Tickettyboo wrote: > I am way out of my usual area here <I have a long line of Ag Labs and Anchor Smiths and haven't ever needed > to venture up the 'posh end'> > > Trying to help a friend who is researching the history of a previous owner of a military sword, one John > Duncan Bertie Fulton (1876-1915) > In amongst the masses of paperwork he has collected about this man's career etc is confirmation from The > Central Chancery if the Orders of Knighthood saying that, in 1914, he was amongst those "To be Ordinary > Members of the Military Division of the Third Class, or Companions, of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath". > > Okay, so that is confirmed, but would this entitle his wife/widow to style herself as 'Lady Fulton'? > > I can't find a record of this man marrying but various articles on the net indicate that the Fulton Block, in > RAF Cosford was built c 1938 and named in his memory. The funding of £250,000 was said to come from his widow, > Lady Fulton. I haven't yet found a marriage for him and there was no mention of a widow on the CWGC site, nor > in a four page obit about him in 'The Aeroplane' vol IX, no 20, dated 17th November 1915, so its just not > adding up at the moment. > > Supplementary question - His probate record says Administration (with Will limited) to an attorney. Am I > correct in thinking that the 'limited' relates to the Administration (perhaps not all of the estate was clear > to go into probate and they allowed 'some' of his effects to be adminstered) , and not a comment about the > actual will? I am hoping that a will may shed some light on whether or not he married. > Companions of the Order of the Bath do not take the title of 'Sir' (only Knights do) so his widow would not be entitled to call herself Lady Fulton. If she had a title in her own right, she would call herself Lady (forename) Fulton -- Anne Chambers South Australia anne dot chambers at bigpond dot com