Members of the Royal Family

[AdmirerUS]

We don't even know IF she would have gotten married, WHERE she would have married. We also don't know IF the wedding would have been at all religious, much less which religion.

But since likely not your standard COE royal family wedding, no to Lord Chamberlain IMO. Since very possibly not in the UK, no Lord Chamberlain.

EDIT: And I just looked at the title of this Thread - Wow, are we off topic!

 

[Denville]

The Queen is a Christian and to me seems a flexible and practical lady. Angus Ogilvy, Henry Abel Smith, Dorothy Cambridge née Westenra Hastings, Alexander Ramsay, Wallis Windsor née Warfield, etc are examples of non HRH's and non-royals buried at Frogmore.

But the Spencers had other arrangements, so we will never know.

of course they had other arrangemetnts. Diana was a member of the Spencer family, and IMO the queen only agreed to the funeral because of the public mood.

So if she was a member of the royal family would her wedding be royal as I thought all members of the royal family have royal weddings regardless of whether it’s public or private, which would be organised by the Lord Chamberlain just as both Prince Harry’s and Princess Eugeine’s wedding were and currently being organised by.

She was not.. once she had divorced Charles, she lost her HRH and was only regarded as part of the family because of the boys. She was invited to certain events, the boys were still her boys, but she did not even spend Chirstmas lunch with the RF... because she didn't feel comfortable iwht them. Why on earth would they regard her as Royal or arrang her wedding? I can't imagine why she would wish for such a thing.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Princess Royal, by all accounts a royal, married in an intimate ceremony in a Scottish village church.

The Duke of Edinburgh, by all accounts a royal, wants a funeral as sober as possible.

Prince Michael of Kent, by all accounts a royal, married in Vienna.

Morale of the story: the grandesse of an occasion or the involvement of the Lord Chamberlain says nothing. It are always personal choices and circumstances in my opinion.

 

[Denville]

P Michael had no choice since it was his wife's second marriage. It was a civil marriage and at the time, Royals were held not to be able to marry in a civil ceremony in England..... and it was also Anne's second marriage.

 

[Osipi]

Thank you all for your responses, I really appreciate it and you have all been of great help.

It has occurred to me that Diana’s funeral was arranged by the Lord Chamberlain. I hate to be speculative and apologise if I am being but it has occurred to me that if she had lived and remarried would her subsequent wedding be organised by the Lord Chamberlain or would that just apply to her funeral. I know there is no definite known answer and we will never know but I would love to hear what your personal view of this would be.

Basically, if Diana were to have remarried again, I think that she would have wanted it to be as far removed from the British royal family as possible other than having her sons attend. This is the woman that actively dismissed any offer by the BRF of protection after the divorce. At the time of her death, she didn't exactly hold the royal family in any kind of high esteem and would have planned her life as her own and possibly could have seen any kind of involvement from the BRF or its staff as "controlling" or "interfering"

The more I think about it, the involvement of the Lord Chamberlain in putting together a funeral quickly stemmed from Charles' involvement in everything from the moment he realized that Diana had been killed in Paris. If he had been the type of ex-husband that had totally put her out of sight and out of mind, he wouldn't have done all the things he did for Diana at the time along with being there for his sons. He didn't have to accompany Diana's sisters to Paris to bring Diana home but he wanted to. To me, that showed the integrity Charles, the man, has and the respect he held for his ex-wife.

It very easily could have just been all totally handed over to the Spencers to do what they will. The BRF weren't required to step in but they did to assure that Diana was afforded a funeral that included everyone down to the public masses that mourned her.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

How many members of the royal family are there in total?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

How many members of the royal family are there in total?

Neither the British monarchy nor British law have ever clearly designated who is or is not classified as a "member of the royal family".

 

[tommy100]

Well many many many, but the royal's official has links to bios for the following on their website:

HM The Queen
Philip
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie
Anne
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
The Duchess of Kent
Princess Alexandra of Kent
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent

Of course, this really is just a list of HRH's and misses out the Queen's grandchildren (except Will and Harry) and her great grandchildren (apart from Will's children).
I suspect this indicates whilst others from those listed are of course members of the Queen's family they are not considered members of the Royal Family in an official sense.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

I have an example which might clarify who’s regarded as a member of the royal family. Would Zara Tindall as an example have to ask permission from the Queen and Foreign office when ever she goes abroad in the line of work? This is because I know members of the royal family have to follow this protocol whenever they go abroad except for private holidays. Therefore, I wonder how many members of the Queen’s family have to comply with this?

 

[Somebody]

While not official, I would say that the any 'royal highness' by definition is part of the 'royal family'; and I don't see a reason to extend that definition to those who are not royal highnesses (the only ones who could be debated imo are non-royal spouses of royal highnesses - it seems that they don't really count but in practice they do represent the queen at times).

 

[tommy100]

I can't remember what event it was but I remember noting at a service at Westminster Abbey or St Paul's all the HRHs (inc Gloucesters, Kents etc) sat upfront with other members of the family sat behind them even though it meant, for example, Anne's children sitting a few rows back from herself.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have an example which might clarify who’s regarded as a member of the royal family. Would Zara Tindall as an example have to ask permission from the Queen and Foreign office when ever she goes abroad in the line of work? This is because I know members of the royal family have to follow this protocol whenever they go abroad except for private holidays. Therefore, I wonder how many members of the Queen’s family have to comply with this?

None.

The government tried to enforce such a law in the days of George I but he refused to agree saying his family had to be free to move between the UK and Hanover and the government agreed.

Even the Queen can leave the UK for a private visit without ever telling the government she is doing so. She doesn't but she can.

As official visits are sanctioned by the government the royals concerned have government approval - but that is because the government is the one sending them or the government is heavily involved with the planning.

That means that the government has no say when Camilla goes on her annual Greek holiday but does when she joins Charles in the Gambia for the official tour. What she was doing prior to their joint arrival (they didn't leave the country together) is her business and nothing to do with the government who may, or may not, have even known where she was.

Zara isn't royal so she can do what she likes.

Beatrice and Eugenie aren't working royals so again can do what they like when they like - as can Prince and Princess Micheal of Kent.

Harry and Meghan had the government's understanding for their recent trip but if they have now decided to have a few days rest in the south of France they don't have to tell anyone.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

The only reason I ask this is that when Diana went to Angola in 1997 she had to ask the Queen’s permission for her to go. This was after the divorce when Diana was not a working Royal and all her engagements were done separately from the royal family.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She didn't have to ask anyone's permission. She gave the Queen the courtesy of telling her.

She did ask the government in case there were political issues and was advised on what to say and what she wasn't allowed to say.

The main concern was her safety - hence the government were advised.

She could have gone. She didn't need anyone's permission as she was a totally free person. She could have said anything she wanted as she was no longer bound by the 'no political statements' rules as well.

It was this trip that lead to the 'she is a loose cannon' by members of the government as well as she was no longer bound by any of the normal rules or protocols that apply to the BRF. She was even free to run for a seat in the House of Commons (she was a commoner afterall). I suspect had she tried that she would have been given a peerage title in her own right to prevent her standing for parliament. I am not suggesting that she had ever thought about doing that but that it was a possibility.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well many many many, but the royal's official has links to bios for the following on their website:

HM The Queen
Philip
Charles
Camilla
William
Kate
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Meghan
Andrew
Edward
Sophie
Anne
The Duke of Gloucester
The Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
The Duchess of Kent
Princess Alexandra of Kent
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent

Of course, this really is just a list of HRH's and misses out the Queen's grandchildren (except Will and Harry) and her great grandchildren (apart from Will's children).
I suspect this indicates whilst others from those listed are of course members of the Queen's family they are not considered members of the Royal Family in an official sense.

Didn't Princess Alexandra remove "of Kent" and take the name of her husband on marriage? In the Court Circular she is called Princess Alexandra and Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, even as her brother is called Prince Michael of Kent.

The royal website also has a listing called "List of the Royal Family": https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_6.pdf

THE ROYAL FAMILY
Her Majesty The Queen
His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh
Their Royal Highnesses The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall
Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge
His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge
Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
His Royal Highness Prince Louis of Cambridge
Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex
His Royal Highness The Duke of York
Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice of York
Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York
Their Royal Highnesses The Earl and Countess of Wessex
Viscount Severn
The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
Her Royal Highness The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence
Mr. and Mrs. Peter Phillips
Miss Savannah Phillips
Miss Isla Phillips
Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tindall
Miss Mia Tindall
Miss Lena Tindall
The Viscount and Viscountess Linley
The Honourable Charles Armstrong-Jones
The Honourable Margarita Armstrong-Jones
The Lady Sarah Chatto and Mr. Daniel Chatto
Mr. Samuel Chatto
Mr. Arthur Chatto
Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester
Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Kent
Their Royal Highnesses Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy
Sarah, Duchess of York​

It appears that they forgot to update the titles of the Armstrong-Jones family following the death of the 1st Earl of Snowdon.

 

[loonytick]

QUITE interesting that they’ve kept Sarah on that list!

 

[miss whirley]

That is interesting. They didn't do it for Mark Phillips.

Also interesting that they have included the great-grandchildren of EII and GVI but not the great-grandchildren of GV. They seem to be playing a bit fast and loose. As such I'm not surprised that they haven't bothered to update the Armstong-Jones family.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Do you think this list is correct in terms of actual members of the British Royal Family?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Do you think this list is correct in terms of actual members of the British Royal Family?

That is the official list from the British Monarchy website.

If the British Monarchy (or BP itself) can't get the list right who can?

QUITE interesting that they’ve kept Sarah on that list!

I have heard before that Sarah is kept on the list because she was once an HRH. They did announce that Diana would be regarded as a member of the BRF after her divorce at times and be invited to some royal events. Even her inquest was dealt with as if she was still a member of the BRF. If Diana was still a member of the BRF at her death than Sarah must still be as well.

I have also heard she is still on such a list as she has a personal coat of arms and it is a way of protecting that image from exploitation by others.

I don't know for sure - just repeating different reasons I have seen over the years as to why Sarah is still on that list.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Sarah hasn’t been invited to many royal events after the divorce but I can imagine when it eventually happens she would be invited to the Queen’s funeral.

 

[Spheno]

That is interesting. They didn't do it for Mark Phillips.

Also interesting that they have included the great-grandchildren of EII and GVI but not the great-grandchildren of GV. They seem to be playing a bit fast and loose. As such I'm not surprised that they haven't bothered to update the Armstong-Jones family.

They use different criteria than you. All people from this list are:
1) descendants of George VI + their spouses
or
2) princes/princesses of UK + their spouses

 

[miss whirley]

They use different criteria than you. All people from this list are:
1) descendants of George VI + their spouses
or
2) princes/princesses of UK + their spouses

If George V's non-HRH grandchildren were still alive and not on the list then I'd buy your argument. But his only surviving grandchildren are HRH, so to me the list is about relation to the Monarch (past and present), the HRHs aren't the qualifiers.

 

[Spheno]

If George V's non-HRH grandchildren were still alive and not on the list then I'd buy your argument. But his only surviving grandchildren are HRH, so to me the list is about relation to the Monarch (past and present), the HRHs aren't the qualifiers.

I see clear system, you don't. Ok. It's your choice.

 

[miss whirley]

I see clear system, you don't. Ok. It's your choice.

Alright. Since your system is clear and undebatable. Then in your eyes if Samuel Chatto were to marry and have a baby in the near future then that baby would be added to the list as a great-great-grandchild of George VI. Correct? I do hope to see your system tested in the near future.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The argument could be made for several systems that all would be consistent with the official list (Sarah excepted):

1) descendants of George VI + princes/princesses of the UK + their spouses
2) people within four degrees of kinship in relation to Queen Elizabeth II + their spouses
3) an additional generation of descent for every generation of monarchs since Edward VII (children of Edward VII or one of his successors + grandchildren of George V or one of his successors + great-grandchildren of George VI or his successor + great-great-grandchildren of Elizabeth II) + their spouses

 

[miss whirley]

The argument could be made for several systems that all would be consistent with the official list (Sarah excepted):

1) descendants of George VI + princes/princesses of the UK + their spouses
2) people within four degrees of kinship in relation to Queen Elizabeth II + their spouses
3) an additional generation of descent for every generation of monarchs since Edward VII (children of Edward VII or one of his successors + grandchildren of George V or one of his successors + great-grandchildren of George VI or his successor + great-great-grandchildren of Elizabeth II) + their spouses

Options 2 and 3 seem the most logical, I lean towards 2. For 3, I think great-great-grandchildren of Elizabeth would be used only for her reign. Under Charles' or William's or George's reigns it would seem unlikely to list the children of Savannah, Isla, Mia, Lena, etc. That list would become jumbo sized.

Part of me wishes all great-grandchildren of British monarchs were listed. It would be priceless to see Astrid and King Harald on the list.

 

[Somebody]

The argument could be made for several systems that all would be consistent with the official list (Sarah excepted):

1) descendants of George VI + princes/princesses of the UK + their spouses
2) people within four degrees of kinship in relation to Queen Elizabeth II + their spouses
3) an additional generation of descent for every generation of monarchs since Edward VII (children of Edward VII or one of his successors + grandchildren of George V or one of his successors + great-grandchildren of George VI or his successor + great-great-grandchildren of Elizabeth II) + their spouses

I am quite sure that princess Mary's children weren't considered part of the royal family. Or did the 7th earl of Harewood show up on this list for example 10 years ago? If he didn't what would be the most likely system in your opinion?

 

[miss whirley]

I am quite sure that princess Mary's children weren't considered part of the royal family. Or did the 7th earl of Harewood show up on this list for example 10 years ago? If he didn't what would be the most likely system in your opinion?

Scrolling through early posts in this thread, the first mention in this thread of the BRF's family list from their official website came in October 2011, after the Earl had passed, so we don't know if he had been included or not. I'd like to believe he was, both as a grandchild of a King (6th-in-line at his birth), and as a former Counsellor of the State. If someone with his credentials didn't rank then many on the current list are bizarre inclusions. Especially since a few other posters believe the great-grandchildren of Margaret will be eventually added to list.

 

[Fijiro]

Here's the full list of most popular royals, according to the YouGov poll:
1. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex
2. Queen Elizabeth II
3. Prince William, Duke of Cambridge
4. Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge
5. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
6. Meghan, Duchess of Sussex
7. Prince Charles
8. Princess Anne
9. Zara Phillips
10. Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall
11. Sophie, Countess of Wessex
12. Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
13. Princess Beatrice of York
14. Princess Eugenie of York
15. Prince Andrew, Duke of York
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...arry-prince-charles-70-birthday-a8629906.html

 

[Somebody]

Scrolling through early posts in this thread, the first mention in this thread of the BRF's family list from their official website came in October 2011, after the Earl had passed, so we don't know if he had been included or not. I'd like to believe he was, both as a grandchild of a King (6th-in-line at his birth), and as a former Counsellor of the State. If someone with his credentials didn't rank then many on the current list are bizarre inclusions. Especially since a few other posters believe the great-grandchildren of Margaret will be eventually added to list.

Him being a counselor of state is indeed an indication that his position was sufficiently prominent to be considered a member of the royal family.