Let's delve into a fascinating aspect of royal etiquette and its evolution, focusing on the intriguing choices made by women in the British royal family and beyond.
The Name Game
When Harriet Phillips stepped into the Royal Ascot scene, she did so with a traditional twist. Ten days after her wedding to Peter Phillips, she proudly displayed a badge declaring her as 'Mrs Peter Phillips'. This choice sparked a conversation about modern etiquette and the thorny issue of wives adopting their husband's names.
Harriet wasn't alone in this tradition. Carole Middleton and her daughter-in-law, Alizee Thevenet, also opted for similar badges, embracing the old-school approach. However, not all royal women followed suit. Zara Tindall, for instance, chose to be known as 'Mrs Zara Tindall', a departure from the official royal website's designation.
A Matter of Choice
The key takeaway here is that while Royal Ascot may have its traditions, it's ultimately an individual's decision whether to uphold these customs. This choice is deeply personal and reflective of one's values and beliefs.
Historical Context
Historically, a married woman adopting her husband's name was a sign of higher status. It was a tradition that arose centuries ago, when a woman's marital status was a significant marker of her position in society. However, as we've seen with the evolution of etiquette guides like Debrett's, this tradition has been challenged and adapted over time.
The Evolution of Etiquette
Debrett's, in its first edition of 'Correct Form' in 1970, made it clear that a married woman using her own Christian name or initials implied a dissolved marriage. However, by 1976, the guide acknowledged the growing preference for the prefix 'Ms', especially among women in business and the professions. This shift reflects a broader societal change, where women's independence and professional identities are valued and respected.
Royal Falters and Eccentricities
The royal family itself has had its own struggles with this tradition. Princess Michael of Kent, for example, is commonly known by her title, with few aware of her Christian name, Marie-Christine. On the other hand, the insistence on referring to Diana, Princess of Wales, as 'Princess Charles' seemed eccentric to many. Similarly, Kate, the Duchess of Cambridge, is never referred to as 'Princess William', a choice that reflects the modern era's shift towards individual identity.
A New Era at Wimbledon
Wimbledon, another iconic British event, has also undergone a transformation. Until 2022, the championships adhered to a traditional naming convention, describing women with 'Miss' or 'Mrs' while men went without the 'Mr' prefix. Even more remarkably, married women's names were recorded in gold, alongside their husband's names. This tradition, as exemplified by Chris Evert's experience, has now been revised to reflect a more modern and inclusive approach.
Final Thoughts
The choices made by women like Harriet Phillips and Chris Evert highlight the ongoing evolution of societal norms and the power of individual agency. While tradition has its place, it's the personal stories and choices that make these traditions relevant and meaningful in the modern world. It's a fascinating glimpse into the intersection of history, etiquette, and personal identity.
