Discussion:
Windsor vs. Wales
(too old to reply)
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-22 06:03:42 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

Renia Discovers Wikipedia...

Which She Has Often Made Fun Of & Cavalierly Dismissed.

DSH
My research indicates that some time in the twentieth century, all
branches of the Windsor family changed their surname to Wales. For
example, in official documents you can see Elizabeth referred to as
Queen Elizabeth II, Her Majesty the Queen, or simply The Queen. But
you will never see her referred to as Betty Windsor.
Similarly, you will see her son, Charles, referred to as Charles,
Princes of Wales, or Prince Charles of Wales, or sometimes just Wales.
A quick search of the PRO catalogue proves this. For example, at FCO
49/161 you can see: Commonwealth representation at Investiture of
Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales (covering date 1967 Jan 01-1967
Dec 31).
I think most reasonable people will agree that the persuasive force of
this logic is inescapable.
The male heir apparent to the Crown has always been Prince of Wales, since
the time of Edward I's son, later Edward II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Wales
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor (where they
are of, not their surname) do not have a surname. However (from
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a 1960
Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince
Philip who were not Princes or Princesses of the United Kingdom should
have the personal surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of
their children, in honour of their father, have used Mountbatten-Windsor
as their surname (or in Anne's case, her maiden surname). Both Charles and
Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns for
their first marriages.[21]
John Briggs
2007-11-22 10:37:32 UTC
Permalink
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor (where
they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname. However (from
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a 1960
Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and
Prince Philip who were not Princes or Princesses of the United
Kingdom should have the personal surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In
practice all of their children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her maiden
surname). Both Charles and Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor as their
surname in the published banns for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-22 12:37:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor (where
they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname. However (from
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a 1960
Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and
Prince Philip who were not Princes or Princesses of the United
Kingdom should have the personal surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In
practice all of their children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her maiden
surname). Both Charles and Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor as their
surname in the published banns for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but her legal
name is:

HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
John Briggs
2007-11-22 18:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor (where
they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname. However
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a 1960
Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and
Prince Philip who were not Princes or Princesses of the United
Kingdom should have the personal surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20]
In practice all of their children, in honour of their father, have
used Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her
maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor as
their surname in the published banns for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but her
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster" aren't the
Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of Lancashire swinging their
axes :-)
--
John Briggs
Vance Mead
2007-11-22 20:39:52 UTC
Permalink
Now I'm sorry I started this thread. It was meant to be satire.
Apparently no one got it. Search this group for "My research
indicates" to get the punch line.
Vance
James Hogg
2007-11-22 21:28:19 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 22 Nov 2007 12:39:52 -0800 (PST), Vance Mead
Post by Vance Mead
Now I'm sorry I started this thread. It was meant to be satire.
Apparently no one got it. Search this group for "My research
indicates" to get the punch line.
Not everyone is going to bother writing a reply like "Oh, I get it."

Good satire often leads to serious discussions.
Take it as a compliment.

James
a.spencer3
2007-11-23 13:14:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor (where
they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname. However
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a 1960
Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and
Prince Philip who were not Princes or Princesses of the United
Kingdom should have the personal surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20]
In practice all of their children, in honour of their father, have
used Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her
maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor as
their surname in the published banns for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but her
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster" aren't the
Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of Lancashire swinging their
axes :-)
--
John Briggs
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family names, of
course.

Surreyman
John Briggs
2007-11-23 17:39:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname.
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a
1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen Elizabeth
II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or Princesses of the
United Kingdom should have the personal surname
Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of their children, in
honour of their father, have used Mountbatten-Windsor as their
surname (or in Anne's case, her maiden surname). Both Charles
and Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the
published banns for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but her
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster"
aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of Lancashire
swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise Windsor" and
"HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a title?
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-23 17:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname.
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a
1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen Elizabeth
II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or Princesses of the
United Kingdom should have the personal surname
Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of their children, in
honour of their father, have used Mountbatten-Windsor as their
surname (or in Anne's case, her maiden surname). Both Charles
and Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the
published banns for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but her
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster"
aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of Lancashire
swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise Windsor" and
"HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a title?
Lady Louise Windsor.

It's not a title.
John Briggs
2007-11-23 17:52:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname.
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a
1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen
Elizabeth II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or
Princesses of the United Kingdom should have the personal
surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of their
children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her
maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns
for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but her
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster"
aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of
Lancashire swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise Windsor"
and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated that
"Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as part of the
title - like "de Arundel".)
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-23 18:11:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname.
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a
1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen
Elizabeth II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or
Princesses of the United Kingdom should have the personal
surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of their
children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her
maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns
for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but her
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster"
aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of
Lancashire swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise Windsor"
and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated that
"Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as part of the
title - like "de Arundel".)
Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She has
the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a knight.
He also has no title.

Lady Louise Windsor has the STYLE of "Lady" because her father is an Earl.

However, she is entitled to a superior style, that of Princess, because
her father is also a Prince and chose that his daughter would have the
style of Princess. Thus, she is Princess Louise of Wessex.
James Hogg
2007-11-23 18:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname.
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via a
1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen
Elizabeth II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or
Princesses of the United Kingdom should have the personal
surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of their
children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her
maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns
for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but her
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster"
aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of
Lancashire swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise Windsor"
and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated that
"Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as part of the
title - like "de Arundel".)
Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She has
the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a knight.
He also has no title.
Heather Mills-McCartney has no style whatever.
Post by Renia
Lady Louise Windsor has the STYLE of "Lady" because her father is an Earl.
However, she is entitled to a superior style, that of Princess, because
her father is also a Prince and chose that his daughter would have the
style of Princess. Thus, she is Princess Louise of Wessex.
James
John Briggs
2007-11-23 18:56:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogg
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed,
via a 1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen
Elizabeth II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or
Princesses of the United Kingdom should have the personal
surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of their
children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her
maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns
for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of
Lancaster" aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come
out of Lancashire swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise
Windsor" and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a
title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated
that "Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as
part of the title - like "de Arundel".)
Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She
has the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a
knight. He also has no title.
Heather Mills-McCartney has no style whatever.
Ho, ho :-)
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
2007-11-23 18:39:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname.
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via
a 1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen
Elizabeth II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or
Princesses of the United Kingdom should have the personal
surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of their
children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her
maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns
for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster"
aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of
Lancashire swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise
Windsor" and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a
title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated
that "Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as
part of the title - like "de Arundel".)
Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She has
the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a
knight. He also has no title.
Lady Louise Windsor has the STYLE of "Lady" because her father is an Earl.
However, she is entitled to a superior style, that of Princess,
because her father is also a Prince and chose that his daughter would
have the style of Princess. Thus, she is Princess Louise of Wessex.
I think you are drawing "title" too narrowly (by excluding both courtesy
titles and some legal titles).

For a start, some styles are legal titles - and I think Princess Louise
falls in to this category, as she is a Princess of the United Kingdom in her
own right. (It is nothing to do with what her father decided - he decided
*not* to style her "Princess Louise", but he doesn't issue Royal Warrants!
The title "Prince" or "Princess" is borne by children of the sovereign, and
by the children of sons of the sovereign.)

The styles of wives of peers are also legal titles, despite not being
substantive peerages. [I'm not absolutely sure if that applies to "Lady X"
as well as "Viscountess X" for the wife of a viscount.] Similarly with the
wives of knights, but the wrinkle here is that the style of the legal title
is Dame Heather McCartney - Lady McCartney is, strictly speaking, a courtesy
title rather than a legal one - but it is usually treated as if it were the
legal title.

You are quite correct that the style "Lady Louise" is a courtesy title - but
you will have an uphill struggle to claim that courtesy titles are not
titles :-)
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-23 22:32:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a surname.
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed, via
a 1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of Queen
Elizabeth II and Prince Philip who were not Princes or
Princesses of the United Kingdom should have the personal
surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all of their
children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case, her
maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns
for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of Lancaster"
aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come out of
Lancashire swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise
Windsor" and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a
title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated
that "Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as
part of the title - like "de Arundel".)
Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She has
the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a
knight. He also has no title.
Lady Louise Windsor has the STYLE of "Lady" because her father is an Earl.
However, she is entitled to a superior style, that of Princess,
because her father is also a Prince and chose that his daughter would
have the style of Princess. Thus, she is Princess Louise of Wessex.
I think you are drawing "title" too narrowly (by excluding both courtesy
titles and some legal titles).
For a start, some styles are legal titles - and I think Princess Louise
falls in to this category, as she is a Princess of the United Kingdom in her
own right. (It is nothing to do with what her father decided - he decided
*not* to style her "Princess Louise", but he doesn't issue Royal Warrants!
The title "Prince" or "Princess" is borne by children of the sovereign, and
by the children of sons of the sovereign.)
Princess Anne was described as the best potential king out of all the
Queen's 4 children.

Her children do not have royal titles or styles, at Princes Anne's request.
John Briggs
2007-11-24 00:09:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by a.spencer3
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
"Renia" wrote in message
Technically, the top echelons of the Royal House of Windsor
(where they are of, not their surname) do not have a
Though the Royal House is named Windsor, it was decreed,
via a 1960 Order-in-Council, that those descendants of
Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip who were not Princes
or Princesses of the United Kingdom should have the
personal surname Mountbatten-Windsor.[20] In practice all
of their children, in honour of their father, have used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname (or in Anne's case,
her maiden surname). Both Charles and Anne used
Mountbatten-Windsor as their surname in the published banns
for their first marriages.[21]
So, how do you explain Lady Louise Windsor?
It's not her legal name. She is from the House of Windsor, but
HRH Princess Louise of Wessex
Well, when I point out that "Lord of Man" and "Duke of
Lancaster" aren't the Queen's legal titles, backwoodsmen come
out of Lancashire swinging their axes :-)
Re all this, there's a big difference between titles and family
names, of course.
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise
Windsor" and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a
title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated
that "Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as
part of the title - like "de Arundel".)
Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She
has the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a
knight. He also has no title.
Lady Louise Windsor has the STYLE of "Lady" because her father is an Earl.
However, she is entitled to a superior style, that of Princess,
because her father is also a Prince and chose that his daughter
would have the style of Princess. Thus, she is Princess Louise of
Wessex.
I think you are drawing "title" too narrowly (by excluding both
courtesy titles and some legal titles).
For a start, some styles are legal titles - and I think Princess
Louise falls in to this category, as she is a Princess of the United
Kingdom in her own right. (It is nothing to do with what her father
decided - he decided *not* to style her "Princess Louise", but he
doesn't issue Royal Warrants! The title "Prince" or "Princess" is
borne by children of the sovereign, and by the children of sons of
the sovereign.)
Princess Anne was described as the best potential king out of all the
Queen's 4 children.
Her children do not have royal titles or styles, at Princes Anne's request.
That's the wrong way round - her children do not have royal titles or styles
*unless* she requests it, and they are specially granted.
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-24 00:26:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Princess Anne was described as the best potential king out of all the
Queen's 4 children.
Her children do not have royal titles or styles, at Princes Anne's request.
That's the wrong way round - her children do not have royal titles or styles
*unless* she requests it, and they are specially granted.
Her children do not have royal titles, because their father, Captain
Mark Philips did not have a title. He was offered an earldom but the
Princess and her husband refused. They chose not to have titles
conferred upon their children.
John Briggs
2007-11-24 00:35:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Princess Anne was described as the best potential king out of all
the Queen's 4 children.
Her children do not have royal titles or styles, at Princes Anne's request.
That's the wrong way round - her children do not have royal titles
or styles *unless* she requests it, and they are specially granted.
Her children do not have royal titles, because their father, Captain
Mark Philips did not have a title. He was offered an earldom but the
Princess and her husband refused. They chose not to have titles
conferred upon their children.
That their father does not have a title is irrelevant - if you had been
paying attention, you would have realised that they would have only derived
"styles" (or "courtesy titles" if you are prepared to accept them...) from
him.
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-23 22:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise
Windsor" and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a
title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated
that "Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as
part of the title - like "de Arundel".)
Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She has
the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a
knight. He also has no title.
Lady Louise Windsor has the STYLE of "Lady" because her father is an Earl.
However, she is entitled to a superior style, that of Princess,
because her father is also a Prince and chose that his daughter would
have the style of Princess. Thus, she is Princess Louise of Wessex.
I think you are drawing "title" too narrowly (by excluding both courtesy
titles and some legal titles).
You are confusing titles with styles of address.
Post by John Briggs
For a start, some styles are legal titles - and I think Princess Louise
falls in to this category, as she is a Princess of the United Kingdom in her
own right. (It is nothing to do with what her father decided - he decided
*not* to style her "Princess Louise", but he doesn't issue Royal Warrants!
The title "Prince" or "Princess" is borne by children of the sovereign, and
by the children of sons of the sovereign.)
The styles of wives of peers are also legal titles, despite not being
substantive peerages. [I'm not absolutely sure if that applies to "Lady X"
as well as "Viscountess X" for the wife of a viscount.] Similarly with the
wives of knights, but the wrinkle here is that the style of the legal title
is Dame Heather McCartney - Lady McCartney is, strictly speaking, a courtesy
title rather than a legal one - but it is usually treated as if it were the
legal title.
There is a difference between titles and the style by which persons are
known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife) is styled
according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or spouse has a
higher rank by which they would both be styled.

Princess Michael is a princess by right of her husband, hence she is not
known as Princess Marie-Christine. Rather like old-fashioned envelopes
or invitations, where a wife was addressed or styled as Mrs John Briggs,
for example.

Neither Lady McCartney nor her husband possess a title. He is a knight
and entitled to use the style, Sir. By right of her husband, Heather
Mills-McCartney is entitled to use the style, Lady.

The wife of a Baronet is styled "Lady", by right of her husband (unless
she possesses a higher rank of her own). The wife of a Knight (which is
a decoration, not a title) is styled "Lady" followed by the knight's
surname, in our example's case, McCartney. She is not Lady Heather
McCartney, she is Lady Paul McCartney, but his forename is excluded from
the style, thus, she is Lady McCartney.

My great-grandmother was a "Lady" by right of her husband. Some
documents refer to her as "Dame", but I believe that is more of a
fashion than a correct style. My ancestor was an Archbishop, and his
wife was referred to as "Dame" when really, she was a simple "Mrs".
John Briggs
2007-11-24 00:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
What do you mean by "of course"? Which bit of "Lady Louise
Windsor" and "HRH Princess Louise of Wessex" does not involve a
title?
Lady Louise Windsor.
It's not a title.
"Lady" is not a title? Silly me! (As you have already demonstrated
that "Windsor" is not her surname, it should also be considered as
part of the title - like "de Arundel".)
Heather Mills-McCarney is a Lady. She has no title of her own. She
has the STYLE of "Lady", by virtue of her (present) husband being a
knight. He also has no title.
Lady Louise Windsor has the STYLE of "Lady" because her father is an Earl.
However, she is entitled to a superior style, that of Princess,
because her father is also a Prince and chose that his daughter
would have the style of Princess. Thus, she is Princess Louise of
Wessex.
I think you are drawing "title" too narrowly (by excluding both
courtesy titles and some legal titles).
You are confusing titles with styles of address.
Well, you are the one who is claiming that courtesy titles are not titles...
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
For a start, some styles are legal titles - and I think Princess
Louise falls in to this category, as she is a Princess of the United
Kingdom in her own right. (It is nothing to do with what her father
decided - he decided *not* to style her "Princess Louise", but he
doesn't issue Royal Warrants! The title "Prince" or "Princess" is
borne by children of the sovereign, and by the children of sons of
the sovereign.) The styles of wives of peers are also legal titles,
despite not being
substantive peerages. [I'm not absolutely sure if that applies to
"Lady X" as well as "Viscountess X" for the wife of a viscount.]
Similarly with the wives of knights, but the wrinkle here is that
the style of the legal title is Dame Heather McCartney - Lady
McCartney is, strictly speaking, a courtesy title rather than a
legal one - but it is usually treated as if it were the legal title.
There is a difference between titles and the style by which persons
are known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife) is styled
according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or spouse has a
higher rank by which they would both be styled.
"By which they would both be styled"? Have you taken leave of your senses?

And which is the style and which the title: "Viscount" or "Lord"?
Post by Renia
Princess Michael is a princess by right of her husband, hence she is
not known as Princess Marie-Christine. Rather like old-fashioned
envelopes or invitations, where a wife was addressed or styled as Mrs
John Briggs, for example.
You are now confusing rank with title. She is styled Princess Michael
because of her husband's rank, rather than because of his title.
Post by Renia
Neither Lady McCartney nor her husband possess a title. He is a knight
and entitled to use the style, Sir. By right of her husband, Heather
Mills-McCartney is entitled to use the style, Lady.
You are not going to get away with claimimg that a knight does not have a
title.
Post by Renia
The wife of a Baronet is styled "Lady", by right of her husband
(unless she possesses a higher rank of her own). The wife of a Knight
(which is a decoration, not a title) is styled "Lady" followed by the
knight's surname, in our example's case, McCartney. She is not Lady
Heather McCartney, she is Lady Paul McCartney, but his forename is
excluded from the style, thus, she is Lady McCartney.
A masterly analysis, but completely wrong. As I explained (patiently) the
legal title of a wife of a knight is "Dame Heather McCartney", but that is
never used (except in legal documents - quite possibly including divorce
proceedings), and instead the style (or quite possibly courtesy title) "Lady
McCartney" is employed instead.

The idea that knighthood is a decoration, not a title, is complete bollocks.
You are now confusing decorations of orders, with ranks and titles!
Post by Renia
My great-grandmother was a "Lady" by right of her husband. Some
documents refer to her as "Dame", but I believe that is more of a
fashion than a correct style. My ancestor was an Archbishop, and his
wife was referred to as "Dame" when really, she was a simple "Mrs".
Queen Elizabeth I had the same problem of not knowing how to address the
wife of an archbishop... (She disapproved of married clergy!)

In Canterbury Cathedral you will see the tomb of Cardinal Odet de Coligny -
he had died (or been murdered) while in England. He had become a Huguenot,
and married. The French were at somewhat of a loss as to know how to
address his wife. They tried "Madame la Cardinale", but it didn't sound
right. So they settled on "Comtesse de Beauvais". [He was Count-Bishop of
Beauvais.]

It is quite possible that your ancestor was a knight. As a clergyman, he
could not use the style (or title) "Sir". (I suppose he had to be content
with the decoration...) But his wife would still have the style, title ,
rank or decoration..

Interestingly, this does not apply to clergymen who are baronets -
presumably this really *is* a title rather than a mere decoration... At any
rate, they quite happily use the style (or possibly title...) "Sir".

Martha insisted on being addressed as "Lady Washington"...
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-24 01:58:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
There is a difference between titles and the style by which persons
are known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife) is styled
according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or spouse has a
higher rank by which they would both be styled.
"By which they would both be styled"? Have you taken leave of your senses?
Baroness Thatcher's husband was a Baronet, a lower rank. She is styled
according to her own rank, not her husband's. On the other hand, he was
styled according to his rank as Baronet, not hers as Baroness.
Post by John Briggs
And which is the style and which the title: "Viscount" or "Lord"?
To some extent and depending on the context, both. All peers are Lords
and that is a title but they are styled "Lord", be their conferred title
Baron, Viscount or Earl.
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Princess Michael is a princess by right of her husband, hence she is
not known as Princess Marie-Christine. Rather like old-fashioned
envelopes or invitations, where a wife was addressed or styled as Mrs
John Briggs, for example.
You are now confusing rank with title. She is styled Princess Michael
because of her husband's rank, rather than because of his title.
I take it you did not notice the word "rank" in my first paragraph,
above? I may have missed out the word "rank" in my Princess Michael
paragraph, but that is what I meant, and you know it.
John Briggs
2007-11-24 02:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
There is a difference between titles and the style by which persons
are known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife) is styled
according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or spouse has a
higher rank by which they would both be styled.
"By which they would both be styled"? Have you taken leave of your senses?
Baroness Thatcher's husband was a Baronet, a lower rank. She is styled
according to her own rank, not her husband's. On the other hand, he
was styled according to his rank as Baronet, not hers as Baroness.
That doesn't address what you said, which was "Sometimes, the wife or spouse
has a higher rank by which they would both be styled." How would they both
be styled by the wife's higher rank?
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
And which is the style and which the title: "Viscount" or "Lord"?
To some extent and depending on the context, both. All peers are Lords
and that is a title but they are styled "Lord", be their conferred
title Baron, Viscount or Earl.
You are avoiding the issue of what precisely defines a title. How can a peer
(say, a viscount) have the title "Lord Newbury", but his wife, a peeress,
have only the style "Lady Newbury"?
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Princess Michael is a princess by right of her husband, hence she is
not known as Princess Marie-Christine. Rather like old-fashioned
envelopes or invitations, where a wife was addressed or styled as
Mrs John Briggs, for example.
You are now confusing rank with title. She is styled Princess Michael
because of her husband's rank, rather than because of his title.
I take it you did not notice the word "rank" in my first paragraph,
above? I may have missed out the word "rank" in my Princess Michael
paragraph, but that is what I meant, and you know it.
Is "Prince" in "Prince Michael" a title or not?

Do you count (hah!) courtesy titles as titles?
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-24 02:55:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
There is a difference between titles and the style by which persons
are known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife) is styled
according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or spouse has a
higher rank by which they would both be styled.
"By which they would both be styled"? Have you taken leave of your senses?
Baroness Thatcher's husband was a Baronet, a lower rank. She is styled
according to her own rank, not her husband's. On the other hand, he
was styled according to his rank as Baronet, not hers as Baroness.
That doesn't address what you said, which was "Sometimes, the wife or spouse
has a higher rank by which they would both be styled." How would they both
be styled by the wife's higher rank?
You are correct. They wouldn't. Only the wife would be styled according
to her higher rank. The husband would keep his own. Slip of the keyboard
while thinking about something else.
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
And which is the style and which the title: "Viscount" or "Lord"?
To some extent and depending on the context, both. All peers are Lords
and that is a title but they are styled "Lord", be their conferred
title Baron, Viscount or Earl.
You are avoiding the issue of what precisely defines a title. How can a peer
(say, a viscount) have the title "Lord Newbury", but his wife, a peeress,
have only the style "Lady Newbury"?
Well, let's put it another way. To you, what defines a title?

The word "title" has multiple meanings. In this particular context, I'm
talking about aristocratic titles conferred on the peerage, viz.
Marquis, Earl, Viscount or Baron.

Viscount Newbury has had the Viscounty conferred upon him. His title is
Viscount, but the style by which he is known is Lord Newbury. In this
context, "Lord" is not his actual title.

I have no title. The style used to address me is Mrs. I cannot go around
saying "I am a titled lady" because John Briggs has decided my style
(Mrs) is my title.
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Princess Michael is a princess by right of her husband, hence she is
not known as Princess Marie-Christine. Rather like old-fashioned
envelopes or invitations, where a wife was addressed or styled as
Mrs John Briggs, for example.
You are now confusing rank with title. She is styled Princess Michael
because of her husband's rank, rather than because of his title.
I take it you did not notice the word "rank" in my first paragraph,
above? I may have missed out the word "rank" in my Princess Michael
paragraph, but that is what I meant, and you know it.
Is "Prince" in "Prince Michael" a title or not?
No. It's his rank. As is Mrs my rank. As is Lord Newbury his rank.
Post by John Briggs
Do you count (hah!) courtesy titles as titles?
The eldest son of a Duke is allowed the courtesy title of marquess (if
his father holds such a title); the eldest son of a marquess is allowed
the courtesy title of earl (ditto); the eldest son of an earl that of
viscount (ditto). The younger sons of peers above the rank of viscount
are allowed the courtesy title of lord (if his father holds a barony),
which, I suppose, is the title/rank/style you are getting at or are
confused with.

One famous courtesy title is that of Lady Colin Campbell. The title was
her husband's, Lord Colin Campbell, son of 11th Duke of Argyll. That his
christian name appears, tells you it is a courtesy title. Though they
have been divorced for more than 30 years, his ex-wife is known by his
title.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-24 03:04:42 UTC
Permalink
"Slip of the keyboard" ????????

What sort of air-headed excuse is THAT?

DSH
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
There is a difference between titles and the style by which persons
are known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife) is styled
according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or spouse has a
higher rank by which they would both be styled.
"By which they would both be styled"? Have you taken leave of your senses?
Baroness Thatcher's husband was a Baronet, a lower rank. She is styled
according to her own rank, not her husband's. On the other hand, he
was styled according to his rank as Baronet, not hers as Baroness.
That doesn't address what you said, which was "Sometimes, the wife or
spouse has a higher rank by which they would both be styled." How would
they both be styled by the wife's higher rank?
You are correct. They wouldn't. Only the wife would be styled according to
her higher rank. The husband would keep his own. Slip of the keyboard
while thinking about something else.
The Highlander
2007-11-24 15:22:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:04:42 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Slip of the keyboard" ????????
What sort of air-headed excuse is THAT?
The same sort of air-headed excuse that were used to explain away DS
Hines posting to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
There is a difference between titles and the style by which persons
are known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife) is styled
according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or spouse has a
higher rank by which they would both be styled.
"By which they would both be styled"? Have you taken leave of your senses?
Baroness Thatcher's husband was a Baronet, a lower rank. She is styled
according to her own rank, not her husband's. On the other hand, he
was styled according to his rank as Baronet, not hers as Baroness.
That doesn't address what you said, which was "Sometimes, the wife or
spouse has a higher rank by which they would both be styled." How would
they both be styled by the wife's higher rank?
You are correct. They wouldn't. Only the wife would be styled according to
her higher rank. The husband would keep his own. Slip of the keyboard
while thinking about something else.
Renia
2007-11-24 15:34:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:04:42 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Slip of the keyboard" ????????
What sort of air-headed excuse is THAT?
The same sort of air-headed excuse that were used to explain away DS
Hines posting to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial.
:-)
The Highlander
2007-11-24 18:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Highlander
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 03:04:42 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
"Slip of the keyboard" ????????
What sort of air-headed excuse is THAT?
The same sort of air-headed excuse that were used to explain away DS
Hines posting to alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.interracial.
:-)
Always a pleasure Renia!

Mr. Hines is what the FFL calls in its official song "Le Boudin", "un
tireur au cul" - a rifleman who shoots from the arse (ass)!
John Briggs
2007-11-24 23:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
There is a difference between titles and the style by which
persons are known. The spouse of a titled person (usually a wife)
is styled according to that spouse's rank. Sometimes, the wife or
spouse has a higher rank by which they would both be styled.
"By which they would both be styled"? Have you taken leave of your senses?
Baroness Thatcher's husband was a Baronet, a lower rank. She is
styled according to her own rank, not her husband's. On the other
hand, he was styled according to his rank as Baronet, not hers as
Baroness.
That doesn't address what you said, which was "Sometimes, the wife
or spouse has a higher rank by which they would both be styled." How
would they both be styled by the wife's higher rank?
You are correct. They wouldn't. Only the wife would be styled
according to her higher rank. The husband would keep his own. Slip of
the keyboard while thinking about something else.
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
And which is the style and which the title: "Viscount" or "Lord"?
To some extent and depending on the context, both. All peers are
Lords and that is a title but they are styled "Lord", be their
conferred title Baron, Viscount or Earl.
You are avoiding the issue of what precisely defines a title. How
can a peer (say, a viscount) have the title "Lord Newbury", but his
wife, a peeress, have only the style "Lady Newbury"?
Well, let's put it another way. To you, what defines a title?
The word "title" has multiple meanings. In this particular context,
I'm talking about aristocratic titles conferred on the peerage, viz.
Marquis, Earl, Viscount or Baron.
Viscount Newbury has had the Viscounty conferred upon him. His title
is Viscount, but the style by which he is known is Lord Newbury. In
this context, "Lord" is not his actual title.
I think that is ridiculous, but it doesn't alter the fact that if "Viscount
Newbury" is a title, then so is "Viscountess Newbury". {She is a peeress,
with her rank deriving from her husband.]
Post by Renia
I have no title. The style used to address me is Mrs. I cannot go
around saying "I am a titled lady" because John Briggs has decided my
style (Mrs) is my title.
[Perhaps he didn't decide you were a lady...]


You are drawing "title" much too restrictively. It is absurd to claim that
"Lord" or "Lady" or "Sir" or "Dame" are not titles.
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Princess Michael is a princess by right of her husband, hence she
is not known as Princess Marie-Christine. Rather like
old-fashioned envelopes or invitations, where a wife was
addressed or styled as Mrs John Briggs, for example.
You are now confusing rank with title. She is styled Princess
Michael because of her husband's rank, rather than because of his
title.
I take it you did not notice the word "rank" in my first paragraph,
above? I may have missed out the word "rank" in my Princess Michael
paragraph, but that is what I meant, and you know it.
Is "Prince" in "Prince Michael" a title or not?
No. It's his rank. As is Mrs my rank. As is Lord Newbury his rank.
Actually, there are those who will claim that it is a courtesy title (and
independent - well, fairly independent!) of his rank.

There are probably people who will argue that "Mrs" is a style or title, but
that you derive your rank from your husband :-)
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Do you count (hah!) courtesy titles as titles?
The eldest son of a Duke is allowed the courtesy title of marquess (if
his father holds such a title); the eldest son of a marquess is
allowed the courtesy title of earl (ditto); the eldest son of an earl
that of viscount (ditto). The younger sons of peers above the rank of
viscount are allowed the courtesy title of lord (if his father holds
a barony), which, I suppose, is the title/rank/style you are getting
at or are confused with.
Another slip of the keyboard :-) Daughters of peers above the rank of
viscount are allowed the courtesy title of "Lady + forename" (you will
probably argue that it is a style...) The younger sons of peers above the
rank of earl are allowed the courtesy title of "Lord + forename" - nothing
to do with the father holding a barony (you are getting confused with the
courtesy titles of eldest sons, which is another minefield for the
unwary...), "which, I suppose, is the title/rank/style you are getting at or
are confused with."
Post by Renia
One famous courtesy title is that of Lady Colin Campbell. The title
was her husband's, Lord Colin Campbell, son of 11th Duke of Argyll.
That his christian name appears, tells you it is a courtesy title.
Though they have been divorced for more than 30 years, his ex-wife is
known by his title.
She was born George William Ziadie - but let's not go there :-)
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-25 00:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
She was born George William Ziadie - but let's not go there :-)
'Parently, she's insisting she was never a laddie, but had a little
extra which was done away with. She was all woman, but speaks like a blok.
Renia
2007-11-25 00:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Viscount Newbury has had the Viscounty conferred upon him. His title
is Viscount, but the style by which he is known is Lord Newbury. In
this context, "Lord" is not his actual title.
I think that is ridiculous, but it doesn't alter the fact that if "Viscount
Newbury" is a title, then so is "Viscountess Newbury". {She is a peeress,
with her rank deriving from her husband.]
No she aint. She doesn't have a seat in the House of Lords. Hubby does.
She is STYLED according to his TITLE or RANK.
John Briggs
2007-11-25 00:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Viscount Newbury has had the Viscounty conferred upon him. His title
is Viscount, but the style by which he is known is Lord Newbury. In
this context, "Lord" is not his actual title.
I think that is ridiculous, but it doesn't alter the fact that if
"Viscount Newbury" is a title, then so is "Viscountess Newbury".
{She is a peeress, with her rank deriving from her husband.]
No she aint. She doesn't have a seat in the House of Lords. Hubby
does. She is STYLED according to his TITLE or RANK.
She is a peeress. Look, last month I was in the House of Lords, saw the
Peeresses Gallery, and the notice with Instructions for Peeresses. You are
thinking of a "Peeress in her own right".

Don't you remember Jamie Lee Curtis attending the State Opening of
Parliament some years back, and sitting with the peeresses?

If he has a title, then so does she.
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-25 00:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Viscount Newbury has had the Viscounty conferred upon him. His title
is Viscount, but the style by which he is known is Lord Newbury. In
this context, "Lord" is not his actual title.
I think that is ridiculous, but it doesn't alter the fact that if
"Viscount Newbury" is a title, then so is "Viscountess Newbury".
{She is a peeress, with her rank deriving from her husband.]
No she aint. She doesn't have a seat in the House of Lords. Hubby
does. She is STYLED according to his TITLE or RANK.
She is a peeress. Look, last month I was in the House of Lords, saw the
Peeresses Gallery, and the notice with Instructions for Peeresses. You are
thinking of a "Peeress in her own right".
Don't you remember Jamie Lee Curtis attending the State Opening of
Parliament some years back, and sitting with the peeresses?
If he has a title, then so does she.
Can she vote in the House of Lords?
John Briggs
2007-11-25 00:32:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Viscount Newbury has had the Viscounty conferred upon him. His
title is Viscount, but the style by which he is known is Lord
Newbury. In this context, "Lord" is not his actual title.
I think that is ridiculous, but it doesn't alter the fact that if
"Viscount Newbury" is a title, then so is "Viscountess Newbury".
{She is a peeress, with her rank deriving from her husband.]
No she aint. She doesn't have a seat in the House of Lords. Hubby
does. She is STYLED according to his TITLE or RANK.
She is a peeress. Look, last month I was in the House of Lords, saw
the Peeresses Gallery, and the notice with Instructions for
Peeresses. You are thinking of a "Peeress in her own right".
Don't you remember Jamie Lee Curtis attending the State Opening of
Parliament some years back, and sitting with the peeresses?
If he has a title, then so does she.
Can she vote in the House of Lords?
Just look up the definition of "Peeress".
--
John Briggs
Renia
2007-11-25 00:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Post by John Briggs
Post by Renia
Viscount Newbury has had the Viscounty conferred upon him. His
title is Viscount, but the style by which he is known is Lord
Newbury. In this context, "Lord" is not his actual title.
I think that is ridiculous, but it doesn't alter the fact that if
"Viscount Newbury" is a title, then so is "Viscountess Newbury".
{She is a peeress, with her rank deriving from her husband.]
No she aint. She doesn't have a seat in the House of Lords. Hubby
does. She is STYLED according to his TITLE or RANK.
She is a peeress. Look, last month I was in the House of Lords, saw
the Peeresses Gallery, and the notice with Instructions for
Peeresses. You are thinking of a "Peeress in her own right".
Don't you remember Jamie Lee Curtis attending the State Opening of
Parliament some years back, and sitting with the peeresses?
If he has a title, then so does she.
Can she vote in the House of Lords?
Just look up the definition of "Peeress".
Can she vote?
John Cartmell
2007-11-25 00:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Can she vote in the House of Lords?
Baron Haden-Guest was thrown out of the Lords with many other hereditary peers
at the time of the 1999 Act. As an American citizen his wife would not have
been granted a peerage in her own right.

Answer: No on at least a dozen counts.
--
John Cartmell ***@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Renia
2007-11-25 00:47:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cartmell
Post by Renia
Can she vote in the House of Lords?
Baron Haden-Guest was thrown out of the Lords with many other hereditary peers
at the time of the 1999 Act. As an American citizen his wife would not have
been granted a peerage in her own right.
Answer: No on at least a dozen counts.
Quite. Thank you.
John Cartmell
2007-11-25 00:56:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Cartmell
Post by Renia
Can she vote in the House of Lords?
Baron Haden-Guest was thrown out of the Lords with many other hereditary
peers at the time of the 1999 Act. As an American citizen his wife would
not have been granted a peerage in her own right.
Answer: No on at least a dozen counts.
But if you're ever intoduced to Lady Haden-Guest don't say how much she
resembles Jamie Lee Curtis - and certainly don't say how much nicer she is
that that horrible actress. ;-)
--
John Cartmell ***@finnybank.com 0845 006 8822 or 0161 969 9820
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.qercus.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
Renia
2007-11-25 00:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Briggs
You are drawing "title" much too restrictively. It is absurd to claim that
"Lord" or "Lady" or "Sir" or "Dame" are not titles.
They're not. They're styles of address (with the sometimes exception of
"Lord" as per my previous post).
a.spencer3
2007-11-24 09:38:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Renia
Rather like old-fashioned envelopes
or invitations, where a wife was addressed or styled as Mrs John Briggs,
for example.
Old-fashioned?
We still do that here - formally.

Surreyman
Renia
2007-11-24 09:58:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by a.spencer3
Post by Renia
Rather like old-fashioned envelopes
or invitations, where a wife was addressed or styled as Mrs John Briggs,
for example.
Old-fashioned?
We still do that here - formally.
Same here. Bit difficult to judge whether it's considered old-fashioned,
these days.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-24 17:57:17 UTC
Permalink
I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person.
I know that. But that is because I was a writer at
birth: my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived
me: in her head, because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.
Hilarious!

His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue Arnold
was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father was doing at
the same time.
Next, I separate out the inference aspects from the facts. It is why I
tested the waters here about Napoleon born in 1603: I know it was
04, 2 December, according to history.
That is a fact.
Blithering Idiocy...

Utter Nonsense.

Napoleon Buonaparte was born on 15 August 1769.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
James Hogg
2007-11-24 20:28:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:57:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person.
I know that. But that is because I was a writer at
birth: my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived
me: in her head, because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.
Hilarious!
His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue Arnold
was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father was doing at
the same time.
OK, folks, time for this week's competition.

Just think of a witty answer to this question:

What was Hines's mother thinking about
when little David was conceived?

The competition will close at noon Hawaiian time
on Sunday, December 2, 2007.

Add your name and entry below mine at the bottom of this post.
DO NOT break the chain. A woman in Peebles once broke the
chain and her TV set blew up. A man in Ulan Bator broke the
chain and had to spend a weekend in a sauna with DSH.


ANSWERS:

James Hogg: "Baaaa"
Vince
2007-11-24 21:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogg
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:57:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person. I know
that. But that is because I was a writer at birth: my mother was
doing crossword puzzles when she conceived me: in her head,
because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.
Hilarious!
His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time
Pogue Arnold was conceived, because she was so bored with what his
father was doing at the same time.
What a hoot

Hines appears not to know that conception takes place many hours after sex

Hilarious

In the best of conditions, it takes 2–7 h for sperm to move through the
uterus to the site of fertilization within the oviduct. Sperm transport
results from self-propulsion, aided by the ciliary beating of cells
within the uterine lining. Typically only several hundred sperm reach
the oviducts, where they will linger in a quiet state until ovulation
occurs. After ovulation, these spermatozoa are reactivated and begin
moving toward the egg. The signal that attracts the sperm to the egg is
unknown. Human spermatozoa can survive for a total of 24–48 h in the
female reproductive tract.

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9781405129831/9781405129831_4_017.pdf

I won a contest with this one once. I suggest looking up "capacitation

Vince
Renia
2007-11-25 00:07:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vince
Post by James Hogg
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:57:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person. I know
that. But that is because I was a writer at birth: my mother was
doing crossword puzzles when she conceived me: in her head, because
she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.
Hilarious!
His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue
Arnold was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father
was doing at the same time.
What a hoot
Hines appears not to know that conception takes place many hours after sex
Hilarious
In the best of conditions, it takes 2–7 h for sperm to move through the
uterus to the site of fertilization within the oviduct. Sperm transport
results from self-propulsion, aided by the ciliary beating of cells
within the uterine lining. Typically only several hundred sperm reach
the oviducts, where they will linger in a quiet state until ovulation
occurs. After ovulation, these spermatozoa are reactivated and begin
moving toward the egg. The signal that attracts the sperm to the egg is
unknown. Human spermatozoa can survive for a total of 24–48 h in the
female reproductive tract.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Content_store/Sample_chapter/9781405129831/9781405129831_4_017.pdf
I won a contest with this one once. I suggest looking up "capacitation
Gawd, but some people are boring.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-25 01:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Nonsense!

I am well aware of that fact.

Renia, however, is not.

Pogue Brannigan needs to read her post again.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Vince
Hines appears not to know that conception takes place many hours after sex
Renia
2007-11-25 02:01:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Nonsense!
I am well aware of that fact.
Renia, however, is not.
Rubbish.
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Pogue Brannigan needs to read her post again.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Vince
Hines appears not to know that conception takes place many hours after sex
Vince
2007-11-25 03:17:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Nonsense!
I am well aware of that fact.
Renia, however, is not.
Pogue Brannigan needs to read her post again.
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Vince
Hines appears not to know that conception takes place many hours
after sex
no wonder you snipped what you wrote

but I'll repost it
" His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue
Arnold was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father was
doing at the same time."

So no your comment does indicate ignorance of the biology
or its simply meaningless

Vince
John Briggs
2007-11-24 23:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogg
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:57:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person.
I know that. But that is because I was a writer at
birth: my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived
me: in her head, because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.
Hilarious!
His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue
Arnold was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father
was doing at the same time.
OK, folks, time for this week's competition.
What was Hines's mother thinking about
when little David was conceived?
The competition will close at noon Hawaiian time
on Sunday, December 2, 2007.
Add your name and entry below mine at the bottom of this post.
DO NOT break the chain. A woman in Peebles once broke the
chain and her TV set blew up. A man in Ulan Bator broke the
chain and had to spend a weekend in a sauna with DSH.
James Hogg: "Baaaa"
John Briggs: "Has he remembered to wind the clock?" [literary reference]
--
John Briggs
The Highlander
2007-11-25 00:00:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:28:09 -1000, James Hogg
Post by James Hogg
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:57:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person.
I know that. But that is because I was a writer at
birth: my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived
me: in her head, because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.
Hilarious!
His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue Arnold
was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father was doing at
the same time.
OK, folks, time for this week's competition.
What was Hines's mother thinking about
when little David was conceived?
The competition will close at noon Hawaiian time
on Sunday, December 2, 2007.
Add your name and entry below mine at the bottom of this post.
DO NOT break the chain. A woman in Peebles once broke the
chain and her TV set blew up. A man in Ulan Bator broke the
chain and had to spend a weekend in a sauna with DSH.
James Hogg: "Baaaa"
The Highlander: "Who wants this shit?"
Renia
2007-11-25 00:06:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogg
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:57:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person.
I know that. But that is because I was a writer at
birth: my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived
me: in her head, because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.
Hilarious!
His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue Arnold
was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father was doing at
the same time.
OK, folks, time for this week's competition.
What was Hines's mother thinking about
when little David was conceived?
Dipstick. Bill Arnold's mum was doing crosswords at the Great Moment,
not Hines's. (Who knows what SHE was up to, but she must regret it.)
Renia
2007-11-25 00:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogg
Add your name and entry below mine at the bottom of this post.
DO NOT break the chain. A woman in Peebles once broke the
chain and her TV set blew up. A man in Ulan Bator broke the
chain and had to spend a weekend in a sauna with DSH.
Peebles is one of the lovliest little places on the planet. Do not bring
it into disrepute.
Weatherlawyer
2007-11-25 02:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Hogg
OK, folks, time for this week's competition.
What was Hines's mother thinking about
when little David was conceived?
James Hogg: "Baaaa"
Weatherlawyer: "An hand-bag? Hilarious!"
Julius Ward Howe
2007-11-25 17:08:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 10:28:09 -1000, James Hogg
Post by James Hogg
On Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:57:17 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
I am a nice person. As a writer I can be a nasty person.
I know that. But that is because I was a writer at
birth: my mother was doing crossword puzzles when she conceived
me: in her head, because she raised me to unpuzzle puzzles.
Hilarious!
His mother was doing crossword puzzles in her head at the time Pogue Arnold
was conceived, because she was so bored with what his father was doing at
the same time.
OK, folks, time for this week's competition.
What was Hines's mother thinking about
when little David was conceived?
The competition will close at noon Hawaiian time
on Sunday, December 2, 2007.
Add your name and entry below mine at the bottom of this post.
DO NOT break the chain. A woman in Peebles once broke the
chain and her TV set blew up. A man in Ulan Bator broke the
chain and had to spend a weekend in a sauna with DSH.
James Hogg: "Baaaa"
Julius: "At least he was quick, thank God.
I've got three more johns waiting downstairs."
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-24 18:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Wellington ws also born in 1769.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-24 18:41:37 UTC
Permalink
When I was a raw beginner at genealogy some 30 years ago, I rushed off
to St Catherine's House in London to consult my parent's marriage in the
indexes. I couldn't find it. I was horrified. My parents had never
married! Then I looked for my own birth in the indexes and couldn't find
that, either. This was even worse, for it proved I had never been born.
It was a little while before I realisd that my birth had been registered
in Scotland and was to be found in Scottish archives. The next time I was
in Edinburgh, I found I had been born, after all, and my parents had duly
married 10 months previously.
Aha!

Renia slips in [actually out], just under the wire.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Renia
2007-11-24 22:48:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
When I was a raw beginner at genealogy some 30 years ago, I rushed off
to St Catherine's House in London to consult my parent's marriage in the
indexes. I couldn't find it. I was horrified. My parents had never
married! Then I looked for my own birth in the indexes and couldn't find
that, either. This was even worse, for it proved I had never been born.
It was a little while before I realisd that my birth had been registered
in Scotland and was to be found in Scottish archives. The next time I was
in Edinburgh, I found I had been born, after all, and my parents had duly
married 10 months previously.
Aha!
Renia slips in [actually out], just under the wire.
Well within the wire, you blockhead.

Feb 22nd 1952 parents married. Me turn up 14th December 1952. And I was
early. Which is very unusual because I have spent the rest of my life
being late.

Perfect for gentry families who want a bairn to turn up as soon as
legitimately possible.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-25 00:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Recte:

Wellington was also born in 1769.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Renia
2007-11-25 00:16:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Wellington was also born in 1769.
So you said. Was anyone asking?

So, what was your mummy doing at the moment of your conception? I bet it
wasn't so interesting as a crossword.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-25 01:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Renia Stulta Disarmata REPEATS her error.

Hilarious!

New Subject:

Napoleon and Wellington were both born in the same year.

DSH
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Wellington was also born in 1769.
So you said. Was anyone asking?
So, what was your mummy doing at the moment of your conception? I bet it
wasn't so interesting as a crossword.
The Highlander
2007-11-25 07:41:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 01:15:43 -0000, "D. Spencer Hines"
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Renia Stulta Disarmata REPEATS her error.
Hilarious!
Napoleon and Wellington were both born in the same year.
DSH
Post by Renia
Post by D. Spencer Hines
Wellington was also born in 1769.
So you said. Was anyone asking?
So, what was your mummy doing at the moment of your conception? I bet it
wasn't so interesting as a crossword.
Hines, get your nose out of other people's underwear. Your status as
Usenet's primary pederast is continually reinforced by these
drooling, slobbering, simpering, smirking attempts to drag this group
down to your schoolboy level.
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-25 03:22:16 UTC
Permalink
Hilarious!

Yes, Renia does indeed RABBIT ON...

Constantly.

Deeeeeelightful!

DSH
Now, why am I rabbiting on like this? Ah, your question about how reliable
are Edinburgh records?
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-25 17:14:12 UTC
Permalink
Renia Discovers The Benefits Of Wikipedia...

Which She Had Previously Excoriated & Condemned...

Hilarious!

Next Thing We Know Pogue Gans Will Be Citing Wikipedia Too.

How Sweet It Is!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Post by Renia
BA: A very thoughtful post. Thanks a lot. BTW: What was the Uprising in
the
North of 1569?
Thank you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rising_of_the_North
D. Spencer Hines
2007-11-25 17:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Renia never checks the historical facts on the ground before she mouths off.

She prefers to bloviate as a barefoot empiricist.

DSH
The male heir apparent to the Crown has always been Prince of Wales,
since the time of Edward I's son, later Edward II.
That isn't correct.
Edward of Windsor, son of Edward II, was never Prince of Wales.
Edward of Carnarvon, son of Edward III, was created both Prince of
Wales and Prince of Aquitaine.
Henry VI was never Prince of Wales
None of the three legitimate sons of King Henry VIII were ever created
Prince of Wales.
Charles James Stuart (born and died 13 May 1629), son of Charles I,
was probably never created Prince of Wales.
James Francis Stuart, son of James II, was probably never created
Prince of Wales.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...