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
 
  #2501  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:01 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
I would say there is also a difference between being Royal and a member of the Royal Family.

I have no difficulty accepting the grandchildren of a monarch as Royal (Peter, Zara, David Linley & Sarah Chatto). To me there is no difference between them and their cousins who happened to be born to male children of the monarch. I would not consider them to be members of the Royal Family though.

On the other hand Camilla, Catherine, Sophie and Brigitte are members of the Royal Family but I don't consider them as being Royal because they have no blood relationship with the monarch. To me they are no more Royal than than Tim, Mark or Tony Snowdon (or than I am).

Like Rudolph says it comes down to personal opinion. The Queen and Palace can have as many lists as they want setting out who they consider Royal/a member of the Royal Family but people will still make up their own minds.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2502  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:04 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 517
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Prince William's children are the only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are currently entitled to be princes/princesses as children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales. I assume then that Harry's children, if born before the Prince of Wales ascends the throne, will bear no title other than Lord/Lady xxx Windsor. What happens though after Charles becomes king ? Would Harry's children become princes then ?

Yes they would. In the same way, Diana was born the Honorable Diana Spencer as the daughter of a Viscount. She became Lady Diana Spencer when her father succeeded to the Earldom.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #2503  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Prince William's children are the only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are currently entitled to be princes/princesses as children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales. I assume then that Harry's children, if born before the Prince of Wales ascends the throne, will bear no title other than Lord/Lady xxx Windsor. What happens though after Charles becomes king ? Would Harry's children become princes then ?
Yes Harry's children become HRH and Prince/ss when Charles is King. Born in the Queen's reign they are 'mere' Lords and Ladies

Nothing can stop the Queen from bumping them up to HRH and Prince/ss during her reign but I don't really see this happening
Reply With Quote
  #2504  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:12 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
In the broad context Zara winning a medal at the Olympics, I think the use is okay. Mark Phillips won a bronze in Seoul while he was still married to Anne. I wouldn't call him a royal medal winner. Zara has royal blood while Mark was just married to one which can change but Zara's always going to be granddaughter of a Queen.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2505  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:20 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Prince William's children are the only great-grandchildren of the Queen who are currently entitled to be princes/princesses as children of the eldest living son of the Prince of Wales. I assume then that Harry's children, if born before the Prince of Wales ascends the throne, will bear no title other than Lord/Lady xxx Windsor. What happens though after Charles becomes king ? Would Harry's children become princes then ?
Assuming that Harry is given further titles upon his marriage his children's titles will be:
  • Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, with the eldest son using Harry's second highest title during the Queen's reign
  • HRH Prince/Princess X of Y (with Y being the territorial designation of Harry's peerage) after the Queen's reign
  • Harry's heir will then later become HRH Whatever Harry's Title Is after Harry's passing if it passes to a son; the peerage will cease to be a royal one when it passes onto Harry's grandson
  • Any of Harry's daughters will go on to be HRH Princess X, The Feminine Equivalent of their Husband's Titles on their marriage; his daughters-in-law will be HRH Princess X of Y (with X being their husband's name and Y being the territorial designation of Harry's peerage)
Reply With Quote
  #2506  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:20 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
I would say there is also a difference between being Royal and a member of the Royal Family.

I have no difficulty accepting the grandchildren of a monarch as Royal (Peter, Zara, David Linley & Sarah Chatto). To me there is no difference between them and their cousins who happened to be born to male children of the monarch. I would not consider them to be members of the Royal Family though.

When the new Succession to Crown Act 2013 comes into force, male preference in the order of sucession will be abolished and, therefore, it won't make sense anymore to grant the rank of HRH to male-line grandchildren of the monarch while denying it to the children of the monarch's daughters.

Rather than distinguishing different grandchildren of the monarch based on their parents' gender, the best solution in my personal opinion would be to do as in Continental Europe and grant the HRH rank solely to the children of the heir apparent. All other grandchildren of the monarch would be therefore untitled, or titled only as children of a peer if their parents held a peerage.
Reply With Quote
  #2507  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,381
The Letters Patent issued in 2012/13 aren't specifically for William's children. It was what is known as a "group conferral" (a single document defining a limited or unlimited class of people who receive them). Meaning it will apply to all future children of a Prince of Wales.

Groups conferrals as was the case in 2012/13 are almost always passed under the Great Seal of the Realm

Letters Patent or Royal Warrant issued ad personam or an individual basis deals with a single person (Harry's children for example) and aren't usually passed under The Great Seal although they can and have been in the past.

Either way the effect is the same.
Reply With Quote
  #2508  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:30 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
Can someone confirm or otherwise clear up...

Mark Phillips was never a HRH, right?

Was he then considered a "royal" or not?
And is Zara technically "royal?" (see: Dispelling myths: The Phillips Reality)
I ask because on the Zara thread there is an Aussie News clip in which Zara is referred to as the only royal to ever win an Olympic medal. Is that technically true?
Thanks for any clarity. I've made more mistakes on this thread than anyone can count, so now I ask.
Mark was never an HRH, nor has Zara ever been. She is considered by some to be royal in a broad sense, particularly in regards to the tabloids, but she's not actually royal. She is family to royals but not herself a member of the royal family.

Princess Margaret once said of her children "aren't royal - they just happen to have the Queen for an aunt" (Anne is often attributed of having said something similar), while Zara herself points out that she's not a princess. She's not royal, she's just related to royals.
Reply With Quote
  #2509  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:36 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
The Letters Patent issued in 2012/13 aren't specifically for William's children. It was what is known as a "group conferral" (a single document defining a limited or unlimited class of people who receive them). Meaning it will apply to all future children of a Prince of Wales.

Groups conferrals as was the case in 2012/13 are almost always passed under the Great Seal of the Realm

Letters Patent or Royal Warrant issued ad personam or an individual basis deals with a single person (Harry's children for example) and aren't usually passed under The Great Seal although they can and have been in the past.

Either way the effect is the same.
Well, no. It will apply to all future children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The exact wording is "all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales". This means that Harry's children aren't in any way affected, but one day George's children will. Although, even then it only counts if William is made Prince of Wales.

Also, the LPs were for 2012, not 2013.
Reply With Quote
  #2510  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,381
^^^ Eldest son is what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

2012/13 in the sense it passed under The Great Seal of the Realm in 2012 but was released in 2013. Officially 2012
Reply With Quote
  #2511  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:52 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
Questions about British Styles and Titles

It would only come into play with a great grandchild of the sovereign and a heir. So if George has a kid while Charles is King.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2512  
Old 11-10-2014, 03:59 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,381
^^^ That's correct
Reply With Quote
  #2513  
Old 11-10-2014, 04:11 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
If George has a kid while Charles is King if William has been made Prince of Wales.
Reply With Quote
  #2514  
Old 11-10-2014, 04:19 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
When has someone who was eligible not been named Prince of Wales ? If George has a kid, you can safely assume that Charles got around to naming William Prince of Wales at some point.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2515  
Old 11-10-2014, 04:23 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,193
The interesting thing with those LPs is that if the eldest child is a girl they will need to issue new LPs as the girl will be the heir apparent but the children won't be born HRH under these LPs. However the children of a younger child, not heir apparent, but still a son will automatically by HRH.

That 'slip' was a way of showing The Queen's dislike of the change to first child inheritance I suspect as she has set it up so that if the current situation - of a great-grandchild being born who is also the future monarch - results in the heir being a girl then they are back to new LPs again. She could have prevented that by stating 'eldest child' rather than 'eldest son'.
Reply With Quote
  #2516  
Old 11-10-2014, 04:35 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,331
Well, George VI had to issue a LP to allow for Charles and Anne to be HRHs , other wise they would have been born styled as children of a Duke. If there is a girl heir apparent, they probably just do the same thing.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #2517  
Old 11-10-2014, 04:36 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The interesting thing with those LPs is that if the eldest child is a girl they will need to issue new LPs as the girl will be the heir apparent but the children won't be born HRH under these LPs. However the children of a younger child, not heir apparent, but still a son will automatically by HRH.

That 'slip' was a way of showing The Queen's dislike of the change to first child inheritance I suspect as she has set it up so that if the current situation - of a great-grandchild being born who is also the future monarch - results in the heir being a girl then they are back to new LPs again. She could have prevented that by stating 'eldest child' rather than 'eldest son'.
That's an interesting take on it. I wonder if it was more of a "Charles is expected to be the last Prince of Wales" kind of take on things. Either way it's an interesting way of wording it - she probably would have been better off saying "the children of the eldest child of the heir apparent" just to cover all the bases... but then, the BRF doesn't tend to cover all bases with their LPs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
When has someone who was eligible not been named Prince of Wales ? If George has a kid, you can safely assume that Charles got around to naming William Prince of Wales at some point.
I disagree, I don't think we can assume such a thing.

First of all, we're assuming that when Charles is King the Welsh will want the title to continue. We don't know that, and I kind of wouldn't be surprised if the Welsh spoke up against it the title wasn't used.

Second of all, assuming that there are no objections to the title, there is often a bit of a gap between when the person becomes heir apparent and when the title is conferred - Charles himself was heir apparent for 6 years before becoming PoW.

Thirdly, Edward III, Henry VI, and (according to the PoW's website) Edward VI were never PoW, despite being eligible. There are several others who died shortly after their births who also weren't PoW despite being eligible.
Reply With Quote
  #2518  
Old 11-10-2014, 04:37 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 4,381
In the case of Honours it's the sovereign's will and pleasure that matters. How the Queen expresses her pleasure depends on the Honour.

Sometimes Letters Patent passed under the Great Seal on the advice of parliament is required as in the case of Peerages for example. When the Queen created William Duke of Cambridge Letters Patent were required.

Letters Patent are simply a way that the Sovereign signifies making an alteration or proclamation that doesn't go through Parliament but they aren't the only way.

In the case of royal titles and styles the matter is completely different. Unlike Peerages, royal titles and styles confer no legal entitlements upon the recipient. The Queen can style her family as she pleases

A good example for an individual is Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester. No formal grant of the title of Princess was ever made.

Her husband died on June 10, 1974, and after his funeral she ceased to be "the duchess of Gloucester". Normally she would have become the dowager duchess of Gloucester. Instead, the Court Circular refers to her as "Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester" starting on July 13, at the first mention of her after the funeral.There is no grant of the style Princess recorded at the College of Arms either.

However a grant of Arms in 1981 is recorded as follows by Garter King of Arms :

"The armorial bearings of Her Royal Highness Princess Alice Duchess of Gloucester as widow of His Royal Highness the late duke have been approved by Her Majesty the Queen"

One example of the Queen expressing her will and pleasure through an instrument other than Letters Patent
Reply With Quote
  #2519  
Old 11-10-2014, 08:04 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 4,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Mark was never an HRH, nor has Zara ever been. She is considered by some to be royal in a broad sense, particularly in regards to the tabloids, but she's not actually royal. She is family to royals but not herself a member of the royal family.

Princess Margaret once said of her children "aren't royal - they just happen to have the Queen for an aunt" (Anne is often attributed of having said something similar), while Zara herself points out that she's not a princess. She's not royal, she's just related to royals.
Thanks Ish. It's what I thought, but I do get tangeled up on this thread. I appreciate the assist!
__________________
A hero is someone who understands the responsibility that comes with his freedom.
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...bob_dylan.html
Reply With Quote
  #2520  
Old 11-11-2014, 08:22 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 1,784
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The interesting thing with those LPs is that if the eldest child is a girl they will need to issue new LPs as the girl will be the heir apparent but the children won't be born HRH under these LPs. However the children of a younger child, not heir apparent, but still a son will automatically by HRH.

That was exactly what I meant before: the LPs are outdated in view of the new succession rules that will come into force with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013. Parliament should take the opportunity to repeal the LPs and pass legislation regulating royal titles and styles in line with Continental practice, i.e. restricting HRH status to the monarch's children and children of the heir apparent only. The monarch's consort and the heir apparent's consort could also be made princes or princesses in their own right and the title of Prince/ss of Wales for the heir apparent should also be enshrined in law in line with the titles of Prince of Orange in the Netherlands and Prince of Asturias in Spain. All other members of the Royal Family, including the remaining grandchildren of the monarch who are not born to the heir apparent, would be untitled, or else hold the titles or honorifics to which they would be entitled according to British peerage rules assuming their parents are peers.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1353 11-17-2016 02:00 PM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 38 09-17-2016 06:06 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 749 06-29-2016 07:02 PM
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 05:24 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 04:14 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 beatrice borromeo best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit british baby names catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events dom duarte duchess of cambridge e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe vi king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy new zealand nobel gala norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles princess charlene fashion princess madeleine princess marie princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen mathildes outfits queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania evening dresses replica royal fashion september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:23 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises