Lady Gabriella and Thomas Kingston News 1: May 2019 -

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

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

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

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

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

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

[/I]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

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

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

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

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

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

Yes and no.

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

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

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

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

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

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

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

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

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

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Gawin

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

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

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

[crm2317]

Originally Posted by Stefan

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

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

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

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

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

Originally Posted by crm2317

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

People have shared their theories in this thread: http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...y-23667-4.html

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

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

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

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

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

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

I obviously know the correct form of address since I already pointed out the correct form of address in the first response to the original question.

[sophie25]

If Gabriella chooses to use her husband's surname she will be Lady Gabriella Kingston and should Lady Davina choose to revert back to her maiden name of Windsor, the name she was born with, there would be no problem with that either. I 'm surprised this is even a discussion.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by sophie25

If Gabriella chooses to use her husband's surname she will be Lady Gabriella Kingston and should Lady Davina choose to revert back to her maiden name of Windsor, the name she was born with, there would be no problem with that either. I 'm surprised this is even a discussion.

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



She is in the same category as Lady Helen, Lady Davina (when she was still married) or Lady Rose, so there is no doubt in my mind that she should be referred to by her husband's last name.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Stefan

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

Yes, I missed that. It appears the list was sloppily done.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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

But there was no evidence posted on the Wikipedia page to support the change, so as O-H Anglophile pointed out, it means nothing more than that the individual who updated the page assumed her name had changed.

The assumption that she is using her husband's name is justified by British tradition and the George V proclamation, but it conflicts with the press release issued days after the wedding which styled her Lady Gabriella Windsor.

Originally Posted by sophie25

If Gabriella chooses to use her husband's surname she will be Lady Gabriella Kingston and should Lady Davina choose to revert back to her maiden name of Windsor, the name she was born with, there would be no problem with that either. I 'm surprised this is even a discussion.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

She is in the same category as Lady Helen, Lady Davina (when she was still married) or Lady Rose, so there is no doubt in my mind that she should be referred to by her husband's last name.

I think it is arguable. Had Lady Gabriella and Lady Davina not been descendants of Queen Victoria, there is no doubt that they would be able to choose their own names, irrespective of the choices their cousins made. But one could argue the 1917 proclamation of King George V does not allow Lady Gabriella to use the name of Windsor as a married woman and does not allow Lady Davina to revert to her maiden name.

Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor:

[CyrilVladisla]

If Lady Gabriella Kingston had a professional career in which she was known as Lady Gabriella Windsor, can she legally still use Windsor after her marriage to Thomas?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

If Lady Gabriella Kingston had a professional career in which she was known as Lady Gabriella Windsor, can she legally still use Windsor after her marriage to Thomas?

My understanding is that the royal proclamations of 1917 and 1960 apply to legal use only. For example, under the proclamation of 1960 the legal name of Princess Beatrice of York is Mountbatten-Windsor, but she uses York for her professional career.

[Zonk]

Despite what many think, the topic of this thread is the Current Events of Lady Gabriella and Thomas Kingston and NOT the Duchess of Sussex.

Therefore, off topic posts regarding Meghan being a trendsetter by giving a speech have been deleted and posts regarding the flower arrangements have been moved to http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...-46411-10.html .

Let's stay on topic.

[eya]

Lady Gabriella with Thomas attend at the Victoria & Albert Museum Summer Party on 19 June

https://www.rexfeatures.com/livefeed...ella%20Windsor

[CyrilVladisla]

Lady Gabriella and Thomas look as happy in these pictures as they did on their royal wedding day. Marriage agrees with them.

[Frelinghighness]

Yes, they look like they belong together

[Mirabel]

They make a lovely couple.

[Al_bina]

Lady Gabriella is gorgeous as usual. I thought that the couple would fly to a warmer place on honeymoon.

[Mirabel]

Perhaps they did, and are back. Or maybe they returned to Sark for their honeymoon?

Tom's parents have a vacation home there.