Members of the Royal Family

[Prinsara]

Doesn't stop looking back on it and things what on earth.

Having an illegitimate child while you are married to someone else is still considered rather embarrassing these days, not to mention hurtful. Not only is it something the Court would not have condoned, it's hardly an "eyeroll, outdated" situation. (See all the political figures it's harmed far more recently than the 70's.)

 

[FigTree]

Having an illegitimate child while you are married to someone else is still considered rather embarrassing these days, not to mention hurtful. Not only is it something the Court would not have condoned, it's hardly an "eyeroll, outdated" situation. (See all the political figures it's harmed far more recently than the 70's.)

I would never condone anything related to an extra marital affair but if you look at that story it is more complicated. The first arrange never worked primarily maybe because Princess Mary didn't move out of the house. I think theybwere informally separated at the time because you couldn't divorce.

 

[JR76]

I would never condone anything related to an extra marital affair but if you look at that story it is more complicated. The first arrange never worked primarily maybe because Princess Mary didn't move out of the house. I think theybwere informally separated at the time because you couldn't divorce.

The Earl wanted a divorce but his wife didn't so there wasn't much he could do at the time

 

[JR76]

Lord and Lady Harewood gave an interview to People in 1981 right after he had been accepted back into the royal fold again. The interview tells his side of the story.

https://people.com/archive/publicly...of-harewood-get-a-royal-welcome-vol-15-no-22/

 

[Hallo girl]

Having an illegitimate child while you are married to someone else is still considered rather embarrassing these days, not to mention hurtful. Not only is it something the Court would not have condoned, it's hardly an "eyeroll, outdated" situation. (See all the political figures it's harmed far more recently than the 70's.)

As in all political scandals it is the lies and cover up that cause the downfall very rarely the original ' sin '

 

[Prinsara]

So he says he fell in love with someone else while he was still married "he thought happily", without bringing up any major problems in the marriage. That happens, but it's not exactly sympathetic.

Considering he made a point of not discussing it with his sons, ever, I doubt he felt that innocent.

Also considering whom his ex-wife remarried, it sounds as though she would have been better off with Lord Harewood.

 

[Prinsara]

As in all political scandals it is the lies and cover up that cause the downfall very rarely the original ' sin '

If it were not such an embarrassing and career-ruining thing to do, no one would lie or cover it up, would they?

In this non-political case there still appears to have been some covering-up, by the Earl.

 

[Prinsara]

And given this longer article by Marlene, she says the marriage was basically over by the time Harewood met Patricia, without specifics. Royal Musings: Adultery, a child, divorce, remarriage = estrangement from the Royal Family

So for whatever reason, the Earl chose to lie to the media and make himself appear even less sympathetic, rather than elaborate at all. (There might be a grain of honor in there if the problems were Marion's, but it's still not exactly a pillar of shining virtue.)

Also I do wonder how he talked Queen Mary into his original marriage?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

All I will say is that there is a major difference between being an official member of the BRF, a royal relative and a descendant of the BRF.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Having an illegitimate child while you are married to someone else is still considered rather embarrassing these days, not to mention hurtful. Not only is it something the Court would not have condoned, it's hardly an "eyeroll, outdated" situation. (See all the political figures it's harmed far more recently than the 70's.)

And banishment from court for doing something considered embarrassing to the royal family is not a thing of the past either: see the Duke of York, post-Newsnight interview.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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

The "Royal Family" page has removed Prince and Princess Michael of Kent and returned to listing the remaining family members in order of succession to the throne, meaning that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the Duke of York have been moved up while the Princess Royal has been moved down.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The page has been modified again. No further additions or removals, but the no-longer working royals (the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the Duke of York) have been moved to the bottom of the page. The Princess Royal remains behind the Earl and Countess of Wessex.

 

[Somebody]

They shook up the order of the members of the royal family on the website. At first it seems a bit weird - but there seems to be some logic to it in that those on the left have a broader banner (except for the final one) and are mostly given to born members of the family with the exception of The Queen Consort) - with Catherine, Edward and Sophie being given the smaller ones but at the top - but it is clear that the non-working members of the royal family that are children of the current or former monarch, i.e., Harry, Meghan and Andrew, have been put to the bottom:

The King / The Princess of Wales
The Queen Consort / The Earl of Wessex
The Prince of Wales / The Countess of Wessex
The Princess Royal / The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Gloucester / Princess Alexandra
The Duke of Kent / The Duke of Sussex
The Duchess of Sussex (small) / The Duke of York (broad)

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Sometime in the last day or so, the royal.uk website has been updated with a new list of the Royal Family. No big changes from the last version besides the late Queen Elizabeth II and the late Duke of Edinburgh being removed from the list and the titles of The King and Queen being updated. The Wales family's titles have been updated and "and Forfar" has been added for The Earl and Countess of Wessex.

Archie and Lilibet are listed the same way as they were before the accession of HM The King.

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

 

[Prinsara]

Why is Sarah on this and not Autumn Phillips or Serena, Countess of Snowdon?

 

[Duke of Leaside]

Why is Sarah on this and not Autumn Phillips or Serena, Countess of Snowdon?

Fair question. (I forgot to mention that Autumn has been removed from the list since the last version so thank you Prinsara for pointing that out.

Serena was removed a few versions ago (after they divorced) but they were slow to remove Autumn after she and Peter divorced.

Re: Sarah, I always thought that because Queen Elizabeth II still seemed to have a soft spot for Sarah she was included (albeit at the end of the list). Perhaps Andrew lobbied for this as well. Why she is still there is a question for HM The King (or perhaps the courtier who carefully (or sloppily) updates this list).

 

[Westfield Bakery]

Arthur Chatto, Princess Margaret's grandson is very handsome. I wonder what his role in the family will be since he is in the Marines and his mom is close to the King.

 

[Prinsara]

Fair question. (I forgot to mention that Autumn has been removed from the list since the last version so thank you Prinsara for pointing that out.

Serena was removed a few versions ago (after they divorced) but they were slow to remove Autumn after she and Peter divorced.

Re: Sarah, I always thought that because Queen Elizabeth II still seemed to have a soft spot for Sarah she was included (albeit at the end of the list). Perhaps Andrew lobbied for this as well. Why she is still there is a question for HM The King (or perhaps the courtier who carefully (or sloppily) updates this list).

Well, as she still lives with Andrew, maybe that's less of an issue if they are officially related.

Maybe the King just has bigger worries than someone who hasn't caused any major embarrassment in over a decade now. It's not as if she gets an HRH, or literally anything else at all, from being on that list. I'd be curious, though, if any version post-1937 would have included the Duchess of Windsor. ?

Edit: Also, is there a glitch? I thought Ladies by birth lost their The when they married untitled persons or their fathers were no longer the current title holder, both of which now apply to Sarah Chatto. Shouldn't she be just Lady Sarah and not "The Lady Sarah" by now?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I remember reading somewhere that Sarah has her own coat of arms which is why she is no the list. I am not sure if that is correct but I do remember reading that

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you for the update, Duke of Leaside.

Another change is that the honorifics of Majesty and Royal Highness have been removed - perhaps to forestall any complaints from the public about Royal Highness continuing to be used for the Duke of York and the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, as on the previous editions of the list.

Edit: Also, is there a glitch? I thought Ladies by birth lost their The when they married untitled persons or their fathers were no longer the current title holder, both of which now apply to Sarah Chatto. Shouldn't she be just Lady Sarah and not "The Lady Sarah" by now?

I cannot recall seeing the use The Lady vs. Lady (for daughters of peers) mentioned in any of the detailed articles about peerage titles I have read through, so I wonder if there is really a well-established custom or not.

I remember reading somewhere that Sarah has her own coat of arms which is why she is no the list. I am not sure if that is correct but I do remember reading that

No, if that were the case then Serena, Countess of Snowdon would also remain on the list. As the legitimate daughter of a peer she is also armigerous.

 

[Denville]

Arthur Chatto, Princess Margaret's grandson is very handsome. I wonder what his role in the family will be since he is in the Marines and his mom is close to the King.

He wont have any role. He is miles down the succession.

 

[Somebody]

It is interesting that Charles kept no only his (non-royal) cousins but also their children on the list - as the queen's cousins (but only those who were royal highnesses) were on the list but their (non-royal) children weren't.

So, all in all, the list remains very inconsistent - there isn't a clear line in why some are considered members of the royal family and others within (or previously within) that same wider family are not.

 

[Durham]

Might their inclusion be something to do with (relative) closeness of consangunity to the monarch?

 

[Somebody]

Might their inclusion be something to do with (relative) closeness of consangunity to the monarch?

The children of the queen's cousins had the same closeness of consanguinity (5th degree) to HM as the children of David and Sarah do now (also 5th degree). However, they were never included as members of the royal family. And Mary's children (4th degree) were always excluded...

Keeping the queen's cousins who are royal highnesses makes a lot of sense even though they've moved from fourth to fifth degree when Charles became king - as they are royal highnesses and were once grandchildren of the monarch, unlike Margaret's grandchildren who are only great-grandchildren of a former monarch and never had a royal style or title.

UNDER KING CHARLES:
1st degree:
William*, Harry*

2nd degree:
Anne*, Andrew*, Edward*, George*, Charlotte*, Louis*, Archie, Lilibet

3rd degree:
Peter, Zara, Beatrice*, Eugenie*, Louise, James

4th degree:
Savannah, Isla, Mia, Lena, Lucas, Sienna, August, David, Sarah

5th degree:
Richard*, Edward*, Alexandra*, Michael*, Charles, Margarita, Samuel, Arthur

It will be interesting to see whether this is also the group he will invite for Trooping and the Christmas lunch.

Would we apply the same rules to the Queen, the royal family would have looked like:

UNDER QUEEN ELIZABETH:
1st degree:
Charles*, Anne*, Andrew*, Edward*

2nd degree:
William*, Harry*, Peter, Zara, Beatrice*, Eugenie*, Louise, James

3rd degree:
George*, Charlotte*, Louis*, Archie, Lilibet, Savannah, Isla, Mia, Lena, Lucas, Sienna, August, David, Sarah

4th degree:
Richard*, Edward*, Alexandra*, Michael*, Charles, Margarita, Samuel, Arthur

5th degree:
Alexandra, Davina, Rose, George, Helen, Nicholas, James, Marina, Frederick, Gabriella, David, James, Jeremy, Mark, Henry, Martin

Note that the queen would also invite the children of (some of) the 6th degree blood relatives to Trooping - although neither the 5th of the 6th degree blood relatives were on the list as members of the royal family - and those descending for princess Mary were never invited (or never showed up).

 

[Durham]

That's a very comprehensive answer. Thank you for detailing that!

Might it be instead because the Snowdens/Chattos are descendents of a more recent monarch? I can't think of any other reason other than they're all very close & it's not widely known.

I don't know a great amount about the relationship between the late queen & her aunt Mary. She didn't attend her wedding in 1947 I do know that.

 

[Somebody]

That's a very comprehensive answer. Thank you for detailing that!

Might it be instead because the Snowdens/Chattos are descendents of a more recent monarch? I can't think of any other reason other than they're all very close & it's not widely known.

I don't know a great amount about the relationship between the late queen & her aunt Mary. She didn't attend her wedding in 1947 I do know that.

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.

 

[Durham]

Yes probably that all makes perfect sense.

It's odd that in the previous generation the British born (non royal father) female line grandchildren of Edward vii had been given royal or at least semi-royal status. I presume they were thought of as members of the rf.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

Female-line grandchildren were always considered part of the royal family. See this earlier post:

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.

 

[Somebody]

Female-line grandchildren were always considered part of the royal family. See this earlier post:

It seems they only were considered part of the royal family if they were (royal or other) highnesses. Mary's children were not... Do you know if there is a comparable list of a later date that includes her children as well?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It seems they only were considered part of the royal family if they were (royal or other) highnesses.

What makes it seem that way to you? Were there female-line grandchildren (or their descendants) who were not highnesses in 1897 and were listed as non-members of the royal family? I cannot think of any. (The Duff daughters remained non-highnesses at that point, but they were small children and naturally wouldn't be listed in "List of The Royal Family with their respective Residences and Suites.")

Do you know if there is a comparable list of a later date that includes her [Mary's] children as well?

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