The Royal Family Order (RFO) and other Royal Orders and Decorations 1: Ending 2022

[Lady Marlboro]

I guess I am the only person on the planet who is disappointed with QEII for giving Kate the RFO. I was hoping she would never get it. Oh well....

 

[Dman]

Well, way back in the early married Kate years in this thread, we beat this issue to death. And one of the valid comments from earlier was that Her Majesty does not hand out any order rapidly. Not with the first baby, for sure. Someone that wants the deets can go back and look but it took Sophie quite a while to get hers. Fergie never got one. I forget for sure but think not with Di. And I think Camilla was the fastest from altar to RF order but even then it took a while and maybe was a birthday gift?

And want everyone that told me over and over that ivory was not the issue to admit I was right! ?

I still really want some royal reporter to find out about the person that still paints these baubles. I want to read THAT story.

Diana got her family order in 81. Some got theirs in the year The Queen came to the throne, 52. Some got it the year of their marriage or just after.

I’m just glad the ivory issue has been solved. If it was up to me, I would replace all the royal ladies and ladies-in-waiting royal orders with glass. Perhaps it’s expensive, but I think it’s worth it.

Now, maybe being a “part time” or “full time” royal plays a part. So that tells me that it’s not going to take a longtime for the newest addition to the family to receive the family order.

 

[Gretijean]

I guess I am the only person on the planet who is disappointed with QEII for giving Kate the RFO. I was hoping she would never get it. Oh well....

Just curious as to why you believe this... I’m not trying to create hoopla, just interested in you insight.

I would like to see Princess Eugenie get the RFO. She isn’t a full time royal, but she does quite a few charity events and has represented the RF well in her limited capacity.

If Sarah, D of York, remarries Andrew, would she get the RFO?

Are the RFO retuned to the vaults after the death of the recipient?

 

[Osipi]

We have to remember too that there is no set criteria for someone to "earn" the RFO of a monarch. HM could give it to someone in the family because she likes that this person always wears blue, her favorite color or that another person has a love of horses and they can converse for hours on the subject. If Harry and Meghan's child is a daughter, the Queen could give her a RFO at her christening if she so chooses.

Some monarchs have given the RFO to their female members when they were children yet. Some have never gotten one as in the case of Princess Michael of Kent and Sarah, Duchess of York.

To me, its kind of like a Granny matriarch of a family buying and doling out printed t-shirts with the matriarch's portrait on it that she gives to the gals in the family when the mood hits her.

Queen Elizabeth gives these RFOs out in a similar manner. We will never know the reasons or the why the timing or anything related to them as its a personal, family thing and not actually an "award" or significant of merit or diligence to duty or any of those kind of things.

 

[Lady Marlboro]

My own personal opinion is that she hasn't done anything to deserve the RFO except maybe popping out 3 kids. I don't think that is a good enough reason. However, as Osipi says, we have absolutely no idea what the Queen's reasons are and never will.

 

[Leopoldine]

My own personal opinion is that she hasn't done anything to deserve the RFO except maybe popping out 3 kids. I don't think that is a good enough reason. However, as Osipi says, we have absolutely no idea what the Queen's reasons are and never will.

Well, given the previous generation of Royals and their …. er ....reasons for being in the newspapers, the Duchess of Cambridge's personal discretion and tact are admirable. She is not quotable. She has no quotable pop-culture type quotes that go into the big quote-mill. This is indicative of tremendous personal discipline and bodes well for a future queen consort.

 

[Curryong]

That is admirable if you expect Queen Consorts to be cyphers. Ones like Queen Maxi of the Netherlands and Letizia of Spain and Mary of Denmark aren't.

 

[Kitty1224]

My own personal opinion is that she hasn't done anything to deserve the RFO except maybe popping out 3 kids. I don't think that is a good enough reason. However, as Osipi says, we have absolutely no idea what the Queen's reasons are and never will.

Thats my personal opinion as well.

 

[wartenberg7]

My own personal opinion is that she hasn't done anything to deserve the RFO except maybe popping out 3 kids. I don't think that is a good enough reason. However, as Osipi says, we have absolutely no idea what the Queen's reasons are and never will.

1. Show some respect!


2. There are obviously some misunderstandings why orders are being given out. The main thing is not about "deserving" it or "merit", but as a sign of belonging to an institution.
I mean, what royal lady in the past, receiving this particular order in her teens or early twens, has done something specific to deserve it?! No Alexandra of Kent, who got ot being 15, no Prcss. Margaret receiving it as a toddler, and no Diana, receiving the RFO at a time when she, to use your infamous words, "popped out" just one child and has done so far, unlike Catherine, no overseas trips "for Queen and country".


Did the Queen herself "deserve" it as a 10 year old girl only because her father became King? You might say No, I´d say Yes, of course, as she was a royal Princess belonging to this particular Royal Family. So, RFO!

In other monarchies royal family orders are given only because she married a Prince - and is given the most highly and prestigious order (Sweden The Seraphim, Denmark The Elephant tc. all in their ranking comparable to The Garter in Britain, given out only for the most prestigious services to the country and King or Queen or foreign monarchs).


Orders in general (of course there are exceptions) are not to be given because of merit, but because as symbols of belonging, as a sign of diplomatic friendship and bond between the one who gives it and he/ she receiving it. One exception perhaps in Britain is the Most excll. Order of the brit. Empire, given for merits in cultural and society life.

 

[miss whirley]

1. Show some respect!


2. There are obviously some misunderstandings why orders are being given out. The main thing is not about "deserving" it or "merit", but as a sign of belonging to an institution.
I mean, what royal lady in the past, receiving this particular order in her teens or early twens, has done something specific to deserve it?! No Alexandra of Kent, who got ot being 15, no Prcss. Margaret receiving it as a toddler, and no Diana, receiving the RFO at a time when she, to use your infamous words, "popped out" just one child and has done so far, unlike Catherine, no overseas trips "for Queen and country".
In other monarchies royal family orders are given only because she married a Prince - and is given the most highly and prestigious order (Sweden The Seraphim, Denmark The Elephant tc. all in their ranking comparable to The Garter in Britain, given out only for the most prestigious services to the country and King or Queen or foreign monarchs).


Orders in general (of course there are exceptions) are not to be given because of merit, but because as symbols of belonging, as a sign of diplomatic friendship and bond between the one who gives it and he/ she receiving it. One exception perhaps in Britain is the Most excll. Order of the brit. Empire, given for merits in cultural and society life.

Yes, it's very odd, that poster saw no problem in Diana and Katherine Kent getting RFOs the same year they married but Catherine after six years hasn't earned it? Now I'm wondering what secret magic Diana and Katherine did in just a couple months to 'earn' it. Though Diana and Katherine were/are blue-bloods so maybe they weren't expected to 'earn' it, it was just de jure like with the young Anne, Margaret, and Alexandra.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Let's also not forget the absolute absurdity of the Swedish king bestowing an order on his grandchildren as babies at their christenings.

All these orders, whether it be the RFO or the Garter or any other royal order in just about any country, are absurdly irrelevant to modern life in the 21st Century. So, who cares who gets one and when?

 

[M. Payton]

Question.......Why is it absurd or ridiculous to think that just because it is the 21st century that a person should forgo or get rid of their country's traditions or heritage? I would if I was British be proud that my country carried and preserved those very ideas and traditions that brought forth my country. All those traditions are part of the heart and soul of England and what it is and how it still stands for the British people today....something to be proud of!

 

[wyevale]

absurdly irrelevant to modern life in the 21st Century.

Perhaps you believe Monarchies [in general] are thus ?

For the sake of consistency you certainly ought to...!

 

[royal_enthusiast]

If a woman who is part of the BRF through Marriage has received a RFO, in the event of divorce is the RFO withdrawn or does she get to keep it?

 

[miss whirley]

If a woman who is part of the BRF through Marriage has received a RFO, in the event of divorce is the RFO withdrawn or does she get to keep it?

I doubt it would be revoked but that divorcee probably wouldn't have gotten any new ones in subsequent reigns, though King William might have given Diana one.

I wonder if George VI had lived longer, at what age he would of given Anne an RFO. Clearly he didn't give it to her as a toddler, but he gave one to Alexandra when she was an underage teen. His father gave them to Elizabeth and Margaret when they were children and they weren't even direct-heir granddaughters like Anne was.

 

[sophie25]

Yes, it's very odd, that poster saw no problem in Diana and Katherine Kent getting RFOs the same year they married but Catherine after six years hasn't earned it? Now I'm wondering what secret magic Diana and Katherine did in just a couple months to 'earn' it. Though Diana and Katherine were/are blue-bloods so maybe they weren't expected to 'earn' it, it was just de jure like with the young Anne, Margaret, and Alexandra.

That's why I don't get Princess Michael not having been given it. She's the ONLY royal lady (forget Meghan for the moment) without it. You'd have thought that after 40 years in the family the Queen could have passed one in her direction. It just seems mean spirited to me and humiliating for the princess.

 

[Curryong]

Beatrice and Eugenie don't have the Royal Family Order. Like Princess Michael they aren't really working royals.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Beatrice and Eugenie don't have the Royal Family Order. Like Princess Michael they aren't really working royals.

We actually don't know that yet and the Queen may hold the blood members of her family differently than her in-laws. Most of the women at the Commonwealth Dinner didn't wear their RFO's, so that isn't proof to show they don't have it.

 

[muriel]

That's why I don't get Princess Michael not having been given it. She's the ONLY royal lady (forget Meghan for the moment) without it. You'd have thought that after 40 years in the family the Queen could have passed one in her direction. It just seems mean spirited to me and humiliating for the princess.

Princess Michael does not carry out engagements on behalf of the BRF. This might explain why.

 

[Osipi]

I guess if some families can have Granny's secret recipes, this royal Granny can have her own secrets that will never be revealed and the rest of the family isn't talking either. We have no clue if the RFO is dependent on being a "working" royal or not. Its a private family thing.

Beatrice and Eugenie may very well have their grandmother's RFO but haven't really had a chance to be somewhere where they'd wear them. The Commonwealth dinner hosted by the Queen was a black tie event and orders are usually only worn at white tie events if memory serves me right.

 

[Dman]

Royal Orders are part of the royal uniform. The whole idea is for the royals to be properly dressed in these regalias for State and Ceremonial Occasions. I prefer the way other foreign royals make sure their senior royals are properly dressed for State Events than the way the British leave you naked of any Order (jewels aside) for a significant amount of time.

 

[Osipi]

A full blown white tie event is always one of my favorite things to look forward to as everything comes out in grand style for those. They just are so few and far between these days.

Maybe someday, eventually there will be a return to the more formal way of doing things with more white tie events and people actually reveling in getting dressed "to the nines" once again for evenings out to the opera or the theater as in days gone by. Sadly, I don't think its going to happen in my lifetime.

 

[sophie25]

Princess Michael does not carry out engagements on behalf of the BRF. This might explain why.

Possibly, but I'd still say she's done enough over 40 years to merit it and that's if being a working royal is even the criteria which we don't know. Her husband isn't officially a working royal either and the Queen has showered a fair few honours on him over the years.

 

[TLLK]

Yes, it's very odd, that poster saw no problem in Diana and Katherine Kent getting RFOs the same year they married but Catherine after six years hasn't earned it? Now I'm wondering what secret magic Diana and Katherine did in just a couple months to 'earn' it. Though Diana and Katherine were/are blue-bloods so maybe they weren't expected to 'earn' it, it was just de jure like with the young Anne, Margaret, and Alexandra.

As we know that Katherine (Kent), Brigitte (Gloucester) and Diana received their RFO's shortly after their marriages into the BRF, I doubt their work was being taken into consideration.



I'm still believe that after the divorces of the 1990's, that QEII is being very cautious as to when she bestows the family order. She might be waiting to see if the marriages will last.

 

[Ista]

Agreed.

I also wonder, and this is a serious question, for those who think Catherine didn't "deserve" the RFO, when do you think she would have "deserved" it? What, in your opinion, should the criteria be? And do any of the royal ladies who have received the RFO actually match those criteria?

Obviously, the Queen has her own reasons which are nobody else's business, and that's good enough for me, but I'm always perplexed when this discussion comes up by comments that indicate someone doesn't deserve the RFO, like there's some actual standard we could apply consistently for who gets what and when.

 

[wartenberg7]

Let's also not forget the absolute absurdity of the Swedish king bestowing an order on his grandchildren as babies at their christenings.

All these orders, whether it be the RFO or the Garter or any other royal order in just about any country, are absurdly irrelevant to modern life in the 21st Century. So, who cares who gets one and when?

PetticoatLane, when I read your posts I sometimes think you hate Royalty! But that´s another topic...
And orders might be irrelevant to people who presumably will never get one, but in political or royal circles these things do matter.

Giving orders to newborn royal babies in Sweden is not absurd at all - that´s royal tradition! During the time of the monarchy in Greece, royal babies also received an order at the christening, pinned on the cushion the infant lay.
As I said before in my post (and the swedish example is a striking one), giving out orders has normally nothing to do with having to "earn" or "deserve" it, but rather to obey protocol, tradition or strengthening diplomatic bonds as a sign of a friendly gesture.


Even here on this board, where you would expect people knowing such things about Royalty, miltary orders one receives for bravery, comradeship etc. are mixed up with orders statesmen and -women or Royals hand out....!
Do you believe the Emperor of Japan has done more for the british / japanese relationship than a minor Royal who also did official visits to these countries? Or the norwegian, danish or spanish monarchs?
Of course, not! But they all got the highest ranking order of the UK a living human being can get, the Garter. And that because they are fellow sovereigns of the Queen! And do you believe that republican heads of state did less for the relationships to Britain? Possibly not, but they just receive the Order of the Bath (less prestigious and less highranking than the Garter!), simply because they are no fellow monarchs of the Queen.
When the Kings of Spain and of the Netherlands are due to be installed at Windsor with the Garter, it is simply and only because it is tradition and because they are "of the club". That´s that. No specific merits, no deeds of bravery and sacrifice, nothing. Do you get that?


When it comes to the RFO - its name says it all! It is an order, a symbol, that you are a (female) member of this family.
You could spend 12 hours a day in bed every day - but if the Sovereign find this is ok and likes you for what ever reason, you still receive it because it is just His/ Her Majesty´s will and pleasure.
I think Queen Elizabeth makes a difference between wives of immediate heirs (Diana and Camilla received it pretty fast) and heirs in the "2nd row" (Catherine Cambridge had to wait a little longer)

 

[TLLK]

IMO the personal honor that appears to have some "criteria" in terms of length of service it is the Royal Victorian Order.


These ladies who married into the BRF received their orders after many years of service to QEII, unlike the their RFOs which for two of them came within months of their weddings.



Katherine (Kent)- RFO- 1960, RVO- 1977
Brigitte- RFO-1973, RVO-1989
Sophie-RFO-2004, RVO-2012

Camilla-RFO-2007, RVO-2013.


Princess Alexandra received her RFO in 1952 and her RVO in 1960.
Princess Anne received her RFO in 1969 and her RVO in 1977. She is the current Dame Commander of the RVO.



The late Diana, Princess of Wales never received the RVO.



(Interestingly enough the DoE just received his RVO in 2017!)

 

[Osipi]

When the Kings of Spain and of the Netherlands are due to be installed at Windsor with the Garter, it is simply and only because it is tradition and because they are "of the club". That´s that. No specific merits, no deeds of bravery and sacrifice, nothing. Do you get that?

Not to detract too much from the discussion of the Royal Family Order but I do want to jump in here about the Order of the Garter. There are three distinct classifications of Knights Companions and Ladies Companion. The example you've put forward with the Kings of Spain and the Netherlands are actually classified as Stranger Knights and are separate from the limited 24 number of Knights Companions and Ladies Companions allowed. There is also the classification of Royal Knights and Ladies Companion which includes the members of the British Royal Family honored with the Order of the Garter.

All three though are awarded at the will and pleasure of the monarch and you're right that there's no specific criteria that the Queen needs to follow.

 

[Anna Catherine]

Honestly, Kate has done plenty and it’s obviously not a matter of numbers. I don’t know that full-time or part-time is what matters to her especially since the royals themselves do not use those terms or concern themselves with who does 400+ vs 100+ or 2. Neither Camilla nor Sophie do nearly as much as Anne or Charles. William and Sophie have very similar numbers. So, Ii’s the Queen’s personal discretion and her feelings on personal service. Obviously we’re all just speculating on what that criteria is but we don’t know. I do think it was delayed a bit since they probably needed to decided on other alternatives to ivory. Not 5 years but some time.

 

[MARG]

I have no doubt that many variations were trialled before the final glass. It would have to be painted and then handled to see how it wore so it could definitely take a year or two.

Personally, I have no problem with the continued use of ivory until such time as the BRF supply is used. I see no edification in the notion of burning it as it was obtained at a time it was not illegal nor were there extinction issues.

I have a beautiful ivory pendant and earrings which I cannot wear any more. Am I supposed to smash them? No. However, I would gladly lead a team tasked with pursuing ivory poachers.