Re: 1917 name change

On May 21, 9:51 am, "AGw. (Usenet)"
<bottomless_...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

Who mentioned Germany in 1917? Do you see the words "those territories
that accepted British passports" in the text you are replying to?

What Virginia does not accept in respect of British laws is not of any
consequence here. This is about states that *do"*accept ...

States that *do" receive someone on a passport also accept his or her,
name, title, identity therein. If they do not, fair enough. But they
must actively do something then or some time in the fuure to show that
they do not accept that persons identity. In such an event, it is up
to you or perhaps the previous poster to present evidence that they
did not. Can you do so?

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • 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 ... 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. ...
    (alt.talk.royalty)