Harry.
Swap Andrew and Edward here.
The Romans weren’t exactly homogenous either.
A matter of choice between parent and queen. If you’re lower in the pecking order, you might well decide not to expect all the higher-status titles and positions, and bring the children up not to expect to be full-time (or maybe not even part-time) in the business.
For most of its history, the English/British royal family didn’t have many extra people floating around anyway. Relatively few younger sons survived, even fewer founded lineages of their own, while daughters mostly married foreign princes and moved overseas. That one time they had a lot of extra lines, they had a little dynastic kerfuffle, and then they didn’t have that problem anymore.
George III’s seven surviving sons were an exception, but most of those died out in the (legitimate) male line fairly quickly, and another inherited Hanover and moved to the Continent, so the Britain-dwelling royal grandchildren were pretty much only Victoria and a single female cousin. However, Victoria’s fecundity changed the pattern: all four sons lived to produce male heirs, and several of her daughters married German princes who promptly moved to Britain, so there was an explosion of minor royals running around.
Edward VII had a much smaller family: one surviving son [George V], a daughter who never married, another who married abroad [Queen Maud of Norway], and a third who married a British nobleman [Louise the Princess Royal, Duchess of Fife]. The children of the monarch’s daughters historically acquired their status from their fathers (who were traditionally foreign royals anyway), but Louise’s daughters were merely Lady Alexandra and Lady Maud Duff, and that wasn’t good enough: Edward VII created his granddaughters Princess Alexandra and Princess Maud, with the style of Highness (NOT Royal Highness).
George V, however, started paring back the family. In the wake of World War I, the extra Anglo-German cousins dropped their royal titles and received British noble ones: Prince Alexander of Teck became Earl of Athlone, Prince Louis of Battenberg became Marquess of Milford Haven, Princess Louise of Battenberg became Lady Louise Mountbatten, etc. (Exception: the Schleswig-Holstein princesses dropped their German titles and became princesses of nowhere in particular.)
George V in 1917 also issued Letters Patent setting forth who did and did not qualify as a prince(ss) of the United Kingdom. He declared that male-line great-grandchildren would henceforth be styled as the children of dukes, rather than having royal titles, with the sole exception of the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales. The children of his younger sons were therefore princes (and one princess), but their children in turn are lords and ladies (Lady Gabriella Windsor, e.g., married last year). Already in George’s lifetime, his cousin Princess Patricia of Connaught elected to give up her title upon marriage and become Lady Patricia Ramsay, the wife of a Scots naval officer.
In the 1960s and early 70s, when Princesses Alexandra, Margaret, and Anne were married, each of their husbands was offered an earldom; only Tony Armstrong-Jones accepted, so his son eventually inherited his title as Earl of Snowdon and his daughter is styled as the daughter of an earl (Lady Sarah Chatto, the same style as Lady Diana Spencer before her marriage). Anne’s and Alexandra’s children took their styles from their fathers, and as their fathers had no titles, neither did they.
When the present Queen’s son Andrew started his family, his daughters were princesses of the UK, in accordance with George V’s 1917 decision. When youngest son Edward married, however, Charles’s plan of slimming down the family further had already been broached, and Edward and Sophie chose to give their children styles based on Edward’s title of Earl of Wessex: Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and James, Viscount Severn (using his father’s subsidiary title, as the eldest sons of other British peers traditionally do).
The Queen modified the 1917 order to make all of William and Kate’s children princes/esses of the UK, in part to avoid the awkwardness resulting if Charlotte had been born first (under the 1917 order, she would have been Lady Charlotte and her younger brother Prince George, even though changes to the succession meant she would have been the heir). Harry’s children, as the male line great-grandchildren of the monarch, would have been Lord/Lady somename until Charles became king, at which point they would have been grandchildren of the monarch and entitled to use Prince(ss). However, Harry and Meghan chose to give Archie no title at all.
I was trying to pin down mongrel royalty, so I was just listing the individuals I can remember. I don’t put every invasion or conquest in that category.
But it does bring up another interesting point for Australians: the English attitude to conquest and empire. For the English, being part of the Roman Empire was a high point of their civilisation. And being invaded and suffering cultural destruction is just a normal part of life.
The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and Danes all brought their royalty with them. If William III and George I and their descendants are considered foreigners, then certainly Canute the Great and Alfred the Great are also foreigners.
Not to mention William The Bastard.
It was Melbourne’s allusion to him (“1066”) to which I was responding.
Was Good Queen Bess ever the receiving end? Or was the Empire so happy they could keep the gloves off for That Horrid Yank Slattern that Liz got a break?
No, I’d say being part of Roman civilization was for the Britons.
The Angles and Saxons founded their kingdoms on the destruction of (the surviving vestiges of) Roman Britain.
In the long run of human history, until relatively recently, it was.
Even money his Mum is still alive then.
Outside chance Dad is.
They said every nasty thing they could think of for years; now it had subsided somewhat (partly thanks to having fresher targets), but she was never considered untouchable.
There have been plenty of times when Her Maj has come under fire, most notably during the whole Diana debacle up to and immediately following Diana’s death. She has been accused of being cold, out of touch with the country, etc, etc (if you watch The Crown, the Aberfan episode highlights another similar time when the Queen was felt to be too far removed from the lives of the “real people” over whom she reigns).
EII has, however, been pretty good at rolling with the punches and modernising when modernising was required without going overboard about it.
… a statement from Buckingham Palace read: 'The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are grateful to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for their ongoing support as they embark on the next chapter of their lives.
'As agreed in this new arrangement, they understand that they are required to step back from royal duties, including official military appointments.
'They will no longer receive public funds for royal duties. With the Queen’s blessing, the Sussexes will continue to maintain their private patronages and associations.
'While they can no longer formally represent the Queen, the Sussexes have made clear that everything they do will continue to uphold the values of Her Majesty.
'The Sussexes will not use their HRH titles as they are no longer working members of the Royal Family. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have shared their wish to repay Sovereign Grant expenditure for the refurbishment of Frogmore Cottage, which will remain their UK family home.
‘Buckingham Palace does not comment on the details of security arrangements. There are well established independent processes to determine the need for publicly funded security. This new model will take effect in the Spring of 2020.’
Their new titles mirror the styling given to Harry’s mother Diana after her divorce when she was no longer allowed to use HRH. She was know as Diana, Princess of Wales.
Many thanks. That probably took you half a day to type up, but you’ve explained it really well. It’s the first time I’ve ever understood that whole cross-generational royal title naming convention thing.
The announcement contains an interesting typo - they neglected to capitalise ‘royal duties’.
(Probably to be closely followed by Daily Mail headline ‘Meghan’s capitalisation outrage: her secret attempt to Americanise OUR language’)
From “the family” themselves. [
Leo B’s quote came from the Daily Mail itself - so the conspiracy goes right to the top!
(closely followed by photo-story - ‘Kate’s charming avoiding of capital letters speaks to her common touch’)
A little more financial backup data. I realize this is late, and some/most of it covered upthread, but it’s from a good overview from the WSJ–complete with handy chart. (I also see that SDGQ is sporting some new threads precisely on aspects of the financial status of the Prince Formerly Known as Harry [does he have a monogram?] but this thread remains primum inter pares.)
In 1760, the British monarchy handed over revenue from large tracts of land to Parliament in return for an income from government. Today, that taxpayer payment, known as the sovereign grant, covers the cost of royal duties and maintains several palaces, including Buckingham Palace.
Last year, it amounted to £82.2 million. This is fixed as a proportion of the profits made by these lands, which was initially set at 15% but has been temporarily increased to 25% since 2017 to help renovate Buckingham Palace.
The Queen supplements this with two other sources of income: her personal wealth, which is not publicly disclosed, and the Duchy of Lancaster, founded in the 13th century, which comprises £548.6 million of net assets, held in trust mostly in real estate.
Payment to the monarch from the Duchy of Lancaster increased from £13.3 million in 2009 to £20.7 million in 2019. That gives the Queen more financial freedom to support her wider family without recourse to taxpayer money, said Mr. McClure.
Prince Charles meanwhile lives mainly off the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy, which dates back to the 14th Century, paid out £21.6 million to him last year on £923.8 million of net assets.
The Duchy, which pays no corporation tax, has seen its revenue trend up over recent years. The Duchy of Cornwall funds both Prince William and Prince Harry, who together received around £5 million last year from their father.
ETA: "Prince Harry, for instance, is largely funded by his father Prince Charles through the Duchy of Cornwall, the estate of the first in line to the throne. He also inherited money from his mother, the late Princess Diana, and the queen’s mother. "[…]
ETA2, FTR: “Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, who since the early 1990s haven’t received annual taxpayer grants. They remain, however, still largely under the royal wing and receive funding from the queen’s private income.”