The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   The Princess Royal and Family (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f112/)
-   -   The Phillips Children and Titles (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f112/the-phillips-children-and-titles-15462.html)

HRHAmy 06-09-2006 05:40 PM

The Phillips Children and Titles
 
I have a question, will Peter ever receive a title? I know his mother didn't want him or his sister to have one but he will inherit his mother's estate one day right?:confused:

sara1981 06-09-2006 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRHAmy
I have a question, will Peter ever receive a title? I know his mother didn't want him or his sister to have one but he will inherit his mother's estate one day right?:confused:

he dont have his titles because his dad dont have titles but his mother is Royals but Zara dont have one also.

but he will known as Master Peter Philips but im not sure about Zara?

branchg 06-10-2006 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRHAmy
I have a question, will Peter ever receive a title? I know his mother didn't want him or his sister to have one but he will inherit his mother's estate one day right?:confused:

I think it's very unlikely The Queen would grant Peter a title at this point, especially since the trend is to "downsize" the monarchy, but it's entirely within her gift as the Sovereign and fount of honour.

If it did happen, it would probably be an earldom upon marriage.

Georgia 06-10-2006 07:30 PM

I think Peter Phillips is quite happy the way his life is. He doesn't need a title, he will always be Queen Elizabeth II eldest grandchild. On top of which, when William is King he wont have the criticism that the present Queen's cousins receive.

Heidi P. 06-10-2006 10:27 PM

Georgia,
I agree with you, I think Peter Phillips is happy as a regular guy.

HRH Kimetha 04-17-2007 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57
As Princess Anne refused a title for her husband, with his approval, before Peter was born (one that he would have inherited - like Princess Margaret's son will inherit his father's title) I doubt very much that the Queen will give her grandson a title.


Let me understand this. The Queen asked Princess Anne if she wanted Mark Phillips to have a title? It sounds rather snobbish. What were the circumstances behind her refusal and his approval?:ermm:


Finally off of that subject, does anyone know if either of Peter's parents encouraged him in pursuing the equestrian sport like Zara?

Iluvbertie 04-17-2007 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRH Kimetha
Let me understand this. The Queen asked Princess Anne if she wanted Mark Phillips to have a title? It sounds rather snobbish. What were the circumstances behind her refusal and his approval?:ermm:


Finally off of that subject, does anyone know if either of Peter's parents encouraged him in pursuing the equestrian sport like Zara?


At the time of their wedding the Queen was prepared to confer a title on Mark, which would have allowed their children to have titles ala Princess Margaret's children.

This offer was refused by the couple.

I probably should have worded my original post better as it implied that it was Princess Anne who refused the title for Mark whereas I believe it was a joint decision by both of them. That is certainly the way I remember it from 1973.

Having refused a title, and therefore the possibility of an inherited title for Peter in 1973, I don't see Anne being supportive of the Queen conferring a title on Peter now.

Whether he wants a title - to make him a bit more equal to his cousins - I don't know. If he does want one, maybe he could approach Granny on his own behalf. I suspect, that even if he did, the answer may very well be 'no' as his mother doesn't have an inheritable title in her own right. The title Princess Royal is for the eldest daughter of the monarch and has to be recreated each time.

diamondBrg 09-16-2007 08:16 PM

Why do two of Queen Elizabeth's grandchildren have no titles?
 
I am a grateful new member here and an American, so PLEASE forgive my ignorance and if I stick my foot in my mouth. I am very interested in learning as much as I can.

I have read that The Princess Royal chose not to have her children "titled?" I have wondered why and how it would be possible that grandchildren of a sitting Queen could not be titled?

Thank you for any information that you can share with me.

I hope everyone is having a wonderful weekend!

blondie28 09-16-2007 08:27 PM

Welcome to The Royal Forums diamondBrg2! I have some information I can give you. When Princess Anne married Mark Phillips in 1973 Mark turned down an offer for a title from the Queen, and when Peter Phillips was born in 1977 the Queen offered him again and he said no and Princess Anne supported him because they both said they did not want their children to have titles because they wanted their children to grow up to be as normal as possible. Peter and Zara did not have to be titled because the decision was entirely up to Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, not the Queen.

diamondBrg 09-16-2007 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondie28 (Post 668189)
Welcome to The Royal Forums diamondBrg2! I have some information I can give you. When Princess Anne married Mark Phillips in 1973 Mark turned down an offer for a title from the Queen, and when Peter Phillips was born in 1977 the Queen offered him again and he said no and Princess Anne supported him because they both said they did not want their children to have titles because they wanted their children to grow up to be as normal as possible. Peter and Zara did not have to be titled because the decision was entirely up to Princess Anne and Mark Phillips, not the Queen.

Thank you very much for the information. If they are not "titled" does that mean they have no responsibilities to perform any royal duties? Are they considered "royalty?"

wbenson 09-16-2007 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamondBrg2 (Post 668194)
Thank you very much for the information. If they are not "titled" does that mean they have no responsibilities to perform any royal duties? Are they considered "royalty?"

The Phillips children do not perform any royal duties, you are correct. It would probably also be a stretch to describe them as "royalty," though as you go through "royal family" (which many would describe them as being, though, for instance, in Canada, the legal definition of Royal Family does not include them) to "the Queen's family," you get closer to what they are.

The reason that they are not Prince(sse)s of the United Kingdom and don't bear the style Royal Highness is because the current Letters Patent define only the children of the Sovereign, the children of the Sovereign's sons, and males in the direct line of succession (such as a hypothetical first son of Prince William) as Princes and Princesses.

When the then-Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with the current Prince of Wales, special letters patent had to be issued so that he and his siblings would be Princes or Princesses of the United Kingdom and bear the Style of Royal Highness. Had that not occured, Prince Charles would have been born Earl of Merioneth (his father's 2nd most senior title) and Princess Anne would have been born the Lady Anne Windsor.

Barring any letters patent, all daughters and any additional sons of Prince William along with all Children of Prince Harry will be Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, even though they will almost certainly be elevated upon the death of the Queen, although Harry's children would not be elevated if the Prince of Wales predeceased his mother.

diamondBrg 09-16-2007 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 668218)
The Phillips children do not perform any royal duties, you are correct. It would probably also be a stretch to describe them as "royalty," though as you go through "royal family" (which many would describe them as being, though, for instance, in Canada, the legal definition of Royal Family does not include them) to "the Queen's family," you get closer to what they are.

The reason that they are not Prince(sse)s of the United Kingdom and don't bear the style Royal Highness is because the current Letters Patent define only the children of the Sovereign, the children of the Sovereign's sons, and males in the direct line of succession (such as a hypothetical first son of Prince William) as Princes and Princesses.

When the then-Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with the current Prince of Wales, special letters patent had to be issued so that he and his siblings would be Princes or Princesses of the United Kingdom and bear the Style of Royal Highness. Had that not occured, Prince Charles would have been born Earl of Merioneth (his father's 2nd most senior title) and Princess Anne would have been born the Lady Anne Windsor.

Barring any letters patent, all daughters and any additional sons of Prince William along with all Children of Prince Harry will be Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, even though they will almost certainly be elevated upon the death of the Queen, although Harry's children would not be elevated if the Prince of Wales predeceased his mother.

Thank you very much wbenson for the helpful information, I do have alot to learn it seems. :)

blondie28 09-16-2007 10:09 PM

Official Duties
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by wbenson (Post 668218)
The Phillips children do not perform any royal duties, you are correct. It would probably also be a stretch to describe them as "royalty," though as you go through "royal family" (which many would describe them as being, though, for instance, in Canada, the legal definition of Royal Family does not include them) to "the Queen's family," you get closer to what they are.

The reason that they are not Prince(sse)s of the United Kingdom and don't bear the style Royal Highness is because the current Letters Patent define only the children of the Sovereign, the children of the Sovereign's sons, and males in the direct line of succession (such as a hypothetical first son of Prince William) as Princes and Princesses.

When the then-Princess Elizabeth was pregnant with the current Prince of Wales, special letters patent had to be issued so that he and his siblings would be Princes or Princesses of the United Kingdom and bear the Style of Royal Highness. Had that not occured, Prince Charles would have been born Earl of Merioneth (his father's 2nd most senior title) and Princess Anne would have been born the Lady Anne Windsor.

Barring any letters patent, all daughters and any additional sons of Prince William along with all Children of Prince Harry will be Lord/Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, even though they will almost certainly be elevated upon the death of the Queen, although Harry's children would not be elevated if the Prince of Wales predeceased his mother.

That is correct although Zara did officially christen a ship with her mother the Princess Royal.

Iluvbertie 09-17-2007 02:58 AM

In 1917 George V issued the Letters Patent that cover this situation stipulating who should have the right to the prefix HRH and the title Prince or Princess.

He limited these titles to:

the children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward (once the title is inherited it isn't lost when they lose that relationship e.g. Anne, Andrew and Edward will always be HRH even when they are no longer the children of the monarch)

the male-line grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise (even though the Queen has made it known that she will use the 'Lady' title), the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent (these last few are the children of George V's own sons - hence they are male line grandchildren of the monarch - the same reason that Princess Margaret, and the Queen herself, were born Princesses - they were male-line grandchildren of the monarch.

the eldest son, of the eldest son of the heir to the throne - theoretically Prince William's eldest son but not any of his other children - this would have meant, had these LPs been in place in Queen Victoria's day that George V's children, except for Edward VII wouldn't have been born as HRH Prince or Princess xxx but George V changed the LPs.

Neither the children of Princess Mary, daughter of George V, Princess Margaret, George VI younger daughter, not Princess Anne can pass on a title in their own right. In the case of the first two ladies named their husbands had the titles that have been inherited, or will be inherited in the future. As Mark Philips never had a title Princess Anne's children don't have one and won't inherit one.

The Queen could, if she chose, give Princess Anne a title which could be inherited or give one to her untitled grandchildren. In the present climate I would suggest that this won't happen and that the Philips children will go through life without a title.

Neither carry out royal duties as a major part of their work load (but then neither do any other of the Queen's grandchildren yet) so that won't be a problem.

Welcome to the board and never feel afraid to ask questions as many of us were either newbies with very limited knowledge when we joined the board and certainly we all were when we became interested in the RF (even if that was many, many, moons ago for some of us).

Iluvbertie 09-17-2007 06:48 AM

One thing I should have said but didn't is that the HRH applies to the male-line grandchildren such as William of Wales, Harry of Wales, Beatrice of York, Eugenie of York, Louise of Wessex, Richard of Gloucester, Edward of Kent, Alexandra of Kent and Michael of Kent but titles that have been bestowed can be inherited according to the Letters Patent at the time of creation hence the titles Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent will continue on with the holders not having the HRH after the present incumbents pass on as they are the grandchildren but their sons will inherit the title but not the HRH.

The titles Duke of York and Earl of Wessex currently held by Andrew and Edward will pass only to male heirs as those titles, like the vast majority of creations of titles in Britain, only allow for male inheritance. Unless Andrew remarries and has a son his title will die with him and be available for regrant in the future. If the child Sophie is carrying is a son then that son will inherit Edward's title and pass it on but his children won't be HRH as they are the great-grandchildren of the monarch.

None of Beatrice, Eugenie or Louise can pass on their HRH, any more than the present Princess Alexandra of Kent has done with her children as they are female descendents.

If the Queen was to become a great-grandmother in her lifetime the only great-grandchild that would be automatically an HRH at birth would be the eldest son of Prince William.

diamondBrg 09-17-2007 10:06 AM

Chrissy57

Thank you for your very informative reply, I really appreciate it a great deal. :)

magnik 09-17-2007 10:36 AM

As is customary, the Queen is believed to have offered Mark Phillips an earldom on his wedding day, which he turned down. This may also have been the specific wish of Princess Anne, who wanted to shield future children from the publicity that courtesy titles might bring. They thus became the first grandchildren of a sovereign to carry no title. However, they are not the first children of a princess to carry no title. The children of Princess Alexandra, the Queen's cousin, who were born in the 1960s, are also untitled.

BBC ON THIS DAY | 15 | 1977: Princess Anne gives birth to Master Phillips

diamondBrg 01-10-2008 04:52 PM

The Phillips Children and Titles
 
I have wondered, since Princess Anne chose NOT to have her children titled, what advantages do they have over those grandchildren who are?

What obligations do they NOT have that the other titled members of the Royal Family do?

Have Anne's children escaped the expectations by not being titled that the other grandchildren have not?

Do they have a greater degree of privacy? Are they freer to live their life as they see fit?

OR do they actually have all the same constraints as the others just without the perks?

blondie28 01-10-2008 05:02 PM

Anne's children have a great deal more privacy than any of there cousins (with the exception of Louise and James). First of all they do not have any bodyguards and ladies in waiting to follow their every move. Secondly they don't have a title but they attend most royal functions with other members of the family. Peter and Zara both live in cottages on Gatcombe with their "partners" and cook their own meals get in their own hot tub and can visit a princess just a few yards away. Unfortunately they do have to deal with the papparazzi just because they are the Queen's grandchildren and people will always be interested. I think they would say their life is pretty good.:flowers:

Elspeth 01-10-2008 05:11 PM

I think their degree of privacy is potentially greater. Zara has a higher profile because of her competitive riding and because she's photogenic, but Peter Phillips is usually out of the headlines and left alone to live his life in a way that his HRH cousins aren't. I don't think it's just that he lives a quieter life; I have a feeling that William, Harry, Beatrice, and Eugenie would be in the news more than he is even if they were as low-key about their private lives.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:51 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises