Talk:Maud Carnegie, Countess of Southesk

message: Why was this moved from Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk?  Her sister is located at Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, why the sudden move to Maud. Prsgoddess187 14:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She was still "Princess Maud" after her marriage even though she did not generally use the title. See for example the Letters Patent appointing her a Counsellor of State in  Her name is given as "Our Most dear and entirely beloved Cousin Her Highness Princess Maud Alexandra Victoria Georgina Bertha Countess of Southesk". So Princess Maud, Countess of Southesk is not incorrect as an article title, and it certainly looks better than Princess Maud (Countess of Southesk). Opera hat (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move article 

message: Just because Princess Maud stopped using her titles after her marriage doesn't mean she ceased to have them. You cannot just decide you want to give up your titles; it requires Letters Patent from the sovereign to do so. After her marriage she was still legally HH Princess Maud of Fife, Lady Carnegie, though she did not style herself as such. Her situation was similar to that of The Duchess of Cornwall, who is Princess of Wales but does not call herself that. Also reference Lady Louise Windsor, whose real title is HRH Princess Louise of Wessex. She does not use her royal title, but, lacking any letters patent or other legal move, still holds it. Thus I am changing Princess Maud's titles, to reflect her royal status. Furthermore, The Lady Maud Carnegie would never have been correct anyway; Carnegie was not her husband's last name but a courtesy title he held- the only correct title would be just Lady Carnegie. TysK 07:37, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The header (which ought to be "styles," and not "titles") is meant to indicate what the person was actually called, not all the titles and styles they were theoretically entitled to.  I'm going to change it back (correcting "Lady Maud Carnegie" to "Lady Carnegie," - although it ought to be noted that Carnegie was both her husband's last name and his courtesy title.) john k 02:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling the section "styles" does solve the problem, and thanks for leaving in the sentence I added explaining the situation. Thanks for pointing out the issue with her husband's title-I had forgotten that (though of course "Lady Maud Carnegie" is still incorrect.) TysK 06:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For peers' daughters married to courtesy peers whom they outrank, it would be perfectly correct to use the style Lady [Firstname] [Husband's courtesy title]. See Debrett's Correct Form, etc. Opera hat (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Opera Hat is correct: after her marriage and before her husband acceded to his peerage, she was officially known as Lady Maud Carnegie.95.252.66.128 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Carnegie was het husbands last name AND a courtesy title he held at marriage. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: The introduction says "Maud, and her elder sister, Alexandra, had the distinction of being the only female-line granddaughters of a British Sovereign to receive the title of Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and the style Highness." Later on, however, it says "As a female line great-granddaughter of a British monarch (Queen Victoria), Maud was not entitled to the title of a Princess of Great Britain or the style Royal Highness." Is there a difference between "Princess of Great Britain and Ireland" and "Princess of Great Britain". The article appears to contradict itself. StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have corrected the reference.  By Letters Patent of November 9 1905, King Edward VII granted her the style "Highness", but not the title Princess of Great Britain and Ireland.Badita (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: She was created Highness and Princess in 1905, but not Princess of Great Britain and Ireland.  I have changed the text.  However the opening  statement is really ambiguous: Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein both female-line granddaughters of a British Sovereign were granted the style of Princess and Highness by George V.  Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, also a female-line granddaughter of a British Sovereign was created Royal Highness (but not Princess).  Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were not created Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and there is no reason to assume that Princess Maud was too; the 1905 grant certainly does not bear this out.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that Maud and her sister were given the prefix of "Princess" but no suffix, still less that of "of Great Britain and Ireland". Moreover, The Times of 20 June 1917 states, "The Court Circular published to-day contains the following announcement: The King has been pleased to direct that Royal Warrants shall be prepared declaring that Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise of Schleswig-Holstein shall henceforth be styled Their Highnesses Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise respectively..." But in fact, no such warrants were ever issued, although no one has effectively disputed the Sovereign's authority to enact changes in style (as distinct from conferring peerages) as a fount of honour whether done by promulgated decree or in pectore. Still, since the Court Circular announcement appears to have been the only instrument in which their new styles were gazetted, it is ambiguous whether the King "created" Helena Victoria and Marie Louise "princesses" thereby, rather than simply "recognizing" their retention and continued use in Britain of their life-long titles -- on the express stipulation that they ceased using as suffix the Dano-German territorial designation ("of Schleswig-Holstein") to which the titles had theretofore been attached. In which case the concession of the prefix "Princess" is indeed unique to the Fife girls (and, implicitly, to Lady Alice Montague-Douglas-Scott in widowhood). FactStraight (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with FactStraight regarding Princesses Helena Victoria and Marie Louise.  By the grant of 15 May 1867 (National Archives, HO 125/2), they had the style of Highness, but not the style of Princess which was probably taken for granted on the basis that they would have that anyway as part of the Schleswig-Holstein dignities.  On balance as they were British subjects, I agree that the 1917 announcement was a recognition of their retention and continued use in Britain of their life-long titles.  I think that the King was simply directing that the territorial designation "of Schleswig-Holstein" should not be used.  The Court Circular announcement of 1917 refers to them as Princess - although never created as such in England.  All subsequent official documents such as coronations and funerals refer to them as Princesses.  So they were Highnesses (UK) and Princesses tout court!VictoriaGates1 (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Princess of Great Britain

message: I think everyone agrees that Maud continued to be a Princess and Highness throughout her life.  One intriguing question: what was her precedence?  According to the original grant, she was granted precedence after all members of the Royal family bearing the style of Royal Highness.  Presumably she maintained this precedence (at least de jure) until her death?  I have no information on this and input from others would be very welcome.VictoriaGates1 (talk) 08:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedence after marriage