 |
|
|
|
Next: Welcome! FAQs and important information.
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 266
|
(Msg. 16) Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 2:09 pm
Post subject: Re: Family Names [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>arts>books>tolkien (more info?)
|
|
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:09:34 -0600 from Bill O'Meally
> <omeallymd DeleteThis @wise.rr.com>:
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>> > The UK ruling house is the House of Windsor, but the Prince of Wales
>> > is not "Charles Windsor". I won't make a blanket statement, but at
>> > least in most European countries, the royals don't have surnames.
>>
>> But Henry VIII was of the House of Tudor, but was also "Henry Tudor",
>> was he not?
>
> In common parlance, maybe. But then, the ex Princess of Wales was
> "Princess Diana" in common parlance, and that was wrong, wrong,
> wrong.
No, no, no.
She was granted the title of Princess _after_ the divorce. Before that, she
was Diana, Princess of Wales. Afterwards, she was Princess Diana.
> Consider "Elizabeth Tudor": I
> don't know how that strikes you but to me it sounds very wrong.
It may _sound_ wrong, but aiui it's perfectly correct. And Liz II
_is_ "Elizabeth Windsor".
--
derek |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Dec 18, 2007
Posts: 46
|
(Msg. 17) Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Family Names [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> Bill O'Meally wrote:
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>>
>>> The UK ruling house is the House of Windsor, but the Prince of Wales
>>> is not "Charles Windsor". I won't make a blanket statement, but at
>>> least in most European countries, the royals don't have surnames.
>>
>> But Henry VIII was of the House of Tudor, but was also "Henry Tudor",
>> was he not?
>
> Strictly speaking, the monarch has no last name.
>
Henry Tudor was known as that until he started calling himself Henry VII
and decided to take the throne of England from Richard III (whose own
claim to the throne was far from legitimate, but was at least better
than Henry's "my cousin's friend's brother's dog once got to within 5
miles of Henry VI...". Okay, there was a bit more to it than that, but
it *was* pretty weak).
Jamie |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 05, 2004
Posts: 60
|
(Msg. 18) Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 5:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Family Names [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Stan Brown <the_stan_brown DeleteThis @fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Seriously, I don't think "Henry Tudor" was right for anyone except
> the fellow who later became Henry VII. Consider "Elizabeth Tudor": I
> don't know how that strikes you but to me it sounds very wrong.
That's interesting. To my (English) ears, it sounds rather ordinary.
Even more so for her sister: I think 'Mary Tudor' may be more usual (in
everyday language) than 'Mary I'.
None of this goes to say that 'Tudor' should be thought of like a
modern surname, of course.
-M- >> Stay informed about: Family Names |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 01, 2004
Posts: 626
|
(Msg. 19) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 4:46 am
Post subject: "Princess Diana" (Re: Family Names) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I'm crossposting to alt.talk.royalty, where someone will set you
straight with chapter and verse and will correct any misstatements I
make below.
Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:09:50 -0400 from Derek Broughton
<news.TakeThisOut@pointerstop.ca>:
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > But then, the ex Princess of Wales was
> > "Princess Diana" in common parlance, and that was wrong, wrong,
> > wrong.
>
> No, no, no.
>
> She was granted the title of Princess _after_ the divorce. Before
> that, she was Diana, Princess of Wales. Afterwards, she was
> Princess Diana.
Better hold back your "no, no" till you get your facts straight.
While married to The Prince of Wales she was HRH The Princess of
Wales. She was not Princess Diana while married, because she was not
the daughter or a monarch or of a monarch's son. If you want to call
her Princess anything, she was The Princess Charles because a woman
who is a princess by marriage is Princess HerHusbandsName not
Princess HerOwnName. But though that style was correct technically,
since her husband had a title she used that.
(Sarah Ferguson, while married, could have called herself The
Princess Andred, but of course she used the title HRH The Duchess of
York because her husband was HRH The Duke of York.)
When divrced, Diana followed the standard style for women divorced
from titled men: Diana, Princess of Wales. However, she was not "a
princess", much less "granted the title of Princess". In fact, the
Queen made it clear that Diana lost her HRH when the divorce became
final. This was quite controversial at the time, and contributed to
the Royal Family's PR problems, but the Queen was right according to
historical usage -- plus, being Queen, she gets to make the rules on
the style of HRH, so she would have been right even if she was wrong.
> > Consider "Elizabeth Tudor": I
> > don't know how that strikes you but to me it sounds very wrong.
>
> It may _sound_ wrong, but aiui it's perfectly correct. And Liz II
> _is_ "Elizabeth Windsor".
Sorry, but that's just wrong. The monarch and HRH members of the
dynasty have no last names. You're confusing the name of the dynasty
with a surname, as though you called the Queen of the Netherlands
Beatrix Orange.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm >> Stay informed about: Family Names |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 01, 2004
Posts: 626
|
(Msg. 20) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:08 am
Post subject: Re: "Princess Diana" (Re: Family Names) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>arts>books>tolkien, others (more info?)
|
|
|
OOPS. *Now* I'm crossposting to a.t.r.
Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:46:21 -0500 from Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown.TakeThisOut@fastmail.fm>:
> I'm crossposting to alt.talk.royalty, where someone will set you
> straight with chapter and verse and will correct any misstatements I
> make below.
Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:09:50 -0400 from Derek Broughton
<news.TakeThisOut@pointerstop.ca>:
> Stan Brown wrote:
> > But then, the ex Princess of Wales was "Princess Diana" in common
> > parlance, and that was wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> No, no, no.
>
> She was granted the title of Princess _after_ the divorce. Before
> that, she was Diana, Princess of Wales. Afterwards, she was
> Princess Diana.
Better hold back your "no, no" till you get your facts straight.
While married to The Prince of Wales she was HRH The Princess of
Wales. She was not Princess Diana while married, because she was not
the daughter or a monarch or of a monarch's son. If you want to call
her Princess anything, she was The Princess Charles because a woman
who is a princess by marriage is Princess HerHusbandsName not
Princess HerOwnName. But though that style was correct technically,
since her husband had a title she used that.
(Sarah Ferguson, while married, could have called herself The
Princess Andrew, but of course she used the title HRH The Duchess of
York because her husband was HRH The Duke of York.)
When divrced, Diana followed the standard style for women divorced
from titled men: Diana, Princess of Wales. However, she was not "a
princess", much less "granted the title of Princess". In fact, the
Queen made it clear that Diana lost her HRH when the divorce became
final. This was quite controversial at the time, and contributed to
the Royal Family's PR problems, but the Queen was right according to
historical usage -- plus, being Queen, she gets to make the rules on
the style of HRH, so she would have been right even if she was wrong.
> > Consider "Elizabeth Tudor": I
> > don't know how that strikes you but to me it sounds very wrong.
>
> It may _sound_ wrong, but aiui it's perfectly correct. And Liz II
> _is_ "Elizabeth Windsor".
Sorry, but that's just wrong. The monarch and HRH members of the
dynasty have no last names. You're confusing the name of the dynasty
with a surname, as though you called the Queen of the Netherlands
Beatrix Orange.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://mysite.verizon.net/aznirb/mtr/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm >> Stay informed about: Family Names |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 8
|
(Msg. 21) Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:50 am
Post subject: Re: "Princess Diana" (Re: Family Names) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 23, 10:08 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br... RemoveThis @fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The monarch and HRH members of the
> dynasty have no last names. You're confusing the name of the dynasty
> with a surname, as though you called the Queen of the Netherlands
> Beatrix Orange.
>
> --
> Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
> http://OakRoadSystems.com
In the Army, the Prince of Wales' sons are called 'Lieutenant Wales',
not 'Lt. Windsor'. >> Stay informed about: Family Names |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 28, 2005
Posts: 266
|
(Msg. 22) Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:51 am
Post subject: Re: "Princess Diana" (Re: Family Names) [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: rec>arts>books>tolkien (more info?)
|
|
|
Stan Brown wrote:
> I'm crossposting to alt.talk.royalty, where someone will set you
> straight with chapter and verse and will correct any misstatements I
> make below.
>
> Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:09:50 -0400 from Derek Broughton
> <news DeleteThis @pointerstop.ca>:
>> Stan Brown wrote:
>> > But then, the ex Princess of Wales was
>> > "Princess Diana" in common parlance, and that was wrong, wrong,
>> > wrong.
>>
>> No, no, no.
>>
>> She was granted the title of Princess _after_ the divorce. Before
>> that, she was Diana, Princess of Wales. Afterwards, she was
>> Princess Diana.
>
> Better hold back your "no, no" till you get your facts straight.
>
> While married to The Prince of Wales she was HRH The Princess of
> Wales. She was not Princess Diana while married, because she was not
> the daughter or a monarch or of a monarch's son.
I said that!
> When divrced, Diana followed the standard style for women divorced
> from titled men: Diana, Princess of Wales. However, she was not "a
> princess", much less "granted the title of Princess". In fact, the
> Queen made it clear that Diana lost her HRH when the divorce became
> final.
And I was trying to make that point. What I got wrong was that she _was_
technically still Diana, Princess of Wales. I thought she had lost
the "Wales" designator.
--
derek >> Stay informed about: Family Names |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
