|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Dec 8, 2009 16:37:31 GMT
As I understand courtesy titles, when the daughter of an earl, Lady (first name) (surname) marries a commoner, she takes the last name of the person she marries. i.e. Lady Helen Windsor
became Lady Helen Taylor upon her marriage.
What would happen to her title if her husband were to be knighted? Would she continue to be Lady Helen Taylor or become Lady Taylor?
When a commoner marries, say Lord (surname) she becomes Lady (surname) because she doesn't hold the title in her own right. Lady Helen Taylor holds her courtesy title by right but would becoming Lady Taylor diminish it?
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 8, 2009 23:38:44 GMT
As I understand courtesy titles, when the daughter of an earl, Lady (first name) (surname) marries a commoner, she takes the last name of the person she marries. i.e. Lady Helen Windsor became Lady Helen Taylor upon her marriage. What would happen to her title if her husband were to be knighted? Would she continue to be Lady Helen Taylor or become Lady Taylor? When a commoner marries, say Lord (surname) she becomes Lady (surname) because she doesn't hold the title in her own right. Lady Helen Taylor holds her courtesy title by right but would becoming Lady Taylor diminish it? First, in this case, the women is a titled commoner as her title is one of courtesy only, and the man is not. Second, I believe she would continue to be called Lady Helen Taylor, in the same way that the late Lady Diana's sister, Lady Jane Fellowes, was so titled when her husband Robert was knighted. She became simply Lady Fellowes when he became a life baron, however. Third, in the first case her courtesy title is derived from her father's position as a peer; in the second (when her spouse is a peer), her courtesy title is derived from her marriage. In neither case is she anything other than a titled commoner, however. |
|
|
|
Post by The (BLANK) of... on Dec 9, 2009 6:55:50 GMT
Interesting.... very interesting.  The British system is VERY complicated!  For instance, what would happen if Lady Helen Windsor married a life Baron (ex: Richard Wharton, Baron Wharton), would she become Lady Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton? Or simply Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton? But, for further confusion... let's say that this Helen Wharton, became a life-peeress in her own right, by sitting in the House of Lords.... Would she be Lady Helen Wharton, Baroness & Lady Wharton? But then what happens when she gets a divorce? Does she keep her title-by-marriage? CONFUSING!!! In my people, it's pretty simple: if the daughter of the King [ex: HRH Princess Amelia of…] were to marry a commoner [ex: Mr. Richard Wharton], she drops the style of Her Royal Highness, and becomes simply Mrs. Richard Wharton, Princess of… If she obtains a divorce, she then becomes Ms. Amelia [maiden name], Princess of… However, she may petition to the King to have her title and style changed back to HRH Princess Amelia of… once again, if she so pleases. All in all, both systems can be confusing and complicated… PLEASE help with the original question. Sincerely, The Chief of... |
|
|
|
Post by Ibelieveinfairytales on Dec 9, 2009 21:57:28 GMT
I think Lady Jane Fellowes is a very good example. I was looking her up too but I don't see what her title was after her husband received a knighthood but before her husband became a Baron.
Well I'm wondering if maybe Princess Patricia of Connaught might be another example. When she married she gave up her royal title and became Lady Patricia Ramsay. She gave up her royal title to be closer in rank to her husband, Alexander Ramsay. He later received a knighthood, but I'm not sure whether this changed her title. Whenever I've read about her after her marriage, she's always referred to as Lady Patricia Ramsay, not Lady Ramsay.
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 10, 2009 0:02:11 GMT
Interesting.... very interesting. The British system is VERY complicated! For instance, what would happen if Lady Helen Windsor married a life Baron (ex: Richard Wharton, Baron Wharton), would she become Lady Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton? Or simply Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton? But, for further confusion... let's say that this Helen Wharton, became a life-peeress in her own right, by sitting in the House of Lords.... Would she be Lady Helen Wharton, Baroness & Lady Wharton? But then what happens when she gets a divorce? Does she keep her title-by-marriage? CONFUSING!!! In my people, it's pretty simple: if the daughter of the King [ex: HRH Princess Amelia of…] were to marry a commoner [ex: Mr. Richard Wharton], she drops the style of Her Royal Highness, and becomes simply Mrs. Richard Wharton, Princess of… If she obtains a divorce, she then becomes Ms. Amelia [maiden name], Princess of… However, she may petition to the King to have her title and style changed back to HRH Princess Amelia of… once again, if she so pleases. All in all, both systems can be confusing and complicated… PLEASE help with the original question. Sincerely, The Chief of... It is actually quite simple. As the daughter of a peer above the rank of Viscount, a woman enjoys the courtesy title of 'Lady' while remaining a commoner. If she marries an untitled commoner, she takes his family name but retains the title 'Lady' in combination with her own first name. If her spouse receives a knighthood, she retains her former married name as her rank is still higher than his, i.e., the daughter of a peer has precedence over her knighted husband. If her husband becomes a (life) peer, she takes his rank and becomes formally known as Baroness X, informally as Lady X, but it is still a courtesy title. If she becomes a life peeress, than she is usually normally known as Baroness X in her own right. Lady Patricia Ramsay's case does not apply here. In modern times, Princess Anne formerly was known as Princess Anne, Mrs Mark Phillips, then Mrs Timothy Lawrence, and is now simply the Princess Royal. If she divorces an untitled or knighted commoner. she reverts to her former unmarried name. If her spouse is a peer, she might become Lady Kate, Baroness X, or Lady Kate, Lady X., or possibly simply, Kate, Lady X, as these are matters of usage and not of law. For example, Dianna, Princess of Wales (NOT Dianna, The Princess of Wales) and Sarah, Duchess (not the Duchess) of York. If she remarried, by convention but not by legal right she may retain the title. If she is a life peeress in her own right, divorce does not affect her title. The point is that, except for peeresses and women members of chivalric orders (i.e., Dames) in their own right, a woman's titles are dependent on her position as child or wife of a titled man. The titles are by courtesy only and how they are applied is governed by usage and convention. Examples from other countries do not have any application to the British system. |
|
|
|
Post by The (BLANK) of... on Dec 10, 2009 18:35:25 GMT
If she was Lady Helen Taylor by birth, and Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton by marriage, and Helen Wharton, Baroness Wharton of Uptop as a member of government,how would she be styled? And.... by the way, I only used OUR hierarchical system for contrast. |
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 11, 2009 0:00:08 GMT
If she was Lady Helen Taylor by birth, and Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton by marriage, and Helen Wharton, Baroness Wharton of Uptop as a member of government,how would she be styled? And.... by the way, I only used OUR hierarchical system for contrast. Again, this is quite simple. A substantive title, that is, a title in her own right if she is created a peer, takes precedence over courtesy titles that a woman has by virtue of her birth or marriage. She would simply be titled Baroness Wharton of Uptop. I understand that you took YOUR hierarchical system for contrast but, as I do not believe that you have stated where or what it is I have no way of judging its relevance, if any. This is known in cross-cultural studies as the "self-reference criterion" but, as I stated, such approaches are not relevant to the British system which is sui generis. |
|
|
|
Post by The (BLANK) of... on Dec 11, 2009 10:59:22 GMT
it is a tribe consistent with people who Native American, African American, and European American, and is based out of the United States, similar to some of the Roma People and Irish Travellers who are based out of the USA. Our people have a king as do the Roma. As I have studied anthropology, we have heard and learned of the "self-reference criterion," and I do not claim to not have used it. I simply do not feel a need to state my tribes name.
So, as for the fictional Lady Helen Taylor, who became Lady Wharton by marriage and Baroness Wharton of Upton by becoming a peer, she would be styled as The Rt. Hon. Helen Wharton, Baroness Wharton of Upton, correct?
|
|
|
|
Post by observer on Dec 11, 2009 23:42:50 GMT
it is a tribe consistent with people who Native American, African American, and European American, and is based out of the United States, similar to some of the Roma People and Irish Travellers who are based out of the USA. Our people have a king as do the Roma. As I have studied anthropology, we have heard and learned of the "self-reference criterion," and I do not claim to not have used it. I simply do not feel a need to state my tribes name. So, as for the fictional Lady Helen Taylor, who became Lady Wharton by marriage and Baroness Wharton of Upton by becoming a peer, she would be styled as The Rt. Hon. Helen Wharton, Baroness Wharton of Upton, correct? Not stating your tribe's name is an interesting way of disallowing others the ability to learn more about it, especially as you compare it with the Roma and Irish Travelers. To the best of my knowledge, however, the Roma do not use titles other than for their Kings and Queens (e.g., Princess, Lord, etc), and Irish Travelers rarely have (in Ireland, in fact, they are not recognized as a separate ethnic group). But if your people are a tribal people like the Roma and the Irish Travelers, why would your hypothetical HRH Princess Amelia of XXX have what appears to be a territorial designation? With regard to your second paragraph, the correct usage would be simply The Right Honorable the Baroness Wharton of Upton. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Dec 12, 2009 3:55:04 GMT
Sorry, I was cut short by an unexpected pop-up ad when trying to write this message the first time. Let's try again...
There is a rule on this board against claiming to be royal. You also should not discuss the titles used within your own tribe. I cannot verify such claims and it only serves to distract from the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by The (BLANK) of... on Dec 12, 2009 4:59:06 GMT
Cinderella, I am not claiming to be royal in this discussion. But in regards to "observers" comment about the hypothetical "Princess Amalia..." she would not have a TERRITORIAL designation. When it said "Princess of..." It was meant to be of the tribe, not a territory. I will not argue this or any other point about this subject. This is supposed to be a neutral environment, not one of conflict! Cinderella, I am done speaking about my tribe. Sorry for any inconvenience, I was just trying to give contrast to other ways of "doing" royalty across the globe. But in response to "observer," the Roma douse the title of Princess for the children of their King... They just simply do not proclaim it forth like any other tribal people out there. |
|
|
|
Post by The (BLANK) of... on Dec 12, 2009 5:06:31 GMT
it is a tribe consistent with people who Native American, African American, and European American, and is based out of the United States, similar to some of the Roma People and Irish Travellers who are based out of the USA. Our people have a king as do the Roma. As I have studied anthropology, we have heard and learned of the "self-reference criterion," and I do not claim to not have used it. I simply do not feel a need to state my tribes name. So, as for the fictional Lady Helen Taylor, who became Lady Wharton by marriage and Baroness Wharton of Upton by becoming a peer, she would be styled as The Rt. Hon. Helen Wharton, Baroness Wharton of Upton, correct? Not stating your tribe's name is an interesting way of disallowing others the ability to learn more about it, especially as you compare it with the Roma and Irish Travelers. To the best of my knowledge, however, the Roma do not use titles other than for their Kings and Queens (e.g., Princess, Lord, etc), and Irish Travelers rarely have (in Ireland, in fact, they are not recognized as a separate ethnic group). But if your people are a tribal people like the Roma and the Irish Travelers, why would your hypothetical HRH Princess Amelia of XXX have what appears to be a territorial designation? With regard to your second paragraph, the correct usage would be simply The Right Honorable the Baroness Wharton of Upton. In America (USA), our people are not recognized as a seperate ethnic group either. We are strugling to find our way... and are currently talking with local government for recognition. Sorry about this short paragraph bout the tribe Cinderella. Won't happen again. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinderella on Dec 12, 2009 18:59:14 GMT
I know you're not claiming to be royal and that you are trying to stay within the board rules. I appreciate it.
And it is OK for you to call yourself TheChiefof! People can call themselves pretty much whatever they like here, and no one should be questioned about his background. All people are welcome to participate here. It's just better not to make certain kinds of remarks because it can lead to dispute, and I want everyone to feel comfortable and welcome here.
I am grateful to everyone who participates on the board. Now I hope we can get this thread back on topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by The (BLANK) of... on Dec 12, 2009 21:49:02 GMT
Cinderella, Thank you. I changed my name on here so that people would not get the wrong idea: that i was claiming to be a Chief. I know you don't think that, but someone else might. I agree that it is high time to put this back on topic! lol Happy Postings! Take care. |
|
|
|
Post by Owen on Jul 31, 2014 1:38:49 GMT
My Earl has died leaving an only child, a daughter. She has married a commoner. They have two children, eldest a boy and a daughter. Would the son inherit the title?
Would someone send me the reply
My thanks.
Regards
Owen
|
|
The British system is VERY complicated! 
For instance, what would happen if Lady Helen Windsor married a life Baron (ex: Richard Wharton, Baron Wharton), would she become Lady Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton? Or simply Helen Wharton, Lady Wharton? But, for further confusion... let's say that this Helen Wharton, became a life-peeress in her own right, by sitting in the House of Lords.... Would she be Lady Helen Wharton, Baroness & Lady Wharton? But then what happens when she gets a divorce? Does she keep her title-by-marriage? CONFUSING!!! 
