Re: 1917 name change

CJ Buyers wrote:

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,

If by "associated states" you meant the Indian and "protected" states, then yes.

> not to mention those territories that accepted
British passports.

I'm not sure what you meant to say here, but what you've actually said is clearly incorrect. Besides the point that Germany would surely not have "accepted" a British passport in 1917, a jurisdiction is hardly bound by the legal instruments of a foreign territory.

The Westminster parliament could pass an Act making Virginia part of the United Kingdom with effect from the 1st of January of this year, and that would be an undoubted legal "fact" so far as a British court were concerned, but it's of no consequence if Virginia's own laws make no recognition of it. The same applies for a proclamation of the British sovereign that appears to extend to the person of a foreign ruler.


--
AGw.
address in header goes nowhere; replace "bottomless_pit" with "devnull"
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 1917 name change
    ... of Queen Victoria should bear thew surname Windsor, ... did not expect Prince Charles Edward and his sons to adopt the name ... Wives of Saxe-Coburg" held in Gotha to honor the proclamation. ... British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, stated [s. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: 1917 name change
    ... of Queen Victoria should bear thew surname Windsor, ... did not expect Prince Charles Edward and his sons to adopt the name ... British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, stated [s. ... I think the family's living in Germany, holding a constitutional position within one of its constituent states, and adhering to the king's enemies whilst doing so, all adds up to them having been deemed to no longer being British subjects by the time the proclamation was made. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: 1917 name change
    ... Ms Smith wrote: ... of Queen Victoria should bear thew surname Windsor, ... did not expect Prince Charles Edward and his sons to adopt the name ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: 1917 name change
    ... of Queen Victoria should bear thew surname Windsor, ... did not expect Prince Charles Edward and his sons to adopt the name ... however I am sure that even Prussia as well as Coburg ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)
  • Re: 1917 name change
    ... of Queen Victoria should bear thew surname Windsor, ... did not expect Prince Charles Edward and his sons to adopt the name ... I suppose one could take the phrase "foreign lands" as meaning no more ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)