Can someone explain "The Countess Spencer" versus "Countess Spencer" for me?

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

What is the significance in "the" and not "the"?

What is the importance of "the"?

Hope someone explain this for me?

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,  Nick

Source article:

Why has Countess Spencer kept her title following her divorce from Earl Spencer? | Tatler

https://www.tatler.com/article/countess-spencer-keeping-title-following-divorce

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

My two last names, a dot in between them, and @ gmail.com

[rcb1]

Others may put me right but, as I understand it, "The" denotes a peer of the realm, rather than a courtesy title. 

Thus, the eldest son of a duke or marquess would be just "Earl of wherever": whereas an Earl who holds the senior title, e.g. Earl Spencer, is formally "The Earl Spencer" and his wife similarly "The Countess Spencer."   Sir David, in particular, may be able to add some detail to this but I think that is the nub of the answer to Nick's question.

[Jonathan]

As usual, this type of magazine article is talking nonsense. I quote:

"The decision means that, should Earl Spencer remarry, his fourth wife would carry the title ‘the Countess Spencer’, while Karen would be referred to as ‘Countess Spencer’."

The distinction between a divorced wife of a peer and his new wife is actually that the former wife places her forename before her title, i.e. "Karen, Countess Spencer". However, as Debrett's says, "In the event of a divorced peer remaining unmarried there is no reason why his former wife should not continue to use her title without the qualification of her forename."

https://debretts.com/forms-of-address-after-divorce/

The use of the definite article with peerage titles is a rather formal form. As rcb1 says, it is only correctly used with a substantive title, not a courtesy title. If The Earl Spencer remarries, his new wife could be referred to either as Countess Spencer, or more formally, The Countess Spencer. The inclusion or omission of the definite article is not what denotes her marital status.

[cb]

That passage from Debrett's is very interesting.  The mention of the divorced peer remarrying might suggest that his former wife should not continue to use the title she assumed on their marriage if he then marries another.  However, it also refers to "her title" so it could be construed that it is hers to use for so long as she chooses to and however she wishes - with or without the "The", and with or without her forename in prefix followed by a comma.  As I see it, the title belongs to the family name, not to the incumbent or his wife or ex-wife.

There is another point that arises.  When a woman marries a peer and if she chooses to immediately assume his name and the title, after divorce, if she does not choose to change her surname for whatever reason, what then?  If she has only ever been The Duchess Greensleeves, for example, then it makes no sense whatsoever for her to assume as a divorced person the name of Mrs Greensleeves as she was never that.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/dd5e9b30-5c4f-49fb-bd43-c3fa8041e628n%40googlegroups.com.

[JL]

Am I correct in thinking the former wife remains the Countess Spencer for life unless she remarries, at which point she must cease using the title?

[BREMENMURRAY]

Yes and sometimes use it after remarriage.

[Jonathan]

There is another point that arises.  When a woman marries a peer and if she chooses to immediately assume his name and the title, after divorce, if she does not choose to change her surname for whatever reason, what then?  If she has only ever been The Duchess Greensleeves, for example, then it makes no sense whatsoever for her to assume as a divorced person the name of Mrs Greensleeves as she was never that.

cb: In the example you give, the divorcee could remain "Jane, Duchess of Greensleeves" irrespective of whether her former husband remarries. The only implication of the rule given in Debrett's is that she should no longer call herself (The) Duchess of Greensleeves after her former husband remarries, as that would risk confusion with the new duchess.

The only time a lady has to stop using her former husband's title (following divorce or widowhood) is if she herself remarries, when she would assume the name or title of her new husband. Earl Spencer's late stepmother, Raine, Countess Spencer, remarried following the death of the 8th Earl Spencer and subsequently divorced her new husband. She reverted to the style "Raine, Countess Spencer", but this was technically incorrect.

[Paul Theroff]

"The only time a lady has to stop using her former husband's title (following divorce or widowhood) is if she herself remarries, when she would assume the name or title of her new husband"

That's often not true in the case of widowhood. We've discussed this before, but two examples are:

1. Caroline Campbell, widow of Charles Bruce, Earl of Elgin and Ailesbury, was known as "Lady Ailesbury" until her death on 1803, though she had been married to Hon. Henry Seymour-Conway since 1747.

2. Her cousin Lady Caroline Campbell, widow of Francis Scott, Earl of Dalkeith since 1750, was known as "Lady Dalkeith" even after she married Hon. Charles Townshend in 1755, though after she herself was created a Baroness in 1767 she was often known as "Lady Greenwich".

[Peter de Loriol Chandieu]

'Convention' - any woman  can call themselves anything when they divorce - they can revert to their maiden name or call themselves anything they like as long as they don't use their new name to defraud.

There is no hard and fast rule what a woman calls herself when she marries in the UK - convention/custom and tradition merely 'suggests' she takes on her husband's name - but there is no law that specifically states that a woman must take her husband's name - conversely if she wishes to retain her husband's title on divorce she can come to some agreement with her ex - this happened to my mother - she just slipped her first name in after her ex's title. Conversely when two cousins of mine, Nicholas Meinertzhagen and Princesse Anne de Polignac married (both are cousins of mine and cousins of each other)  - technically she lost her title on marrying her husband, as she married in the UK. When they divorced she was stunned to find that she did  not need to ask her ex husband if she could retain his family name - unlike in France where a woman retains her maiden name legally, throughout her life. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Peerage News" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to peerage-news...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/968ae066-92ed-49bf-8fc5-9a938fbb58e8n%40googlegroups.com.

[BREMENMURRAY]

Earl Spencer's step mother continued to use the title Countess Spencer for the rest of her life even though she remarried 

[Nick MacGregor-Sadolin]

Thanks a lot for all these interesting and explained comments on this.

For Jonathan, I actually first read this - popped up at my feed on Facebook - from The Times & The Sunday Times page there (see attached photo), and then found similar article at Tatler's.

As you can see, The Times & Taler says more or less the same.

Thanks again!

Best regards, Nick

Nick MacGregor Sadolin

https://gw.geneanet.org/sadolinsnet_w

My two last names, a dot in between them, and @ gmail.com

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/peerage-news/70a5c19e-80d5-4275-a601-d250ad32af1bn%40googlegroups.com.