header-logo header-logo

28 April 2017 / Michael L Nash
Issue: 7743 / Categories: Features , Public , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

What’s in a name? (Pt 1)

nlj_7743_nash

In its centenary year, Michael L Nash reflects on the birth of the House of Windsor

It was the King’s secretary who thought of it. ‘Do you realise,’ wrote Lord Rosebery to Arthur Bigge, later Lord Stamfordham, ‘that you have christened a dynasty? There are few people in the world who have done this, none I think. It is really something to be historically proud of. I admire and envy you.’

Thus it was that on 24 June 1917, Lord Stamfordham suddenly and simply put forward the name ‘Windsor’ when there appeared to be a deadlock in choosing a name for the Royal Family of Britain. Why was this necessary? Because, in response to disturbing rumours of the German connections and origin of the Royal Family during World War I, King George V took not one, but a series of actions which, at least on the surface, changed the face of that family, and ensured it took a different direction. The legal nature of these changes was, and has always been,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde & Co—Suriya Ashok

Clyde Co strengthens energy transition and construction offering with hire of Suriya Ashok

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit—Nicole Gallop Mildon

Jurit appoints rare dual-qualified lawyer to expand Anglo-French private wealth expertise

NEWS
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

Consumer credit law is heading for its biggest shake-up in 50 years, with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 set to yield much of its detailed statutory machinery to FCA rules
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
back-to-top-scroll