Members of the Royal Family

[SirGyamfi1]

Well that was back then, things have changed since and who counts as part of the BRF is very different now.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Ceremonial for George VI's funeral, in which many non-highness members of the British royal family, including Mary's children, are listed under "Members of the British and foreign royal families":

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/39575/supplement/3345

Well that was back then, things have changed since and who counts as part of the BRF is very different now.

The fact that many non-highnesses are counted as members has not changed. The current list is:


https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_14.pdf

ANNEX D

THE ROYAL FAMILY

The King
The Queen Consort
The Prince and Princess of Wales
Prince George of Wales
Princess Charlotte of Wales
Prince Louis of Wales
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex
Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor
The Duke of York
Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Mr. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
Miss Sienna Mapelli Mozzi
Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank and Mr. Jack Brooksbank
Master August Brooksbank
The Earl and Countess of Wessex and Forfar
Viscount Severn
The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence
Mr. Peter Phillips
Miss Savannah Phillips
Miss Isla Phillips
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tindall
Miss Mia Tindall
Miss Lena Tindall
Master Lucas Tindall
The Earl of Snowdon
Viscount Linley
The Lady Margarita Armstrong-Jones
The Lady Sarah Chatto and Mr. Daniel Chatto
Mr. Samuel Chatto
Mr. Arthur Chatto
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke and Duchess of Kent
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy
Sarah, Duchess of York

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Are you asking about Royal House or Royal family because the two are not the same.

 

[FigTree]

I'm pretty sure the reason that Mary's children were excluded, is that unlike her brother's children, her children weren't male-line grandchildren - and at that point only the male-line grandchildren were considered part of the royal family; Mary's children weren't royals after all unlike their cousins. Her children were instead considered members of the (Earl of) Harewood/Lascelles family. I don't think it had anything to do with their personal relationship.

A lot of why Mary didn’t go to things was politics above Elizabeth to do with the exclusion of David.

The Queen got on fine with Mary and she definitely went to Balmoral. She was also close enough to her cousin who went to big family occasions while they lived. There was some issues over divorce and the like through the years though.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Are you asking about Royal House or Royal family because the two are not the same.

I'm not sure who "you" refers to, but your own post above referred to "the BRF" (British Royal Family). I haven't seen an instance of the British monarchy using the term Royal House.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is peculiar that being a member of the Royal Family is an official status with real legal consequences, and yet no law regulates who is or is not a Member of the Royal Family (as far as I know).

A member of the Royal Family cannot be criticized in Parliament unless there is a dedicated discussion of their conduct.

https://erskinemay.parliament.uk/section/4873/incidental-criticism-of-conduct-of-certain-persons-not-permitted

A member of the Royal Family may have their will kept sealed from public view.

Will of His Late Royal Highness the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Re The [2021] EWHC 77 (Fam) (16 September 2021)

The list of “Members of the Royal Family” on the monarchy’s official website has just been taken down (note the broken link on the page below), which makes it still less clear who is and is not a member of the Royal Family.

Use of Royal Arms, Names and Images

The Lord Chamberlain's Office produces definitive guidelines on the use of the Royal Arms, Royal Devices, Emblems and Titles and of photographs, portraits...

www.royal.uk

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The “Members of the Royal Family” list has apparently been taken down for the time being. This has never happened before, as far as I can remember. Whenever the list was updated, the updated link simply replaced the old one.

Scroll down to Annex D: Use of Royal Arms, Names and Images

I wonder if the list is currently missing because, perhaps, the Andrew situation is prompting extensive internal discussions as to who should be on the list.

In the UK, membership of the Royal Family has legal and protocolar implications. Membership of the Royal Family confers both privileges (e.g., members are partially shielded from criticism in Parliament and their last wills are kept sealed) and responsibilities (e.g., members are expected to follow special guidelines concerning business activities or accepting gifts), whether the member is an HRH or not.

The list has been restored. There was no overhaul after all, merely a change of style to "Mr. Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor".

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2025-11/ANNEX%20D%20-%20Royal%20Family%2030Oct25.pdf

 

[Somebody]

Sarah Ferguson is no longer on the list (or had she been removed previously)?

I am trying to understand the logic: why are some great-grandchildren of monarchs (King George VI's (i.e. Princess Margaret's grandchildren) as well as Queen Elizabeth's (i.e., Princess Anne's as well as Andrew's grandchildren)) considered members of the royal family but not others (George V's - the children of the queen's cousins are missing).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sarah Ferguson is no longer on the list (or had she been removed previously)?

"Sarah, Duchess of York" was removed from the list with the early November update, at the same time "The Duke of York" was changed to "Prince Andrew" (even though it had already been announced that Andrew would lose his princely title as well). See this post:

Prince Andrew Relinquishes Use of Titles & Honours, 17 Oct 2025

I don't want to offend, but losing HRH status does not, to me, seem comparable to execution/the French Reign of Terror. I have not seen any mainstream media or press call for only Beatrice and Eugenia to lose their titles and status solely because of the revelations about their parents'...

www.theroyalforums.com

I am trying to understand the logic: why are some great-grandchildren of monarchs (King George VI's (i.e. Princess Margaret's grandchildren) as well as Queen Elizabeth's (i.e., Princess Anne's as well as Andrew's grandchildren)) considered members of the royal family but not others (George V's - the children of the queen's cousins are missing).

Yes, good question.

 

[Curryong]

Where would that end though? With a fourth generation being listed? No children of the late Queen’s cousins are working royals, and very few would be known to the British public at large, (the children of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent vaguely I suppose but no others.) and none are HRHs.

When the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, and even though hopefully that won’t be for ages yet, those dukedoms will cease to be royal. Are those heirs to be placed on the list in perpetuity? It would end up with hundreds placed there if it continued.

 

[GondorHasNoPants]

I wonder if it's time for the BRF needs to follow the Dutch example, by defining a Royal House, distinct and separate from a Royal Family. Not necessarily using those terms, but the concepts, at least.

Nobody has any problem if King Charles wants to view Princess Anne's children or Lady Sarah Chatto's children as members of his (close or extended) family. But they are not members of the British Royal Family™.

 

[wbenson]

I am trying to understand the logic: why are some great-grandchildren of monarchs (King George VI's (i.e. Princess Margaret's grandchildren) as well as Queen Elizabeth's (i.e., Princess Anne's as well as Andrew's grandchildren)) considered members of the royal family but not others (George V's - the children of the queen's cousins are missing).

I'd guess it was originally drawn up in the 1990s and nobody has bothered to trim the basis for inclusion (descendants of George VI plus all other HRHs) even as the number of descendants of George VI has ballooned. Princess Margaret was a much bigger deal in 1994 than the various cousins were, so I can see the logic in treating her family differently at the time. And obviously things have changed, but then you run into the issue of someone having to decide that the time is ripe to make a decision to remove a branch of the family from the list.

In 2005, there was another list of everyone who had been a member of the royal family since 1975, for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. It didn't include the children of Princesses Margaret or Anne (but did include the young Lady Louise). The current page on the same legislation doesn't include a list.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Where would that end though? With a fourth generation being listed? No children of the late Queen’s cousins are working royals, and very few would be known to the British public at large, (the children of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent vaguely I suppose but no others.) and none are HRHs.

When the Dukes of Kent and Gloucester die, and even though hopefully that won’t be for ages yet, those dukedoms will cease to be royal. Are those heirs to be placed on the list in perpetuity? It would end up with hundreds placed there if it continued.

That is a good question about perpetuity. But I think @Somebody was analyzing the current situation: Persons such as Isla Phillips, who is not a working royal or known to the British public at large and is "only" a great-grandchild of a monarch, are listed as members, so why is that some other identically situated persons are not?

 

[maria-olivia]

We know nothing about the Heir of the Duke of Kent. (his eldest son). One of the daughter's of his son Nicholas will be a Debutante at the famous Ball in Paris.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wonder if it's time for the BRF needs to follow the Dutch example, by defining a Royal House, distinct and separate from a Royal Family. Not necessarily using those terms, but the concepts, at least.

In the Dutch system, membership of the Royal House, which is the entity to which special legal protections and legal restrictions apply, is transparently defined by Act of Parliament. That should perhaps be considered in the British case as well.

Membership of the Royal Family is not like being an HRH. An HRH is merely a mark of social status. Membership of the Royal Family is a legal classification conveying extraordinary privileges in common law, statute law, and jurisprudence, as detailed in the posts above.

Should the King continue to unilaterally decide which members of his family form a legally protected class, or should the elected Parliament decide?

In 2005, there was another list of everyone who had been a member of the royal family since 1975, for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act. It didn't include the children of Princesses Margaret or Anne (but did include the young Lady Louise). The current page on the same legislation doesn't include a list.

Thank you! Another example, then, of privileges of “members of the Royal Family” being enshrined in law without that law defining who those members are, leaving that to the monarch.

And the monarchy is apparently inconsistent with whom it defines as a member of the Royal Family for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act versus name protection (which appears to be the purpose of the current list).

Quoting the FOIA list archived from 2005:

“List of members of the Royal Family (since 1 January 1975):

The Queen
The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother
The Prince of Wales
The Princess of Wales, later Diana, Princess of Wales
Prince William of Wales
Prince Henry of Wales
The Prince Andrew, later The Duke of York
The Duchess of York, later Sarah, Duchess of York
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York
The Prince Edward, later The Earl of Wessex
The Countess of Wessex
Lady Louise Windsor
The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips, later The Princess Royal
Captain Mark Phillips
Rear-Admiral Timothy Laurence
Princess Margaret
The Earl of Snowdon
Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
The Duchess of Kent
Prince Michael of Kent
Princess Michael of Kent
Princess Alexandra, the Hon Lady Ogilvy
The Rt Hon Sir Angus Ogilvy
Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone”​

It appears to be limited to current and former queens and princes/ses, current and former husbands of born princesses, and Lady Louise Windsor (which seems to support the argument that she is a princess in all but name).

 

[blooms_rulers]

We know nothing about the Heir of the Duke of Kent. (his eldest son). One of the daughter's of his son Nicholas will be a Debutante at the famous Ball in Paris.

Lord Nicholas Windsor has three sons and no daughters (at least, no publicly acknowledged daughters or daughters that are known of). I think you may mean that his son Albert will be serving as a cavalier.

 

[maria-olivia]

Sorry , Albert Windsor son of Nicholas Windsor will be the cavalier of Eulalia d' Orleans Bragance.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Sorry , Albert Windsor son of Nicholas Windsor will be the cavalier of Eulalia d' Orleans Bragance.

Replied here:

Banquets and Balls -Royal and Noble Gatherings : Past & Present

Banquets and Balls -Royal and Noble Gatherings : Past & Present In July 1939 only weeks before the outbreak of World War II ,nobles and high society gathered at the Villa Trianon in Versailles for the Circus Ball Elsie de Wolfe’s Circus Ball at the Villa Trianon in Versailles In July 1960 Le...

www.theroyalforums.com

 

[TLLK]

I wonder if it's time for the BRF needs to follow the Dutch example, by defining a Royal House, distinct and separate from a Royal Family. Not necessarily using those terms, but the concepts, at least.

Nobody has any problem if King Charles wants to view Princess Anne's children or Lady Sarah Chatto's children as members of his (close or extended) family. But they are not members of the British Royal Family™.

I agree that the Dutch model would be an excellent one to follow.

 

[Somebody]

Quoting the FOIA list archived from 2005:

“List of members of the Royal Family (since 1 January 1975):​

​

The Queen​

The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh​

Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother​

The Prince of Wales​

The Princess of Wales, later Diana, Princess of Wales​

Prince William of Wales​

Prince Henry of Wales​

The Prince Andrew, later The Duke of York​

The Duchess of York, later Sarah, Duchess of York​

Princess Beatrice of York​

Princess Eugenie of York​

The Prince Edward, later The Earl of Wessex​

The Countess of Wessex​

Lady Louise Windsor​

The Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips, later The Princess Royal​

Captain Mark Phillips​

Rear-Admiral Timothy Laurence​

Princess Margaret​

The Earl of Snowdon​

Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester​

The Duke of Gloucester​

The Duchess of Gloucester​

The Duke of Kent​

The Duchess of Kent​

Prince Michael of Kent​

Princess Michael of Kent​

Princess Alexandra, the Hon Lady Ogilvy​

The Rt Hon Sir Angus Ogilvy​

Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone”​

It appears to be limited to current and former queens and princes/ses, current and former husbands of born princesses, and Lady Louise Windsor (which seems to support the argument that she is a princess in all but name).

This looks like the old definition: the monarch, children of the monarch and grandchildren of the monarch in male-line and the spouses of all of them.

The new list includes several great-grand children in female-line but excludes various great-grandchildren in male-line (just because they are from an earlier monarch). The best solution might be the remove all great-grandchildren (except grandchildren of a future monarch) from the list. Of course, they remain valued members of the family without that official designation.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This looks like the old definition: the monarch, children of the monarch and grandchildren of the monarch in male-line and the spouses of all of them.

Female-line grandchildren (or great-grandchildren) were always included in official definitions of Members of the Royal Family, as far as I know. See this list from Queen Victoria's reign:

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.

And of course, Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg and Lady Louise Mountbatten were only legally qualified to become the Queens of Spain and Sweden (monarchies which, at the time, had strict marriage-equality laws requiring dynastic marriages to be royal-to-royal) because they were, officially, Members of the British Royal Family. An ordinary non-royal German princess (Victoria Eugenie was British, but her princessly title was German) or an ordinary non-royal British marquess's daughter would not have qualified.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I agree that the Dutch model would be an excellent one to follow.

Perhaps for legal reasons but the average person won’t know the difference between “Royal House” and “Royal Family.”

 

[Somebody]

Female-line grandchildren (or great-grandchildren) were always included in official definitions of Members of the Royal Family, as far as I know.

In this particular list they are excluded, neither Margaret’s nor Anne’s children are included. So, it seems that there is little consistency (but that’s a recurring refrain regarding how the British royal family handles these things).