Lady Marlboro
Courtier
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 715
- City
- Anderson
- Country
- United States
I guess I am the only person on the planet who is disappointed with QEII for giving Kate the RFO. I was hoping she would never get it. Oh well....
Well, way back in the early married Kate years in this thread, we beat this issue to death. And one of the valid comments from earlier was that Her Majesty does not hand out any order rapidly. Not with the first baby, for sure. Someone that wants the deets can go back and look but it took Sophie quite a while to get hers. Fergie never got one. I forget for sure but think not with Di. And I think Camilla was the fastest from altar to RF order but even then it took a while and maybe was a birthday gift?
And want everyone that told me over and over that ivory was not the issue to admit I was right! ?
I still really want some royal reporter to find out about the person that still paints these baubles. I want to read THAT story.
I guess I am the only person on the planet who is disappointed with QEII for giving Kate the RFO. I was hoping she would never get it. Oh well....
My own personal opinion is that she hasn't done anything to deserve the RFO except maybe popping out 3 kids. I don't think that is a good enough reason. However, as Osipi says, we have absolutely no idea what the Queen's reasons are and never will.
My own personal opinion is that she hasn't done anything to deserve the RFO except maybe popping out 3 kids. I don't think that is a good enough reason. However, as Osipi says, we have absolutely no idea what the Queen's reasons are and never will.
My own personal opinion is that she hasn't done anything to deserve the RFO except maybe popping out 3 kids. I don't think that is a good enough reason. However, as Osipi says, we have absolutely no idea what the Queen's reasons are and never will.
1. Show some respect!
2. There are obviously some misunderstandings why orders are being given out. The main thing is not about "deserving" it or "merit", but as a sign of belonging to an institution.
I mean, what royal lady in the past, receiving this particular order in her teens or early twens, has done something specific to deserve it?! No Alexandra of Kent, who got ot being 15, no Prcss. Margaret receiving it as a toddler, and no Diana, receiving the RFO at a time when she, to use your infamous words, "popped out" just one child and has done so far, unlike Catherine, no overseas trips "for Queen and country".
In other monarchies royal family orders are given only because she married a Prince - and is given the most highly and prestigious order (Sweden The Seraphim, Denmark The Elephant tc. all in their ranking comparable to The Garter in Britain, given out only for the most prestigious services to the country and King or Queen or foreign monarchs).
Orders in general (of course there are exceptions) are not to be given because of merit, but because as symbols of belonging, as a sign of diplomatic friendship and bond between the one who gives it and he/ she receiving it. One exception perhaps in Britain is the Most excll. Order of the brit. Empire, given for merits in cultural and society life.
absurdly irrelevant to modern life in the 21st Century.
If a woman who is part of the BRF through Marriage has received a RFO, in the event of divorce is the RFO withdrawn or does she get to keep it?
Yes, it's very odd, that poster saw no problem in Diana and Katherine Kent getting RFOs the same year they married but Catherine after six years hasn't earned it? Now I'm wondering what secret magic Diana and Katherine did in just a couple months to 'earn' it. Though Diana and Katherine were/are blue-bloods so maybe they weren't expected to 'earn' it, it was just de jure like with the young Anne, Margaret, and Alexandra.
Beatrice and Eugenie don't have the Royal Family Order. Like Princess Michael they aren't really working royals.
Princess Michael does not carry out engagements on behalf of the BRF. This might explain why.That's why I don't get Princess Michael not having been given it. She's the ONLY royal lady (forget Meghan for the moment) without it. You'd have thought that after 40 years in the family the Queen could have passed one in her direction. It just seems mean spirited to me and humiliating for the princess.
Princess Michael does not carry out engagements on behalf of the BRF. This might explain why.
Yes, it's very odd, that poster saw no problem in Diana and Katherine Kent getting RFOs the same year they married but Catherine after six years hasn't earned it? Now I'm wondering what secret magic Diana and Katherine did in just a couple months to 'earn' it. Though Diana and Katherine were/are blue-bloods so maybe they weren't expected to 'earn' it, it was just de jure like with the young Anne, Margaret, and Alexandra.
Let's also not forget the absolute absurdity of the Swedish king bestowing an order on his grandchildren as babies at their christenings.
All these orders, whether it be the RFO or the Garter or any other royal order in just about any country, are absurdly irrelevant to modern life in the 21st Century. So, who cares who gets one and when?
When the Kings of Spain and of the Netherlands are due to be installed at Windsor with the Garter, it is simply and only because it is tradition and because they are "of the club". That´s that. No specific merits, no deeds of bravery and sacrifice, nothing. Do you get that?