Royal Experts: Is Peter Phillips Royal?

Kicking myself for not creating a poll.

He is genetically half of royal blood, but he is zero percent in legal terms. He is a commoner.

Create a new thread with poll, OP, and link it to this one.

[quote] My coworker claims that as the grandson of the monarch and the son of a princess, he's royal. She said that by blood, he's as royal as William, Harry, and the York sisters.

It’s a good argument. Grandchildren are close relatives, so they should be considered part of the royal family, which is the definition of royal. On the other hand, maybe it would be good to limit it to those who are a king, queen, prince or princess, thinking ahead to if and when Harry’s title is removed.

I’m with you, OP, because throughout time the “royal” male baby came from a royal male’s sperm. A royal princess bearing a son by a commoner? Think of being a half-royal, always involved in private family events, but doing no royal duties. Princess Margaret, certainly royal, married a commoner who was given an earldom, but the eventual parents of two asked that the children not be given royal titles. They wanted the children to have “normal” lives. David and Sarah have. Princess Anne, certainly royal, married a commoner, who famously declined any titles for their children Peter and Zara. Again, tight with the royal family, which, after all is their family, they are at numerous private family matters, but do not do Official duties for “The Firm.” Not royal.

royal size meat verification will decide.

Peter Phillips (and his sister, Zara) are members of the royal family, but they are not royal.

Royal titles come through the male descendants of the sovereign. Peter's father, Mark Phillips, did not want to accept a royal title; therefore, his children are not royal. As a female, Princess Anne cannot pass along her royal title to her children.

It’s probably way past time to have things changed to make women and men, and their descendants, treated the same. There’s no place for that kind of discrimination in Western countries in the current era.

Sorry, I need to know what kind of work OP does and how a debate on the topic came about.

R9 nothing related to royalty. But I just found someone at work who is also a fan of The Crown. That lead us down to this debate.

[QUOTE]Mark Phillips, did not want to accept a royal title

I don't think he could have been given a "Royal" title. A aristocratic one like "Earl of Snowdon," which he could pass on, yes. But only women can get Princess or Queen by marrying in.

r11, there is a technical exception to that rule in Prince Philip. He had to renounce his status as Prince of Denmark and Greece to become very briefly just a commoner before he married the then-Princess Elizabeth. But then (as had been planned) the day before his wedding he was made a Prince of the United Kingdom by George VI. But I think that's the only time in recent centuries a commoner has been made a prince in the UK.

He's just announced his engagement to an NHS nurse. Distantly related to aristocracy. Link in next post.

[post redacted because linking to dailymail.co.uk clearly indicates that the poster is either a troll or an idiot (probably both, honestly.) Our advice is that you just ignore this poster but whatever you do, don't click on any link to this putrid rag.]

He may not be officially royal, but he is definitely a KING.

Well he has that total horse face.

He’s the grandson of a monarch and is in the line of succession. That’s “royal” enough for me. The rest is pedantry.

There is no formal definition of "royal." You won't find Peter Phillips on the Royal Family website because he's not a working royal, but you won't find Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie for the same reason -- and they have royal titles! He is a member of the royal family as the grandson of a monarch and the nephew of another. But, in the strictest sense, lacking a title, he is not royal.

R18. Royal titles go through the male descendants of the monarch. Therefore, as daughters of Prince Andrew, son of the then-monarch Queen Elizabeth, Beatrice and Eugenie received the title of Princess.

Lady Louise and James Severn, daughter and son of Prince Edward, are entitled to the titles of Princess and Prince; however, their parents, Sophie and Edward, decided not to accept those titles for their children. At 18 years old, they can accept the royal titles on their own.

Peter Phillips is the son of Princess Anne. Although Anne is royal and the daughter of the then-monarch, Queen Elizabeth, her children (Peter and Zara) do not receive royal titles because Anne is female and royal titles are passed down through males of the sovereign. If Peter and Zara's father, Mark Phillips, had been willing to receive a title (such as Earl) from the queen when he married Princess Anne, Peter and Zara, could have received the titles of earl or countess--but they still would not have been royal with the titles of prince or princess because Mark Phillips is not royal.

[QUOTE]Peter and Zara, could have received the titles of earl or countess

Peter would have gone by the title of Viscount had his father accepted the title of Earl (like Linley, Margaret and Snowdon's son). He'd inherit Earl upon the elder Phillips' death. Zara would only have gone by "Lady" as Countess is for the wife of an Earl.

[quote]I've been having this debate with a coworker today about Peter Phillips’ status as a royal.

Where do you work?

There's the royal family (direct descendants of monarchs past and present) and then there's the royal house, meaning the monarch + consort, working siblings, and their issue in line for the throne.

At least that's how the two can be told apart in monarchies like The Netherlands and Scandinavian countries. I think this more or less applies to the BRF, too.

The grandson of a British monarch is royal.

Untitled, in this case, and a nonworking royal. But a royal. A member of the royal family. The son of the fucking Princess Royal.

Agree r23. I can't imagine anyone ever questioning whether one of Victoria's many grandkids was royal, and I think the same applies to Elizabeth II. Even if you're not on some bureaucrat's list, or included in some Act of Parliament, just as a simple, informal fact, you're royal.

Whether you care or not is up to you and the people around you, but if royalty means anything at all it means close blood relation to a monarch, and grandkid is close enough, historically.

And, commoner or not, Peter Phillips is in the line of succession, albeit number 19 and fated to continue to move downward (he was number 5 when he was born).

Actually, r12 Prince Phillip got a raw deal from his father in-law. He renounced his foreign royal titles, spent months of the engagement as basically a commoner. Was made an HRH the day before the wedding. Gifted a royal dukedom upon the marriage, but was not given his royal title back. Very off being an HRH without an actual royal title.

Liz made him a prince again in 1957, almost exactly 10 years and two kids into the marriage. The Windsors were being super stingy with the princely titles but WWII made a lot of royal houses a little more conservative with dolling out royal titles and honors.

What kind of weirdos debate this shit at work and wtf are these people?

r27 do you not have unimportant debates with friends or coworkers at work? It was harmless banter over lunch. You must not like your coworkers.

I'm usually working alone R28 so, no, I don't have vacuous debates about people no ones ever heard of, thank god.

I'd say r29 is missing out, but you're really not. We've been there, done that with working next to folks pre-COVID.

I work remote but our corporate office is a 12 min train ride away, I can be at my office in 25 mins after leaving my house. So, when I feel the need to get out of my house, I'll work from the office. Text my work friends the morning of or night before to see who else is going in. We leave each other alone beyond a coffee or tea break. May have lunch together where we talk about life, TV shows, the works, then get back to our work. So, it's a lot more casual without seeing anyone I don't wish to see since the office is 4 floors of an office building 60-90% empty most days. All the people I report too aren't even in the same state so zero micromanaging.

And, it's fully stocked with complimentary snacks and drinks. Literlly the best work setup I could ever ask for. So, yeah, we can make time to debate royal titles.

.[quote] nothing related to royalty. But I just found someone at work who is also a fan of The Crown. That lead us down to this debate

And now we understand the origin of the useless and totally uninformed speculation characterizing almost every post on this thread.

It's odd as I love period dramas but I have zero interest in seeing the Crown. I think it's because I find that branch of the family very blah.

His uncle is King, his cousin will be King. If not Royal, he's most certainly royal.

By that logic r33, when do non-titles royals loses their royal credentials? Are Peter's kids royal? Would their kids be royal? What is your cutoff? Without an actual royal title you could argue a quarter of the UK's white population is royal if we chart their lineage.

No. He is related to the Royal Family, but his mother turned down her mother's offer of titles for him and his sister.

His cousin Harry should have followed the same example.

I think historically cutoff is "great grandkids." Grandkids, yeah, children of princes and princesses who get the "royalty" thing by extension, even if they're not princes or princesses themselves. Titles, schmitles, this is royal blood. Great grandkids, getting too far from the monarch to still count.

Those are my boundaries, and I'm telling you now so I don't have to tell you then.

r2 is correct.