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, 01:47 PM
Super Baroness's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West Coast, United States
Posts: 99
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
  #1002  
Old 08-26-2011, 08:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,673
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
  #1003  
Old 08-30-2011, 10:16 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
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
  #1004  
Old 08-30-2011, 10:20 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,367
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
  #1005  
Old 08-30-2011, 11:45 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
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
  #1006  
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: 4,159
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
  #1007  
Old 08-30-2011, 01:05 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
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
  #1008  
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
  #1009  
Old 08-30-2011, 08:27 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,673
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
  #1010  
Old 08-31-2011, 06:18 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Berkshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 643
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
  #1011  
Old 08-31-2011, 06:43 AM
HM Queen Catherine's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rendsburg, Germany
Posts: 303
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
  #1012  
Old 08-31-2011, 03:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
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
  #1013  
Old 08-31-2011, 03:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
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.
The Hanovers formally lost their right to all British peerages, styles and titles with the Titles Deprivation Act. George V also issued the Letters Patent of 1917 further limiting the style and rank of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK to the children of The Sovereign and the male-line grandchildren.

In 1957, the Head of the House of Hanover issued a decree stating all members of the House would continue to bear the style of "Prince/Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" and "His/Her Royal Highness". It had no legal effect and was simply a matter of courtesy titles. Legally, Ernst-August is "Ernst-August, Prinz von Hannover". The Queen has never objected formally to the decree and the family continues to seek her approval to marry under the Royal Marriages Act.

In Monaco, Caroline is HSH Hereditary Princess Caroline de Monaco as the heir to the throne. Regardless of her birthright rank of Serene Highness, she outranks her husband who is a member of a non-reigning House and holds no status in the principality other than as her husband. While she chooses to use her married rank as Her Royal Highness, this is simply a preference on her part and signifies no precedence either way.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1014  
Old 08-31-2011, 05:53 PM
NotAPretender's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: WPB FL/Muttontown NY, United States
Posts: 853
Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
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.
Had Diana not been the mother of the future king? Yes. One cannot compare the status of Diana to the status of Sarah in that regard. And I think that point-forward, if/when divorces ensure in similar situation, steps will be taken to solidify this, so that no future ex-spouse of a royal can play quite so free-and-easy with Royal connections as does Sarah Ferguson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
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.
Unless, of course, someone in that position continued to use the title/style/rank incorrectly so as to mislead and give the impression that one is still considered a member. As does Sarah with her The Duchess of York or the Duchess of York, when she is not entitled to either version of "the."

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
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.
Which was revocable. The BRF certainly made sure that the D of W knew what his boundaries were (particularly after he had his little meet and greet with Herr Hitler) and what the consequences would be. Once the payoff for the estates had taken place, no more from that source.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
Forfeit can only be accomplished by an Act of Attainder against the titleholder.
'Forfeit' was not meant as you have taken it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine View Post
She is not a member of the royal family, and her actions do not reflect either way on the BRF.
She continues the misuse of the York name, as we've discussed exhaustively. So yes, in continuing to link herself to the BRF, her misdeeds do reflect on the BRF. Her antics should not reflect on them - but they do.
__________________
"Me, your Highness? On the whole, I wish I'd stayed in Tunbridge Wells"
Reply With Quote
  #1015  
Old 09-01-2011, 05:08 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Sarah does tend to allow people to call her "The" Duchess of York, especially in America, but the British press often refers to that way as well, even though she is no longer a Duchess at all.

The Queen undoubtedly still has affection for her former daughter-in-law, who after all, is the mother of her two York granddaughters. It is speculated HM quietly paid off much of Sarah's recent debts after Andrew negotiated with her creditors to accept a settlement. She continues to live at Royal Lodge with The Queen's blessing.

Regardless, she is the former wife of a Peer and automatically entitled to remain "Sarah, Duchess of York" until she remarries. I highly doubt the Crown is going to seek to change the styles of divorced wives in the Peerage over commercial or personal activities.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1016  
Old 09-02-2011, 03:23 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg View Post

The Queen undoubtedly still has affection for her former daughter-in-law, who after all, is the mother of her two York granddaughters.
I doubt she has any affection for her former daughter in law, and is 'helping' her out of pity and at the request of her son and granddaughters.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #1017  
Old 11-22-2011, 11:32 AM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daisiesforever View Post
Not certain what all the fuss is about here. Kate looked really fine for the occasion. The children may have been expecting something more as they usually grow up the fantasy that Princes and Princesses wear crowns and extravagant clothing. However, Kate is simply not an "over the top" girl nor is she an actual Princess yet. In any case, when meeting people, more especially children, it is the warmth from the heart that really matters.
While I agree she was dressed just fine for this event, and agree about the children expecting more .....I am not sure of the "not a princess yet comment" she is not Styled or Titled Princess but she is a Princess of the U K by marriage..also I thought and I am sure someone will correct me if I am worng that a Royal Duke/Duchess title was Higher then Prince/Princess..?...
__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
Reply With Quote
  #1018  
Old 11-22-2011, 01:21 PM
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Ann View Post
While I agree she was dressed just fine for this event, and agree about the children expecting more .....I am not sure of the "not a princess yet comment" she is not Styled or Titled Princess but she is a Princess of the U K by marriage..also I thought and I am sure someone will correct me if I am worng that a Royal Duke/Duchess title was Higher then Prince/Princess..?...
As I understand it, in UK, you can only be called a princess by royal birth as in the case of Princess Anne and Princesses Beatrice and Eugiene. Many people called Diana, Princess Diana, even though the correct title was Princess of Wales because of her marriage to Prince of Wales. At this moment in time both William and Catherine are only known as Duke and Duchess of Cambridge until William becomes Prince of Wales and Catherine will be known as Princess of Wales. But I suspect many people will call her Princess Catherine.

The hierarchy is as follows:
Prince/Princess
Duke/Duchess
Earl/Countess
Viscount/Viscountess
Count/Countess

If I am wrong please feel free to correct me.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1019  
Old 11-22-2011, 03:09 PM
Excalibur's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Jacksonville, Florida, United States
Posts: 76
Quote:
Originally Posted by mia_lanes View Post
As I understand it, in UK, you can only be called a princess by royal birth as in the case of Princess Anne and Princesses Beatrice and Eugiene. Many people called Diana, Princess Diana, even though the correct title was Princess of Wales because of her marriage to Prince of Wales. At this moment in time both William and Catherine are only known as Duke and Duchess of Cambridge until William becomes Prince of Wales and Catherine will be known as Princess of Wales. But I suspect many people will call her Princess Catherine.

The hierarchy is as follows:
Prince/Princess
Duke/Duchess
Earl/Countess
Viscount/Viscountess
Count/Countess

If I am wrong please feel free to correct me.
As she is married to a prince, Catherine is most certainly a princess. Her title, upon marriage, became HRH Princess William of Wales, The Duchess of Cambridge, etc. She chooses to style herself The Duchess of Cambridge, in much the same way that Camilla chooses to style herself The Duchess of Cornwall, albeit for different reasons I presume.

As the hierarchy is ordered by title, not style, Catherine would take her place amongst the other princesses.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #1020  
Old 11-22-2011, 03:14 PM
Lady Ann's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: IN THE CITY, United States
Posts: 857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Excalibur View Post
As she is married to a prince, Catherine is most certainly a princess. Her title, upon marriage, became HRH Princess William of Wales, The Duchess of Cambridge, etc. She chooses to style herself The Duchess of Cambridge, in much the same way that Camilla chooses to style herself The Duchess of Cornwall, albeit for different reasons I presume.

As the hierarchy is ordered by title, not style, Catherine would take her place amongst the other princesses.

This was my understanding as well, Not Styled Princess but, technically a Princess of the UK. Except she did not choose to be called the Duchess of Cambridge it was the title givin to her husband at marriage. It is a very different thing than the Duchess of Cornwall....
__________________

__________________
Lady Ann
Life began with waking up and loving my mother's face…~ George Eliot ~
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
Questions About [non-British] Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 729 10-09-2014 04:24 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess Prince Harry and Prince William 1110 07-12-2014 10:00 PM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 573 11-14-2013 11:59 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 Major Royal Events 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:17 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
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]