The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1001  
Old 08-26-2011, 03:34 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,541
Ms. Sarah Ferguson - she doesn't deserve anything else.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1002  
Old 08-26-2011, 03:47 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 911
At the moment, the only style she deserves is Ms. Sarah Windsor at the most. There's no point in really bothering with the title since she is after all, old news and the younger generation is of more interest. She had her heyday and she really should be compelled (if she refuses to cooperate) to give up the courtesy title. She's done so much damage to it that I don't see her doing anything to really rebuild it.

If Andrew remarried, Sarah would be pushed to the side since the new wife would be "HRH, New Wife, The Duchess of York" and would end up with the jewels, dresses, press, and patronages. Being a 'real' royal with a 'real' title would in fact pretty much edge Sarah to the margins since the press would have a new royal to fawn over and with a few kids, Andrew's attention would be all the more distracted with his newly developing family.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1003  
Old 08-26-2011, 04:31 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,819
Quote:
Originally Posted by AristoCat View Post
At the moment, the only style she deserves is Ms. Sarah Windsor at the most. There's no point in really bothering with the title since she is after all, old news and the younger generation is of more interest. She had her heyday and she really should be compelled (if she refuses to cooperate) to give up the courtesy title. She's done so much damage to it that I don't see her doing anything to really rebuild it.
I don't think they could change the the way a divorced wife of a peer can be styled as for just one single case. What would be true for one, would have to be true to all others and to be honest, I think this is the first time ever that a misuse of a title or style has come about because of commercial ventures. What could happen is that a ruling could be made stating that in the future no title or style of a divorced member of the BRF can ever be used in a commercial venture. This doesn't single out Sarah but would also prevent anything like this happening in the future. It would then be that in her private and social life, she is still able to use Sarah, Duchess of York but would be restricted to using Ms. Sarah Ferguson commercially. That's my thinking anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AristoCat View Post
If Andrew remarried, Sarah would be pushed to the side since the new wife would be "HRH, New Wife, The Duchess of York" and would end up with the jewels, dresses, press, and patronages. Being a 'real' royal with a 'real' title would in fact pretty much edge Sarah to the margins since the press would have a new royal to fawn over and with a few kids, Andrew's attention would be all the more distracted with his newly developing family.
Should Andrew remarry tomorrow, his new wife would be titled HRH The Duchess of York (no first name). Sarah would still remain Sarah, Duchess of York. Its very possible that it could happen and if it makes Andrew happy, I'm all for it.
Reply With Quote
  #1004  
Old 08-26-2011, 05:49 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
She currently is Sarah, Duchess of York, in accordance with Letters Patent issued by HM.
She is NOT Sarah, Duchess of York by LP.

She is Sarah, Duchess of York according to the normal styling of the divorced wife of a peer and nothing to do with any LPs issued by the Queen.

In August 1996 HM issued LPs stripping both Diana and Sarah of the HRH but did nothing about their styling as divorced wives as that was outside her remit.

Sarah actually styled herself HRH Sarah, Duchess of York from her divorce until after Diana's, as she was entitled to do - it was Diana's divorced that saw the Queen issue the LPs stripping both women of the HRH.

Both then, or in Sarah's case, continued to use the standard style of the divorced wife of a peer.

Quote:
Given that she has rather muddied the former title and current style of Duchess of York, and presuming that HM may wish to entertain a change in that status, what is your considered opinion as to what style of address might be best for Sarah Ferguson?
If HM was considering a change in title she would have done so much earlier but...as it stands Sarah doesn't have title at all and simply uses the style of a divorced wife as a peer and that is determined by legislation and common law and practice - not HM.

Quote:
My own suggestion is to revive the Duchess of Windsor title in (obviously) non-Royal form. It would clearly delineate someone who has egregiously failed any vestiges of honor toward the Crown, and would effectively end the semi-Royal idiocy that she perpetuates regarding the York title & style.
What you are suggesting is raising Sarah's status - by making her a peeress in her own right. In fact as the first holder of this new creation Sarah would be able to have a seat in the House of Lords - and as a non-royal - the family wouldn't have any way to stop her.

Quote:
Quite frankly, I think that the Queen has been beyond patient in watching Sarah drag the titles and styles of HM's own parents through degradation. With the jubilee coming up, I would expect that HM would like to place a final end point on the whole tiresome Sarah situation.
You are also assuming that HM sees the situation the same way you do. As she has never spoken on the issue we don't know how she sees the situation. She probably knows way more about the situation then you or I. As for dragging the title of York through the mire - he own son also doesn't hold it with any honour but are you also suggesting that HM ask the parliament to pass the legislation to strip Andrew of the York title as well - his antics are just as appalling, if not more so than Sarah's given that he is HRH, the son of the monarch, brother of the next monarch and uncle of the one after that.

Quote:
So what does the collective wisdom of TRF think? What other style - not title, but style - might be appropriate, now that Sarah has wrung out every bit of life and dignity from York?

As the divorced wife of a peer she has every right to style herself the same way as everyone else in that position. The Queen can't stop her - she doesn't have the power to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #1005  
Old 08-26-2011, 05:58 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meadow View Post
If Andrew did remarry then I think Sarah would be forced not to use the title there can't be two Duchesses of York! Besides Andrew's wife would be a HRH wouldn't she?
There wouldn't be two Duchesses of York as Sarah isn't The Duchess of York. She is Sarah, Duchess of York. The new wife would be HRH The Duchess of York. As happened with Earl Spencer and his various wives - while they were his wife they were styled as The Countess Spencer but when divorced xxxx, Countess Spencer while his new wife used The Countess Spencer.

Quote:
I would think with all of Charles's titles etc the Dof E title would be passed to someone else.
See The future of the Duke of Edinburgh title for the most likely future of the Edinburgh title.

Quote:
When Princess Beatrice or Eugenie gets married do they keep their Princess titles? Or will they get given something else?
They were born with the title and will keep it all their lives.

The best precedent would be Princess Alexandra of Kent. Like Beatrice and Eugenie she was born the daughter of a younger son who didn't go on to become King but she is still Princess Alexandra so it is reasonable to assume that Beatrice and Eugenie will keep their Princess styles throughout their lives but like Alexandra, Anne and Margaret will also take the names from their husband e.g. HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs John Smith and HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Bill Brown
Reply With Quote
  #1006  
Old 08-26-2011, 06:25 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Posts: 11,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Ms. Sarah Ferguson - she doesn't deserve anything else.
Agree 100%

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotHRH View Post
...The Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex are still, respectively, TRH Prince Andrew/Prince Edward of Great Britain and Ireland...
Slight correction to your post,I take it you meant Northern Ireland & not Ireland.
Reply With Quote
  #1007  
Old 08-26-2011, 09:03 AM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumutqueen View Post
Ms. Sarah Ferguson - she doesn't deserve anything else.
Complete agreement there. She's thoroughly disgraced the York title/style/name. Given all the hard work that QE the QM did during her lifetime that brought a shine to the York title/style/name, Sarah should hang her head in shame that it's become a byword for greedy grubbiness.

It's why I think that prior to the Queen's Jubilee next year, it would be opportune to take steps to permanently put her use/egregious misuse of the titles/styles etc on ice. And the best way, IMO, is a complete change and downgrade.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
Reply With Quote
  #1008  
Old 08-26-2011, 11:08 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Galway, Ireland
Posts: 337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
She is NOT Sarah, Duchess of York by LP.

You are also assuming that HM sees the situation the same way you do. As she has never spoken on the issue we don't know how she sees the situation. She probably knows way more about the situation then you or I. As for dragging the title of York through the mire - he own son also doesn't hold it with any honour but are you also suggesting that HM ask the parliament to pass the legislation to strip Andrew of the York title as well - his antics are just as appalling, if not more so than Sarah's given that he is HRH, the son of the monarch, brother of the next monarch and uncle of the one after that.
I agree with you Iluvbertie, neither Andrew or Sarah have lived up to their billing or done their titles justice. We all know Sarah's faults, failings and scandals, but it's interesting that when they were a couple Andrew's behaviour was fairly impeccable. He had a reputation before, and he has had his fair share of controversies since. She obviously gave him some sort of contentment and stability. I don't think Sarah's style will really change unless Andrew remarries. At that point Andrew may ask her to restyle herself more out of respect of his new wife than anything else.
Reply With Quote
  #1009  
Old 08-26-2011, 01:47 PM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 102
For me, she should either be called Sarah, Duchess of York or Sarah Ferguson. But she needs to pick one of them. It bothers me so much that Sarah flip-flops between the two. When she produced The Young Victoria, she was credited as "Sarah Ferguson". On her official Twitter account, her username is SarahTheDuchess and her bio refers to her as "Sarah Ferguson, The Duchess of York." And finally, her new book is written by Sarah Ferguson yet the tagline is "A Duchess's Journey to Find Herself."

She's obviously very comfortable with using her maiden name and seems to have no desire to suddenly be called a Windsor. Yet, she herself will pull out the "Duchess of York" or "Duchess" whenever it would be more beneficial for her. I would tell her to either drop the Ferguson or drop using the style of Duchess of York.
Reply With Quote
  #1010  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,358
However, like every other divorced, or even married woman, she is able to use both her married and single names.

Many married women continue to use their single names for certain circumstances e.g. Mrs Michael Tindall intends to continue being Ms Zara Philips competitively.

Many divorced women continue to use their married names as well and yes many use both depending on the circumstances.

I see no reason to treat Sarah differently to any other woman - which is what most of you are advocating.
Reply With Quote
  #1011  
Old 08-30-2011, 10:16 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
The Queen cannot change the style of a divorced wife of a Peer without consent from Parliament. In common law and precedent, former wives are entitled to retain their former titles by marriage as a courtesy style until they remarry.

She did issue Letters Patent in August 1996 clarifying that former wives of a Prince of the UK were not entitled to retain the rank and style of HRH upon divorce. Since Diana and Sarah were the first women to divorce sons of The Sovereign, the Letters Patent were designed to address this issue.
Reply With Quote
  #1012  
Old 08-30-2011, 10:20 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,776
Thank you Branchg............I think the both the Queen and Parliament are fairly busy at the moment so they won't introduce legislation to strip Sarah of title (which is actually not a title per se).

Quick question (or two) about Ernst August of Hanover. We are discussing him in the Monaco forums..........

He is considered a Prince of Great Britian and Ireland correct and not a Prince of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland (like Phillip and everyone else). Title restored by his father (but not recognized the Queen nor his dukedoms due to the Titles Deprivation Act of 1917).

Also, does a non defunct HRH (Hanover and Great Britain and Ireland) outrank a HSH. Because the HRH is defunct, that says no to me but I want to make sure.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #1013  
Old 08-30-2011, 11:45 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post
The Queen cannot change the style of a divorced wife of a Peer without consent from Parliament. In common law and precedent, former wives are entitled to retain their former titles by marriage as a courtesy style until they remarry.

She did issue Letters Patent in August 1996 clarifying that former wives of a Prince of the UK were not entitled to retain the rank and style of HRH upon divorce. Since Diana and Sarah were the first women to divorce sons of The Sovereign, the Letters Patent were designed to address this issue.

I agree with what you say, branchg. The Letters Patent dated 21st August 1986 did not CHANGE anything: they merely clarified the position as you so rightly point out.

There is ONE factor though that almost everyone seems to get wrong:
and that is the suggestion that Sarah retained the title 'Her Royal Highness' after her divorce UNTIL the above-mentioned Letters Patent. This suggestion - often repeated - is in fact completely wrong.
How is came about though, is quite interesting and more than a little complicated:

Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson separated in March 1992. From before that point and thereafter the parties, through their separate solicitors negotiated a Separation Agreement. This is a matter of record, not 'secret' in any way. A Buckingham Palace spokesman issued later issued a statement confirming that the terms dealt with such things as the financial settlement and an agreement to divorce on the basis that the parties had lived apart for [at least] two years immediately prior to the presentation of the petition. This was thought to represent great negotiating skills on the part of Sarah's own solicitor, because it meant that Andrew would have been unable to petition for divorce on the basis of Sarah's adultery etc.

An interesting point is that in the years prior to the parties splitting in 1992, Sarah was becoming increasingly 'fed up' with Royal duties - for example, one year she had managed only 55 engagements, and even though she had been pregnant with Eugenie for some of that time, it still contrasted very unfavourably with the workload of the Queen Mother. In the time before the official split, Sarah was also seen to be moving away from what I will call 'royal circles' into the world of the 'international jet set', as she had started to forge friendships with such people as Steve Wyatt and John Bryan.

During the course of the divorce negotiations, Sarah suddenly began to raise the question of retaining some royal duties and being allowed to retain a royal title. This was very well documented at the time in the better newspapers such as The Times and The Guardian. In view of Sarah's previous reluctance to perform royal duties, it at first seemed somewhat odd that she should now wish to proceed down this tack; the view however was that perhaps John Bryan who, on his own well-publicised admission was at one stage acting as Sarah's financial adviser but also[allegedly] as an honest broker between Sarah and Andrew [a bit of an odd statement surely bearing in mind that the couple both had their own highly experienced, qualified and competent solicitors representing them] had his own 'ambitions' to use Sarah for the furtherance of his own interests and was therefore sharp enough to realise that her greatest asset was her connection to royalty, and therefore was the power behind Sarah's wish to keep some royal duties and her title. One also has to remember that during this period, negotiations were also continuing behind the scene regarding the separation and breakdown of Princess Diana; because of Diana's unique status as mother of the future King and the 'spare', there was also going to be need for her 'royal status' to be protected in some way. Sarah [or Bryan!?] would presumably have been trying to secure a similar concession for herself. Major sticking points regarding Diana's separation were a suitable title and formal recognition for her duties: in the event, Diana DID lose her HRH title, but - unlike Sarah, it was always quite clearly stated that Diana WOULD remain a member of the Royal Family [note how even on her death, the royal standard covered her coffin] and she was allowed to remain at Kensington Palace and her financial settlement specifically included a sum large enough to maintain her 'office'. The better British newspapers reported that Sarah was apparently 'holding out' for similar arrangements...

Just before the Decree Nisi, a statement from a Buckingham Palace spokesman was made concerning the terms of the divorce: these terms had been embodied in a formal Separation Agreement that included a financial settlement AND that Sarah HAD agreed that she had following her DIVORCE she had NO RIGHT to be referred to as HRH. The Decree Nisi was pronounced on 17 April 1996 and the divorce Decree Absolute was pronounced on 30 May 1996. Diana's own divorce was made final on 28 August 1996.

Shortly after her own divorce became final, Sarah began hinting that 'she was still a Royal Highness. This led to an immediate rebuttal by Buckingham Palace, but it is believed this claim by Sarah, together with the fact that the Princess of Wales was to remain a member of the Royal Family, that led the queen to declare the position in the Letters Patent. But the LPs did not actually change anything: in fact, because of the way English titles 'work', it is always the case that on divorce, a former wife loses the right to style herself in accordance with the status of her husband: thus, on her divorce from (say) Mr John Smith, his wife Elizabeth can only style herself Mrs Elizabeth Smith; if Elizabeth had been married to a peer, e.g. The Marquess of Anycounty, during her marriage she would have been entitled to be known formally as ' The Most Honourable The Marchioness of Anycounty, but on her divorce she would immediately lose the style of 'The Most Honourable' and instead be known as Elizabeth, Marchioness of Anycounty. Thus, whatever had been included or not in Sarah's Separation Agreement, she would never have been entitled, by English Law, to continue to be 'Her Royal Highness'.

Just by way of a little extra information, in those days I was working full time and we all had a loose-leave folder of protocol, which included notes on precedence, forms of address etc. As soon as Sarah's divorce came through, we were issued with an appropriate sticker to place over the paragraph that dealt with Sarah, in order to reflect that, from her divorce onwards, she had lost the right to retain her status as an HRH.

Hope this helps,

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #1014  
Old 08-30-2011, 12:51 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,819
Ok, this might be a sort of odd question but as it pertains to the use of titles and styles, I guess this would be the appropriate place to ask.

It seems that no matter what, unless Sarah remarries, she is well entitled to use the style of Sarah, Duchess of York and as we've seen, there's been rampant usage of this style in Sarah's commercial ventures which makes it very easy to allude that she is still somewhat considered royalty. Is it at all possible for HM to take the ball into her court and come out with something to present to Parliament or issue Letters Patent that would state that for all former members of the British Royal Family, the titles and styles of such persons are to be omitted when used in a commercial context? As an example, Sarah in her public and private life would still be styled as Sarah, Duchess of York but in any commercial ventures she makes (such as interviews, book releases, reality TV shows, infomercials etc) she may only use her given name as Sarah Ferguson.

Just odd musings...
Reply With Quote
  #1015  
Old 08-30-2011, 01:05 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Well, the Queen cannot technically do anything as it is Sarah's common law right to style herself in the manner of a divorced wife of a peer; the queen could theoretically ask parliament to pass an act to deal with this, but of course you and I know that this will never be done. It would be regarded as way over the top to spend parliamentary time on such an issue.

What the queen CAN do however is reach a legally binding agreement with Sarah NOT to style herself in this way. However, for the agreement to be legally binding, just like ANY other type of legal agreement,what is known as consideration has to be given. Consideration can be financial or it can be some other quantifiable aspect: for example, in the agreement the queen could agree to give Sarah a small allowance, or let her live rent-free in a property with the Queen actually picking up the bill for this: money does not even have to be involved either: it would be sufficient consideration in my humble opinion if (say) Sarah is allowed to continue to live in Royal Lodge.

As a side issue, I think that, with hindsight, when Sarah's divorce settlement was being negotiated, if the Queen had realised that Sarah was going to behave in the way that she has done [i.e. turning her royal status into a commercial operation - originally, provision was made in the separation agreement (see reports in The Times at that time) for Sarah to be allowed to write her autobiography, and a confidentiality clause was also included in order to forbid Sarah from mentioning anything much to do with aspects of her Royal Life involving the other royals] I am sure that the Farrars [the royal solicitors acting for Prince Andrew in his separation and divorce from Sarah would have been instructed to 'beef up' the provisions about what Sarah could and could not do about capitalising on her former title and royal status etc.

I often think that, with the approach of the Jubilee, and the implicit understanding that NOTHING must be allowed to detract from this very important Royal Occasion (look how there is already an indication of the tacit understanding that the Queen's reign is slowly coming to an end: the Australian royal tour, which both host and guest country know is really going to be the last state visit that the Queen ever makes there] it is possible that the Queen's advisors might want to try to take steps to 'nail the Fergie problem once and for all'. It is my humble opinion that although things seem all right with Sarah on the surface, we are only a short distance away from further Sarah issues: I personally think that the much-vaunted £100,000 a year is NOT going to be sufficient to maintain Sarah in the style to which she wants to be kept and I think also that Brand Sarah is not going to revive to any great extent - IMHO it is now too tainted because of the actions and admissions of its sole asset, Sarah. The Queen might therefore have to step in yet again and put together housing and financial support for Sarah - and for this reason I expect that AT THAT STAGE a clause could be included which prevents Sarah from calling herself - or using any reference to herself as - Duchess of York. These are only my opinions as a royal-watcher however and I stand to be corrected...

I hope this helps

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #1016  
Old 08-30-2011, 07:27 PM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
Thanks as always, Diarist. I reflect how easy it was for the BRF to deny the HRH to Wallis, who should have been entitled to the same style, rank, title and address as her husband, as his wife. Indeed, it's been stated categorically that denying her those was illegal - yet, was accomplished via those famous and convenient letters patent available to the monarch. Similarly here, there is the "absolute" that Sarah must be able to use the address accorded to other divorced wives of peers but really, divorcing an HRH who is the child of a reigning British monarch is a completely new situation, and I argue that the "rules" that demand her address include the Duchy of York are not necessarily applicable in this very unique situation; and that it does not follow that the absolute which governs the remainder of the titled, necessarily must apply here.

It's one of the reasons that I tend to dismiss the idea that it would not be possible for HM to find a similar solution here, in the way that the Duchess of Windsor was denied what was the absolute right of any other wife of a peer.

However, the BRF was able to enforce the denial of HRH to Wallis via use of pursestrings. If we have learned nothing else of Sarah Ferguson, we have seen that her unquenchable thirst for money drives her actions to an extraordinary degree. So yes, Diarist, I can see HM being in a position to require Sarah to lay down her pretentious misuses of the title, rank and style, by exercising those pursestrings accordingly.

Sarah was adamant in "Finding Sarah" that she would never leave public life, however. Then again, I don't put too awfully much credence in her spoken assertions any longer.

The name and style pertaining to York are, in my considered opinion, forfeit - for lack of a better phrase, "now in play."
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
Reply With Quote
  #1017  
Old 08-30-2011, 08:27 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 9,358
Wallis was denied the style of HRH by letters patent but still took her husband's title of Duchess of Windsor.

Sarah has likewise lost the style of HRH by LPs but she can't be denied the right of any wife to continue to use her married name upon divorce and that is what you are advocating.

Denying her the right of a woman to use her ex-husband's title - any divorced woman has that right. Just because Sarah has 'disgraced' that title doesn't mean she should be stripped of that right.

Have you also thought about how the girls would feel - further alienation from the family because of the way the family treats their mother.
Reply With Quote
  #1018  
Old 08-31-2011, 06:18 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Wallis was denied the style of HRH by letters patent but still took her husband's title of Duchess of Windsor.

Sarah has likewise lost the style of HRH by LPs but she can't be denied the right of any wife to continue to use her married name upon divorce and that is what you are advocating.

Sorry to pick you up on this, but actually Sarah lost the style of HRH ON DIVORCE and the LPs merely confirmed the position. A forum member PMd and pointed me in the direction of Wikipedia the other day: the entry there - which says that Sarah was entitled to style herself as HRH after her divorce until the LPs were issued on 21 August 1986 - is QUITE wrong (that is one of the things that I dislike about wikipedia - there is no guarantee that what it says is correct). Sarah lost her right to style herself on her divorce: this is evidenced both by the specific clause in her separation agreement that she acknowledged the right to use the 'HRH' style and also due to the common law [i.e. that part of the law which is not set out in written statute] provision that on divorce you lose the right to your husband's style.

As a side issue, if anyone here ever needs to check anything about titles etc, BP is very good at dealing with such enquries.

Alex
Reply With Quote
  #1019  
Old 08-31-2011, 06:43 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
Thanks as always, Diarist. I reflect how easy it was for the BRF to deny the HRH to Wallis, who should have been entitled to the same style, rank, title and address as her husband, as his wife. Indeed, it's been stated categorically that denying her those was illegal - yet, was accomplished via those famous and convenient letters patent available to the monarch.
The letters patent that denied Wallis the HRH was written into the creation of the Dukedom of Windsor. It also denied the HRH to any children that may have been born of that marriage - which was a necessity to prevent any future challenge to George's throne and the rights of his heir.

There was no prior precedent for a former British king to marry a twice divorced woman with both previous husbands still living. Wallis, however, even without the HRH was still The Duchess of Windsor during her marriage and Duchess of Windsor in her widowhood.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
Similarly here, there is the "absolute" that Sarah must be able to use the address accorded to other divorced wives of peers but really, divorcing an HRH who is the child of a reigning British monarch is a completely new situation, and I argue that the "rules" that demand her address include the Duchy of York are not necessarily applicable in this very unique situation; and that it does not follow that the absolute which governs the remainder of the titled, necessarily must apply here.
Would you have denied Diana the title Princess of Wales following her divorce as well? Because basically you are saying here that divorcing the son of a reigning monarch should negate the divorcee from using the title of the former spouse - simply because that spouse is a member of the royal family.

When Diana and Sarah were stripped of the HRH, the message was that neither of them were considered members of the royal family any longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
It's one of the reasons that I tend to dismiss the idea that it would not be possible for HM to find a similar solution here, in the way that the Duchess of Windsor was denied what was the absolute right of any other wife of a peer.
Wallis Simpson was never denied her rights as the wife of a peer. She was only denied the right to use HRH because she could never be accepted as a member of the royal family. There is a difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
However, the BRF was able to enforce the denial of HRH to Wallis via use of pursestrings.
If anyone was pulling purse-strings in 1936, it was the Duke of Windsor. Not only did he make his brother agree to an annual "salary", but he also made him buy outright both the Balmoral Estate and Sandringham, which were his personal property inherited from his father. And since he had horded the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall when he was Prince of Wales, he came out a very rich man without a single responsibility to the British people or indeed his family.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NotAPretender View Post
The name and style pertaining to York are, in my considered opinion, forfeit - for lack of a better phrase, "now in play."
Forfeit can only be accomplished by an Act of Attainder against the titleholder. Since Sarah is not the peer, her style as the divorced wife of a peer and the mother of princesses of the royal family, will remain as is. She is not a member of the royal family, and her actions do not reflect either way on the BRF.
__________________
Ú i vethed...nâ i onnad. Minlû pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings
(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")
Reply With Quote
  #1020  
Old 08-31-2011, 03:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
The letters patent that denied Wallis the HRH was written into the creation of the Dukedom of Windsor. It also denied the HRH to any children that may have been born of that marriage - which was a necessity to prevent any future challenge to George's throne and the rights of his heir.

There was no prior precedent for a former British king to marry a twice divorced woman with both previous husbands still living. Wallis, however, even without the HRH was still The Duchess of Windsor during her marriage and Duchess of Windsor in her widowhood.
George VI issued Letters Patent in March 1937 creating the Dukedom of Windsor for his brother, with succession to heirs of the male body, the same as any royal dukedom. Until then, his brother had remained "HRH The Prince Edward" by right of the 1917 Letters Patent after the Abdication as a son of George V. It did not address the issue of HRH for his future wife.

The issue of royal rank upon marriage for Wallis was not settled until a few months later. The King was obliged to seek advice from the Government on this matter, as it is a matter of common law that a wife automatically shares the style, rank and title of her husband, and it was not certain the Crown could act on its own in denying her royal rank.

The initial conclusion was it was impossible to deny Wallis the right to share her husband's royal rank unless The King issued Letters Patent removing his brother's right to hold it. But after further pressure from Lord Wigram, a more satisfactory conclusion was reached that stated the rank of HRH was entirely in the gift of The Sovereign and intended for those members of the royal family in close succession to the throne.

The King wrote his brother, stating he had no right to be HRH upon Abdication because he had renounced the succession on behalf of himself and his future heirs. The only way he could continue to be a Royal Highness was with The King's blessing, however, this was a personal courtesy limited to him alone, and could not be shared by his wife or any children.

A week before the wedding, the King formally issued Letters Patent stating Edward would remain HRH, notwithstanding the Abdication, but such attribute was limited to him alone and could not be shared by his wife or future children.

The Duke and his legal advisors strongly disagreed with the Letters Patent, taking the position that he was automatically entitled to remain HRH as a son of The Sovereign by right of birth, and there was no question his wife was also so entitled to share it. However, the style of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK is within the gift of The Sovereign as it does not hold rank or title in the Peerage and has no constitutional standing.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, spouse, styles and titles


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
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1115 01-14-2015 02:50 PM
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 10:59 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 36 08-08-2013 12:05 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
belgium best outfit birth camilla carl philip chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess catharina-amalia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events death denmark duchess of cambridge duchess of cornwall fashion fashion poll felipe vi funeral general news hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king philippe king willem-alexander letizia maxima nobility official visit photo session picture of the week president gauck president hollande prince carl philip prince charles prince daniel prince of wales princess alexia (2005 -) princess beatrice princess catharina-amalia princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary princess mette-marit princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen fabiola queen letizia queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima fashion queen maxima style queen rania queen silvia queen sonja royal fashion sofia hellqvist spanish royals state visit sweden the hague victoria wedding willem-alexander


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:35 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2015
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]