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, 04:22 PM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 266
Royal Eagle, I think you are on the right track. Princess Anne, especially, is first and foremost a practical person. Look at the publicity (much of it negative) that the York girls get and while the press doesn't ignore Zara and Peter, they have been given more freedom just to be themselves... Prince Andrew wanted his daughters to be princesses, and that has subjected them to much greater scrutiny...
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 04-08-2011, 04:52 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 176
Yep, basically HRHs are expected to be role models for the Monarchy, and that's quite a burden for some, especially if they're not close to the Throne.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 04-08-2011, 04:54 PM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
The Titles Deprivation Act can only be employed to strip the titles and/or royal dignity of a person who served or is serving in an enemy military force, has rendered assistance to, or voluntarily resides in an enemy nation.
It's not even that general. It applied only to the first world war ("during the present war"). Stripping a peer's title for adhering to an enemy in any other war would require another act of Parliament to enable the action.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 04-08-2011, 05:00 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanna Wynne View Post
Royal Eagle, I think you are on the right track. Princess Anne, especially, is first and foremost a practical person. Look at the publicity (much of it negative) that the York girls get and while the press doesn't ignore Zara and Peter, they have been given more freedom just to be themselves... Prince Andrew wanted his daughters to be princesses, and that has subjected them to much greater scrutiny...
Prince Andrew didn't want his daughters to be Princesses...they are Princesses by being the daughters of a Prince and the granddaughters of a Queen. Just as Louise is a Princess and James is a Prince. The difference is that Edward and Sophie want their children to have low key normal lives with different titles...it doesn't stop the fact that they are in fact a Prince and Princess.

Which begs the question...why do people keep point out what Edward and Sophie did ten years after Beatrice and Eugenie were born. It would be different if James and Louise were born first and than Beatrice and Eugenie. The fact is that the monarchy and the Yorks were at a different place when Beatrice and Eugenie were born first than when James and Louise were born. So at the time Andrew was doing what was natural.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 04-08-2011, 05:36 PM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 266
Reply to Zonk's question regarding the York daughters

Hi Zonk: I was thinking more of what happened in the BRF before Beatrice and Eugenie were born:

When Peter Phillips was born, the Queen offered to create him HRH and a prince, and Anne and Mark politely declined, and their reason was that they wanted them to have the chance at a more normal life. Andrew could have made the same decision, since it was a concept that was raised within his own family prior to the births of his children. Yes, it was their right as children of a monarch's son to be known as princesses, but the increased sensitivity of the time would have suggested that Andrew, like Anne, might have considered the wisdom of taking some of the pressure off of his own children, which is also the decision that Edward and Sophie ultimately made, as you indicated, some years later.

In the entire BRF, these are the two young people for whom I feel most empathy...
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 04-08-2011, 05:47 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,454
Actually in the late 80s the royal family was way more popular than it was by the early 90s. This is because of the euphoria around the marriages and births of the princes and then the princesses but by the early 90s things changed due to things like the Morton book and interviews etc.

Andrew's children were princesses simply by being born and nothing needed to be done. For Anne's children new LPs would have needed to be issued and in the mid-late 70s there was a stronger anti-monarchy feeling than there was 10 years later - mainly due to the fact that the Queen was no longer young, Charles was dating - and that was the focus - who would be his Queen - so to create new princes and princesses just because they were Anne's kids (when Margaret's kids and Mary's kids didn't get it - and Margaret and Mary were also the daughters of a monarch) would have seemed strange.
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 04-08-2011, 06:23 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,863
But isn't the point as 'strange' as it seemed QEII would have done it but Anne (the mother) wouldn't allow it, thus Andrew could have insisted his daughters be called Ladies and not Princesses...

Andrew could have said (like Edward has) we will use Lady Beatric of York until she is 18 then she can decide how shed like to be styled- I think Susanna's point is valid that he had a small precedence in Anne's children that there is another path- I actually heard Andrew demanded they we would be sytled as Princesses and not just Ladies...(which as we've seen w/ his brothers kids he could gave done)
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:05 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
The British Tabloid Press [often on what I would describe as 'slow news days'] occassionally print articles alleging that the Duke of York is very protective of his daughters' 'status' and these articles then usually go on to say that the Duke 'demands' that Beartice and Eugenie are protected at all times by Royal Bodyguards etc.....

The point is that we have no way of knowing whether any of this is true. The alleged demand for Royal Protection Officers might well be nothing more than a policing decision to the effect that a step-up in security is required.

As to the point about the lack of titles for Zara and Peter, remember this: they might have no titles, but they both remain well up in the orders of sucession and precedence, outranking many of those people who are actually titled.....to me they have the best of both worlds:

Please forgive me for taking up space, but I thought that this would be quite useful to post as a reminder:

The Line of Succession

SOVEREIGN
1. The Prince of Wales
2. Prince William of Wales
3. Prince Henry of Wales
4. The Duke of York
5. Princess Beatrice of York
6. Princess Eugenie of York
7. The Earl of Wessex
8. Viscount Severn
9. The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
10. The Princess Royal
11. Mr. Peter Phillips
12. Miss Zara Phillips
13. Viscount Linley
14. The Hon. Charles Armstrong-Jones
15. The Hon. Margarita Armstrong-Jones
16. The Lady Sarah Chatto
17. Master Samuel Chatto
18. Master Arthur Chatto
19. The Duke of Gloucester
20. Earl of Ulster
21. Lord Culloden
22. The Lady Cosima Windsor
23. The Lady Davina Lewis
24. Miss Senna Lewis
25. The Lady Rose Gilman
26. Miss Lyla Gilman
27. The Duke of Kent
28. The Lady Amelia Windsor
29. The Lady Helen Taylor
30. Master Columbus Taylor
31. Master Cassius Taylor
32. Miss Eloise Taylor
33. Miss Estella Taylor
34. The Hon. Albert Windsor
35. The Hon. Leopold Windsor
36. The Lord Frederick Windsor
37. The Lady Gabriella Windsor
38. Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy

I have emboldened Zara and Peter in Royal Purple, and have highlighted in blue 2 or 3 Royals with 'impressive titles' who are actually well below the children of the Princess Royal

I believe that Zara and Peter therefore do indeed have the best of both worlds - they have the advantages of being the Sovereign's grandchildren when it is advantageous to them, but are at the same time free to pursue their own lives and careers. Currently, Zara receives generous sponsorship from Land Rover to help support her equestrian activities...she is a first class rider and all other riders of the same calibre [actually, there aren't many riders anyway in this elite category, it's very select and Zara has done very well] all enjoy sponsorship from various sources. Zara is often seen in logo'd clothes etc proclaming her sponsor's name, in exactly the same way that other elite riders display the names of their sponsors...... it is just my gut feeling that if Zara had been titled, it would have 'underlined that she was related to royalty' and hindered her freedom to accept sponsorship, because it would have left her open to 'cashing in on her royal status' even though the Princess Royal has been quoted on several occasions as saying ' My children are not royal'

Put it this way, Zara and Peter have recognition in the order of succession, and their rank as children of the Sovereign's daughter places them pretty high on the list of precedence [both joint and by gender], and so I think they get the best of both worlds.

Finally, many continental friends of mine always find it very hard to understand how Zara and Peter can rank so highly in the line of succession and order of precedence!

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:12 PM
MRSJ's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ******, United States
Posts: 1,863
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
  #890  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:29 PM
Susanna Wynne's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Jackson Hole, United States
Posts: 266
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
  #891  
Old 04-08-2011, 07:39 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
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
  #892  
Old 04-08-2011, 10:56 PM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 304
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
  #893  
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
  #894  
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
  #895  
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
  #896  
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
  #897  
Old 04-19-2011, 01:59 AM
IloveCP's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: -, United States
Posts: 6,651
When Sarah married Andrew did she have a title of Princess Sarah,Duchess of York?
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 04-19-2011, 04:41 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,454
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
  #899  
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
  #900  
Old 04-21-2011, 09:51 PM
IloveCP's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: -, United States
Posts: 6,651
Was Diana considered a commoner even though she had the title of a "Lady"?The same thing with Mathilde.
__________________

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 1115 01-14-2015 02:50 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 10:59 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 King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
australia best outfit camilla carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death denmark duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll felipe vi france funeral hereditary grand duchess stéphanie infanta leonor king abdullah of jordan king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit photo session picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince daniel prince frederik prince of wales princess alexia (2005 -) princess beatrice princess catharina-amalia princess madeleine princess mary princess mary style princess mette-marit princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen letizia style queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal royal fashion sayn sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague wedding willem-alexander


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 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:18 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
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]