HRH at Greenville Games

[Brian K]

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,

I dispute nothing you say. I agree with it entirely. When I spoke of hereditary power and privilege I was speaking of royalty and aristocracy in general. There are places in the world where power is inherited along with privilege. Even in England there are those in government who have inherited there positions - many in the House of Lords, for example. Of course, if Labour has their way even this will change eventually.

As far as how hard the British royals work at their job I also agree with you there. I am particularly impressed at the schedule the Queen keeps. Most octogenarians would find her official calendar a grueling ordeal. Not only does she stick to it year in and year out, but it seems to me that she quite enjoys it. Long live the Queen!

Regards,

Brian

[McClef]

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.

Titles and Princely status are two separate issues here. In Letter's Patent dated 30 November 1917, the King (George V) restricted the style Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess of Great Britain and Ireland to the children of the Sovereign, the children of the sons of the Sovereign, and the eldest living son of the eldest living son of a Prince of Wales. Anne therefore qualifies but her children do not. Strictly speaking she was not actually entitled to the style of Princess until her mother became the Sovereign being the granddaughter through the female line of George VI and neither did her brother. HM was always heir presumptive and never heir apparent due to the male preference primogeniture system.

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 am not aware that Her Majesty has ever varied the letters patent of her grandfather. Thus one may have non titled members of the Royal Family who are in line of succession through the female line. In the male line the letters patent still apply to the children of Charles, Andrew and Edward whose wives status depended upon their marital position as we do not have morganatic arrangements.

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.

Read any commentary you wish about her status prior to her marriage and you will see the word "commoner" used, including in her official biography by William Shawcross that I happen to be currently reading. Yes, she was still noble at the same time but was still non royal. Hers was the first marriage of a commoner into the Royal Family since Anne Hyde married a previous Duke of York (who became James II & VII). Since that time male royals had had to look to find Princesses to marry. Interestingly I found that she and Prince Albert could claim common descent from Henry VII which made them 13th cousins!

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.

Do not confuse "commoner" with "common." Snowdon's children have the right to the title of Lord and Lady because of him having an Earldom (pop up toaster notwithstanding!) They derive no rank or title through Princess Margaret though they do derive their place in the line of succession from her.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

Hi Trefor--

I really don't disagree with much of what you've written-- had I wanted to bore the pants (kilts?) off folks I could have gone into greater detail, but frankly I was more interested in "telling the time" rather than publishing "a dissertation on the history of clock making".

However I will make one or two observations:

(1) Based on your comments I think readers are apt to confuse the pop-culture use of the word "commoner" with it's actual meaning, ie: one who is not noble. Royals are no more noble than any other rank within the hierarchy of nobility, Princess Michael of Kent's comments not withstanding.

The Palace does not object when tabloids and biographies use the word "commoner" when describing the social status of those marrying in to the royal family as it adds to the illusion of egalitarianism the monarchy is careful to foster and nurture with its subjects.

However, that does not change the fact that one is either "noble", un-titled, titled, or royal, or one is "common", ie a commoner.

2) The letters patent you referred to (Royal Decree GR 30 XI 1917) do indeed limit the princely status of the children of the sovereign, and were promulgated-- amongst other reasons-- to deprive all of Queen Victoria's German great grandchildren of princely British titles.

All of this has absolutely nothing to do with kilts, and as interesting as you and I (and probably six other readers ) may find it, I'd respectfully suggest we return to the topic at hand (HRH at the Greenville Games), rather than risk boring the other 5000+ members of X-Marks who are in danger of finding this thread becoming too tedious for words.

[Woodsheal]

I, for one, am glad we heaved all this business overboard in 1776...!

[ThistleDown]

I, for one, am glad we heaved all this business overboard in 1776...!

Who's this "we" you refer to, Brian? I don't wish to be antagonistic here, but this is an international forum owned by a Canadian and devoted to Scottish dress.

[macwilkin]

Post deleted.

[Peter C.]

Peter,

I dispute nothing you say. I agree with it entirely. When I spoke of hereditary power and privilege I was speaking of royalty and aristocracy in general. There are places in the world where power is inherited along with privilege. Even in England there are those in government who have inherited there positions - many in the House of Lords, for example. Of course, if Labour has their way even this will change eventually.

As far as how hard the British royals work at their job I also agree with you there. I am particularly impressed at the schedule the Queen keeps. Most octogenarians would find her official calendar a grueling ordeal. Not only does she stick to it year in and year out, but it seems to me that she quite enjoys it. Long live the Queen!

Regards,

Brian

You are absolutely right Brian. So many people criticize the British Royals that I find myself defending them with out thinking. Lesson learned. Sorry.

Peter

[McClef]

I am sure that both MOR and I agree that it's good to educate forum members who may not be aware of the niceties of protocol etc in countries outside of the US. Rejection should not be an excuse for isolation or lack of knowledge and it remains a fact that many Americans are fascinated by a system that they themselves no longer have.

I am aware that the letters patent were designed to have the effect of "deprincing" all the German relatives but it was also to restrict the proliferaton of royal titles ad infinitum to British ones also. George V's only daughter, Princess Mary, the Princess Royal was not able to pass on royal titles to her children whereas all her brothers were (apart from the childless Edward VIII/Duke of Windsor and the unfortunate Prince John who died young).

A lot of the royal males we have been discussing are kilt wearers though (some more than others)!

[thescot]

I have found the discussions quite riveting and helpful in understanding the whole thing.

Not that I understand it yet, but after a few more readings, I think I will.

I appreciate your expertise, gentlemen, and I appreciate your sharing it.

I am not in the least bored by it, even though it has no impact on my life.

[RB51]

I second TheScot's comments; I've found this fascinating. Thanks to MoR and McClef for taking the time to share their knowledge. For those of us who are not as savvy as others, are there any books we could be directed to that deal with this topic?

Laurie