Talk:Jure uxoris

Partial transference of power

The first part of this section reads as if the husbands of peeresses habitually attended in their wives' right. This is not the case. In the Thirteenth century some peerages were inherited by sons-in-law, bypassing any right of the wife entirely. By the Fifteenth most peerages lacking a male heir reverted to the crown. In the few cases where a woman inherited it was explicit that any husband did not enjoy her rank.

The second part references Peter Burrell, 1st Baron Gwydyr acting as Lord Great Chamberlain as his wife, holder of the office, was barred her her sex. While the choice of husband suggests this it not a true case of jure uxoris because he acted by virtue of being appointed Deputy Lord Great Chamberlain rather than explicitly exercising her office of right and in law another male could have been appointed in his place. This, by ruling of the House of Lords, is stated on the Lord Great Chamberlain page.

I'm not editing the article for lack of certain references. Calmeilles (talk) 12:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I want to voice my whole-hearted assent to the objections above. Suppose there is a law that says "If the dogcatcher reaches retirement age, and is married to a spouse younger than retirement-age, then unless declining the office the spouse shall become the dog-catcher and no election shall be required", then that spouse is a "jure uxoris" dogcatcher. But absent such a law, if the citizens get together and decry the dogcatcher's having reached retirement age, and TAKE ACTION to make the spouse the new dogcatcher, that is NOT a "jure uxoris" dogcatcher. That is a "suo jure" dogcatcher, because their occupancy of that job isn't AUTOMATIC. They were appointed by the citizens because of their marriage, but the citizens COULD have appointed someone else. Slipshod historians of the future will insist that since George VI created Philip Duke of Edinburgh ONLY BECAUSE Philip was going to marry Elizabeth, it's a "jure uxoris" title. No. If the title were going to occur as a result of Philip's marrying Elizabeth, why would King George VI have needed to act to make it happen? If he did nothing, and the title operated "jure uxoris", then Philip would have become Duke of Edinburgh anyway as soon as he said "I do". The fact that royal action was required means that Philip's noble titles are all "suo jure", none of them "jure uxoris". It's a debate about what the words "because of" mean. If people take action to get you an office "because of" who your spouse is, you get that office "suo jure" because (a) human action was required and (b) the people who acted were free to act otherwise, meaning your appointment wasn't automatic or assured. But if operation of law ensures that WITHOUT HUMAN INTERVENTION you MUST get an office "because of" who your spouse is, and under law ONLY you can get the office, there being nobody with legal discretion to appoint anyone other than you, only then is that an office acquired "jure uxoris".74.64.104.99 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

"Jure uxoris" applies only to women, not to men.

At least not in the U.K., not for a very long time. The Countess of Sutherland's husband is NOT and is not called "the Earl Of Sutherland". This is because the Countess of Sutherland is Countess of Sutherland SUO JURE, which means "I got this title because my predecessor died or the Monarch so created me, not because I married a man who held the title." Now, suppose she had been born male. She would now be Earl of Sutherland. If this hypothetical Earl had married a woman, that woman WOULD now be known as "the Countess of Sutherland", jure uxoris, meaning "I didn't get this title by the death of my predecessor or being created as such. I got this title by marrying a man who held the title." That's the distinction between what the phrases "suo jure" and "jure uxoris" means. The former holds the title by inheritance, the latter by marriage. And since men NEVER EVER EVER hold a title by marriage (well, an early Duke of Norfolk, sort of, once did, but long ago, and nothing recently), the whole "suo jure"/"jure uxoris" distinction simply doesn't apply to men in the ordinary course of business in its everyday usage. There could be UNUSUAL exceptions that result in males being something "jure uxoris", but this article implies that the USUAL use of the term applies to men. Quiet the contrary. The TYPICAL use of the term applies to (and can ONLY apply to) women.

ALL men (in the U.K., today) hold their titles by inheriting them or being a new creation in that title. NO man, in the U.K. today, holds a title by marrying a woman who holds the feminine version of the same title. The Dukedom of Edinburgh, the Earldom of Merioneth, and the Barony of Greenwich didn't come to The Prince Philip by his marrying his wife. A Monarch crated him in those titles. There have been cases that lead the slipshod to assert that a man can take a title "jure uxoris". The husband of an earlier Countess of Sutherland was created anew as Duke of Sutherland (suo jure), which made her instantaneously the Duchess of Sutherland (jure uxoris) in addition to being Countess of Sutherland (suo jure). If you're not paying attention you can err by stating that SHE was promoted to Duchess suo jure, and her husband became Duke only because he as married to a Duchess, but that's NOT what happened. In other cases a Duke may have had no children but a daughter, his title doomed to die with himself. When he dies, the Monarch creates the daughter's husband in the same title. If contemporaries are slipshod and refer to him as "10th Duke of" because his father-in-law was "9th Duke of" and they had a decades-long father-son relationship despite being in-laws, it gives the impression that the 10th Duke claimed the title "jure uxoris" when no such thing happened. If the mistake isn't caught soon enough and a century of manuscripts with the error accumulate, later historians won't even TRY to correct the error because it would only create confusion between books that have the incorrect and correct counts of Dukes. The truth is that the last Duke's son-in-law, the gender-disqualified daughter's husband, is the FIRST Duke of the x+1 creation where his father-in-law was the last Duke of the x creation. So there are way for the ILLUSION of a man getting a title "jure uxoris" to occur, when a closer examination reveals that the Monarch intervened and the man actually has the title "suo jure", as all men do.74.64.104.99 (talk) 13:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

"At least not in the U.K., not for a very long time." Which would be a valid objection, if this article was about the U.K. today, which it is not. It is primarily about the Middle Ages. Attack.Iguana (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I must disagree with the above post. The Latin word 'uxor' means 'wife', and the phrase 'jure uxoris' means 'by right of one's wife'. It applies to a male title-holder who acquires his title by marriage to the actual title-holder (his wife), who holds her title 'suo jure' (in her own right). That practically never happens nowadays, and even in the Middle Ages it was unusual, though it did sometimes happen. The Wikipedia 'jure uxoris' page is actually correct as written, and the examples seem correct also. 'Jure uxoris' is a Latin phrase meaning 'by right of one's wife', and therefore it applies to the husband. Windemere2 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)