Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Royal Family question

I was looking at a family tree of the Royal Family online--how come Princess Diana was a Princess, but the spouses of Queen Elizabeth's other children were Countess, Dutchess, etc? Is it because Prince Charles was the first born? How come Prince Charles' and Prince Andrew's children are Princes and Princesses, but Prince Edward's children are Lady and Viscourt? And what are Princess Anne's children's titles? The family tree doesn't list them. Do they not have any?

by Anonymousreply 2802/07/2013

All the Queen's children were born prince/princess. The other titles such as duke and earl were wedding gifts.

Anne (The Princess Royal)'s children have no titles because she didn't want them to.

[quote]How come Prince Charles' and Prince Andrew's children are Princes and Princesses, but Prince Edward's children are Lady and Viscourt?

Charles and Andrew are royal dukes, so their children are princess/princesses. Edward is "only" an earl, so his children aren't princes.

by Anonymousreply 102/06/2013

[quote]Anne (The Princess Royal)'s children have no titles because she didn't want them to.

However, they're still in the line of succession to the throne.

by Anonymousreply 202/06/2013

Diana was never "Princess Diana". One needs born into royalty to be Princess or Prince. She was Diana, Princess of Wales, a titled bestowed upon her when she married Prince Charles.

by Anonymousreply 302/06/2013

Excuse my awful grammar. I've had a few martinis.

by Anonymousreply 402/06/2013

Anne's children would not be given titles anyway since titles almost always pass through the male line. There is a rumor that since Anne's first husband (the father of her child) was not an aristocrat, the queen wanted to give him a title (the way she did for her sister's husand when her sister married a commoner refused) when they married so their children could have titles too, but Anne refused; there have been rumors again the queen offered to give Peter and Zara titles in their own right but Anne refused for them again. Anne really wanted her children to have more normal lives, which is in part why she gave them the names "Peter" and "Zara" that do not have royal precedent. However, as someone posted upthread, they are still in the line of succession.

The only person in the family who has not followed usual precedent is Prince Edward. Usually when a monarch's male child marries he is made a royal duke, and heirs are given the titles of "HRH Prince_____" or "HRH Princess_____" (for example, Prince Andrew was made the Duke of York when he married Fergie, and their children are HRH Princess Beatrice of York and HRH Princess Eugenie of York--and both those names have royal precedent). Edward (who has had HRH status since birth anyway) asked instead to be made an Earl rather than a royal Duke, so his mother created the title the Earl of Wessex for him, and his children are styled "The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" and "James, the Viscount Severn" (the latter being the courtesy title associated now with the heir to the earldom of Wessex).

Apparently, Prince Charles thought there were too many HRH Princes and Princesses and royal dukedoms, and he wanted to cut back; apparently he wanted to take away the HRH Princess style for Beatrice and Eugenie in recent years, but their father lobbied his mother hard that this would be unfair to them since they were born with the title. The monarch is the official fount of all titles, and can strip them away if he/she so chooses, which may mean that Beatrice and Eugenie will be in trouble when the queen dies since Charles apparently thinks they are spongers and may take their titles away if he becomes king and gets the right to make that decision.

One added thing: there is also a rumor that when prince Philip dies his royal dukedom of Edinburgh (which will automatically go to his eldest son, Charles), may by the monarch's intervention be given instead to Edward (since he is not currently a royal duke), and thus he will become the next HRH the Duke of Edinburgh.

by Anonymousreply 502/06/2013

[quote]Edward is "only" an earl, so his children aren't princes.

Do we know why he's not at the same title level as his brothers?

Is it because he's the only one to remain married to his spouse?

by Anonymousreply 602/06/2013

[quote]Anne (The Princess Royal)'s children have no titles because she didn't want them to.

It was more than that. The children of a princess royal are not guaranteed titles.In fact, Queen Elizabeth, who offered to give Anne's children courtesy titles upon their birth, would probably never have styled them at a very high level.

Until recently, only the children of the male lines of the British royal family were automatically given titles. The law of succession has now been changed so that William and Kate's first-born, whether male or female, will be third in the line of succession after Charles and William. Naturally, a first-born daughter's children will automatically be princes and princesses.

Also, from what I understand, once Charles becomes king he will probably raise Edward's rank and officially style Edward's children as prince and princess. The rules for styling/giving titles are different for the grandchildren of a reigning monarch versus the nieces and nephews of the reignining monarch.

Even now, Edward's children are still technically prince and princess of the UK.

by Anonymousreply 702/06/2013

[quote]Do we know why he's (Edward) not at the same title level as his brothers?

R6. Actually, Edward is at the same level as his brothers. They are all princes. The difference is that he's not a duke because he apparently asked to be made an earl (a step lower) upon his marriage--and then his wife was made a countess. I believe he did this so that his children would not be technically styled HRH so that they would have a more normal upbringing, similar to Anne's kids.

[quote]Also, from what I understand, once Charles becomes king he will probably raise Edward's rank and officially style Edward's children as prince and princess.

R7. If Charles were to make Edward's kids HRH, then Charles will not be able to take away HRH from Beatrice and Eugenie. And Charles shouldn't take away Bea and Eug's titles anyway since they were born with them.

The issue is--how will Sarah Ferguson be styled when she and Andrew (his mother's favorite) remarry upon Prince Philip's death? Sarah may not be a member of the royal family now, but she is still "Sarah, Duchess of York," so I guess her style title will remain, but will she be granted her former, "HRH" status?

That's only if Andrew and Sarah remarry--all speculation on my part. But I'd like to see it happen.

If Charles can marry that homewrecking rottweiler, Camilla, then Andrew can remarry Sarah.

by Anonymousreply 802/06/2013

[quote]The issue is--how will Sarah Ferguson be styled when she and Andrew (his mother's favorite) remarry upon Prince Philip's death? Sarah may not be a member of the royal family now, but she is still "Sarah, Duchess of York," so I guess her style title will remain, but will she be granted her former, "HRH" status?

She would become HRH again.

If you are the wife of an HRH, you become HRH. The only time this didn't happen in the last three hundred years was with the Duchess of Windsor, and she was barred from the HRH title only by will of the sovereign (George VI), who hated her for being mean to his wife and also for (in his mind) seducing his brother and taking him away from his kingly duties. Since the monarch is the fount of all honors, he was within his writes to do this (though the Duke and Duchess of the Windsor insisted on all their servants addressing her as "Your Royal Highness" and curtseying, and their friends did the same in private so as to please them).

My understanding is that Philip in particular hates Fergie, and so they will not remarry in his lifetime (which won't last much longer). but the queen feels mixed about her--she thinks she's obnoxious and behaved miserably twenty years ago (which is true), but realizes that her favorite son loves her, that she's grown up some (not entirely), and that she's the mother to her grandchildren.

by Anonymousreply 902/06/2013

[quote]within his writes

"Oh dear" to myself!

of course I meant "within his rights."

by Anonymousreply 1002/06/2013

Charles has had a lot of time to make a lot of plans.

He has said he will not take the traditional "Defender of the Faith" title, but instead "Defender of Faith" so as to include all religions.

I'm sure the British Buddhists are just beside themselves.

by Anonymousreply 1102/06/2013

Charles has become a vindictive old cunt since he married the rottweiler. Good for Andrew for standing up for his girls.

by Anonymousreply 1202/06/2013

Diana was never Princess Diana. Her name of was Diana. Her style, while married, was HRH, and her title was Princess of Wales.

She was referred to as Princess Diana by media and colloquially, but properly she was referred to as HRH The Princess of Wales.

After the divorce she was given the title Diana, Princess of Wales.

Prince or Princess before a name goes only to children of the Sovereign and children of sons of the Sovereign. It's because titles also flow from the man, not the woman, in most cases. So Princess Margaret's children, despite being grandchildren of a King, were titled Lord and Lady, because their father was granted an Earldom. When she gave birth to Prince Charles and Princess Anne, the Queen was still Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh. I assume George VI issued a Letters Patent (essentially a memo from the boss) clarifying the Royal titles for the children as children of the (female) heir to the throne.

The stuff about Edward, Duke of Edinburgh is correct but as I understand it when both the present Duke and the Queen are dead, the title reverts immediately to the Crown and then goes to Edward. Charles would inherit the Dukedom in the interim, assuming the present Duke predeceases the Queen.

by Anonymousreply 1302/06/2013

So far, William IV is the oldest person to become monarch at 64 years, 10 months, and 3 days. (A son of George III, lived 1765-1837, became king in 1830 after his older brother George IV died)

Charles is 64 years, 2 months, and 23 days old.

He is already the person who's waited the longest.

by Anonymousreply 1402/06/2013

Today is the anniversary of Elizabeth II's ascension. 61 years, congrats!

Victoria reigned for 63 years and 216 days.

Elizabeth will have to sit on that throne through September 10, 2015, to beat that record for the UK/England. At that time she'd be 89. She's in second place now though.

Rama IX, King of Thailand, has been ruling for more than 66 years.

by Anonymousreply 1502/06/2013

If the Queen lives as long as her mother, there could be a good chance Charles won't still be alive and William would become King.

by Anonymousreply 1602/06/2013

R16. All in all, not a bad plan.

by Anonymousreply 1702/06/2013

Chuck shoulda hauled ass to the Netherlands where he might've had a better chance.

by Anonymousreply 1802/06/2013

I have a question: They are changing the law so that the first born child of Catherine & William will be the future monarch, whether boy or girl. Does this change apply retrospectively as well? Does this mean that Anne and her children will move "further up the ladder" since she was the second born after Charles?

by Anonymousreply 1902/07/2013

[quote]I have a question: They are changing the law so that the first born child of Catherine & William will be the future monarch, whether boy or girl. Does this change apply retrospectively as well? Does this mean that Anne and her children will move "further up the ladder" since she was the second born after Charles?

No. The legislation will take effect with William's and Catherine's first child, not all the way back retroactively.

by Anonymousreply 2002/07/2013

Thanks R20. It's too bad. I was hoping to see Zara and Peter take the two ugly sisters' places.

by Anonymousreply 2102/07/2013

[quote]Rama IX, King of Thailand, has been ruling for more than 66 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the King that will never meet with Queen Elizabeth simply because royal protocol would force her to give him precedence? Presumably the British monarch does not wish to do that because even though the Thai King was a king for five years while she was a mere royal princess, her vast realm is ever so much more valuable than his tiny one.

by Anonymousreply 2202/07/2013

They have met. King Rama and his Queen have been guests at Buckingham Palace.

by Anonymousreply 2302/07/2013

Did anyone have a look at the family tree on the link? There's at least one first cousin marriage in their history. And the full family history shows they are all descended from the same family. It's a miracle they can walk and talk. Catherine is a much needed injection into their gene pool.

by Anonymousreply 2402/07/2013

[quote]And the full family history shows they are all descended from the same family.

You do realize that's not a complete family tree, right? Very few of the spouses have THEIR parents and grandparents showing. There's a lot more diversity than you seem to realize.

by Anonymousreply 2502/07/2013

Edward's children are officially Princess X of Wessex and Prince X of Wessex, Viscount X. The parents, the Earl and Countess, asked that their children to be styled 'Lady' and 'Viscount' even though they are HRHs and royal from birth based on the Letters Patent.

by Anonymousreply 2602/07/2013

It is all just too ridiculous to be worried about. I understand that in 1952, Mrs. Mountbatten-Windsor did not know any better. But it is 60 years later now, and she should just do the right thing, and admit that there is no such thing as a "royal highness", and issue a demand that a new Constitution be adopted which would declare that all people are created in equality, and abolish the monarch and the House of Lords.

by Anonymousreply 2702/07/2013

R27, Heavens no, what shall we do with all the corgis then?

by Anonymousreply 2802/07/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.