Princes Edward and Andrew...(49 Posts)
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?
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.
So Princess Margeret became the Countess of Snowdon and her children had titles (Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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".
Like the Queen herself, daughter of a younger son who only ended up on the throne by accident.
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.
"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. "
"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. 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. 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. 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." From Wiki
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.
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 !!
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 )
No Andrew or Wdward et al on the balcony today... Just HM, Charles and Camilla, and Harry/Wills/Kate
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?
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.
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!)
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.
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.
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.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.