Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?

[Tatiana Maria]

Technically she is no longer "of York", right?

If the press release is accurate, Princess Eugenie remains "of York" as of today, although she may drop it in the future. Dropping the territorial designation on a princess's marriage is not a law, only a precedent from the marriage of Princess Alexandra of Kent, who dropped "of Kent" and became Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Mrs. Angus Ogilvy.

There may be a name change later or maybe it has already occurred and perhaps they have not updated her name yet.

If I understand his meaning, Chris Ship is implying that there is likely to be a name change in the near future, but not now.

I expect the intention always was to publish the wedding photos after the wedding. The press release may have been prepared in advance, but if the princess intended to change her name on the wedding day, it would have been simple to word the press release using her married name.

Publicly Eugenie of York, privately Mrs. Jack Brooksbank. Or so.

That is a possibility.

Publically she is HRH Princess Eugenie of York, Mrs Jack Brooksbank..according to what I have seen/heard.

LaRae

May I ask where you saw/heard it?

 

[VictoriaB]

If they are going to give Jack a title why didn't they announce on the morning of the wedding like William and Harry? It looks like fear of backlash.

Because they’re not going to give Jack a title. There has been zero chance of this happening since the engagement was announced.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If they are going to give Jack a title why didn't they announce on the morning of the wedding like William and Harry? It looks like fear of backlash.

When we go back and look at the Princesses of the BRF since the days of Edward VII we find that either they fall into four categories

1. Married foreign princes and went to live overseas - Princess Maud married Prince Charles and Denmark and they went on to become the King and Queen of Norway

2. Married men with existing titles - Princess Louise married Earl Fife - who was raised to Duke of Fife on his wedding day but he was already a member of the House of Lords, Princess Alexandra 2nd Duchess of Fife who married Prince Arthur of Connaught, Princess Maud of Fife married the future Earl of Southesk in 1923 and Princess Mary who married the Earl of Harewood in 1922. NOTE Princess Maud was no longer 'Princess Maud' but simply Lady Maud when she married as she gave up the HH Princess Maud when George V introduced the 1917 LPs. Princess Alexandra became HRH Princess Arthur of Connaught on her marriage in 1913 and didn't lose that distinction as Prince Arthur was a male line grandson of Queen Victoria.

3. Married men without titles - Princess Margaret, Princess Alexandra and Princess Anne. Princess Margaret insisted that Tony have a title when she was pregnant with David - not on their wedding day - so that her children would have titles; neither Princess Alexandra nor Princess Anne's husbands were given titles on or after their weddings.

4. Was the heiress presumptive to the throne - Princess Elizabeth who husband was given the titles Duke of Edinburgh, Earl of Merioneth and Baron Greenwich on his marriage to Elizabeth because of her position.

So only one Princess descended from Edward VII has had her husband given a title who wasn't the direct heiress to the throne and that was Princess Margaret - a daughter of the monarch. The others either married men with titles or remained with titleless men.

The precedent is therefore clear - no title for Jack or Eugenie, unless catastrophe hits the Wales branch of the family.

 

[Denville]

Because they’re not going to give Jack a title. There has been zero chance of this happening since the engagement was announced.

of course he was never going to get a titlte. I don't know why anyone thought he would. Pss Marg's husband was the last one to get a title on marrying a princess and even thn he didn't get it till she was pregnant. Mark Phillips didn't want a title.. and even if he had, I am not sure the public would have been keen on the idea of someone getting a titlte just because he had married into the RF...

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Only the male spouses to female heirs tend to get titles:
Daniel Westling
Henri de Laborde de Monpezat
Claus von Amsberg
Philip of Greece and Denmark
Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld
Félix de Bourbon de Parme
Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin
Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha

In Belgium the Archduke Lorenz of Austria-d'Este was created a Prince de Belgium in his own right, but that had more to do with the changes in the succession than with the wish to make him a Prince. At that moment neither Philippe nor Laurent were in a relationship while their sister Astrid already had a family.

In Spain the infanta Doña Pilar married a Spanish aristocrat: the Vizconde de la Torre. He did not get a new title. Also the infanta Doña Elena married a Spanish aristocrat: a younger son of the Conde de Ripalda, but as a younger son Don Jaime had no title on his own. He did not get a new title. The Infanta Doña Margarita and the Infanta Doña Cristina married commoners. Neither of their husbands received a title.

Conclusion: both on the Continent as well in the UK only a male spouse to a monarch or a heir will receive a title.

 

[Iluvbertie]

What happens in other European countries is irrelevant to the situation in Britain - just as the rules etc that apply to the House of Windsor are irrelevant to what happens in other royal houses e.g. in Sweden all grandchildren of the King are HRH, while in Denmark they are HRH or HH but in Britain there are clear rules which relate to where a child is a male line or female line grandchild with Edward chooses to also say 'no thanks' for his children and so they don't have HRH either.

Each House has their own rules which bear no relationship to the rules of any other royal house. There is no need, therefore, to even bring in what happens in Europe as th precedence in Britain is what will decide things in Britain.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What happens in other European countries is irrelevant to the situation in Britain - just as the rules etc that apply to the House of Windsor are irrelevant to what happens in other royal houses e.g. in Sweden all grandchildren of the King are HRH, while in Denmark they are HRH or HH but in Britain there are clear rules which relate to where a child is a male line or female line grandchild with Edward chooses to also say 'no thanks' for his children and so they don't have HRH either.

Each House has their own rules which bear no relationship to the rules of any other royal house. There is no need, therefore, to even bring in what happens in Europe as th precedence in Britain is what will decide things in Britain.

Irrelevant or not, the tendence is clear: male spouses to a female heir get a title. The rest of the males do not. In Britain and in the other monarchies. That is pretty clear.

 

[MARG]

If Mr Brooksbank is made an Earl 'i'll eat my hat'...

Only the male spouses to female heirs tend to get titles:
Daniel Westling
Henri de Laborde de Monpezat
Claus von Amsberg
Philip of Greece and Denmark
Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld
Félix de Bourbon de Parme
Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin
Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha

In Belgium the Archduke Lorenz of Austria-d'Este was created a Prince de Belgium in his own right, but that had more to do with the changes in the succession than with the wish to make him a Prince. At that moment neither Philippe nor Laurent were in a relationship while their sister Astrid already had a family.

In Spain the infanta Doña Pilar married a Spanish aristocrat: the Vizconde de la Torre. He did not get a new title. Also the infanta Doña Elena married a Spanish aristocrat: a younger son of the Conde de Ripalda, but as a younger son Don Jaime had no title on his own. He did not get a new title. The Infanta Doña Margarita and the Infanta Doña Cristina married commoners. Neither of their husbands received a title.

Conclusion: both on the Continent as well in the UK only a male spouse to a monarch or a heir will receive a title.

That's not necessarily so. Prince Philip may have been impoverished but he was nonetheless a Prince of Greece and Denmark. Not only did they make him renounce his title and his nationality and gave him the empty title of Duke of Edinburgh. His blood was just as royal as Elizabeth's and they didn't even make him Prince Consort which Margrethe husband Henrik was.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In Spain the infanta Doña Pilar married a Spanish aristocrat: the Vizconde de la Torre. He did not get a new title. Also the infanta Doña Elena married a Spanish aristocrat: a younger son of the Conde de Ripalda, but as a younger son Don Jaime had no title on his own. He did not get a new title. The Infanta Doña Margarita and the Infanta Doña Cristina married commoners. Neither of their husbands received a title.

The husbands of the Infantas Pilar, Margarita, Elena, and Cristina were Dukes consort. The Infantas themselves did not use ducal titles, but received dukedoms to provide their husbands with the right to use a title.
The husbands of the Infantas María Luisa, María Luisa Fernanda, María Isabel, and María Teresa were created Infantes of Spain in their own right.
The husband of María de las Mercedes, the Princess of Asturias, was known as the Prince of Asturias until the death of his wife and was created an Infante of Spain in his own right.

What happens in other European countries is irrelevant to the situation in Britain - just as the rules etc that apply to the House of Windsor are irrelevant to what happens in other royal houses e.g. in Sweden all grandchildren of the King are HRH, while in Denmark they are HRH or HH but in Britain there are clear rules which relate to where a child is a male line or female line grandchild with Edward chooses to also say 'no thanks' for his children and so they don't have HRH either.

Each House has their own rules which bear no relationship to the rules of any other royal house. There is no need, therefore, to even bring in what happens in Europe as th precedence in Britain is what will decide things in Britain.

The practice of according royal titles to members of the king's family and the style of HRH were adopted from other European royal houses.

 

[Stefan]

The husbands of the Infantas Pilar, Margarita, Elena, and Cristina were Dukes consort. The Infantas themselves did not use ducal titles, but received dukedoms to provide their husbands with the right to use a title.

But that is the normal way in Spain. That a husband of a Duchess also is the Duke Consort. Like the husbands of the late Duchess of Albara where referred as Duk of Alba.

 

[jacqui24]

I expect the intention always was to publish the wedding photos after the wedding. The press release may have been prepared in advance, but if the princess intended to change her name on the wedding day, it would have been simple to word the press release using her married

Or perhaps the Duke of York, who has been handling the media aspect, just prefers his daughter not be just Mrs., so they’ll continue to use of York. It’s not unprecedented not to add their married name as neither did The Princess Margaret.

 

[Skippy]

Or perhaps the Duke of York, who has been handling the media aspect, just prefers his daughter not be just Mrs., so they’ll continue to use of York. It’s not unprecedented not to add their married name as neither did The Princess Margaret.

We'll see whether Eugenie remains "of York", or she will be Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank.

While you are right about the unprecedented part, Princess Margaret was a totally different woman - personality-wise - in a totally different situation.

 

[ladongas]

I recall seeing the front page of one of the London newspapers from the day after Princess Margaret’s marriage, a beautiful bridal portrait with the simple caption: Mrs. Jones.

I must have seen this in an American magazine, because I would have had no access to the British papers then. It stuck with me.

 

[Mbruno]

But that is the normal way in Spain. That a husband of a Duchess also is the Duke Consort. Like the husbands of the late Duchess of Albara where referred as Duk of Alba.

The husband of an ordinary (hereditary) duchess is definitely a duke consort in Spain, but it is actually controversial whether the same rule applies to non-hereditary royal dukedoms.



I know Jaime de Marichalar and Iñaki were normally referred to as "Duke of Lugo" and "Duke of Palma de Mallorca" with the predicate "Excelentísimo Señor", but, according to some legal experts, the royal decree 1386/1987 makes it clear that the use of titles of nobility belonging to the royal house can only by authorized for members of the King's family and always on a personal basis, meaning , according to one interpretation, that they do not extend, even by courtesy, to consorts.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Or perhaps the Duke of York, who has been handling the media aspect, just prefers his daughter not be just Mrs., so they’ll continue to use of York. It’s not unprecedented not to add their married name as neither did The Princess Margaret.

Is the press release known to have been published by the staff of the Duke of York? If so, then I assume Princess Eugenie was "HRH Princess Eugenie of York" (and not "HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank") in the press release and at the evening reception because that was the decision made by the Duke.

In that case, we will need to wait to hear if Buckingham Palace refers to her as Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank (based on the examples of Princess Anne, Mrs. Mark Phillips, and Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Mrs. Angus Ogilvy), Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank (as with the sisters of the Kings of Norway and Sweden), or Princess Eugenie of York.

Notwithstanding that, as Chris Ship apparently was told that Eugenie's name/style is to be changed in the near future, I wonder why it was not changed at once. I believe it is the British royal family's practice to change the bride's name on the wedding day, not a week or month after the marriage.

 

[JessRulz]

Posts specifically about the titles in the Danish Royal Family have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...argrethes-descendants-may-2008-a-16845-4.html thread. Let's try and keep as much on topic here as possible.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Addressing the October debate, it's now clear that Chris Ship of ITV was correct (and Rob Jobson was incorrect) on Princess Eugenie's title.


The Court Circular's first entry for Princess Eugenie after marriage refers to her as "Princess Eugenie of York".

21 March 2019
Buckingham Palace

The Duke of York, Patron, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, accompanied by Princess Eugenie of York, this morning opened the Stanmore Building, Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Brockley Hill, Stanmore, Middlesex.​

The Royal Household's announcement about the royal wedding display referred to the bride as "HRH Princess Eugenie of York".

Press release
Wedding outfits of HRH Princess Eugenie of York and Mr Jack Brooksbank to go on display at Windsor Castle


Wedding outfits of HRH Princess Eugenie of York and Mr Jack...​

Princess Eugenie's biography on the homepage of The Anti-Slavery Collective, an initiative co-founded by her, persists in using "HRH Princess Eugenie of York".

HRH Princess Eugenie of York
CO-FOUNDER

HRH Princess Eugenie of York has been developing her knowledge in the field of modern day slavery since 2012. Alongside her parents, the Duke and Duchess of York, she helped set up Key To Freedom, a social enterprise initiative that gives victims of human trafficking a vocational skill, a regular income, and – with that – their regained independence.


Our Team – The Anti-Slavery Collective​

On the home page of Hauser & Wirth, for which she works as a director, she continues to be listed as "Eugenie York".

Contact

Eugenie York,
Director

Contact - Hauser & Wirth​

Since the wedding, the announcements issued by Princess Eugenie's charities have all styled her as "Princess Eugenie of York" and/or "Princess Eugenie" - exactly as she was styled before marriage.

Quoted here are several of these announcements, issued after Eugenie was married, calling her "of York" and not calling her "Mrs." (eya and iceflower's posts in the current events threads assisted me with locating some of these).

Princess Eugenie meets patients & country’s top spinal experts at QMC

Posted Tuesday, 26 February 2019 by Digital Comms

Princess Eugenie of York visited Queen’s Medical Centre (QMC) in Nottingham this afternoon to speak to some of the country’s leading spinal experts and meet patients who have undergone the same operation as she had at the age of 12.

Princess Eugenie meets patients & country’s top spinal experts at QMC | Latest news | NUH



7 November, 2018 – Swigging from a single-use plastic water bottle will soon become as unacceptable as smoking, with consumers supporting use of tobacco packet shock tactics to drive change, new research reveals.

In response, Sky Ocean Rescue and ocean conservation organisation Project 0 have joined forces with top celebrity icons including Kate Moss, Harry Kane, Cara Delevingne, Sienna Miller and HRH Princess Eugenie of York to launch a limited-edition reusable product range today, to inspire people to #PassOnPlastic.

Sky Corporate | Articles



On the 28th November 2018, the final celebration in the centenary calendar took place, with over three hundred Royal Air Force Club members toasting the founding of the Club with fellow guests, Trustees and staff in the presence of Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York.

Royal Air Force Club Centenary Reception in the presence of HRH Princess Eugenie of York Wednesday 28th November 2018 | RAF



Princess Eugenie of York, the youngest daughter of Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson, attended the London premiere of Rob Stewart‘s award-winning film, Sharkwater Extinction.

Princess Eugenie at Sharkwater Extinction London premiere | Sharkwater Extinction
​

The plaque (Picture) commemorating the royal opening of the Stanmore Building reads:

The Stanmore Building
Opened by
HRH the Duke of York, KG
and
HRH Princess Eugenie of York
21st March, 2019​

In contrast, when searching I could not find any announcements from the Royal Household or from Eugenie's charities, or any similarly trustworthy information, referring to Eugenie as "Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank", "Princess Eugenie of York, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank", "Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Brooksbank", or "Princess Eugenie of York, Mrs. Brooksbank".

Interestingly, this seems to be contrary to all the predictions in the press and on social media and forums (including mine)!

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Very modern of Eugenie-really no different than Jane Smith remaining Jane Smith after marrying John Doe.

 

[Madame Verseau]

It looks like Jack is not going to get a title. I thought he would in line for one given he was present for the Mar 21 engagement with Andrew and Eugenie.

 

[Osipi]

Doing engagements is not criteria for a title. Anne has been married to Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence since 1992 and he has not been granted a title. Whatever accolades he holds is on his own merits and not because he married the Princess Royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The last husband of a British princess to be given a title was Earl Snowdon and that was largely on the insistance of Princess Margaret when she was expecting David - not on her wedding day. Since then Princess Alexandra, Princess Anne twice and now Princess Eugenie have all married and their husbands have not been given titles. It won't happen in the future either, I suspect, unless the Princess is the heiress apparent.

Jack attended the event but wasn't not there in an official capacity as his name didn't appear in the CC.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Very modern of Eugenie-really no different than Jane Smith remaining Jane Smith after marrying John Doe.

Indeed, and no different than the other European royal families, none of whom still persist in expecting princesses who marry commoners to renounce their territorial designations and/or to use their husbands' names (except for Liechtenstein).

Even so, this is a genuine surprise! As far as I can see, not a single individual (even among the British royal experts) predicted that Eugenie would retain her territorial designation and that she would not attach "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank"/"Mrs. Brooksbank" onto the end of her title (although there were those who predicted one out of the two).

I do wonder whether this might change at a later date, given that Chris Ship used the words "as of today".

It looks like Jack is not going to get a title. I thought he would in line for one given he was present for the Mar 21 engagement with Andrew and Eugenie.

I think it is unlikely that Jack will be offered a title, but the chronology does not rule it out, since on a number of occasions Queen Elizabeth has given titles years after the recipient married. The Duke of Edinburgh was formally created a Prince of the United Kingdom ten years after marriage, Antony Armstrong-Jones became an earl a year after his marriage, Angus Ogilvy was knighted (giving him the title of "Sir") after 26 years, Timothy Laurence likewise became a "Sir" after 19 years, Princess Anne became Princess Royal 13 years after marriage, and the Earl of Wessex was created Earl of Forfar 19 years after his marriage.

 

[VictoriaB]

I think it is unlikely that Jack will be offered a title, but the chronology does not rule it out, since on a number of occasions Queen Elizabeth has given titles years after the recipient married. The Duke of Edinburgh was formally created a Prince of the United Kingdom ten years after marriage, Antony Armstrong-Jones became an earl a year after his marriage, Angus Ogilvy was knighted (giving him the title of "Sir") after 26 years, Timothy Laurence likewise became a "Sir" after 19 years, Princess Anne became Princess Royal 13 years after marriage, and the Earl of Wessex was created Earl of Forfar 19 years after his marriage.

The big difference in those you mention though is that Princess Margaret, Princess Alexandra and Princess Anne were all working members of the Royal Family and their husbands, although they continued in their pre-wedding professions, all supported their wives in the performance of their Royal duties. I really don't think you can compare Lord Snowden in any event because it was a completely different time, different expectations and a different, more obsequious view of monarchy.

As Eugenie is not a working member of the Royal Family and only attends royal occasions either because its a family event or in a supporting role for Andrew, Jack is not going to have the opportunity to support her in a role in which she is representing the monarch.

Unless Jack does something to earn a title on merit, I'd say there is no hope of him being given one and, more importantly, no reason he should get one.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

After Princess Eugenie's wedding in October, ITV correspondent Chris Ship tweeted, "[...] As of today she is still to be called HRH Princess Eugenie of York (not Brooksbank). However, it seems that might not remain the case in the near future ..."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1050766336312438785

His statement "As of today she is still to be called Princess Eugenie of York" was correct. After the marriage, and until this point, Eugenie continued to be called Princess Eugenie of York, and did not take her husband's name. Examples are in the Court Circular and numerous official announcements, which I quoted in post #287:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-15.html#post2206491

And it seems Mr. Ship was also correct in saying "However, it seems that might not remain the case in the near future". As of now, Princess Eugenie's name on the list of members of the British Royal Family on the official website has been changed from Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York to Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_7.pdf

However, the Line of Succession continues to list her as Princess Eugenie of York, even though the list has obviously been brought up to date, as it includes Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.

https://www.royal.uk/succession

She also remains styled Princess Eugenie of York on the website of her own charitable foundation.

https://theantislaverycollective.org/our-team/


Has anyone written to Buckingham Palace to seek clarification? Given that the Palace published clearly worded announcements about the titles of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, the Cambridge children, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, I wonder why they haven't supplied a statement about Princess Eugenie's style.

And, as I asked in October, if the intention from Queen Elizabeth always was to change Princess Eugenie's name, why was her "will and pleasure" not made known on Eugenie's wedding day, instead of waiting for six months?

 

[Kataryn]

As of now, Princess Eugenie's name on the list of members of the British Royal Family on the official website has been changed from Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie of York to Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/f...l_family_7.pdf

What strange list is that? The last name is Sarah, Duchess of York? Is she now considered a member of the BRF again?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I would think whether Eugenie takes the name Brooksbank or not would be up to Eugenie herself and her husband. I don’t 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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I would think whether Eugenie takes the name Brooksbank or not would be up to Eugenie herself and her husband. I don’t 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:

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/2000/apr/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: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...title-in-his-future-44267-15.html#post2206491), 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:

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/r...e-christian-names-royal-enclosure-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.

 

[Spheno]

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:

Oh, please, leave laws' interpretation for those who understand such things

 

[Somebody]

For recent occassions where Eugenie accompanied her grandmother or father, she was referenced as 'princess Eugenie' on the RF's website; so without either York or Brooksbank.

Of interest might also be the information about the 4 women giving the readings on yesterday's wedding. Apart from the bride's sister-in-law all were mentioned with their own first name (two married, one unmarried).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For recent occassions where Eugenie accompanied her grandmother or father, she was referenced as 'princess Eugenie' on the RF's website; so without either York or Brooksbank.

Yes, but unfortunately that does not clear up the matter, as Princess Beatrice of York (and Eugenie when she was unmarried) is frequently referenced as "Princess Beatrice" without York and Princess Alexandra, the Honourable Lady Ogilvy, as "Princess Alexandra" without Ogilvy, even though their formal styles are unchanged.

Oh, please, leave laws' interpretation for those who understand such things

I'm not sure what you mean, as I made no comment about any laws in the paragraph you quoted.