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
 
  #881  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:12 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,844
Isn't everyone down one with the birth of Savannah Phillips?

Another question- Will Lady Sarah Chatto still be a 'Lady ' when her fathers title passes to her brother?

And one more , who is #24?
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:29 PM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 262
Hi MRSJ:

Yes, I think Diarist would agree that Savannah is #12 and everyone after moves down one.

Yes, Lady Sarah will still be a "Lady" because she is the daughter of an Earl and takes the last name of her husband, but retains her courtesy title through her father's title. The additions will be that the Linley children will become "Lord Linley" (Charles will become Viscount Linley when his father becomes Earl of Snowdon), and Margarita will become Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones. They will both drop the style "The Hon."

And finally, I am guessing that Senna Lewis is the daughter of Lady Davina Lewis????
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
Savannah Phillips - yes indeed, you're right. Better not send the author of the source to the Tower though ['was the Royal Family Website.] Presumably the Page of the Updating [that's a joke by the way!!] is having a go-slow [unless he is busy updating the private wedding list of William and Catherine [that's a joke, too]

Lady Sarah Chatto will always remain 'Lady'. She is entitled to be addressed thus by virtue of being the daugher of an Earl. [Lord Snowdon]. The fact that Viscount Linley will ultimately succeed to his father's title has no bearing on his sister's title.

Hope this helps,

Alex

PS - the style of 'Lady' for daughters of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls was historically intended to make them 'more marriageable' in days gone by [we are talking centuries ago!]

44. Is the grandaugher of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester; her mother Lady Davina Lewis married Garry Lewis Esq, a New Zealander.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thank you Susanna,

I was typing as you were posting and did not see your post until mine was printed up. [I am a slow typist at the best of times] Fortunately our responses agree!

Thank you very much

Alex
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 04-08-2011, 10:56 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
Another thing to consider about The Princess Royal's refusal of titles for her children, is the fact that they are much further removed from the succession and when they were born (as now) were highly unlikely to become monarch themselves.

Anne has three brothers that all come before her in the succession, and I'm sure she was well aware that her brothers would eventually have children of their own.. which would displace her and her children in the line in any case.

So why saddle her children with an HRH and royal obligations when in view of her place in the succession, it was unnecessary to begin with? For Peter and Zara, I think she made the right choice.. they seem to be happy being private people.

As for Andrew and his daughters, his position is a little more high-profile in terms of the succession, and his daughters' positions are nearer in the line. As Duke of York, it is fitting to have Beatrice and Eugenie styled HRH as male-line descendants of the Queen.. though I'm not saying it has been always easy for the girls carrying that dignity around with them everywhere.
__________________
Ú i vethed...nâ i onnad. Minlû pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 04-09-2011, 05:36 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
UK Royal Titles

Hi everyone

I have started a new blog that looks at Royal Titles in the UK, particularly examining interesting quirks and questions around the different titles that royals use.

It's very early days, but check it out:

UK Royal titles
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:25 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
Another thing to consider about The Princess Royal's refusal of titles for her children, is the fact that they are much further removed from the succession and when they were born (as now) were highly unlikely to become monarch themselves.
Clearly she was a very self motivated person to become the level of athlete that she was. She wanted the same thing for her children. Maybe she viewed the title as a burden.

I think it is painful to see the way that the press picks over the bones of Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Particularly the comments about their bodies. Although nobody should be treated that way, it is a particularly cruel way to exploit teenage girls.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 04-17-2011, 05:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 103
Since Savannah was born on 29 December 2010, it does seem strange that the royal website is still not updated. I read something on Wikipedia that said the couple will not even confirm her name really is Savannah.

I was looking the following website: Prince Michael Marriage and family which says

Quote:
Eighth in line to the throne at the time of his birth, the Prince lost his right of succession, under the 1701 Act of Settlement, following his marriage because the Princess is a Roman Catholic. His children, however, still have a claim to the throne having been obliged to be brought up in the Church of England.
I wrote to the group with the following comment:
When Prince Michael was born he would be seventh in the order of succession, not eighth.

The order of succession when Prince Michal was born (4 July 1942) was:
#1) Princess Elizabeth - the present queen
#2) Princess Margaret - the queen's sister
#3) Henry Duke of Gloucestor - younger brother to George VI, and Prince Michael's uncle
#4) Prince William of Gloucestor - son of Henry, and Prince Michael's cousn
#5) George, Duke of Kent - father to Prince Michael
#6) Prince Edward - older brother to Prince Michael


The response was interesting

Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Katerina Liapis

Dear Mr Martin ,
Prince Michael’s sister HRH Princess Alexandra was born in 1936.
Best Wishes,
Katerina

Miss Katerina Liapis
Personal Secretary to HRH Prince Michael of Kent GCVO
Kensington Palace
London
W8 4PU
Tel. 0207 938 3519
Fax. 0207 937 4310
I thought that was interesting since most of us know that boys go before girls. That response was dated 03 July 2008 and the website is still unchanged.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 04-17-2011, 09:54 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi Paco,

Yes, you are correct.
Princess Alexandra would have been displaced out of seventh place by Michael.

Surely, if this woman is Private Secretary to Prince Michael, she should know this; and also surely, Prince Michael himself should know it.

Strange!!

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 04-19-2011, 01:59 AM
IloveCP's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Palm Springs, United States
Posts: 4,897
When Sarah married Andrew did she have a title of Princess Sarah,Duchess of York?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 04-19-2011, 04:41 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by IloveCP View Post
When Sarah married Andrew did she have a title of Princess Sarah,Duchess of York?

No - HRH The Princess Andrew, The Duchess of York, The Countess of Inverness and The Baroness Killyleagh.

Ladies who marry a Prince of the UK take the name and title of their husband so Sarah was The Princess Andrew, Diana was The Princess Charles, Sophie is The Princess Edward, Camilla is The Princess Charles, Brigitte is Princess Richard, Katherine is Princess Edward and Marie-Christine is Princess Edward. Catherine Middleton, if precedent is followed will be Princess William along with any other title that he may be given at the time of the wedding, unless the Queen gives permission otherwise.

It was and is always wrong to refer to any of the above ladies as Princess own name - so it was always wrong to refer to Diana as Princess Diana.

Most of these ladies, except Princess Michael, don't use that style because their husbands all have other titles which their wives may use instead e.g. Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall, Duke of York, Earl of Wessex, Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent.

When Diana and Sarah were divorced they took the style of divorced peers of the realm - Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. These were/are not titles but styles that indicate that they are/were divorced wives of peers of the realms.

They change from HRH The Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of York to Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. Both would have/will lose that styling if they ever remarry.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 04-20-2011, 05:35 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 6
Royal Titles

Hi everyone.

This is a great thread. I've actually stated a blog that explores many of the questions people are raising here. it's early days, but check it out and leave comments:

http://ukroyaltitles.tumblr.com/
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 04-21-2011, 09:51 PM
IloveCP's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Palm Springs, United States
Posts: 4,897
Was Diana considered a commoner even though she had the title of a "Lady"?The same thing with Mathilde.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 04-21-2011, 10:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by IloveCP View Post
Was Diana considered a commoner even though she had the title of a "Lady"?The same thing with Mathilde.

Yes. In Britain only the holder of the title is noble. Even some royals are actually commoners e.g. The Countess of Wessex is still a commoner but a royal commoner.

The easy way to determine whether or not, in Britain, a person is a commoner or not is to ask this simple question - 'could that take a seat in the unreformed House of Lords?' If yes then they are noble but if no then they are/were a commoner so Diana was always a commoner. She went from being an ordinary commoner to a royal commoner.

The reason for saying the 'unreformed House of Lords' is that the other question would be to ask if they could stand for a seat in the House of Commons but that answer has changed now. Yes, except for the Queen the others can vote and stand for political office, just like any other subjects but they choose not to do so.

I wonder if Britain ever went to compulsory voting - as we have here in Australia - if they would excempt the royals down to a certain place in the line of succession?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:17 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
I am not sure where to put the question,but my question regards the formal consent given by the Queen when she allows to marry the royals who are in line to the throne.Does it include all her relatives or only those staying in line to the throne?As I understand for those standing in line to the throne it's obligatory to receive Queen's permission to wed.
How about the second marriage?I mean when someone being in the line to the throne(widower or divorced) marries again or for the second marriage it is not requested.
Correct me if I 'm wrong in this matter.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:35 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,438
Whenever a descendent of George II marries, regardless of how that person stands in line of succession, they must seek the monarch's permission to contract a legal marriage. The only exceptions are those who are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses (which actually excludes all of them as Queen Alexandra was a descendent of such a princess but no one has challenged the RMA under those terms).

It doesn't matter whether the person is contracting a second marriage, or will be marrying a RC or is a RC themselves - no permission = no legal marriage.

Charles sought and was granted permission to marry Camilla, as did Anne when she married Tim.

The highest profile non-English 'royal' to formally seek permission in recent years is Prince Ernst of Hanover when he married Princess Caroline of Monaco. Even though he lost his right to claim the throne in a King Ralph scenario their daughter Alexandra still has that right as she is the product of a legal marriage and is being raised as a Protestant.

Say for instance that Harry decided to marry Chelsy and the Queen said 'no' but they went ahead anyway. Then William died before Kate had their first child. Harry could still become King but any child born of his marriage to Chelsy would have no claim - of course once he became King he could give himself permission and then marry Chelsy legally but...the children born before that happened would still have no rights as they would still be seen as illegitimate.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:50 AM
Lenora's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 2,056
Thank You for the reply.I know that a royal marrying a Catholic loses his/her place in the line to the throne or if converts to Catholic faith.How about converting to other religion?Will it cause the lost of any privileges or moving out from the line to the throne?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 04-23-2011, 04:55 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lenora View Post
Thank You for the reply.I know that a royal marrying a Catholic loses his/her place in the line to the throne or if converts to Catholic faith.How about converting to other religion?Will it cause the lost of any privileges or moving out from the line to the throne?
The monarch must be in communion with the Church of England so if a royal converted to a religion that wasn't in communion with the Church of England they would also be ineligible to claim the throne if the opportunity presented itself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 04-23-2011, 10:03 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Whenever a descendent of George II marries, regardless of how that person stands in line of succession, they must seek the monarch's permission to contract a legal marriage. The only exceptions are those who are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses (which actually excludes all of them as Queen Alexandra was a descendent of such a princess but no one has challenged the RMA under those terms)....
Since there are thousands of descendants of King George II, surely not every one in the line of succession actually ask the Queen for permission? So I'm assuming it's only those in the immediate family (down to 1st cousins, 2nd cousins?) that bothers to ask for permission to marry?

And if that's the case, then maybe the list of succession as listed at various places (such as Line of succession to the British throne - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ?) can be slimmed down to include those who gotten the formal permission. Of course it may be difficult to find out who received permission and who didn't, and is probably pointless anyway as there's just about no chance for them to ascend anyway.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 04-23-2011, 09:33 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,438
There are 1000s yes but the vast majority are descendents of British princesses who married into foreign royal houses and are thus exempt.

If they are a descendent who isn't from a foreign royal house then any marriage they contract is not a legal marriage at all if they don't ask permission.

However going back to the descendents of George II the interesting thing is that any daughters of George II who married into foreign royal houses and thus their descendents are exempt. When we look at his son only one of them had issue and that was Frederick Prince of Wales and again his daughters either were unmarried or married to foreign royal houses and except for his eldest son the other sons either had no issue or no grandchildren so after two geneartions the only descendents that are relevant are those from George III himself. Of course we know that his sons had lots of children but not from legitimate marriages. His eldest son's only child died in childbirth. The next two sons didn't have surviving issue. The fourth son of course fathered Victoria, the fifth became King of Hanover whose desendents still ask for permission to marry, the sixth son became Duke of Cambridge and had three children - two daughters who married into foreign royal houses and a son who had no issue, the other sons have no descendents and the only daughters either didn't marry, had no issue or married into foreign royal houses.

Thus despite the many children from George II and George III today there are only two lines who ask permission and that is the present British royal family and the Hanoverians and they themsevles could argue exemption on the basis of being descended from Queen Alexandra, Queen Mary and Prince Philip - all of whom were/are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses. The current Hanoverians are descended from Victoria's daughter Vicky.

So even though there are 1000s of descendents, mainly from Victoria, they are actually all exempt. Those in the BRF do ask - all of them and the Hanoverians but none of the others because they are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses.

Eliminating anyone on that list because they didn't ask permission won't work as if they are British they asked permission and if they are not British they don't need to as they are descended from British princesses who married into foreign royal houses e.g. do you see the King of Norway asking permission of the British Queen to marry - no but he is also exempt being descended from a British Princess who married a Danish prince.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 04-23-2011, 10:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 177
Thank you very much for the detailed explanation, especially the part about exemptions for issues of British princesses who married into foreign royal families! Fascinating stuff for sure!
__________________

__________________
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 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 717 05-17-2014 05:44 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn Abdication & Inauguration 2013 67 05-24-2013 03:14 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 crown princess victoria current events duchess of cambridge fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman palace picture of the month pom pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:41 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]