Princes Edward and Andrew...

(49 Posts)
WetTheMogwai Sun 03-Jun-12 18:10:05

Theres probably a thread on this already but I've googled it and I can find it so here goes

At royal occasions (like today on the river) where the queen and 'the rest of the royal family' attend there's always the same faces (obviously!), the queen, Phillip, Charles and camellia, William and Kate and Harry but why is it always just them? Why not the rest of the queens children and grandchildren?

Is there a reason why Charles is the only one of the four there or is it simply because he is the oldest?

edam Sun 03-Jun-12 18:21:58

Andrew was there, and his daughters, so I assume the others were too. Probably below decks keeping out of the rain, if they had any sense.

tribpot Sun 03-Jun-12 18:22:56

Andrew was there (according to the clip I just saw on the Beeb website) on a different barge with Princess Eugenie (who appeared to be taking pics with her iPhone).

The focus seems to be on those in the line of succession - a very solid message for any hereditary monarch in her eighties. I love that the order of succession has Zara Phillips listed as 'Mrs Michael Tindall' - presumably that wouldn't have to be her name if she took the throne ...

ANTagony Sun 03-Jun-12 18:24:07

Is it to do with security that they're kept apart?

bronze Sun 03-Jun-12 18:25:55

Anne was on another boat. So
Etching to do with one of the things she's the face of

bronze Sun 03-Jun-12 18:26:16

Something to do with...

ItsAllGoingToBeFine Sun 03-Jun-12 18:26:21

ANTagony of course! Can you imagine the brawling if they were all corralled together. Don't want regicide live on the BBC!

McKayz Sun 03-Jun-12 18:28:02

I saw all of them but Edward and Sophie.

Thumbwitch Sun 03-Jun-12 18:28:11

Coo, Queen Zara, can you imagine! grin

I watched the Andrew Marr documentary, the Diamond Queen and discovered (we don't get this sort of news in Australia) that the succession rules have changed with William, so that whatever child he has first will be next in line to the throne after him, whether male or female. About bloody time! (shame it couldn't have happened with QE2's children, I'd have much preferred to have Princess Anne behind Charles, rather than Andrew, although of course I know he's still behind William and Harry)

diedandgonetodevon Sun 03-Jun-12 18:29:03

The focus of the event today was supposed to be on the line of succession rather than the whole family hence who was present on the royal barge.

FunnyBird Sun 03-Jun-12 18:31:52

Sophie Wessex was on the boat with the Yorks, so I guess Edward was there too. And Anne was doing her thing as head of some other institution on their boat.

Heartbeep Sun 03-Jun-12 18:34:12

Excuse my ignorance but why is the Duke of Yorks daughters Princesses but the Earl of Wessex daughter is a Lady, why is she also not known as 'Princess'? Is it because he's a Duke and Edward is an Earl? Just curious...

SandStorm Sun 03-Jun-12 18:37:22

I think it was personal choice by Edward and Sophie. Anne's children aren't Princes or Princesses either. Their parents opted out for them.

HRHEightiesChick Mon 04-Jun-12 00:32:09

I had to google Viscount Severn then as I hadn't a clue who it was. I had totally forgotten, or have totally missed, Sophie and Edward having another child. They really do live a quiet life, don't they?

edam Mon 04-Jun-12 12:06:58

Prince Edward is an Earl, not a Duke, as he's down to inherit the Duchy of Edinburgh when Prince Phillip pops his clogs.

QueenEdith Tue 05-Jun-12 07:05:35

The succession rules have not yet changed. Lots of people (including CHOGM) have said it's a good idea and let's do it. But until a law is passed, it hasn't happened.

There's no sign of such a law yet, and it wasn't in the last Queen's Speech.

Does anyone know when (and indeed, given delay, if) this will happen?

It is not (despite one website suggesting otherwise) a question of parents 'opting out' of titles for their children. The Princess Royal's children do not have titles because their father does not (by the time they were born, there was no available title they could have opted for).

The titles (or lack of titles) of the parents reflect very old, very formal practice of inheritance.

The Princess Royal was on a little naval boat (need one of our RN posters to say what) in full uniform as an Admiral.

Frakiosaurus Tue 05-Jun-12 07:14:41

Actually the Wessexes did opt for their children not to use the style Prince/ss despite being entitled to it. Anne's children aren't entitled to anything as their father didn't have a title.

I find Edward's family rather refreshing. I know he's criticised for being boring etc but they don't push themselves forward and just get on with things.

QueenEdith Tue 05-Jun-12 07:24:58

Whether the Wessex children are Prince and Princess depends on whether you think the 1917 Letters Patent apply, or those of 1960.

There has been nothing made public on the reason to (apparently) use 1960, but that is still something which antedates Prince Edward's birth, let alone that of his children.

gazzalw Tue 05-Jun-12 07:28:47

Sophie seems quite a bit of fun to me - she was taking photos next to Boris on the boat on Sunday - and yesterday was sitting next to Harry or William and singing/clapping/flag waving away - it seems as if she gets on very well with the younger royals.

Think Prince Andrew is a 'don't you know who I am?' type of royal whereas Prince Edward obviously is less brash/pushy in his approach...

Frakiosaurus Tue 05-Jun-12 07:34:35

What I find particularly interesting is that Edward and his family took Mountbatten-Windsor, which must have made the DoE happy.

Frakiosaurus Tue 05-Jun-12 07:39:39

I thought the1960 letter didn't preclude grandchildren taking prince/ss but was more to do with the surname. And as Lady Louise is HRH althought not princess they must have chosen not to follow that (and by default become Mountbatten-Windsor).

gazzalw Tue 05-Jun-12 07:40:38

Maybe he's very much his Father's son? When he was young (19/20) he was the spit of the DoE at the same age.

He seems to be the unassuming royal unlike Prince Andrew and his girls - they get everywhere!

QueenEdith Tue 05-Jun-12 07:47:36

So we agree that the "choice" of titles was using procedures and precedents from before the birth of said children's father. If anyone made a choice here, it was HMQ back before she had completed her own family.

Frakiosaurus Tue 05-Jun-12 08:06:42

Mmm not really. I think Edward's children are entitled to Prince/ss under all the existing Letters as they are childen of the son of the Sovreign. That would also usually make them HRH. As I read it the M-W surname only applies to those who aren't styled HRH but I believe Lady Louise is, although not Viscount Severn.

So they must have chosen not to use Prince/ss because it is the default title, either actively choosing Mountbatten-Windsor and by default rejecting the title or actively rejecting the title and choosing the surname by default. The DoE's happiness doesn't come into it beyond it being well known that he was sad he couldn't pass on his name.

It's rather confusing and I'm sure some herald could explain it and the Queen will have given the OK whichever way around but I find it interesting and, although I don't know them at all so this might seem odd, quite typical of the way they conduct themselves.

HRNiceViperness Tue 05-Jun-12 15:39:19

I think it was a HMQ decision, as the relevant changes to the protocols were made in the year of Andrew's birth, and it's definitely a Monarchical decision.the Wessexes didn't really have a say in it, it had been laid down for years (Letters Patent and Edward's BC).

I think the modernising role of the Queen is frequently and significantly underestimated.

Frakiosaurus Tue 05-Jun-12 18:19:04

They did though because they made that announcement when they were married that the Wessex children would be addressed as the children of an Earl and not, as expected, with full Royal titles - but it wasn't a Letter in the same way that the 1960 and 1917 were. So 1917 technically applies unless the Queen's wishes as expressed in a press release have the same force. Therefore the York and Wessex children should be styled the same but they aren't.

Mopswerver Tue 05-Jun-12 18:28:55

My guess is that there are moves afoot to slim down the Royal Family and that Charles is keen to keep it to a tight unit of himself and his children (once Queen abdicates/dies). I read somewhere that Prince Andrew has been trying to get Beatrice involved with Royal duties but he doesn't appear to be having much luck does he?
I think both he and Edward come across as quite unpleasant, bitter & twisted individuals lately. I guess they are realising just how irrelevant they are, especially with the popularity of the younger Royals.

MinnieBar Tue 05-Jun-12 18:33:29

Mrs Michael Tindall??!!

I know she changed her name, but still, I'm quietly fuming on her behalf…

(yes I do realise a thread about the royals is probably not the place to start questioning patriarchal tradition!)

anniewoo Tue 05-Jun-12 19:29:34

Princess Eugenie sat behind me at Twickenham once. Ordinary seat. Barely recognized her. Her bodyguard appeared at the end of the match. No airs and graces on her.

HRHEightiesChick Tue 05-Jun-12 21:30:20

MinnieBar Actually, I thought she hadn't changed her name. IIRC that was reported at the time of the wedding and it was said that she would be competing at the Olympics as Zara Phillips. So where has this 'Mrs Michael Tindall' business come from?

CaroleService Tue 05-Jun-12 21:33:36

No Andrew or Wdward et al on the balcony today... Just HM, Charles and Camilla, and Harry/Wills/Kate

DontmindifIdo Tue 05-Jun-12 21:41:42

MinnieBar - I thought she'd legally changed her name, but is choosing to work as Zara Phillips - a lot of woman do that way, one name for professional, one name for private. (It's also a good way round akward PILs who take offence at not taking their family name, you have taken it, just not using it for anything other than your gas bill grin )

anarita Thu 07-Jun-12 14:31:35

Could the grouping of immediate succession members be the royal way of telling 'subjects' that no matter what we want - we will get Charles divorced former adulterous mistress as next queen - and having her almost constantly beside the queen has to be telling us that indeed the queen condones and approves - totally out of step with her commitment to her title of Defender of the Faith !! - Must be the best PR makeover of all time !!

LeeCoakley Thu 07-Jun-12 14:48:14

I wish women in the public arena like Zara would just go the 100% not fifty-fifty with the identity thing. It would go a long way to 'normalising' the situation.

Portofino Thu 07-Jun-12 14:54:30

"Letters Patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, all else being equal, James would have been styled as His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex.[8] However, when his parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that (in hopes of avoiding some of the burdens associated with royal titles) their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as princes or princesses. The eldest son of an earl is customarily accorded one of his father's subsidiary titles by courtesy, thus James is named as Viscount Severn, and court communications never refer to him as a prince of the United Kingdom, but simply as Viscount Severn.[9] There are two opposing opinions as to whether or not James is "legally" a prince and His Royal Highness: Some experts consider the Queen's press release to not have enough legal force to override the 1917 letters patent, whereas other experts contend that the Queen's will, however expressed, is law in matters of royal titles and styles.[10][11] If the latter is the case, then the 1960 letters patent is also applicable and James bears (but is not styled with) the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[12]" From Wiki

Portofino Thu 07-Jun-12 14:58:37

"The 1960 Order-in-Council giving the surname Mountbatten-Windsor to the male-line descendants of The Duke of Edinburgh and Elizabeth II specifically refers only to such descendants without a royal title, as those with it generally have no need for a surname. Despite this, the Duke of York (like his sister) entered with this surname in the marriage register. "

iseenodust Thu 07-Jun-12 15:03:32
Margerykemp Thu 07-Jun-12 15:21:00

They keep them apart so they can't get wiped out all in one go, like their Russian cousins.

But historically the best monarchs have been the ones no-one thought would ever reign. An 'ordinary' upbringing is probably the best prep for a good monarch.

edam Thu 07-Jun-12 22:00:57

Like the Queen herself, daughter of a younger son who only ended up on the throne by accident.

HRNiceViperness Fri 08-Jun-12 08:07:17

The wiki quotation supports perfectly the point that this was all dealt with some 4 years before the birth of Edward and cannot possibly have been his decision.

Also, the BBC summary (from CHOGM last year) indicates clearly that a whole series of laws need to be changed before the desired changes to succession come into effect. This incompetent Government could easily muck it up entirely by not bringing forward legislation here.

The "Mrs Michael Tindall" is because HMQ is very old fashioned and does not recognise "Ms".

CaveMum Fri 08-Jun-12 08:14:01

I thought Princess Anne chose not to give Zara and Peter titles. I don't think it has anything to do with the fact their father was untitled.

jkklpu Fri 08-Jun-12 08:20:03

@QueenEdith On the succession, there's a consultation going on with those Commonwealth members who would have to agree before the rule on male/female succession could be made gender-blind.

EdithWeston Fri 08-Jun-12 08:27:54

I didn't think any further Commonwealth consultation was needed, since the CHOGM last November.

But what absolutely is needed is the legislation, as it cannot take effect without it. I do hope this (incompetent) Government doesn't muck this up by not getting adequate legislation passed in good time. Unless they actually pass a law on this, the change cannot happen.

EdithWeston Fri 08-Jun-12 08:32:09

Cave mum: there is a website which says that it was the Princess Royal's choice - that is a common error. It is the case that her children do not have titles/styles because their father doesn't.

Royal titles and styles are in the gift of the monarch, and were last pronounced upon in 1960, so everything concerning HMQ's grandchildren was actually laid out by her before she's even given birth to Prince Andrew. HMQ is very old-fashioned in not recognising "Ms", but aside from that is usually forward-looking and modernising.

senua Fri 08-Jun-12 08:53:39

it was the Princess Royal's choice - that is a common error. It is the case that her children do not have titles/styles because their father doesn't.

Yeah, but ...
HMQ could have bestowed a title on Capt Phillips which would have given the children their titles. Anne and Mark obviously asked not to have the title and therefore it was their choice: they made their circumstances to fit the rules.

Margerykemp Fri 08-Jun-12 09:52:32

Another point, if the lesser royals didn't think there was ever a possibility of the line coming to them then why did autumn Kelly renounce her Catholicism before marrying Peter?

It is not beyond possibility that wills, Harry, bea, eugenie, Louise and James won't have DCs.

LeeCoakley Fri 08-Jun-12 12:05:45

I'm sure I remember Anne declining a title. Lord Snowdon's title was created when he married Princess Margaret so there was a precedent.

LeeCoakley Fri 08-Jun-12 12:07:45

So Princess Margeret became the Countess of Snowdon and her children had titles (Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah)

EdithWeston Fri 08-Jun-12 17:17:52

If Mark Philips declined a title (and do not think it is known for sure that he did), all that means is that he remained a commoner, and there was no title available for his children to inherit. There was no later separate "choice" for their children.

Princess Anne had a Royal style from birth, but no title until she became Princess Royal.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now