The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1221  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:08 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 14,205
Eventually it will pay off too. Can't fault a man for sticking to his convictions and standing up for what he believes in. Those are honorable traits in my book.
__________________

__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1222  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:17 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 9,750
It would be nice to see the old and grey Dowager Queen Catherine walking to a State Banquet with the RFO's of Elizabeth II, Charles III, William V and George VII !
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1223  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:22 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dman View Post
Princess Alexandra is a senior working royal. She’s been pushed down by The Queen’s children and grandchildren, but she’s a senior royal.
She was first seen wearing it at the Coronation at the age of 15 and the Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret wore their grandfather's one as children. Diana received her's almost right away whilst Charles' second wife waited a few years for her's. History shows that Monarchs can bestow this order whenever they feel like it and to whomever they choose. It's only some posters here who have attached the 'full time royal' reason to it, this has never been an officially stated criteria.
Reply With Quote
  #1224  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:35 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
I didnít suggest that it was an official rule, simply that by convention that seems to be the criteria Her Majesty now applies.
Reply With Quote
  #1225  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:47 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
I didnít suggest that it was an official rule, simply that by convention that seems to be the criteria Her Majesty now applies.
The family order isnít given due to one being a full time royal about two years. Thatís why I know Catherine should already had the family order. In the back of my head; I think this is all due to William issue with ivory.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #1226  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:49 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Then weíll agree to disagree and wait until the Duchess gets it when Iím sure the nation will heave a huge sigh of relief.
Reply With Quote
  #1227  
Old 12-06-2017, 01:59 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
Then we’ll agree to disagree and wait until the Duchess gets it when I’m sure the nation will heave a huge sigh of relief.
It’s okay for us to agree to disagree. That’s great, but I just feel like people have turned the issue on Catherine -not having the family order- because everything she has done since 2011 is simply not enough. That’s simply not fair or true.

It’s not about a “sigh of relief” at the end of the day. It’s about officially recognizing that Catherine is part of the working family Firm. Catherine’s lack of family order really stuck out in the photo that was released last December. Everyone was properly dressed in order regalia, except for Catherine, after six years. Crazy!
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #1228  
Old 12-06-2017, 02:02 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Please donít misunderstand me, my intention isnít to prove that the Duchess isnít pulling her weight or that she hasnít made a significant effort yet to contribute. Sheís been a great addition to the Royal Family and youíd never catch me saying (or even insinuating) otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #1229  
Old 12-06-2017, 02:48 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,289
It's a Royal Family Order after all wich the monarch can award to whomever and whenever it pleases her/him and for whatever reason. It's not something that anyone can "demand to have a right to".

If Kate suddenly turns up, wearing a Royal Family Order, what's the next step ? Demand that QEII must make her a Dame Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order, just because Camilla and Sophie has it ? Or that she must be made a Lady of the Garter just because William has it ?

I shouldn't say loud what i think of this endless discussion and i will leave it now...
Reply With Quote
  #1230  
Old 12-06-2017, 03:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,063
I am not a fan of royals receiving honours simply because they have become royals. I find the Scandinavian royal habits particularly ridiculous as they bestow orders even prior to weddings when surely there should be a period of 'work' done before receiving such an accolade. Some royal families though do wait a bit if time. Charlene Wittstock married her Prince the same year that Kate married William and received the senior Monaco order16 months after the wedding. It was still a bit soon IMO but in comparison to Princess Grace who got her's straight away at least she, kind of, earned it. The British RFO has no tradition of being 'earned' but if this is indeed the road the present Monarch wishes to go down (and there's no proof that it is) then after almost 7 years of marriage, numerous engagements and foreign tours Catherine should surely have it by now.
Reply With Quote
  #1231  
Old 12-06-2017, 03:22 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
I didn’t suggest that it was an official rule, simply that by convention that seems to be the criteria Her Majesty now applies.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but your basis for this convention is the years in which Sophie and Camilla received their orders, isn't it? Or has this ever been confirmed?

Diana got hers in the year she married as did the duchess of Kent. The duchess of Gloucester (who was only princess Richard at that point) got it the year after they married; and princess Anne at 19 years of age. So, none of them had been fulltime royals for 2 years at that point.

Sorry for joining the discussion so late, just wanted to make sure that I understand the evidence that the claim is based on.
Reply With Quote
  #1232  
Old 12-06-2017, 03:58 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,063
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong but your basis for this convention is the years in which Sophie and Camilla received their orders, isn't it? Or has this ever been confirmed?

Diana got hers in the year she married as did the duchess of Kent. The duchess of Gloucester (who was only princess Richard at that point) got it the year after they married; and princess Anne at 19 years of age. So, none of them had been fulltime royals for 2 years at that point.

Sorry for joining the discussion so late, just wanted to make sure that I understand the evidence that the claim is based on.
That's really interesting that Princess Richard got her's a year after her marriage. At that point she had no prospect of being a working member of the Firm as her brother in law was the senior member of the family. It makes Princess Michael not getting it seem an even more slap in the face to her.
Reply With Quote
  #1233  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:07 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,419
The 'has to be a full-time working royal' for two years fall down when you realise Anne received it before becoming a full-time working royal. She didn't do that until the late 70s - after she retired from competing as an equestrienne. Alexandra received it in 1952 - while still basically a school girl.

The Queen gives the RFO to those she feels deserves it and so far the only conclusion I can draw is that she doesn't believe Kate deserves it. Why?

Well let's look at Fergie - she was a full-time working royal basically from her marriage onwards but never received it so why not? After two years there were no issues really ... but having given the award to Diana after a few months and having that marriage effectively over by the end of 1984 (even Diana suggests this date - not to go into the breakdown of the marriage but to give some context to my argument) the Queen decided she wanted to be sure of the security of the marriage before investing the wife so the fact that Kate doesn't appear to have the order suggests she sees something not quite right in the marriage and she is closer to it than we are. We can only judge from pictures and videos while she sees them together out of the public eye and may very well know things we don't.

The Queen will give her the RFO when she, the Queen, believes she has earnt it and it is as simple as that.

As for Philip's award - it was the only one he hadn't had and interestingly the one she had given to everyone except Philip, Charles and William. Now only her heirs don't have it but no one seems to be kicking up a fuss about the fact that obviously Charles and William don't give her sufficient support.
Reply With Quote
  #1234  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,932
So everyone in the family who has GCVO supported the The Queen more than her husband of 70 years who just received it?

Prince Edward is a bigger supporter to her than her husband?

As for Kate Iím firmly in the anti ivory camp. I think she has the RFO but the The Queen understands the politics behind for William.
Reply With Quote
  #1235  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:16 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
The 'has to be a full-time working royal' for two years fall down when you realise Anne received it before becoming a full-time working royal. She didn't do that until the late 70s - after she retired from competing as an equestrienne. Alexandra received it in 1952 - while still basically a school girl.

The Queen gives the RFO to those she feels deserves it and so far the only conclusion I can draw is that she doesn't believe Kate deserves it. Why?

Well let's look at Fergie - she was a full-time working royal basically from her marriage onwards but never received it so why not? After two years there were no issues really ... but having given the award to Diana after a few months and having that marriage effectively over by the end of 1984 (even Diana suggests this date - not to go into the breakdown of the marriage but to give some context to my argument) the Queen decided she wanted to be sure of the security of the marriage before investing the wife so the fact that Kate doesn't appear to have the order suggests she sees something not quite right in the marriage and she is closer to it than we are. We can only judge from pictures and videos while she sees them together out of the public eye and may very well know things we don't.

The Queen will give her the RFO when she, the Queen, believes she has earnt it and it is as simple as that.

As for Philip's award - it was the only one he hadn't had and interestingly the one she had given to everyone except Philip, Charles and William. Now only her heirs don't have it but no one seems to be kicking up a fuss about the fact that obviously Charles and William don't give her sufficient support.
This is what I was afraid of. People will start drawing conclusions about the Cambridge marriage over this.

Now, we still donít know if she donít have it, because we didnít get a proper glimpse of Catherine left shoulder in the car.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #1236  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:17 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Please correct me if I'm wrong but your basis for this convention is the years in which Sophie and Camilla received their orders, isn't it? Or has this ever been confirmed?

Diana got hers in the year she married as did the duchess of Kent. The duchess of Gloucester (who was only princess Richard at that point) got it the year after they married; and princess Anne at 19 years of age. So, none of them had been fulltime royals for 2 years at that point.

Sorry for joining the discussion so late, just wanted to make sure that I understand the evidence that the claim is based on.


Youíve missed a very important word of what I said. This is the way HM does it NOW. Itís a recent change and no doubt sheís done it that way since 2000 because marriages sometimes donít last. I didnít say she set that rule in place for the Princess Royal or the Duchess of Kent or Diana (though they were full time working royals from the start) - I simply said that thatís the way HM prefers to do it today.

But I can see this conversation is just going to go round and round and itís not that vital to me to win the debate. Iím suggesting that the new convention means that Kate will get it in two years time. If she gets it before, great. If she gets it in two years, great. If she never gets it, fine.

With all thatís going on in the world, Iíll never understand all the fuss over a little badge on a yellow ribbon.
Reply With Quote
  #1237  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:25 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 15,775
I know people don’t understand why this is an issue, but after all this time and work, Catherine’s lack of the basic family order sticks out like a sore thumb.

It’s rather silly for there to be a two year wait to receive the family order by doing the same stuff ones been doing for seven years already. It’s like folks are waiting for Catherine to come up with a cure for cancer.
__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #1238  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:46 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 3,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaudete View Post
Youíve missed a very important word of what I said. This is the way HM does it NOW. Itís a recent change and no doubt sheís done it that way since 2000 because marriages sometimes donít last. I didnít say she set that rule in place for the Princess Royal or the Duchess of Kent or Diana (though they were full time working royals from the start) - I simply said that thatís the way HM prefers to do it today.

But I can see this conversation is just going to go round and round and itís not that vital to me to win the debate. Iím suggesting that the new convention means that Kate will get it in two years time. If she gets it before, great. If she gets it in two years, great. If she never gets it, fine.

With all thatís going on in the world, Iíll never understand all the fuss over a little badge on a yellow ribbon.
Thanks for clarifying. Of course the queen might have changed her thinking on this issue although I would caution againsg drawing vonclusions based on only 2 examples.

Not sure how and why you link 2 year as a full time working royal and marriages sometimes don't last. Does a marriage become more stable after 2 years of being a formal working royal. Or is that how you explain the change from 'previously the only thing that mattered was being a member of the royal family', since the marital problems of Charles and Diana the new rule is that you have to earn it by being a full time working royal.

Even if the above is true, to me it still seems unfair to Catherine as there is quite a difference between dedicating your whole life to royal service from the moment you get married (as Catherine has done, even though William had a job, so she couldn't outdo him) vs having a job and only doing a few royal activities a year before embracing your role as a royal (cf. Sophie).

How do you explain that Sarah never got one (15 years befor 2000)? And that princess Michael still doesn't have one although she got married in the 70's?

As was indicated by others, Anne was not a full time working royal from the start and Brigitte was never expected to be one when she got it... So, to me the mystery remains.
Reply With Quote
  #1239  
Old 12-06-2017, 04:55 PM
Gaudete's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: South East Coast, United Kingdom
Posts: 514
As I said, from 2000 onwards, things have been done a certain way. I canít claim to know how the Queen thinks but I suggested as a reason, maybe, perhaps, she prefers to wait a little while before giving the RFO to women who marry in.

The recent convention (I stress both words) is as follows: Sophie became a full time working royal in 2002. She got it in 2004. Camilla was a full time working royal from her marriage in 2005 and got it in 2007.

It would suggest to me, and I could be wrong, I absolutely donít mind being wrong, that the Queen prefers to wait a little while instead of giving it automatically and she seems to use the rule that one must be a full time working royal for two years before itís given.

I donít know what else I can say without going round and round in circles. I havenít spoken to Her Majesty, I donít know that thatís her rule, Iím simply suggesting that based on recent examples thatís her criteria and if it is, Kate will get it in 2019.

If sheís already got it and doesnít wear it because of the blessed ivory? Fine. If she never gets it? Fine. Anyone who thinks it somehow makes her inferior or shows that the Queen dislikes Kate is free to think so. Personally Iíve never known such a dreadful fuss over something so absolutely insignificant and Iím sure HRH has got better things to do than worry about it either.
Reply With Quote
  #1240  
Old 12-06-2017, 05:07 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
So everyone in the family who has GCVO supported the The Queen more than her husband of 70 years who just received it?



Prince Edward is a bigger supporter to her than her husband?



As for Kate Iím firmly in the anti ivory camp. I think she has the RFO but the The Queen understands the politics behind for William.


William is basically the frontman for a public campaign to stop use of ivory. His wife who gets worldwide coverage canít show up at a state dinner wearing ivory when William is telling the people of Asia and Africa not to use ivory for decoration or other purposes.

The Queen would fully understand this. So it quite possible Kate was given a RFO and doesnít wear it with the Queenís blessing. Letís not forget Kate has been loaned some pretty personal jewelry from the Queen that no other family members have worn before like Philipís bracelet given at the time of their engagement. If the Queen had some sort of suspicion or didnít approve of Kate-no way is Kate wearing these jewels.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
orders and decorations, protocol, royal family order


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





Popular Tags
administrator aristocracy belgian royal belgian royal family chittagong countess of snowdon crown prince hussein's future wife crusades current events cypher danish royalty denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of sussex duke of sussex dutch history family search french royalty future wife of prince hussein germany greece house of bernadotte house of grimaldi house of orange-nassau jerusalem jumma kiko king philippe lithuania lithuanian palaces marriage mbs meghan markle monaco royal monarchist monarchy monogram mountbatten nelson mandela bay netflix nobel prize norway history norwegian royal family official visit pakistan potential areas prince charles prince daniel prince harry princely family of monaco princess benedikte qe2 queen mathilde queen paola rania of jordan romanov family rown shakespeare south korea spanish royal state visit state visit to denmark sweden swedish history trump united kingdom usa valois visit from sweden windy city


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:03 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises
×