http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner-13637
This is something that Americans find it hard to understand—in the British system, the status of being in in the nobility—a peer of the realm—is given to an individual, not to a family. Even a coat of arms belongs to an individual person, not a family, and certainly not to a family name as the genealogy hucksters would have you believe.
Bricker’s cite is awesome but I have no clue why Prince William’s status is a question, he is Duke of Cambridge.
I think the bulk of that discussion happened on April 27 and 28, 2011. At that time, Prince William was a commoner.
William married Catherine Middleton, on April 29, 2011. Shortly before the ceremony, his grandmother
created him Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus. At that point, he was no longer a commoner.
So far as I can recall, his brother Harry is still a commoner.
Not an important baby with all those crowned heads hovering around? Three of them? Right. And I wonder if anyone besides royal family members are ever baptised in a royal family private chapel in the most venerable of all royal family homes.
I have not been insisting that princes are peers, but if they are so what if they may be demoted for the extraordinary act of serving in a legislative body?
Not in Spain; they’d be hidalgos (shortening from hijosdalgo, “children of something [where something is a noble title]”), but an hidalgo is by definition not a noble. The term eventually encompassed anybody who could claim descent from nobility.
Nava, hidalga (by 16th-19th century standards, nowadays it’s just a joke).
No it does not highlight any confusion. Obviously one may be important and a commoner at the same time! I was suggesting, however, that all those crowned heads provide ground for reasonable inference that the baby might enjoy an official status above that of commoner. Such an inference is of course rebuttable on the evidence, but no one here has yet provided any such evidence.
Actually since you’re the one claiming that there is an “official status” between commoner and peer granted to relatives of peers, you’re the one who needs to come forth with evidence.
Obviously , such persons have a status that can be characterized as social, customary, of courtesy, practical, effective, or other such things, but you are the one claiming official or legal status, so let’s see what you’ve got.
That looks like a good cite, and I am inclined to trust it, although I asked for an official UK government cite on the specific question of whether untitled children of the sovereign are commoners. Whatever their status might be, it ought by now to be codified, and official government reference to that codification should be available.
Around the time that it became clearer that George VI was not going to have more children, the British government and monarchy also had some bigger fish to fry, in the form of WWII. George VI was dealing with bombings and trying to keep up British morale. The royal family at that time was also trying to appear that they were sharing the dangers and deprivations that the rest of the country was. Giving the princesses titles might not have fit in with that image.
This is not at all what I said, and I am not going to go back and coach you through it.
Actually another member broached the subject in reply #5, so actually he needs to come forth with the evidence. Authoritative UK government evidence that is, please. He and the others who have rallied around his banner have not been forthcoming, although Bricker at least made an honest effort in reply #41.
Over to those who brought up the subject to begin with. Obvioulsy.
You might be surprised to learn that much of the United Kingdom’s constitutional process is not codified.
However, this link, the Companion to Standing Orders of the House of Lords, shows that the House of Lords’ permissible membership is specifically delineated peers of the realm: the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal:
These are peers, the nobility. Prince Harry, and Prince William prior to 29 April 2011, were not bishops of any kind, and therefore not Lords Spirtual; neither were they any of the 90 hereditary peers of the House of Lords Act of 1999, life peers under the meaning of the Life Peerages Act of 1958, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the Earl Marshal, or the Lord Great Chamberlain. From this we may safely conclude that neither was nobility.
The House of Commons Disqualification Act of 1975 laid out, or reaffirmed, broad categories of person ineligible to serve as a commoner – a word I use here to mean serving as a member of the House of Commons. Among the people prohibited by this Act and prior acts of Parliament include: the members of the House of Lords and the Sovereign. (See here (PDF in link))
So it’s on the strength of those cites that I would say: because Prince Harry is, and his brother William was until 29 April 2011, not a member of the House of Lords, or the Sovereign, for the purposes of British law he would be considered a commoner, generally eligible to serve in the House of Commons.
Now, the caveats: when we discuss criminal law issues, I am often irritated when people post a cite to a statute and declare that they know the answer. Statutes are interpreted by case law, and unless your citation is annotated and you’ve reviewed the relevant case law, you cannot with confidence make any strong claims.
I’m on the opposite side of the fence here. I have Googled and read. That’s no substitute for experienced analysis of the issue by someone who understands UK law. To such a person, I happily defer.
I do not, however, yield the point to someone who says, in effect, “Well, that just doesn’t seem like the right answer.”
I knew there was no written constitution, but that I must admit I thought things were considerably tidied up by other written law. Can you establish, though, that the status of the monarch’s children is one of the items omitted?
This is interesting information, but my case does not rest at all upon royal princes being members of the nobility if they are not commoners. See my reply #s 28 and 33.
We are not discussing a point of run of the mill criminal law. Regardless of what we are discussing, debate in boards such as ours, where amateurs such as me venture into weighty topics, is necessarily going to involve numerous substitutes for experienced analysis. Sometimes the amateurs do pretty well, sometimes not; sometimes a professional knows enough to clinch the argument against the amateur, sometimes not.
I tried to adopt an accommodating tone with you when I said in post #49: “That looks like a good cite, and I am inclined to trust it…” I am still inclined to trust the site, even though it tips the scales of the debate against me.
On the other hand I do not think I need to be reprimanded for asking for something more authoritative.
In the Church of England, it is fairly common for close relatives to be named godparents. This is especially true in upper-class CoE families.
In Prince Michael’s family, everybody had a title. All of his aunts and uncles, all of his great-aunts and great-uncles, all of his first and second cousins, all of his parents’ first and second cousins, ALL OF THEM. Finding a relative who did not have a title would have been far more difficult than finding a crowned head or three.
You are thinking of the King solely as the King, the Sovereign. However, he was also “Uncle Bertie” to his nephews, including Prince Michael; in turn, the King of Norway was George VI’s uncle. The infant prince’s mother was born a princess of Greece, and her own mother a grand duchess of Russia. (Queen Wilhelmina’s grandmother was likewise a Russian grand duchess; Wilhelmina’s mother’s sister had married into the British royal family [the Duchess of Albany]). This was family. (Due to the war, it was also family who happened to be living in/near London, and hence would be available to serve.)
In the constitutional scheme, Prince Michael was not an especially important baby: the second son of a younger brother of a monarch who already had children was unlikely to be destined for any particular importance in the nation’s history.
However, even if he was important socially or genealogically, you are still trying to read important as meaning having a separate legal status from commoner, and that definition is incorrect from the get-go.
Probably not. Why would anybody outside the family be baptized in any family’s private chapel anywhere?
Be demoted for what? They didn’t get demoted for serving in the Commons; they could serve in the Commons only if they did not hold the legal status of peers.
Being able in serve in the House of Commons is a distinct legal and constitutional status in the United Kingdom. If you were eligible to serve in or vote for the Commons prior to 1999, you were a commoner. Commons = commoner. Eligibility was determined by statute, conferring legal status.
Prior to 1999, Prince Michael of Kent was eligible to serve in and vote for the Commons. That made him, legally, a commoner. That did not make him socially a commoner, which is getting back to the different concepts of “commoner” I mentioned back in #29.
Nelson: do you accept the foregoing as accurate?
I may not have the interest or energy to continue in this thread, especially against 4-5 opponents at once.
I know. I am a (lapsed) Episcopalian.
Fine, but does nothing to strip PM of his royal status.
No, I am trying to read “member of the royal family” as having a separate legal status. I do not think i have been at all ambiguous on this point, and I do not understand how it could be misunderstood.
I wouldn’t have minded being baptized in Windsor Castle!
I gave two historical examples of possible demotion earlier. I believe the among the charges were desertion and wishing for the sovereign’s death (Alexis), and conspiring desertion (Frederick). As for the Commons hypothetical, demotion need not take place until the moment the subject in question literally took his seat.
Is there anything in the act of 1999, or any other act which defines nephews of the sovereign as commoners?
Do you agree that “commoner” means “being able to serve in the House of Commons?”
An act of Parliament is obviously authoritative.
However, I do not accept the nightmarish logic of the following, whether or not it employs part of the content of the act:
Premise 1: Being able in serve in the House of Commons is a distinct legal and constitutional status in the United Kingdom.
Premise 2: If you were eligible to serve in or vote for the Commons prior to 1999, you were a commoner. Commons = commoner.
Premise 3: Eligibility was determined by statute, conferring legal status.
Conclusion: Therefore Prince Michael is a commoner.
The Premises beg the question by assuming the conclusion which is otherwise a non sequitur.
If the 1999 Act says something like: “Nephews of the monarch are commoners” then OK, you win. If any other act says so, then OK, you win. If no act says so, then maybe the “experienced analysis of the issue by someone who understands UK law” will come to pass soon.
I think the Act fails to name Billie Piper or Graham Norton as commoners. Still, by applying a bit of reasoning, we can comfortably assert that they are:
They are eligible to serve in the House of Commons. (Proof: the Act does not exclude them).
Do you agree?
Yes.
Edit: Retraction coming up.