Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The BRF Family Tree and the different dynasties.  (Read 26046 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pomme

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1318

Offline Offline

Netherlands Netherlands

Posts: 3227


Mary who?




Ignore
« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2015, 10:45:30 PM »

Wheeeee! This is why I luv Luvcharles  Star  And a Star  for all you history fans too (that includes Lady A and Herazeus of course)
Logged

Talk to the hair, you slitherin' Skank
http://i.imgur.com/2mUIe.jpg
Lady Alice

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 2040

Online Online

United States United States

Posts: 5704





Ignore
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2015, 11:29:00 PM »

You're right, thank you.
Logged

Herazeus
Banned
Banned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 609

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1053





Ignore
« Reply #47 on: March 31, 2015, 02:39:45 AM »

You are welcome.

Lady Alice: I tend to write in generalities on this type of thread because I assume prior knowledge.

A few of points I wish to clarify;

1. I always forget about their German titles, so thanks for that clarification, however point that there were lots of Princelings related to the BRF on the British side remains. All were eligible for princ(ess) style. George V restricted it.

2. PGtips doesn't have a surname. Being a direct descendant of Lizzy and Philip, he has use of Mountbatten-Windsor if the situation requires (sidenote, I don't understand why James and Louis are Windsor unless I missed something). Just like his father. My explanation of his style really wasn't about his surname, but whether or not he was a prince with or without Lizzy's caveat that made it so. Without her intervention, PGtips + siblings would have the style of a duke's kids. Sidenote: noted Luvcharles's correction regarding PGtips himself.

3. I hope it's understood that females do not inherit titles and that this has been the case since 1066. I didn't think I needed to make that point clear, except to point out why it is that Anne's kids didn't inherit FROM HER. It's quite clear, I hope, from the example of Margaret that her husband would have needed to be granted a title for her kids to inherit. The few females who have inherited like the Mountbattens required special order request by the monarch, signed by Parliament in order to do so. In other words, they are exceptional circumstances and cases.

5. To me, recent is within 20yrs. The reform of the house of Lords is still a work in progress so we can't say it's complete.

However, the salient point is that one can't have a seat in the house without a peerage which the aforementioned people do not have ergo they are commoners.



« Last Edit: March 31, 2015, 04:02:19 AM by Herazeus » Logged
luvcharles

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1153

Online Online

Australia Australia

Posts: 2997





Ignore
« Reply #48 on: March 31, 2015, 04:15:14 AM »

Louise and James surnames are Mountbatten-Windsor. Louise was referenced as Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor in the CC and on the official program for William and Kate's wedding.

In day to day life, however, such as at school, she only uses Windsor - like William and Harry used/use Wales and Beatrice and Eugenie use York.
Logged
PruNordstrom

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 1027

Offline Offline

Posts: 4229





Ignore
« Reply #49 on: April 18, 2015, 05:57:25 AM »

I looked through all the thread topics and then read the most likely ones to answer my questions but to no avail. I'm asking if you can point me in the right direction on the board to find the answers.

With the recent all-monarchy celebration of Qn of Denmark's 75th birthday I noticed there was no presence by any member of the BRF. IIRC Albert (Edw VII) was married to a Danish princess therefore their descendants are related to the DRF within the last few generations.

Was QEII invited and couldn't go due to prior engagement?
I notice that the BRF rarely goes to any of these types of celebrations. (The Swedish wedding comes to mind as an exception.)
Is the BRF isolating themselves from the other royal families?
Or are the other families shunning the BRF because of the Chas/Cam union (a reason suggested to me.)
Or I have totally missed all the reports of them socializing on a regular basis with the other RFs.

Can you point in the direction of the threads that can answer my questions?
Thanks.
 Curtsey
Logged

The only thing most people do better than anyone else is read their own handwriting.
Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve. ~JWheeler
Felicia

Warned
Small Member
****

Reputation: 190

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 447





Ignore
« Reply #50 on: April 20, 2015, 05:15:23 PM »

Certainly some socialising goes on but not so much in public
Logged
Lady Alice

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 2040

Online Online

United States United States

Posts: 5704





Ignore
« Reply #51 on: April 20, 2015, 06:10:23 PM »

The BRF plays by its own rules and always has re the Continental RFs, even as far back as Queen Victoria. It's really hard to say why, but it's certainly easy to speculate.

With Liz & Phil, you'd think it's due to age, but look at 'em go all over the place still - so if there's something they really want to attend, they'll show up... but they didn't. To be fair, Liz doesn't usually attend these kind of events, but one would think that Phil, due to his blood ties, would. Maybe he has no patience for Marge's cray-cray.

Chuck doesn't seem to have close connections to them, though he certainly got to know the DRF through the years; maybe he won't go because of the snub of having John Donaldson (Mary's dad, of all people!!) do a meet and greet with them on their last visit - a snub to Chuck, to Cams, or both? But, IMO, a snub it was, and I'd probably feel the same way.

The Lazytons aren't much into shindigs like this, plus I don't think Wm has any real connection to the DRF other than that useless visit a few years ago. Plus, you're getting into whether they're too junior for Marge - send the heir to the heir and that's not good enough for Her Delusional Majesty.

Continental events are not Anne's or Andrew's cup o' tea. 'Nuff said there.

The only others with any connection to the Continentals are the Wessexes, but for Marge's self-celebration, they were certainly too low in the pecking order to be permitted to attend, probably for fear of offending La CRAZY Reine.

The queen's cousins (Kents, Gloucesters) are again too junior.

Maybe the Firm at large knows that Marge is loony tunes and wants nothing to do with it?

Perhaps someone can correct me, but doesn't Marge slip in and out of London and do private visits then? I know that Sofia of Spain does. Someone can refresh my memory. So maybe formally they're not great on attending, but have good personal relationships away from the camera...?
Logged

Celia

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 721

Offline Offline

Posts: 2655





Ignore
« Reply #52 on: April 20, 2015, 06:31:09 PM »

Princess Anne went to a Norwegian event a few years ago (king's birthday?) in addition to the Wessexes, surprising many watchers. The Gloucesters go to Danish events (unsurprisingly), Philip went to Margrethe's 60th, the Kents used to go to Dutch events more often... 
Logged
Princess BlueEyes

Warned
Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 760

Offline Offline

Posts: 3846





Ignore
« Reply #53 on: April 20, 2015, 06:41:44 PM »

This may sound too simple but is it possible that no one from the BRF attended Margrethe's birthday celebration because they did not receive an invitation?
Logged

    
Lady Alice

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 2040

Online Online

United States United States

Posts: 5704





Ignore
« Reply #54 on: April 20, 2015, 08:13:47 PM »

That would be a gross breach of protocol if that's the case.
Logged

nihonbutterfly

Muted
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 319

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1928





Ignore
« Reply #55 on: April 20, 2015, 08:20:34 PM »

Does anyone else wonder if on their 18th birthdays James or Louise will ask for the HRH back in their names? You know their actual birthright?
Logged



luvcharles

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1153

Online Online

Australia Australia

Posts: 2997





Ignore
« Reply #56 on: April 20, 2015, 11:30:41 PM »

There has been considerable debate on a number of sites about whether they are actually entitled to the HRH anymore.

One argument goes that only the issuing of new LPs to replace the 1917 ones could deny them that right.

The other argument is that the Queen's will has been made known and that that is enough to say they don't have it.

I doubt if they would want it anyway. By the time they were born there was a clear consciousness in the UK of a demand for a smaller royal family and all the 'extra' HRHs weren't necessary. Edward and The Queen read the times right and decided on the styles of children of an Earl rather than HRHs.

I wouldn't be surprised if Harry follows this lead - particularly if his children are born in the current reign as they would be born as Lords and Ladies and not HRHs (unless the Queen issued new LPs to cover Harry's children as she did to extend HRH to ALL of William's children - George was already covered but a daughter and any other sons weren't).

I do think that the intention - not yet formalised but coming - is that only the children of the monarch and the heir will be HRHs into the future but without stripping those who already hold it. It will just become 'normal' at some point in the future that only the children of one child in each generation passes on HRH.
Logged
MidnightDiamond

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 473

Offline Offline

Posts: 4515





Ignore
« Reply #57 on: April 21, 2015, 02:50:45 AM »

I'd say Harrys kids will get HRH because of Charles wanting to "start over" the royal family with his kids and grandkids.
Logged
luvcharles

Huge Member
********

Reputation: 1153

Online Online

Australia Australia

Posts: 2997





Ignore
« Reply #58 on: April 21, 2015, 03:27:43 AM »

Charles, according to some sources, wants to make the royal family smaller. That means fewer HRHs and so to deny the HRH to the children of the second son of his mother, or strip them of that title, as some suggest he is going to do would be seen as hypocritical if he then gave HRH to the children of his own second son - who won't be born with it if born in the present reign.
Logged
MidnightDiamond

Humongous Member
**********

Reputation: 473

Offline Offline

Posts: 4515





Ignore
« Reply #59 on: April 21, 2015, 03:47:27 AM »

But recently Harry is getting alot more time with his father and when they did the balcony on the Queens celebration Harry was there, so I believe the slimming down monarchy is Charles starting over of course Harrys kids will have fewer duties but if W/K have 2-3 kids they will probably need Harrys kids to do part time.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: