header-logo header-logo

16 June 2017 / Michael L Nash
Issue: 7750 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail

What’s in a name? (Pt 2)

Michael L Nash continues the story of the birth of the House of Windsor

On 18 July 1917, by royal proclamation from King George V—Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor—the House of Windsor came into being (see ‘What’s in a name?’ Pt 1, NLJ, 28 April 207, p 22). Queen Mary his own wife, lost her original title of Her Serene Highness Princess May of Teck and her two brothers lost their quasi-royal titles of ‘Serene Highnesses’, becoming instead Most Honourable and Right Honourable. Those titles had been granted in Austria, not Germany, and could have remained unrevoked, but that is not what happened. It was definitely a comedown.

Was it really necessary? The veteran observer Sir Charles Petrie, looking back, commented: ‘It is difficult to resist the conclusion that the change in the name of the reigning dynasty was an unworthy concession to popular hysteria, and it gave rise to a number of unhappy comparisons, even if it is untrue

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 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
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
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

back-to-top-scroll