"Who is a commoner in Britain" in FAQ - what is this gobbledegook?

[s.m.m.]

" the duke of Cambridge, the Princess Royal, the earl of Arundel (son
of a duke) are all commoners."

Is this written by the same person who thinks Wallis Simpson was
divorced three times?

The heir to the throne and HRH the Princess Royal are commoners?

The idea that you can be royal and commoner at the same time is
ludicrous.

[David]

Post by s.m.m.
" the duke of Cambridge, the Princess Royal, the earl of Arundel (son
of a duke) are all commoners."
Is this written by the same person who thinks Wallis Simpson was
divorced three times?
The heir to the throne and HRH the Princess Royal are commoners?
The idea that you can be royal and commoner at the same time is
ludicrous.

The first part of that is certainly wrong -- the Duke of Cambridge
*isn't* a commoner because he is a peer. I imagine that at some point
all instances of "Prince William of Wales" were automatically replaced
with "the Duke of Cambridge" without thought for the context.

As for the rest, it depends on an old definition of commoner, which
once rested on the legal right to vote (or at least be represented) in
the House of Commons. Since the rules governing the selection and
election of members of the Lords and Commons have changed drastically
in the past, and will continue to change in the future, the
distinction between 'commoner' and 'peer' becomes increasingly shaky.

[David]

Actually, this raises an interesting question I hadn't considered: if
being 'a peer' means that you were, or were entitled to, represent
yourself in the House of Lords, does that mean that a 'peeress' --
e.g., the heiress to a barony not in abeyance -- was a commoner back
in the old days when women were not allowed to sit in the Lords?

[Turenne]

Post by David
Actually, this raises an interesting question I hadn't considered: if
being 'a peer' means that you were, or were entitled to, represent
yourself in the House of Lords, does that mean that a 'peeress' --
e.g., the heiress to a barony not in abeyance -- was a commoner back
in the old days when women were not allowed to sit in the Lords?

I was under the impression that anyone who wasn't 'royal' was a
commoner. Hence; when the Duke of York married Lady Elizabeth Bowes
Lyon, he was said to have married a commoner who was the daughter of a
commoner.

The idea that the Duke of Cambridge and The Princess Royal is daft.
Where did the quote come from?

RL

[David]

Post by Turenne
The idea that the Duke of Cambridge and The Princess Royal is daft.
Where did the quote come from?
RL

It's from the alt.talk.royalty frequently asked questions list
maintained by François Velde: http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p3-3a

The classification of the Princess Royal as a commoner is based on the
proposition that a commoner is "Anyone who is not the sovereign or the
holder of a substantive (as opposed to courtesy) peerage".

Of course, the question of "Who is a (substantive) peer?" is a
slightly murky one, and as UK laws regarding the House of Lords
continue to change in the near future, will only get muddier. Even
today the link between holding a peerage and having a seat in the
House of Lords is pretty strained.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by David

Post by Turenne
The idea that the Duke of Cambridge and The Princess Royal is daft.
Where did the quote come from?
RL

It's from the alt.talk.royalty frequently asked questions list
maintained by François Velde:http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p3-3a

Is that sourced or is it opinion.?

Post by David
The classification of the Princess Royal as a commoner is based on the
proposition that a commoner is "Anyone who is not the sovereign or the
holder of a substantive (as opposed to courtesy) peerage".

Clearly wrong, since quite obviously the Lords spirutual would, under
this definition, be commoners. I would doubt that there is any
authority which says that.

The dfinition of commoner in GB depends very much in which context the
word is being used. Royalty and commoner would be one example.
Nobleman and commoner, another. Electoral or parliamentary practice
quite another.

If one digs very deeply into the question one finds legal definitions
which, while using the word commoner to distinguish classes of
persons, then add other classes in addition to comoner and noble, e.g.
military and naval personnel, etc, etc.

[Donald4564]

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by David

Post by Turenne
The idea that the Duke of Cambridge and The Princess Royal is daft.
Where did the quote come from?
RL

It's from the alt.talk.royalty frequently asked questions list
maintained by François Velde:http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p3-3a

Is that sourced or is it opinion.?

Post by David
The classification of the Princess Royal as a commoner is based on the
proposition that a commoner is "Anyone who is not the sovereign or the
holder of a substantive (as opposed to courtesy) peerage".

Clearly wrong, since quite obviously the Lords spirutual would, under
this definition, be commoners. I would doubt that there is any
authority which says that.
The dfinition of commoner in GB depends very much in which context the
word is being used. Royalty and commoner would be one example.
Nobleman and commoner, another. Electoral or parliamentary practice
quite another.
If one digs very deeply into the question one finds legal definitions
which, while using the word commoner to distinguish classes of
persons, then add other classes in addition to comoner and noble, e.g.
military and naval personnel, etc, etc.

These days we should substitute "commoner" for "common" with a further
division - "dead common"

Regards
Donald Binks

[Turenne]

Post by Turenne
The idea that the Duke of Cambridge and The Princess Royal is daft.
Where did the quote come from?

I am a great admirer of M. Velde; but I think that in this instance he
is wrong.

RL

[Francois R. Velde]

Post by Turenne

Post by Turenne
The idea that the Duke of Cambridge and The Princess Royal is daft.
Where did the quote come from?

I am a great admirer of M. Velde; but I think that in this instance he
is wrong.

And he agrees with you. As David diagnosed correctly, I replaced "Prince William"
with "Duke of Cambridge" without proper thought for context, as he kindly put it.
I've replaced him with Prince Harry.

Since the constitutional reforms, the concept of "peer" may seem murky, but the
traditional definition (e.g. Blackstone) of who is noble and who is a commoner
still works. The reforms certainly provide no basis for reducing the set of
commoners, and they in no way concerned or involved sons of peers or untitled
grandchildren of the monarch.

[CJ Buyers]

On Jan 18, 12:01 am, "Francois R. Velde"

Post by Turenne

Post by Turenne
The idea that the Duke of Cambridge and The Princess Royal is daft.
Where did the quote come from?

I am a great admirer of M. Velde; but I think that in this instance he
is wrong.

And he agrees with you.  As David diagnosed correctly, I replaced "Prince William"
with "Duke of Cambridge" without proper thought for context, as he kindly put it.
I've replaced him with Prince Harry.
Since the constitutional reforms, the concept of "peer" may seem murky, but the
traditional definition (e.g. Blackstone) of who is noble and who is a commoner
still works.  The reforms certainly provide no basis for reducing the set of
commoners, and they in no way concerned or involved sons of peers or untitled
grandchildren of the monarch.

Alas, that is not going to get off the hook either.

Blackstone, who was concerned mainly in the definition of commoner in
the context of noble, dit not consider the meaning of commoner in any
other sphere, e.g. the municipal or academic. He certainly never
discussed the status of the grandchildren of a monarch.

Even so, where he did discuss the "commonality", he divided the state
into estates consisting of the clergy, the civil, the military and
maritime. Then dividing the civil estate into nobles and commoners.
His definition of a commoner is one who was not a clergyman, not a
member of the military, not a member of the naval forces, not a
nobleman, or not a wife or widow of a nobleman (provided she had not
remarried a commoner).

Since practically all adult members of the Royal Familiy hold one or
multiple military appointments, they cannot possibly be commoners even
under Blackstone's definition.

Of course, it is interesting to see that those defined by Blackstone
as not being commoners include, when it comes to the military, "the
whole of the soldiery". Thereby incorporating amongst their number,
not only the regular military forces but also the militia and the
retired, from the highest ranking Field Marshal to the lowliest newly
recruited private soldier.

[s.m.m.]

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commoner

Pronunciation: /ˈkɒmənə/
noun
1one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy
or to royalty:
this is the story of the commoner who married a king
2a person who has a right over another’s land, e.g. for pasturage or
mineral extraction:
commoners' centuries-old grazing rights
cattle and ponies owned by the commoners
3(at some British universities) an undergraduate who does not have a
scholarship:
a commoner’s gown

Origin:
Middle English (denoting a citizen or burgess): from medieval Latin
communarius, from communa, communia 'community', based on Latin
communis (see common)

-----

It's just an abuse of language to come up with a definition of
"commoner" that results in royalty such as HRH The Princess Royal
being defined as such.

[Francois R. Velde]

Post by s.m.m.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commoner
Pronunciation: /??k??m??n??/
noun
1one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy
this is the story of the commoner who married a king
2a person who has a right over another???s land, e.g. for pasturage or
commoners' centuries-old grazing rights
cattle and ponies owned by the commoners
3(at some British universities) an undergraduate who does not have a
a commoner???s gown
Middle English (denoting a citizen or burgess): from medieval Latin
communarius, from communa, communia 'community', based on Latin
communis (see common)
-----
It's just an abuse of language to come up with a definition of
"commoner" that results in royalty such as HRH The Princess Royal
being defined as such.

You might also consult the Oxford English Dictionary:
" Commoner:
1. [obsolete]
2. a. More generally: One of the common people; a member of the commonalty.
(Now applied to all below the rank of a peer.)"

If you want to register your complaint about their abuse of language, their
email is ***@oup.com. Let us know when they've revised their entry
to suit your misconception.

[s.m.m.]

On Jan 17, 3:54 pm, "Francois R. Velde"

Post by s.m.m.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commoner
Pronunciation: /??k??m??n??/
noun
1one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy
this is the story of the commoner who married a king
2a person who has a right over another???s land, e.g. for pasturage or
commoners' centuries-old grazing rights
cattle and ponies owned by the commoners
3(at some British universities) an undergraduate who does not have a
a commoner???s gown
Middle English (denoting a citizen or burgess): from medieval Latin
communarius, from communa, communia 'community', based on Latin
communis (see common)
-----
It's just an abuse of language to come up with a definition of
"commoner" that results in royalty such as HRH The Princess Royal
being defined as such.

 1. [obsolete]
 2.  a. More generally: One of the common people; a member of the commonalty.
(Now applied to all below the rank of a peer.)"
If you want to register your complaint about their abuse of language, their
to suit your misconception.
--
  François R. Velde
  Heraldica Web Site:http://www.heraldica.org/

OK then you have to tell me how being royal, ie having an HRH before
your name is "below the rank of a peer?"
Anyway I'm not interested in arguing about it any more, it is utterly
ridiculous to think that royal personages are commoners, the two words
are opposites, but if you want to cling to that absurdity go right
ahead only I think you should not be misleading people who may look on
the FAQ of this group.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by s.m.m.
On Jan 17, 3:54 pm, "Francois R. Velde"

Post by s.m.m.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commoner
Pronunciation: /??k??m??n??/
noun
1one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy
this is the story of the commoner who married a king
2a person who has a right over another???s land, e.g. for pasturage or
commoners' centuries-old grazing rights
cattle and ponies owned by the commoners
3(at some British universities) an undergraduate who does not have a
a commoner???s gown
Middle English (denoting a citizen or burgess): from medieval Latin
communarius, from communa, communia 'community', based on Latin
communis (see common)
-----
It's just an abuse of language to come up with a definition of
"commoner" that results in royalty such as HRH The Princess Royal
being defined as such.

 1. [obsolete]
 2.  a. More generally: One of the common people; a member of the commonalty.
(Now applied to all below the rank of a peer.)"
If you want to register your complaint about their abuse of language, their
to suit your misconception.
--
  François R. Velde
  Heraldica Web Site:http://www.heraldica.org/

OK then you have to tell me how being royal, ie having an HRH before
your name is "below the rank of a peer?"

If that is now Mr Velde's definition of a commoner, the lowest rank of
a peer being a Baron or Baroness in their own right, then such folk as
the younger sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal, the Lord Justice Clerk
of Scotland, the younger sons of a Marquess and the Speaker of the
House of Commons no less, are all not commoners either!

[Stan Brown]

Post by David
Of course, the question of "Who is a (substantive) peer?" is a
slightly murky one, and as UK laws regarding the House of Lords
continue to change in the near future, will only get muddier.

I think the question of who is a substantive peer is very far from
murky. A peer is someone who has been personally granted a peerage
or someone who has inherited a peerage according to the rules
governing that particular peerage.

Post by David
Even today the link between holding a peerage and having a seat in
the House of Lords is pretty strained.

Yes, ever since the House of Lords Act 1999. If you mean "peer" in
the sense of "member of the House of Lords", then I would have to
agree that the rules, though well defined, are confusing. But the
whole point of the HoL Act is that "peer" and "member of the House of
Lords" are *not* the same thing.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040722191706/http://users.uniserve.com/
~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm

[David]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by David
Of course, the question of "Who is a (substantive) peer?" is a
slightly murky one, and as UK laws regarding the House of Lords
continue to change in the near future, will only get muddier.

I think the question of who is a substantive peer is very far from
murky.  A peer is someone who has been personally granted a peerage
or someone who has inherited a peerage according to the rules
governing that particular peerage.

Post by David
Even today the link between holding a peerage and having a seat in
the House of Lords is pretty strained.

Yes, ever since the House of Lords Act 1999.  If you mean "peer" in
the sense of "member of the House of Lords", then I would have to
agree that the rules, though well defined, are confusing.  But the
whole point of the HoL Act is that "peer" and "member of the House of
Lords" are *not* the same thing.

Yes. But the clarity that was provided for the term 'commoner' at a
time when it meant, effectively, 'a person entitled to be represented
in the House of Commons' no longer exists, since said group now
includes most hereditary peers. It appears that non-commoners are now
supposed to include a) the monarch; b) hereditary peers, most of whom
are now represented in the Commons, but some of whom continue to sit
in the Lords; c) life peers, who comprise the largest part of the
Lords. It seems likely that continued reforms will result in the
election, by one means or another, of a large part or even all of the
Lords, which at that point may no longer even be called the "House of
Lords"; I do not know if said elected persons will continue to receive
titles via Letters Patent; quite possibly they will not. At which
point, perhaps, every peer within the realm will be represented in the
Commons, and all the people in the Lords will be "commoners", and the
two notions will be entirely divorced from each other. At present,
however, we seem to be betwixt and between.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by Stan Brown

Post by David
Of course, the question of "Who is a (substantive) peer?" is a
slightly murky one, and as UK laws regarding the House of Lords
continue to change in the near future, will only get muddier.

I think the question of who is a substantive peer is very far from
murky.  A peer is someone who has been personally granted a peerage
or someone who has inherited a peerage according to the rules
governing that particular peerage.

Post by David
Even today the link between holding a peerage and having a seat in
the House of Lords is pretty strained.

Yes, ever since the House of Lords Act 1999.  If you mean "peer" in
the sense of "member of the House of Lords", then I would have to
agree that the rules, though well defined, are confusing.  But the
whole point of the HoL Act is that "peer" and "member of the House of
Lords" are *not* the same thing.

Yes.  But the clarity that was provided for the term 'commoner' at a
time when it meant, effectively, 'a person entitled to be represented
in the House of Commons' no longer exists, since said group now
includes most hereditary peers.

There never was a time when the term "commoner" had clarity. Not even
within parliament before the recent reforms. One has simply to turn
one's attention to the Lords Spiritual to know that. The more so after
the concept of "rotating" membership of the House of Lords was set up
for them.

The term only has clarity within the confines of a discussion about
some other "estate", group of people or class, and where the term
simply applies to whatever group is left over and cannot be otherwise
labelled.

[David]

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by Stan Brown

Post by David
Of course, the question of "Who is a (substantive) peer?" is a
slightly murky one, and as UK laws regarding the House of Lords
continue to change in the near future, will only get muddier.

I think the question of who is a substantive peer is very far from
murky.  A peer is someone who has been personally granted a peerage
or someone who has inherited a peerage according to the rules
governing that particular peerage.

Post by David
Even today the link between holding a peerage and having a seat in
the House of Lords is pretty strained.

Yes, ever since the House of Lords Act 1999.  If you mean "peer" in
the sense of "member of the House of Lords", then I would have to
agree that the rules, though well defined, are confusing.  But the
whole point of the HoL Act is that "peer" and "member of the House of
Lords" are *not* the same thing.

Yes.  But the clarity that was provided for the term 'commoner' at a
time when it meant, effectively, 'a person entitled to be represented
in the House of Commons' no longer exists, since said group now
includes most hereditary peers.

There never was a time when the term "commoner" had clarity. Not even
within parliament before the recent reforms. One has simply to turn
one's attention to the Lords Spiritual to know that. The more so after
the concept of "rotating" membership of the House of Lords was set up
for them.
The term only has clarity within the confines of a discussion about
some other "estate", group of people or class, and where the term
simply applies to whatever group is left over and cannot be otherwise
labelled.

You could be right that the apparent clarity was spurious, but in the
19th century, at least, there was a belief (demonstrated in popular
encyclopedias, the columns of educational magazines, and Debates in
Parliament) that there were certain characteristics by which one could
distinguish a peer from a commoner (e.g., the right to a trial before
the House of Lords), and that these two classes were sharply
distinguished by law as well as by custom. Possibly this belief was
ill-founded.

At any rate the legal basis for distinguishing a distinct class of
'peers' has been undermined, perhaps fatally, since those days (and
quite possibly before them). If the class of 'peer' as distinguished
from 'commoner' still maintains a coherent definition, I think it must
be by custom rather than law; and the arbiters of custom are, I
suppose, the writers of handbooks of style and almanacs of
genealogy... and of Frequently Asked Questions lists.

[CJ Buyers]

Post by David

Post by CJ Buyers

Post by Stan Brown

Post by David
Of course, the question of "Who is a (substantive) peer?" is a
slightly murky one, and as UK laws regarding the House of Lords
continue to change in the near future, will only get muddier.

I think the question of who is a substantive peer is very far from
murky.  A peer is someone who has been personally granted a peerage
or someone who has inherited a peerage according to the rules
governing that particular peerage.

Post by David
Even today the link between holding a peerage and having a seat in
the House of Lords is pretty strained.

Yes, ever since the House of Lords Act 1999.  If you mean "peer" in
the sense of "member of the House of Lords", then I would have to
agree that the rules, though well defined, are confusing.  But the
whole point of the HoL Act is that "peer" and "member of the House of
Lords" are *not* the same thing.

Yes.  But the clarity that was provided for the term 'commoner' at a
time when it meant, effectively, 'a person entitled to be represented
in the House of Commons' no longer exists, since said group now
includes most hereditary peers.

There never was a time when the term "commoner" had clarity. Not even
within parliament before the recent reforms. One has simply to turn
one's attention to the Lords Spiritual to know that. The more so after
the concept of "rotating" membership of the House of Lords was set up
for them.
The term only has clarity within the confines of a discussion about
some other "estate", group of people or class, and where the term
simply applies to whatever group is left over and cannot be otherwise
labelled.

You could be right that the apparent clarity was spurious, but in the
19th century, at least, there was a belief (demonstrated in popular
encyclopedias, the columns of educational magazines, and Debates in
Parliament) that there were certain characteristics by which one could
distinguish a peer from a commoner (e.g., the right to a trial before
the House of Lords), and that these two classes were sharply
distinguished by law as well as by custom.  Possibly this belief was
ill-founded.

I entirely concur with your comments about peers.

My bugbear is the various attempts to assign spurious definitions to
'commoner', a term which has different meanings in different
contexts.

In your statement above, you could just as easily amend it to read "..
that there were certain characteristics by which one could distinguish
a peer from the rest (of mankind)". Does not the use of "commoner"
actually complicate matters? Consider our good Bishops and where they
would fit in the matter of a right to trial.

Post by David
At any rate the legal basis for distinguishing a distinct class of
'peers' has been undermined, perhaps fatally, since those days (and
quite possibly before them). If the class of 'peer' as distinguished
from 'commoner' still maintains a coherent definition, I think it must
be by custom rather than law; and the arbiters of custom are, I
suppose, the writers of handbooks of style and almanacs of
genealogy... and of Frequently Asked Questions lists.- Hide quoted text -

But we are still entitled to hold them to account when they cannot
give authorities for their pronouncements, and when asked to, give
entirely unconvincing and conflicting sources at best.

[s.m.m.]

Post by CJ Buyers
But we are still entitled to hold them to account when they cannot
give authorities for their pronouncements, and when asked to, give
entirely unconvincing and conflicting sources at best.

Hear, hear! Good for you, keep at it. Anywhere else one looks online
or in print, one will never find such a concept as a Royal Highness
who is a commoner. It is so silly to think that the elite members of
this little group have a special knowledge of an arcane formula that
is appreciated only by them.

[GilesH]

Post by s.m.m.
" the duke of Cambridge, the Princess Royal, the earl of Arundel (son
of a duke) are all commoners."
Is this written by the same person who thinks Wallis Simpson was
divorced three times?
The heir to the throne and HRH the Princess Royal are commoners?
The idea that you can be royal and commoner at the same time is
ludicrous.

Good grief ! Just get rid of the term "commoner" completely from the
FAQs and any other of your scribblings. This is the 21st Century, we
are all equals.

[Turenne]

Good grief !   Just get rid of the term "commoner" completely from the
FAQs and any other of your scribblings.

If you can 'scribble' any better, you are welcome to try...

This is the 21st Century, we are all equals.

This is a discussion group about royalty. Your point is somewhat
redundant.

RL

[CJ Buyers]

 This is the 21st Century, we are all equals.

Where on earth do you get that silly idea from?

[chas8391]

Post by CJ Buyers

 This is the 21st Century, we are all equals.

Where on earth do you get that silly idea from?

When King Edward VIII abdicated the question of his title and arose.
The new king, GeorgeVI, said that Edward, as a grandson of a king in
the male line, was HRH Prince Edward and as such could stand for and
be elected to the House of Commons. To prevent this, Edward was
created a peer and became HRH the Duke of Windsor. It appears that
King George VI knew that HRH Prince Edward was a commoner who could be
elected to the House Of Commons while HRH the Duke of Windsor was a
peer and could not be elected to the House Of Commons. The current
royals, Princess Anne, Prince Michael of Kent, Princesses Beatrice and
Eugenie, Prince Harry, et al, are commoners because they are not
peers. Nor are they sovereigns.

Charles

[CJ Buyers]

Post by chas8391

Post by CJ Buyers

 This is the 21st Century, we are all equals.

Where on earth do you get that silly idea from?

When King Edward VIII abdicated the question of his title and arose.
The new king, GeorgeVI, said that Edward, as a  grandson of a king in
the male line, was HRH Prince Edward and as such could stand for and
be elected to the House of Commons. To prevent this, Edward was
created a peer and became HRH the Duke of Windsor. It appears that
King George VI knew that HRH Prince Edward was a commoner who could be
elected to the House Of Commons while HRH the Duke of Windsor was a
peer and could not be elected to the House Of Commons.  The current
royals, Princess Anne, Prince Michael of Kent, Princesses Beatrice and
Eugenie, Prince Harry, et al, are commoners because they are not
peers. Nor are they sovereigns.

Well, an Irish peer could be elected to the House of Commons; did that
make him a commoner? Certainly not.

The wife of a peer of the UK, could be elected to the House of
Commons; did that make them commoners? No.

A lunatic or a child cannot be elected to the House of Commons; does
that mean they are not commoners? Obviously not.

[s.m.m.]

On Jan 29, 1:34 am, chas8391 <***@webtv.net> wrote:
 The current

Post by chas8391
royals, Princess Anne, Prince Michael of Kent, Princesses Beatrice and
Eugenie, Prince Harry, et al, are commoners because they are not
peers. Nor are they sovereigns.
Charles

Rather than mere repetition of this absurd idea, I would like to see
some source or reference for it outside this group which seems to be
the only place on earth that has discovered this arcane secret.
The only evidence offered apart from mere assertion has been Mr
Velde's :"You might also consult the Oxford English Dictionary:
" Commoner:
1. [obsolete]
2. a. More generally: One of the common people; a member of the
commonalty.
(Now applied to all below the rank of a peer.)"
and he did not answer my question as to how a royal such as HRH The
Princess Royal is "below the rank of a peer".
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commoner
"commoner

Pronunciation: /ˈkɒmənə/
noun
1one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy
or to royalty:
this is the story of the commoner who married a king"

You cannot be royal and a commoner both, it is an abuse of language,
the terms are mutually exclusive.

[chas8391]

  The current

Post by chas8391
royals, Princess Anne, Prince Michael of Kent, Princesses Beatrice and
Eugenie, Prince Harry, et al, are commoners because they are not
peers. Nor are they sovereigns.
Charles

Rather than mere repetition of this absurd idea, I would like to see
some source or reference for it outside this group which seems to be
the only place on earth that has discovered this arcane secret.
The only evidence offered apart from mere assertion has been Mr
 1. [obsolete]
 2.  a. More generally: One of the common people; a member of the
commonalty.
(Now applied to all below the rank of a peer.)"
and he did not answer my question as to how a royal such as HRH The
Princess Royal is "below the rank of a peer".http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commoner
"commoner
Pronunciation: /ˈkɒmənə/
noun
1one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy
this is the story of the commoner who married a king"
You cannot be royal and a commoner both, it is an abuse of language,
the terms are mutually exclusive.

Yes, s.m.m., I did answer the Princess Royal Question. I would ask
you to explain why King George VI said His Royal Highness Prince
Edward, formerly Edward VIII, could be elected to the House Of Commons
but His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor could not.

Charles

[CJ Buyers]

  The current

Post by chas8391
royals, Princess Anne, Prince Michael of Kent, Princesses Beatrice and
Eugenie, Prince Harry, et al, are commoners because they are not
peers. Nor are they sovereigns.
Charles

Rather than mere repetition of this absurd idea, I would like to see
some source or reference for it outside this group which seems to be
the only place on earth that has discovered this arcane secret.
The only evidence offered apart from mere assertion has been Mr
 1. [obsolete]
 2.  a. More generally: One of the common people; a member of the
commonalty.
(Now applied to all below the rank of a peer.)"
and he did not answer my question as to how a royal such as HRH The
Princess Royal is "below the rank of a peer".http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/commoner
"commoner
Pronunciation: /ˈkɒmənə/
noun
1one of the ordinary or common people, as opposed to the aristocracy
this is the story of the commoner who married a king"
You cannot be royal and a commoner both, it is an abuse of language,
the terms are mutually exclusive.

Yes, s.m.m., I did answer the Princess Royal Question.  I would ask
you to explain why King George VI said His Royal Highness Prince
Edward, formerly Edward VIII, could be elected to the House Of Commons
but His Royal Highness the Duke of Windsor could not.

Very simple. One cannot be a member of two houses of the legislature
at the same time.

It is perfectly obvious to everybody else that being eligible for
election to the House of Commons, is and of itself, not a definition
of a commoner.

You have been given the examples of Irish peers and the wives of peers
in general, who have been eligible and have actually held seats in the
House of Commons. If you want names, two examples that come to mind
are the Earl of Kilmorey and Viscountess Astor. They are in every
sense of the law nobles, not commoners.

I have also given you examples of two types of being who are not
entitled to be elected to the House of Commons - children and
lunatics. Their ineligibility for election does not mean they are not
commoners.