Re: 1917 name change

On May 21, 2:49 am, William Reitwiesner <wmadd...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <f2qrmb$kn...@xxxxxxxx>,

"Katipo" <h.laughl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Ms Smith" <pleyl...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1179575853.123552.81010@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've read that George V in 1917 decreed that all male line descendets
of Queen Victoria should bear thew surname Windsor, which of course at
that time meant himself and his sons; his uncle Arthur and cousin
Arthur and infant Alistair..........and of course his uncle Leopold's
family. So where the latter stand as regards this decree ? Surely he
did not expect Prince Charles Edward and his sons to adopt the name
Windsor, although that is what his decree said if taken literally.Ms
Smith

Who is/was Prince Charles Edward??

At the time of the decree (1917), he was the reigning Duke of
Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the dynasty of which George V was a junior member.

The decree, which purported to alter the titles of several Saxe-Coburg
dynasts, was not issued by the Head of the Saxe-Coburg House, and as
such was invalid. It may have some validity in foreign lands, such as
Britain, but not elsewhere.

On the contrary, it had validity in the entire British Empire and
associated states, not to mention those territories that accepted
British passports.

People who think the contrary are free to provide evidence of their
claim. For example, they could start with the appointments to various
orders and decorations made (e.g. in Spain, Belgium, France, the
Netherlands, Thailand, Japan, USA, Greece, Sweden, or Italy) of
members of the "1917 families". I assure them that they would be very
hard pressed to show that the new names were invalid in any of these
"foreign lands".

I suppose one could take the phrase "foreign lands" as meaning no more
than "little old Coburg"

.

Quantcast