The Royal Family Order (RFO) and other Royal Orders and Decorations

[Osipi]

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.

[Duc_et_Pair]

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 !

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Dman

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.

[Gaudete]

I didn’t suggest that it was an official rule, simply that by convention that seems to be the criteria Her Majesty now applies.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

I didn’t suggest that it was an official rule, simply that by convention that seems to be the criteria Her Majesty now applies.

The family order isn’t given due to one being a full time royal about two years. That’s 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.

[Gaudete]

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.

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

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!

[Gaudete]

Please don’t misunderstand me, my intention isn’t to prove that the Duchess isn’t pulling her weight or that she hasn’t made a significant effort yet to contribute. She’s been a great addition to the Royal Family and you’d never catch me saying (or even insinuating) otherwise.

[Hans-Rickard]

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...

[sophie25]

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.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

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.

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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.

[Iluvbertie]

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.

[Rudolph]

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

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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 don’t know if she don’t have it, because we didn’t get a proper glimpse of Catherine left shoulder in the car.

[Gaudete]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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.

You’ve missed a very important word of what I said. This is the way HM does it NOW. It’s a recent change and no doubt she’s done it that way since 2000 because marriages sometimes don’t last. I didn’t 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 that’s the way HM prefers to do it today.

But I can see this conversation is just going to go round and round and it’s not that vital to me to win the debate. I’m 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 that’s going on in the world, I’ll never understand all the fuss over a little badge on a yellow ribbon.

[Dman]

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.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Gaudete

You’ve missed a very important word of what I said. This is the way HM does it NOW. It’s a recent change and no doubt she’s done it that way since 2000 because marriages sometimes don’t last. I didn’t 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 that’s the way HM prefers to do it today.

But I can see this conversation is just going to go round and round and it’s not that vital to me to win the debate. I’m 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 that’s going on in the world, I’ll 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.

[Gaudete]

As I said, from 2000 onwards, things have been done a certain way. I can’t 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 don’t 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 it’s given.

I don’t know what else I can say without going round and round in circles. I haven’t spoken to Her Majesty, I don’t know that that’s her rule, I’m simply suggesting that based on recent examples that’s her criteria and if it is, Kate will get it in 2019.

If she’s already got it and doesn’t 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 I’ve never known such a dreadful fuss over something so absolutely insignificant and I’m sure HRH has got better things to do than worry about it either.

[Skippyboo]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

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 I’m 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 can’t 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 doesn’t wear it with the Queen’s blessing. Let’s not forget Kate has been loaned some pretty personal jewelry from the Queen that no other family members have worn before like Philip’s bracelet given at the time of their engagement. If the Queen had some sort of suspicion or didn’t approve of Kate-no way is Kate wearing these jewels.