The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 01-07-2020, 05:14 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by victor1319 View Post
I have no problem, that the marriage ceremony will not be televised... - albeit I wonder, if it would have helped, if Prince Andrew would have come to terms with a "Maxima aggreement" and in that would have stayed away from the church...
Considering that Andrew is the bride's father, I don't think it'd be a hard decision to make for Beatrice to decide whether to have her wedding televised or have her father walk her up the aisle on her wedding day. For me, there'd be no contest or even a moment's hesitation.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #462  
Old 01-07-2020, 05:17 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
That is true for the UK and most countries, but not for all (it does not make a difference whether it is your father or your mother in Spain, for example).
In the case of duchies it no longer matters - if your parent IS the rightful holder of a duchy the eldest child will inherit. And while until not that long ago brothers had preference over daughters that no longer is the case.

However, in the casa real it's Juan Carlos and now Felipe who were/are kings and their children who are infantas (or prince(ss)); none of the children of Pilar, Margarita, Elena or Cristina are royals. So, so far, it did matter whether it was their father (Juan Carlos/Felipe) or their mother (Pilar/Margarita/Elena/Cristina) who was the infante/a. Had Juan Carlos' younger brother still been alive, I would think that his children would have been styled differently than their cousins by their aunts but I am not 100% sure.

Edit: Had to go back many generations: but children of younger sons indeed were infantes/infantas whereas children of daughters were not.

For all others: sorry for this sidetrack.
__________________

  #463  
Old 01-07-2020, 05:20 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I don't think the expression Royal House is used in Britain.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/f...l_family_9.pdf
It doesn't matter if it is or if it isn't, as far as my argument goes. I used it to differentiate between the Princess Royal's children and Prince Andrew's. That one can be a member of the royal family and be included in all the royal family goings-on, yet not be a member of the royal house (aka a male-line descendant).
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
  #464  
Old 01-07-2020, 05:32 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Nonetheless, there is a big difference: Beatrice and Eugenie are 'their ROYAL highnesses' (so royal) - princess B/E (of York); Peter and Zara are just that: Mr. Peter and Mrs. Mike (not royal). You may like it or not: but it the royal and noble world it makes a difference whether it is your father who is a royal or your mother. In the first case, you might be a royal too (depends on the country but otherwise normally titled or in the UK a Lord/Lady), in the second case, you are only a royal if your mother happens to be in the direct line to the throne. Peter and Zara's mother isn't as she has 3 brothers.

Louise and James are outliers in that they should have been princess and prince but instead, it was decided they would be known as a mere Lady and Lord (Viscount); nonetheless, even they are treated differently than their cousins Peter and Zara who never rode in a carriage during Trooping, while Louise did (so, she was treated as if she were a royal highness).
I don't think you understood what I said. I'm well aware of the difference between Mrs. Zara Tindall and HRH Princess Beatrice of York. I'm not stupid.

For the last time (hopefully) — My point is that William and Harry are different from the Queen's other grandchildren, whether they have a title/style or they don't. They're the sons of the direct heir. Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James...their comings and goings are of no real interest to people, outside of people like us who like to gossip and talk about these things. None of them, outside of Eugenie, had or will have a televised wedding. It has nothing to do with titles or who's a lord and who isn't. It has to do with public interest, and I can't imagine there's a lot of public interest in Beatrice or the Earl of Wessex's children. We'll get photos I'm sure, but that's it.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
  #465  
Old 01-07-2020, 05:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
In the case of duchies it no longer matters - if your parent IS the rightful holder of a duchy the eldest child will inherit. And while until not that long ago brothers had preference over daughters that no longer is the case.

However, in the casa real it's Juan Carlos and now Felipe who were/are kings and their children who are infantas (or prince(ss)); none of the children of Pilar, Margarita, Elena or Cristina are royals. So, so far, it did matter whether it was their father (Juan Carlos/Felipe) or their mother (Pilar/Margarita/Elena/Cristina) who was the infante/a.
As you said, Juan Carlos and Felipe were prince/king rather than infante. The children of Pilar, Margarita, Elena and Cristina were styled in the same way they would have been if their father had been the infante.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Had Juan Carlos' younger brother still been alive, I would think that his children would have been styled differently than their cousins by their aunts but I am not 100% sure.

Edit: Had to go back many generations: but children of younger sons indeed were infantes/infantas whereas children of daughters were not.
But that is incorrect.

Up until 1987, the children of sons and the children of daughters from dynastic, equal marriages were infantes/infantas.

Decrees giving the title of Infante to members of the royal family.

Since 1987, under the new Royal Decree, neither the children of younger sons nor the children of younger daughters are entitled to be infantes/infantas.

https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-1987-25284
  #466  
Old 01-07-2020, 05:36 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
It doesn't matter if it is or if it isn't, as far as my argument goes. I used it to differentiate between the Princess Royal's children and Prince Andrew's. That one can be a member of the royal family and be included in all the royal family goings-on, yet not be a member of the royal house (aka a male-line descendant).
You're correct Sister Morphine. In letters patent that have referenced the royal house, its stated as the House of Windsor. This came up with the letters patent issued to state that descendants of the House of Windsor that do not carry the HRH, would have the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor.

So there is a difference between the royal family that works and supports the "Firm" and those family members that are of the House of Windsor. The Windsors are a royal family so... where's the beef?
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #467  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:01 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,105
I think we can agree that the family of the heir is different from the familiy of his siblings. Nonetheless, it is also true that male-line grandchildren are different than female-line grandchildren as they are royal while female-line grandchildren are not. So, I would say BOTH distinctions are relevant. Where the line is drawn in terms of televised weddings can be debated. For this generation, the line so far was drawn at the second distinction but if I understand you correctly you argue it should be drawn at the first distinction.

However, in your earlier post you started with the claim that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Considering that Charles has talked about streamlining the monarchy when he becomes King, this could be a portent of things to come. William's children will have televised weddings, but Harry's children might not. I doubt either Lady Louise or Viscount Severn will have televised weddings, and after Beatrice marries, they're the last unmarried grandchildren. Peter and Zara Philips certainly didn't have televised weddings, even though they're just as royal as Beatrice and Eugenie are.
As I and others have pointed out. They are not. The queen's grandchildren can actually be divided in 4 categories:
1. Children of the heir: royal dukes
2. Children of the second son: royal princesses
3. Children of the third son: treated as children of a peer (would normally have been one category with number 2: children of younger sons)
4. Children of daughter(s): untitled commoners

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Actually, there's a difference between the Royal House and the Royal Family. As grandchildren of the sovereign in the female line, Peter and Zara are members of the royal family, but not the royal house. They're invited to all formal events like weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour, etc., and they'll no doubt be invited to Charles's coronation one day, but they don't undertake any official duties, and they don't receive an allowance from the Privy Purse. That sets them apart from William, Harry, and their wives.

My point was that, like Beatrice and Eugenie, they have one royal and non-royal parent. They're coming from a similar position — grandchildren of the sovereign. As I also pointed out, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, grandchildren of the sovereign as well, probably won't have televised weddings either, not because they aren't members of the Royal House (they are), but because outside of people like us who post on message boards like these, who really cares?
All true, but not relevant to the difference to who is royal and who is not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
It doesn't matter if it is or if it isn't, as far as my argument goes. I used it to differentiate between the Princess Royal's children and Prince Andrew's. That one can be a member of the royal family and be included in all the royal family goings-on, yet not be a member of the royal house (aka a male-line descendant).
Not sure that I understand what you are trying to say here: I had the impression that you wanted to lump them in to one category - instead of differentiating them. The difference is clear: prince Andrew's children are male-line descendants, so members of the royal house in your perspective; while Princess Anne's children are members of the royal family as all descendants of George VI, the queen's HRH-cousins and Sarah, Duchess of York for some reason (only the Harewoods are treated distinctively different: the descendants of all princess Mary's brothers are all on the balcony with royal family events/Trooping the Colour; while here descendants aren't; nor is Sarah...). They are also 'the same' in that neither Andrew's nor Anne's children are expected to be children of a future monarch while being a grandchild of the current monarch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
I don't think you understood what I said. I'm well aware of the difference between Mrs. Zara Tindall and HRH Princess Beatrice of York. I'm not stupid.

For the last time (hopefully) — My point is that William and Harry are different from the Queen's other grandchildren, whether they have a title/style or they don't. They're the sons of the direct heir. Peter, Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James...their comings and goings are of no real interest to people, outside of people like us who like to gossip and talk about these things. None of them, outside of Eugenie, had or will have a televised wedding. It has nothing to do with titles or who's a lord and who isn't. It has to do with public interest, and I can't imagine there's a lot of public interest in Beatrice or the Earl of Wessex's children. We'll get photos I'm sure, but that's it.
As I started this post with: in my opinion both distinctions are relevant. The misunderstanding came from your claim about both groups of cousins being 'just as royal'. Other than that: of course Beatrice and Eugenie are not comparable to William and Harry - but I don't think anyone claimed that. Personally I still think that a royal princess' wedding should be televised (like all - I am biased, in this case because I've seen it work out that way in the Netherlands and while fewer people watched than for the future king's wedding - there are many other programmes with far fewer people watching, so that's no reason not to have those who'd like to share in the joy of a royal wedding, in such a wedding) but others might think differently (and they have the BBC on their side ) and that's totally fine too.
  #468  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:08 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Considering that Charles has talked about streamlining the monarchy when he becomes King, this could be a portent of things to come. William's children will have televised weddings, but Harry's children might not. I doubt either Lady Louise or Viscount Severn will have televised weddings, and after Beatrice marries, they're the last unmarried grandchildren. Peter and Zara Philips certainly didn't have televised weddings, even though they're just as royal as Beatrice and Eugenie are.

I understand why people like us enjoy watching them, we get to gossip about the dresses and tiaras and guest lists...but I think we're an increasingly shrinking minority. I don't think the UK will suddenly become a republic, but if other European monarchies can cut down on the number of people considered members of the royal house, and thus entitled to all the panoply that brings with it, so can they.
Peter and Zara are NOT royal. Royal requires the style His/Her ROYAL Highness and they don't have that - nor were they entitled to it as the children of a daughter of the monarch.

Princess Margaret said it first and then Anne paraphrased - 'My children aren't royal - they just happen to have the Queen as an aunt'. Anne, of course, changed 'aunt' to 'grandmother'. Margaret's children are also the grandchildren of a monarch and no one classes them as royal. No one ever classed the Harewoods as royal and the late Earl and his brother were the eldest two grandchildren of George V.

Title makes a person royal, not their relationship to the monarch.
  #469  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:13 PM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,830
*bashes head against wall*

When I said Peter and Zara were just as royal as Beatrice and Eugenie, I meant it in the context that they're all grandchildren of the Queen. They have royal blood flowing through their veins too, even if they carry no titles or styles. That's it. That's all it meant. I don't need another 5,000-word treatise on how pedantically incorrect that may or may not be.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
  #470  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:13 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by HereditaryPrincess View Post
I was surprised that ITV broadcasted Eugenie's wedding to be honest - I expected a short YouTube coverage from the BRF's YouTube channel and Instagram coverage, but that's about it. I didn't expect Beatrice's to be broadcasted so this isn't surprising.

I think what triggered the ITV decision was that Channel 7 in Australia had been saying they were going to have the 'exclusive' cameras inside the chapel. It didn't seem right that Aussies could watch the wedding in full but in the UK they couldn't.
  #471  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:15 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
No worries; there are still sufficient other royal families around to provide you with royal weddings until George and Charlotte (and Louis I assume) are ready to get married

You might need to wait some more years for the big affairs as the older ones of the future queens and king just reached or are getting closer to reaching adulthood. But most of them will most likely get married before George - as they are about 10 years his senior.

James/Louise aren't likely to have anything televised...they will be more like Gabriella's wedding...pics of them coming/going.

Yes other Monarchies have older kids but I was looking at the BRF since it's a Beatrice/Edo thread.

Well maybe one of the Lux children will be soon!


LaRae
  #472  
Old 01-07-2020, 06:32 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Witter Springs, United States
Posts: 208
Hmmmmmm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
Actually, there's a difference between the Royal House and the Royal Family. As grandchildren of the sovereign in the female line, Peter and Zara are members of the royal family, but not the royal house. They're invited to all formal events like weddings, funerals, Trooping the Colour, etc., and they'll no doubt be invited to Charles's coronation one day, but they don't undertake any official duties, and they don't receive an allowance from the Privy Purse. That sets them apart from William, Harry, and their wives.

My point was that, like Beatrice and Eugenie, they have one royal and non-royal parent. They're coming from a similar position — grandchildren of the sovereign. As I also pointed out, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, grandchildren of the sovereign as well, probably won't have televised weddings either, not because they aren't members of the Royal House (they are), but because outside of people like us who post on message boards like these, who really cares?
Very interesting thank you. I hope Beatrice gets the wedding she wants and is happy with everything.
  #473  
Old 01-07-2020, 08:53 PM
Tarlita's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 2,094
I am sure Prss Beatrice will have her wedding professionally recorded and it may be released for sale on DVD. Perhaps. That might satisfy the avid royal watchers in Britain.
  #474  
Old 01-07-2020, 10:10 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Wherever I wish, United States
Posts: 139
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarlita View Post
I am sure Prss Beatrice will have her wedding professionally recorded and it may be released for sale on DVD. Perhaps. That might satisfy the avid royal watchers in Britain.
Personally, I think to release the wedding ceremony for sale would be a PR nightmare. There was controversy from Autumn and Peter selling photos of their wedding to Hello, so I can't imagine the blowback if people thought Beatrice was "cashing in" on her wedding (particularly if anyone thought Fergie and Andrew were behind the decision).
  #475  
Old 01-08-2020, 12:39 AM
Claire's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophie25 View Post
ITV have confirmed that they will not broadcast Beatrice's wedding. Since they were the only channel who bothered to broadcast Eugenie's I guess it's definate now that we won't get to see this one.
Is it possible that the Palace might film some of it themselves and place it online ?
Or even stream it?
  #476  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:18 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,754
In the interest of what is an historic royal family occasion, that would be nice, but is unlikely purely due to Andrew's involvement.

I agree with Marengo it's sad, albeit unsurprising, that royalty watchers won't get the opportunity to see Beatrice's wedding. At least we stlll have Eugenie's wedding to remember and to view again. And Beatrice gave a wonderful reading on behalf of Eugenie and Jack.

The media announcing they won't cover Beatrice's wedding is surely a formality, since no one in the royal family was likely asking them to, nor would the royals allow coverage to take place this time due to Andrew's circumstances.

It's sad because I was really looking forward to seeing Beatrice (not Andrew) walk down the aisle in all her glory. She deserves to have a lovely and special day. It's such a shame that this cloud is hanging over her nuptials, purely due to her father's poor decisions.

Beatrice has such a handsome and adorable fiance in Edo too. I'm very curious about Beatrice's plans and her dress and tiara selections. It's true that very little will likely be revealed about their plans, and probably only one photo will be released of just Bea and Edo. It must be upsetting for Fergie that Beatrice won't have the same kind of celebration that Eugenie enjoyed.

Moreover, Beatrice has a very close resemblance to her namesake, QV's youngest daughter. They share not only the same name, but similar big eyes. Royal weddings are historic and this will be the last one for the immediate family for quite some time (until Louise & James Wessex, and later the Phillips, Tindall, Cambridge and Sussex children marry). The connection for Beatrice extending all the way back to Queen Victoria, who popularized the wearing of white for weddings, has great meaning IMO. It is sad that what is an historic, albeit also an intimate family occasion, can't be more widely shared with great celebration.

We will surely hear about Sarah's and David Linley/now 2nd Earl of Snowden's offspring eventually marrying, but they are not direct line descendants of QE-II, nor will there be any fanfare or wide public interest, since the Chattos and Snowdens are low key, discreet private citizens.
  #477  
Old 01-08-2020, 06:38 AM
Princess Larisa's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: ., Croatia
Posts: 3,678
I saw one of the royal reporters saying on twitter that Beatrice’s wedding date will be announced in the next two weeks.
I assume the church and perhaps the best man and maid of honour would also be announced at the same time.
  #478  
Old 01-08-2020, 07:33 AM
Sister Morphine's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina, United States
Posts: 2,830
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53 View Post
In the interest of what is a historic royal family occasion, that would be nice, but is unlikely purely due to Andrew's involvement.
I wouldn't class Beatrice's wedding as "historic." Much like "iconic," I think that word gets used far too often for the wrong things. It's important to her family of course, but is it important to the whole of the UK? I think not.
__________________
"The grass was greener / The light was brighter / The taste was sweeter / The nights of wonder / With friends surrounded / The dawn mist glowing / The water flowing / The endless river / Forever and ever......"
  #479  
Old 01-08-2020, 07:46 AM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,232
I am sure there will be footage of the entrance and departures like it usually is. She will have her dream wedding, no doubt. All will be fine.
  #480  
Old 01-08-2020, 07:49 AM
MaiaMia_53's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 1,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sister Morphine View Post
I wouldn't class Beatrice's wedding as "historic." Much like "iconic," I think that word gets used far too often for the wrong things. It's important to her family of course, but is it important to the whole of the UK? I think not.


Sure, your view is perfectly reasonable and understandable. But for me, as a lover of and a student of history, especially British royal history and British cultural influences on world history, the Victorian era has particular significance. And, as I said, Beatrice's connection to her namesake and the whole provenance and iconography of royal weddings, with Beatrice being one of the last British royal blood princesses to marry in modern times, her wedding does have historical significance.

Of course, in the current modern day, we tend to throw history, culture and everything else out the window for the latest fad or the next trend and headline of the moment that grabs the public's restless attention span. Sigh...

Also, of course, royalty and royal wealth amassed and built upon past colonial aggression and dominance is considered problematic and passe in today's world. That view is sadly coupled with Andrew's very troubling relationship with Epstein, along with Andrews's clueless non-regret and out-of-touch arrogance surrounding the circumstances of his former association... And that leads to his oldest daughter's wedding being impacted by his poor choices.
__________________

Closed Thread


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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Engagement of Princess Beatrice of York and Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi: September 26, 2019 JessRulz The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 153 09-29-2019 01:36 AM
Princess Beatrice: Relationships Musings and Suggestions Pranter The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 520 09-26-2019 06:26 AM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi althorp american history anastasia once upon a time ancestry armstrong-jones british british royals chittagong countess of snowdon cover-up daisy duke of cambridge dutch dutch royals family life family tree games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii heraldry hill history house of glucksburg imperial household interesting israel jack brooksbank jacobite jewelry jumma kids movie king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mailing maxima nepal nepalese royal family norwegian royal family prince charles prince charles of luxembourg prince constantijn princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess elizabeth princess ribha pronunciation queen consort queen maud queen maxima royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding russian court dress spain speech spencer family taiwan thailand thai royal family tracts unsubscribe videos wedding gown


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:12 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×