Quote Originally Posted by MacMillan of Rathdown View Post
In much of the English speaking world there is an assumption that only people with titles are noble. This is of course wrong-- No one would doubt that Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, is noble. However, neither of her children have titles. Are they somehow "not noble" even though they are eligible to inherit the throne of their Grandmother, the Queen? (They rank 10th and 11th in the line of succession.) No, they are not. They each bear the Royal Arms quartered with those of their father, Mark Phillips, along with the helmet appropriate to their rank and a crest. Clearly they are noble.
As I recall, it was George V who restricted the royal titles of Prince and Princess to grandchildren of a monarch descended only from the male line. Anne's children therefore did not qualify as their principal rank is taken from their father (the same applies to the children of the late Princess Margaret.)

They are thus (even were they to be given a title) "commoners" but even nobles are "commoners" under our system. The late Queen Mother, although the daughter of an Earl, was still a commoner until she acquired royal status through her marriage. Royal status conferred upon marriage can be taken away, as we saw with Diana and Sarah Ferguson, if the marriage is dissolved but the children, as grandchildren of the Monarch through the male line are not affected by a change in status of their mother. No title was conferred upon Mark Phillips thus Peter and Zara have no title, it was, however conferred upon Anthony Armstong-Jones who became Lord Snowdon and thus his children have titles derived from him.