Seriously, people get attached to Royal Babies. They are Royals. That means OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE! These babies have Royal Bloodlines, and are in line to be on the throne to become Kings And Queens. Stop fawning over them, they will be richer and more powerful than you ever be.
Royal Women, have babies purely for the Monarchy and secure the bloodline.
Maybe I have misunderstood your post. Are you saying that the women in the royal families only get pregnant to produce heirs? To me that seems rather insulting to the women. One, it is misogynistic to suggest that their only purpose is to be, in essence , brood mares. And two, could it be that they actually have emotions and are having children because they want children?
If I misunderstood then my apologies. If not, then wow. :no:
Not to mention, it is insulting and very disrespectful to your fellow posters to tell them to "quit fawning..."
it's all of the royal job. you can't really get away from.
It may be part of the royal job, as you put it, RoyalFanOO1, but most women when they get married look forward to having a family with their spouse. That includes females who marry into the royal family. I doubt whether Kate, on her first sight of baby George, said to William "He is the first heir to be born to a second in line to the throne for over a hundred years, you know!" Or, if she did, it would be very peculiar!
it's just part of the job. seriously. do you buy that "having babies with your spouse" Ha ha.
Double post auto-merged: August 24, 2014, 03:29:37 AM
trust me that's what they are looking for. just another spare. sad but true. these people don't care about their kids at all.
Double post auto-merged: August 24, 2014, 05:22:45 AM
to Macrobug. I think I know better concerning the Royals. You shouldn't be interested in their kids. They are important people. They seem very off limits to commoners.
I think we mustn't lose sight of the fact that they are people too, especially in their youth. There is no reason to assume they don't want a family, albeit one that British tradition would hail as superior to the rest of the people.
with all the pomp and circumstance, and "out of your league" and not your type sort of stuff. they are judgmental. They are not people like us. Nothing can convince me other wise. That is my opinion. They are not people too. They are so removed from the Public it's not funny. They Live in such lavishness. There are different people with different Social Status. And it is looked down upon if I a commoner would try to date a Royal.
Get real, they are a very selective class. Them fighting against each other for power and the throne. Sounds like a "regular family" to me. They are not. You can't be "Normal People" being related to the Queen.
Gosh RoyalFan001, it sounds like something out of Game of Thrones! Who in the British Royal family is fighting each other for 'power and the Throne'? Charles and William, Charles and Andrew, Harry and William? (If William and Harry did have a joust or sword fight I bet I know who'd win!)
I don't know who'd win.
Quote from: Curryong on August 24, 2014, 02:57:01 PM
Gosh RoyalFan001, it sounds like something out of Game of Thrones! Who in the British Royal family is fighting each other for 'power and the Throne'? Charles and William, Charles and Andrew, Harry and William? (If William and Harry did have a joust or sword fight I bet I know who'd win!)
I think it was called "It's a Royal Knockout"? :wink:
Quote from: Curryong on August 24, 2014, 03:11:10 AM
It may be part of the royal job, as you put it, RoyalFanOO1, but most women when they get married look forward to having a family with their spouse. That includes females who marry into the royal family. I doubt whether Kate, on her first sight of baby George, said to William "He is the first heir to be born to a second in line to the throne for over a hundred years, you know!" Or, if she did, it would be very peculiar!
:goodpost:
Quote from: Adrienne on August 25, 2014, 11:50:44 AM
Quote from: Curryong on August 24, 2014, 02:57:01 PM
Gosh RoyalFan001, it sounds like something out of Game of Thrones! Who in the British Royal family is fighting each other for 'power and the Throne'? Charles and William, Charles and Andrew, Harry and William? (If William and Harry did have a joust or sword fight I bet I know who'd win!)
I think it was called "It's a Royal Knockout"? :wink:
And it's floatin' around on the internet somewhere. :D
Quote from: RoyalFan001 on August 24, 2014, 02:37:12 PM
with all the pomp and circumstance, and "out of your league" and not your type sort of stuff. they are judgmental. They are not people like us. Nothing can convince me other wise. That is my opinion. They are not people too. They are so removed from the Public it's not funny. They Live in such lavishness. There are different people with different Social Status. And it is looked down upon if I a commoner would try to date a Royal.
Get real, they are a very selective class. Them fighting against each other for power and the throne. Sounds like a "regular family" to me. They are not. You can't be "Normal People" being related to the Queen.
sicne most of the RF marry commoners I don't qite see wht you mean.
who's a commoner??
In the current British royal family that would be those who were not born as a royal. So HM, DoE, Princes- Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, Harry,George, Richard, Edward Kent, Michael, Princesses- Anne, Alexandra, Beatrice and Eugenie are royals. Everyone else is a commoner by birth. (The DoE did give up his Greek title though prior to marrying HM.)
All the other ladies who married into the BRF have a courtesy title from their royal spouse. Even those who were part of the aristocracy would be considered commoners. The majority of the men who marry royal ladies are still commoners unless they are created as royals by the monarch ie: Duke of Edinburgh
combo of both? Of course they love their kids and want to have kids for the same reasons everyone else wants to - but no denying that some of them are obliged to produce heirs and so there must be at least relief when they accomplish that. Sort of whew - the succession is secure got that out of the way.
Quote from: RoyalFan001 on September 23, 2014, 08:28:27 PM
who's a commoner??
anyone who is not a peer or Royal is a commoner. Diana princess of wales, was, so are most royal wives and girlefriends
Technically Harry is a commoner. He isn't a peer therefore he is a commoner. So is Princess Anne. The only ones that are not commoners are POW, DOE, Edward and Andrew. And their spouses.
There are only three legal standings. Sovereign, Peer, Commoner. Being born royal doesn't make you a peer. You have to have a Peerage.
A fairly decent explanation Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner? (http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner-13637)
I hadn't realized that Macrobug. Thank you for the information.
It is a hard one for me to get my head wrapped around. QE was a commoner when she married DOE who was a Peer. Until she became Sovereign she was a Peer through marriage. William was a commoner until the day of his marriage when he became DOC. Eugenia and Bea are Princesses but are commoners...... :blink: :P
Quote from: Macrobug on September 24, 2014, 06:13:39 AM
Technically Harry is a commoner. He isn't a peer therefore he is a commoner. So is Princess Anne. The only ones that are not commoners are POW, DOE, Edward and Andrew. And their spouses.
There are only three legal standings. Sovereign, Peer, Commoner. Being born royal doesn't make you a peer. You have to have a Peerage.
A fairly decent explanation Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner? (http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner-13637)
No they are royal.
Yes Royal but commoners. Just to make sure I am going to get
@Windsor to put in his two cents. YO! Windsor! Comments? :hehe:
^I think that's true. Anyone that's not a peer is a commoner. Royal they may be, but commoners still. Kinda like you can be an aristocrat and a commoner as well.
There is no legal status of aristocrat.. there is only a peer... the children of peers are commoners, but the children of a prince of the realm are royal....
Here is another site talking about peerage/commoner Peerage | European Royal History (https://europeanroyalhistory.wordpress.com/tag/peerage/)
Anyone who is not the sovereign or the holder of a substantive (as opposed to courtesy) peerage is a commoner. This includes all members of the royal family who are not peers, and all members of peerage families except the actual peer: for example, Prince Harry, the Princess Royal and Earl Percy are all commoners
Jeepers...we come into this world with nothing....we leave with nothing.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on September 24, 2014, 08:00:35 PM
Anyone who is not the sovereign or the holder of a substantive (as opposed to courtesy) peerage is a commoner. This includes all members of the royal family who are not peers, and all members of peerage families except the actual peer: for example, Prince Harry, the Princess Royal and Earl Percy are all commoners
I'd say no. Windsor?
It is correct in Britain. The term 'commoner' was used for anyone eligible to sit in the House of Commons as opposed to the House of Lords which was for hereditary peers.
So William as the Duke of Cambridge is a peer and not a commoner but Harry has no such title and therefore is a commoner.
After Tony Blair reformed the House of Lords all the Royal Dukes were given the offer to retain their seats in the Lords but they declined,
Still waiting for Windsor. Where is that man? :teehee:
If a person wasn't eligible to sit in the House of Lords prior to the reforms of 1999 then that person is a commoner (meaning eligible to sit in the House of Commons)... so this makes Harry, Princess Anne and Earl Percy all commoners because none of them were eligible to sit in the Lords but were eligible for the Commons.
This gives us three categories of people. The Sovereign, hereditary peers and everyone else including Royals who are not peers as commoners.
Quote from: Macrobug on September 24, 2014, 04:16:38 PM
It is a hard one for me to get my head wrapped around. QE was a commoner when she married DOE who was a Peer. Until she became Sovereign she was a Peer through marriage. William was a commoner until the day of his marriage when he became DOC. Eugenia and Bea are Princesses but are commoners...... :blink: :P
@Macrobug That is incorrect. Members of the Royal Family are not commoners, aside from their titles of '
Dukes of this', and '
Duchesses of that' they primarily hold the style and dignity of Royal Highnesses and the title of Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom. For a Princess of the Royal Blood is first and foremost a Princess of the United Kingdom, then whatever subsequent title the Sovereign may wish to grant at a later time or gained through marriage.
For example: Beatrice of York - she is primarily H.R.H. Princess Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom. Upon a future marriage, she will most likely gain whatever title her future husband may have, be that of Earl of this, or the plain Mr. Smith... :shrug:
Another Example: Kate Middleton, she is primarily H.R.H. Princess William of Wales - Princess of the United Kingdom and then Duchess of Cambridge. This is of course by virtue of her marriage to Prince William of Wales, a Prince of the Royal Blood.
More complex examples include Queen Anne-Marie of Greence, who also is a Princess of Denmark and Queen Sofia of Spain, who is also a Princess of Greece and Denmark.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on September 24, 2014, 09:21:02 PM
If a person wasn't eligible to sit in the House of Lords prior to the reforms of 1999 then that person is a commoner (meaning eligible to sit in the House of Commons)... so this makes Harry, Princess Anne and Earl Percy all commoners because none of them were eligible to sit in the Lords but were eligible for the Commons.
This gives us three categories of people. The Sovereign, hereditary peers and everyone else including Royals who are not peers as commoners.
Members of the Royal Family are not eligible to sit in either Houses of Parliament, which makes the case some of them being Commoners rather inaccurate. A Prince of the Royal Blood will first and foremost be a Prince of the Realm, which is a style/dignity far higher than any Peerage.
Incorrect on both counts Windsor and I will provide documentation
Age old Constitutional Convention means a member of the Royal Family cannot stand for election, or sit in the House of Commons - in fact, even the Sovereign is barred from entering the House of Commons. So, if as you say they are Commoners then why is it that they cannot stand for election and rightfully enter the House as Commoners like everyone else?
The British Legal System is full of contradictions especially when it comes to how we are governed, which is why we operate under a system of Constitutional Convention, not a set document outlining the role and responsibility of people in positions of power.
So I say again, members of the Royal Family are not Commoners as they hold the dignity of Princes of the Realm - and their close association to the Monarch makes them in effect an extension of the Sovereign.
First a 'prince' is a commoner until made a peer.
This style "is purely a courtesy and the holders of that title remain commoners until they are raised to the Peerage, the only exception being the eldest son of the Sovereign who at birth or, as in the case of Prince Charles, at his mother's accession to the Throne, immediately becomes Duke of Cornwall"
(H. Austin Strutt, assistant under-secretary of state, in a memo dated June 17th, 1954 prepared for the Home Secretary; HO 286/50).
In 1954 the Constitution was interpreted slightly differently. New Labour ensured the concept and legality was changed after they got their nasty hands on the House of Lords and "reformed" it. As it currently stands, it would be inaccurate to suggest the Princess Royal is a Commoner - when clearly she is not. She is an extension of the Sovereign, like every other member of the Royal Family.
The future King Edward the Seventh sat in the House of Lords as Duke of Cornwall, and in fact served on a Lords Committee into poverty. The future Duke of Windsor did the same thing when he left the fighting in France in February 1918 to sit in the Lords as Duke of Cornwall.
Sorry for the slow replies but my finger is broken and I'm slow at typing. I have further documentation on members of the royal family being commoners. As to royal peers eligible to vote and sit in the House of Lords, prior to 1999 once a member of the family was created a peer they became eligible to vote and sit in the Lords.
QuoteThe Royal Family will lose its historic right to sit and vote in Parliament under the government's reforms of the House of Lords.
The Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, and the Dukes of York, Gloucester and Kent will all lose their seats along with other hereditary peers.
Buckingham Palace has confirmed it has accepted that the Royal Family will have to give up its seats in the Lords if legislation announced in the Queen's Speech last week is passed.
More: BBC News | UK Politics | Royals lose voting rights (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/223978.stm)
Thanks Windsor for your reply. But I wonder......... :P
I am going to do a bit more research.
You are linking two very different things - the Peerage is a separate institution to the Monarchy, and so is Parliament! My argument for the Royal Family not being considered Commoners comes from the fact that they by virtue of their family connections are an extension of the Sovereign and therefore unable to be included with the rest of us when it comes to the government of this country. Also, their inability to stand for elected office. For hundreds of years, Constitutional Convention has been clear that members of the Royal Family must remain above Politics, and therefore cannot vote, or stand for election. Again, no law prevents them from doing so, but the established convention is followed and traditions are kept.
We are mixing two very different uses of the term Commoner, the term employed by Parliament and its House of Commons, with the term now normally associated with someone who has no rank, style or title in our modern society. Lets look into this further.
Parliament has three components, The Sovereign, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons. The Monarch is of course the Sovereign, and without the consent of the Sovereign there cannot be a Parliament. Then come the Lords Spiritual and Temporal (Spiritual = Bishops - Temporal = The Peerage) and then come the Commons who are the elected branch of Parliament and by the virtue of their election become Commoners. The people they represent are not Commoners, but were in the old days (when the term first started to be used) rather defined as: Cottagers, Labourers, Yeoman, the Gentry, etc etc... Obviously, it depends on what period of history you look at, as the definition and eligibility to vote changed.
A member of the Royal Family cannot therefore be a Commoner as they cannot ever be elected to sit in the House of Commons in order to become a Commoner - and by their social status, are neither classed as any other social grouping other than Royal, which by its definition is an extension of the Crown and the Sovereign.
I can't find any evidence that since 1954 members of the BRF who are not peers ceased being commoners because its clear from my post above that in 1954 members of the family are commoners.
QuoteWith the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords in 1999, the Royal Dukes (The Dukes of Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) ceased to be members of the House of Lords and therefore became eligible to vote in elections, and to stand for election.
But members of the Royal Family do not exercise these rights. To vote or hold elected positions would not be in accordance with the need for neutrality.
More: http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/Queenandvoting.aspx
To become a Commoner one has to be elected to the House of Commons - quite straight forward really. The beauty of our Constitution is that nothing is set in stone, which means most of our laws are up for debate and can be interpreted in different ways. No Law ever prohibited the Royal Family from taking part in elections, but Constitutional Convention and age old tradition did and still does... And that is followed.
Members of the Royal Family cannot be elected to public office, and therefore cannot be elected to become members of the House of Commons - the institution that since the Middle Ages describes its members as Commons/Commoners.
A memo prepared for a Secretary of State by a junior member of the Government is not law nor does it influence Constitutional Convention.
QuoteBut members of the Royal Family do not exercise these rights. To vote or hold elected positions would not be in accordance with the need for neutrality.
Perfect example of how contradicting our Laws and Constitutional Conventions are... They can, but can't! Typical of most things related to the Monarchy and the darker corners of the British Government.
But for the purpose of definition, what prevented members of the royal family who are peers from voting and standing for election in the House of Commons was their membership in the House of Lords. After the reforms of 1999 that restriction was lifted. Whether they choose to exercise their rights is another matter entirely.
Prior to 1999 their was no restriction on Princess Anne from standing for election in the House of Commons she therefore is a commoner by definition, Her brother Andrew was restricted due to his seat in the Lords, therefore he is not a commoner.
Just because Princess Anna never stood for election doesn't mean she wasn't eligible.
That would be incorrect. The Princess Royal for example has never sat in the House of Lords and has never held a Peerage in her own right, and yet she has never been allowed to stand for public office as the Royal Family are required by Constitutional Convention to remain above politics. As the Royal Website you quotes says: "To vote or hold elected positions would not be in accordance with the need for neutrality."
Because convention states they don't run for office doesn't mean they don't fit the criteria of someone eligible for office.
Prior to 1999 Princess Anne was eligible for the House of Commons due to the simple fact she wasn't a hereditary peer and didn't hold a seat in the House of Lords and for our purposes of defining who is a commoner and who isn't she fits the bill.
In 1954 the assistant under secretary of state writes that members of the royal family remain commoners until raised to the peerage. Nothing has happened since to invalidate this. Prince Michael of Kent was a commoner in 1954 and remains a commoner in 2014
Quote from: Windsor on September 25, 2014, 11:53:10 AM
In 1954 the Constitution was interpreted slightly differently. New Labour ensured the concept and legality was changed after they got their nasty hands on the House of Lords and "reformed" it. As it currently stands, it would be inaccurate to suggest the Princess Royal is a Commoner - when clearly she is not. She is an extension of the Sovereign, like every other member of the Royal Family.
That's my interpretation too Windsor. Anne is a princess, has a title, it does not matter if she's eleigable to be in the HOL.. she's royal,not a commoner.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on September 25, 2014, 03:31:52 PM
Because convention states they don't run for office doesn't mean they don't fit the criteria of someone eligible for office.
Prior to 1999 Princess Anne was eligible for the House of Commons due to the simple fact she wasn't a hereditary peer and didn't hold a seat in the House of Lords and for our purposes of defining who is a commoner and who isn't she fits the bill.
In 1954 the assistant under secretary of state writes that members of the royal family remain commoners until raised to the peerage. Nothing has happened since to invalidate this. Prince Michael of Kent was a commoner in 1954 and remains a commoner in 2014
Whether its 1950 or 2014 the fact that she is
REQUIRED to be above politics and remain neutral disqualifies her from ever standing for election to public office.
QuoteWith the removal of hereditary peers from the House of Lords in 1999, the Royal Dukes (The Dukes of Edinburgh, York, Gloucester and Kent) ceased to be members of the House of Lords and therefore became eligible to vote in elections, and to stand for election.
But members of the Royal Family do not exercise these rights. To vote or hold elected positions would not be in accordance with the need for neutrality.
They have the right to stand for election but choose not to exercise this right. A big difference.
Just like The Queen has the right to dismiss Parliament and become an Absolute Monarch and rule in her own right, but chooses not to exercise this right. Why? Because Constitutional Convention clearly suggest that there are some things that just can't be done, no matter how legal it might be, or how logical it might seem. As I said previously, the Laws of the United Kingdom contradict each other. There might be no piece of legislation preventing Princess Anne from voting, but Constitutional Convention suggest she can't for the reasons I have already explained.
It is Constitutional Convention that ultimate runs the show in the United Kingdom - hence why Britain is only one of two countries in the world that has no constitution, the Constitution of the United Kingdom remains unwritten and uncodified and relies heavily on Convention and age old traditions.
Windsor I don't see that it has anyting to do with standing for Parliament etc. but It is clearly not right IMO to describe people with the rank of Prince'/ss and style of HRH, as commoners.
This is why the term should be avoided because of the confusion it creates. The term commoner in Britain isn't a pejorative.
Princess Anne is a royal and takes her rank and precedence as the daughter of the reigning Queen, she can be all those things and still be a commoner.
The term commoner today is almost meaningless. Except for 90 hereditary peers who retain their seats in the Lords, the rest are now permitted to stand for election in the House of Commons.
Prior to 1999 Diana's brother Charles held a seat in the House of Lords as Earl Spencer, this disqualified him from the Commons. Today he can stand for election and run as a MP for the House of Commons. So the line between commoner and noble doesn't really apply.
Under the old rules the current Duke of Northumberland held a seat in the House of Lords and was excluded from the Commons but his son George could stand for election for the Commons because his title Earl Percy is strictly a courtesy. Now both are free to stand for election as a MP.
Prior to 1999 the Royal Dukes held seats and voting rights within the House of Lords and this excluded them from the Commons but like Charles Spencer are now free to stand for election although convention states they do not exercise this right.
In Britain commoner and royal are not incompatible. The style of HRH and the title of prince/ss are strictly a courtesy and the holders of such titles remain commoners until raised to the peerage. Commoner was a legally defined term prior to 1999 and its definition is different here to how it is applied on the Continent.
So to call Prince Harry a commoner is not an insult, it just means under the old rules prior to 1999 he isn't eligible to sit in the House of Lords. Under the old rules William isn't a commoner because he would be eligible for a seat in the House of Lords.
Quote from: SophieChloe on September 24, 2014, 08:09:38 PM
Jeepers...we come into this world with nothing....we leave with nothing.
We hopefully leave with a lifetime of good memories and love.
Quote from: amabel on September 25, 2014, 06:30:06 PM
Windsor I don't see that it has anyting to do with standing for Parliament etc. but It is clearly not right IMO to describe people with the rank of Prince'/ss and style of HRH, as commoners.
Exactly, not nowadays anyway! But from where the term was first started to be used it was all about the House of Commons and being elected to it. In our modern times the term has evolved to mean only people of no rank, title or station in society.
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on September 25, 2014, 11:46:04 AM
First a 'prince' is a commoner until made a peer.
This style "is purely a courtesy and the holders of that title remain commoners until they are raised to the Peerage, the only exception being the eldest son of the Sovereign who at birth or, as in the case of Prince Charles, at his mother's accession to the Throne, immediately becomes Duke of Cornwall"
H. Austin Strutt, assistant under-secretary of state, in a memo dated June 17th, 1954 prepared for the Home Secretary; HO 286/50)
@Windsor The constitution for the most part evolves at a snails pace. If a Prince/ss was a commoner in 1954, then a Prince/ss is a commoner in 2014. There is no documentation to suggest or refute H. Austin Strutt, assistant under-secretary of state, in a memo dated June 17th, 1954 prepared for the Home Secretary; HO 286/50).[/b]
He views are very clear and were prepared for the Home Secretary
Double post auto-merged: October 03, 2014, 03:47:35 AM
Quote....Unless you are the Sovereign or a titled peer, even if you hold the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, you are technically a commoner. On 20 November 1947 HM King George VI created his future son-in-law HRH The Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich. This made the former Prince Philip of Greece a Peer of the Realm. When he married the King's daughter, Princess Elizabeth, the very next day, she was a commoner while her husband was not.
More: Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner? (http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/is-it-possible-for-a-royal-to-be-a-commoner-13637)
Quote from: PrincessOfPeace on October 03, 2014, 03:14:21 AM
There is no documentation to suggest or refute H. Austin Strutt, assistant under-secretary of state, in a memo dated June 17th, 1954 prepared for the Home Secretary; HO 286/50).[/b]
A memo is not an official document, nor legislation! A memo is just that, a memo! I think you should search a dictionary, you will find the term is described as:
"one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy or to royalty."QuoteMore: Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner?
I am sorry, but for me Royal Central is not a credible source of information - I have seen so many inaccuracies in their articles over time which has resulted in their low credibility rate, to me they equal a tabloid magazine. I remember at one point they got the wrong Prince Edward altogether in one of their articles... Come on! :rolleyes: :teehee:
@Windsor with all due respect can you provide documentation other than your opinion?
This style "is purely a courtesy and the holders of that title remain commoners until they are raised to the Peerage, the only exception being the eldest son of the Sovereign who at birth or, as in the case of Prince Charles, at his mother's accession to the Throne, immediately becomes Duke of Cornwall"
H. Austin Strutt, assistant under-secretary of state, in a memo dated June 17th, 1954 prepared for the Home Secretary; HO 286/50)This man opinion does carry considerable weight. I'm confused as to why you think members of the BRF who are not peers wouldn't be commoners. Prior to 1999 herediyary peers sat in the House of Lords . everyone else including, including members of the BRF were eligable for the House od Commons.
Being eligible for the house of commons does not make you a commoner.. I think it does not make logical sense for someone with an HRH like harry to have the status of commoner, just because he does not yet have a Royal dukedom.
Being eligible for the House of Commons was the definition of a commoner prior to 1999.
The continental definition is very different from what commoner means in Britain
In Britain Commoner does not = common