definition, Simon Bowes-Lyon and Margaret Rhodes would, as the Queen's first cousins, be members of the royal family, as would presumably Lord and Lady Strathmore and Lord and Lady Granville. Are they, in your opinion? If not, why? Bowes-Lyon's and Rhodes' kinship to the Queen is of the same degree as her kinship to the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

When one stops being "family of the current monarch" is completely uncertain and arbitrary. Is Lord Ulster "family of the current monarch"? If he is, will he still be after his second cousin Charles takes over? What about when William ascends? He is William's second cousin once removed. Does that make him a member of the royal family? I tend to agree with Wikipedia on this; a strict, precise and clear definition that leaves little to no room for guessing.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #923  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:01 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425

Because membership in the Royal Family, as well as inclusion in the Order of Precedence (at least, as I understand it) is based on a relation through royal parent.

Simon Bowes-Lyon and Margaret Rhodes are the Queen's relations through non-royal parent (the Queen Mother). Peter and Zara will be William's relatives through a royal parent (Princess Anne). The Spencers, on the other hand, would again be relatives from a non-royal parent so not members of the Royal Family (just as Middletons for William's child).
Reply With Quote
  #924  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:07 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464

I understand that and I agree with that, naturally. However, Lumutqueen's repeated defining of the royal family as the family of the current monarch, "title or no title", made room for the inclusion of the Queen's maternal relatives, as they are her family just as much as the Duke of Gloucester is.

As this topic is about precedence, I'd like to see if there are sources that confirm that Anne's children will retain their position once they are cousins of the monarch. According to the extremely detailed, sourced and (IMO) reliable Heraldica, they won't. They'll be accorded no special rank. See http://www.heraldica.org/topics/brit...ce.htm#General
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #925  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman
Anne's children are not members of the royal family. They are female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign who hold no royal title and carry out no royal duties (especially Peter).

Now, there is no provision for precedence of cousins of the Sovereign. This is very neatly explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales

The Queen's cousins derive their precedence as royal dukes and princes. Once Charles is king, Lord and Lady Linley will rank as viscount and viscountess by courtesy. Anne's children, however, are completely untitled. Are there any sources that confirm Wikipedia's wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_..._of_precedence
Anne's children are members of the royal family who do not hold royal rank as female-line grandchildren of The Sovereign.

Official precedence is based on your place in relation to The Sovereign and subsequent degree of succession to the throne, whether you hold royal rank or not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #926  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:09 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
But wouldn't that include the Queen's maternal cousins as well? By that definition, Simon Bowes-Lyon and Margaret Rhodes would, as the Queen's first cousins, be members of the royal family, as would presumably Lord and Lady Strathmore and Lord and Lady Granville. Are they, in your opinion? If not, why? Bowes-Lyon's and Rhodes' kinship to the Queen is of the same degree as her kinship to the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.
I think when the Queen thinks of her family, I'm sure the Hon. Margaret Rhodes is a definite as they've been quite close nearly all their lives. I would imagine all the cousins are considered family. The difference may lie in that some are considered family within the "Firm" and for state, official and ceremonial reasons and some by being related. Until I read Margaret Rhode's excerpt from her book "The Queen and I", I had no idea of how close these two women have been throughout their lifetimes. Its a wonderful read and I've been meaning to pick up the book.

The Queen and I: Her Majesty's cousin lifts the lid on the private lives of the Royals | Mail Online

In the future when William ascends the throne, Beatrice and Eugenie may be way down the succession ladder and non working royals, but they will always remain his cousins and I'm sure he'd consider them family.
__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #927  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman

I understand that and I agree with that, naturally. However, Lumutqueen's repeated defining of the royal family as the family of the current monarch, "title or no title", made room for the inclusion of the Queen's maternal relatives, as they are her family just as much as the Duke of Gloucester is.
It does not. A member of the royal family is a person with a direct blood tie at birth to a current or former Sovereign. In the case of sons and male-line grandsons, this includes their wives as well, who retain their status if widowed.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #928  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:19 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
Branchq, isn't the Queen related by blood to Margaret Rhodes?

Anyway, I keep giving arguments and yet responses to them boil down to: "Well, they are." That's neither convincing nor interesting, so I give up. As I said, Wikipedia's definition of the royal family seems by far the most reasonable one.

I'd like to link to Heraldica once again. Order of Precedence in England and Wales
Non-royal cousins of the monarch are nowhere to be found. Therefore, it can only be assumed that Anne's children will no longer outrank the archbishops, the prime minister, the bishops and peers of the realm once William ascends the throne. In fact, they won't be accorded any special rank at all. If there's a more reliable source than this one which suggests otherwise, please correct me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #929  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman
I keep giving arguments and yet responses to them boil down to: "Well, they are." That's neither convincing nor interesting, so I give up.

Anyway, I'd like to link to Heraldica once again. Order of Precedence in England and Wales
Non-royal cousins of the monarch are nowhere to be found. Therefore, it can only be assumed that Anne's children will no longer outrank the archbishops, the prime minister, the bishops and peers of the realm once William ascends the throne. In fact, they won't be accorded any special rank at all. If there's a more reliable source than this one which suggests otherwise, please correct me.
When William becomes King, they will no longer have official precedence because they are female-line grandchildren of Elizabeth II. His male-line cousins (Beatrice, Eugenie, James and Louise) will.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #930  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:32 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
When William becomes King, they will no longer have official precedence because they are female-line grandchildren of Elizabeth II. His male-line cousins (Beatrice, Eugenie, James and Louise) will.
But that would mean that right now Peter and Zara have no precedence as well, wouldn't it? After all, they are only female-line grandchildren of the Monarch.

On the other hand, if they do have precedence now (non-royal and non-titled as they may be), then surely during William's reign they will retain the precedence (as cousins of the Monarch) because their relation is through a royal parent?
Reply With Quote
  #931  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:36 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
Branchq, that's all I wanted to be confirmed. I never mentioned the rest of William's paternal cousins.

Now, if that's so, I don't understand how someone who is supposedly a member of the royal family can all of a sudden rank so low. Peter and Beatrice, supposedly both members of the royal family, will one day find themselves in extremely different situations, as the latter will retain her rank and the former will literally be outranked by Sir Elton John.

Artemisia, please read the text on the link I posted twice. Anne's children are accorded precedence as grandchildren of the reigning monarch. They will be accorded precedence as nephew and niece of the reigning monarch. However, there is no provision for them to be accorded any precedence as cousins of the reigning monarch, regardless of whether their parent is royal or not.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #932  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:46 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,260
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
No, by my definition any relative of the Sovereign who holds a royal title (and who thus usually carries out royal engagements) is a member of the royal family. That's very clear from my previous post. I have no idea how you managed to conclude that William does not fit into that pattern, as he is a Royal Highness and a Prince of the United Kingdom.

BTW, by royal title, I mean, of course, a royal title pertaining to the United Kingdom. I might also add those who are entitled to hold such title, but opt not to (such as Edward's children).

By your definition (family of the Queen, with royal in front of it), the royal family would include the Queen's maternal relatives, Lord and Lady Strathmore for example, and a number of others, not to mention her in-laws. I'm sure you'll agree that's a bit too much.
By The Queens own definition her extended royal family reaches as far as The Lady Saltoun, widow of the son of Lady Patricia Ramsay (formerly HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #933  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:51 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
That's interesting. Can you please cite a source?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #934  
Old 11-20-2012, 08:52 PM
msleiman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Greenville, United States
Posts: 442
I think that William comes before Andrew and Edward. When you look at the way they arrive at events it is Edward, Andrew, William/kate/Harry, Charles/DoC, the Queen - leaving events it is the Queen/DoE, Prince Charles/DoC , William,Kate,and Harry, Duke of York/York girls and then Edward. I also looked this up on the official web site and it states that the order of precedence plays out in events such as Remembrance Day service. It talks about who lays the wreath and the order of precedence - Queen, DoE, Charles, William, Duke of York and Edward ect. If you look at this year it played out that way with the exception of Charles ( was not here this year).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #935  
Old 11-20-2012, 09:09 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
No, because right now they are The Sovereign's daughter's children, which makes them closer in degree of blood and place in the succession than when William is King.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #936  
Old 11-20-2012, 09:54 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,724
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post


Pete and Zara are (untitled) members of the Royal Family - but not of the Royal House. At least, that's my understanding.
The Royal House - List of members of the House of Windsor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
British Royal Family - British Royal Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the Order of Precedence, in the very link you provided cousins of the Sovereign (which, during William's reign, will be Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Peter and Zara) come last in the list, immediately after the Sovereign's nephews (in case of men) and wives of Sovereign's cousins (in case of women).

There is no need to prove the Wikipedia article wrong because it's a fairly accurate article. However, nowhere did I find a reference that the Sovereign's cousins have to be royals, titled peers or children of peers. The place in the Order of Precedence is (with few exceptions) based on the relation to the Monarch; Peter and Zara will be the Monarch's cousins through a royal parent (Princess Anne - Prince Charles), which qualified them for a place in the Order.
On the other hand, Welcome to the official website of the British Monarchy (which I think, since it is the Monarchy site, is a go to reference) lists the following:
"The current Royal Family
The current Royal Family / The Duke of Edinburgh / The Prince of Wales / The Duchess of Cornwall / The Duke of Cambridge / The Duchess of Cambridge / Prince Harry / The Duke of York / The Earl of Wessex / The Countess of Wessex / The Princess Royal / The Duke of Gloucester / The Duchess of Gloucester / The Duke of Kent / The Duchess of Kent / Princess Alexandra / Prince and Princess Michael of Kent /"
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #937  
Old 11-20-2012, 11:04 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Right because the members of the family who hold royal rank are expected to carry out public duties on behalf of The Sovereign and are officially representing the Crown. That distinction is important, but is separate from the official order of precedence.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #938  
Old 11-20-2012, 11:53 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,603
Does anyone know what is the precedence of the Earl of Harewood? That might give a clue to where Peter and Zara will be in the future.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #939  
Old 11-21-2012, 01:04 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie
Does anyone know what is the precedence of the Earl of Harewood? That might give a clue to where Peter and Zara will be in the future.
The official order of precedence for members of the royal family ends with The Sovereign's cousins who are male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign. All others have no precedence except as granted at court.

The Earl of Harewood is a female-line great-grandson of George V versus his male-line cousins who are HRH as grandchildren of a monarch.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #940  
Old 11-21-2012, 03:48 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The official order of precedence for members of the royal family ends with The Sovereign's cousins who are male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign. All others have no precedence except as granted at court.

The Earl of Harewood is a female-line great-grandson of George V versus his male-line cousins who are HRH as grandchildren of a monarch.
This conversation has been very educational for me and I have to say thank you. I've always wondered why some Houses had major and minor branches or senior and junior lines in their trees.

Being adopted as a wee child, my family tree starts with me and trust me, shake the tree and a few nuts fall out. Nice nuts but still mine.

Basically what the royal family is then is the descent of the bloodline from the monarch with it being patriarchal until equal primogeniture may become the future? In this respect I can see more in the royal tree from both male and female lines. Good thing to slim down the royal family now?
__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
order of precedence, protocol


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
The Danish Orders and Monograms davo Royal House of Denmark 156 08-08-2014 12:36 PM
Danish Royal Family, Current Events 1: April 2003 - March 2008 Julia Current Events Archive 506 03-23-2008 05:56 PM
Princess Madeleine at the Ball of the Order of Innocence: 2003 Josefine Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill 62 11-19-2005 04:27 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess haya princess laurentien princess mabel princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:29 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]