Members of the Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Do you think Diana if she had lived would have been invited to any of the Jubilee Celebrations and if so would have appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace?
 
Yes I think she would have been invited to the celebrations but no she would not have been on the balcony. By the diamond jubilee even the Queens family weren’t appearing on the balcony so there would have been no reason to allow someone who wasn’t even a member of the Royal Family to appear.
 
Spheno said:
They use different criteria than you. All people from this list are:
1) descendants of George VI + their spouses
or
2) princes/princesses of UK + their spouses
Click to expand...

miss whirley said:
Scrolling through early posts in this thread, the first mention in this thread of the BRF's family list from their official website came in October 2011, after the Earl had passed, so we don't know if he had been included or not. I'd like to believe he was, both as a grandchild of a King (6th-in-line at his birth), and as a former Counsellor of the State. If someone with his credentials didn't rank then many on the current list are bizarre inclusions. Especially since a few other posters believe the great-grandchildren of Margaret will be eventually added to list.
Click to expand...

Princess Mary's son the 7th Earl of Harewood was not included in the list in 2010, while he was still living, yet Samuel and Arthur Chatto were mentioned. Spheno's theory appears to be the right one.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Princess Mary's son the 7th Earl of Harewood was not included in the list in 2010, while he was still living, yet Samuel and Arthur Chatto were mentioned. Spheno's theory appears to be the right one.
Click to expand...




It appears that the following persons are now officially considered members of the Royal Family:





1. Descendants of King George VI and their respective consorts.


or



2. Other descendants of King George V who hold the title of Prince (or Princess) of the United Kingdom and their respective consorts.




Under those criteria, the descendants of the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent and descendants of Mary, Princess Royal are not considered members of the RF.



Probably, when Charles becomes King, the definition may be narrowed down to descendants of Queen Elizabeth II only, thereby excluding the Earl of Snowdon, Lady Sarah Chatto and their respective consorts and descendants. That would better chararacterize the current RF as the Mountbatten-Windsor family plus the Phillips, Brooksbank and Tindall families, and Princess Beatrice's future family if applicable.
 
Last edited:
I’ve had a read through the thread but it’s never fully been explained why the Duchess of York is on the list. Is it because she and Andrew have never remarried?
 
crm2317 said:
I’ve had a read through the thread but it’s never fully been explained why the Duchess of York is on the list. Is it because she and Andrew have never remarried?
Click to expand...

As far as I am aware the palace has never issued an explanation. In contrast to other monarchies, no clear rules exist in Britain regarding membership of the Royal Family.
 
It's said that the Queen considers The Lady Saltoun, widow of Alexander Ramsay of Mar - a great-grandson of Queen Victoria, a member of the Royal family.
In the post below about William and Kate's wedding, where The Lady Saltoun was listed with the members of the Royal family, Marlene Koenig explains that - "Membership in the Royal Family can extend to the children of a princesss (who is not the sovereign), but not the princess' grandchildren."
http://royalmusingsblogspotcom.blogspot.com/2011/04/members-of-british-royal-family-who.html?m=1
 
JR76 said:
It's said that the Queen considers The Lady Saltoun, widow of Alexander Ramsay of Mar - a great-grandson of Queen Victoria, a member of the Royal family.
In the post below about William and Kate's wedding, where The Lady Saltoun was listed with the members of the Royal family, Marlene Koenig explains that - "Membership in the Royal Family can extend to the children of a princesss (who is not the sovereign), but not the princess' grandchildren."
Royal Musings: Members of the British royal family who will be attending the wedding
Click to expand...

I cannot find the link to the current list but aren't princess Margaret's and the princess royal's grandchildren included?
 
crm2317 said:
I’ve had a read through the thread but it’s never fully been explained why the Duchess of York is on the list. Is it because she and Andrew have never remarried?
Click to expand...

No explanation has ever been given. But with the British Royal Family, it's quite clear that The Boss (as Fergie and Diana nicknamed her) is the one who decides whose in and whose out. It's common knowledge that The Queen and Fergie enjoyed a very good relationship during her marriage to Prince Andrew, and that Fergie has maintained a relationship with The Queen since their divorce. She was steps away from her at Lady Gabriella's wedding right in the thick of it when they waved goodbye at the end of the wedding.

Fergie has always been in and I dare say in a year or two she'll be even more in than she is currently.
 
Well, there's this:

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entert...an-markle-prince-harry-demoted-royal-website/

I couldn't get the royal.uk site to load, so maybe they're still changing it. If the other non-working-royal grandkids aren't on there, I don't see why H&M are. And I really don't see why Harry's bio hasn't been changed since 18 months ago. Every single thing in it is false. They're not balancing their time between the US and the UK, they're not honoring any duty to the Queen and Commonwealth (and it can be reasonably argued that they no longer have any duty to either), they no longer have patronages, and Frogmore Cottage is no longer their family home.
 
UglyAmerican said:
Well, there's this:

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entert...an-markle-prince-harry-demoted-royal-website/

I couldn't get the royal.uk site to load, so maybe they're still changing it. If the other non-working-royal grandkids aren't on there, I don't see why H&M are. And I really don't see why Harry's bio hasn't been changed since 18 months ago. Every single thing in it is false. They're not balancing their time between the US and the UK, they're not honoring any duty to the Queen and Commonwealth (and it can be reasonably argued that they no longer have any duty to either), they no longer have patronages, and Frogmore Cottage is no longer their family home.
Click to expand...

I could access to the link to the Royal Family website as of now (Sunday 6th June afternoon in Australia). If I scroll down to the "Members of the Royal Family", I could see the new "order" of the royal family members listed down the page. The order is now (including left/right double panel):
The Prince of Wales
The Duchess of Cornwall | The Duchess of Cambridge
The Duke of Cambridge
The Princess Royal
The Duke of York | The Countess of Wessex
The Earl of Wessex
The Duke of Sussex
The Duchess of Sussex | Princess Alexandra
The Duke of Kent
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester | (Shown as a half panel rather than full)
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
Click to expand...

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family

Other newspaper have picked this news up including the Daily Mail.
 
AC21091968 said:
I could access to the link to the Royal Family website as of now (Sunday 6th June afternoon in Australia). If I scroll down to the "Members of the Royal Family", I could see the new "order" of the royal family members listed down the page. The order is now (including left/right double panel):

The Prince of Wales
The Duchess of Cornwall | The Duchess of Cambridge
The Duke of Cambridge
The Princess Royal
The Duke of York | The Countess of Wessex
The Earl of Wessex
The Duke of Sussex
The Duchess of Sussex | Princess Alexandra
The Duke of Kent
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester | (Shown as a half panel rather than full)
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
Click to expand...

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family

Other newspaper have picked this news up including the Daily Mail.
Click to expand...

When I pull the website up on my laptop it shows up differently than you've listed as above.

The screen is essentially divided into thirds - the left two thirds have a "major" family member while the corresponding right third has their spouse or sibling.

Left Side | Right Side
The Prince of Wales | The Duchess of Cornwall
The Duke of Cambridge | The Duchess of Cambridge
The Princess Royal | The Duke of York
The Earl of Wessex | The Countess of Wessex
The Duke of Sussex | The Duchess of Sussex
The Duke of Kent | Princess Alexandra
The Duke of Gloucester | The Duchess of Gloucester
Prince & Princess Michael of Kent

I find it interesting that they left off The Duchess of Kent. I realize she has been retired from royal duties for many years but if that is the reason for her omission then shouldn't the same logic apply to the The Duke & Duchess of Sussex as well as The Duke of York? They could have included her and dropped Princess Alexandra down to the empty space next to her younger brother & his wife.
 
Sunnystar said:
When I pull the website up on my laptop it shows up differently than you've listed as above.

at is the reason for her omission then shouldn't the same logic apply to the The Duke & Duchess of Sussex as well as The Duke of York? They could have included her and dropped Princess Alexandra down to the empty space next to her younger brother & his wife.
Click to expand...

[...]They are still members of the queen's family if not working royals. But I can't imagien that they beleive that the 2 will come back at some stage...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I noticed this a couple of days ago. I suspect they're still there because Harry is Charles' son, much like Andrew is still there because he's the Queen's son. But they're "demoted" because they're not working royals or part of the core group any more.

And there also still there so Harry and Meghan have no cause to find *that* cruel or unusual. The "they're still family" message.

What's also interesting is the inclusion of Prince and Princess Michael since they're not full time working royals, in the CC and even their write up says their activities says their visits to their patronages are "funded by his own household".
 
Denville said:
Perhaps they fear that if they took the Sussexes off completely, they would react badly? They are still members of the queen's family if not working royals. But I can't imagien that they beleive that the 2 will come back at some stage...
Click to expand...

When was Prince Philip removed? Upon his retirement, or upon his death?

I can't imagine anyone wants the two of them back at this point, though there might be a path back for Harry in the distant future if his personal circumstances change, or perhaps even for his children depending on how things shake out. I guess maybe they want to keep the bios that talk about what they (mostly Harry) did in an official capacity before leaving, but surely other retired royals who aren't listed also have accomplishments deserving of recognition, and some of them aren't on there. I just can't wrap my head around the logic of listing only Harry and Meghan while omitting every last one of the other non-working-royal grandchildren.
 
well like it or not Harry IS the second son of the future King.. and he has a child and will soon have another one who is the queen's great grandchild. So for the moment he's still there.
 
UglyAmerican said:
When was Prince Philip removed? Upon his retirement, or upon his death?
Click to expand...

Upon his death.

I am not sure why headlines are presenting the change as a "demotion" of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when the change is systematic for the entire list. Before it followed the order of succession to the throne. Now it follows the degree of kinship to any monarch and then by age in the same degree: future Kings in order of age, then younger children of the Queen and future King in order of age, then grandchildren by younger sons of a King in order of age. I find the new method more logical as the order of succession does not accurately reflect seniority; Peter Phillips is senior to the Duke of Kent according to the order of succession, but it does not work that way in practice.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
crm2317 said:
I’ve had a read through the thread but it’s never fully been explained why the Duchess of York is on the list. Is it because she and Andrew have never remarried?
Click to expand...

As Lord Royal said, no explanation was given for the inclusions on the list of the Royal Family. But another document on the same page states that

Using Royal names or Royal residences on products, rather than as part of a Company’s name, is illegal if the use of the name suggests the goods have some connection with or are supplied to a Member of the Royal Family. It is only proposed to vary these rules on occasional events of national importance.​

So inclusion on the list of Royal Family members assures legal protection against commercial exploitation of the member's name. It could be that the inclusiveness of the list is because even members of the Queen's extended family are assessed to be at risk of having their names made use of for marketing.

Here is the most recent list. It has not been updated to reflect the death of the Duke of Edinburgh. It has also forgotten that the new Earl and Countess of Snowdon are a peer and peeress and their daughter a Lady.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf
 
Last edited:
If the Duchess of York remarried would her name still be on the list?
 
Tatiana Maria said:
I am not sure why headlines are presenting the change as a "demotion" of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when the change is systematic for the entire list. Before it followed the order of succession to the throne. Now it follows the degree of kinship to any monarch and then by age in the same degree: future Kings in order of age, then younger children of the Queen and future King in order of age, then grandchildren by younger sons of a King in order of age. I find the new method more logical as the order of succession does not accurately reflect seniority; Peter Phillips is senior to the Duke of Kent according to the order of succession, but it does not work that way in practice.
Click to expand...

Because "demotion" is a more interesting/clickbait headline.

And whilst HM, PC/DC, DDOC, Queen's other children in birth order is a logical choice, they almost certainly would have kept using the previous version with them more prominently placed if they were still working royals. Hence "demotion".

It's a "they're still family but they aren't the current/future core of the Firm" signal.
 
Last edited:
Heavs said:
Because "demotion" is a more interesting/clickbait headline.

And whilst HM, PC/DC, DDOC, Queen's other children in birth order, DDOS is a logical choice, they almost certainly would have kept using the previous version with them more prominently placed if they were still working royals. Hence "demotion".
Click to expand...
Also, because, given the events of the last 18 months, the Sussexes couldn't have stayed in their previous positions. Change was inevitable and the fact is, they did got pushed down in reflection of these events. Now, it was cleverly done but as you say, I agree with your statement re previous version.

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.
 
UglyAmerican said:
I just can't wrap my head around the logic of listing only Harry and Meghan while omitting every last one of the other non-working-royal grandchildren.
Click to expand...

I suspect it because, if Harry and Meghan are removed, every media outlet from here to Timbuktu will be screeching that they've been thrown out of the Royal Family. I'd far rather see the other grandchildren, who are a credit to the monarchy whilst Harry and Meghan have done nothing of late other than attack it, on there, but the Queen is too wise to want to risk a load of controversial headlines.
 
AC21091968 said:
I could access to the link to the Royal Family website as of now (Sunday 6th June afternoon in Australia). If I scroll down to the "Members of the Royal Family", I could see the new "order" of the royal family members listed down the page. The order is now (including left/right double panel):


https://www.royal.uk/royal-family

Other newspaper have picked this news up including the Daily Mail.
Click to expand...


At least the Sussex's are now after the hard working, non-complaining Wessex's though I am sure this will not sit well with them.
 
The new listing looks like they used the Order of Precedence, not Order of Succession.
BUT, why are the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra listed ahead of the Duke of Gloucester?.
.
 
Last edited:
Fijiro said:
The new listing looks like they used the Order of Precedence, not Order of Succession.
BUT, why are the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra listed ahead of the Duke of Gloucester?.
.
Click to expand...

It seems to have something to do with age/literal seniority. Anne is ahead of her younger brothers, which isn't the case with succession (and there's no co-ed precedence, to my knowledge).

The working Kent siblings are older.
 
Fijiro said:
The new listing looks like they used the Order of Precedence, not Order of Succession.
BUT, why are the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra listed ahead of the Duke of Gloucester?.
.
Click to expand...

Yes, good question. It's not because of age - if that were the case then they would be behind Prince & Princess Michael also. And, furthering on the question of why the Michaels and Sussexes were included when they aren't working royals - why weren't Eugenie & Beatrice included since they are HRHs despite being non-working royals as well? The Katharine Kent exclusion is still really bugging me too.
 
:previous: Thank you for the correction on the ages. Perhaps it is by age for the working royals (in the same degree of kinship), followed by the nonworking royals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Biri
B
Z
The new order of precedence
Replies
2
Views
7K
LauraS3514
LauraS3514
Blog Real
Godchildren of King Charles III
Replies
5
Views
3K
SirGyamfi1
S
Y
"A Royal Life" by HRH The Duke of Kent and Hugo Vickers (2022)
Replies
1
Views
1K
Somebody
Somebody
Iluvbertie
British Royal Family Engagements 2020
2 3
Replies
85
Views
15K
Iluvbertie
Iluvbertie

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom