The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #4181  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:25 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Actually it boils down to that regardless of which "title/style" she preferred to use, they're still both courtesy titles. She was able to use "Lady" because her father was Earl Spencer. She was able to use "Princess of Wales" because her ex-husband is The Prince of Wales. She opted for the more "esteemed" courtesy title as I see it. She never held a title or style of her own.

I agree, Osipi. The words "Princess of Wales" or "Duchess of York" in the styles Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York are sometimes called "last names", but that is not truly correct. Although they are not peerage titles that grant legal rights to the holder, it would be more correct to call them courtesy titles instead of last names.

For illustration, in a hypothetical situation wherein either one went on to have another child from a subsequent relationship (with no remarriage), and she and her partner decided that their child should receive the mother's last name, I do not think the child would be e.g. "John Duchess of York", rather "John Ferguson" or perhaps "John Mountbatten-Windsor".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
Thanks, it's indeed more specific based on the situation that the expectation has been that it's the male line that will carry on the crown.
Yes, and even the expectation that every king would produce a son healthy enough to outlast him, given that even when the heir is a male-line grandson of the king, or a brother of the king, he is excluded from the duchy of Cornwall.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4182  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
The way I see it, Diana's courtesy title was resolved a year before she was tragically killed. She was afforded the courtesy title that denotes that she is an ex-wife of The Prince of Wales. This same courtesy title was given to not only Sarah, Duchess of York but also legally to the wives that the 9th Earl Spencer was divorced from. Its just the way it works in the UK and the British title/style system.
yes of course it was.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #4183  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:48 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
For illustration, in a hypothetical situation wherein either one went on to have another child from a subsequent relationship (with no remarriage), and she and her partner decided that their child should receive the mother's last name, I do not think the child would be e.g. "John Duchess of York", rather "John Ferguson" or perhaps "John Mountbatten-Windsor".
I find that the use of Mountbatten-Windsor in this scenario to be questionable. Its my understanding that the Queen's will for the use of that surname is limited to her descendants that are in need of a surname to use. The declaration specifically says:

"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."

Should Sarah and a partner (not married) have a child, I seriously doubt the Queen would be pleased or amused for the child to bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor as genetically, the child would be of absolutely no blood relation to the BRF whatsoever. My guess then that the child would be (name) Ferguson.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #4184  
Old 04-07-2019, 10:58 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

The title Duke of Cornwall is the title automatically bestowed on the monarch's heir, so a rather important title.



Technically the title of Duke of Cornwall can be held only by the eldest living son of the monarch who is also the heir apparent. If the heir apparent happens to be for example a grandson of the monarch rather than a son, my understanding (I may be wrong) is that he doesn't become Duke of Cornwall. Likewise, an heir presumptive such as a sibling of a monarch who doesn't have any children of his own can't be the Duke of Cornwall either. The latter used to be true also for a daughter of a monarch who was an heiress presumptive (hence QEII for example was never Duchess of Cornwall herself). I don't know if that will change in the future with the introduction of equal primogeniture post-2011.
Reply With Quote
  #4185  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:04 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I find that the use of Mountbatten-Windsor in this scenario to be questionable. Its my understanding that the Queen's will for the use of that surname is limited to her descendants that are in need of a surname to use. The declaration specifically says:

"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."

Should Sarah and a partner (not married) have a child, I seriously doubt the Queen would be pleased or amused for the child to bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor as genetically, the child would be of absolutely no blood relation to the BRF whatsoever. My guess then that the child would be (name) Ferguson.
I think the theoretical child would carry the last name of the father, married or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Technically the title of Duke of Cornwall can be held only by the eldest living son of the monarch who is also the heir apparent. If the heir apparent happens to be for example a grandson of the monarch rather than a son, my understanding (I may be wrong) is that he doesn't become Duke of Cornwall. Likewise, an heir presumptive such as a sibling of a monarch who doesn't have any children of his own can't be the Duke of Cornwall either. The latter used to be true also for a daughter of a monarch who was an heiress presumptive (hence QEII for example was never Duchess of Cornwall herself). I don't know if that will change in the future with the introduction of equal primogeniture post-2011.
I was thinking about this also. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster. The eldest living child of the monarch and therefore heir apparent should be the Duke of Cornwall no matter gender.
Reply With Quote
  #4186  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:36 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I was thinking about this also. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster. The eldest living child of the monarch and therefore heir apparent should be the Duke of Cornwall no matter gender.
but that's not the case. The queen was not Duchess of Cornwall..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think its very possible that she would have reverted to Lady Diana, Mrs Khan if she had married Hasnat Khan or Lady Diana, Mrs. Al-Fayed or Lady Diana, Mrs. Hewitt. Once she remarried, she would no longer be eligible to use "Princess of Wales" as a courtesy styling whereas because of who her father was, she would always remain "Lady".
She would have been Lady Diana Surname of her husband, not "Lady Diana Mrs Surname
Reply With Quote
  #4187  
Old 04-07-2019, 11:47 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,662
As a recent example within the family is Lady Davina still known as Lady Davina Lewis or did she return to being Lady Davina Winsor (I assume the first)
Reply With Quote
  #4188  
Old 04-07-2019, 12:01 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
As a recent example within the family is Lady Davina still known as Lady Davina Lewis or did she return to being Lady Davina Winsor (I assume the first)
I assume she is using her married name, the same name as her children
Reply With Quote
  #4189  
Old 04-07-2019, 12:19 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
As I recall it, there was this whole thing in the tabloids of the time about her being "The People's Princess." It was very awkward and I think even she recognized it. That moniker implied so many things:
-Sod off Charles, you can divorce her but we will love her even when you don't. In fact a lot of the public found her more princess than they found him Prince-like.
-The corollary to that which is that the BRF cannot unmake a princess if we, the public don't ascent
-She is OURS - meaning she is a belonging/puppet/plaything of the public. I always thought Di wanted the Admiration of the public but thought the kind of all access pass that was in effect at the time to be a bridge too far. She did not want to be dictated to by anyone at the time of the divorce.
I've always believed (and let's not go off topic and chase this on this thread) that the whole thing was just so very awkward for the BRF and Di, that the eventual Camilla/not Queen decision happened because the whole mess with Di's title had been usurped by the public.
Her Majesty's Royal Will simply could not be imposed on this situation and that must have been difficult, indeed.
Ugly times back then.
The term 'people's princess' didn't exist in her life time. It was a term coined by Tony Blair after she died.
Reply With Quote
  #4190  
Old 04-07-2019, 12:38 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
The term 'people's princess' didn't exist in her life time. It was a term coined by Tony Blair after she died.
True but the term was used a few times about Princess Anne in the 80s
Reply With Quote
  #4191  
Old 04-07-2019, 12:50 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
True but the term was used a few times about Princess Anne in the 80s
was it? I have never heard it used of anyone but Diana...….
Reply With Quote
  #4192  
Old 04-07-2019, 01:16 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
was it? I have never heard it used of anyone but Diana...….
I've seen newspaper articles where it's used. It didn't stick though.
Reply With Quote
  #4193  
Old 04-07-2019, 01:28 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I think its very possible that she would have reverted to Lady Diana, Mrs Khan if she had married Hasnat Khan or Lady Diana, Mrs. Al-Fayed or Lady Diana, Mrs. Hewitt. Once she remarried, she would no longer be eligible to use "Princess of Wales" as a courtesy styling whereas because of who her father was, she would always remain "Lady".
You mean: Lady Diana Khan or Lady Diana Al-Fayed or Lady Diana Hewitt.
No "Mrs".

See Lady Sarah Chatto, Lady Davina Lewis, Lady Rose Gilman but also see Diana's sisters Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Lady Jane Fellowes.

No use of "Mrs". Only Lady [first name] [spouse's surname].
Reply With Quote
  #4194  
Old 04-07-2019, 01:29 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Got it and have checked off my "learn something new today box". Thanks to those that have corrected me.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #4195  
Old 04-07-2019, 03:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I think the theoretical child would carry the last name of the father, married or not.
Osipi was commenting in answer to my statement about what surname the theoretical child would carry in a scenario where they took their surname from their mother instead of their father.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I find that the use of Mountbatten-Windsor in this scenario to be questionable. Its my understanding that the Queen's will for the use of that surname is limited to her descendants that are in need of a surname to use. The declaration specifically says:

"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."

Should Sarah and a partner (not married) have a child, I seriously doubt the Queen would be pleased or amused for the child to bear the name Mountbatten-Windsor as genetically, the child would be of absolutely no blood relation to the BRF whatsoever. My guess then that the child would be (name) Ferguson.
In reality, the queen's feelings would most likely be respected, and in any case Sarah/Diana would probably have remarried if they had wished to have further children after divorce.

But legally, the question is another permutation of the hypothetical that was addressed in this thread several days ago regarding Eugenie's legal name. After some reflection, I agree with Roslyn that the wording of the declaration allows different understandings of it to be at least arguable.
Reply With Quote
  #4196  
Old 04-08-2019, 12:20 AM
JSH JSH is offline
Gentry
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Las Vegas, United States
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
but that's not the case. The queen was not Duchess of Cornwall..

But that's not what the commenter said. The idea is that the eldest child of the monarch should be Duke of Cornwall regardless of gender, just as the monarch is Duke of Lancaster regardless of gender.



Something will have to be done in regard to that since there will be a greater likelihood of female monarchs in the future now. The Duke of Cornwall title cannot be limited to males only anymore IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #4197  
Old 04-08-2019, 07:31 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
but that's not the case. The queen was not Duchess of Cornwall.
Yes, that is currently how it still is, a female is not Duke of Cornwall, only males. But the point Mbruno and I were making is—male primogeniture is no longer the law of the land for the monarch, so a female should be Duke of Cornwall if in the same position as a male who would be DOC.
Reply With Quote
  #4198  
Old 04-08-2019, 08:13 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Technically the title of Duke of Cornwall can be held only by the eldest living son of the monarch who is also the heir apparent. [...] I don't know if that will change in the future with the introduction of equal primogeniture post-2011.
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
I was thinking about this also. The Queen is the Duke of Lancaster. The eldest living child of the monarch and therefore heir apparent should be the Duke of Cornwall no matter gender.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSH View Post
But that's not what the commenter said. The idea is that the eldest child of the monarch should be Duke of Cornwall regardless of gender, just as the monarch is Duke of Lancaster regardless of gender.

[...]

Something will have to be done in regard to that since there will be a greater likelihood of female monarchs in the future now. The Duke of Cornwall title cannot be limited to males only anymore IMO.

When the British government introduced equal primogeniture in the succession to the crown, it stated that it did not wish to introduce female succession to the duchy of Cornwall because "a huge amount of consultation would be required". I am not entirely clear about the implications of that statement, but my speculation is that the government's statement may have been implying the current Duke of Cornwall (who is consulted on legislation concerning the duchy) is opposed to it, as there were unconfirmed reports that he was opposed to introducing equal primogeniture in the succession to the crown.

My understanding is that Cornwall is considered a peerage as well as a duchy, so I am confident that a theoretical female holder would take the feminine form of the title just as other peeresses in their own right are known by the feminine forms of their titles, unless it happens far in the future and the masculine forms are by then considered gender-neutral.
Reply With Quote
  #4199  
Old 04-08-2019, 08:22 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Yes, that is currently how it still is, a female is not Duke of Cornwall, only males. But the point Mbruno and I were making is—male primogeniture is no longer the law of the land for the monarch, so a female should be Duke of Cornwall if in the same position as a male who would be DOC.
Yes, at some point in the future Parliament might pass an act allowing female heirs to become Duchess of Cornwall in keeping with new succession rules.
Reply With Quote
  #4200  
Old 04-08-2019, 08:37 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
Yes, that is currently how it still is, a female is not Duke of Cornwall, only males. But the point Mbruno and I were making is—male primogeniture is no longer the law of the land for the monarch, so a female should be Duke of Cornwall if in the same position as a male who would be DOC.

I guess if something happened to George, the queen and Charles would approach that topic for the sake of Charlotte, but thus far there is no need to change something because change always has the danger that you end up somewhere you don't want with a democratic government involved. AFAIK the queen while being just the heir presumptive, received an income from the Duchy of Cornwall through her father. And after her, it's 3 generations of male heirs, Charles, William, George (and who knows what George's first child will be). So absolutely no reason to wake sleeping dogs.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese colorblindness commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan henry viii highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan history kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida tradition unfinished portrait united states wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:18 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×