Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

The Duke of York wants his daughters to be full time Royals?

918 replies

MidnightVelvetthe7th · 23/10/2016 14:45

www.express.co.uk/news/royal/724136/prince-andrew-requests-princesses-beatrice-eugenie-kensington-prince-charles-queen-william

This is a Sunday Express link, not a Fail one.

So Andrew wants both of his daughters to have full time royal roles funded by the public & have larger apartments at Kensington Palace. Given that the only time I ever see them in the news is for dreadful outfits & holidays, to me they are embarrassing & a bit cringy.

Andrew is complaining that they are overshadowed by William, Catherine & Harry. But if you believe & support a system of privilege by birth such as the monarchy, then it stands to reason that the direct heirs are more important than the rest.

Does Andrew have a point & IABU?!

OP posts:
Thread gallery
15
LuluJakey1 · 27/10/2016 20:49

When Charles is King, Harry's children wil be Princes and Princesses as he will be the son of a sovereign. He can choose for them to be given the titles of a Duke's children- he will be given a Dukedom on his marriage. Edward has chosen for his to be titled as the children of an Earl- but they are a prince and princess.

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 21:27

the fact that Philip fought against them and Elizabeth helped the war effort (like everyone had to, it would have looked bad if she'd done nothing) cannot alter the facts.

And what facts are these exactly hope? There's some talk about Edward VIII, but that's actually disputed and has been discredited in recent years. But the current royal family...no. I'd love to see the 'facts' showing the Queen and Prince Philip are Nazis. Did you find them on the David Icke forum?

SenecaFalls · 27/10/2016 21:28

Under the letters patent issued by George V and that are still in force, if Harry had children now while the Queen is alive, they would not be princes/princesses; they would be for example, Lady Alice Mountbatten-Windsor, etc. When Charles becomes king, Harry's children would be princes and princesses, but if Edward's example is followed, they would not use those titles. (Lady Louise is actually an HRH and a princess).

I may be wrong about this, but I don't think it was Edward's choice as much as the Queen and Charles's desire to constrict the Royal Family. I remember there was discussion at the time about how it would impact Andrew's daughters and that there was even some discussion that they should drop their royal titles and Andrew was none too pleased.

But if Charles continues on this path to reduce the number of people known as HRH, then it would likely affect Harry's children when Charles becomes king.

BillSykesDog · 27/10/2016 22:34

I thought that Edward's children were given the titles of an Earl's son and weren't Princess/Prince because he wasn't a Duke. And the reason he's not a Duke is because he will become Duke of Edinburgh when his father dies. Won't his children become Prince/Princesses then

SenecaFalls · 27/10/2016 23:02

Edward's children are princes and princes now, but use the titles of children of an earl.

In fact, the Queen had to issue new letters patent in order for the children of William to be prince and princess because under George V's, they would have been too far down the line.

QueenLizIII · 28/10/2016 00:05

So how did B & E get titles if George and Charlotte were too far down the line.

B & E arent even in the direct line being the Queens second sons children.

VanillaSugarandChipSpice · 28/10/2016 00:10

I think there's going to be a huge social revolution when the Queen dies. Have I already said this?

CotswoldStrife · 28/10/2016 00:22

I watched a programme years ago on Olympic Committee corruption - people being given taking gifts - and they said then that Princess Anne returned everything she was sent and I think she was the only one, this has gone on for years

I also thought the Princess title was down to the Dukedom that Andrew has. Edward is an Earl. The sons of a Duke (Duke of Edinburgh) are Earls. The other titles are a gift of the Queen?

EverySongbirdSays · 28/10/2016 00:27

I'm not sure Vanilla but what you HAVE NOT said is how Prince Andrew got Rev axed.

Grin
SenecaFalls · 28/10/2016 00:33

Beatrice and Eugenie are the grandchildren of the sovereign; George and Charlotte are great-grandchildren of the sovereign. But I was wrong in my post above about George. He would have been a prince without further action by the queen, but it was necessary to give Charlotte the title princess.

The letters patent of George V in 1917 stated that the children of any sovereign and the children of the sons of any sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be HRHs and have the title prince or princess. So the Queen amended this to the effect that Charlotte has the title princess as well.

The 1917 letters further provided that grandchildren of the sons of any sovereign in the direct male line would have the titles given to the children of dukes (which is why Prince Michael of Kent’s children are have titles Lord and Lady; the same would apply to Harry’s children while the Queen is alive.)

SenecaFalls · 28/10/2016 00:53

Also George VI had to issue letters patent in 1948 so that then Princess Elizabeth's children would have the title prince/princess. As grandchildren of the sovereign but in the female line, they would have only had the titles they were entitled to as the children of the Duke of Edinburgh.

BillSykesDog · 28/10/2016 00:56

Thanks Seneca, that's really interesting.

QueenLizIII · 28/10/2016 00:57

So the Queen amended this to the effect that Charlotte has the title princess as well.

I guess she had too because of changing to absolute primogeniture. If Charlotte had been born first she wouldnt have been princess as she wasnt the eldest son and yet she would be above any boys born later had she been first born.

tanfield90 · 28/10/2016 05:05

I see Beetroot and Eugene have had a mention again but nothing to do with their father's desire for a bigger Royal role. The discussion seems to have morphed into one about succession, titles and so on. Fascinating stuff. Whether they do more Royal stuff or work independently to support themselves both B & E need to show they are more than just clothes horses and holidaymakers.

QueenoftheAndals · 28/10/2016 07:01

One thing I've always wondered, why are non-inherited Royal dukedoms only conferred upon marriage?

diddl · 28/10/2016 08:07

I wonder how much is due to upbringing rather than titles or lack of.

For example Zara could probably have still done what she does-that's down to her ability plus of course time & money to be able to do it.

She may not have been able to accept sponsorships?

She is still a GD of HM & with a privileged lifestyle titled or not.

Although having people bow to you might give you a skewed view of your own worth!

VanillaSugarandChipSpice · 28/10/2016 08:58

Prince Andrew cancelled Rev

My mistake - it was Ambassadors, which was brilliant the cunt

Peregrina · 28/10/2016 09:03

I think there's going to be a huge social revolution when the Queen dies.

I think so too, in terms of attitude towards the Monarchy. When the Queen came to the throne we were still very much recovering from the effects of the War, and she was young and represented a hopeful future. I am no Royalist, but I do feel she has served her country well.

Now, the War is all but forgotten, Charles is getting on a bit, 68 next month, and is crochety and generally seen as a bit of an oddball. The country is much less deferential than it used to be. But I would still keep Royalty as nominal Heads of Government, but just cut back on all the pomp and ceremony and cut back on the hangers on.

BalloonSlayer · 28/10/2016 09:04

why are non-inherited Royal dukedoms only conferred upon marriage?

I always thought that this was as a wedding present, to give the wives a title. Otherwise the Duchess of York would have been Princess Andrew and Kate would be Princess William of Wales.

Diana was never called Princess Diana (although I always call her that) she was The Princess of Wales then, after her divorce, Diana Princess of Wales.

Charles' proper title (among many) is The Prince of Wales. Prince Charles was his title from when he was a little boy.

BalloonSlayer · 28/10/2016 09:05

actually I don't know that about Charles, I just assumed.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 28/10/2016 09:08

why are non-inherited Royal dukedoms only conferred upon marriage?

Since they're in the gift of the Queen, perhaps it's so that the bride can have a new title too, befitting her "royal role"

After all, Fergie, Sophie and Katherine had no titles of any sort until marriage and Diana was a mere Lady, so maybe it was felt they should have a promotion on marriage to these glorious beings Hmm, and that a shiny new title - other than the ones their husbands already had - would do it

Puzzledandpissedoff · 28/10/2016 09:09

Cross posted with you, Balloon Blush

PetalMettle · 28/10/2016 09:19

LOVE this thread.
Why do we think Harry won't have kids, is this something everyone knows but me?

ChazsBrilliantAttitude · 28/10/2016 09:47

On a slightly different note, this photo is interesting.

The Duke of York wants his daughters to be full time Royals?
BalloonSlayer · 28/10/2016 09:50

Oh wow Chaz

I have heard people say Harry is the spit of Phillip before but I have never been able to see it myself before now.

I have seen a picture of Harry with combats and a helmet on where he looks very like Charles though. I will look for it. Sometimes it's just hard to see past someone's colouring.