Princes Edward and Andrew...
WetTheMogwai · 03/06/2012 18:10
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 · 03/06/2012 18:21
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 · 03/06/2012 18:22
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 · 03/06/2012 18:24
Is it to do with security that they're kept apart?
bronze · 03/06/2012 18:25
Anne was on another boat. So
Etching to do with one of the things she's the face of
bronze · 03/06/2012 18:26
Something to do with...
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 03/06/2012 18:26
ANTagony of course! Can you imagine the brawling if they were all corralled together. Don't want regicide live on the BBC!
McKayz · 03/06/2012 18:28
I saw all of them but Edward and Sophie.
Thumbwitch · 03/06/2012 18:28
Coo, Queen Zara, can you imagine!
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 · 03/06/2012 18:29
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 · 03/06/2012 18:31
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 · 03/06/2012 18:34
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 · 03/06/2012 18:37
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 · 04/06/2012 00:32
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 · 04/06/2012 12:06
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 · 05/06/2012 07:05
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 · 05/06/2012 07:14
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 · 05/06/2012 07:24
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 · 05/06/2012 07:28
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 · 05/06/2012 07:34
What I find particularly interesting is that Edward and his family took Mountbatten-Windsor, which must have made the DoE happy.
Frakiosaurus · 05/06/2012 07:39
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 · 05/06/2012 07:40
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 · 05/06/2012 07:47
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 · 05/06/2012 08:06
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 · 05/06/2012 15:39
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 · 05/06/2012 18:19
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.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.