The Royal Family Order (RFO) and other Royal Orders and Decorations 1: Ending 2022

[Iluvbertie]

IMO the personal honor that appears to have some "criteria" in terms of length of service it is the Royal Victorian Order.


These ladies who married into the BRF received their orders after many years of service to QEII, unlike the their RFOs which for two of them came within months of their weddings.



Katherine (Kent)- RFO- 1960, RVO- 1977
Brigitte- RFO-1973, RVO-1989
Sophie-RFO-2004, RVO-2012

Camilla-RFO-2007, RVO-2013.


Princess Alexandra received her RFO in 1952 and her RVO in 1960.
Princess Anne received her RFO in 1969 and her RVO in 1977. She is the current Dame Commander of the RVO.



The late Diana, Princess of Wales never received the RVO.



(Interestingly enough the DoE just received his RVO in 2017!)

The RVO is given to 'minor royals' as a general rule. The reason why the DoE received it in 2017 is that it was the only order he didn't have and there was nothing else for the Queen to give him.

Note that neither Charles nor William have it but every other working royal male does along with many of the women.

 

[Dalriada]

Princess Michael does not carry out engagements on behalf of the BRF. This might explain why.

Occasionally Princess Michael represents HM during state and official visits eg. The music concert at RAH for The President of Ireland during Irish State visit to UK and also attended pontificial masses during visits of two popes.

 

[Rudolph]

DYK that the image on HMQ’s Royal Family Order shows her wearing the Nizam of Hyderabad diamond necklace. This was the first necklace that she loaned to the Duchess of Cambridge.

Pic

Via Cepe Smith Twitter

 

[wartenberg7]

I guess if some families can have Granny's secret recipes, this royal Granny can have her own secrets that will never be revealed and the rest of the family isn't talking either. We have no clue if the RFO is dependent on being a "working" royal or not. Its a private family thing.

Beatrice and Eugenie may very well have their grandmother's RFO but haven't really had a chance to be somewhere where they'd wear them. The Commonwealth dinner hosted by the Queen was a black tie event and orders are usually only worn at white tie events if memory serves me right.

Well, I´m not sure if there really is a "recipe" or concept these days behind when one gets it.
I agree though that this is a private matter.

 

[Nico]

Occasionally Princess Michael represents HM during state and official visits eg. The music concert at RAH for The President of Ireland during Irish State visit to UK and also attended pontificial masses during visits of two popes.

She's catholic and Prince Michael had to renounce his rights in the order of succession to marry her. Seems difficult in that case to award her an order made to aknowledge the services to the Crown and the Dynasty.

 

[Osipi]

She's catholic and Prince Michael had to renounce his rights in the order of succession to marry her. Seems difficult in that case to award her an order made to aknowledge the services to the Crown and the Dynasty.

I think you're confusing the Royal Family Order with the Royal Victorian Order. The RVO is the one that the Queen bestows on people for their service to the Crown both within her own family and to public figures she deems worthy. ?

 

[Nico]

I think you're confusing the Royal Family Order with the Royal Victorian Order. The RVO is the one that the Queen bestows on people for their service to the Crown both within her own family and to public figures she deems worthy. ?

There is no confusion at all. We can agree that the Queen values enormously the orders inside her own family. I do think the RFO is extra special because it's only awarded to women, and yes women who contributed to the good run of the "Firm". It would have made no sense to bestow an order to someone who is not , at least officially, part of the full time "female force" of the BRF.
The RVO is the sherry on the cake ...

 

[Osipi]

I see your point, Nico. It just may be the reality of it all that Queen Elizabeth II is the first monarch to see the RFO as something that means something rather than the previous monarchs that seemed to see it as "you're female and you're part of my family so you get my RFO" kind of thing. Kind of along the same lines as it is Charles who has really written the job description book on being The Prince of Wales.

I wish the Queen gave interviews. I would love to have someone ask her questions about the RFO and have her answer them.

 

[maria-olivia]

But never giving Princess Margaret the Garter Order , and not giving the Duchesses of York the RFO is Her Majesty's Will.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Were any Royal Family Orders made for the reign of King Edward VIII?

 

[Iluvbertie]

She's catholic and Prince Michael had to renounce his rights in the order of succession to marry her. Seems difficult in that case to award her an order made to aknowledge the services to the Crown and the Dynasty.

He didn't have to 'renounce' anything. It was automatic and he has it back now anyway.

The award is for personal service to the monarch ... and not dependent on anything other than the Queen's view that the person has provided such service.

There is no confusion at all. We can agree that the Queen values enormously the orders inside her own family. I do think the RFO is extra special because it's only awarded to women, and yes women who contributed to the good run of the "Firm". It would have made no sense to bestow an order to someone who is not , at least officially, part of the full time "female force" of the BRF.
The RVO is the sherry on the cake ...

The RFO was created to be given to women so there is nothing special about it being given to women only.

Many women were given them almost immediately on becoming a member of the family but by the mid-80s she had changed her mind clearly.

Diana had the RFO within a year of marriage but Sarah never received it so why they change between 1982 and 1986?

The only reason that makes sense is that by 1986 she knew that Charles and Diana's marriage was over (which it was and many people knew that ... the first rumours I heard about it being a disaster and basically over was in 1981) so she made new members of the family wait a lot longer.

We don't know if she has given it to any of her granddaughters - and may never know that as they probably will never appear at an event where they would wear it but it would by highly unusual to give it to a granddaughter in law and not to her own granddaughters but then again she may very well have decided not to give it to her granddaughters.

George V gave her his RFO basically at birth and George VI gave Alexandra his virtually at her birth. We have no idea if Elizabeth II followed suit.

 

[Dman]

Were any Royal Family Orders made for the reign of King Edward VIII?

No, he never got a chance to commission his family order.

 

[sophie25]

He didn't have to 'renounce' anything. It was automatic and he has it back now anyway.

The award is for personal service to the monarch ... and not dependent on anything other than the Queen's view that the person has provided such service.

No one knows why a lady gets or dosn't get the RFO but, as a previous poster pointed out, Princesss Michael is a Catholic so perhaps that is why the Queen has chosen to exclude her. To be honest, I have always suspected this was the reason she didn't receive it as the British monarchy has always been vehemently anti-catholic and although some criteria has changed with regards to who they can marry I suspect that the same prejudices still and will exist for a long time to come.

 

[VictoriaB]

No one knows why a lady gets or dosn't get the RFO but, as a previous poster pointed out, Princesss Michael is a Catholic so perhaps that is why the Queen has chosen to exclude her. To be honest, I have always suspected this was the reason she didn't receive it as the British monarchy has always been vehemently anti-catholic and although some criteria has changed with regards to who they can marry I suspect that the same prejudices still and will exist for a long time to come.

The Queen awarded Cardinal Hume the Order of Merit, she invited his successor as Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal O’Connor to stay with her at Sandringham and to preach at Sandringham (Church of England) Parish Church. That suggests to me that there is no anti-Catholicism in the decision. If the Queen could honour both these representatives of the Catholic faith I doubt she would have difficulty giving Princess Michael the RFO based on her religion.

 

[Iluvbertie]

No one knows why a lady gets or dosn't get the RFO but, as a previous poster pointed out, Princesss Michael is a Catholic so perhaps that is why the Queen has chosen to exclude her. To be honest, I have always suspected this was the reason she didn't receive it as the British monarchy has always been vehemently anti-catholic and although some criteria has changed with regards to who they can marry I suspect that the same prejudices still and will exist for a long time to come.

The British monarchy is NOT vehemently anti-Catholic at all. It hasn't been for centuries. It was in the days when the Roman Catholic church kept telling their followers that they would go to heaven if they killed the English/British monarch. Since they stopped doing that there hasn't been any real issue at all.

The most senior non-royal peer in the land is a Roman Catholic and is the person who plans every major royal event including the two recent royal weddings, along with the State Openings of Parliaments, funerals, coronations etc.

The monarch MUST be a member of the Church of England for very obvious reasons.

I doubt if anyone would accept a member of the Church of England as the Pope so why expect that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England shouldn't belong to the CoE.

 

[sophie25]

It has only been in the last few years that a member of the family has been allowed to marry a catholic without losing their place in the line of succession, it's never just been a case of the Monarch being a protestant.

 

[Somebody]

It has only been in the last few years that a member of the family has been allowed to marry a catholic without losing their place in the line of succession, it's never just been a case of the Monarch being a protestant.

That was to make sure that those born in such a marriage wouodn't grow up cstholics (in Luxembourg for this reason the religion of their royal family changed from protestant to catholic and within the BRF there are also several exampkes of both growing up Catholic and becoming a Catholic later in life and mostly that has something to do with the married-in member of the BRF.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The monarch MUST be a member of the Church of England for very obvious reasons.

I doubt if anyone would accept a member of the Church of England as the Pope so why expect that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England shouldn't belong to the CoE.

That was to make sure that those born in such a marriage wouodn't grow up cstholics (in Luxembourg for this reason the religion of their royal family changed from protestant to catholic and within the BRF there are also several exampkes of both growing up Catholic and becoming a Catholic later in life and mostly that has something to do with the married-in member of the BRF.

If the reason was merely to ensure that the monarch would be a Protestant, then Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists would be treated in the same manner as Catholics (but at least in legislation, they are not).

 

[Somebody]

If the reason was merely to ensure that the monarch would be a Protestant, then Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists would be treated in the same manner as Catholics (but at least in legislation, they are not).

I agree but when that law was crafted the only other relevant denomination (not even a different religion) was Catholicism. Had Hinduism been the issue at that time, marriage to a Hindu would surely have been forbidden.

So, yes, nowadays if a similar law would have been crafted, it would have made sense to require the partner/anyone in the line of succession to be Anglican (as in a member of one of the churches within the Anglican community) instead of mentioning what they cannot be.

 

[Stefan]

That was to make sure that those born in such a marriage wouodn't grow up cstholics (in Luxembourg for this reason the religion of their royal family changed from protestant to catholic and within the BRF there are also several exampkes of both growing up Catholic and becoming a Catholic later in life and mostly that has something to do with the married-in member of the BRF.

A difference however is that the british Monarch is Defernder of the Faith the Head of the anglican Chruch which is not the Case in Luxembourg.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I agree but when that law was crafted the only other relevant denomination (not even a different religion) was Catholicism. Had Hinduism been the issue at that time, marriage to a Hindu would surely have been forbidden.

So, yes, nowadays if a similar law would have been crafted, it would have made sense to require the partner/anyone in the line of succession to be Anglican (as in a member of one of the churches within the Anglican community) instead of mentioning what they cannot be.

I was referring to the other remaining differences in the laws regarding Catholics compared to the laws regarding Hindus, Orthodox Christians, and so forth, as the prohibition on marriage to Catholics was repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act.

 

[Tilia C.]

Please return to the topic of the Royal Family Order. Any further off-topic post will be deleted.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

No, he never got a chance to commission his family order.

Would Edward VIII have able to commission his Royal Family Order only after his coronation?

 

[Dman]

Would Edward VIII have able to commission his Royal Family Order only after his coronation?

I think female members of the royal family would’ve been awarded the Order just before the Coronation. It would’ve been worn at the Coronation.

 

[Nico]

Would Edward VIII have able to commission his Royal Family Order only after his coronation?

It was probably in progress, and they just changed the portrait ...

 

[Dman]

It was probably in progress, and they just changed the portrait ...

That just probably what happened too.

 

[Madame Verseau]

Can you imagine what the press would do if the the queen decides to give Meghan an RFO and she hasn't been royal for six months? As many said there is no set requirement to receive one but the press will cook up Game of Thrones scenarios to get the clicks.

 

[Terri Terri]

I think that it will be years before that happens. For Meghan to receive an RFO now would be totally out of character for the Queen and how she operates.

 

[jacqui24]

Can we please stop arguing about Meghan getting an RFO? It is way too early, and I can't deal with the same arguments back and forth without anything on substance.

 

[Iluvbertie]

To me the only reason why the Queen might give Meghan the RFO in less time than Kate was if she knew she wasn't going to live that long. In that case I can see the Queen giving it to Meghan earlier than Kate simply so that she has it.

If the Queen was told by the doctor's for instance, that she had six months to live, I can see her ensuring that all her female descendants and Meghan have her RFO.

Otherwise I would expect Meghan to also have to wait for another six or so years.