Who Is Considered Royal?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Mbruno

Majesty
Joined
May 17, 2014
Messages
9,593
City
Pittsburgh
Country
United States
A reigning monarch and his/her consort, or a former monarch upon abdication and his/her consort, are obviously royal by default. In addition however to the king and queen, or the queen and the prince consort, who else can be considered royal ?

Depending on the definition one adopts, the class of "royals" may include:

1) All persons in the line of succession to a throne and their respective consorts, who, in the UK for example, would mean hundreds of people.

2) All persons in the line of succession to a throne who also hold the title of prince/princess or equivalent (e.g. infante/infanta or archduke/archduchess) and their respective consorts unless untitled (as is the case of many male consorts of royal princesses).

3) All persons holding the style of HRH, who are not necessarily the same group as in (2) above as some princes/princesses are only HHs and there are also sometimes HRHs who are not in the line of succession.

4) All persons who are official members of a Royal House, who again do not necessarily coincide with the group in (3) above as sometimes an HRH may not be a Royal House member (e.g. Felipe VI's sisters).

Personally, I tend to prefer definition # 2, meaning that, to me, Prince Constantijn, Princess Märtha-Louise, Infanta Elena and Princess Anne for example would all be considered "royals", but their respective children and, in the case of Anne or Märtha-Louise, also their husbands would not. On the other hand, both Prince Joachim, Princess Marie and Prince Joachim's children (HHs) would all be royals.

The most controversial issue with definition # 2 is, however, that HRHs or HHs outside the line of succession would not be considered royals, e.g. Irene and Christina of the Netherlands, or Birgitta of Sweden, or Princess Margriet's children. Amedeo of Belgium, on the other hand, although no longer in the line of succession to the Belgian throne, could still be considered royal as an archduke of Austria-Este in the line of succession to the extinct Austro-Hungarian throne.


Anyway, to eliminate the controversy, one could come up with an alternative definition 2.1 where all HRHs and HHs are automatically "royal" regardless of succession rights. Being on the line of succession would still be required though for a royal as defined in 2.1 to be also considered a "dynast".

What do you guys think ?
 
Who is considered a "royal" ?

Doesn't each country define for itself who is Royal? The website for the British monarchy as an example has a section on the royal family and who is considers as the royal family.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Last edited:
Isn't it the case is some countries that there is a definition between the Royal House and the Royal Family, such as in the Netherlands? Either way you are still royal or of royal blood.
There is a similar situation in Spain.

It's an interesting question because here in the UK it is generally considered that Zara and Peter Philips are members of the royal family, but it seems ambiguous as to whether they are royal or not - if that makes sense.
 
Well, we can say that Don Felipe de Marichalar y Borbón and his sister Doña Victoria belong to the royal family of Spain, as children of an Infanta, grandchildren of the former King and nephew/niece to the present King. They however have no royal status.

We can say that Bernardo, Nicolás and Juliana Guillermo belong to the royal family of the Netherlands, as children of a Princess, grandchildren to a former Queen, newphew/niece to another former Queen and cousins to the present King. They however have no royal status.

So, the conclusion is: being of royal descent is not enough to be "royal".
 
Isn't it the case is some countries that there is a definition between the Royal House and the Royal Family, such as in the Netherlands? Either way you are still royal or of royal blood.
There is a similar situation in Spain.

It's an interesting question because here in the UK it is generally considered that Zara and Peter Philips are members of the royal family, but it seems ambiguous as to whether they are royal or not - if that makes sense.

Well I wouldn't consider Zara and Pete as Royal. They have no title to start with and the British Monarchy has never recognised decent through the female line except through a Reigning Monarch. A perfect example was that of the future Queen Mary. She was a Morganatic Royal through her descent from her father, the Duke of Teck, not through her mother who was born a Princess.
 
Isn't it the case is some countries that there is a definition between the Royal House and the Royal Family, such as in the Netherlands? Either way you are still royal or of royal blood.
There is a similar situation in Spain.

It's an interesting question because here in the UK it is generally considered that Zara and Peter Philips are members of the royal family, but it seems ambiguous as to whether they are royal or not - if that makes sense.

I will take Princess Margaret's and Princess Anne's view on whether or not they are royal - they aren't.

Margaret first said and then Anne repeated it changing one word:

"My children aren't royal - they just have The Queen for an 'aunt'/'grandmother'."
 
What difference with Sweden that children Madeleine is royal. However I agree with someone who said that it is another to being royal descent and another being a royal.
 
What difference with Sweden that children Madeleine is royal. However I agree with someone who said that it is another to being royal descent and another being a royal.

The difference is that her children are created Prince (Princess) of Sweden and that makes that they are royal, while in essence there is no difference between the children of Infanta Elena and the children of Princess Madeleine, of course.
 
Perhaps King Carl Gustav hoped that his son in law Chris O'Neill would change his mind about accepting a title for himself such as a Dukedom when his children with Princess Madeline were born? When it became clear that Chris was not interested the King moved to make sure his grandchildren were a Prince and Princess. It certainly seems a bit odd to have royals who possess an untitled father.
 
So there is no clear cut answer to the original question because it is dependent upon the rules of each country/family then. It isn't necessarily the title you have or having royal parentage or marrying a royal that makes you royal. And being a member of a royal family doesn't make you royal either.
 
Hereditary Prince Maximilian of Thurn und Taxis was not cosidered of the same status as Duchess Helene in Bavaria. He was not officially of royal blood. Helene's cousin, King Maximilian II of Bavaria, did not permit the marriage at first.
 
Hereditary Prince Maximilian of Thurn und Taxis was not cosidered of the same status as Duchess Helene in Bavaria. He was not officially of royal blood. Helene's cousin, King Maximilian II of Bavaria, did not permit the marriage at first.

King Maximilian was eventually persuaded to allow the marriage by Helene's brother-in-law, Emperor Franz Josef, who had thrown Helene over in favor of her sister Elisabeth.

The Thurn and Taxis family weren't considered equal because they weren't (and had never been) a reigning family. But they were fabulously wealthy and had already married into other ruling families.

For example, the two Maximilians were actually second cousins. HP Maximilian's paternal grandmother Therese of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and King Maximilian's maternal grandmother Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz were sisters. Another sister Louise married King Frederick William III of Prussia and yet another sister Frederica married (as her third husband) Ernest Augustus Duke of Cumberland, later King of Hanover. The four sisters were nieces of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, wife of King George III.
 
Back
Top Bottom