No titles for Peter & Zara Phillips

[Dustyblue]

I've watched a few documentaries on Princess Anne recently, she's had an interesting life. I particularly liked "Princess Anne: The 7 Loves of Her Life". (On Youtube)

I keep hearing about how clever she was to ensure her children didn't have titles, so they wouldn't be burdened by being 'working royals' and have more freedom in life to pursue their own goals. This in part was because Capt Mark Phillips apparently refused an Earldom when they married, so no titles for their kids to inherit down the male line.

But I can't help thinking of HRH Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie. Titled as fuck, but I can't see how it's stopped them pursuing free lives and doing whatever they like. Both had careers of sorts, Beatrice in tech & Eugenie in fine art, whilst jet-setting & holidaying around the world before choosing partners and having children. They don't seem to be 'working royals', they just pop up at family events much like Peter & Zara do.

So what's the difference? If Beatrice & Eugenie carry any burden it's their misfortune of having such dodgy parents- nothing to do with their titles?

But neither Anne or Andrew knew how things would pan out as their children got older. Anne was more ensuring her children weren't thrust more into a working Royal role. Andrew has made it clear over the years hed very much like his daughters to have more Royal duties. He probably believed by making them Princesses it was more likely to happen

He didn't bank on firstly his own spectacular fall into oblivion and the damage to the York name but also that Charles would cut back the working Royals the way he has.

All 4 of them have made careers out of their royal connections. It doesn’t seem to have held them back at all!

But maybe is the general public more obsessed than titles than they are? Have they said they care?

As far as I understood it they would not have been Prince and Princess as they are not entitled to the title. It went down the male line and your father’s parent had to be monarch. This is what Megan didn’t understand when her children were born. They weren’t entitled to the title of prince/princess until the Queen died. William’s children are children of a direct heir so are given the title. The most Peter and Zara could be was Lord or Lady if their father had not declined a title, which I agree probably wouldn’t have had much impact on them. I suppose the rules have changed since boys don’t outrank girls in the line of succession now but I don’t know for sure.

Rules can and do change via letters patent. In 2012 there was one that extended the titles of 'prince' and 'princess' to all of William's children, before that only the eldest son would be a prince until Charles became king.

Boys still outrank girls for inheritance of both titles and land ! in the aristocracy. That was abolished for the king/queen but remains for earls and dukes and lords. If an earls only child is a daughter, she can’t inherit the title or the family land and house. It would all go to the nearest male relative, sometimes a third or fourth cousin. Crazy and unfair system.

Agreed, that's why I was wondering what the difference is!

Peter, Zara, William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie- what is the difference of holding a title?

Louise & James, children of Edward & Sophie have a few possible titles they could use or not? Their parents are now the Duke & Duchess of Edinburgh, just for starters. Could they also employ Prince/Princess titles, as grandchildren of the Monarch on the male line?

Unfortunately for the princesses, I suspect Beatrice and Eugenie have been kept at arms length more than they might have been due to their parents attention seeking and scandalous behaviour over the years. Had Andrew and Fergie been a bit more steady and sensible (like Anne) both princesses might've been given much wider public roles.

But why did Beatrice and Euginie get princess titles? Andrew was second son and so was Harry?

Because the queen was still alive when they were born.

They were the great grandchildren to HRH.
BandE were the Grandchildren to HRH

@brettsalangerof course different generations! Thank you

You are entitled to the title of Prince or Princess if you are the child or grandchild through the male line of the reigning sovereign. So not all of Queen Elizabeth’s grandchildren were entitled to it anyway. Anne’s children would only be titled by whatever their father’s title entailed, and he rejected a title, so Zara and Peter would never have been a Prince or Princess anyway.

Only Charles (as next in line and father to the next monarch) and Andrew (who seems obsessed with his daughters being princesses of the blood) chose to give their children titles of Prince and Princess. Edward chose lesser titles for his children (Lady Louise and Viscount Severn/Earl of Wessex). I’m sure I’ve read that Louise and James can choose if they want to be titled as Princess and Prince when they reach 18, so I’m assuming Louise has rejected it.

Meghan seems to have thought that William and Catherine’s children got preferential treatment because they were the only ones whose children had the title of Prince and Princess. She didn’t seem to understand that the only the eldest son of the eldest son was entitled to the title of Prince, as per the George V’s Letters Patent. So if Charlotte had been born first she would have been titled Lady Charlotte (as daughter of a Duke), George would have been Prince George, and Louis would be Lord Louis. Which is just ridiculous, unequal and down right sexist, so the Queen changed the rules in 2012 before any of the children were born to ensure that all children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be titled Prince and Princess.

I recall lots of articles about how Beatrice and Eugenie were lazy bludgers but not so Zara and Peter so perhaps Princess Anne was very smart in that regard. They’ve had all the same privileges and opportunities but none of the flak.

I actually found it very refreshing that Harry and Meghan chose to keep their children as plain old master and miss when they were born. It’s a shame they were just holding out for the Prince and Princess title in the end. Lady Lilibet had a lovely ring to it too!

The difference is Peter and Zara’s father doesn’t have a title and he didn’t want one from the late Queen when he married Princess Anne. Titles are inherited from the father’s side therefore the children don’t have titles. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are daughters of a royal duke and grandchildren to the monarch so legally entitled to be called Princess at birth.
I don’t see how Peter and Zara have missed out really, I think they’re better off not having titles

Whilst titles don't automatically make you a working royal it does seem to be a lot easier to be a non working royal without titles. Just comparing Eugenie with Peter Philips you can see that non titled people aren't as scrutinised by the tabloids.

I also love Lady Lilibet as opposed to Princess Lilibet, it just sounds better, flows more. It doesn't make her less royal to use Lady.

Just comparing Eugenie with Peter Philips you can see that non titled people aren't as scrutinised by the tabloids.

I think being male also has something to do with being less scrutinized by the tabloids?

I do think you’re right about males being less scrutinised by the media in general. But I feel if you look at Zara & Mike and Peter cashing in on their royal connections face less scrutiny than Harry and Meghan. I do feel like the title does add pressure to you.

Zara and Peter lead a quieter life and want to be normal (as normal as you can be when your mum is the Princess Royal and granny was the Queen).

The reality is that Princess Anne has brought her kids up to actually do something, they obviously have a lot of advantages eg Zara hasn’t struggled for sponsorship in her equestrian endeavours but her skill and dedication is what won her competitions and medals, just like her mum did. Hard work wins sporting events not titles. They live a fairly low key life, they don’t push their privileges and wealth onto us, in fact by all accounts princess anne is frugal, still wearing outfits from 40 years ago (who can fit in clothes that old!!!) I’ve met her and she was really nice and friendly, pretty down to earth but then I’ve met other members of the royal family through work too, one memorably said having been offered a drink, don’t both with fancy cups, i prefer a mug, strong with one sugar! This was at the site visit before the event, when he arrived later he was all formal!

It is interesting what the men in the family get away with though.

Harry uses a racial slur, dresses up as a Nazi, plays naked billiards, general a bit scruffy looking = cheeky chappy

Mike Tindall parties, was involved in a dwarf tossing controversy, flirts and gets handsy with other women = Jack the lad

Charles has affair = Camilla is a home wrecker, evil stepmother

Beatrice and Eugenie live like most wealthy socialites = lazy/ party girls

Beatrice and Eugenie (And Sarah) wear clothes = frumpy, unfashionable, ugly step sisters, fat

Catherine leaves work place after being harassed by paparazzi and works for parents company = lazy, work shy, gold digger

Catherine goes off ill = she’s lying, where is she, she’s dead, she’s had plastic surgery, her marriage is over

Meghan is American = bossy, difficult, rude

Harry & William seem distant = wives have fallen out, Catherine/Meghan made each other cry, ‘duchesses at war’

Harry & Meghan unhappy in UK = Meghan is dominant, Megxit, she’s cut him off from his family

Imagine if one of the women in the family did anything half as bad as what the men got away with. There would be uproar. I know Harry is now being targeted but that was only when he stopped being a ‘lad’ after he met Meghan. But again, the narrative is that she changed him, she wears the trousers in the relationship, he’s emasculated. It’s not just the traditional media either, everyone is a critic now thanks to social media.

Zara's father was a more successful sports person than her Mother. His reputation and profile would have meant she had an advantage in the horse world without the royal connection. The children of former champions always have a higher profile and an easier time with sponsors, look at Emily King or Lissa Green in eventing, or the Whittaker clan in showjumping.

Good point. Zara and Eugenie would have been a better comparison.

Because their father was the son of the monarch. The rule as far as I am aware is if you’re father’s father is the monarch then you are HRH and a prince/princess. zara and Peter’s mother was the daughter of the monarch. Their father was not the son of a monarch. That’s the difference.

I think the Princess titles were most detrimental to B & E when they were in their late teens and early twenties. Their (critical) press coverage was higher because the titles justify the 'public interest' media intrusion. Th8nk of 'The Windsors'. B & E had rather unflattering portrayals and P & Z weren't in it at all, as far as I remember.

So now Harry is the son of the monarch does this mean his children can now be Prince and Princess?