Relationships between Members of the British Royal Family

[Spheno]

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge would be correct IF she were divorced as happened with Diana when she became Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah who is Sarah, Duchess of York. That was their styling after their divorces

HRH Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge would be correct IF she were widowed. This is the standard way a widowed peeress is referred to officially although in the past TM George VI and Elizabeth II allowed the widows of the late Dukes of Kent and Gloucester to be referred to as TRH Princess Marina and Princess Alice respectively. Princess Marina, of course, was Princess Marina from birth but in the UK she was Princess Edward. Having set that precedent when the late Duke of Gloucester died Elizabeth allowed her aunt to use HRH Princess Alice even though she had never had that style in her own right. Using that precedent it is conceivable that a widowed Kate may be allowed to use HRH Princess Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge but that decision would only be made at the time she became a widow - assuming she hasn't a higher title to use.

As she is neither the correct styling is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge - no use of the name Catherine at all. If she is to use a name it would be as HRH Princess William. On her marriage she lost the right to use her own name in official documents until she is HM Queen Catherine.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/02/article-2383616-1B1DE0B1000005DC-985_964x1000.jpg

 

[Osipi]

William was probably advised to enter her given names and then her title. Notice whereas William has his full title with his name, Kate doesn't. He actually entered her names *and* her title to be clear who the mother was. When it comes to using Catherine, the subject at hand applies to her titles and styles.

Actually should the need arise in the UK where she needs a surname, it would be Catherine Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor. The only time she's had to use a legal name so far though was in France filing a lawsuit against the photos that were an invasion of privacy. There, as per the French legal system, she was required to use her maiden name of Catherine Elizabeth Middleton. William used William Mountbatten-Windsor as UK titles are not recognized in France.

I suppose that somehow, someway, this does kind of serve to the topic of relationships between the members of the British royal family as it tell us just how the titles and styles show the relationship between these people.

 

[Denville]

that is amusign that titles aren't recogised in France when they had a slew of royal families!! and a lot of very grand nobility still living there!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

that is amusign that titles aren't recogised in France when they had a slew of royal families!! and a lot of very grand nobility still living there!

The aristocracy has been abolished in France. But French state still verifies titles, (even though no privilege or precedence is derived from a title), these are protected by law. Justice can prosecute abuse of titles. In general we can say that in France titles have the same legal protection from usurpation as the family name.

In 1987 there was a lawsuit of Henri d'Orléans against Don Alfonso de Borbón y Dampierre, and asked French Justice to prevent him from using the title of Duc d'Anjou. This shows that the French state indeed still holds jurisdiction over titles indeed.

 

[royal-blue]

I would like to see the Queen being accompanied by Princess Michael of Kent on some engagements.

 

[Curryong]

This is the wrong thread, but I don't think the Queen and Princess Michael are that close. I really think she'd prefer her children and grandchildren to perform that duty. Besides, Princess Michael doesn't really do a lot of Royal engagements.

 

[muriel]

I would like to see the Queen being accompanied by Princess Michael of Kent on some engagements.

Why Princess Michael?

 

[Lord_Royal]

This is the wrong thread, but I don't think the Queen and Princess Michael are that close. I really think she'd prefer her children and grandchildren to perform that duty. Besides, Princess Michael doesn't really do a lot of Royal engagements.

There are many photographs of HM and PMK laughing at various horse races together on the balcony of the royal box just the two of them.

PMK has always struck me as a very amusing person who can carry on a conversation with lots of enthusiasm and energy. HM, whether she has a lot in common with PMK or not, could very well find her quite amusing.

I imagine most of the RF have a cordial relationship. The youngest generation of Peter & Zara/William & Harry/Beatrice & Eugenie all grew up together at about the same time and suffered some of the same losses and seem very friendly with each other.

 

[Molly2101]

I imagine most of the RF have a cordial relationship. The youngest generation of Peter & Zara/William & Harry/Beatrice & Eugenie all grew up together at about the same time and suffered some of the same losses and seem very friendly with each other.

I think they're like any other sets of cousins and it's always nice to see them laughing together. I am evening seeing sweet moments between the older cousins and Louise and James. They are of course much younger and didn't have the same experiences of growing up with cousins (although they do seem to be close to the Phillips' children), but I have seen some lovely moments between the older cousins and the younger two.

I have also noticed Eugenie making a conscious effort with Louise in many videos. At easter I noticed in the video of arrivals that Eugenie put her arm around Louise as they walked into the church and she also did the same when they were all walking back up the hill. I've seen Eugenie with Louise a few times which is lovely to see.

I think considering the large age gaps between the older 6 and the younger 2, their relationships are cordial enough.

 

[Denville]

There are many photographs of HM and PMK laughing at various horse races together on the balcony of the royal box just the two of them.

PMK has always struck me as a very amusing person who can carry on a conversation with lots of enthusiasm and energy. HM, whether she has a lot in common with PMK or not, could very well find her quite amusing.

I imagine most of the RF have a cordial relationship. The youngest generation of Peter & Zara/William & Harry/Beatrice & Eugenie all grew up together at about the same time and suffered some of the same losses and seem very friendly with each other.

have you got any links? I can't remember seeing them together and as PM lives a lot of the time in America, I don't think she has doen any Royal engagments in years. She's busy iwht her business interests and writing and although I think they still have a base in the UK, they are not usually considered "working royals".
In fact, from early on, Pss Michael was I thought considered rather OTT for the RF and her ways of calling attention to herself were considered a bit vulgar. I thought that the queen had said she was "too grand for them", with her insistence that she was as "good" or better than them in terms of "good blood".

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

have you got any links? I can't remember seeing them together and as PM lives a lot of the time in America, I don't think she has doen any Royal engagments in years. She's busy iwht her business interests and writing and although I think they still have a base in the UK, they are not usually considered "working royals".
In fact, from early on, Pss Michael was I thought considered rather OTT for the RF and her ways of calling attention to herself were considered a bit vulgar. I thought that the queen had said she was "too grand for them", with her insistence that she was as "good" or better than them in terms of "good blood".

Just google on Queen and Princess Michael, plenty of pics of them together.

And Princess Michael is a frequent attendant at events. This week she was at the State Banquet for the King of Spain. You can spot her at Royal Ascot, at the Queen's Birthday Parade (Trooping), at Wimbledon, at the Remembrance Sunday ceremonies and other events, also outside the UK (often in Russia and Eastern Europe).

I have no idea where your assumption "she has not done royal engagements for years" comes from. By my best knowledge the Prince and Princess Michael live in the very centre of London, at Kensington Palace and are not living in the USA for longer periods.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Prince and Princess Michael rarely do royal engagements. This has always been the case for them. They don't represent The Queen. They do attend the big family events and the odd reception but they don't do regular royal engagements. They are the Beatrice and Eugenie of their generation - HRHs who are surplus to requirements except for the really big events.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Queen and Prince Michael share a grandfather, that is distantly related. It is logical that the Michaels are hardly seen. In no any other monarchy so distant family still has royal engagements, so that we can regularly spot the glamorous Michaels is only a bonus. That the Michaels have few royal engagements says nothing about the relationship between Elizabeth-Philip and Michael-Marie Christine, which seems cordial and warm to me.

 

[Ilse]

The Queen and Prince Michael share a grandfather, that is distantly related. It is logical that the Michaels are hardly seen. In no any other monarchy so distant family still has royal engagements, so that we can regularly spot the glamorous Michaels is only a bonus. That the Michaels have few royal engagements says nothing about the relationship between Elizabeth-Philip and Michael-Marie Christine, which seems cordial and warm to me.

But the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are also distantly related and they have numerous official engagements...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are also distantly related and they have numerous official engagements...

The answer on your question from the offical website:

"The Court Circular records the official engagements carried out by The Queen and Members of the Royal family. Engagements undertaken by Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are not included in the Court Circular because they do not usually carry out official duties on behalf of The Queen. Prince Michael is not eligible for the parliamentary annuities received by other members of the Royal Family, because he is a second son.

Under prima genitor rules it is Prince Michael’s older brother, The Duke of Kent, who carries out official duties which are included in the Court Circular. Prince Michael’s sister, Princess Alexandra, was asked by the Queen to undertake such duties because of a lack of female members of the family during the 1960s. However, although not categorised as ‘official’, Prince and Princess Michael carry out a great many charitable and public engagements each year both in the United Kingdom and abroad."

 

[JR76]

But the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are also distantly related and they have numerous official engagements...

The anomaly here is Alexandra who was asked by the Queen to support her because at the time, in the early 50s, there was a shortage of royals available to do so. The Duke of Kent was in active service for many years but was always meant to do his share of representing the Queen while Michael as a younger wasnt. If we look at the Duke of Gloucester, he and Brigitte were destined for a private life much like the Michaels with Richard an educated architect but they soon had to change their plans when Prince William died and Richard became heir to the dukedom.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would never class first cousins as distant relations though, which is what the Queen and Michael are. They are the same relationship as Beatrice and Eugenie are to William and Harry.

Michael, like Richard, as the second son was supposed to have a private life and career while the future Dukes were supposed to prepare for a life of royal duties after a number of years of doing more private things e.g. the Duke of Kent did 20 years in the army before taking up royal duties. Their wives were going to be expected to work for the family from day 1 as we saw with the Duchess of Kent who started doing royal duties fairly early in her marriage.

Michael's marriage to a Roman Catholic, and thus taking him out of the line of succession at the time, was often stated as the reason why he didn't carry out duties on behalf of HM when the reality was he was never going to do so and given his closeness in age to both Charles and Anne he was not going to be needed.

Why there are so many now is that the Queen's cousins are all still working (except for the Duchess of Kent, her children are all grown and married with two working spouses and now her grandsons have reached royal working age (been there for a decade but due to the bottle-neck at the older end have been allowed to do very little royal work wise for the last decade or so rather than doing their share of the load - and thus they are now nearly middle-aged (or in the words of some of my 13 year old Year 8 students - 'older than my parents so they aren't young) when they are starting their working life as royals).

The family really only needs about 8 people but that number has blown out due to only having had 2 of George V's 7 HRH grandchildren having past on while there are also the 4 children from the Queen and 4 from her grandchildren. This is why Charles is pushing for a 'smaller' royal family as he knows they don't need as many HRHs doing regular work and so going forward first cousins on the monarch won't be called into duty and only the children of the monarch will do so. Given the longevity of the current family and improving health it is likely that Charles will see his grandchildren start on their royal duties with their children already being here - or at least some of them. Britain is in for a series of grandfather kings rather than father kings - unless William decides to abdicate rather than serving until death. I don't see Charles doing that given the way he was raised but can see William deciding that 70 or 75 should be the retirement age for the monarch.

 

[Denville]

I think that it is probable that Willm when he is older will opt for abdication. Not Charles. But I was surprised to see that there are a lot of photos of Pss M with the Queen. I had thought she was living in the US mostly. however as a cousin, I imagine that when she is in the UK, she is invited to varous events, and so is photographed with the queen at times. But she and Prince M have never been "on the rota" for royal duties...

 

[Skippyboo]

Or William will do the complete opposite and stay on the throne until his death like most of the previous British monarchs. William knows firsthand that he would not be able to have the freedom of the past years without the Queen on the throne. If the Queen abdicated in 2012 after the diamond jubilee, both W&K are full time royals as heir apparent. No flying the ambulance, no spending time with the kids instead more than 100 engagements a year, multiple foreign tours in a year. He will want to give George's children the same freedom he and Harry got from the Queen being there.

Also, the Queen has schooled William in Kingship. Abdication is no no in her eyes.

 

[Osipi]

I think the UK will become a republic before we ever see a monarch abdicating.

As has been pointed out, William has learned from the best and has spent his entire life watching his grandmother executing the role of monarch day in and day out without fail and to the best of her ability. He's also seen his father diligently putting his heart and soul into his work as the Prince of Wales. George most likely will be the product of a more modern monarchy but I think it will be ingrained from an early age that British monarchs do not abdicate.

 

[Denville]

Things change. I think that William and certainly George wont want to go on slogging away at their job when they are 93 or so. Even Philip has now decided to give up royal duties. The queen is nearly 100 and is from a very different era.
perhaps it will become a republic indeed, I dotn know and honestly don't greatly care. But I think if it doesn't, the new idea of kings and queens abdicating or retiring when they get to an advanced age, will become a tradtion.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think the UK will become a republic before we ever see a monarch abdicating.

[...]

Edward VIII abdicated and the United Kingdom is still a monarchy. The same can be said about monarchs in Spain, Belgium, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands and the Vatican: none of the abdications there did result in a republic at all. On the contrary: one can claim that these abdications actually were good for the monarchies, as these revived the institution indeed.

Note that abdications are nothing new and are rooted in history. In her autobiography Queen Wilhelmina (who abdicated after a Reign of 58 years) wrote that she was inspired by Charles V (Holy Roman Emperor, Archduke of Austria, King of Spain, King of Italy, Duke of Burgundy, Lord of the Netherlands). He summoned the Lords States-General of the United Provinces (the Netherlands) in Ghent, in 1555. In that assembly he abdicated in favour of his son Felipe II. On the picture you Felipe with the Order of the Golden Fleece. The man at the other side is William I of Nassau, Prince of Orange. Emperor Charles V did retreat from public life: he went to a villa close to the Monastery of San Jerónimo de Yuste and died "as a humble man". He himself was inspired by the Roman Emperor Diocletianus, whom also abdicated and did retreat from public into an enclosed villa on the countryside.

Picture

There seems a sort of idea that an abdication is like the plague: it will kill the monarchy. Where that idea comes from is a total mystery. In no any case an abdication has led to a downfall. On the contrary, one would say...

 

[Dalriada]

The Queen and Prince Michael share a grandfather, that is distantly related. It is logical that the Michaels are hardly seen. In no any other monarchy so distant family still has royal engagements, so that we can regularly spot the glamorous Michaels is only a bonus. That the Michaels have few royal engagements says nothing about the relationship between Elizabeth-Philip and Michael-Marie Christine, which seems cordial and warm to me.

I can't believe royal watchers have forgotten that HRH PMK acted as "official" and unofficial representative of HM The Queen at various engagements surrounding the first historic state visit to Scotland, England and Wales by a reigning pontiff, HH the Pope Benedict and the first historic state visit to the UK (having already officially visited NI) by HE the President of Ireland (not the Irish Republic).

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I can't believe royal watchers have forgotten that HRH PMK acted as "official" and unofficial representative of HM The Queen at various engagements surrounding the first historic state visit to Scotland, England and Wales by a reigning pontiff, HH the Pope Benedict and the first historic state visit to the UK (having already officially visited NI) by HE the President of Ireland (not the Irish Republic).

On the own site of Prince Michael is explained that he does not form part of "the official royal family":

The Court Circular records the official engagements carried out by The Queen and Members of the Royal family. Engagements undertaken by Prince and Princess Michael of Kent are not included in the Court Circular because they do not usually carry out official duties on behalf of The Queen. Prince Michael is not eligible for the parliamentary annuities received by other members of the Royal Family, because he is a second son. Under prima genitor rules it is Prince Michael’s older brother, The Duke of Kent, who carries out official duties which are included in the Court Circular. Prince Michael’s sister, Princess Alexandra, was asked by the Queen to undertake such duties because of a lack of female members of the family during the 1960s. However, although not categorised as ‘official’, Prince and Princess Michael carry out a great many charitable and public engagements each year both in the United Kingdom and abroad.

 

[Dalriada]

I beg your pardon Duc, I was regretting to the scholarly Princess, Mare Christine. HM The Queen was obviously aware of the talents and background when she was given these respresentative duties for these two first historic state visits from The Holy See and Dublin. A German speaking Catholic of excellent of mid-European pedrigree would go down rather well in Bavaria and neutral Ireland.

 

[Dalriada]

Sorry for the predicted text., I meant referring

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Ow I thought the PMK in your post was Prince Michael of Kent. My fault.

 

[Leslie Mae]

Prince Charles on grandson George's first day at school - ITV News


Prince Charles comments on George's first day of school.

Like Charles knows anything about what his grandson's life.

 

[Osipi]

Like Charles knows anything about what his grandson's life.

What credible sources do you have that makes this statement a fact rather than a dig at Charles? You have no more idea of how this family interacts privately than anyone else does. So... provide sources please? ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Like Charles knows anything about what his grandson's life.

Why wouldn't he know things about his own grandson's life?

He does see him you know. Just because the trash magazines like to say otherwise doesn't make it true.

Sure I am no fan of either William or Harry and do believe that they aren't that close to their father but I also don't think William or Kate are that vindictive as to deny their children a chance to know their paternal grandfather.

There have been stories of George visiting Highgrove and planting things with Charles there etc etc.