Lady Gabriella and Thomas Kingston News 1: May 2019 -


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

JessRulz

Former Administrator
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
8,782
City
Melbourne
Country
Australia
UK_zps6c589394.png

Arms of The British Monarch

Welcome to Lady Gabriella and Thomas Kingston's
News Thread, Part 1

Commencing May 18, 2019


Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***
 
Last edited:
Is there any reason why the most senior royal to attend Lord Freddie's wedding was Princess Eugenie, yet the entire royal family, including the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh all attended Lady Gabriella's wedding?
 
Is there any reason why the most senior royal to attend Lord Freddie's wedding was Princess Eugenie, yet the entire royal family, including the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh all attended Lady Gabriella's wedding?

Freddie was married when most of the senior royals were on holiday. If he'd married in Windsor in May, it's likely more would have attended.
 
Surely she wouldn't be Lady Gabriella Kingston? That would imply her title came from her husband which it doesn't....
 
Surely she wouldn't be Lady Gabriella Kingston? That would imply her title came from her husband which it doesn't....

Lady Kingston would not be correct, but Lady Gabriella Kingston would be, just like Lady Sarah Chatto or Lady Sarah McCorqoudale. Their husbands are also Mr.
 
Last edited:
Lady Kingston would not be correct, but Lady Gabriella Kingston would be, just like Lady Sarah Chatto or Lady Sarah McCorqoudale. Their husbands are also Mr.

Exatly, the norm is that they use Lady + first name + married name, as do various other members of the royal family:

Daughters of the duke of Gloucester:
Lady Davina Lewis (we discussed whether she would go back to using Windsor after her divorce)
Lady Rose Gilman

Daughter of the duke of Kent:
Lady Helen Taylor

So, yes, I would fully expect that Lady Gabriella would be known as Lady Gabriella Kingston from now on.
 
Has anyone heard where the couple will honeymoon?
 
Surely she wouldn't be Lady Gabriella Kingston? That would imply her title came from her husband which it doesn't....

I think she will be Lady Gabriella Kingston. If the title would have come from her husband, then she would've been Lady Thomas Kingston. e.g. her sister in law Lady Frederick Windsor, and also her mother Princess Michael.
 
In Wikipedia she is already Lady Gabriella Kingston.
 
Yes, she's Lady Gabriella Kingston - the title Lady Gabriella stays with her, because it comes from her father, and it doesn't matter that she's changed her surname. As with Lady Helen Taylor, Lady Sarah Chatto, Lady Jane Fellowes, etc.
 
Yes, she's Lady Gabriella Kingston - the title Lady Gabriella stays with her, because it comes from her father, and it doesn't matter that she's changed her surname. As with Lady Helen Taylor, Lady Sarah Chatto, Lady Jane Fellowes, etc.

But has an announcement been posted making it clear that she has changed her surname? The press release with the wedding photographs used Lady Gabriella Windsor.

It is arguable that the George V declaration of 1917 does not allow Lady Gabriella the choice to keep her surname, and the majority of British women opt to change their surnames on marriage, but I don't think it has been clarified.
 
Officially should she be The Lady Gabriella Kingston?

No. The word The designates a substantive title. A title that is simple a courtesy, like Ella and Freddie's, doesn't have the in front of it.

Just like William in Scotland is The Earl of Strathearn. George would simply be Earl of Strathearn as it is a courtesy title in his case.
 
Yes, she's Lady Gabriella Kingston - the title Lady Gabriella stays with her, because it comes from her father, and it doesn't matter that she's changed her surname. As with Lady Helen Taylor, Lady Sarah Chatto, Lady Jane Fellowes, etc.

Actually, Jane is Lady Fellowes or Baroness Fellowes, as her husband Robert is Baron Fellowes.
 
Actually, Jane is Lady Fellowes or Baroness Fellowes, as her husband Robert is Baron Fellowes.

Yes and no.

The couple married in 1978. Her husband was simply Mr Robert Fellowes when they married. Had she not been the daughter of a Earl, she would have simply been Mrs Fellowes. She was Lady Jane Fellowes when she married due to her courtesy title as a daughter of an Earl.

It wasn't until 21 years later, in 1999, her husband was raised by Baron Fellowes. And then Jane added Baroness Fellowes to her title.
 
No. The word The designates a substantive title. A title that is simple a courtesy, like Ella and Freddie's, doesn't have the in front of it.

Just like William in Scotland is The Earl of Strathearn. George would simply be Earl of Strathearn as it is a courtesy title in his case.

This rule only applies to peerage titles (Duke, Marquess, Earl, Viscount, Baron).

Lord and Lady aren't peerage titles. So in this case the presence of a definite article means the Lord/Lady is the child of the current peer. For example, when Prince Charles married Lady Diana Spencer the wedding invitations referred to her as The Lady Diana Spencer. Why? Because not only was she the daughter of an earl (hence Lady) she was also the daughter of the current earl (hence the definite article). Likewise, her sister was The Lady Sarah McCorquodale during their father's lifetime but once he died she became simply Lady Sarah McCorquodale.

Lady Gabriella is styled Lady by virtue of George V's 1917 Letters Patent, not because she is the daughter of a peer, therefore she is Lady Gabriella Windsor not The Lady Gabriella Windsor. But her first cousins, as the children of the current Duke of Kent, are The Lady Helen Taylor and The Lord Nicholas Windsor.

[/I]
The royal court uses both variations to designate peers' daughters. For example, the official list of members of the royal family includes "The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" and "The Lady Sarah Chatto".

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

The list appears to predate the 2017 death of Antony Armstrong-Jones 1st Earl of Snowdon (his son is referred to as Viscount Linley not The Earl of Snowdon, although it errs in calling him The Viscount). So at that time, as the daughter of the then titleholder, Sarah was The Lady Sarah Chatto. But now she's simply Lady Sarah Chatto.

And The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is, as we know, the daughter of the current Earl of Wessex.
 
Yes and no.

The couple married in 1978. Her husband was simply Mr Robert Fellowes when they married. Had she not been the daughter of a Earl, she would have simply been Mrs Fellowes. She was Lady Jane Fellowes when she married due to her courtesy title as a daughter of an Earl.

It wasn't until 21 years later, in 1999, her husband was raised by Baron Fellowes. And then Jane added Baroness Fellowes to her title.

She has been Baroness Fellowes a long time...yes, when she married she was Lady Jane Fellowes but that hasn't been the case since her husband was created a life peer 20 years ago.
 
Last edited:
She has been Baroness Fellowes a long time...yes, when she married she was Lady Jane Fellowes but that hasn't been the case since her husband was created a life peer 20 years ago.

The point is not what her title is now. Its what her title was in 1978.

The discussion is how to properly address a Lady who has married a commoner. This was the case in 1978 when she married Robert. In 1978 her title Lady was a courtesy from her dad not her husband. This was the point. That Jane was in the same position as Sarah Chatto, Rose Gilman, and Davina Lewis among others.

We were discussing if it was proper to call Gabriella Lady Gabriella Kingston.

Now if Tom was made a life peer down the road, Jane's new title would be a great example of that.
 
The list appears to predate the 2017 death of Antony Armstrong-Jones 1st Earl of Snowdon (his son is referred to as Viscount Linley not The Earl of Snowdon, although it errs in calling him The Viscount). So at that time, as the daughter of the then titleholder, Sarah was The Lady Sarah Chatto. But now she's simply Lady Sarah Chatto.

And The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is, as we know, the daughter of the current Earl of Wessex.


But Archie and Prince Louis are included in the List so it can't be from 2017. Seems they forgot to update it further down.
 
But Archie and Prince Louis are included in the List so it can't be from 2017. Seems they forgot to update it further down.



Probably wrong thread to ask this question but why is Sarah, Duchess of York on the list at all?
 
She has been Baroness Fellowes a long time...yes, when she married she was Lady Jane Fellowes but that hasn't been the case since her husband was created a life peer 20 years ago.

While you are right that she is legally The Lady (Baroness) Fellowes, she chooses to be known by her own first name and so Buckingham Palace uses Lady Jane Fellowes (for example, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's birth announcement stated "The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Lady Jane Fellowes, Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Earl Spencer have been informed and are delighted with the news.").

Probably wrong thread to ask this question but why is Sarah, Duchess of York on the list at all?

People have shared their theories in this thread: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/members-of-the-royal-family-23667-4.html
 
Last edited:
The point is not what her title is now. Its what her title was in 1978.

The discussion is how to properly address a Lady who has married a commoner. This was the case in 1978 when she married Robert. In 1978 her title Lady was a courtesy from her dad not her husband. This was the point. That Jane was in the same position as Sarah Chatto, Rose Gilman, and Davina Lewis among others.

We were discussing if it was proper to call Gabriella Lady Gabriella Kingston.

Now if Tom was made a life peer down the road, Jane's new title would be a great example of that.

But now was totally my point for this particular woman. Now is not the same as then.

I obviously know the correct form of address since I already pointed out the correct form of address in the first response to the original question.:flowers:
 
Last edited:
If Gabriella chooses to use her husband's surname she will be Lady Gabriella Kingston and should Lady Davina choose to revert back to her maiden name of Windsor, the name she was born with, there would be no problem with that either. I 'm surprised this is even a discussion.
 
If Gabriella chooses to use her husband's surname she will be Lady Gabriella Kingston and should Lady Davina choose to revert back to her maiden name of Windsor, the name she was born with, there would be no problem with that either. I 'm surprised this is even a discussion.




Her name has already been updated to Lady Gabriella Kingston on the Wikipedia page on the line of succession to the British throne.



She is in the same category as Lady Helen, Lady Davina (when she was still married) or Lady Rose, so there is no doubt in my mind that she should be referred to by her husband's last name.
 
But Archie and Prince Louis are included in the List so it can't be from 2017. Seems they forgot to update it further down.
Yes, I missed that. It appears the list was sloppily done.
 
Back
Top Bottom