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
 
  #1941  
Old 01-01-2015, 07:19 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,368
You still get the flag flown and the gun salutes on the actual birthday. The trooping and then garter day and then Ascot makes a nice trio of royal events.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1942  
Old 01-01-2015, 07:25 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,413
I always thought that the official birthday was linked to the Coronation, hence June.
ah well!
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #1943  
Old 01-01-2015, 07:31 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Victoria celebrated her birthday in May (what is now Commonwealth Day) but George V moved it to June - when his birthday was. Edward VIII, for his one year, didn't move it because he had a similar date to his father (George V - 3rd June; Edward VIII - 23rd June).


George VI didn't move his date because he was determined to keep things as they had been under his father - to emphasise the continuity of the monarchy - so it wasn't moved to December. The Queen argued that having been in June for over 40 year she saw no reason to move it.


It has now been in June for over a century and the only person to move it from summer in the next century would be Charles so it won't be moving.


The Coronation was in June but that didn't have anything to do with the date of the birthday - George VI hadn't had his birthday in May and his coronation had been in May.
Reply With Quote
  #1944  
Old 01-01-2015, 07:39 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,368
Edward VII moved it to warmer weather since he had a November birthday. George V had a June 3 birthday.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/T...birthdays.aspx


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1945  
Old 01-01-2015, 07:52 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 11,483
I don't believe the Trooping of the Colour will be moved under Charles, William or George.
__________________
"THE REAL POWER OF A MAN IS IN THE SIZE OF THE SMILE OF THE WOMAN SITTING NEXT TO HIM."

GENTLEMAN'S ESSENTIALS
Reply With Quote
  #1946  
Old 01-02-2015, 04:40 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I am not even convinced that George would move it into July but leave it where it is in June - so that the public can plan for the long weekend at the appropriate time and be consistent.

It isn't simply about the monarch and their birthday but when it suits the nation to celebrate that birthday and mid-June makes sense to the nation.
There isn't a long weekend. It's always a Saturday, and the Friday and Monday are regular working days. I think it will be kept in June, but it's not really a national celebration like some countries have, or even a public holiday like the official birthday is in some other realms and territories.
Reply With Quote
  #1947  
Old 01-09-2015, 01:14 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
It is just that this crisis, and it is a crisis, has evoked some questioning about the best way for the British royal family to move forward. After all, the Queen, who has done a marvellous job, is entering the last years of her reign, and it is known, through, whatever source, that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy.
The questioning about the monarchy comes from those who want Republic.
There is no evidence that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy, It's going to happen by itself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Whether it will be as austere in form as Norway or Spain, or a little cosier as with Denmark, it may well be that Charles could decree a defining of a core royal family, as in monarch and consort, heir and spouse and their eldest child. He may include Harry in this or not.
It's not going to happen. Williams children is going to have royals duties, but I agree that Harrys upcoming children should not have titles, or be members of the monarchy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
This would include the cousins, Anne, the Wessexes and perhaps Harry. Andrew should certainly never be allowed to represent the monarch again. He is a prime example of what Glover in his article called 'the rollicking, roistering Princes' who, IMO, bring shame to the royal family.
The cousin problem will resolve itself. Anne and the Wessex will continue with their good work as long as they want, and so will Harry. Beatrice and Eugenie should never have become princesses, and in my opinion should not represent the royal family, although I like both.
I'm not sure what's going to happen with Andrews role in the monarchy, it depends on how he behaves, but he will not be removed from the line of succession, except if what he is accused of should prove to be true.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1948  
Old 01-09-2015, 03:26 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
If Beatrice and Eugenie weren't to become Princesses then the 1917 LPs should have been that only the children of the eldest son becomes HRH and that would have meant NO children of George V being HRH in his lifetime - with two gaining that styling in December, 1936.
Reply With Quote
  #1949  
Old 01-09-2015, 09:57 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by ROYAL NORWAY View Post
The questioning about the monarchy comes from those who want Republic.

There is no evidence that Charles is keen to 'slim down' the monarchy, It's going to happen by itself.









It's not going to happen. Williams children is going to have royals duties, but I agree that Harrys upcoming children should not have titles, or be members of the monarchy.







The cousin problem will resolve itself. Anne and the Wessex will continue with their good work as long as they want, and so will Harry. Beatrice and Eugenie should never have become princesses, and in my opinion should not represent the royal family, although I like both.

I'm not sure what's going to happen with Andrews role in the monarchy, it depends on how he behaves, but he will not be removed from the line of succession, except if what he is accused of should prove to be true.

Beatrice and Eugenie becoming princesses has not context to a slimmed down monarchy. They are already not working royals with no expected plans, per Buckingham Palace. That's ALL we as the public need to be worried about.

As far as them being princesses, that's simply a matter of fact and a family matter, too. They ARE princesses. Bottom line. No if ands or buts about it. They are granddaughters of a monarch, and daughters of a Duke. It's their birthright. It's not a case of they shouldn't have been made princesses. They were born princesses.

Let's be clear that there is a BIG difference between the York girls being princesses (which they are, it is their identity and who they are based on customs of the country, their family, etc.) and being working royals (which Buckingham Palace has stated they are not and don't have any expected plans to be).

With all that being said, I think it's important to note that while many are searching for reasons to slim down the monarchy, the country isn't getting any smaller.

And already we hear cries from many that the RF doesn't do enough, William and Kate don't work enough, etc etc. With a smaller royal family, just means more of the work we do value them for will diminish.
Reply With Quote
  #1950  
Old 01-09-2015, 10:15 AM
Bine221's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 1,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAPolitics View Post
Beatrice and Eugenie becoming princesses has not context to a slimmed down monarchy. They are already not working royals with no expected plans, per Buckingham Palace. That's ALL we as the public need to be worried about.

As far as them being princesses, that's simply a matter of fact and a family matter, too. They ARE princesses. Bottom line. No if ands or buts about it. They are granddaughters of a monarch, and daughters of a Duke. It's their birthright. It's not a case of they shouldn't have been made princesses. They were born princesses.

Let's be clear that there is a BIG difference between the York girls being princesses (which they are, it is their identity and who they are based on customs of the country, their family, etc.) and being working royals (which Buckingham Palace has stated they are not and don't have any expected plans to be).


Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward arenīt?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine
Reply With Quote
  #1951  
Old 01-09-2015, 10:25 AM
Cris M's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Niterói, Brazil
Posts: 847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bine221 View Post
Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward arenīt?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine
The children of the Princess Royal aren't a Prince and Princess because titles don't pass through the female line. The children of the Earl of Wessex (who's not a Duke) aren't styled as a Prince and a Princess because their parents asked the Queen for them to be styled just as children of an Earl.

Following the 1917 Letters of Patent, the York Princesses are the rule, while their Wessex cousins are the exception.
__________________
“If a thousand thrones I had, I would give a thousand thrones to get the slaves free in Brazil."

Princess Isabel (1846-1921), Princess Imperial and Regent of the Empire of Brazil, after she signed the Golden Law, in 1888, abolishing slavery in Brazil.
Reply With Quote
  #1952  
Old 01-09-2015, 10:29 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Washington, DC, United States
Posts: 129
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bine221 View Post
Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward arenīt?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine

In Princess Anne's case, it would have been unprecedented (or out of the ordinary) for her children to have royal titles as they pass through the father. For example, my parents are married so I don't have my mothers last name, I have my fathers. Same with royalty--Anne's children take their fathers surname. So all this nonsense of Anne wanting her children to have a normal life are I'm sure true, but have little bases for why they don't have titles.

For Prince Edwards children, they ARE princes and princesses. Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, technically, Louise is Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. And they may wish to go by their HRH once they come of age.

However, in order to help lessen the burden of royal association they are now styled as children of an earl--so Lady Louise. This doesn't mean she isn't a princess at all. Their parents decided to take an unprecedented step to help them grow up as normal children. It has more to do with how the public views them than who they really are. The public views her as a mere Lady so are less interested. But she is a princess. That is fact.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cris M View Post
The children of the Princess Royal aren't a Prince and Princess because titles don't pass through the female line. The children of the Earl of Wessex (who's not a Duke) aren't styled as a Prince and a Princess because their parents asked the Queen for them to be styled just as children of an Earl.



Following the 1917 Letter of Patent, the York Princesses are the rule, while their Wessex cousins are the exception.

Exactly. Wessex cousins are unprecedented and not of the norm. Yorks are the rule!
Reply With Quote
  #1953  
Old 01-09-2015, 10:35 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bine221 View Post
Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward arenīt?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine

In the UK, children inherit titles from their fathers not their mother. Anne's kids are the same as Margaret kids. The only difference is the Tony Armstrong Jones took a peerage while Mark Phillips didn't.

Edward and Sophie made the decision to style their kids as children of a peer instead of using their Royal titles that they are legally entitled to.

Harry could do the same thing with his kids if he wanted too.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #1954  
Old 01-10-2015, 12:04 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bine221 View Post
Well,but why are the York Princesses styled "Princess" and the children of Princess Anne and Prince Edward arenīt?
They are also grandchildren of a Monarch and children of a (well, Princess Royal and) a Duke.
And they are also non-working Royals.
Bye Bine
The 1917 Letters Patent or rules on who is or who isn't an HRH Prince or Princess:

1. The children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward

2. The MALE LINE grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Richard, Edward, Michael and Alexandra (Elizabeth herself was, like Beatrice, the elder daughter of the second son and Margaret was born in Eugenie's position of the younger daughter of the second son - the only other one born with HRH since 1917 was Prince William of Gloucester who died in 1972. He was the elder son of the late Duke of Gloucester)

3. The spouses of the men - Camilla, Sophie, Kate, Birgitte, Katherine and Marie-Christine

4. The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - George


In 2012 The Queen modified these LPs to allow ALL of William's children to be HRH Prince/Princess.

In 1948 George VI also modified the 1917 LPs to allow ALL children of HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh to also have HRH - otherwise Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merionth and Anne as Lady Anne Mountbatten.

Anne's children, like Margaret's and Mary's before her, don't have titles because they are descended from a girl and not a boy and as a daughter of the monarch Anne's children don't get titles without the monarch of the day doing something which didn't happen so no titles for Peter or Zara. Margaret's children have titles because Margaret insisted on her husband being given a title and The Queen agreed so he became Lord Snowdon and the children Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah. Princess Margaret married a man with a title in his own right so her children were titled through their father.

Edward's situation is different. His children are not using HRH Prince/Princess titles because he requested that they not be so burdened in 1999 when he was getting married. At the end of the 1990s the public were not in the mood for more royal children to be born, unless they were Diana's descendants whereas when Andrew's children were born there was never any suggestion of them not having the styles they were entitled to by the 1917 LPs.
Reply With Quote
  #1955  
Old 01-10-2015, 12:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAPolitics View Post
For Prince Edwards children, they ARE princes and princesses. Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, technically, Louise is Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. And they may wish to go by their HRH once they come of age.

There has been considerable debate on whether or not 'The Queen's will' is enough to override the LPs with quite a few 'experts' arguing on each side.

One side says as you do that they are really a Prince and Princess but not using that styling while the other argument is that as The Queen has made her will known that is enough to say that they are no longer entitled to be HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James. I believe that is the view of BP - that The Queen's will has been made known and that they aren't and never will be a Prince or a Princess.
Reply With Quote
  #1956  
Old 01-10-2015, 12:41 AM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
There has been considerable debate on whether or not 'The Queen's will' is enough to override the LPs with quite a few 'experts' arguing on each side.

One side says as you do that they are really a Prince and Princess but not using that styling while the other argument is that as The Queen has made her will known that is enough to say that they are no longer entitled to be HRH Princess Louise and HRH Prince James. I believe that is the view of BP - that The Queen's will has been made known and that they aren't and never will be a Prince or a Princess.

I kind of feel like this was deliberately left vague. I've seen it argued that the decision was presented as Edward and Sophie's desire but was actually done because of the attitude of the public towards the monarchy at the time. By doing it as "the Queen's will" instead of through LPs they can act as though it's intended that this is official and they won't ever be royals, but if at some point in the future public opinion is different and Louise or James want to be royal they can back up and go "well, see, they always were royals they just weren't called such."
Reply With Quote
  #1957  
Old 01-10-2015, 09:08 AM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,209
The Wessex children debate is something that I think will forever ongoing. I think it's a good thing they aren't using their royal statuses as it will give them some freedom and privacy as adults, much like their oldest cousins Peter and Zara.

Whether the decision was Edward and Sophie's or the Queen's, it was a very good decision and one that will work in Louise and James' favour when they are older. Edward is quite unknown in the UK and worldwide. Generally no one in the "younger" generation know who he or his wife is, and even the older generation has a small number who know who he is. A lot of them know who he is due to Louise's dramatic birth and remember when she was born, but that's about as far as his fame goes. (Even then their view is skewed as they all think Louise has mental disabilities "as she has that cross eye look doesn't she?"). Those that do know who he is think he and Andrew do nothing for the royal family (when if fact Edward was the 3rd hardest working Royal this year). Edward was in a no win situation at the time of his marriage as it was the 90's when the world was still in deep mourning for Diana and their disliking toward the British monarchy was huge. I think that also was why his wedding was a much smaller affair than those of his siblings. Had the situation been different and Diana was still alive, then his wedding may have been a state occasion like the others. Edward and Sophie both said they chose St George's as it was smaller and made it feel "cosier" (if you can call 500 guests cosy), but I think his wedding would have been very different if the BRF were still in their 80's/early 90's popularity.

The idea that any of his children would be a Prince or Princess was something that the British public would not have welcomed as they just thought of it as "another mouth to feed with our money" so the decision to use Lady/Viscount was a smart move on the Queen's part, whether it was her decision, Edward's decision or an adviser's decision.
__________________
"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
  #1958  
Old 01-13-2015, 06:20 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by USAPolitics View Post
In Princess Anne's case, it would have been unprecedented (or out of the ordinary) for her children to have royal titles as they pass through the father.
It would have been out of the ordinary, but there would have been a precedent - the daughters of Princess Louise were created princesses in 1905.
Reply With Quote
  #1959  
Old 01-13-2015, 10:07 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is online now
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
It would have been out of the ordinary, but there would have been a precedent - the daughters of Princess Louise were created princesses in 1905.

The difference between the Fifes and Anne's children is that the Fifes got their titles before the 1917 LPs and were only Highnesses, not Royal Highnesses. Princess Maud relinquished her Royal titles on her marriage in 1923, and Princess Alexandra used her husband's after her marriage in 1913.

The children of Princesses Mary (daughter of George V), Margaret (daughter of George VI), and Anne (daughter of Elizabeth II) all held the same position (or similar; Margaret being the younger daughter, the others being the only daughter), but none of their children were created royals.

Another precedent would have been the children of Elizabeth II herself, none of whom got their titles from their father. Charles and Anne got their first titles from LPs issued by their maternal grandfather owing to their mother's position as heir presumptive, later they, Andrew, and Edward took their titles from their position as the monarch's children, not from their position as the DoE's children.
Reply With Quote
  #1960  
Old 01-14-2015, 03:14 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Another precedent would have been the children of Elizabeth II herself, none of whom got their titles from their father. Charles and Anne got their first titles from LPs issued by their maternal grandfather owing to their mother's position as heir presumptive, later they, Andrew, and Edward took their titles from their position as the monarch's children, not from their position as the DoE's children.
|

That isn't entirely true. From the time they were born Charles and Anne were prince/princess because of the LPs issued by their grandfather, but they were 'of Edinburgh' because of their father.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british, camilla, charles iii, charles of wales, coronation, crown jewels, duchess of cornwall, legacy, prince charles, prince of wales, queen camilla, titles, william v


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 Monarchy in Greece Fireweaver The Royal Family of Greece 309 10-31-2016 06:54 PM
Monarchy vs Republic marian Royalty Past, Present, and Future 392 10-16-2016 10:14 AM
The Monarchy after Elizabeth II ysbel British Royals 311 12-29-2012 04:36 PM
The Monarchy And The Media Alexandria Royal House of Norway 12 04-08-2004 05:06 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit best outfit september brunei royal family catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch state visit e-mail fashion poll grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl gustaf king felipe king felipe vi king harald 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 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 mathilde daytime fashion 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 australia november 2016 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 07:51 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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