They have both done very well anyway. Zara is an equestrian and won a silver medal at the 2012 Olympics. Peter is a director of a Sports Management Company
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
That wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference. They would simply have been titled, same as Princess Margaret’s children. The previous Princess Royal's children were also the children of an earl and not royal themselves. Royalty in the BRF is patriciarchal, travelling through the male line. Therefore, Charles's, Andrew's and Edward's children are HRH Princess/Prince as grandchildren of the monarch in the male line but not Anne's. Edward's children don't use the royal titles but they are still royal, and can choose to use it or not. A woman marrying in takes the rank, status and name of her husband, just like the correct but very old-fashioned Mrs John Smith of the past. If there were no royal dukedoms and earldoms, they would use their husband's name, just as Princess Michael of Kent does and Princess Richard of Gloucester did before Prince Richard succeeded his father as Duke. Therefore you would have Princess Edward (x 2), Princess William and Princess Henry. They don't have it in their own right.
The Queen would have to bestow upon them the rank of Princess of the United Kingdom before they became Princess Catherine, Princess Sophie, Princess Meghan, Princess Camilla (and Princess Diana!) etc, and this is very rarely done. She did do it for Prince Philip as he wasn't technically a prince after giving up his Greek and Danish titles but a royal Duke as he did get given an HRH with the dukedom by George VI. The only time it has been done for heirs in the female line was for Edward VII's eldest daughter, Princess Louise, Princess Royal and Duchess of Fife; she had two daughters who were both made princesses (but only HH not HRH) and the Fife dukedom was made able to be passed to a daughter in lieu of a son.
In contrast, the Swedish royals are fully equal. Those marrying in get their own titles - Prince Daniel and Princess Sofia (Princess Madeleine's husband refused it) - and HRH if marrying the child of the monarch. All grandchildren of the monarch get princess/prince but only the children of the heir get HRH, the others get HH.
Mark Phillips was offered an earldom which is customary for untitled men marrying into the Royals at that time* but he declined.
*Jack and Edo weren’t to my knowledge offered any sort of title so it could be that times have changed or that Bea and Eug were too far down the line of succession to entitle them to one, not sure.
I think it’s about time that women are able to hold, inherit and pass on titles in their own right (still rooting for Princess Charlotte to become Duchess of Windsor). But it’s also good, they have stopped handing out titles in a big way.
The fact that Zara and Peter have no titles, while the Yorks have has been explained. I think it’s way more interesting that the RF has definitely stopped handing out titles willy nilly (Edo & Jack), not started to groom another set of cousins into full time royal work and that the Wessex children are definitely getting prepared to find their way without the inherited titles. Eugenie and Beatrice are like what 15-20 years older than the Wessex kids. We can’t really compare the decision their parents and they themselves made because things have changed quite drastically.
I don’t have any problem with a married in person having a title and higher rank compared to blood relatives. Kate is the future Queen. Zara is what? 35th in line? Zara and Mike are not working royals (and honestly Mike Tindall? Reality show Mike Tindall? Filing for government support for himself during COVID Mile Tindall? Shilling whatever puts more money into his pockets on SM Mike Tindall?- he can support Rugby as the celebrity he is.).
It’s good that Mike or Peter are not involved with the business side of the RF. They could just step in line with H or PA for being greedy, entitled idiots.
In the end- nothing stops any of them to champion a cause or publicly support something if they are really into it (see Eugenie and the scoliosis topic). A royal patronage has not as much to do with the individual that fills the position as with the royal branding. It’s nice if it’s a good fit, but in the end having the monarch as patron is just tad cooler than just the wife of the second in line- no matter if she is s good fit and the monarch isn’t.
The fact that they chose now to officially hand out H&Ms old patronages is interesting. It also highlights that H&M have missed out the opportunity to stay long term connected to the causes they so carefully chose for themselves. As I said, they could still promote and support them. And low and behold, H, now that his latest antics have backfired AGAIN, plays the family children connection card. What a sob story indeed. When does he realise that the RF holds the better cards?
The fact that Zara and Peter have no titles, while the Yorks have has been explained. I think it’s way more interesting that the RF has definitely stopped handing out titles willy nilly (Edo & Jack), not started to groom another set of cousins into full time royal work and that the Wessex children are definitely getting prepared to find their way without the inherited titles. Eugenie and Beatrice are like what 15-20 years older than the Wessex kids. We can’t really compare the decision their parents and they themselves made because things have changed quite drastically.
I don’t have any problem with a married in person having a title and higher rank compared to blood relatives. Kate is the future Queen. Zara is what? 35th in line? Zara and Mike are not working royals (and honestly Mike Tindall? Reality show Mike Tindall? Filing for government support for himself during COVID Mile Tindall? Shilling whatever puts more money into his pockets on SM Mike Tindall?- he can support Rugby as the celebrity he is.).
It’s good that Mike or Peter are not involved with the business side of the RF. They could just step in line with H or PA for being greedy, entitled idiots.
In the end- nothing stops any of them to champion a cause or publicly support something if they are really into it (see Eugenie and the scoliosis topic). A royal patronage has not as much to do with the individual that fills the position as with the royal branding. It’s nice if it’s a good fit, but in the end having the monarch as patron is just tad cooler than just the wife of the second in line- no matter if she is s good fit and the monarch isn’t.
The fact that they chose now to officially hand out H&Ms old patronages is interesting. It also highlights that H&M have missed out the opportunity to stay long term connected to the causes they so carefully chose for themselves. As I said, they could still promote and support them. And low and behold, H, now that his latest antics have backfired AGAIN, plays the family children connection card. What a sob story indeed. When does he realise that the RF holds the better cards?
Interestingly, Edo has his own title and a palazzo or two to inherit in Italy. Italian noble titles were done away with in the post-WW2 constitution but are still used socially and out of courtesy. Much like all the German princely and noble titles were done away with but were simply made part of the surname
. Any European royal wedding will bring out all the former royal and noble title holders in droves. Edo is a conte or count and Bea would be a contessa in Italy. As it's not strictly official according to the current constitution, the BRF stick to HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Mapelli Mozzi rather than the HRH Princess Beatrice, Contessa di Mapelli Mozzi she would likely be called in Italy.
I think Zara and Mike are probably pretty pleased for Kate. They'll almost certainly be at some of the Six Nations games as they have been in the past (especially given Mike played for England and Princes Anne is patron of Scottish Rugby).
They get all the fun of nice seats/catering without any of the responsibility involved in being a patron!
They get all the fun of nice seats/catering without any of the responsibility involved in being a patron!
What responsibility as patron? They show up to events or photocalls and pose - Kate certainly doesn't sit at board meeting at Wimbledon or do any of the hard work!
Sure, probably not the best word choice. I meant responsibility in the sense that being Patron probably involves attending events, probably an annual meeting or two, general schmoozing etc. I'm sure it's not a difficult role at all.
But if I could have Zara and Mike's experience of Rugby, or Anne/Williams/Kate's? I'd choose the Tindalls.
Because they are children of the daughter of a monarch.
Previous Princess Royals children have gone on to be Earls, but that is from their father’s title, nothing from their mother.
if Anne and Mark had accepted a title for him then Peter and Zara would have subsidiary and courtesy titles, but they didn’t so they don’t regardless of what their mum is.
Come on now, turning up to watch a sporting event AND having to smile while you’re having your photo taken?
It must be absolutely exhausting
From an experience point of view, I'd pick Mike Tindall over Kate - he's a well known rugby figure and would be a great ambassador in terms of public engagement but he's not royal so...
Nice to see your snobbery showing through there Kate...the royals get government financial help every year (and its a growing amount every year even though there's less of them) but they have titles so it doesn't matter or?
I meant in my post experience in terms of which experience going to a game would be preferable. Not in terms of experience in rugby, though obviously Mike as an ex-England Rugby player has more. No-one is debating that!
Last edited:
In full agreement re Mike Tindall.
To be fair, he has been a bit of a plank in the past.
Perhaps someone who was suspended and fined (with suspension and fine reduced on appeal?) and whose main defence for fibbing to the Manager about the events seemed to be I didn’t know I was fibbing because I couldn’t remember isn’t still flavour of the month with the head honchos and not someone they’d be tripping over themselves to have represent them?
(and that’s before you get to him having been/still being? The face on an online bookmaker).
I find the idea of having random royals as patrons for popular sports quite odd. The Queen is the patron of UK athletics 
. It's really just about photo ops and getting it in the press I suppose. Mike would be the obvious choice for rugby, but Kate is a much bigger draw publicity-wise.
. It's really just about photo ops and getting it in the press I suppose. Mike would be the obvious choice for rugby, but Kate is a much bigger draw publicity-wise.Sorry, but him so blatantly filing for support for his company, which couldn’t pay its employees- when he is also the only employee was an extra crappy move. Exploiting schemes for yourself that are actually specifically set up to avoid people getting fired, build massive debts or loosing their livelihood over the pandemic, while you live on your mother in laws estate and still earn good money through podcast and shilling stuff on the internet for a tit ton of money is just despicable. In the end he is just as greedy and entitled, but on top he is not even giving anything back (not even under pressure like the RF). And apart from using public environment schemes in renovations and such the RF are yet to file for government benefits. The increase in money is mostly due to the massive renovation of BP by the way. So, theoretically in 8(?) years it should get much lower again. Not that I count on it, but for the next 8 years it’s pretty clear where the extra money goes.
And yes, Mike has the perfect profile to be a representative. No one is stopping him or the Union to approach each other about it. But in terms of a royal patronage, you get a working royal. Just like you don’t get David Beckham as a royal patron for football.
There are literally hundreds of patronages held by only a handful of royals between them, I highly doubt The Queen has actually participated in the activities associated with the 600 patronages she's had in her working life. If there's an obvious connection then it makes sense, and the Duchess of Cambridge is very keen on sport.
Wasn't it proven that patronages don't actually help charities a while ago?
If they plan on slimming down the royals I'd prefer them to pair down patronages to a manageable amount and to causes they have an interest in
I have heard that for some time now. I have never seen the real numbers only the claim mentioned without the facts or the actual source. But I can definitely see that having a royal patron is not really helping more than any other well known supporter.
I think they definitely will have to cut down on patronages in the future. But I also think only going after personal interest is a bit short sighted. It should be a well spread portfolio and even representation through the ranks.
- Status