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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Could an online LLM in Commercial and Technology Law expand your career options?
The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203, despite concerted opposition from the legal profession
The presumption of parental involvement is to be abolished, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy has confirmed
A highly experienced chartered legal executive has been prevented from representing her client in financial remedies proceedings, in a case that highlights the continued fallout from Mazur
Plans to commandeer 50%-75% of the interest on lawyers’ client accounts to fund the justice system overlook the cost and administrative burden of this on small and medium law firms, CILEX has warned
back-to-top-scroll