Members of the Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
It seems to me too that they really cut the section on Meghan as well, but I believe they’d done that awhile back. The website used to have a lot more on her “page.”

I wish they would add the other grandchildren as well - as non working family members. If they did that by age, wouldn’t Peter and Zara be before Harry?
 
Honestly they should just remove the Sussexes and Andrew. They not working royals. The update is just a weird one.
 
Royalist.in.NC said:
I wish they would add the other grandchildren as well - as non working family members. If they did that by age, wouldn’t Peter and Zara be before Harry?
Click to expand...
Peter and Zara Phillips are not members of the "Royal Family" - they are members of The Queen's family. And there is a difference.
 
ACO said:
Honestly they should just remove the Sussexes and Andrew. They not working royals. The update is just a weird one.
Click to expand...
Yes, it's weird. I understand the BRF is in a difficult situation, and whatever they do there will likely be criticism. But this "new order with exemptions" is just ridiculous and typical for the BRF's halfheartedness. IMO it would have been enough to a) mention Harry on Prince Charles' page (the same goes for Prince Andrew who could have been mentioned on the Queen's page) or b) one page for the Duke & Duchess of Sussex together (like for Prince & Princess Michael). While Harry is a member of the family and son of a future king, Meghan is just an in-law and, regarding she was only a working royal for a very short time, IMO she doesn't deserve a page of her own (and it resembles too much the Cambridges' and Wessexes' pages).
All of the working royals should have been mentioned before them.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
The official website disagrees.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf
Click to expand...

Indeed they're members of the royal family even though they themselves aren't royal. The Windsors don't really make the distinction between Royal House and royal family.

Yes, it's weird. I understand the BRF is in a difficult situation, and whatever they do there will likely be criticism. But this "new order with exemptions" is just ridiculous and typical for the BRF's halfheartedness. IMO it would have been enough to a) mention Harry on Prince Charles' page (the same goes for Prince Andrew who could have been mentioned on the Queen's page) or b) one page for the Duke & Duchess of Sussex together (like for Prince & Princess Michael). While Harry is a member of the family and son of a future king, Meghan is just an in-law and, regarding she was only a working royal for a very short time, IMO she doesn't deserve a page of her own (and it resembles too much the Cambridges' and Wessexes' pages).
Click to expand...

I do think it's a bit awkward. But I think it is an attempt to follow through on the "they're still family" party line. The Sussexes have deliberately put them in an awful position and will claim victimhood if they're fully removed.

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.
 
Ok, folks, I am now totally confused about who is in the RF, the Royal House....:confused:

At the top of this website link it says “The Royal Family” - could someone please explain? Thanks!
 
Royalist.in.NC said:
Ok, folks, I am now totally confused about who is in the RF, the Royal House....:confused:

At the top of this website link it says “The Royal Family” - could someone please explain? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Its not all that clear. I wonder if they keep the Sussexes because there is a hope that some day they'll come back or at least Harry will and his children will perhaps do a bit of royal work/choose to settle in the UK? WRT Andrew, I think that the queen has too much of a soft spot for him and while she agrees that he has had to reitre from work, doesn't want him cast out and off the website completley....
 
Last edited:
Heavs said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


Royalist.in.NC said:
Ok, folks, I am now totally confused about who is in the RF, the Royal House....:confused:
Click to expand...

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.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf

Moran said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not in the previous version, but they used to be included in even older versions of the page.
 
Last edited:
Tatiana Maria said:
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.
Click to expand...

Prince Charles is the heir to the throne, so his descendants' biographies are on the official website.
.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but Queen Elizabeth II is the occupant of the throne, and not all of her descendants' biographies are on the official website.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
Yes, but Queen Elizabeth II is the occupant of the throne, and not all of her descendants' biographies are on the official website.
Click to expand...
But she has a LOT of grandchildren etc. Charles has only 2 sons,
 
The queen has only 8 grandchildren (4 of them prince(ss)) and Charles has 5 (3 of them prince(ss)); that's not an enormous difference.

So, I fully agree with Tatiana Maria that it is very inconsistent; however, they seem to be tip-toeing around the Sussexes. But either they should include all royal highnesses or only include the working senior royals (or any other consistent option).
 
I was wondering whether the Duke of Edinburgh's grandchildren participated in the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. I know that Louise and James are currently participating but I don't know about his 6 elder grandchildren.

It would surely be wonderful if his great-grandchildren would participate as well in a couple of years (it starts at age 14 I believe).
 
Somebody said:
I was wondering whether the Duke of Edinburgh's grandchildren participated in the Duke of Edinburgh Awards. I know that Louise and James are currently participating but I don't know about his 6 elder grandchildren.

It would surely be wonderful if his great-grandchildren would participate as well in a couple of years (it starts at age 14 I believe).
Click to expand...

To my knowledge - Eugenie started one , I am unsure if she completed a level as I couldn't find any detail of it online. So no one - Catherine did complete a Bronze level. I remember William saying in an interview at Eton that he was too busy.

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-05-24...nburgh-award-is-sore-subject-with-grandfather

Further afield - one of the Duke of Kent's daughter completed a bronze and I think so did Lady Helen Taylor's children.
 
Last edited:
It is interesting that, in contrast to most other modern European royal families until very recent times, it was British tradition to include descendants outside of the male lines, even those who did not carry British royal titles, as members of the Royal Family.

Here, for example, is the official "List of The Royal Family with their respective Residences and Suites" which was issued on the occasion of Queen Victoria's Diamond Jubilee in 1897. I have deleted the residences, etc. as only the names are relevant to this thread, and have bolded the descendants and relatives who are not male-line.


List of The Royal Family with their respective Residences and Suites.
(Those with asterisk were specially attached by command of The Queen.)
22ND JUNE, 1897.

Her Imperial Majesty The Empress Frederic.

Their Royal Highnesses The Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

Their Royal Highnesses The Prince and Princess Henry of Prussia.

Their Royal Highnesses The Prince and Princess Charles of Denmark.

Her Royal Highness The Hereditary Princess of Saxe-Meiningen and Her Serene Highness The Princess Feodore of Saxe-Meiningen.

His Highness The Prince and Her Royal Highness The Princess Frederic Charles of Hesse.

His Serene Highness The Prince and Her Royal Highness The Princess of Schaumburg Lippe.

Their Highnesses The Prince and Princess Aribert of Anhalt.

Their Royal Highnesses The Prince and Princess of Wales and Princess Victoria of Wales.

Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh), and The Princess Beatrice of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

His Royal Highness The Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.​

Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Connaught and Strathearne.

Their Royal Highnesses The Prince and Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, and Her Highness The Princess Victoria.

Their Highnesses The Princes Christian Victor and Albert of Schleswig-Holstein.​

Her Royal Highness The Princess Louise, Marchioness of Lome, and The Marquis of Lome.

Her Royal Highness The Princess Beatrice, Princess Henry of Battenberg.

Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Albany.

Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of York.

Her Royal Highness The Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife, and The Duke of Fife.

Her Royal Highness The Princess Frederica of Hanover and The Baron von Pawel Rammingen.

His Royal Highness The Duke of Cambridge.

Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Teck, and His Highness The Duke of Teck.
Their Serene Highnesses The Princes Francis and Alexander of Teck.​
Her Grand Ducal Highness The Princess Louis, and His Serene Highness The Prince Louis of Battenberg.

Her Grand Ducal Highness The Princess and His Serene Highness The Prince of Leiningen.

Their Highnesses The Prince and Princess Edward of Saxe-Weimar.

Her Serene Highness The Princess Victor of Hohenlohe and
Countesses Gleichen and Count Gleichen.

Their Serene Highnesses The Prince and Princess Adolphus of Teck.​


https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/34632/page/1693


As an aside, notice that all princes and princesses on the list are mentioned as The Prince or The Princess. The way it has been done by the present queen (restricting "The" to children of a sovereign) is not the tradition.
 
Question - why do we see the Kents and the Gloucesters and not Princess Mary's children/ grandchildren? Is it simply because they do engagements? If this was a family thing I think we would have seen them as late as the 1970's at least?
 
Tatiana Maria said:
It is interesting that, in contrast to most other modern European royal families until very recent times, it was British tradition to include descendants outside of the male lines, even those who did not carry British royal titles, as members of the Royal Family.
Click to expand...

The 1923 marriage of Lady Louise Mountbatten (female line great-granddaughter of Queen Victoria) to Crown Prince Gustav Adolf of Sweden was only approved after George V had declared that she was a member of the Royal family.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
His Serene Highness The Prince and Her Royal Highness The Princess of Schaumburg Lippe.
​
Click to expand...
would that be HSH Prince Adolf and HRH Princess Adolf of Schaumburg-Lippe as the Prince and Princess where not related to Queen Victoria in any way and the Princess was also no HRH
 
Claire said:
Question - why do we see the Kents and the Gloucesters and not Princess Mary's children/ grandchildren? Is it simply because they do engagements? If this was a family thing I think we would have seen them as late as the 1970's at least?
Click to expand...
Female-line descendants were never included in royal engagements and also due to some of the embarrassing behavior of Mary’s sons is why they weren’t always seen. Also because the Kent’s and Gloucester’s lives on royal property, Mary’s family never did.
 
Claire said:
Question - why do we see the Kents and the Gloucesters and not Princess Mary's children/ grandchildren? Is it simply because they do engagements? If this was a family thing I think we would have seen them as late as the 1970's at least?
Click to expand...

She Queen was quite friendly with the Earl of Harewood (Mary’s son) and right up until his death he was at big family occasions. I remember seeing him at a few things in the 2000’s. Definitely at the golden jubilee. I don’t know what year he died. He was the image of George V. I don’t know if she invites other members of the family to big events including her Bowes Lyon family. We wouldn’t recognise them anyway.

Beatrice was also at Harewood house to collect the Olympic flame in 2012…at least a I think it was then.

He died in 2011.
 
Last edited:
SirGyamfi1 said:
Female-line descendants were never included in royal engagements and also due to some of the embarrassing behavior of Mary’s sons is why they weren’t always seen. Also because the Kent’s and Gloucester’s lives on royal property, Mary’s family never did.
Click to expand...

what embarrassing behavour?
 
Denville said:
what embarrassing behavour?
Click to expand...
Lord Harewood was banished from court for having an illegitimate child while still married to his first wife whom he later divorced to marry the child's mother. His younger brother also divorced and remarried.
 
Rolls eyes. The attitudes of the past.
 
FigTree said:
Doesn't stop looking back on it and things what on earth.
Click to expand...

Its not that odd, back then, it was considered that royals should not get a divorce, hence the long drawn out problem about chlarles and diana's marriage breaking down. And having a child outside wedlock wasn't acceptable for most people until well into the 1970s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2 3
Replies
61
Views
3K
Blog Real
Blog Real
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