The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #301  
Old 05-19-2019, 02:43 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,968
Isnít this the equivalent of a woman keeping her maiden name effectively?
I really donít see a title for Jack, it would have come on their wedding day.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:03 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,369
So Sarah is still a member of the Royal Family? Is it because she. is the mother of two successors to the throne? And no HRH. The listing looks odd because it looks like non titled children outrank her.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:13 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 13,604
I think perhaps Sarah is included at times when its a private, family type thing such as weddings, funerals and other events that she can be included in. It has absolutely nothing to do with rank and file and precedence or with the monarchy itself. Its more as a courtesy to the mother of two princesses of the UK. Just listing her name as Sarah, Duchess of York denotes that she's the ex-wife of the Duke of York.

We probably would be seeing the same thing if Diana, Princess of Wales had lived. Pure courtesy. I don't think it points to Andrew and Sarah remarrying either. They both seem very comfortable with the way things are now.
__________________
No law can be sacred to me but that of my nature. Good and bad are but names very readily transferable to that or this; the only right is what is after my constitution, the only wrong what is against it.

~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:15 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Isn’t this the equivalent of a woman keeping her maiden name effectively?
I really don’t see a title for Jack, it would have come on their wedding day.
But Tatiana Marie seemed to state in her reply to me, that Princess Eugenie is not allowed that choice legally in Britain-she must become Mrs Jack Brooksbank. I can see that having been the case socially at the Royal Court but not legally.

I know here in the U. S. women have choices about their name after marriage. They can even use one name professionally and another socially if they so choose. It does seem that Eugenie herself is still using York, at least professionally.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:29 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 5,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
What strange list is that? The last name is Sarah, Duchess of York? Is she now considered a member of the BRF again?
In addition, the titles and styles of the family of the 2nd Earl of Snowdon have not been updated yet.

In any case, that list looks like a clear indication that Sarah is now considered a member of the Royal Family again. Unsurprisingly, she arrived with the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice at Lady Gabriella’s wedding.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:38 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 416
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In addition, the titles and styles of the family of the 2nd Earl of Snowdon have not been updated yet.

In any case, that list looks like a clear indication that Sarah is now considered a member of the Royal Family again. Unsurprisingly, she arrived with the Duke of York and Princess Beatrice at Lady Gabriellaís wedding.

I'm not saying you are wrong and I think this actually supports your claim, but she has been on the list for years. I'm pretty sure she's been included since the old website was in use.
Reply With Quote
  #307  
Old 05-19-2019, 03:38 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 19,968
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
But Tatiana Marie seemed to state in her reply to me, that Princess Eugenie is not allowed that choice legally in Britain-she must become Mrs Jack Brooksbank. I can see that having been the case socially at the Royal Court but not legally.


Unless thatís because sheís a royal, then no itís certainly not legal that she must become Mrs Jack Brooksbank. I voluntarily changed my surname upon marriage but I didnít legally have to.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 05-19-2019, 04:13 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
But Tatiana Marie seemed to state in her reply to me, that Princess Eugenie is not allowed that choice legally in Britain-she must become Mrs Jack Brooksbank. I can see that having been the case socially at the Royal Court but not legally.
The first part of the message which I reposted in my reply to you dealt with the letter from the Queen's representative stating that a woman must use Mrs [husband's name], and the actions of the Royal Court socially.

The second part discussed the legal declaration of 1960 about the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. This declaration is not directly applicable to the change in Eugenie's name on the official website, but I mentioned it as potential evidence that the Queen does not allow her female descendants the choice to keep their names (as Roslyn pointed out in her response which I also quoted, the wording is open to interpretation). If the Queen does not allow princesses to keep their names legally, it follows that she would not allow them to keep them socially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I would think whether Eugenie takes the name Brooksbank or not would be up to Eugenie herself and her husband. I donít see why it would have anything to do with her grandmother.
It is the same as Jane Smith marrying John Miller-she can remain Ms Smith or become Mrs Miller. Or use both depending upon the circumstances.
I certainly would agree that Princess Eugenie's and Jane Smith's names ought to be up to Eugenie and Jane themselves, just as Jack Brooksbank's and John Miller's names are up to the husbands themselves, but the reality is that married women have been forced by "Her Majesty's Representative" to use their husbands' given names and last names. As I posted in another thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Even today, with some exceptions, the British monarchy generally does not seem to give most women that choice.

In the British Royal Family's press releases, the Court Circular etc., married women are generally styled with their husbands' forenames and surnames, e.g. Mrs. John Smith, and my understanding is that British women rarely choose to be styled in this manner when given a choice.

In some cases, even women who asked to use their own forename instead of their husband's forename (e.g. Ms. Jane Smith instead of Mrs. John Smith) have been refused.
A reader sent Sidelines this reply to a request for an application form: "Her Majesty's Representative at Ascot does not acknowledge the title Ms ... a married woman applying for herself should indicate her husband's forename."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20.../18/gender.uk1

Further, although the Queen has apparently given Princess Eugenie permission not to use her husband's surname (new information can be found here: Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?), by her declaration in 1960 (at least according to the general interpretation of it), Eugenie had no choice but to change her legal surname to her husband's, for the reason that the declaration does not allow women to keep the legal surname Mountbatten-Windsor after marriage or to pass it to their children:
Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."
As Roslyn pointed out in that thread, the Royal Ascot policy was softened in 2016 in regard to first names, but it is unclear if the change includes last names:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
That Guardian article was from 2000. Ascot finally moved into the 21st Century in 2016 and now women can use their own forenames: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/ra...re-badges.html I'm not sure how they would react if one of the rash creatures wanted to wear a nametag bearing a surname which was not the same as her husband's.



That statement of HM's "will and pleasure" was made nearly 60 years ago. A lot has changed in society since then, and in HM's own family. I think the wording is loose enough to permit a fair bit of wriggle room. It provides an exception for female descendants who marry and it is arguable that it allows them to use whatever name they want to use. I do, however, believe that Eugenie would want to use Jack's surname.


I have doubts that a woman born in 1990 would have chosen to become "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" if she had been given the choice. There have also been comments on social media from people claiming that Eugenie is breaching the rules by keeping her name "of York", so it seems to be widely thought that it is not up to her.
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 05-19-2019, 10:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

The second part discussed the legal declaration of 1960 about the name of Mountbatten-Windsor. This declaration is not directly applicable to the change in Eugenie's name on the official website, but I mentioned it as potential evidence that the Queen does not allow her female descendants the choice to keep their names (as Roslyn pointed out in her response which I also quoted, the wording is open to interpretation). If the Queen does not allow princesses to keep their names legally, it follows that she would not allow them to keep them socially.
I'm not so sure that what the Queen declared about married names of female descendants in 1960, is necessarily her thoughts in 2019--59 years later. Married women did not keep their birth last names in 1960. I think that was SOP for 1960.

I do not believe that Princess Anne ever uses HRH The Princess Anne, Lady Laurence or The Princess Royal, Lady Laurence.
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 05-19-2019, 10:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 692
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I'm not so sure that what the Queen declared about married names of female descendants in 1960, is necessarily her thoughts in 2019--59 years later. Married women did not keep their birth last names in 1960. I think that was SOP for 1960.

I do not believe that Princess Anne ever uses HRH The Princess Anne, Lady Laurence or The Princess Royal, Lady Laurence.
I realise it's not quite the same thing, but when Princess Anne was prosecuted under the Dangers Dogs legislation, she was charged as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Lawrence.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/21/monarchy
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 05-20-2019, 04:07 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
I realise it's not quite the same thing, but when Princess Anne was prosecuted under the Dangers Dogs legislation, she was charged as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Lawrence. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/21/monarchy
Thanks. She uses Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Laurence in the government registry of companies as well. Both uses denote that the 1960 declaration was followed for Princess Anne, taking the name Mountbatten-Windsor away from her when she married.


Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I'm not so sure that what the Queen declared about married names of female descendants in 1960, is necessarily her thoughts in 2019--59 years later. Married women did not keep their birth last names in 1960. I think that was SOP for 1960.
I think it can be compared to King George V's "will and pleasure" publicized by letters patent in 1917. His letters patent are more inconsistent with women's roles in 2019 than even Elizabeth II's declaration - under the 1917 letters patent the children of a female heiress apparent cannot use HRH, even as the children of her younger brothers can. Nevertheless, the 1917 letters patent are still considered to apply to the Royal Family in 2019. In the same way, the 1960 declaration will apply to the Mountbatten-Windsor women until Elizabeth II or one of her successors modifies it with another declaration of the sovereign's will and pleasure.


Taking into account that

- Queen Elizabeth II was born in 1926 and women of her age in Britain are more accustomed to the style Mrs John Smith compared to younger women, her Royal Representative was issuing letters in 2000 ordering women to use their husbands' forenames, and up to this point she hasn't wanted to modify her 1960 declaration to allow women whose birth name is Mountbatten-Windsor a clear choice to keep it when they marry,

- whereas Princess Eugenie was born in 1990 and few women of her age in Britain voluntarily use the style Mrs John Smith, and she still calls herself Princess Eugenie of York on her foundation's website and Eugenie York at her job at Hauser & Wirth,

my conclusion stands that the change to Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank on the official list is far more likely to be the Queen's choice than Princess Eugenie's choice.


My question is why the change came half a year into the marriage and not on the wedding day.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jack Brooksbank: Family and Background Zonk The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 78 12-01-2018 02:15 AM
Engagement of Princess Eugenie of York and Jack Brooksbank: January 22, 2018 JessRulz The Duke of York, Sarah Duchess of York, and Family 229 03-15-2018 09:50 PM
Daniel's Future: Discussion (his role, title, orders, pressure etc.) Yennie Crown Princess Victoria, Prince Daniel and Family 441 01-13-2017 06:38 PM




Popular Tags
alqasimi archie mountbatten-windsor aristocracy armenia bavaria;house;chef;luitpold;ludwig birthday celebration bracelets british royal family charles of wales christian ix countess of wessex crown prince hussein crown prince hussein's future wife current events cypher denmark discuss„o duchess of sussex duke & duchess of cambridge; duke of cambridge duke of edinburgh duke of sussex family search felipe vi french royalty future wife of prince hussein general news germany hamdan bin mohammed head of the house her children introduction jack brooksbank jerusalem king lady louise mountbatten-windsor letter meghan markle member modernization mohammed vi monaco christening monarchism nelson mandela bay official visit pakistan patron prince harry prince laurent prince of wales prince peter princess princess beatrice princess benedikte princess claire princesses princess royal prince william queen elisabeth royal tour rumania sarah ferguson siblings spain state visit sweden tradition trump windy city wivies



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:22 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises