Members of the Royal Family

[HM Queen Catherine]

Royal Highness, Imperial Highness and Majesty are not titles, however. They are honorifics and have nothing to do with titles.

Serene Highness and His/Her Highness may not be recognized in the UK today, but in other European countries, this prefix denotes members of a ruling family who could be and are considered royal.. Hapsburgs, Wittelsbachs and Hohenzollerns come to mind.. as do the Grimaldis of Monaco. And when they visit The Queen, you can bet they are treated with the respect due a Serene Highness.

Just because The Princess Royal's children do not have HRH before their name does not mean they are not royal. As the grandchildren of the Queen, they are royals regardless of titles, or a lack thereof.

Being royal is about the bloodline, not about prefixes.

Before 1714, the title of prince and the style of HRH was not customary in usage. Sons and daughters of the sovereign were not automatically or traditionally called a prince or princess. The only exception was The Prince of Wales, as the heir to the throne.

Would you say that none of Edward III's children were royal? Or Henry VII's? Or James I's?

The title of prince is at the will of the sovereign, who can both grant and revoke the title through Letters Patent or Orders in Council.

After the accession of George I, it became customary for the sons of the sovereign and grandsons of the sovereign in the male line to be titled Prince and styled His Royal Highness. Great-grandsons of the sovereign were princes styled His Highness. It was an adoption of German royal custom that these honorifics were employed, because George I was Hanoverian. The style of HRH was limited in 1917, and has been changed several times since Queen Victoria's time.. including in 1948, when George VI issued Letters Patent granting the style to the children of The Princess Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh. Otherwise, Prince Charles would not have even been a prince until his mother's accession.

Royalty should be considered only through the bloodline.. not from the title or honorific a person holds. If keeping to the British system, I would say that royals are the children and grandchildren of the sovereign (through the male or female line). All those descendants further removed, should be considered "of royal blood".. with the exception, of course, for the male-line descendants who are in direct succession to the Crown.

This means that not only are Peter and Zara Phillips royal, but that the children of The Princess Margaret are also royals as the grandchildren of George VI. Any Phillips or Armstrong-Jones children, however, would be of royal blood as the great-grandchildren of a sovereign. Any children of Prince Harry, the Princesses of York, or the Wessex children will be of royal blood, and not royal themselves. The only difference would be if Prince Harry happens to come into the direct line of succession.. then his children would become royal.

So.. the question regarding Diana, Princess of Wales.. should she be considered a royal because of her ancestry? No.

She was a royal descendant, and therefore had some royal blood, but she was not a royal herself. She was, however, an aristocrat with distinguished lineage.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Besides, I also read that most people with European ancestry could, if they had the resources, trace their lineage back to a European king somewhere. One source pointed out that kings and princes had more opportunity to sire children, and that they were richer and better nourished than peasants, thus more likely to have healthy children. And if they acknowledged illegitimate children they often gave them titles and lands, so they had wealth and an advantage for survival also, so a better chance of having lots of descendants.

I mean no disrespect, AnnEliza, but this did make me chuckle. I find it humorous in an odd sort of way, that most authors and genealogists who write about this subject often overlook the simplest explanation: Death.

Yes, the nobility had all the advantages you speak of and did have a better chance of survival due to their elevated circumstances.. but the real reason every American today (with an English ancestor) can trace his lineage back to Edward III, is because of a little killer called The Black Death.

Bubonic plague has been called many things throughout history, but it devastated Europe on more than one occasion, and considerably reduced the gene pool.

In the 6th and 7th centuries, it wiped out half of Europe.. from 1348-1350, 30 to 60% of the population died.. to put that in perspective, the entire population of England only comprised 5-6 million people in 1348. After 1350, there were an estimated 2.5-3 million left.

And it continued to wreak havoc off and on until the 18th century. In 1603, it killed 38,000 Londoners alone.. and that was before the Great Plague of 1665-1666.

When you reduce the gene pool by such large numbers, you are going to get fewer and fewer surviving bloodlines.. so if you're living today and have a European ancestor, the chances that you descend from a royal or noble bloodline is almost a given.. because they were the ones that had the means to survive.

In fact, the only reigning king to die of the Black Death (1348-1350) was King Alfonso of Castile.. and that was because he was fighting a war with the Moors at the time.

 

[mammacats]

You put my answer better than I could QC. Princess Anne made the decision at the time of her first marriage to not let her children be princess/prince since she married a commoner. I thought that was a little unfair to her children because being royal is something her children can't escape no matter how much they may wish too.

 

[Mermaid1962]

So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?

Technically, I would say yes, that was an error.. or it may have been that she simply wanted a more private life for her children, and saying that they weren't "royal" was a good way to achieve that goal.

She certainly insisted that her husband be granted a title before her first child was born.. she thought it was only proper that the grandchildren of George VI be born with a title.. or so I've heard..

Hence, Antony was created Earl of Snowdon.. and David was born Viscount Linley. Obviously, being the daughter of a King, The Princess Margaret could not pass on her HRH to David and Sarah, but she did ensure they were born with titles.

They are still royals, IMHO.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

You put my answer better than I could QC. Princess Anne made the decision at the time of her first marriage to not let her children be princess/prince since she married a commoner. I thought that was a little unfair to her children because being royal is something her children can't escape no matter how much they may wish too.

At the risk of getting too far off topic, The Princess Royal had no choice in the matter. Because she is female, she could not pass on her HRH to her children. Female lines are excluded from the Letters Patent of 1917.

However, both The Princess Anne and Mark Phillips turned down the Queen's offer of a title for him, which would have automatically given a title to Peter Phillips and a courtesy title of "Lady" to Zara.

But the offer was made to them at the time of their marriage.

 

[MRSJ]

So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?

I think she meant it more like official royal duties then royal blood-

 

[Iluvbertie]

So was Princess Margaret in error when she said that her children weren't royal, they simply had the Queen as an aunt?

I had never heard that comment from Margaret but have heard Anne say that her children aren't royal they simply have the Queen for a grandmother. She made that comment in the 80s at some point.

As Anne, Peter and Zara have all said the same thing - they aren't royal - I don't think Peter and Zara are royal but they are members of the royal family. That is their own personal opinions so I will stick with their view point. Zara has corrected reporters etc who have called her 'royal' and I do think she should know whether or not she is royal.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Hummmm...I can't remember where, but it has been said that Zara was miffed at her father for not taking the title, as she would then have had a title.

 

[Mermaid1962]

This is my understanding as well. They're members of the extended royal family but not "royal."

As Anne, Peter and Zara have all said the same thing - they aren't royal - I don't think Peter and Zara are royal but they are members of the royal family. That is their own personal opinions so I will stick with their view point. Zara has corrected reporters etc who have called her 'royal' and I do think she should know whether or not she is royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Hummmm...I can't remember where, but it has been said that Zara was miffed at her father for not taking the title, as she would then have had a title.

I have heard the exact opposite a number of times from her - that she is so pleased that she doesn't have a title as she has had a much freer life than her titled cousins, William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Hummmm...I can't remember where, but it has been said that Zara was miffed at her father for not taking the title, as she would then have had a title.

No.. she would not have had a title either way. If Mark Phillips had been made a peer, Zara would have been known as "Lady Zara" by courtesy. Females do not inherit titles in Britain unless the letters patent specifically allow for inheritance by a female.

I don't see how being Miss Zara Phillips as opposed to "Lady Zara" has affected her one way or the other. She is not entitled to HRH, so whether her father was a peer would not matter for her. She could not have passed on a courtesy title to her children anyway. Of course, she could marry a peer and that would change things..

Besides, if she really wanted a title, I'm sure her grandmother would have no problem creating her a life peer..

 

[AnnEliza]

...Yes, the nobility had all the advantages you speak of and did have a better chance of survival due to their elevated circumstances.. but the real reason every American today (with an English ancestor) can trace his lineage back to Edward III, is because of a little killer called The Black Death.

Well, I didn't even think of the Plague. I should have! No, I don't take this as disrespect -- just more accurate history!

 

[Alison20]

I'm afraid, HM Queen Catherine, being a Miss is quite different from being Lady in how your are treated and how you are perceived in the UK generally. Of course, when everyone knows that your mother is the Princess Royal, you will be treated with the same respect (or even more) than if you were an 'ordinary' Lady!!

I am pretty sure that you are only royal if you are entitled to be addressed as Your Royal Highness. It may be a courtesy only, but it indicates the rank the person has. So Princess Margaret's children are not royal, and neither are Princess Anne's. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenies's children will not be royal. Even in the male line, the royal title stops beyond the Monarch's grandchildren. Prince Michael of Kent is royal (so his wife is too) as he is the grandson of George V, but his children are only Lord and Lady. If Prince Andrew had a son, he would be royal, but his children would not be, and neither will Prince Edward's son. Prince Harry is different, as he is likely to become the son of a Monarch, so his children will be royal (although they may not be, if he has children before Charles becomes Kind.

 

[scooter]

I have heard the exact opposite a number of times from her - that she is so pleased that she doesn't have a title as she has had a much freer life than her titled cousins, William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie.

I had not read that Bertie. May I ask which book you saw that in?

 

[Nettie]

All the Royals and their families

Hi, my name is Netitia and I am from Germany and I hope you can understand my english without a lot of laughter.

Well, I have to write a huge and very statistical work about the royal family(not only). Its to hard for me to describe it in more detail. Its an mathematical work about Probabilitys, Frequencies and so on.
There are a lot things I have to count or compare. There are questions like: "Have the royal family more male or female members." or "In wich month/year are the most members of the royal family born." (church/chapel... of most marriages (the dates of them), number of divorce (with dates...), birthplaces, most used (first) names......)
I have also to include parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles, half-sisters and brothers, illegitimate childs and stepbrothers and sisters and so on (I have to get every information I can). Even if they do not belong to the royal family and never have a right to the throne.

I have to expand it about the relationships, starting by the youngest member. (I think this is Savannah Phillips at the moment). I have to look for Connections to other royal familys.

At first I try to collect informations and I hope you will help my with some questions.

1. Savannah Phillips /29.12.2010 - Is this her full name? And where is she born?
2. Is London Paddington only a District ore is it the name of a hospital too? Because Peter Phillips is born there.
3. Where I can find some informations about the parents (do they have sisters, brothers...) of Autumn Kelly. I need the birthdates, the full names, if they have - childs together - the new partners - the full name and birthdates of the childs.
I only know the names. Autumns twinbrother Christopher, her older brother Kevin (the same father?) and Patrick an Jessica Kelly.

So I hope to find somebody who is glad to help me...
Thanks alot

(There are much more questions, but I think this is enough for the start and maybe I'll find some answers of the open questions alone.)

Bye, Nettie

 

[Lumutqueen]

1. Savannah Phillips /29.12.2010 - Is this her full name? And where is she born?
2. Is London Paddington only a District ore is it the name of a hospital too? Because Peter Phillips is born there.
3. Where I can find some informations about the parents (do they have sisters, brothers...) of Autumn Kelly. I need the birthdates, the full names, if they have - childs together - the new partners - the full name and birthdates of the childs.
I only know the names. Autumns twinbrother Christopher, her older brother Kevin (the same father?) and Patrick an Jessica Kelly.

1; That is presumably her official name, it has not been confirmed but it has not been denied either. She was born at the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital.
2; Peter Phillips was born at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington.
3; Such private information about Autumns family is not likely to be known to the public because, a. it's private and b. Autumn isn't a prominant member of the BRF.
Kevin is her step-brother - they share the same father. Her parents are Brian and Kathleen (Kitty).

 

[Lady Kathleen]

1; Kevin is her step-brother - they share the same father. Her parents are Brian and Kathleen (Kitty).

If they share the same father, isn't Kevin her half-brother?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Half step, same thing to me.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Half step, same thing to me.

Half brothers/sisters share a parent.

Step brothers/sisters do not share a parent.

e.g. William and Harry are step brothers to Tom and Laura but there are definitely not half brothers.

There is a very clear difference between the terms.

 

[Nettie]

3; Such private information about Autumns family is not likely to be known to the public because, a. it's private and b. Autumn isn't a prominant member of the BRF.

My Prof would say: If she is a part of the family she is important. How prominent she is doesn't matter. (She is the wife of the first grandchild of the Queen and so she is important, her parents and the other members of her family too - at least for my Prof)
And he also said: If I can find some needed information about a person you can find it too. And if not - you get fewer points. Its easy mathematic. As you can imagine - I really like him.

But thank you for the informations. Do you know the name of Kevins mother?
By the way... Is royal family written royal family or Royal Family in english? How I do right?

To my work (can I use these or is work okay) - I am very happy with my topic because my fellow has to investigate books and compare them. The most used first word. The most used colour of the Cover. The autor who has the most best-selled books and so on... I think my theme is much more interesting. I do not know a lot about the Royals - but this will change during the next months.

 

[Lumutqueen]

My Prof would say: If she is a part of the family she is important. How prominent she is doesn't matter. (She is the wife of the first grandchild of the Queen and so she is important, her parents and the other members of her family too - at least for my Prof)

Your prof needs to understand where she is placed in line to the throne, Peter is barely known in the UK.

But thank you for the informations. Do you know the name of Kevins mother?
By the way... Is royal family written royal family or Royal Family in english? How I do right?

Like I said, this information isn't going to be known to anyone unless they are close to the Kelly's themselves.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My Prof would say: If she is a part of the family she is important. How prominent she is doesn't matter. (She is the wife of the first grandchild of the Queen and so she is important, her parents and the other members of her family too - at least for my Prof)
And he also said: If I can find some needed information about a person you can find it too. And if not - you get fewer points. Its easy mathematic. As you can imagine - I really like him.

Your prof needs to learn that when a commoner marries into the royal family it is the person who does so and not their family. Autumn, being married to the 11th in line to the throne is not an important member of the family in the real world (even these days everyone from Andrew down in the line is regarded as 'minor' royals and Andrew serves as a Counsellor of State - i.e. he signs papers in leui of the Queen when she is overseas (with another Counsellor - Charles, William or Harry) but even so he is a 'minor' royal.

Finding personal information about Autumn will be difficult because her family are private individuals and are entitled to their privacy in the same way as you and I.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Kevin is her step-brother - they share the same father. Her parents are Brian and Kathleen (Kitty).

I don't believe Kevin is her step-brother OR her half-brother. His is her older brother. Full stop.

His parents are Brian and Kathleen, same as the parents of twins Autumn and Chris.

Kathleen is now remarried to Ron Magas, without children, and Brian Kelly has not remarried as far as I know.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Not from what I have read, they share the same father making Kevin, Autumn's half-brothers.

 

[Zonk]

According to this article Princess Anne's future daughter-in-law had 'down-to-earth' upbringing | Mail Online, Brian and Kitty Kelly are the parents of Autumn, Chris and Kevin.

 

[Lumutqueen]

^^^^^
If that's true where's the same dad different mother argument come from? Because that's a strange thing to make up.

 

[Alison20]

Nettie, if you Google Autumn's name (and those of her family members) you might just come up with enough bits and pieces to put together into something resembling a whole!

As to whether to have capital letters for royal family or not - it is general practice in written British English to use capitals if you are referring to a specific one, but not if it is just general. In other words, if I say 'I am interested in the British Royal Family', it has capitals. However, if I say 'I am interested in royal families within Europe', it wouldn't!

On Savannah Phillips' name - we don't really know this officially. Peter and Autumn are members of the extended Royal Family, but they are also untitled private citizens. It was obviously decided that the name didn't get an official royal announcement, but they knew people were keen to know the name. The compromise was for the minister officiating at a Royal church service, to include the baby's name in the prayer for the well-being of members of the Royal Family. This is how we know it is Savannah - but it doesn't tell us if there are any middle names. This may come out when she is baptized.

 

[Tyger]

I should also perhaps emphasise that Lord Harewood was NEVER a member of the ROYAL FAMILY [it is up to the Queen to decide who is a member of the ROYAL FAMILY and this is not the same as being a ROYAL RELATIVE. And being a member of the ROYAL FAMILY is nothing to do with either closeness to the monarch [either by birth or succession or even association] or being in receipt or otherwise of the civil list or equivalent: for example, Buckingham Palace is quite clear on the point that Prince Michael is regarded as a member of the Royal Family whereas Zara Philips is not.

This is interesting - I have not been aware of a difference between being a 'member of the royal family' and a royal relative'. A relative is a relative, I would guess, blood is blood - so how is that different from being a 'member of the royal family'? How is that decided? Why wouldn't a granddaughter of the Queen (like Zara) be a family member and Beatrice and Eugenie are? This is a puzzle. Now come to think of it, wasn't it commented that Sarah is a member of the royal family? Or was that Diana? After the divorce? So its a big deal one way or the other?

 

[kbk]

It is derived from a person's patrilineal or matrilineal line of descent. Beatrice and Eugenie, like also the Waleses, young Wessexes, Gloucesters and Kents, are male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign (Elizabeth II and George V) and that's why they are Princes and Princesses of the United Kingdom by birth, with the style Royal Highness. Because of that they are the top members of the family, its "official" part. Official by this status, which is derived from their line of descent from a monarch. Additonally, the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son of the monarch is also included, as a Prince and HRH by birth. The Phillipses, like the Lascellesses were, are descended from a Sovereign in a female-line, so they are not inheriting royal status, titles and style from their mother. It can be inherited only through a father, or granted by monarch personally, like it was with the daughters of Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife, the eldest daughter of Edward VII.

Edward VII granted his granddaughters titles of Princesses with the style Highness when he created Louise the Princess Royal, and they were since then included in the official Royal Family. But, their status of Princesses of Blood by birth was not totally recgonsied by their uncle, George V, and there were some serious tensions between the Duchess of Fife, her brother and their mother, who tried to mediate in that situation. End of he offtop ;-). Not only female-line grandchidren and further descendants are not "full" members of the Royal Family, but also male-line descendants from the third generation and further are not entitled to Royal status. So, the children of Gloucesters and Kents, like Earl of Ulster, who is the second senior agnatic descendant of the entire House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, a male-line and the senior agnatic one great-grandson of George V, is a commoner and not a member of the Royal Family in the said "official" meaning.

But, of course, it is natural to think of the Phillipses, the Lascelleses (who were in the same position as the Phillipses are, as they were children of the previous Princess Royal), the Armstrong-Joneses, the Ulsters, the St Andrewses, the Lewises, the Gilmans, the Nicholas Windsors, the Taylors, Lord and Lady Frederick, Lady Gabriella, the Ogilvies, and even more remote relatives like the Fifes and Mountbattens, like they are members of the Royal Family, in the meaning of the Sovereign's family. They are Elizabeth II's and the mentioned full members of the Royal Family's descendants and closest cousins. They are all of Royal blood and the closest people to the throne by their places in the order of succession. They are mentioned as members of the Royal Family by the Court officials, like in some reports in the Court Circular. We can say that they are "private" members of the Royal Family, in opposite to the official Royal Family, which is strictly limited. By the way, it is interesting to me that even the female-line grandchildren of a Sovereign are not members of the Royal Family, they enjoy a privilleged position in the order of precedence, among the "full" members.