Zara and Mike Tindall and Family News and Events 2: January 2018 - Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Update on the auction (Charlene auctioning off her car made me realize I hadn't seen how Zara's auction items did).

https://www.jumblebee.co.uk/equestrianrelief

https://sports.yahoo.com/zara-tindall-deliveries-lockdown-mike-tindall-185014908.html

Her painting earned 5700 pounds. She also auctioned a pair of her signed riding boots which got 520 pounds.

Through the auction and four other initiatives, Equestrian Relief raised 165,440 (their goal was 100,000).



Mike was also involved in an auction. Mike is Patron of Cure Parkinson's today. The auction was back in May and raised 57,000 pounds.

https://www.cureparkinsons.org.uk/News/miketindall-auction
 
Mike is a good guy.

Parkinsons is a cruel, slow moving disease and I hope we are closer each month to a cure.
 
""Reviewing the feed we have been giving our horses for the restart of competition has been similar to when we look at their diets at the beginning of a normal season."

Zara Tindall explains the difference is in the detail when it comes to equine nutrition."


 
The little Mia wants to play Rugby, very rough sport. Well more power to her. She is Daddy's little girl.
 
The little Mia wants to play Rugby, very rough sport. Well more power to her. She is Daddy's little girl.

Zara is no shrinking violet either; i'm sure it takes guts to do those horsey thing (you can see i know nothing about horses, in fact i think it takes a lot of guts to even get on a whopping big horse)

Mia is so obviously a chip off the old block from both her parents. She looks like a lovely delightful energetic wee girl.
 
I have a quick question about Zara. I know her mother refused titles for her and her brother, so Zara has no royal title, but at her wedding she wore a tiara. So is she still technically royal?
 
I have a quick question about Zara. I know her mother refused titles for her and her brother, so Zara has no royal title, but at her wedding she wore a tiara. So is she still technically royal?

No, she is not a royal (as she is not a 'royal highness') but she is still a member of the British royal family. And she, like anybody else, is free to wear a tiara whenever she likes; and especially at her wedding day. It would have been more surprising if the daughter of the princess royal would not have worn a tiara on her wedding.

N.B. Technically no titles for Zara and Peter were refused. Anne and Mark weren't interested in a title for Mark which had the consequence that their children don't have a style. Had their father been made an earl, Peter would have been Lord Peter (or more likely Viscount X - assuming that Mark had also received a subsidiary title like Anthony did) and Zara Lady Zara. Their half-sister Stephanie would be Lady Stephanie. Their other half-sister, Felicity, would have remained 'plain' Felicity as she was born out of wedlock (while Mark was married to Anne).
 
Last edited:
I have a quick question about Zara. I know her mother refused titles for her and her brother, so Zara has no royal title, but at her wedding she wore a tiara. So is she still technically royal?

Wearing a tiara has nothing to do with being Royal or not (or even aristocratic). Anyone can wear one - Liz Taylor for example was the owner of a rather beautiful tiara.

But to your question, Zara is a member of the Royal Family but she is not a Royal.
 
So is the reason they would have been Lord and Lady, and not Prince and Princess like Beatrice and Eugenie, because Anne is female and Andrew is male?

No, she is not a royal (as she is not a 'royal highness') but she is still a member of the British royal family. And she, like anybody else, is free to wear a tiara whenever she likes; and especially at her wedding day. It would have been more surprising if the daughter of the princess royal would not have worn a tiara on her wedding.

N.B. Technically no titles for Zara and Peter were refused. Anne and Mark weren't interested in a title for Mark which had the consequence that their children don't have a style. Had their father been made an earl, Peter would have been Lord Peter (or more likely Viscount X - assuming that Mark had also received a subsidiary title like Anthony did) and Zara Lady Zara. Their half-sister Stephanie would be Lady Stephanie. Their other half-sister, Felicity, would have remained 'plain' Felicity as she was born out of wedlock (while Mark was married to Anne).
 
So is the reason they would have been Lord and Lady, and not Prince and Princess like Beatrice and Eugenie, because Anne is female and Andrew is male?

HRH Prince/Princess is only passed in male line. Even with the changes to embrace equal primogeniture, this remains in place. George and Louis can pass HRH to their children, Charlotte will not be able.

The reason Zara and Mike would have been Lord/lady is they would have not gained their title from their mother. They would have gained it from their father. So they would be titled as the children of an Earl (the title Mark turned down) and not as the children of a royal. Like Louise and James are, even though they are entitled to HRH Prince/ss.
 
So why are Edward's kids not Prince and Princess? Sorry for all the questions...I'm American and don't know all the ins and outs. :lol:

HRH Prince/Princess is only passed in male line. Even with the changes to embrace equal primogeniture, this remains in place. George and Louis can pass HRH to their children, Charlotte will not be able.

The reason Zara and Mike would have been Lord/lady is they would have not gained their title from their mother. They would have gained it from their father. So they would be titled as the children of an Earl (the title Mark turned down) and not as the children of a royal. Like Louise and James are, even though they are entitled to HRH Prince/ss.
 
So why are Edward's kids not Prince and Princess? Sorry for all the questions...I'm American and don't know all the ins and outs. :lol:

They are. They simply aren't referred to as such.

Edward and Sophie made it known when they got married that they wished for their kids to have a private life. And said their kids would simply be addressed as children of an Earl.

There were those that thought this was official, Sophie has confirmed that the children will have the choice whether to use their proper titles at 18.
 
Would it not be interesting if one of the children wished to use the royal title and his/her sibling did not?
 
Would it not be interesting if one of the children wished to use the royal title and his/her sibling did not?

Not really. It might look rather awkward as if one member of the family was more concerned with royal titles than the other...
 
Mike and Zara Tindall along with Sir Ben Ainslie (competitive sailor), Jose Mourinho (professional football manager), Tyson Fury (Professional boxer) and 100 sport stars have pledge their support for The Telegraph's Keep Kids Active Campaign. From reading at the blurb (article behind a paywall), The Telegraph's letter is urging the Government to exempt outdoor children's sport from the second lockdown.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2...hs/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_iosshare_AwMDCw0QhLSp

The only person I recognised is Tyson Fury. As you may notice, I don't watch sport :lol:

I know that there are some columnist and opinion writers in The Telegraph who are against the second lockdown and curfews.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/2...nt-parliamentary-debate-telegraphs-keep-kids/

These two articles come after the House of Common Parliamentary voting for Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (No.4) Regulations 2020 [If anyone is interested :cool:]
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/902
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom