Virginia law follows English common law except where common law is explicitly overturned in a Virginia law.  That said, at least up until the early 1970s (when I worked for the Attorney General of Virginia and remember this in one of the Opinions), and I am assuming your ancestor was prior to the 1970s, a woman has the legal right to take her husband's name BUT NOT the obligation to do so.  So, whether she was royal or not, maintaining her maiden name does not indicate anything otherwise.  Sorry, you will have to find another source for her.

Katie Holland


--- On Tue, 9/29/09, Bill Davidson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:


From: Bill Davidson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Use of her Maiden Name by a Married Woman
To: [log in to unmask]
Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 3:59 PM


Has anyone seen a case where a "currently married woman" signed a 
document using her maiden name?  There is a "disagreement" over 
whether or not a particular woman (Diana Skipwith) could have been the 
mother of all of the children of her husband (Edward Dale), since she 
signed one document with her maiden name, sometime AFTER the date 
of the birth of his oldest child.  Some argue that this was not unheard 
of, especially in cases where the woman had a "royal heritage" (which 
was supposedly the case here).  Others argue that the oldest child 
must have been via another/earlier wife.  Comments?




      

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-roots.html