The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5121  
Old 07-19-2020, 02:16 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Possibly, but Princess Eugenie of York is the equivalent of using Miss Zara Phillips.
I'm not sure it is because if Zara had been Lady Zara Phillips, she'd now be Lady Zara Tindall. She wouldn't have to drop the 'Lady' so why would a princess have to drop the title?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5122  
Old 07-19-2020, 02:19 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
I'm not sure it is because if Zara had been Lady Zara Phillips, she'd now be Lady Zara Tindall. She wouldn't have to drop the 'Lady' so why would a princess have to drop the title?
She doesn't have to, she may choose to do so.. but I'd say the queen would be of the school that would prefer people keeping their ttiltles and using them.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5123  
Old 07-19-2020, 02:27 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
I'm not sure it is because if Zara had been Lady Zara Phillips, she'd now be Lady Zara Tindall. She wouldn't have to drop the 'Lady' so why would a princess have to drop the title?
She doesn’t have to drop Princess and actually should not do it. The discussion is about dropping “ of York” , which is more or less equivalent to her father’s surname in the old sense of the territorial designation of a peerage being a proxy for family name even though it is not a legal surname strictly speaking.
Reply With Quote
  #5124  
Old 07-19-2020, 02:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Yes I believe she prefers to use Zara Tindall in her riding life doesn't she? She's obviously happy to be styled in the traditional way here though. My point is that Zara doesn't have a title, whereas the others do, they don't lose them on marriage and they've chosen to continue using them.
Do we know for a fact that she is "obviously happy to be styled in the traditional way"? She has expressed happiness in interviews with being untitled, but I haven't found an interview in which she shares her feelings about being styled "Mrs. Michael Tindall".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
I believe the custom has always been the same , I.e. a married princess takes her husband’s style as another non-royal wife would. The wife of the Earl of Snowdon is known as the Countess of Snowdon rather than being called by her husband’s family name ( or surname as I guess you say in the UK). The wife of The Honourable Sir Angus Ogilvy on the other hand is The Honourable Lady Ogilvy , and the wife of Mr Jack Brooksbank is Mrs Jack Brooksbank.

The only difference to a non-royal wife is that the dignity of Princess and the style of HRH , prefixed to the given names , are not lost with marriage since, in Beatrice’s case, they are tied to being a granddaughter of a British sovereign in male line. The designation “HRH Princess Beatrice “ would be superseded, I think, only by another Foreign royal title of higher relative rank ( like Crown Princess of Denmark for example), although I am not sure how royal families handle those cases nowadays as dynastic marriages are so rare.

In the UK, even equal rank foreign titles were superseded by British titles upon marriage.
But if she followed the custom of taking the husband's style, she would be styled "HRH Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" (as in the old usage of the grand-ducal family of Luxembourg) rather than "HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank". My point was that the combination of "Princess" and "Mrs." by which Princess Alexandra was designated before her husband was knighted was used for her only, prior to the marriage of Princess Eugenie.
Reply With Quote
  #5125  
Old 07-19-2020, 02:32 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Do we know for a fact that she is "obviously happy to be styled in the traditional way"? She has expressed happiness in interviews with being untitled, but I haven't found an interview in which she shares her feelings about being styled "Mrs. Michael Tindall".
We don't know it for certain but I can't imagine the official royal website using a name she objected to. If she didn't want it used in the succession list, she'd only have to petition her grandmother for it to be changed.
Reply With Quote
  #5126  
Old 07-19-2020, 02:37 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Do we know for a fact that she is "obviously happy to be styled in the traditional way"? She has expressed happiness in interviews with being untitled, but I haven't found an interview in which she shares her feelings about being styled "Mrs. Michael Tindall".



But if she followed the custom of taking the husband's style, she would be styled "HRH Mrs. Jack Brooksbank" (as in the old usage of the grand-ducal family of Luxembourg) rather than "HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank". My point was that the combination of "Princess" and "Mrs." by which Princess Alexandra was designated before her husband was knighted was used for her only, prior to the marriage of Princess Eugenie.
The difference , I suppose, is that the LPs of 1917 say that she carries the dignity Princess and the style HRH prefixed to her given names. Note that wives of princes do not. That is why Eugenie is

HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank

Whereas Catherine in George’s birth certificate is

Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge

The naming in documents at least is consistent. My understanding is that HRH and Princess are part so to speak of Beatrice ‘s legal name in the UK.

Eugenie would be HRH Mrs Jack Brooksbank only iii her husband were HRH Mr Jack Brooksbank , which he is not. Prince Philip was HRH Sir Philip Mountbatten and HRH Philip, Duke of Edinburgh in the past though.
Reply With Quote
  #5127  
Old 07-19-2020, 02:40 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
She diesn’t have to drop Princess and actually should not do it. The discussion is about dropping “ of York” , which is more or less equivalent to her father’s surname in the old sense of the territorial designation of a peerage being a proxy for family name even though it is not a legal surname strictly speaking.
OK I see now what you mean. Was Princess Alexandra was ever referred to as Princess Alexandra of Kent after her marriage? I don't think she was.
Reply With Quote
  #5128  
Old 07-19-2020, 02:53 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
See here for an update regarding the title of Princess Eugenie of York: Jack Brooksbank: Is there a Title in his future?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
We don't know it for certain but I can't imagine the official royal website using a name she objected to. If she didn't want it used in the succession list, she'd only have to petition her grandmother for it to be changed.
Thanks.

In 2000, a woman who requested to use her own given name instead of her husband's given name was refused permission by the Queen's representative. Reading this, I believe that Queen Elizabeth would use "Mrs. Michael" and "Mrs. Jack" whether or not her granddaughters objected.

A competing horse has more independence | World news | The Guardian


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
The difference , I suppose, is that the LPs of 1917 say that she carries the dignity Princess and the style HRH prefixed to her given names.
The 1917 LPs relate to legal titles, not styles; otherwise Maud, the queen of Norway, would have had to be styled HRH Princess Maud when she was in the UK.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Eugenie would be HRH Mrs Jack Brooksbank only iii her husband were HRH Mr Jack Brooksbank , which he is not.
And that decision was only made with the marriage of Princess Alexandra, she being the first British princess to marry a husband without a title and still remain styled as a princess.
Reply With Quote
  #5129  
Old 07-19-2020, 03:13 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
In 2000, a woman who requested to use her own given name instead of her husband's given name was refused permission by the Queen's representative. Reading this, I believe that Queen Elizabeth would use "Mrs. Michael" and "Mrs. Jack" whether or not her granddaughters objected.

A competing horse has more independence | World news | The Guardian
Thanks for the link Tatiana. It isn't working for me but it seems from what you say to be about a woman being refused 20 years ago to use her own name rather than her husband's. I don't consider that to be enough evidence that HMQ would reject her granddaughter's preference in 2020 so I'm still leaning towards Zara being happy with it (in this context).
Reply With Quote
  #5130  
Old 07-19-2020, 03:19 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Thanks for the link Tatiana. It isn't working for me but it seems from what you say to be about a woman being refused 20 years ago to use her own name rather than her husband's. I don't consider that to be enough evidence that HMQ would reject her granddaughter's preference in 2020 so I'm still leaning towards Zara being happy with it (in this context).
Apologies. I think I have fixed the link; please try it again.

I hope that you are right, but I see no evidence that Queen Elizabeth has evolved on this issue over the last 20 years.
Reply With Quote
  #5131  
Old 07-19-2020, 03:26 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post




The 1917 LPs relate to legal titles, not styles; otherwise Maud, the queen of Norway, would have had to be styled HRH Princess Maud when she was in the UK.

The issue of styles and titles in the case of dynastic marriages is complicated and, as I said, I don't fully understand it.


After getting married Princess Maud was referred to in the UK as HRH Princess Charles of Denmark even though she was still technically HRH Princess Maud in her own right. Of course, later, she became HM The Queen of Norway.



Princess Marina, who was also a princess in her own right, but in this case a foreign one, became only HRH The Duchess of Kent upon marriage. She was later known as HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent by special dispensation of the British monarch and not by virtue of having been born a princess in her own right.
Reply With Quote
  #5132  
Old 07-19-2020, 03:39 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Apologies. I think I have fixed the link; please try it again.

I hope that you are right, but I see no evidence that Queen Elizabeth has evolved on this issue over the last 20 years.
Thanks for the update on the link. It must have changed since then because some married women use their own name on their badge in the royal enclosure at Royal Ascot. A woman doesn't have to use her husband's name if she chooses not to.
Reply With Quote
  #5133  
Old 07-19-2020, 03:46 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 515
If a British princess of the blood was to marry a woman, would the wife be a princess to? Do the titles only refer to opposite sex relationships?
Reply With Quote
  #5134  
Old 07-19-2020, 04:01 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Thanks for the update on the link. It must have changed since then because some married women use their own name on their badge in the royal enclosure at Royal Ascot. A woman doesn't have to use her husband's name if she chooses not to.
Yes, we had a similar discussion about this a year ago. Another forum member posted to a link to an article from the DM: "Royal Ascot changes outdated tradition by allowing married ladies to use their christian names on royal enclosure badges":

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2209247

But this doesn't address the Queen's preferences regarding members of the Royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #5135  
Old 07-19-2020, 04:02 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Middlewich, United Kingdom
Posts: 21,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
If a British princess of the blood was to marry a woman, would the wife be a princess to? Do the titles only refer to opposite sex relationships?
There's no royal titular act (can't think of the correct term right now) nor LPs that cover same sex marriage, so there's no definitive answer to your question.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #5136  
Old 07-19-2020, 04:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
If a British princess of the blood was to marry a woman, would the wife be a princess to? Do the titles only refer to opposite sex relationships?
Under the current rules derived from common law, only men who are married to women share their rank and title with their spouses.

The Cameron government took steps in 2016 towards expanding this right to titled women, as well as titled men who are married to men, but Mr. Cameron left office before any results were achieved.

However, in light of Queen Elizabeth's preference for styling married women as e.g. "Mrs. Michael Tindall", it would be interesting to see how she would handle the forename and surname issue if a female member of her family married a woman.
Reply With Quote
  #5137  
Old 07-19-2020, 04:20 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Yes, we had a similar discussion about this a year ago. Another forum member posted to a link to an article from the DM: "Royal Ascot changes outdated tradition by allowing married ladies to use their christian names on royal enclosure badges":

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2209247

But this doesn't address the Queen's preferences regarding members of the Royal family.
No, but neither is it evidence that HMQ would NOT adhere to a granddaughter's preference for using her own Christian name if she requested it. So we all draw our own conclusions and mine is that if Zara had strong objections to being labelled 'Mrs Michael Tindall' in this context, she wouldn't be.
Reply With Quote
  #5138  
Old 07-19-2020, 04:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
No, but neither is it evidence that HMQ would NOT adhere to a granddaughter's preference for using her own Christian name if she requested it. So we all draw our own conclusions and mine is that if Zara had strong objections to being labelled 'Mrs Michael Tindall' in this context, she wouldn't be.
I am happy to agree to disagree, but out of interest, what are your reasons for concluding that Elizabeth would not label her granddaughter in those terms if Zara strongly objected?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Yes, we had a similar discussion about this a year ago. Another forum member posted to a link to an article from the DM: "Royal Ascot changes outdated tradition by allowing married ladies to use their christian names on royal enclosure badges":

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2209247

But this doesn't address the Queen's preferences regarding members of the Royal family.
Yes, my impression is that the rule change was implemented by the management of the Royal Ascot rather than the Queen. (And it is worth noting that it happened only several years ago.) Quoting from the article:

Quote:
Royal Ascot have ended centuries of tradition by allowing married ladies to use their own christian names on royal enclosure badges.

Until now, wives badges were styled with their husband’s name (i.e Mrs John Smith). The move will be seen by some as the track shedding an outdated practise and finally moving into the 21st century.

Ascot spokesman Nick Smith said: ‘It is a choice we wanted to offer ladies. Some like the more traditional approach and others now have the option to be referred to by their own names.’
Reply With Quote
  #5139  
Old 07-19-2020, 04:38 PM
Lilyflo's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I am happy to agree to disagree, but out of interest, what are your reasons for concluding that Elizabeth would not label her granddaughter in those terms if Zara strongly objected?
I think it's because HMQ has shown over decades that she's prepared to move with the times (but not ahead of them).
Reply With Quote
  #5140  
Old 07-19-2020, 05:57 PM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 12,310
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
Yes I believe she prefers to use Zara Tindall in her riding life doesn't she? She's obviously happy to be styled in the traditional way here though. My point is that Zara doesn't have a title, whereas the others do, they don't lose them on marriage and they've chosen to continue using them.

She's referred to as Zara Phillips in the Equestrian world now too.



LaRae
__________________

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
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:02 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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