Lord and Lady Frederick Windsor and Family News and Events 1: Sep 2009- Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
vkrish said:
Yup..Those good old Alix's Danish eyes..
OMG I could finally trace one physical trait straight through five generations..
Click to expand...
I noticed it too. Those marvelous eyes both George V and Tsar Nicholas had!
 
Last edited:
maud is a very adorable baby. i'm happy they shared some pictures of all the family. sophie looks very recovered and it seems like she has a great relationship with her in laws.

i wonder who made that beautiful dress maud is wearing. it is so sweet and summery!

i also very much like the names maud and elizabeth. less keen on daphne and marina, but i guess it was due to family ancestors, so i can't complain :)
 
When Prince Michael passes away, will Frederick become a prince? And why is he not a prince already? Prince Charles' sons are princes, why not Prince Michael's?
 
Rocketmom said:
When Prince Michael passes away, will Frederick become a prince? And why is he not a prince already? Prince Charles' sons are princes, why not Prince Michael's?
Click to expand...
Prince Charles sons are sons of the Heir and one of them are likely to become King.
 
Rocketmom said:
When Prince Michael passes away, will Frederick become a prince? And why is he not a prince already? Prince Charles' sons are princes, why not Prince Michael's?
Click to expand...

Prince Michael is a male line grandchild of a monarch (George V). Freddy is neither a son nor a grandson of a monarch.
 
The 1917 LPs of George V give the style of HRH Prince or Princess to:

The children of the monarch - Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward

The male line grandchildren of the monarch - William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James (last two is debateable due to othe announcements and I am not going to debate it here), Richard, Edward, Alexandra and Michael.

The eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - George (although QEII has amended this last clause to be ALL the childen of Prince William)

As things currently stand only William's children will be born as Prince/Princess in the current reign as Harry's children aren't covered for that styling under any existing LPs. Harry's children will be HRH once Charles becomes King, unless new LPs are issued to restrict it or he follows Edward's lead and says that they won't be so labelled.

Prince Michael's children, like Prince Richard (Duke of Gloucester) and Prince Edward (Duke of Kent) will not be HRH Prince or Princess at all of these children will be great-grandchildren of a monarch but not through the primary line.

Prince Michael, being the younger son of a son of a monarch, has children who are given the styling of the children of a Duke - again under the 1917 LPs. Fred's children will be simply Mr and Miss. This is NOT the normal situation for the children of the younger son of a Duke but special for the younger sons of royal Dukes.

Whereas the children of a princess go to Mr or Miss as grandchildren of the monarch but from princes it takes at least to great-grandchildren before that happens - further example of the sexism in the BRF.

The idea with the 1917 LPs are that there will always be a limited number of people who had HRH Prince/Princess.

Currently there are - 15 by birth, including Louise and James with only William and Harry in the younger generation able to have children with that styling and Harry only after his grandmother dies and his father becomes King. If Charles doesn't outlive his mother then Harry's children won't be Prince/Princess as they won't be the male line grandchildren of a monarch.
 
Last edited:
Dman said:
Pictures:
Lord & Lady Frederick Windsor with Baby Maud and Grandparents:
Royal Kents
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting Dman, little Maud is adorable! All the photos are lovely, but I particularly like this one , very cute. I purchased last week's edition of Hello and there's a sweet photo of Freddie or Sophie's hand holding baby Maud's. I also agree with those who think Freddie looks like Princess Michael, I said that to my friend the first time we saw the photos.
 
Iluvbertie, I guess they are satisfied with their sexism in the BRF. Probably really relieved that George was a boy so they don't have to hurry up and change the rules, but things are undependable in mortal life, and someone could suddenly go poof. William could die in an accident or of a rare plague, George the same. Harry's children might become higher in the succession unless Kate has another child. Harry could die unexpectedly, pushing Beatrice closer to the throne as a male-line descendant of the Queen. They should get their priorities straight, knowing that life brings the unexpected.
 
Mariel said:
Iluvbertie, I guess they are satisfied with their sexism in the BRF. Probably really relieved that George was a boy so they don't have to hurry up and change the rules, but things are undependable in mortal life, and someone could suddenly go poof. William could die in an accident or of a rare plague, George the same. Harry's children might become higher in the succession unless Kate has another child. Harry could die unexpectedly, pushing Beatrice closer to the throne as a male-line descendant of the Queen. They should get their priorities straight, knowing that life brings the unexpected.
Click to expand...

I think you're putting words into the mouths of the BRF.

1. Since Mary I came to the throne women have been able to inherit, with increasingly less problems and less gender-related opposition. No one opposed HM as the monarch because of her gender, and no one is likely to oppose a future Queen regent either.

2. The implementation of the change to the succession to allow for equal primogeniture began before Catherine was pregnant. The reason why it's taking so long has nothing to do with George's birth (or prior to that the possibility that he might be a she) but rather because 16 realms have to change it. This is slow work.

3. Beatrice's place in the succession is not owing to her being a male line descendant of the monarch - just her title is. She's in the line of succession because she's a non-Catholic descendant of Sophie of Hanover, born in a legitimate line.

4. The BRF, possibly more so than some other monarchies, is well aware of the mortality of it's members. Since the death of George III, approximately 200 years ago, only 3 men who were born in the direct line have come to the throne. There have also been 5 people who were either younger siblings or women (or in the case of Victoria, a woman born to a younger sibling). The BRF does not require that it's heir be a titled individual, although the likelihood of a heir presumptive not being given one if non-previously existed is slim, and has a line of succession of some 4,000 people. I think they're prepared for the unexpected.
 
If we go back to 1948 - October to be exact - there was a female, 2nd in line to the throne about to give birth to the 3rd in line to the throne. It was then realised that without new LPs that child would be born either Lord or Lady xxxx Mountbatten and if a boy would be known as Earl of Merioneth as a subsidiary title of his father.

Did they allow this to happen? No they realised the situation and George VI issued new LPs giving HRH Prince/Princess styling to ALL children of the then Princess Elizabeth. Last December she did the same thing - to ensure that regardless of gender - that ALL William's children would have the same styling. Had George been a Georgina she would also have been a Princess because of the 2012 LPs.

In other words the BRF deals with situations that arise as well as having in place some permanent arrangements.
 
Im Freddie found some happiness. I hope he doesn't encounter money issues like some of the other Kent s including his own parents
 
Does this thread cover princess Michael? One of my favorite topics
 
Iluvbertie said:
If we go back to 1948 - October to be exact - there was a female, 2nd in line to the throne about to give birth to the 3rd in line to the throne.
Click to expand...

Littttttttle mistake..That female was 1st in line, and the about-to born baby second..
 
vkrish said:
Littttttttle mistake..That female was 1st in line, and the about-to born baby second..
Click to expand...


OOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSSS - mistake in numbering of course but the intent was the same - to ensure that those in direct line would be HRH Prince/Princess but not the sideways lines. George VI could have given the HRH Prince/Princess to ALL his grandchildren but chose not to do so and limited it himself to his grandchildren from Elizabeth.
 
Iluvbertie said:
OOOOOPPPPPPSSSSSSS - mistake in numbering of course but the intent was the same - to ensure that those in direct line would be HRH Prince/Princess but not the sideways lines. George VI could have given the HRH Prince/Princess to ALL his grandchildren but chose not to do so and limited it himself to his grandchildren from Elizabeth.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't necessarily say that KGVI chose not to create all of his grandchildren as HRH Prince(sse)s. While his actions lead to only the direct line being such, in 1948 the then Princess Elizabeth was married and pregnant. Princess Margaret was neither married nor pregnant. For all we know, George could have had it in his mind that when she was married and pregnant he'd do up LPs for her as well and then died before that could happen. By the time Margaret did have children the world had changed and HM very likely had an idea as to how much her sister and her children would contribute to the BRF, and so chose not to issue any LPs, regardless of what her father's original intentions may (or may not) have been.
 
:previous: Regarding this, I agree more with Iluvbertie than with Ish. I believe George VI had no intention of making Margaret's children HRHs. If he really wanted, he would have included them in 1948 LP, or atleast made it clear to EII to carry out his wishes when time comes..
George VI honoured the LPs of his father and the traditional styling very much. Thats why he steadfastly refused to make Elizabeth Princess of Wales, even though many suggested it could help quell Welsh nationalism. He had very high regard for that title and wanted it to be reserved only for wife of the PoW..
And as for making Charles and Anne HRH, he dallied that too till the last moment (month), and since it would be a huge embarassment that 2nd in line is a 'mere' Lord, he gave in..
 
I think we must also remember that his own sister's children weren't HRH Prince/Princess so he would have created some issues between his only sister and himself if he had made ALL his grandchildren HRH while her children, also grandchildren of a monarch were only styled as the children of an Earl.

I don't think he would have made Margaret's children HRH at all and for that very reason - he respected the decision of his father over the difference between boys and girls in the family and only changed the LPs because he didn't want his grandchildren being styled as mere children of a Duke - and using the name Mountbatten to boot - his mother and wife weren't that keen on Louis so that would have been an issue as well.
 
Oh, yeah. I'm not trying to say that he would have created Margaret's children HRHs, but rather that he didn't set out to not create them. The lack of HRHs among Margaret's children is because QEII chose not to issue LPs to create them as such, not because George VI decided otherwise.

The BRF is typically reactionary instead of proactive - even the 1937 LPs were as much reactionary to various circumstances at the time as proactively trying to address future situations. It's rare for a monarch to issue LPs to address a situation that isn't currently relevant. In 1948, the issue of Margaret having children (with or without titles) wasn't on the docket, therefore KGVI wasn't likely to issue LPs regarding them, regardless of his thoughts on the matter.

As for whether he would have issued such LPs had he been alive in 1960, I do agree that it would have been unlikely - as much because of the break from the 1937 LPs as because of who Margaret had become by that point. That said, he had the unique position of being one of the few, if not the only, British monarchs to only have had daughters. Unlike the majority of his predecessors the future of his line was through female descent so he may have wanted Margaret's children to carry on some of that line. I'm not saying that's what he thought, just that we don't know - and that we can't say that his not issuing broader LPs in 1948 means that he didn't intend on issuing LPs to cover Margaret's children when they came up.

It's just like... Last year the Queen issued LPs to cover all of the future children of Prince William. Her failure to not broaden the LPs to cover Harry's children doesn't mean that she doesn't intend to do so when Harry's married and his wife is pregnant (assuming she's still monarch then). Nor does her having done so for William's children mean that she will do do for Harry's in the future. We don't know what's going on in her head on the matter, just like we don't know what went on in GVI's head on the matter.
 
The more immediate need was to deal with William's children since he is the married one and having kids in the queen's reign. Once the queen dies, it is a moot point because all of Charles's grandchildren becomes HRH due to William and Harry being boys. Also with the new law, if George was a girl, she would be lady name Mountbatten Windsor but be direct line for the throne without the queen's new LPs and if a boy came next he would be a Hrh but not heir since the George V LPs limits to the eldest son to the eldest son of the PoW.

In 1948, their were 4 young princes and a young princess from the King's brothers so there wasn't a lack of future HRHs . When Margaret got married in 1960, Tony turned done the peerage offered to him by the Queen but took it when she got pregnant with David.
 
Am I the only one who recognises a vague similarity between Lord Freddie and Thomas Barrow from Downtown Abbey?
 
Dman said:
Pictures:
Lord & Lady Frederick Windsor with Baby Maud and Grandparents:
Royal Kents
Click to expand...

Nice blog, thanks for sharing! :flowers:
Maud is adorable and Sophie looks so sweet. I have never been a fan of her beauty, apparently pregnancy suits her! ;)
 
I love this young family! I was worried about Freddie for a while when he was in his party boy years, without a proper job. I'm glad he seems to have founded a stable, loving family with Sophie.

The pictures of the family are beyond lovely; professional but personal, and so superior to George's pictures.
 
Im also happy he had a happy ending. What a great way to shut down the naysayers: )
 
According to Majesty Magazine, baby Maud will be christened in the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace in November this year (2013):

Majesty Magazine - The Quality Royal Magazine

NB: angieuk has posted this in the thread about Prince George's christening, but I thought it would be better if it were posted in this thread as it's more on-topic here.
 
Good to hear that Maud's christening is approaching! She & little George could become good friends one day!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
United Kingdom: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
6 7 8
Replies
219
Views
15K
Biri
B
Marengo
Lord and Lady Frederick Windsor and Family News and Events 2: Sep 2022 -
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
iceflower
iceflower
Marengo
Lady Gabriella Kingston News 1: June 2024-
Replies
6
Views
3K
iceflower
iceflower
iceflower
  • Sticky
Prince Albert II of Monaco Current Events Part 35: September 2024 -
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
iceflower
iceflower
An Ard Ri
  • Sticky
King Felipe, Queen Letizia and Family, General News, Part 3
Replies
6
Views
2K
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom