Originally Posted by Heavs
It would be better to put all the cousins on their or take Andrew and the Sussexes off but I can see why the compromise for now.
I don't understand the inconsistency of not including Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. In the present situation, the list on https://www.royal.uk/royal-family
consists of all the adult princesses/princes with the exception of the York daughters.
It is not a case of the biographies being "slimmed down" beginning with the princesses' generation because, although not listed on the page, the Cambridge children and Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
have biographies on the official website. It's unclear why the palace believes the need is greater for a biography of a toddler who is not yet a prince than two adult princesses whose kinship to a monarch is the same as his.
Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC
Ok, folks, I am now totally confused about who is in the RF, the Royal House....
The British monarchy as a general rule uses the term Royal Family instead of Royal House.
Membership of the Royal Family/House is not laid down by law in most European monarchies, including the UK, and membership is given or withheld by the will of the monarch.
The full list of Royal Family members is produced for legal reasons (as discussed upthread, the names of Royal Family members are protected by law from commercial use) by the Lord Chamberlain's Office
Originally Posted by Moran
I'm also interested by Prince and Princess Michael's inclusion - were they included previously? I can't remember but if not, it's interesting, given the recent headlines about him. It would be an intriguing message. If they were, well, BP can't really exclude them since it would be interpreted as him being guilty.
Not in the previous version, but they used to be included in even older versions of the page.