Royal Baby Maker

[amabel]

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. 

[PrincessOfPeace]

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.

[TLLK]

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

We hopefully leave with a lifetime of good memories and love.

[Windsor]

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.

[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 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

....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?

[Windsor]

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."

More: 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:

[PrincessOfPeace]

@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.

[amabel]

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.

[PrincessOfPeace]

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