Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?

[Lumutqueen]

Isn’t this the equivalent of a woman keeping her maiden name effectively?
I really don’t see a title for Jack, it would have come on their wedding day.

 

[Madame Verseau]

So Sarah is still a member of the Royal Family? Is it because she. is the mother of two successors to the throne? And no HRH. The listing looks odd because it looks like non titled children outrank her.

 

[Osipi]

I think perhaps Sarah is included at times when its a private, family type thing such as weddings, funerals and other events that she can be included in. It has absolutely nothing to do with rank and file and precedence or with the monarchy itself. Its more as a courtesy to the mother of two princesses of the UK. Just listing her name as Sarah, Duchess of York denotes that she's the ex-wife of the Duke of York.

We probably would be seeing the same thing if Diana, Princess of Wales had lived. Pure courtesy. I don't think it points to Andrew and Sarah remarrying either. They both seem very comfortable with the way things are now.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Isn’t this the equivalent of a woman keeping her maiden name effectively?
I really don’t see a title for Jack, it would have come on their wedding day.

But Tatiana Marie seemed to state in her reply to me, that Princess Eugenie is not allowed that choice legally in Britain-she must become Mrs Jack Brooksbank. I can see that having been the case socially at the Royal Court but not legally.

I know here in the U. S. women have choices about their name after marriage. They can even use one name professionally and another socially if they so choose. It does seem that Eugenie herself is still using York, at least professionally.

 

[Mbruno]

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

In addition, the titles and styles of the family of the 2nd Earl of Snowdon have not been updated yet.

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

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

In addition, the titles and styles of the family of the 2nd Earl of Snowdon have not been updated yet.

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

I'm not saying you are wrong and I think this actually supports your claim, but she has been on the list for years. I'm pretty sure she's been included since the old website was in use.

 

[Lumutqueen]

But Tatiana Marie seemed to state in her reply to me, that Princess Eugenie is not allowed that choice legally in Britain-she must become Mrs Jack Brooksbank. I can see that having been the case socially at the Royal Court but not legally.

Unless that’s because she’s a royal, then no it’s certainly not legal that she must become Mrs Jack Brooksbank. I voluntarily changed my surname upon marriage but I didn’t legally have to.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But Tatiana Marie seemed to state in her reply to me, that Princess Eugenie is not allowed that choice legally in Britain-she must become Mrs Jack Brooksbank. I can see that having been the case socially at the Royal Court but not legally.

The first part of the message which I reposted in my reply to you dealt with the letter from the Queen's representative stating that a woman must use Mrs [husband's name], and the actions of the Royal Court socially.

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

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.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

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

I'm not so sure that what the Queen declared about married names of female descendants in 1960, is necessarily her thoughts in 2019--59 years later. Married women did not keep their birth last names in 1960. I think that was SOP for 1960.

I do not believe that Princess Anne ever uses HRH The Princess Anne, Lady Laurence or The Princess Royal, Lady Laurence.

 

[VictoriaB]

I'm not so sure that what the Queen declared about married names of female descendants in 1960, is necessarily her thoughts in 2019--59 years later. Married women did not keep their birth last names in 1960. I think that was SOP for 1960.

I do not believe that Princess Anne ever uses HRH The Princess Anne, Lady Laurence or The Princess Royal, Lady Laurence.

I realise it's not quite the same thing, but when Princess Anne was prosecuted under the Dangers Dogs legislation, she was charged as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Lawrence.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/21/monarchy

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I realise it's not quite the same thing, but when Princess Anne was prosecuted under the Dangers Dogs legislation, she was charged as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Lawrence. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/21/monarchy

Thanks. She uses Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Laurence in the government registry of companies as well. Both uses denote that the 1960 declaration was followed for Princess Anne, taking the name Mountbatten-Windsor away from her when she married.

I'm not so sure that what the Queen declared about married names of female descendants in 1960, is necessarily her thoughts in 2019--59 years later. Married women did not keep their birth last names in 1960. I think that was SOP for 1960.

I think it can be compared to King George V's "will and pleasure" publicized by letters patent in 1917. His letters patent are more inconsistent with women's roles in 2019 than even Elizabeth II's declaration - under the 1917 letters patent the children of a female heiress apparent cannot use HRH, even as the children of her younger brothers can. Nevertheless, the 1917 letters patent are still considered to apply to the Royal Family in 2019. In the same way, the 1960 declaration will apply to the Mountbatten-Windsor women until Elizabeth II or one of her successors modifies it with another declaration of the sovereign's will and pleasure.


Taking into account that

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

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

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


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

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Even after the Court Circular entry of May 29, 2019 in which she was referred to as Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank for the first time, the issue of Princess Eugenie's title has been a bit more convoluted than a supposed "change" from "of York" to "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank".



Not very long afterwards, in the official British monarchy website's listing of members of the Royal Family, the princess's title was changed for a second time. The "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" was taken off, but the "of York" was not restored.

THE ROYAL FAMILY
[...]

Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie and Mr. Jack Brooksbank​

The form letter sent out by her family's Assistant Private Secretary for her first wedding anniversary in October 2019 (posted on a blog) used only "of York", and not "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank".

Buckingham Palace
12th October, 2019

Dear Miss Daly,

Princess Eugenie of York and Mr. Jack Brooksbank have asked me to thank you for sending them your congratulations on their first Wedding Anniversary.

They are very grateful to you for thinking of them and send you their best wishes.

Yours Sincerely
Charlotte Fenn

Ms Charlotte Fenn
Assistant Private Secretary to HRH Princess Eugenie of York​

The Royal Ascot carriage lists in June 2019 did not refer to her as "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank". Furthermore, one of the lists refers her as "of York", even though Princess Alexandra is referred to in the same list as "the Hon. Lady Ogilvy".

CARRIAGE LIST FOR TUESDAY, JUNE 18

4th Carriage
Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
The Rt. Hon. Edward Young
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York

ROYAL ASCOT – CARRIAGE LIST THURSDAY, JUNE 20

2nd Carriage
Princess Eugenie
Mr. James Fellows
The Viscount Brookeborough
The Viscountess Brookeborough​

The art gallery where she is employed still styles her as Eugenie York, not Eugenie Brooksbank.

Director
Eugenie York​

The princess continues to use HRH Princess Eugenie of York for her anti-slavery work.

Our Team – The Anti-Slavery Collective
[...]

HRH Princess Eugenie of York
CO-FOUNDER​

In the same vein, the charities she supports have continued to call her "of York" even after May 2019.

Freedom United (August 2019)

To reach people who may yet to have developed their knowledge, Freedom United is delighted to be partnering up with The Anti-Slavery Collective, which was founded by HRH Princess Eugenie of York, and her best friend, Julia De Boinville.

The Anti-Slavery Initiative (October 2019)

Thank you, HRH Princess Eugenie of York for agreeing to become our Patron for this, our 180th year.​

The blogger who received the letter quoted above gave this opinion of the situation:

And we have seen Buckingham Palace in general drop the "of York" from Princess Eugenie's name since the wedding. But, Prince Andrew's office still insists on using it, probably because it improves name recognition.

I do not subscribe to the blogger's opinion that a woman who continues to use her own name after marriage is being "insistent", but her opinion that the Queen's office handles Eugenie's title differently than the Duke of York's office is consistent with the previous uses of Eugenie's title in the official record, quoted in message #287.

The announcements in the Court Circular and from the Royal Household in which Princess Eugenie was referred to as "of York" related to events handled or attended by the Duke of York, while the announcements in the Court Circular in which she was referred to as "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" related to events hosted by the Queen.

At this point my hypothesis is that Princess Eugenie's choice is to remain "of York", and her choice is respected by her father, whereas her grandmother, who has at times pressured married women to use their husbands' names, insists on using "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank", and the seeming inconsistencies are the result of their disagreement.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"HRH Princess Beatrice of York’s wedding dress will go on display at Windsor Castle from 24 September - 22 November 2020."

https://www.rct.uk/about/news-and-f...rks-wedding-dress-to-go-on-display-at-windsor

The blogger who received the letter quoted above gave this opinion of the situation:

And we have seen Buckingham Palace in general drop the "of York" from Princess Eugenie's name since the wedding. But, Prince Andrew's office still insists on using it, probably because it improves name recognition.​

In light of this theory, it is interesting that the Royal Collection Trust styled Princess Beatrice as "of York" even though the Duke of York has stepped back from his public duties. I assume his retirement would preclude his office from directing the Royal Collection Trust.


But in the meantime, the princess's name on the official list of members of the Royal Family has been changed to Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. Her sister's name has been changed a third (!) time, back to Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf


Hopefully some day in the future, the court will clarify why both "of York" and "Mrs. [Name of husband]" are used to refer to Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. With silence from the court, there have already been comments on social media claiming that it is because a British princess automatically loses her territorial designation and takes her husband's name on marriage and (according to these people) the York princesses are "breaking the rules" and "seeking attention" by "insisting" on not using their husbands' names.

 

[Mbruno]

In light of this theory, it is interesting that the Royal Collection Trust styled Princess Beatrice as "of York" even though the Duke of York has stepped back from his public duties. I assume his retirement would preclude his office from directing the Royal Collection Trust.


But in the meantime, the princess's name on the official list of members of the Royal Family has been changed to Her Royal Highness Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi. Her sister's name has been changed a third (!) time, back to Her Royal Highness Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf


Hopefully some day in the future, the court will clarify why both "of York" and "Mrs. [Name of husband]" are used to refer to Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. With silence from the court, there have already been comments on social media claiming that it is because a British princess automatically loses her territorial designation and takes her husband's name on marriage and (according to these people) the York princesses are "breaking the rules" and "seeking attention" by "insisting" on not using their husbands' names.

I think that calling them HRH Princess xx, Mrs. [Husband's name and surname] is the right thing to do to be consistent with British styles even though I know it was not done e.g. for Princess Margaret until her husband became an earl.



I still think, however, that the fact that Edo is an Italian count, thus making Beatrice also a countess, should be acknowledged in some way. If what some Italian posters said here is correct ( I honestly don't know), the Italian Republic does not forbid him from using his title as a courtesy title, even if the title itself is not legally recognized.


EDIT: It is also interesting to see that Sarah, Duchess of York, is considered a member of the Royal Family according to the annex as are the Amstrong-Jones and Chatto families, but none of the Gloucesters or the Kents (other than the HRHs properly) are.

 

[Heavs]

I'm not sure why it would mean they were seeking attention by using "of York" any more than a woman who is well known by her last name or prefers it and decides not to change it after marriage. It's not like the York name is covered in glory anyway or that they have to use it to keep being called HRH Princess. If Bea was trying to use HRH Princess Beatrice, Countess Mapelli Mozzi anywhere I'd be more inclined to say she was showing off as Edo himself doesn't seem to have ever used it.

We've seen convention within the BRF change and a lot of "The Rules" aren't necessarily set in stone or are merely HMs preference for the most traditional style. But things like the titles of Princess Marina and Princess Alice also show flexibility, even if it's not quite the same thing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm not sure why it would mean they were seeking attention by using "of York" any more than a woman who is well known by her last name or prefers it and decides not to change it after marriage. It's not like the York name is covered in glory anyway or that they have to use it to keep being called HRH Princess. If Bea was trying to use HRH Princess Beatrice, Countess Mapelli Mozzi anywhere I'd be more inclined to say she was showing off as Edo himself doesn't seem to have ever used it.

We've seen convention within the BRF change and a lot of "The Rules" aren't necessarily set in stone or are merely HMs preference for the most traditional style. But things like the titles of Princess Marina and Princess Alice also show flexibility, even if it's not quite the same thing.

I could not agree more.

I think that calling them HRH Princess xx, Mrs. [Husband's name and surname] is the right thing to do to be consistent with British styles even though I know it was not done e.g. for Princess Margaret until her husband became an earl.

Is it the right thing to do if it is not what they, themselves, wish to be called? (We don't have definitive knowledge of their thoughts on the issue, but based on all of the citations provided earlier in this thread, Princess Eugenie has continued to call herself "of York" and has never once called herself "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" since her wedding.) Surely the right thing to do is to call a woman by whichever surname (or in this case, territorial designation) she wishes to be called by.

I still think, however, that the fact that Edo is an Italian count, thus making Beatrice also a countess, should be acknowledged in some way. If what some Italian posters said here is correct ( I honestly don't know), the Italian Republic does not forbid him from using his title and the title itself has not been abolished even if it is not acknowledged.

Here are links to the Italian Constitution and its official English translation. Transitory provision XIV is the one dealing with titles of nobility.

https://www.quirinale.it/page/costituzione
https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_statici/costituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

While there would be nothing illegal in calling himself a count (apart from in official documents), given that he legally is not one, I think it is fine that he does not.

 

[Mbruno]

I could not agree more.



Is it the right thing to do if it is not what they, themselves, wish to be called? (We don't have definitive knowledge of their thoughts on the issue, but based on all of the citations provided earlier in this thread, Princess Eugenie has continued to call herself "of York" and has never once called herself "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" since her wedding.) Surely the right thing to do is to call a woman by whichever surname (or in this case, territorial designation) she wishes to be called by.





Here are links to the Italian Constitution and its official English translation. Transitory provision XIV is the one dealing with titles of nobility.

https://www.quirinale.it/page/costituzione
https://www.quirinale.it/allegati_statici/costituzione/costituzione_inglese.pdf

While there would be nothing illegal in calling himself a count (apart from in official documents), given that he legally is not one, I think it is fine that he does not.

I think the point the Italian posters made was that he can use "count" as a courtesy title, which is apparently common in Italy. People are also referred to as marquesses, earls or viscounts in the UK as a matter of courtesy even though they are not legally peers either.

 

[Heavs]

I think the point the Italian posters made was that he can use "count" as a courtesy title, which is apparently common in Italy. People are also referred to as marquesses, earls or viscounts in the UK as a matter of courtesy even though they are not legally peers either.

I think that's slightly different, given that the titles used as courtesy by a peer's family are still active and very much legal and in the case of say the daughter of a Duke her name would legally be Lady Jane Smith on government documents.

It seems that in Italy whilst it can't be legal since the aristocracy and nobility were abolished, it isn't *illegal* to go around calling yourself "Count" etc in the same way it is/has been in other regimes.

Since he has never used it and BP don't even seem to want to use Alessandro's title when he himself *does* use it, I don't think that's really and option for them and would be seen as evidence of attention seeking than "of York".

royal.uk Line of Succession still has Of York for both and Mrs Michael Tindall for Zara.

I suspect what might be happening is that various different parts of the Firm aren't communicating with each other when updating these lists and putting out these announcements. Maybe there is some back and forth going on about what's appropriate and what they (and their husbands) both want, although you'd think they'd have sorted that out by now.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm not sure why it would mean they were seeking attention by using "of York" any more than a woman who is well known by her last name or prefers it and decides not to change it after marriage. It's not like the York name is covered in glory anyway or that they have to use it to keep being called HRH Princess. If Bea was trying to use HRH Princess Beatrice, Countess Mapelli Mozzi anywhere I'd be more inclined to say she was showing off as Edo himself doesn't seem to have ever used it.

We've seen convention within the BRF change and a lot of "The Rules" aren't necessarily set in stone or are merely HMs preference for the most traditional style. But things like the titles of Princess Marina and Princess Alice also show flexibility, even if it's not quite the same thing.

I could not agree more.

Adding onto my last reply, your analysis also reminds me of observing comments on forums and social media about (non-royal) women who decided against changing their surname after marriage, specifically comments which accused them of preferring their own name recognition over their husbands. So I suppose those social media comments I read regarding the York princesses are consistent with the beliefs of some quarters of the population.

royal.uk Line of Succession still has Of York for both and Mrs Michael Tindall for Zara.

I suspect what might be happening is that various different parts of the Firm aren't communicating with each other when updating these lists and putting out these announcements. Maybe there is some back and forth going on about what's appropriate and what they (and their husbands) both want, although you'd think they'd have sorted that out by now.

It occurs to me that there are women who, though they prefer to continue using their own last name after marriage, have made the decision not to correct those who call them by their husbands' names, especially when it concerns senior members of their families. I wonder if that could perhaps be the case for Princess Eugenie and/or Princess Beatrice: using "of York" in situations where it is up to them, but not objecting if their elderly and traditional grandmother refers to them as "Mrs. Husband's Forename and Surname".

 

[AC21091968]

I think that's slightly different, given that the titles used as courtesy by a peer's family are still active and very much legal and in the case of say the daughter of a Duke her name would legally be Lady Jane Smith on government documents.

It seems that in Italy whilst it can't be legal since the aristocracy and nobility were abolished, it isn't *illegal* to go around calling yourself "Count" etc in the same way it is/has been in other regimes.

Since he has never used it and BP don't even seem to want to use Alessandro's title when he himself *does* use it, I don't think that's really and option for them and would be seen as evidence of attention seeking than "of York".

royal.uk Line of Succession still has Of York for both and Mrs Michael Tindall for Zara.

I suspect what might be happening is that various different parts of the Firm aren't communicating with each other when updating these lists and putting out these announcements. Maybe there is some back and forth going on about what's appropriate and what they (and their husbands) both want, although you'd think they'd have sorted that out by now.

I am very surprised on how long the Court and Firm took to be consistent and certain on Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie's formal addresses.

Going back to Jack Brooksbank, I found this in his wikipedia page:

Contrary to press speculation that Brooksbank would be created "Earl of Northallerton", he has not been elevated to the peerage after marrying into the royal family, following a trend in recent years for a male commoner not to be awarded one upon marriage to a princess​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Brooksbank


The two citations did not mentioned "Earl of Northallerton" at all, so I am just wondering where did Wikipedia get this information from

Links to these two citation:
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a22515482/jack-brooksbank-royal-title/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ie-commoner-groom-didnt-get-title/1594927002/


I do wonder if the Earldom title, Earl of Northallerton, is going to be given at all. The only possibilities that I could think of are Princess Charlotte's future husband or Prince Louis (if he decided to take the Earldom rather than Dukedom like Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex).

 

[Countessmeout]

Many women who take their husband's name, choose to use their maiden name in their business life. If they started out and are known by their maiden name, they often choose to use it officially.

While they are not working royals, their charity work is very much a part of their identity. They have made a name for themselves and their work as Princess Beatrice of York or Eugenie of York. Its also what they are recognized as easily, not Mrs Brooksbank or Mrs/Countess Mozzi.

Even modern women who take their husband's names don't go by the old style. Back in the day Jane Doe married John Smith she would be Mrs John Smith. For the past how many decades, she would simply be Mrs Jane Smith. No need to abandon your own identity, ditching your given name, simply as you took your husband's surname.

It may be that they are modern women keeping their maiden styling. Or they simply choose to use their old styling in a professional sense. Either way I don't see any issue with.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am very surprised on how long the Court and Firm took to be consistent and certain on Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie's formal addresses.

From the cited examples, the Firm appears to be inconsistent even now.

Going back to Jack Brooksbank, I found this in Jack Brooksbank's wikipedia page:

Contrary to press speculation that Brooksbank would be created "Earl of Northallerton", he has not been elevated to the peerage after marrying into the royal family, following a trend in recent years for a male commoner not to be awarded one upon marriage to a princess​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Brooksbank


The two citations did not mentioned "Earl of Northallerton" at all, so I am just wondering where did Wikipedia get this information from

The person who wrote that paragraph was most likely thinking of this Daily Mail article. The article frames it as speculation and in the end states that he will not receive a peerage.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...s-fiance-Jack-Brooksbank-remain-commoner.html


After the wedding, there was speculation on the possibility of a new title for Princess Eugenie and/or her husband based on a tweet (which is still unexplained) from a royal reporter who appeared to have sources inside the office of the Duke of York, as he reported several announcements relating to the wedding before they were made public.

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

It was discussed earlier in this thread:

Looks like there might be a title coming for Eugenie and Jack?? 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 ...

Via Chris Ship ITV Twitter

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Where does the title Earl of Northallerton come from?

 

[AC21091968]

Where does the title Earl of Northallerton come from?

At this point, I do not have a definitive answer.

From looking at the two citations from Jack's wikipedia page, "Earl of Northallerton" was not mentioned

Jack Brooksband's wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Brooksbank

The two links:
https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a22515482/jack-brooksbank-royal-title/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ie-commoner-groom-didnt-get-title/1594927002/

I do think "Earl of Northallerton" was mentioned in these articles, but was later deleted.

From the Dailymail article that Tatiana Maria has kindly shared, someone close to Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank may have somehow leak the possibility of an Earldom to the press. Or the "Earl of Northallerton" title might have been speculation. Like the previous two articles, Daily Mail could have also deleted "Earl of Northallerton".

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...-commoner.html

At the end of the day, I don't think the name of the Earldom title matter, given that Jack was not gifted one upon his marriage just like other male commoners in recent years. It will be interesting on the future plans for Princess Charlotte's husband.

P.s. I do think Wikipedia should remove the speculation of "Earl of Northallerton" from Jack's wikipedia page, because none of the cited sources mention it

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Like the previous two articles, Daily Mail could have also deleted "Earl of Northallerton".

Isn't the mention still in the Daily Mail article?

"A representative for the Yorks tells me that Jack, 32, will not be granted the vacant title Earl of Northallerton – as has been whispered in recent weeks – meaning the Queen’s granddaughter will be known as HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...s-fiance-Jack-Brooksbank-remain-commoner.html

The article gives no description of the source of these supposed "whispers".

 

[AC21091968]

Isn't the mention still in the Daily Mail article?

"A representative for the Yorks tells me that Jack, 32, will not be granted the vacant title Earl of Northallerton – as has been whispered in recent weeks – meaning the Queen’s granddaughter will be known as HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank."

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...s-fiance-Jack-Brooksbank-remain-commoner.html

The article gives no description of the source of these supposed "whispers".

Oops, my bad. I have not been reading closely enough.

Apologies for the confusion.

 

[Denville]

There was never any chance of Jack B getting an earldom or any title..

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The Express article refers to Jack as James Brooksbank.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/992532

 

[Denville]

I guess its a typo....

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think that calling them HRH Princess xx, Mrs. [Husband's name and surname] is the right thing to do to be consistent with British styles even though I know it was not done e.g. for Princess Margaret until her husband became an earl.

Is it the right thing to do if it is not what they, themselves, wish to be called? (We don't have definitive knowledge of their thoughts on the issue, but based on all of the citations provided earlier in this thread, Princess Eugenie has continued to call herself "of York" and has never once called herself "Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" since her wedding.) Surely the right thing to do is to call a woman by whichever surname (or in this case, territorial designation) she wishes to be called by.

Apparently there is at least one precedent for the wishes of a married woman taking priority over consistency with British customary styles. In 2018, an MP was rebuked by the Speaker of the House of Commons for addressing another MP, against her wishes, by her "correct" title as the wife of her husband.

Boris Johnson has apologised after referring to the shadow foreign secretary, Emily Thornberry, as “Lady Nugee”. The Speaker of the House of Commons said the references, in relation to Thornberry’s husband, Sir Christopher Nugee, were sexist and inappropriate.

[...]

Bercow interrupted Johnson: “First, we do not name call in this chamber, and secondly ... we do not address people by the titles of their spouses. The shadow foreign secretary has a name and it is not ‘Lady Something’.​

Having said that, the Queen possesses many more powers and prerogatives than a mere MP, and I imagine that if the Queen had been the one to address Emily Thornberry as Lady Nugee, the Speaker of the House of Commons would not have responded to her in the same manner.

Relatedly, I have the impression that Princess Eugenie has been reducing her usage of "of York" recently.