Royal Baby Maker

[PrincessOfPeace]

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

[SophieChloe]

Jeepers...we come into this world with nothing....we leave with nothing. 

[amabel]

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?

[PrincessOfPeace]

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,

[Macrobug]

Still waiting for Windsor.  Where is that man?    :teehee:

[PrincessOfPeace]

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.

[Windsor]

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.

[Windsor]

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

Incorrect on both counts Windsor and I will provide documentation

[Windsor]

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

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]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

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.

The 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

[Macrobug]

Thanks Windsor for your reply.  But I wonder......... :P

I am going to do a bit more research.

[Windsor]

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

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.

With 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

[Windsor]

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.

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.

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

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.

[Windsor]

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."

[PrincessOfPeace]

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

[amabel]

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.

[Windsor]

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

With 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.

[Windsor]

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.