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
 
  #1761  
Old 01-14-2013, 09:46 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,196
Margaret was Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon from her marriage to her death. Anthony's second wife was known as Lady Snowdon.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1762  
Old 01-14-2013, 10:09 AM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,691
Regarding Catherine curtseying to her daughters, isn't that a yes? As blood Princesses they outrank her in the Queen's private precedence of Blood princesses outranking married Princesses. Technically Sophie's daughter Louise outranks her as a blood Princess, therefore she should in theory curtsey to her own daughter.
__________________

__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #1763  
Old 01-14-2013, 10:31 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
Regarding Catherine curtseying to her daughters, isn't that a yes? As blood Princesses they outrank her in the Queen's private precedence of Blood princesses outranking married Princesses. Technically Sophie's daughter Louise outranks her as a blood Princess, therefore she should in theory curtsey to her own daughter.
No!!!!! HRHs are all of equal rank they DO NOT curtsey to each other! Precedence is not who curtseys ( or bows ) to who but rather where one should stand in a formal line up.

Precedence can also be changed, the Queen did that a few years ago when she decided that when the female members come together those who were a closer relationship to her would outrank those who 'married in '.

Re: previous post Lord Snowdon's second wife Lucy has the title Countess of Snowdon ( not Lady!). She is still the Countess of Snowdon as the decree absolute in the divorce has never gone through. Princess Margaret always used her title 'Princess Margaret' she was listed as HRH Princess Margaret, the Countess of Snowdon.

Finally her former husband's name is Antony not Anthony, they are 2 separate names.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1764  
Old 01-14-2013, 10:42 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,196
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte1 View Post

Re: previous post Lord Snowdon's second wife Lucy has the title Countess of Snowdon ( not Lady!). She is still the Countess of Snowdon as the decree absolute in the divorce has never gone through. Princess Margaret always used her title 'Princess Margaret' she was listed as HRH Princess Margaret, the Countess of Snowdon.
After her divorce Margaret was HRH The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, no The. Lucy held/holds the title The Countess of Snowdon, and can be known as Lady Snowdon trust me.
They're not too different names where I come from

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
Regarding Catherine curtseying to her daughters, isn't that a yes? As blood Princesses they outrank her in the Queen's private precedence of Blood princesses outranking married Princesses. Technically Sophie's daughter Louise outranks her as a blood Princess, therefore she should in theory curtsey to her own daughter.
Catherine would only have to curtsey to her child if she was alive when it became Monarch. Sophie and Catherine do not curtsy to Anne for example.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1765  
Old 01-14-2013, 11:02 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
Regarding Catherine curtseying to her daughters, isn't that a yes? As blood Princesses they outrank her in the Queen's private precedence of Blood princesses outranking married Princesses. Technically Sophie's daughter Louise outranks her as a blood Princess, therefore she should in theory curtsey to her own daughter.
Firstly, ranking in the Order of Precedence does not indicate who must curtsey to whom; it's just than - ranking on official events. It just stipulated who sits where, or who arrives when, or who walks behind whom. I haven't seen, say, the Duchess of Gloucester curtseying to Princess Beatrice although the latter does outrank her. In practice, the only people British Royals curtsey to are the Queen and Prince Philip.

Secondly, you are confusing Official and Private Orders of Precedence. In the Official Order of Precedence (which is the one used for all state, official and semi-official events - the only ones when ladies might consider curtseying to each other), Kate (wife of the Sovereign's grandson) comes immediately after the Queen (the Sovereign), the Duchess of Cornwall (wife of the Sovereign's eldest son) and the Countess of Wessex (wife of the Sovereign's younger son). As such, Kate not only outranks Princess Beatrice - and all other blood Princesses - but also will outrank any children she will have.

In fact, Kate will always outrank any and all of her children until one of them ascends to the Throne. That's because during the Queen's reign, William and Kate's children will be only the Sovereign's great-grandsons (meaning, they are not even included in the Order of Precedence), during Charles' reign, Kate (as Duchess of Cornwall) will be the first lady in the Kingdom after Camilla (the Queen Consort), and during William's reign she'll be the first lady in the Kingdom (as the Queen Consort). Only if Kate outlives William and her son or daughter ascends to the Throne, will she be outranked by her own child (the Monarch).
Reply With Quote
  #1766  
Old 01-14-2013, 01:31 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
Oh please for God's sake stop all this stuff..

NO ONE CURTSIES ANYONE EXCEPT THE QUEEN AND PRINCE PHILIP (sovereign and consort).
I dont understand the thrill people get by imagining someone curtseying to their kids.
Precedence has nothing to do with curtseying.
Anne never curtsied even Charles..Why will she or anyone curtsey anyone else..
Dont go with the tabloid lines.."will have to bend her knees to her" it is so amateur reporting..
Catherine will do just as the QM and Queen Mary did..curtsey him/her , only at the coronation..

And yes, Artemisia is right,

PRINCESSES OF BLOOD OUTRANK PRINCESSES BY MARRIAGE, BUT ONLY OF THEIR GENERATION, NOT THE PREVIOUS GENERATION.
Bea&Eu cannot outrank Sophie, similarly Will/Harry's daughters cannot outrank Kate/Princess Harry..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1767  
Old 01-14-2013, 01:43 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,196

There's no need to shout. Precedence rules are complicated, they're confusing and in parts difficult to understand. Things overlap, certain rules make other rules obsolete. Curtseying is sometimes linked to Precedence, which if you think about it makes sense. That's why it gets confusing. Which leads people to ask questions about them and since this is a discussion forum it is allowed.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1768  
Old 01-14-2013, 01:50 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
I am not shouting. I am just clarifying. I dont have anything against the person who asked this question. I was just angry on the tabloids. Remember the day Kate was placed below Beatrice and Eugenie, all tabloids started screaming 'Kate should bend knees to B&E', with just explaining the situation. The simple create a frenzy and mislead the people. That was I was saying.
Ifanyone was offended by my impatience, please forgive me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1769  
Old 01-14-2013, 05:34 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,726
No disrespect intended, but using caps lock online is considered "shouting" since everything is done via text. That's probably why Lumutqueen said you didn't need to yell.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever........ "
Reply With Quote
  #1770  
Old 01-14-2013, 05:56 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,379


Internet protocol has been explained. Vkrish apologized in case he offended anyone.

Time to move on.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #1771  
Old 01-15-2013, 05:52 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,709
As we don't see these people when they first meet each other in private we don't know who might curtesy to whom. So for someone to say that they only ever courtsy to The Queen and Philip, in private, would mean that they are a member of the family as only members of the family would be involved.

We do know that The Queen has issued a 'private precedence' for ladies only that places blood princesses ahead of wives - but that only applies if the only people present are women and in private. As soon as any man is present then the precedence is that associated with the precedence of the males and females combined.

Public and private precedence aren't the same thing - one applies only when the family is together and the other when they are in public and on state occasions.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1772  
Old 01-22-2013, 01:48 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2
[QUOTE...it is almost certain that Camilla will in fact be The Queen Consort, but will just opt to be known (at least initially) as The Princess Consort. The wife of a British Monarch is automatically a Queen and to legally deny Camilla that right Acts of Parliament would need to be passed in all sixteen Commonwealth Realms [/QUOTE]

There is no mention or title of 'queen consort' under the Australian constitution. The Queen reigns as 'Queen of Australia'. Other members of the royal family use their UK titles as courtesy titles in an official capacity when in Australia or performing duties on behalf of Australia. Why would the Parliament of Australia therefore need to pass a law to deny Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, the title of Queen when the Prince of Wales ascends to the throne?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1773  
Old 01-22-2013, 11:31 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421

Some of the Realms (Australia, Tuvalu and I think a couple of others too) will not indeed need any legislations concerning Camilla's title.
However, the majority of the Realms, and certainly the UK, would need to pass Acts of their respective Parliaments to legally deny Camilla the title Queen Consort.
Reply With Quote
  #1774  
Old 02-03-2013, 04:43 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Houston, United States
Posts: 75
I was just wondering if it was The Queen's will to create Prince William's future children princes & princesses and she used Letters Patent to do so... why wasn't LP issued in regards to Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn not being entitled to royal status?


I mean The Queen could've easily issued a press release gifting the titles to Prince William's children without the need of LP as the Sovereign's will is all that matters... regardless of how it is expressed. I'm of the opinion that she issued the patent because that makes it "legal" & without question & because she wants to see William's children born with princely titles. But it seems to me that she intentionally didn't issue LP for Louise & James because that wasn't her "own express" wish in a way.... but those of her parents for which she respected... but only went as far as the press release & not with LP which would effectively deny them their birth right status legally.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1775  
Old 02-03-2013, 04:50 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421

I am in agreement with you. Letters Patent make granting (or revoking) royal styles and titles official.

Since Letters Patent were not issued in regard to Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, they are still a Princess and a Prince of the United Kingdom from the legal point of view. Perhaps Her Majesty deliberately avoided LPs in the event Louise and James will opt to use their royal styles and titles upon reaching the age of majority, or if they eventually become working members of the Royal Family (and will need their titles).

It is my personal opinion that as long as new Letters Patent cancelling those of 1917 are not issued, the latter remain in force. The Queen is obviously not afraid to make changes since she has already amended one clause of the Letters Patent 1917 (granting all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, and not just the first-born son).
Reply With Quote
  #1776  
Old 02-03-2013, 06:31 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Princess Alice was never legally a Princess in her own; she was allowed to use the title by the Queen. The Queen Mother was called "Princess Elizabeth" at her funeral because she held the title of a British Princess from the point of her marriage to the Duke of York and until his accession to the Throne.

There may not be a legal right attached to a peerage but there are practices which are, and have always been, observed.
Reply With Quote
  #1777  
Old 02-03-2013, 07:00 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,709
Alice, like The Queen Mum were both princesses of the UK from the time of their marriages but not Princess Elizabeth or Princess Alice.

When The Duke of Gloucester died Alice asked if, instead of being known as HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester or HRH The Princess Henry she could be known by her own first name and The Queen agreed.

The fact that Henry's younger brother, George, had married Princess Marina - a Princess in her own right even if technically in the UK she shouldn't have used the style of Princess Marina she did do so - particularly after the marriage of her son and so the arrival of a second Duchess of Kent.

The Queen Mum was of course known as HM Queen Elizabeth so it would have been strange to have her titles read up at the funeral as HRH The Princess Albert, HM Queen Elizabeth - it makes more sense for her to be both Queen and Princess Elizabeth - as I expect it will be for both Camilla and Catherine in the future.

I wouldn't even be surprised to see Catherine referred to officially as Princess Catherine when Charles becomes King - so that the British are in line with the rest of Europe and a woman who marries into the family is as much a princess own name as one who married into the Danish or Norwegian royal families.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1778  
Old 02-03-2013, 11:28 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia View Post


Princess Alice was never legally a Princess; she was allowed to use the title by the Queen. The Queen Mother was called "Princess Elizabeth" at her funeral because she held the title of a British Princess from the point of her marriage to the Duke of York and until his accession to the Throne.

There may not be a legal right attached to a peerage but there are practices which are, and have always been, observed.
Alice and Elizabeth automatically became Princesses with marriage to sons of The Sovereign. Although the tradition is a princess by marriage does not use the style with their own name, they still have precedence and place as wives of male-line grandsons or sons and The Sovereign can choose to allow it.

Wives of Peers have the same rights and privileges their husbands hold and assume a title upon marriage. Princesses are royal, but this is simply a style signifying precedence and place to The Sovereign through their husband. Unless created a Peer, a Prince remains a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1779  
Old 02-03-2013, 11:32 AM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421

I am aware of that although my wording was not perfect (corrected that).
I was responding to another post (now deleted) who suggested Alice became a Princess in her own right although no Letters Patent were released to the effect. Obviously, I meant Alice wasn't a Princess in her own right (one who can prefix "Princess" to her name) although of course she was a Princess by marriage.
Reply With Quote
  #1780  
Old 02-03-2013, 02:13 PM
Rebafan81's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Akron, United States
Posts: 1,037
I have always thought the Scandinavian way of doing things was better than the British when it came to marrying a titled Prince. I would love to see Catherine become a Princess in her own right when William becomes the Crowned Prince.
__________________

__________________
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
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 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 Major Royal Events 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
belgium 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 germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene 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 wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:46 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]