HRH at Greenville Games

[Peter C.]

It has been said that one of the great gifts Diana gave the Royals, aside from herself, was to take her sons out of the previously firm royal bubble so that they got to eat at places like McD's and do many such things as children that Charles would never have even known about. I'm glad Philip got to see your classroom in its natural state because in my experiences at several Royal events, not only the room but the kids themselves would have all been scrubbed down and whitewashed . I'm not blaming the Windsors, it's the way things are. Like being President, only involuntarily and for life.

What you say about McD's is probably true, but I could show you many people in the UK who are not titled, who would not dream of eating in places like that. That is just their choice, and I am not sure how their lives would be improved by being taken there.

The royal bubble is a bit of an exaggeration. When the royals join the forces, as most of them do, they live like everybody else. When the young royals go abroad and work with charities they see life in the raw, the likes of which most of us only see on television.

Peter

[Brian K]

As far as the Royals being human, this is a relatively modern concept. Even in countries where they were not actually considered divine they were so far above the average person and so divorced from everyday concerns they might as well not have been human. The younger generations of royal houses all over the world have tried to change this impression in order to maintain their relevance and to increase their usefulness in a modern context. I recently saw a documentary series about a year in the life of the British royal family and in one scene HRH Prince William was shown attending some sort of meeting with people seeking help with a charitable project. Young William wore jeans and a tattersall shirt and, IIRC, he drove himself and his aide to the meeting. When they arrived the aide introduced him to all in attendance as "Wills." He did it in such a natural manner that it was obvious it was something he did regularly rather than a put up job for the documentary.

They are ordinary humans who have been placed in extraordinary circumstances, and while, as an American, I have my doubts about hereditary power and privilege, I do believe that the royals are doing the best they can with what they have to serve their subjects rather than simply expecting service from them.

Regards,

Brian

[Lallans]

What you say about McD's is probably true, but I could show you many people in the UK who are not titled, who would not dream of eating in places like that. That is just their choice, and I am not sure how their lives would be improved by being taken there.

The royal bubble is a bit of an exaggeration. When the royals join the forces, as most of them do, they live like everybody else. When the young royals go abroad and work with charities they see life in the raw, the likes of which most of us only see on television.

Peter

C'mon Peter, McD's was symbolic. Take a good look at the young life of Charles to get my point about a bubble. And I SAID that the young Royals have left it.

And see, if Edward had only worn a kilt this whole line of discussion would never have come up.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Thank you for your definitions. You have cleared up several questions I had but may I ask one more? There are people who have arms created. They have traced their ancestry back to Scotland and then arms are created for those ancestors and now the current person gets arms after paying certain fees. Is this person now considered nobility?

Addressing the preamble to your question-- persons who live outside of Scotland, and who are of Scottish descent, may, if they meet certain criteria set forth by the Court of the Lord Lyon, apply for and receive a grant of arms in respect of their Scottish ancestry. Because the process of granting arms is fairly complicated, the government has set a schedule of statutory fees which must be paid to off-set (at least in part) the cost of the process. In this respect the fees assessed are similar in character to the fees associated with a building permit-- they cover the actual cost of inspecting the proof that the applicant has complied with the relevant regulations.

That said, the short answer to your question is a qualified "yes", although the understanding and recognition of nobility varies considerably from place to place and from time to time, even within Great Britain.

The universally accepted minimum "standard" of nobility is a coat of arms; that is the shield with its heraldic devices, a helmet-- which in some countries may denote rank-- and a crest. So, in purely legalistic terms, anyone possessing a full achievement of arms (shield, helmet and crest) can, and should be regarded as "noble", provided that their arms are either granted or confirmed by a sovereign power. The mere adopting of arms by an individual does not, in any way, enoble.

In much of the English speaking world there is an assumption that only people with titles are noble. This is of course wrong-- No one would doubt that Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is noble. However, neither of her children have titles. Are they somehow "not noble" even though they are eligible to inherit the throne of their Grandmother, the Queen? (They rank 10th and 11th in the line of succession.) No, they are not. They each bear the Royal Arms quartered with those of their father, Mark Phillips, along with the helmet appropriate to their rank and a crest. Clearly they are noble.

The same would apply to Mr. McTavish, or any other armiger-- by virtue of their arms they are noble. A title is merely an additiment to nobility, not its foundation.

[AcuteEnigma]

Thank you Mr. MacMillan of Rathdown.

I wish I had met you in person at the Greenville games.

[Peter C.]

As far as the Royals being human, this is a relatively modern concept. Even in countries where they were not actually considered divine they were so far above the average person and so divorced from everyday concerns they might as well not have been human. The younger generations of royal houses all over the world have tried to change this impression in order to maintain their relevance and to increase their usefulness in a modern context. I recently saw a documentary series about a year in the life of the British royal family and in one scene HRH Prince William was shown attending some sort of meeting with people seeking help with a charitable project. Young William wore jeans and a tattersall shirt and, IIRC, he drove himself and his aid to the meeting. When they arrived the aide introduced him to all in attendance as "Wills." He did it in such a natural manner that it was obvious it was something he did regularly rather than a put up job for the documentary.

They are ordinary humans who have been placed in extraordinary circumstances, and while, as an American, i have my doubts about hereditary power and privilege, I do believe that the royals are doing the best they can with what they have to serve their subjects rather than simply expecting service from them.

Regards,

Brian

I agree with everything you say Brian.

Just one point about hereditary power and privilege.

The British Royal Family have hereditary privilege, but in almost every wealthy family the children get the best of everything, that is a sort of hereditary privilege. The royal family get that privilege at the very high cost of having the whole of their lives controlled by their jobs.

The British Royal Family has no hereditary power. Unlike your head of state, who is the most powerful man in the world, the queen has no power over the people or the country, she just supports which ever government the people vote in. Fot example, in 1982 when we went to war, it was Margaret Thatcher who sent us, not the queen.

I guess that was two points.

Peter

[Peter C.]

C'mon Peter, McD's was symbolic. Take a good look at the young life of Charles to get my point about a bubble. And I SAID that the young Royals have left it.

And see, if Edward had only worn a kilt this whole line of discussion would never have come up.

I love McD's fries.

You are right about Charles, but that was a long time ago. Things have changed quite a bit. I sometimes wonder, if the youngsters are given a free rein, will they be able to toe the line when it is time to reign?

I'm glad he didn't wear a kilt, I'm enjoying this discussion

Peter

[McClef]

In much of the English speaking world there is an assumption that only people with titles are noble. This is of course wrong-- No one would doubt that Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is noble. However, neither of her children have titles. Are they somehow "not noble" even though they are eligible to inherit the throne of their Grandmother, the Queen? (They rank 10th and 11th in the line of succession.) No, they are not. They each bear the Royal Arms quartered with those of their father, Mark Phillips, along with the helmet appropriate to their rank and a crest. Clearly they are noble.

As I recall, it was George V who restricted the royal titles of Prince and Princess to grandchildren of a monarch descended only from the male line. Anne's children therefore did not qualify as their principal rank is taken from their father (the same applies to the children of the late Princess Margaret.)

They are thus (even were they to be given a title) "commoners" but even nobles are "commoners" under our system. The late Queen Mother, although the daughter of an Earl, was still a commoner until she acquired royal status through her marriage. Royal status conferred upon marriage can be taken away, as we saw with Diana and Sarah Ferguson, if the marriage is dissolved but the children, as grandchildren of the Monarch through the male line are not affected by a change in status of their mother. No title was conferred upon Mark Phillips thus Peter and Zara have no title, it was, however conferred upon Anthony Armstong-Jones who became Lord Snowdon and thus his children have titles derived from him.

[creagdhubh]

Not this American citizen, who always shows respect to our mother country and our Commonwealth cousins.

T.

Agreed. As do I mate, as do I.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

No title was conferred upon Mark Phillips thus Peter and Zara have no title...

Actually, Mr. Phillips declined the offer of a title (earl) and it was at the express request of HRH The Princess Royal that no titles were granted to her children. But you're right, they are untitled nobles.

Who is, and more importantly who is not, a member of the Royal family is determined by Her Majesty, and by Her Majesty, alone (within the confines of the act of settlement). Likewise Her Majesty, as the font of all honours, may ennoble-- or degrade-- an individual in their title by her own mere motion. Thus after a divorce a Royal may be deprived of Royal status, and thereby forfeit the right to use HRH in front of their title.

I know what you are driving at, but I think it somewhat misleading when you refer to Her Majesty the Queen Mother as being a commoner prior to her marrying into the Royal Family and thus acquiring royal status. As the daughter of an earl she retained all of the prerogatives of nobility, including the style of "Lady". True, as the daughter of an earl she was eligible to seek elective office and if successful take her seat in the lower house of parliament, but this concession in the electoral laws did not take from her her noble status.

As nobiliary practice relates to Mr. Mark Phillips and Mr. Anthony Armstrong-Jones, as far as I am aware Mr. Phillip's family was non-armigerous, thus he was not noble, hence he was a commoner by most definitions. Mr. Anthony Armstrong-Jones did come from an armigerous family, and was armigerous himself prior to wedding HRH Princess Margaret, thus he was noble, and most certainly not a commoner. That he was given an earldom (Snowdon) on his wedding day merely elevated him to the status of the titled nobility (and, in my opinion, was a much better wedding present than a new pop-up toaster!). Snowdon's children, by the way, rank 12th and 13th in line for the throne, right after the children of Princess Anne-- that hardly makes them common.