Are any and all forms of royal protocol off the table when a royal is in the military?
Both Princes William and Harry have served in the British armed forces. Were the other men in their platoons (or divisions or whatever) expected to address them as “Your Highness” or whatever? Was their drill sergeant expected to treat them differently from other recruits?
It is somewhat of a tradition for members of the royal family to serve in the military, so they’ve had ample time to make adjustments.
Generally, speaking, though, they are not given special treatment. They often use aliases to de-emphasize their status as royals. Everyone will know who “Private Wales” or “Ensign Windsor” is, but they will be treated as any other person holding that rank would be treated.
Have any female members of the royal family served in the military? (I know the queen worked as a mechanic or some such thing during WWII, but I’m wondering about a more active role.)
The Master speaks. It’s from 1987, and answers a similar question about Prince Andrew, but I see no reason why things would have changed since.
Nope, she remains to date the only female member of the royal family to have ever actually served in uniform (many female royals have been given honourary appointments & ranks though). I think Catherine of Aragon might have invaded Scotland while Henry VIII was in France, but I think she stayed in London instead of actually leading troops into battle.
I just did a quick Google search for ‘prince harry afghanistan’ to see if it came up with any stories of his time deployed there - I wondered if any of his fellow soldiers might have spoken to the press. I couldn’t find anything. Most of the hits came up as links from broadsheet newspapers, I imagine that sort of info would go to the tabloids - The Sun, Mail, Express etc. That might be a good place to start to find out about how it worked on the ground, so to speak.
One thing I’ve always kind of wondered about is do they have bodyguards shadowing them while they’re serving? Or do they figure that when they’re on duty they should be able to protect themselves?
Prince Albert, the future King George VI (he was “the spare heir”) served as a sub-lieutenant on H.M.S. Collingwood, a battleship, during the Battle of Jutland in 1916. He apparently watched the battle in the open.
There was some scandal about him calling one of his fellow soldiers ‘Paki’ wasn’t there?
Anyway I’d imagine the protocol is something like:
NCO: “Am I ‘urtin’ you, sah???”
Prince: “No, sergeant!”
NC: “Well I ought to be - I’m standin’ on your FUCKIN’ hair. NOW GET IT CUT!!! your royal highness”
I’ll let the British military speak:
It’s my understanding (Yank though I may be with only bare-bones-minimal knowledge of all things British) that the royals, when serving in the military, are treated as just like any other military man (or nearly so, more or less). They wear their military hat while serving, distinct from their royal hat. – At least in modern times.
William has been in the news many times regarding his role as a rescue pilot. In this role, he is known as Flight Lieutenant Wales. (According to the tabloid scandal sheets at the supermarket checkouts, Kate has aged 50-some years with worry about him and his safety – possibly one of the more plausible stories you might see in such publications.)
A quick google image search for Lieutenant Wales will find several photos of William in uniform, with a name tag of Wales visible. Here are a few:
And while we’re at it, here’s a photo of Prince Harry in uniform with name tag showing “Harry Wales” (interesting that his first name is shown as Harry, not Harold or whatever his first name really is):
http://www.princess-diana-remembered.com/uploads/5/3/3/5/5335384/7620314.jpg
(ETA: This zombie resurrected because Elendil’s Heir cited it here.
(And OOPS for the double-post.)
It’s Henry.
Actually Henry Charles Albert David.
So if he happens to become King, and keeps his name, he will be King Henry the 9th.
Are there any strange implications if a prince ascends to a throne (in Merrie Olde Englande or anywhere else) and keeps his given name? Is it ever considered to be over-egotism or narcissism or something like that to keep one’s given name? Is their any sort of “expectation” that a prince, upon ascending, will choose a different name, perhaps honoring some predecessor (as, for example, both Popes John Paul did)? Is there any “expectation” that Charles will or won’t keep his given name?
Well, at least since George I every British monarch’s regnal name has been their given name. Now, they tend to have many given names (George VI had four, Edward VIII had 7) and very often they go by either a family nick name or a different one of their given names than they end up using as their regnal name, but they do always seem to pick one of their baptismal names for their regnal names.
Charles can pick between Charles, Philip Arthur, George. Traditionally people have assumed he’ll be George VII not because it’d be improper to use the name he goes by but because there are compelling arguments against using all of his other given names including Charles.
Charles - Associated with Charles I, only King to be convicted of treason and beheaded, and Charles II probably only reigned that way because he was Charles II’s son and while Charles II was a fair bit less trouble than the first Charles he’s not considered a particularly great monarch having spent his whole reign drunk and whoring.
Philip - Nothing intrinsically wrong with Philip but it was the name of like 10 French and Spanish monarchs and no British or prior English monarchs reigned as Philip. So it wouldn’t be seen as a proper “British” monarch’s name, further because many Spanish and French Kings used the name it might seem “foreign.” (Note that Queen Mary’s husband who was actually crowned and put on money as King Philip is not generally put on the traditionally accepted list of English Kings.)
Arthur - Nothing intrinsically wrong with Arthur, but like Philip there is no precedent for it and it’s not expected to pick a name that no prior King has ever used. With Arthur there is the added point that it’s heavily associated with a fairy tale King in most people’s mind, and thus “King Arthur” might not be taken seriously or even mocked openly.
That leaves us with George.
However I think perhaps the conventional wisdom on Charles is outdated, I’m not sure many people today care that the last King Charles was the son of a executed traitor who spent his whole reign drunk and whoring around, and everyone associates the Prince of Wales with a guy named Charles so it’s arguable they’re pretty used to the idea of him being Charles. I’d still guess he goes by George.
Why? There’s no shortage of English monarchs who used their first given names as regnal names — Elizabeth II, Edward VIII, George V, William IV, George IV, George III, George II, George I, Anne, William III, Mary II, James II, Charles II, Charles I, James I, Elizabeth I, Mary I, Edward VI, Henry VIII, Henry VII, Richard III, Edward V, Edward IV, Henry VI, Henry V, Henry IV, Richard II, Edward III, Edward II, Edward I, Henry III, …
To the extent that Charles might be “expected” not to be Charles III, it’s because of the association of the name “Charles” with the tumultuous Stuart period, and the fact that Charles I was deposed and beheaded. And I believe that Charles might have indicated his preference for his fourth given name, George, in honor of his grandfather, George VI, for whom “George” was also his fourth given name.
I think the real reason for Kate not looking quite so chipper has more to do with the truth behind Williams nickname, as revealed on his personalized mug at RAF Anglesea (sorry, DailyMail link).
:eek:
Prince Charles has been “Prince Charles” a really long time.
Bertie (Albert Frederick Arthur George) was crowned George VI in part to show a sort of continuity with his father George V, after his elder brother abdicated and there was concern about the monarchy.
It also seems there was at that point a sort of family tradition of disregarding Queen Victoria’s alleged desire for her descendants to reign under the name Albert.
So Albert Edward of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha reigned as Edward VII, and eventually gave up any claim to the Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and changed the house name to Windsor.
His son reigned as George V, not George Albert.
His sons reigned as Edward VIII (rather than Albert Christian or something) and George VI (rather than Albert Frederick or something).
I doubt all that applies to Charles.
At this point, his office denies that he plans to reign as George VII. But we’ll see. I don’t think he’s going to insult his mother (while she is still alive) by suggesting she named him badly.
_
ETA: “Big Willy,” eh? Well, he’s tall and his name is Will. So not that surprising.
The linked article demonstrates something about the original OP’s question, though: Even though he is known as Lt. Wales in his military capacity, news articles and other publicity about him (even when discussing him in his military role), refers to him as the Duke of Cambridge. This is how I’ve seen him mentioned in other similar articles as well as this one.
Why is he pouring tea into a mug in his hand, while the mug with his name sits on the table? Does he have two mugs? Are all the mugs in the picture his? Is he pouring tea for somebody else? With the publication of this picture, will they now have to change the names and passwords on all the mugs?
Edward VIII’ s given names were Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David.
