Discussion:
Capt. Wales
(too old to reply)
micky
2012-09-08 08:34:39 UTC
Permalink
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.

I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Derek Turner
2012-09-08 08:40:50 UTC
Permalink
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British army
as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Well, you know what thought did.
Guy Barry
2012-09-08 08:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I'm not great on Royal matters, but we haven't had any Plantagenets on the
throne since medieval times, and never any Bourbons. The current Royal
dynasty is the House of Windsor. I believe that Prince Harry's official
title is "Prince Henry of Wales".
Post by micky
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
It is. I don't really understand the "Captain Wales" thing. I suppose
they've got to call him something, but I can't see what's wrong with
"Captain Windsor".
--
Guy Barry
micky
2012-09-08 21:09:27 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 09:43:54 +0100, "Guy Barry"
Post by Guy Barry
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I'm not great on Royal matters, but we haven't had any Plantagenets on the
throne since medieval times, and never any Bourbons.
Hey, at least I confined myself to Europe.
Post by Guy Barry
The current Royal
dynasty is the House of Windsor. I believe that Prince Harry's official
title is "Prince Henry of Wales".
Post by micky
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
It is. I don't really understand the "Captain Wales" thing. I suppose
they've got to call him something, but I can't see what's wrong with
"Captain Windsor".
the Omrud
2012-09-08 08:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
Hmmm, you're mixing your Royal Dynasties and Centuries at little.
Post by micky
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
It's an alias for convenience. As an officer in the army, he needs a
name - his colleagues can't go around addressing him by all his titles.
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales", but
they are known as "Harry Wales" and "William Wales" in the armed forces.
It doesn't mean anything.

Monarchs don't really have surnames - HMQ is "of the House of Windsor".
Charles uses the name "Mountbatten-Windsor" when he needs a surname,
so I suppose his sons have the same.
--
David
Guy Barry
2012-09-08 08:53:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
That's not true:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry_of_Wales

I thought Prince William was still "Prince William of Wales", but apparently
he dropped the title when he was made Duke of Cambridge.
--
Guy Barry
Iain Archer
2012-09-08 09:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Guy Barry wrote on Sat, 8 Sep 2012
Post by Guy Barry
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry_of_Wales
I thought Prince William was still "Prince William of Wales", but
apparently he dropped the title when he was made Duke of Cambridge.
He's the one who married recently, isn't he? Recent news is that his
wife called herself Mrs Cambridge when a shopkeeper asked for her name.
--
Iain Archer
the Omrud
2012-09-08 13:58:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Iain Archer
Guy Barry wrote on Sat, 8 Sep 2012
Post by Guy Barry
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry_of_Wales
I thought Prince William was still "Prince William of Wales", but
apparently he dropped the title when he was made Duke of Cambridge.
He's the one who married recently, isn't he? Recent news is that his
wife called herself Mrs Cambridge when a shopkeeper asked for her name.
Right, she wanted to buy a wet suit on Anglesey, where they live, but
she didn't have her purse with her. The shop owner said he'd put it
aside for her and asked for her name, to which she replied "Mrs Cambridge".
--
David
micky
2012-09-08 20:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by Iain Archer
Guy Barry wrote on Sat, 8 Sep 2012
Post by Guy Barry
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry_of_Wales
I thought Prince William was still "Prince William of Wales", but
apparently he dropped the title when he was made Duke of Cambridge.
He's the one who married recently, isn't he? Recent news is that his
wife called herself Mrs Cambridge when a shopkeeper asked for her name.
Right, she wanted to buy a wet suit on Anglesey, where they live, but
she didn't have her purse with her. The shop owner said he'd put it
aside for her and asked for her name, to which she replied "Mrs Cambridge".
That's funny.

If he's just putting it aside, any name she can remember will do.

If he were going to deliver it bill her, it would be more important to
have

At Boston Chicken, they want my name so I don't pick up the wrong
dinner at the end of the line, and I say whatever comes to mind.

A lot of people in her shoes would have wanted to take it with them
and come back or send someone later to pay for it.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2012-09-08 12:15:14 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 09:53:50 +0100, "Guy Barry"
Post by Guy Barry
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry_of_Wales
I thought Prince William was still "Prince William of Wales", but apparently
he dropped the title when he was made Duke of Cambridge.
"Wills" is still Prince William of Wales. He also has the titles The
Duke of Cambridge, The Earl of Strathearn and The Baron of
Carrickfergus.

He chooses to use the Duke of Cambridge title for many purposes.

Carrickfergus is a few miles outside Belfast in Northern Ireland. When
he visited Belfast soon after being married one of the local papers used
his local title by referring to him as Baron Carrickfergus.

There is a more general point about surnames in the UK.

The only formally registered name a person has is their forename, their
given name, which is on their birth certificate. A person's surname is a
matter of custom and practice. A person can change their surname at any
time so long as the change is not for dishonest purposes.

A person may use different surnames in different contexts.
The wife of one of my nephews uses two different surnames. She uses my
nephew's surname for most purposes. She has a daughter from a previous
marriage. The daughter has retained her father's surname. So her mother
calls herself by her previous married name when dealing with her
daughter's school.

So she married Mr A, became Mrs A and had a daughter Miss A. Mrs A and
Mr A divorced. Mrs A then married Mr B and became Mrs B. To Miss A's
school she is Mrs A but to the rest of the world she is Mrs B.

This is all totally legal.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mark Brader
2012-09-08 17:46:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There is a more general point about surnames in the UK.
The only formally registered name a person has is their forename, their
given name, which is on their birth certificate. A person's surname is a
matter of custom and practice...
Cite, please?

My surname is on my (UK) birth certificate.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A person can change their surname at any
time so long as the change is not for dishonest purposes.
Or indeed any part of their name, I would expect.
--
Mark Brader Safire's Rule on Who-Whom:
Toronto "Whenever 'whom' sounds correct, recast the sentence."
***@vex.net -- William Safire, NY Times Magazine
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2012-09-08 18:34:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There is a more general point about surnames in the UK.
The only formally registered name a person has is their forename, their
given name, which is on their birth certificate. A person's surname is a
matter of custom and practice...
Cite, please?
My surname is on my (UK) birth certificate.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A person can change their surname at any
time so long as the change is not for dishonest purposes.
Or indeed any part of their name, I would expect.
A quick and incomplete reply -

I've just looked at a number of birth certificates for members of my
family. Many have only the Forename(s) of the child and the full names
of the parents. Those certificates are decades old.

My implied statement that the forename cannot be changed was based on a
hazy memory of the fact that forenames as originally registered can be
altered within 12 months. This seems to be partly to allow baptismal
names to be added. Later changes to a child or adult's name by Deed Poll
do not affect the entry in the Register.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
j***@arcade.demon.co.uk
2012-09-08 19:54:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Later changes to a child or adult's name by Deed Poll
or any other process
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
do not affect the entry in the Register.
That's because the birth certificate is a record of an event. My
birth certificate is a record of an event that happened in March
1969. I can't change that without a time machine.

JGH
Guy Barry
2012-09-09 06:20:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@arcade.demon.co.uk
That's because the birth certificate is a record of an event. My
birth certificate is a record of an event that happened in March
1969. I can't change that without a time machine.
That is not true. I was issued with a new birth certificate when I was
adopted at the age of fourteen. I have a copy in front of me - it gives my
date of birth as 6 March 1966 and the date of issue as 28 October 1980. It
also gives my name as the one I was adopted under (my surname at birth was
different).
--
Guy Barry
Skitt
2012-09-09 17:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Barry
Post by j***@arcade.demon.co.uk
That's because the birth certificate is a record of an event. My
birth certificate is a record of an event that happened in March
1969. I can't change that without a time machine.
That is not true. I was issued with a new birth certificate when I was
adopted at the age of fourteen. I have a copy in front of me - it gives
my date of birth as 6 March 1966 and the date of issue as 28 October
1980. It also gives my name as the one I was adopted under (my surname
at birth was different).
I don't have a birth certificate. I've never had one. I have a
certified translation of an entry in my mother's Latvian domestic
passport that states where and when I was born.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Robert Bannister
2012-09-10 04:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Barry
Post by j***@arcade.demon.co.uk
That's because the birth certificate is a record of an event. My
birth certificate is a record of an event that happened in March
1969. I can't change that without a time machine.
That is not true. I was issued with a new birth certificate when I was
adopted at the age of fourteen. I have a copy in front of me - it gives
my date of birth as 6 March 1966 and the date of issue as 28 October
1980. It also gives my name as the one I was adopted under (my surname
at birth was different).
My replacement birth certificate is also slightly different from the
original one I had.
--
Robert Bannister
Mark Brader
2012-09-09 04:08:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The only formally registered name a person has is their forename, their
given name, which is on their birth certificate. A person's surname is a
matter of custom and practice...
Cite, please?
My surname is on my (UK) birth certificate.
A quick and incomplete reply -
I've just looked at a number of birth certificates for members of my
family. Many have only the Forename(s) of the child and the full names
of the parents. Those certificates are decades old.
Mine, as you may know, is from the 1950s. It shows "Name and Surname...
Mark Stuart Brader" and does *not* include my parents' names. This is
a "Certificate of Birth" issued two years after I was born (presumably
obtained as part of preparing to get passports when we were preparing
to emigrate). Perhaps there are other kinds of birth certificates, and
if I find the right one it'll prove I'm eligible to be president. :-)
--
Mark Brader "After all, it is necessary to get behind
Toronto someone before you can stab them in the back."
***@vex.net -- Lynn & Jay, "Yes, Prime Minister"

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Garrett Wollman
2012-09-09 04:59:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Mine, as you may know, is from the 1950s. It shows "Name and Surname...
Mark Stuart Brader" and does *not* include my parents' names. This is
a "Certificate of Birth" issued two years after I was born (presumably
obtained as part of preparing to get passports when we were preparing
to emigrate). Perhaps there are other kinds of birth certificates, and
if I find the right one it'll prove I'm eligible to be president. :-)
It is very common for there to be differences in the data between the
form filled out at the time of birth and the document you get back if
you request it later on. Somewhere along the line I lost my original
birth certificate, which was a photocopy of a typed form with the
signature of the attending physician and various physical details of
my birth; when I requested a replacement, the state sent me a
computer-generated form that included only the data they currently
keep in their database about me. I gather some fraction of the
birthers have difficulty with this (not that it matters, since I will
almost certainly never run for President, even though I am eligible).

I wonder what will happen in another 25 years or so, when people who
have been expressing opinions online their entire lives, begin to run
for President. It's one thing when the opposition research turns up
something embarrassing that you said during a debate on the county
commission, but another thing altogether when they start digging up
tweets you made as a twelve-year-old.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
***@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
R H Draney
2012-09-09 06:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
It is very common for there to be differences in the data between the
form filled out at the time of birth and the document you get back if
you request it later on.
I've heard that the number of birth certificates containing some sort of error
is in the neighborhood of one in four...my brother not only hit those odds, but
in the very way that should cause him trouble at every turn in today's world;
they spelled his first name wrong....

Knowing the kind of havoc that can be wrought with the name "Draney", and the
fact that his middle name is spelled in the second-most-common way, I'm
surprised they had so much trouble getting "Michael" right....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
John Varela
2012-09-09 18:25:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Somewhere along the line I lost my original
birth certificate, which was a photocopy of a typed form with the
signature of the attending physician and various physical details of
my birth; when I requested a replacement, the state sent me a
computer-generated form that included only the data they currently
keep in their database about me. I gather some fraction of the
birthers have difficulty with this (not that it matters, since I will
almost certainly never run for President, even though I am eligible).
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen. If, under this
rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a "natural
born" citizen? Why this insistence on having been born within the
boundaries of the country? This has been going on at least since the
time when Gen. MacArthur was being considered for the presidency.
--
John Varela

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind. -- George Orwell
Skitt
2012-09-09 19:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Post by Garrett Wollman
Somewhere along the line I lost my original
birth certificate, which was a photocopy of a typed form with the
signature of the attending physician and various physical details of
my birth; when I requested a replacement, the state sent me a
computer-generated form that included only the data they currently
keep in their database about me. I gather some fraction of the
birthers have difficulty with this (not that it matters, since I will
almost certainly never run for President, even though I am eligible).
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen.
Well, yes and no. I am not a lawyer, but I am married to one of three
sisters who were born in the Philippines of a mother who was a citizen
of the USA.

There were separate procedures that had to be followed for each of them,
purely because of when they were born. Quite a bit of money was spent
on lawyers, but the end result was that all three were able to obtain US
citizenship from their time of birth, but for some of them (the youngest
one) it took years to obtain it, but it was still made retroactive to
her birth.

In general, there are various different rules about citizenship that are
applicable to various different cases. It is complicated.
Post by John Varela
If, under this
rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a "natural
born" citizen? Why this insistence on having been born within the
boundaries of the country? This has been going on at least since the
time when Gen. MacArthur was being considered for the presidency.
It is my understanding that any citizen who did *not* acquire
citizenship through the naturalization process *is* a "natural born
citizen"; however, there is some confusion and ambiguity in the laws
that control that status. Even the meaning of the term "natural born
citizen" is open to interpretation by the courts.

That's how the legal profession makes money.
--
Skitt (SF Bay Area)
http://come.to/skitt
Garrett Wollman
2012-09-09 19:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen. If, under this
rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a "natural
born" citizen? Why this insistence on having been born within the
boundaries of the country? This has been going on at least since the
time when Gen. MacArthur was being considered for the presidency.
IANAL, but some of the birthers seem to believe that "natural born
citizen" can only refer to those born within the boundaries of the
United States, because that is the only kind of birthright citizenship
mentioned in the Constitution itself. (Never mind the fact that the
14A language was written nearly 80 years after Article II.)

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
***@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
James Silverton
2012-09-09 19:24:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by John Varela
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen. If, under this
rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a "natural
born" citizen? Why this insistence on having been born within the
boundaries of the country? This has been going on at least since the
time when Gen. MacArthur was being considered for the presidency.
IANAL, but some of the birthers seem to believe that "natural born
citizen" can only refer to those born within the boundaries of the
United States, because that is the only kind of birthright citizenship
mentioned in the Constitution itself. (Never mind the fact that the
14A language was written nearly 80 years after Article II.)
Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico but was declared eligible to run
for president.
--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.
Garrett Wollman
2012-09-10 01:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Silverton
Post by Garrett Wollman
IANAL, but some of the birthers seem to believe that "natural born
citizen" can only refer to those born within the boundaries of the
United States, because that is the only kind of birthright citizenship
mentioned in the Constitution itself. (Never mind the fact that the
14A language was written nearly 80 years after Article II.)
Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico but was declared eligible to run
for president.
Yes, but he was also white and a Republican.

-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | What intellectual phenomenon can be older, or more oft
***@bimajority.org| repeated, than the story of a large research program
Opinions not shared by| that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
my employers. | accepted by all practitioners? - S.J. Gould, 1993
Evan Kirshenbaum
2012-09-10 06:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Silverton
Post by Garrett Wollman
Post by John Varela
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen. If, under this
rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a "natural
born" citizen? Why this insistence on having been born within the
boundaries of the country? This has been going on at least since the
time when Gen. MacArthur was being considered for the presidency.
IANAL, but some of the birthers seem to believe that "natural born
citizen" can only refer to those born within the boundaries of the
United States, because that is the only kind of birthright citizenship
mentioned in the Constitution itself. (Never mind the fact that the
14A language was written nearly 80 years after Article II.)
Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico but was declared eligible to
run for president.
As was John McCain (born on a Navy base in the Panama Canal Zone).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |It is one thing to be mistaken; it is
SF Bay Area (1982-) |quite another to be willfully
Chicago (1964-1982) |ignorant
| Cecil Adams
***@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Lewis
2012-09-09 20:23:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Varela
Post by Garrett Wollman
Somewhere along the line I lost my original
birth certificate, which was a photocopy of a typed form with the
signature of the attending physician and various physical details of
my birth; when I requested a replacement, the state sent me a
computer-generated form that included only the data they currently
keep in their database about me. I gather some fraction of the
birthers have difficulty with this (not that it matters, since I will
almost certainly never run for President, even though I am eligible).
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen.
Yes, at least until you are 18. If you are born and live outside the US,
you can renounce your US Citizenship, sorta. I think, unless you serve
in a foreign military, the US will still call you a US Citizen and grant
you a passport anytime you want to 'come home.'
Post by John Varela
If, under this rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a
"natural born" citizen?
He is.
Post by John Varela
Why this insistence on having been born within the boundaries of the
country?
Because birther's have the intelligence of your average ferret.
Post by John Varela
This has been going on at least since the time when Gen. MacArthur was
being considered for the presidency.
PBO could have been born anywhere int he world, or even on Mars, and he
would still be a Natural Born US Citizen because his mother was a
citizen.

In fact, my good friends adopted a girl from China. As part of the
complicated adoption process, she was issued a US Birth Certificate,
making her a natural born US Citizen. Odd, but that's how it works.
--
I told you...<BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM> Don't call me Junior.
MC
2012-09-09 21:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Because birther's have the intelligence of your average ferret.
And many of them use apostrophes to form plurals!
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Cheryl
2012-09-09 21:54:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by John Varela
Post by Garrett Wollman
Somewhere along the line I lost my original
birth certificate, which was a photocopy of a typed form with the
signature of the attending physician and various physical details of
my birth; when I requested a replacement, the state sent me a
computer-generated form that included only the data they currently
keep in their database about me. I gather some fraction of the
birthers have difficulty with this (not that it matters, since I will
almost certainly never run for President, even though I am eligible).
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen.
Yes, at least until you are 18. If you are born and live outside the US,
you can renounce your US Citizenship, sorta. I think, unless you serve
in a foreign military, the US will still call you a US Citizen and grant
you a passport anytime you want to 'come home.'
This is one of those tricky areas in which the rules change from time to
time. I was in that situation, and without a formal (and expensive)
renunciation, was assured that simply taking on my other citizenship
meant I 'lost' my own. The US government views on people in such
situations have changed, and in recent years they have even begun saying
that people they considered US citizens (even though they didn't in the
past) who have been living in their other country, as citizens of said
country, should have been paying US taxes all these years, and might be
liable for fines for not doing so.

I wish they'd just make up their minds what the rules are. Citizenship
law isn't always straightforward, and I suspect tax law is even worse.

<snip>
--
Cheryl
John Varela
2012-09-10 17:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Citizenship
law isn't always straightforward, and I suspect tax law is even worse.
If you can at all avoid it, you do not want to involve yourself in
the US income tax law.
--
John Varela

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and
murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure
wind. -- George Orwell
Evan Kirshenbaum
2012-09-10 06:44:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by John Varela
Post by Garrett Wollman
Somewhere along the line I lost my original
birth certificate, which was a photocopy of a typed form with the
signature of the attending physician and various physical details of
my birth; when I requested a replacement, the state sent me a
computer-generated form that included only the data they currently
keep in their database about me. I gather some fraction of the
birthers have difficulty with this (not that it matters, since I will
almost certainly never run for President, even though I am eligible).
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen.
The gory details can be found in

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title8/pdf/USCODE-2010-title8-chap12-subchapIII.pdf
Post by Lewis
Yes, at least until you are 18.
If you were born outside the US and live in the US with a parent who
is a citizen. If you were born in the US, it doesn't matter who your
parents were unless they were diplomats or foreign invaders ("... and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof").

If you were born outside the US and live outside the US, it looks to
be more complicated. Your citizen parent has to apply for citizenship
for you before you turn 18, you have to live with them, they have to
have lived in the US (or possessions) for at least 5 years (2 years
after turning 14) or have had a citizen parent who did, and you have
to be temporarily legally in the US.

On the other hand, another part seems to say that if both your parents
were citizens (or one was a citizen and the other a national), you're
a citizen whether or not anybody applies for anything.
Post by Lewis
If you are born and live outside the US, you can renounce your US
Citizenship, sorta. I think, unless you serve in a foreign military,
the US will still call you a US Citizen and grant you a passport
anytime you want to 'come home.'
No "sorta" about it. You can pretty much always renounce your
citizenship explicitly. There are a number of things you can do short
of going to the consulate and filling out the paperwork that can cause
you to lose your citizenship (e.g., taking another citizenship or
taking a position in a foreign government), but for almost all of them
(IIRC, the sole exception is actually taking up arms against the US),
they are supposed to ask whether you did them with the intention of
giving up your US citizenship, and for most of them they are required
to take your "No" at face value. This holds even if you take a
nationalization oath elsewhere that requires you to renounce all other
citizenships. As far as the US is concerned, you still get to choose
whether you stay a US citizen.
Post by Lewis
Post by John Varela
If, under this rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a
"natural born" citizen?
He is.
The tricky bit is that while this is what the law *is*, it isn't what
it *was*. When I looked into this a while ago, I found that at the
time Obama was born, the law was such that had he been born outside
the US, he wouldn't have been a US citizen. Why? Because while his
mother had grown up in the US, she was young enough when he was born
that she couldn't have lived for five years in the US after reaching
her sixteenth birthday, which was part of the rule at the time.

But this doesn't matter, as "Except [exception that doesn't matter
here], the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall
be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of this Act) as though the amendment ... had been in effect
as of the date of their birth, except [this can't cause anybody to
lose citizenship]."
Post by Lewis
Post by John Varela
Why this insistence on having been born within the boundaries of the
country?
Because birther's have the intelligence of your average ferret.
Post by John Varela
This has been going on at least since the time when Gen. MacArthur was
being considered for the presidency.
PBO could have been born anywhere int he world, or even on Mars, and he
would still be a Natural Born US Citizen because his mother was a
citizen.
In fact, my good friends adopted a girl from China. As part of the
complicated adoption process, she was issued a US Birth Certificate,
making her a natural born US Citizen. Odd, but that's how it works.
I'm not sure that's true. The law (8 USC 1431(b)) says that such a
child "automatically becomes a citizen of the United States" but
doesn't say anything about them becoming a "citizen of the United
States at birth", which is what "natural born citizen" is typically
taken to mean (and which can be granted retroactively).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |It does me no injury for my neighbor
SF Bay Area (1982-) |to say there are twenty gods, or no
Chicago (1964-1982) |God.
| Thomas Jefferson
***@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Lewis
2012-09-10 07:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
No "sorta" about it. You can pretty much always renounce your
citizenship explicitly. There are a number of things you can do short
of going to the consulate and filling out the paperwork that can cause
you to lose your citizenship (e.g., taking another citizenship or
taking a position in a foreign government),
The US does not recognize dual citizenship, but you do not lose your US
Citizenship by claiming another citizenship. There are plenty of US
Citizens with Israeli citizenship, or British.

I can got get a Mexican passport anytime I want and I don't have to give
up my US one to do it.

A family friend has lived in Mexico for 40 years and has worked in the
Federal government in Mexico without losing her US Citizenship, so there
must be more to it than that.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
but for almost all of them
(IIRC, the sole exception is actually taking up arms against the US),
they are supposed to ask whether you did them with the intention of
giving up your US citizenship, and for most of them they are required
to take your "No" at face value. This holds even if you take a
nationalization oath elsewhere that requires you to renounce all other
citizenships. As far as the US is concerned, you still get to choose
whether you stay a US citizen.
The US, the RoachMotel of citizenship! :)
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
Post by John Varela
If, under this rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a
"natural born" citizen?
He is.
The tricky bit is that while this is what the law *is*, it isn't what
it *was*. When I looked into this a while ago, I found that at the
time Obama was born, the law was such that had he been born outside
the US, he wouldn't have been a US citizen. Why? Because while his
mother had grown up in the US, she was young enough when he was born
that she couldn't have lived for five years in the US after reaching
her sixteenth birthday, which was part of the rule at the time.
But she was granted complete citizenship when Hawaii became a state,
regardless of anything else, two years before Barack was born, so it
still wouldn't matter.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
But this doesn't matter, as "Except [exception that doesn't matter
here], the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall
be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of this Act) as though the amendment ... had been in effect
as of the date of their birth, except [this can't cause anybody to
lose citizenship]."
And that's the other reason it doesn't matter.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
In fact, my good friends adopted a girl from China. As part of the
complicated adoption process, she was issued a US Birth Certificate,
making her a natural born US Citizen. Odd, but that's how it works.
I'm not sure that's true. The law (8 USC 1431(b)) says that such a
child "automatically becomes a citizen of the United States" but
doesn't say anything about them becoming a "citizen of the United
States at birth", which is what "natural born citizen" is typically
taken to mean (and which can be granted retroactively).
She has a US Certificate of Birth. That's pretty clear the US Government
considers her a citizen from birth.
--
there were far worse things than Evil. All the demons in Hell would
torture your very soul, but that was precisely because they valued souls
very highly; Evil would always try to steal the universe, but at least
it considered the universe worth stealing. But the grey world behind
those empty eyes would trample and destroy without even according its
victims the dignity of hatred. It wouldn't even notice them. --The Light
Fantastic
Evan Kirshenbaum
2012-09-10 15:43:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
No "sorta" about it. You can pretty much always renounce your
citizenship explicitly. There are a number of things you can do short
of going to the consulate and filling out the paperwork that can cause
you to lose your citizenship (e.g., taking another citizenship or
taking a position in a foreign government),
The US does not recognize dual citizenship, but you do not lose your US
Citizenship by claiming another citizenship. There are plenty of US
Citizens with Israeli citizenship, or British.
In what sense doesn't it recognize dual citizenship? As you say, it
is perfectly possible to hold US citizenship and another citizenship.
I guess there's a "doesn't recognize" in the sense that the US doesn't
treat somebody with another citizenship any differently than they
treat any other US citizen. In particular (like many countries) they
require dual nationals to enter and leave the US under their US
passport, and I believe they don't consider themselves bound to notify
the other country's embassy if a dual national gets in trouble.
Post by Lewis
I can got get a Mexican passport anytime I want and I don't have to give
up my US one to do it.
A family friend has lived in Mexico for 40 years and has worked in the
Federal government in Mexico without losing her US Citizenship, so there
must be more to it than that.
Right. You have to do those things "with the intention of giving up
US citizenship". They are supposed to ask, and, for the most part,
they're supposed to take you at your word if you say you didn't have
that intent. Merely working in a foreign government doesn't remove
that requirement. I believe that taking a high-level position in the
government does, and that's supposed to trigger an actual
investigation in which they are supposed to determine whether they
believe you intended to or not.
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
but for almost all of them
(IIRC, the sole exception is actually taking up arms against the US),
they are supposed to ask whether you did them with the intention of
giving up your US citizenship, and for most of them they are required
to take your "No" at face value. This holds even if you take a
nationalization oath elsewhere that requires you to renounce all other
citizenships. As far as the US is concerned, you still get to choose
whether you stay a US citizen.
The US, the RoachMotel of citizenship! :)
No, you can check out any time you want. There's a simple form to
fill out and a declaration to make before a consular official.
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
Post by John Varela
If, under this rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a
"natural born" citizen?
He is.
The tricky bit is that while this is what the law *is*, it isn't what
it *was*. When I looked into this a while ago, I found that at the
time Obama was born, the law was such that had he been born outside
the US, he wouldn't have been a US citizen. Why? Because while his
mother had grown up in the US, she was young enough when he was born
that she couldn't have lived for five years in the US after reaching
her sixteenth birthday, which was part of the rule at the time.
But she was granted complete citizenship when Hawaii became a state,
regardless of anything else, two years before Barack was born, so it
still wouldn't matter.
*She* was a citizen. Hell, she was born in Kansas. But the law adds
other requirements for "citizen at birth" for children born outside
the US when only one parent is a citizen. Currently:

8 USC 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States
at birth:

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United
States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling
not less than five years, at least two of which were after
attaining the age of fourteen years

Before 1984, the rules were ten years total, at least five after
turning 14.[1] And she wasn't quite 19 when he was born. So *if* he
had been born outside the US he wouldn't have been a citizen at birth
(by the law at the time) although he would have been automatically
naturalized as a citizen when he took up residency with her in the US
(or when she applied for him to become a citizen).
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
But this doesn't matter, as "Except [exception that doesn't matter
here], the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall
be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of this Act) as though the amendment ... had been in effect
as of the date of their birth, except [this can't cause anybody to
lose citizenship]."
And that's the other reason it doesn't matter.
I'd say it's the reason.
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
In fact, my good friends adopted a girl from China. As part of the
complicated adoption process, she was issued a US Birth Certificate,
making her a natural born US Citizen. Odd, but that's how it works.
I'm not sure that's true. The law (8 USC 1431(b)) says that such a
child "automatically becomes a citizen of the United States" but
doesn't say anything about them becoming a "citizen of the United
States at birth", which is what "natural born citizen" is typically
taken to mean (and which can be granted retroactively).
She has a US Certificate of Birth. That's pretty clear the US Government
considers her a citizen from birth.
Did the birth certificate actually name them as the (birth) parents?
If not, I don't think she fits any of the categories, and the
certificate is just something that will come in handy later (since you
often need a birth certificate) to prove age. Note that if you're
born in "an outlying possession of the United States" and neither of
your parents is a citizen, you explicitly don't become a citizen,
though you do become a national, at birth and you would presumably
have a US birth certificate.

[1] That's what I said when I looked it up last year. Looking now, it
appears from the amendment record that it actually had said after
turning 16.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |So when can we quit passing laws and
SF Bay Area (1982-) |raising taxes? When can we say of
Chicago (1964-1982) |our political system, "Stick a fork
|in it, it's done?"
***@gmail.com | P.J. O'Rourke

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Lewis
2012-09-11 17:24:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
No "sorta" about it. You can pretty much always renounce your
citizenship explicitly. There are a number of things you can do short
of going to the consulate and filling out the paperwork that can cause
you to lose your citizenship (e.g., taking another citizenship or
taking a position in a foreign government),
The US does not recognize dual citizenship, but you do not lose your US
Citizenship by claiming another citizenship. There are plenty of US
Citizens with Israeli citizenship, or British.
In what sense doesn't it recognize dual citizenship?
As in they do not recognize you are a citizen of a country other than the US.

The US State Department says:

"U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to
choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically
granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.
However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it
may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law
requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship
voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S.
citizenship."
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
As you say, it
is perfectly possible to hold US citizenship and another citizenship.
It didn't use to be, by the way. It was the case that you could not,
unless the other was Israeli.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
I guess there's a "doesn't recognize" in the sense that the US doesn't
treat somebody with another citizenship any differently than they
treat any other US citizen.
Right.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
In particular (like many countries) they
require dual nationals to enter and leave the US under their US
passport, and I believe they don't consider themselves bound to notify
the other country's embassy if a dual national gets in trouble.
Yep.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
I can got get a Mexican passport anytime I want and I don't have to give
up my US one to do it.
A family friend has lived in Mexico for 40 years and has worked in the
Federal government in Mexico without losing her US Citizenship, so there
must be more to it than that.
Right. You have to do those things "with the intention of giving up
US citizenship". They are supposed to ask, and, for the most part,
they're supposed to take you at your word if you say you didn't have
that intent. Merely working in a foreign government doesn't remove
that requirement. I believe that taking a high-level position in the
government does, and that's supposed to trigger an actual
investigation in which they are supposed to determine whether they
believe you intended to or not.
Probably. That would make sense, at least.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
but for almost all of them
(IIRC, the sole exception is actually taking up arms against the US),
they are supposed to ask whether you did them with the intention of
giving up your US citizenship, and for most of them they are required
to take your "No" at face value. This holds even if you take a
nationalization oath elsewhere that requires you to renounce all other
citizenships. As far as the US is concerned, you still get to choose
whether you stay a US citizen.
The US, the RoachMotel of citizenship! :)
No, you can check out any time you want. There's a simple form to
fill out and a declaration to make before a consular official.
YOu have to have another citizenship though. You can't just renounce
your US citizenship and become stateless. The world doesn't approve of
that.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
Post by John Varela
If, under this rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a
"natural born" citizen?
He is.
The tricky bit is that while this is what the law *is*, it isn't what
it *was*. When I looked into this a while ago, I found that at the
time Obama was born, the law was such that had he been born outside
the US, he wouldn't have been a US citizen. Why? Because while his
mother had grown up in the US, she was young enough when he was born
that she couldn't have lived for five years in the US after reaching
her sixteenth birthday, which was part of the rule at the time.
But she was granted complete citizenship when Hawaii became a state,
regardless of anything else, two years before Barack was born, so it
still wouldn't matter.
*She* was a citizen. Hell, she was born in Kansas.
Right. was just saying that regardless of any other restrictions, in
1959 when Hawaii became a state, all citizenship rights and priviledges
attached to all residents of Hawaii, irrespective of any previous
requirements like that residency requirement.
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
But the law adds
other requirements for "citizen at birth" for children born outside
8 USC 1401
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United
States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an
alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to
the birth of such person, was physically present in the United
States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling
not less than five years, at least two of which were after
attaining the age of fourteen years
Before 1984, the rules were ten years total, at least five after
turning 14.[1] And she wasn't quite 19 when he was born. So *if* he
had been born outside the US he wouldn't have been a citizen at birth
(by the law at the time) although he would have been automatically
naturalized as a citizen when he took up residency with her in the US
(or when she applied for him to become a citizen).
I think all of that was negated by Hawaii becoming a state in 1959. She
was living in Hawaii then, right?
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
But this doesn't matter, as "Except [exception that doesn't matter
here], the immigration and nationality laws of the United States shall
be applied (to persons born before, on, or after the date of the
enactment of this Act) as though the amendment ... had been in effect
as of the date of their birth, except [this can't cause anybody to
lose citizenship]."
And that's the other reason it doesn't matter.
I'd say it's the reason.
Post by Lewis
Post by Evan Kirshenbaum
Post by Lewis
In fact, my good friends adopted a girl from China. As part of the
complicated adoption process, she was issued a US Birth Certificate,
making her a natural born US Citizen. Odd, but that's how it works.
I'm not sure that's true. The law (8 USC 1431(b)) says that such a
child "automatically becomes a citizen of the United States" but
doesn't say anything about them becoming a "citizen of the United
States at birth", which is what "natural born citizen" is typically
taken to mean (and which can be granted retroactively).
She has a US Certificate of Birth. That's pretty clear the US Government
considers her a citizen from birth.
Did the birth certificate actually name them as the (birth) parents?
Hmm. Good question. I'll ask, since I do not remember. My impression was
that their names were listed.
--
"A politician is a man who approaches every problem with an open mouth."
Iain Archer
2012-09-09 20:38:01 UTC
Permalink
John Varela wrote on Sun, 9 Sep 2012
Post by John Varela
Is there a lawyer in the house who can explain this? (Where is
Lieblich when you need him?) It's my understanding that if either of
your parents is a US citizen then you are a citizen. If, under this
rule, a person is a citizen from birth, why isn't he a "natural
born" citizen? Why this insistence on having been born within the
boundaries of the country? This has been going on at least since the
time when Gen. MacArthur was being considered for the presidency.
That was the term used in British law in the eighteenth century:
"Natural-born subjects were born within the dominion of the crown."
It was extended, by a 1772 Act, to the legitimate children born abroad
to a British father.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_British_nationality_law

The term "natural-born" still appears as recently as the British
Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1943 -- some born abroad might
still be deemed so -- but disappeared in the 1948 British Nationality
Act's clearly codified categories of citizenship: by birth, by descent,
or by registration or naturalisation.
--
Iain Archer
Mark Brader
2012-09-10 21:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Garrett Wollman
I wonder what will happen in another 25 years or so, when people who
have been expressing opinions online their entire lives, begin to run
for President. It's one thing when the opposition research turns up
something embarrassing that you said during a debate on the county
commission, but another thing altogether when they start digging up
tweets you made as a twelve-year-old.
It won't matter. Since nobody puts anything on paper any more, those
old tweets will only be on 25-year-old storage media that no one will
be able to read, or perhaps in some equivalent of Google Groups that
no one will be able to search.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "(And then there were the mtimes.
***@vex.net | Oh, the mtimes...)" --Steve Summit

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Guy Barry
2012-09-11 06:42:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
It won't matter. Since nobody puts anything on paper any more, those
old tweets will only be on 25-year-old storage media that no one will
be able to read, or perhaps in some equivalent of Google Groups that
no one will be able to search.
I have no problem finding my 20-year-old posts on Google Groups (though the
archive is incomplete from that period).
--
Guy Barry
Paul Wolff
2012-09-09 22:26:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The only formally registered name a person has is their forename, their
given name, which is on their birth certificate. A person's surname is a
matter of custom and practice...
Cite, please?
My surname is on my (UK) birth certificate.
A quick and incomplete reply -
I've just looked at a number of birth certificates for members of my
family. Many have only the Forename(s) of the child and the full names
of the parents. Those certificates are decades old.
Me too. The only name given for me on my birth certificate is one you
haven't seen here - a forename, and in my case not "Paul". For my
father, the name and surname are given (as well as "Rank or
Profession"), and for my mother, the name and maiden name.
Post by Mark Brader
Mine, as you may know, is from the 1950s. It shows "Name and Surname...
Mark Stuart Brader" and does *not* include my parents' names. This is
a "Certificate of Birth" issued two years after I was born (presumably
obtained as part of preparing to get passports when we were preparing
to emigrate). Perhaps there are other kinds of birth certificates, and
if I find the right one it'll prove I'm eligible to be president. :-)
"Surname" for the birthee doesn't feature on my birth certificate.

This discussion suggests that when a British citizen requests a copy
birth certificate, the form they will be given will vary according to
date of birth, and that the registry offices must correspondingly keep a
stock of various blank forms according to the date of the birth to be
certified.
--
Paul
Mike L
2012-09-11 17:33:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 23:26:26 +0100, Paul Wolff
Post by Paul Wolff
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
The only formally registered name a person has is their forename, their
given name, which is on their birth certificate. A person's surname is a
matter of custom and practice...
Cite, please?
My surname is on my (UK) birth certificate.
A quick and incomplete reply -
I've just looked at a number of birth certificates for members of my
family. Many have only the Forename(s) of the child and the full names
of the parents. Those certificates are decades old.
Me too. The only name given for me on my birth certificate is one you
haven't seen here - a forename, and in my case not "Paul". For my
father, the name and surname are given (as well as "Rank or
Profession"), and for my mother, the name and maiden name.
Post by Mark Brader
Mine, as you may know, is from the 1950s. It shows "Name and Surname...
Mark Stuart Brader" and does *not* include my parents' names. This is
a "Certificate of Birth" issued two years after I was born (presumably
obtained as part of preparing to get passports when we were preparing
to emigrate). Perhaps there are other kinds of birth certificates, and
if I find the right one it'll prove I'm eligible to be president. :-)
"Surname" for the birthee doesn't feature on my birth certificate.
This discussion suggests that when a British citizen requests a copy
birth certificate, the form they will be given will vary according to
date of birth, and that the registry offices must correspondingly keep a
stock of various blank forms according to the date of the birth to be
certified.
I've got a certified photo of my proper Australian birth cert, and two
replacement extracts. The latter are curt but functional, but the
original goes into characteristically Australian bureaucratic detail,
such as "Mercy Hospital, Grey Street, East Melbourne, City of
Melbourne, County of Bourke"; names, ages, and birthplaces of parents,
mother's maiden name, date and place of marriage, name of nurses and
accoucheur; occupation of father, but tellingly no space for
occupation of mother. I have a surname on the extracts, but not on the
original.

Rather remissly, I only bothered with an Aus birth cert for one of my
British-born children: it's far briefer than mine.
--
Mike.
Nick Spalding
2012-09-09 10:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote, in
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
My implied statement that the forename cannot be changed was based on a
hazy memory of the fact that forenames as originally registered can be
altered within 12 months. This seems to be partly to allow baptismal
names to be added. Later changes to a child or adult's name by Deed Poll
do not affect the entry in the Register.
My mother's birth certificate just has a dash in the name column.
Although she was three weeks old when she was registered they apparently
hadn't decided what she was to be called. It was never updated. She
Her name on later documents like Marriage Certificate or passport was
variously Anne or Anna but she was never called anything but Nancy. I
never had a chance to ask her about the gap in the birth certificate as
she was long dead before I had a need to get a copy of it.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Robin Bignall
2012-09-09 17:36:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Spalding
Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote, in
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
My implied statement that the forename cannot be changed was based on a
hazy memory of the fact that forenames as originally registered can be
altered within 12 months. This seems to be partly to allow baptismal
names to be added. Later changes to a child or adult's name by Deed Poll
do not affect the entry in the Register.
My mother's birth certificate just has a dash in the name column.
Although she was three weeks old when she was registered they apparently
hadn't decided what she was to be called. It was never updated. She
Her name on later documents like Marriage Certificate or passport was
variously Anne or Anna but she was never called anything but Nancy. I
never had a chance to ask her about the gap in the birth certificate as
she was long dead before I had a need to get a copy of it.
My mother had two birth certificates, identical except for the DOB: 1899
in one case and 1900 in the other. I've no idea how that came about.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Cheryl
2012-09-09 19:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Bignall
Post by Nick Spalding
Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote, in
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
My implied statement that the forename cannot be changed was based on a
hazy memory of the fact that forenames as originally registered can be
altered within 12 months. This seems to be partly to allow baptismal
names to be added. Later changes to a child or adult's name by Deed Poll
do not affect the entry in the Register.
My mother's birth certificate just has a dash in the name column.
Although she was three weeks old when she was registered they apparently
hadn't decided what she was to be called. It was never updated. She
Her name on later documents like Marriage Certificate or passport was
variously Anne or Anna but she was never called anything but Nancy. I
never had a chance to ask her about the gap in the birth certificate as
she was long dead before I had a need to get a copy of it.
My mother had two birth certificates, identical except for the DOB: 1899
in one case and 1900 in the other. I've no idea how that came about.
One of my grandfathers had two birth years, and he told various stories
about how it happened. His original baptismal certificate was destroyed
when the church burned, and he was born well before the central
government took any interest in obtaining and keeping such data in a
safe location. It's possible that his mother lied about his birth date
when he and she disagreed about whether he should serve in WW I. She won
and had him brought back which is just as well considering what happened
to so many of the men who went.

It caught up with him eventually. When he tried to get around the
compulsory retirement rules (which are now gone, as an infringement on
the right of the old to work!) his employer said basically, too bad,
we're going by the birth year you've been using all this time, unless
you can prove otherwise.
--
Cheryl
Lewis
2012-09-09 20:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Bignall
Post by Nick Spalding
Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote, in
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
My implied statement that the forename cannot be changed was based on a
hazy memory of the fact that forenames as originally registered can be
altered within 12 months. This seems to be partly to allow baptismal
names to be added. Later changes to a child or adult's name by Deed Poll
do not affect the entry in the Register.
My mother's birth certificate just has a dash in the name column.
Although she was three weeks old when she was registered they apparently
hadn't decided what she was to be called. It was never updated. She
Her name on later documents like Marriage Certificate or passport was
variously Anne or Anna but she was never called anything but Nancy. I
never had a chance to ask her about the gap in the birth certificate as
she was long dead before I had a need to get a copy of it.
My mother had two birth certificates, identical except for the DOB: 1899
in one case and 1900 in the other. I've no idea how that came about.
I grew up with great confusion as to the ages and birthdates of my older
siblings because my father always got the years wrong, making my sister
a year older and my brother a year younger. They weren't around to
correct this most of the time, so even now, decades later, I have to
double check both of their birthyears. I nearly missed my brother's 50th
because of this.

I have a book from my father that is inscribed on the cover with the
date Jan 19, 1975, only it was given to me in 1976. This, also, caused
much confusion. Enough taht I have distinct memories of what I was doing
and where I was on July 4, 1976 that are completely wrong. You'd think
the bicentennial would have cemented the right memory and dates, but no,
my father's inability to keep the year straight (and his dogmatic
insistence that he never made a mistake) led to a childhood of
confusion.

So, perhaps your mother's parents were like my father? Or perhaps there
was a specific reason to make her older or younger at some point?

I know that with my wife's kindergarten she often gets kids who are
clearly too young for kindergarten, but the parents have submitted a
questionable birth certificate (usually a cousin of a similar name) so
they can get the kid into school early and stop paying for chid-care.
--
NOTHING IS FINAL. NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE. EXCEPT ME, OF COURSE. SUCH
TINKERING WITH DESTINY COULD MEAN THE DOWNFALL OF THE WORLD. THERE MUST
BE A CHANCE, HOWEVER SMALL. THE LAWYERS OF FATE DEMAND A LOOPHOLE IN
EVERY PROPHECY. --Sourcery
Robin Bignall
2012-09-09 22:55:29 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 20:16:42 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<***@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

[two differently-dated birth certificates]
Post by Lewis
I have a book from my father that is inscribed on the cover with the
date Jan 19, 1975, only it was given to me in 1976. This, also, caused
much confusion. Enough taht I have distinct memories of what I was doing
and where I was on July 4, 1976 that are completely wrong. You'd think
the bicentennial would have cemented the right memory and dates, but no,
my father's inability to keep the year straight (and his dogmatic
insistence that he never made a mistake) led to a childhood of
confusion.
So, perhaps your mother's parents were like my father? Or perhaps there
was a specific reason to make her older or younger at some point?
I could see that for a boy and WW1, but a girl? My maternal
grandfather, the only grandparent to survive into my lifetime (just),
was a Victorian tyrant of the kind Dickens wrote about. He was a master
tailor who, in his prime, owned a shop and had employees and servants.
His attitude was that while his children lived under his roof they
should obey his every whim, and he used a whip on some of them even into
their twenties. My uncle Jesse, the eldest, had a permanent tic at the
side of his mouth from the mental and physical anguish of standing up to
the old man and trying to protect his sisters from beatings.

Grandfather drank it all away, and when I saw him (I was three) he was
reduced to living in a tiny Victorian row house with his housekeeper,
with whom he'd been living after giving his wife eleven children and
seeing her into an early grave. He had alienated all of his children
other than my mother, and I think we only went to see him because he was
dying.

In his prime, when he had his children, I don't see him getting confused
with dates.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Whiskers
2012-09-10 18:56:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Bignall
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 20:16:42 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
[two differently-dated birth certificates]
Post by Lewis
I have a book from my father that is inscribed on the cover with the
date Jan 19, 1975, only it was given to me in 1976. This, also, caused
much confusion. Enough taht I have distinct memories of what I was doing
and where I was on July 4, 1976 that are completely wrong. You'd think
the bicentennial would have cemented the right memory and dates, but no,
my father's inability to keep the year straight (and his dogmatic
insistence that he never made a mistake) led to a childhood of
confusion.
So, perhaps your mother's parents were like my father? Or perhaps there
was a specific reason to make her older or younger at some point?
I could see that for a boy and WW1, but a girl? My maternal
grandfather, the only grandparent to survive into my lifetime (just),
was a Victorian tyrant of the kind Dickens wrote about. He was a master
tailor who, in his prime, owned a shop and had employees and servants.
His attitude was that while his children lived under his roof they
should obey his every whim, and he used a whip on some of them even into
their twenties. My uncle Jesse, the eldest, had a permanent tic at the
side of his mouth from the mental and physical anguish of standing up to
the old man and trying to protect his sisters from beatings.
Grandfather drank it all away, and when I saw him (I was three) he was
reduced to living in a tiny Victorian row house with his housekeeper,
with whom he'd been living after giving his wife eleven children and
seeing her into an early grave. He had alienated all of his children
other than my mother, and I think we only went to see him because he was
dying.
In his prime, when he had his children, I don't see him getting confused
with dates.
Could it be that there was a girl who died in her first few months, and the
parents re-used the same name for the next girl to be born? I think this
used to be a common thing.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Robin Bignall
2012-09-10 19:57:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whiskers
Post by Robin Bignall
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 20:16:42 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
[two differently-dated birth certificates]
Post by Lewis
I have a book from my father that is inscribed on the cover with the
date Jan 19, 1975, only it was given to me in 1976. This, also, caused
much confusion. Enough taht I have distinct memories of what I was doing
and where I was on July 4, 1976 that are completely wrong. You'd think
the bicentennial would have cemented the right memory and dates, but no,
my father's inability to keep the year straight (and his dogmatic
insistence that he never made a mistake) led to a childhood of
confusion.
So, perhaps your mother's parents were like my father? Or perhaps there
was a specific reason to make her older or younger at some point?
I could see that for a boy and WW1, but a girl? My maternal
grandfather, the only grandparent to survive into my lifetime (just),
was a Victorian tyrant of the kind Dickens wrote about. He was a master
tailor who, in his prime, owned a shop and had employees and servants.
His attitude was that while his children lived under his roof they
should obey his every whim, and he used a whip on some of them even into
their twenties. My uncle Jesse, the eldest, had a permanent tic at the
side of his mouth from the mental and physical anguish of standing up to
the old man and trying to protect his sisters from beatings.
Grandfather drank it all away, and when I saw him (I was three) he was
reduced to living in a tiny Victorian row house with his housekeeper,
with whom he'd been living after giving his wife eleven children and
seeing her into an early grave. He had alienated all of his children
other than my mother, and I think we only went to see him because he was
dying.
In his prime, when he had his children, I don't see him getting confused
with dates.
Could it be that there was a girl who died in her first few months, and the
parents re-used the same name for the next girl to be born? I think this
used to be a common thing.
That could have been possible. Of the 11 children, five survived into
my lifetime and one other died ten years before I was born. The others
were never discussed and it never occurred to me to ask.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England
Cheryl
2012-09-10 21:28:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robin Bignall
Post by Whiskers
Post by Robin Bignall
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 20:16:42 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
[two differently-dated birth certificates]
Post by Lewis
I have a book from my father that is inscribed on the cover with the
date Jan 19, 1975, only it was given to me in 1976. This, also, caused
much confusion. Enough taht I have distinct memories of what I was doing
and where I was on July 4, 1976 that are completely wrong. You'd think
the bicentennial would have cemented the right memory and dates, but no,
my father's inability to keep the year straight (and his dogmatic
insistence that he never made a mistake) led to a childhood of
confusion.
So, perhaps your mother's parents were like my father? Or perhaps there
was a specific reason to make her older or younger at some point?
I could see that for a boy and WW1, but a girl? My maternal
grandfather, the only grandparent to survive into my lifetime (just),
was a Victorian tyrant of the kind Dickens wrote about. He was a master
tailor who, in his prime, owned a shop and had employees and servants.
His attitude was that while his children lived under his roof they
should obey his every whim, and he used a whip on some of them even into
their twenties. My uncle Jesse, the eldest, had a permanent tic at the
side of his mouth from the mental and physical anguish of standing up to
the old man and trying to protect his sisters from beatings.
Grandfather drank it all away, and when I saw him (I was three) he was
reduced to living in a tiny Victorian row house with his housekeeper,
with whom he'd been living after giving his wife eleven children and
seeing her into an early grave. He had alienated all of his children
other than my mother, and I think we only went to see him because he was
dying.
In his prime, when he had his children, I don't see him getting confused
with dates.
Could it be that there was a girl who died in her first few months, and the
parents re-used the same name for the next girl to be born? I think this
used to be a common thing.
That could have been possible. Of the 11 children, five survived into
my lifetime and one other died ten years before I was born. The others
were never discussed and it never occurred to me to ask.
In spite of visiting graveyards being practically a family hobby, I
didn't know until quite recently that I had several cousins who died at
or just after birth, and were buried in unmarked graves, apparently with
an acrimonious dispute in the family as to whether the graves should
have been left unmarked. This happened around the time of my own birth,
but of all the old quarrels that tended to get dredged up through the
years, that was one of the very few I never heard a word about until
much, much later. One of the few I know about - heaven knows what else
is lurking in the closet and under the bed, but there are fewer and
fewer people alive who know about them.

It's astonishing what families can 'forget' to mention - often with the
laudable intentions of not hurting those directly concerned.
--
Cheryl
Lewis
2012-09-11 17:31:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Cheryl
Post by Robin Bignall
Post by Whiskers
Post by Robin Bignall
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 20:16:42 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
[two differently-dated birth certificates]
Post by Lewis
I have a book from my father that is inscribed on the cover with the
date Jan 19, 1975, only it was given to me in 1976. This, also, caused
much confusion. Enough taht I have distinct memories of what I was doing
and where I was on July 4, 1976 that are completely wrong. You'd think
the bicentennial would have cemented the right memory and dates, but no,
my father's inability to keep the year straight (and his dogmatic
insistence that he never made a mistake) led to a childhood of
confusion.
So, perhaps your mother's parents were like my father? Or perhaps there
was a specific reason to make her older or younger at some point?
I could see that for a boy and WW1, but a girl? My maternal
grandfather, the only grandparent to survive into my lifetime (just),
was a Victorian tyrant of the kind Dickens wrote about. He was a master
tailor who, in his prime, owned a shop and had employees and servants.
His attitude was that while his children lived under his roof they
should obey his every whim, and he used a whip on some of them even into
their twenties. My uncle Jesse, the eldest, had a permanent tic at the
side of his mouth from the mental and physical anguish of standing up to
the old man and trying to protect his sisters from beatings.
Grandfather drank it all away, and when I saw him (I was three) he was
reduced to living in a tiny Victorian row house with his housekeeper,
with whom he'd been living after giving his wife eleven children and
seeing her into an early grave. He had alienated all of his children
other than my mother, and I think we only went to see him because he was
dying.
In his prime, when he had his children, I don't see him getting confused
with dates.
Could it be that there was a girl who died in her first few months, and the
parents re-used the same name for the next girl to be born? I think this
used to be a common thing.
That could have been possible. Of the 11 children, five survived into
my lifetime and one other died ten years before I was born. The others
were never discussed and it never occurred to me to ask.
In spite of visiting graveyards being practically a family hobby, I
didn't know until quite recently that I had several cousins who died at
or just after birth, and were buried in unmarked graves, apparently with
an acrimonious dispute in the family as to whether the graves should
have been left unmarked.
It seems the unmarked grave was the usual course. My wife's aunt, who
was born in the 1920's, was born with a twin sister who died a few days
later and was buried in an unmarked grave. When the aunt was bout 70,
she bought a gravestone. It wasn't until then that I knew she'd had a
twin sister.
Post by Cheryl
It's astonishing what families can 'forget' to mention - often with the
laudable intentions of not hurting those directly concerned.
When I was about 16 or 18 I was telling my mother a story my father had
told about her (they'd been divorced basically all my life and my father
was remarried).

She said, "That wasn't me, that was Claire."

"Who's Claire?"

"His second wife."

"What? No, that's--"

"I was his third wife."

. . .

Not only had my father been married before he married my mother, he'd
been married *twice* and yet, I'd never heard a single mention of either
of these marriages.
--
And sometimes there's a short cut. A door or a gate. Some standing
stones. A tree cleft by lightning, a filing cabinet. Maybe just a spot
on some moorland somewhere... A place where THERE is very nearly HERE...
If some people knew where such a spot was, if they had experience of
what happens when here and there become entangled, then they might - if
they knew how - mark such a spot with certain stones. In the hope that
enough daft buggers would take it as a warning and keep away. (Lords and
Ladies)
Mike L
2012-09-11 17:35:56 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:36:50 +0100, Robin Bignall
Post by Robin Bignall
Post by Nick Spalding
Peter Duncanson [BrE] wrote, in
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
My implied statement that the forename cannot be changed was based on a
hazy memory of the fact that forenames as originally registered can be
altered within 12 months. This seems to be partly to allow baptismal
names to be added. Later changes to a child or adult's name by Deed Poll
do not affect the entry in the Register.
My mother's birth certificate just has a dash in the name column.
Although she was three weeks old when she was registered they apparently
hadn't decided what she was to be called. It was never updated. She
Her name on later documents like Marriage Certificate or passport was
variously Anne or Anna but she was never called anything but Nancy. I
never had a chance to ask her about the gap in the birth certificate as
she was long dead before I had a need to get a copy of it.
My mother had two birth certificates, identical except for the DOB: 1899
in one case and 1900 in the other. I've no idea how that came about.
The records show that my father joined the army twice.
--
Mike.
micky
2012-09-08 21:07:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:15:14 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A person may use different surnames in different contexts.
The wife of one of my nephews uses two different surnames. She uses my
nephew's surname for most purposes. She has a daughter from a previous
marriage. The daughter has retained her father's surname. So her mother
calls herself by her previous married name when dealing with her
daughter's school.
So she married Mr A, became Mrs A and had a daughter Miss A. Mrs A and
Mr A divorced. Mrs A then married Mr B and became Mrs B. To Miss A's
school she is Mrs A but to the rest of the world she is Mrs B.
This is all totally legal.
This is all true in the USA too. My father died when I was 8 and my
mother remarried when I was 19, but she continued to use my father's
name for some purposes for another 30 years.

What I learned in law school, where I wasn't a good student, didn't
graduate, and my memory of what I did learn is fading anyhow, is that
one can use any name he wants as long as it's not used for fraud.

But the world has conspired to make it hard to use more than one name
in many situations. To pay taxes you have to use the name that
matches the social security number. To buy something witha credit
card, you have to use the name on the card or the merchant will be
understandably suspicious. To travel out of the country, that name
has to match the passport name, or everyone will be suspicious.

For the last 40 years or more, you have to prove who you are to open a
bank account. It's easier to take the money and close the account
than to give them the money and open it.
Ian Noble
2012-09-09 07:30:44 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:15:14 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There is a more general point about surnames in the UK.
The only formally registered name a person has is their forename, their
given name, which is on their birth certificate. A person's surname is a
matter of custom and practice. A person can change their surname at any
time so long as the change is not for dishonest purposes.
Legally true, not quite so true in practice nowadays. (IANAL, so the
following may not - almost certainly isn't - the whole story).


Certainly you can go by any surname(s) and name(s) that you choose to.
You *do* effectively have an "official" full name, though. For
example, you won't find it easy to get a passport issued, or indeed
nowadays to open a bank account, under a surname other than that on or
implied by your birth certificate, without presenting a deed of change
of name (a witnessed legal document). Changing your name "by deed
poll" is almost trivially easy - but the mere fact that the legal
concept even exists shows that, in some senses, you have a full name
which is more than simply a matter of custom and practice. And whilst
the wording of a such a deed can vary, it will state, in some form or
other, that you have fully given up the use of your old name and
adopted the new one.

Having said that, an explanatory note to the Enrolment of Deeds
(Change of Name) Regulations 1994 states:
"At common law a surname is the name by which a person is generally
known, and the effect of changing it by deed poll is only evidential
and formal."


As for what's entered into a UK register of births... I have two
copies of my own (UK) birth certificate.

The first is the original, full, hand-written copy ("original copy"
seems somewhat eccentric, but in this context it's correct) from 1954,
given to my parents at the time that the register entry was made. The
column for my own information is headed "Name, if any"; the columns
for my parents' information are headed "Name and surname of father"
and "Name and maiden surname of mother". My given names, only, are
recorded in the first of those; nowhere on the entry is an explicit
value for *my* surname recorded.

The second is one issued in 1975 (presumably when I needed a copy for
some purpose or other and couldn't locate the original). The first
field on the form is labelled "Name and Surname", and contains my
given names followed by my father's surname. The signed statement
confirms that "...the above particulars have been compiled from an
entry in a register in (the registrar's) custody".

Put another way - the actual birth register entry, of which the first
example is a direct copy, does not record my surname directly.
However, my surname at birth seems to have been deduced, for official
purposes, to be that of my father.

Whether or not that is invariably the case, I have no idea.
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
A person may use different surnames in different contexts.
The wife of one of my nephews uses two different surnames. She uses my
nephew's surname for most purposes. She has a daughter from a previous
marriage. The daughter has retained her father's surname. So her mother
calls herself by her previous married name when dealing with her
daughter's school.
Like many women. one of my daughters-in-law retains her maiden name
for professional purposes. For good reasons I won't go into, she
hyphenates that with my son's surname outside of business hours. My
son, by contrast, sticks to his original, unvarnished surname. I wait
with interest to see how that develops when they have kids, mind.

Cheers - Ian
(BrE: Yorks., Hants.)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2012-09-09 11:04:34 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 08:30:44 +0100, Ian Noble
Post by micky
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:15:14 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
There is a more general point about surnames in the UK.
The only formally registered name a person has is their forename, their
given name, which is on their birth certificate. A person's surname is a
matter of custom and practice. A person can change their surname at any
time so long as the change is not for dishonest purposes.
Legally true, not quite so true in practice nowadays. (IANAL, so the
following may not - almost certainly isn't - the whole story).
Certainly you can go by any surname(s) and name(s) that you choose to.
You *do* effectively have an "official" full name, though. For
example, you won't find it easy to get a passport issued, or indeed
nowadays to open a bank account, under a surname other than that on or
implied by your birth certificate, without presenting a deed of change
of name (a witnessed legal document). Changing your name "by deed
poll" is almost trivially easy - but the mere fact that the legal
concept even exists shows that, in some senses, you have a full name
which is more than simply a matter of custom and practice. And whilst
the wording of a such a deed can vary, it will state, in some form or
other, that you have fully given up the use of your old name and
adopted the new one.
Having said that, an explanatory note to the Enrolment of Deeds
"At common law a surname is the name by which a person is generally
known, and the effect of changing it by deed poll is only evidential
and formal."
As for what's entered into a UK register of births... I have two
copies of my own (UK) birth certificate.
The first is the original, full, hand-written copy ("original copy"
seems somewhat eccentric, but in this context it's correct) from 1954,
given to my parents at the time that the register entry was made. The
column for my own information is headed "Name, if any"; the columns
for my parents' information are headed "Name and surname of father"
and "Name and maiden surname of mother". My given names, only, are
recorded in the first of those; nowhere on the entry is an explicit
value for *my* surname recorded.
That is just the same as on my and my late wife's birth certificates.
Post by micky
The second is one issued in 1975 (presumably when I needed a copy for
some purpose or other and couldn't locate the original). The first
field on the form is labelled "Name and Surname", and contains my
given names followed by my father's surname. The signed statement
confirms that "...the above particulars have been compiled from an
entry in a register in (the registrar's) custody".
Put another way - the actual birth register entry, of which the first
example is a direct copy, does not record my surname directly.
However, my surname at birth seems to have been deduced, for official
purposes, to be that of my father.
Whether or not that is invariably the case, I have no idea.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
the Omrud
2012-09-08 13:56:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Barry
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry_of_Wales
I thought Prince William was still "Prince William of Wales", but
apparently he dropped the title when he was made Duke of Cambridge.
Seems to me that's some sort of convenience title. Neither of them has
been invested with a "Wales" title.
--
David
Stan Brown
2012-09-09 12:01:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
[quoted text muted]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Harry_of_Wales
I thought Prince William was still "Prince William of Wales", but
apparently he dropped the title when he was made Duke of Cambridge.
Seems to me that's some sort of convenience title. Neither of them has
been invested with a "Wales" title.
There is no need, and in fact they couldn't be "invested with a Wales
title" since Prince Charles already has that title.

A son or daughter of any son of the sovereign is automatically Prince
(ss) Firstname of Title, using the father's title. This is a
courtesy title, not a real title like Prince of Wales or Earl of
Wessex, so there is no investiture. Thus the daughters of the Duke
of York are Princess N of York, the sons of the Prince of Wales are
Prince N of Wales, and the daughter of the Earl of Wessex is Princess
N of Wessex.

The Queen's uncles on her father's side were sons of George V, so her
cousins are Prince(ss) N of Kent, Prince(ss) N of Gloucester, and so
on. But *their* children are not royal and are therefore Lord or
Lady N Windsor (not "of Windsor"). The exception is the eldest son,
who inherits the ducal title and becomes Duke of Kent, Duke of
Gloucester, etc when his father dies.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Guy Barry
2012-09-08 08:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Monarchs don't really have surnames - HMQ is "of the House of Windsor".
Charles uses the name "Mountbatten-Windsor" when he needs a surname, so I
suppose his sons have the same.
Here's Wikipedia:

"The Prince's style and title in full is His Royal Highness Prince Henry
Charles Albert David of Wales. As a British prince, Harry holds no surname;
however, as with the other male-line grandchildren of Elizabeth II, he uses
the name of the area over which his father holds title; i.e., Wales. Past
precedent is that such surnames are dropped from usage in adulthood, after
which either title alone, or Mountbatten-Windsor is used when necessary.
Prince Harry, however, continues to use Wales as his surname for military
purposes and is known as Captain Harry Wales in such contexts. If his
father succeeds to the throne he will be known as His Royal Highness The
Prince Harry. Traditionally, male-line members of British royalty receive a
dukedom a few hours before their marriage, the most recent being his elder
brother Prince William, who became Duke of Cambridge."
--
Guy Barry
Stan Brown
2012-09-08 11:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
Sure they do (unless you want to argue the difference between a
"title" and a "style"). Harry is Prince Harry of Wales. William was
Prince William of Wales, and still is, though of course he now uses
his own title.

Similarly, Andrew's children are Princess N of York.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
the Omrud
2012-09-08 13:59:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
Sure they do (unless you want to argue the difference between a
"title" and a "style").
I do.
--
David
Guy Barry
2012-09-08 15:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by the Omrud
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales",
Sure they do (unless you want to argue the difference between a
"title" and a "style").
I do.
So what is it then? And why is it relevant to the issue of "Captain Wales"?
--
Guy
micky
2012-09-08 20:47:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
Hmmm, you're mixing your Royal Dynasties and Centuries at little.
Well, what's a few centuries between friends?
Post by the Omrud
Post by micky
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
It's an alias for convenience. As an officer in the army, he needs a
name - his colleagues can't go around addressing him by all his titles.
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales", but
they are known as "Harry Wales" and "William Wales" in the armed forces.
It doesn't mean anything.
Monarchs don't really have surnames
Interesting. Thanks. As any reader of my posts can tell, I've dropped
my surname on Usenet, which is the majority of my life now, so unless
I'm going to be like Liberace or Cher, maybe I should replace it.

Maybe I can even look like royalty.

Sincerely,

Mm Maryland.
Post by the Omrud
- HMQ is "of the House of Windsor".
Charles uses the name "Mountbatten-Windsor" when he needs a surname,
so I suppose his sons have the same.
micky
2012-09-08 20:54:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
Post by the Omrud
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
Hmmm, you're mixing your Royal Dynasties and Centuries at little.
Well, what's a few centuries between friends?
Post by the Omrud
Post by micky
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
It's an alias for convenience. As an officer in the army, he needs a
name - his colleagues can't go around addressing him by all his titles.
Neither William nor Harry has any title which includes "Wales", but
they are known as "Harry Wales" and "William Wales" in the armed forces.
It doesn't mean anything.
Monarchs don't really have surnames
Interesting. Thanks. As any reader of my posts can tell, I've dropped
my surname on Usenet, which is the majority of my life now, so unless
I'm going to be like Liberace or Cher, maybe I should replace it.
Maybe I can even look like royalty.
Sincerely,
Mm Maryland.
Oops. That was my old first name.

Now I'm Micky Maryland.
Post by micky
Post by the Omrud
- HMQ is "of the House of Windsor".
Charles uses the name "Mountbatten-Windsor" when he needs a surname,
so I suppose his sons have the same.
micky
2012-09-08 23:19:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
Post by micky
Interesting. Thanks. As any reader of my posts can tell, I've dropped
my surname on Usenet, which is the majority of my life now, so unless
I'm going to be like Liberace or Cher, maybe I should replace it.
Maybe I can even look like royalty.
Sincerely,
Mm Maryland.
Oops. That was my old first name.
Now I'm Micky Maryland.
Or: I'm told I should call myself Micky Bourbon.

Sounds royal and sounds like celebrating too.
PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
2012-09-08 09:34:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
They don't use their real family name any more. It has scandalous,
fatherlandish connotations.
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2012-09-08 12:19:35 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 17:34:10 +0800, PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
They don't use their real family name any more. It has scandalous,
fatherlandish connotations.
That is only one ancestral line. They could go for a female line and use
the present Queen's mother's maiden name, Bowes-Lyon.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Whiskers
2012-09-08 13:14:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
They don't use their real family name any more. It has scandalous,
fatherlandish connotations.
There isn't a 'real family name' for Royalty. Both our present monarch and
her consort are descended from the 'House of Hanover', and so by way of the
'House of Stewart' and the Normans can trace their line (somewhat
tortuously) to the Saxon kings of Wessex - and also probably to more or
less every Royal 'house' of post-Roman Europe. Of course, it would be
difficult to find any European person who can't, if you cared to trace the
lineages far enough.

Royals and Nobility customarily use the name of the region or place over
which they hold title (or the one they value most highly, if they have
several titles). By which tradition, the Royal family for the time being
of the UK could choose to use the name 'Britain' or 'England' or 'Scotland'
or 'Cornwall' or any other part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Island. The Queen is also monarch of each of the Channel Islands,
and of the Isle of Man, and of many of the countries that belong to the
Commonwealth of Nations (former parts of the British Empire). So she and
her offspring have a large pool of names to choose from.

It was a romantic notion when Queen Victoria chose to change the name of
her dynasty from 'Hanover' to that of her consort, 'Saxe-Coburg Gotha',
and a politic patriotism when their descendent King George V changed it
again to the British-sounding 'Windsor', which it remains to this day.

Our Queen's consort Phillip was 'Prince of Greece and Denmark' until he
renounced his place in those lines of succession on marrying Princess
Elizabeth. He took the name 'Mountbatten', from his mother's title
'Princess Alice of Battenberg' whose father changed the name to
'Mountbatten' after becoming a British subject and serving in the Royal
Navy in WWI. (Prince Phillip also served in the Royal Navy, during WWII).

<http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx>
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Irwell
2012-09-08 15:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whiskers
Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
They don't use their real family name any more. It has scandalous,
fatherlandish connotations.
There isn't a 'real family name' for Royalty. Both our present monarch and
her consort are descended from the 'House of Hanover', and so by way of the
'House of Stewart' and the Normans can trace their line (somewhat
tortuously) to the Saxon kings of Wessex - and also probably to more or
less every Royal 'house' of post-Roman Europe. Of course, it would be
difficult to find any European person who can't, if you cared to trace the
lineages far enough.
Royals and Nobility customarily use the name of the region or place over
which they hold title (or the one they value most highly, if they have
several titles). By which tradition, the Royal family for the time being
of the UK could choose to use the name 'Britain' or 'England' or 'Scotland'
or 'Cornwall' or any other part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Island. The Queen is also monarch of each of the Channel Islands,
and of the Isle of Man, and of many of the countries that belong to the
Commonwealth of Nations (former parts of the British Empire). So she and
her offspring have a large pool of names to choose from.
It was a romantic notion when Queen Victoria chose to change the name of
her dynasty from 'Hanover' to that of her consort, 'Saxe-Coburg Gotha',
and a politic patriotism when their descendent King George V changed it
again to the British-sounding 'Windsor', which it remains to this day.
Our Queen's consort Phillip was 'Prince of Greece and Denmark' until he
renounced his place in those lines of succession on marrying Princess
Elizabeth. He took the name 'Mountbatten', from his mother's title
'Princess Alice of Battenberg' whose father changed the name to
'Mountbatten' after becoming a British subject and serving in the Royal
Navy in WWI. (Prince Phillip also served in the Royal Navy, during WWII).
<http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx>
Are Battenberg cakes stiull available?
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2012-09-08 16:28:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irwell
Post by Whiskers
Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
They don't use their real family name any more. It has scandalous,
fatherlandish connotations.
There isn't a 'real family name' for Royalty. Both our present monarch and
her consort are descended from the 'House of Hanover', and so by way of the
'House of Stewart' and the Normans can trace their line (somewhat
tortuously) to the Saxon kings of Wessex - and also probably to more or
less every Royal 'house' of post-Roman Europe. Of course, it would be
difficult to find any European person who can't, if you cared to trace the
lineages far enough.
Royals and Nobility customarily use the name of the region or place over
which they hold title (or the one they value most highly, if they have
several titles). By which tradition, the Royal family for the time being
of the UK could choose to use the name 'Britain' or 'England' or 'Scotland'
or 'Cornwall' or any other part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Island. The Queen is also monarch of each of the Channel Islands,
and of the Isle of Man, and of many of the countries that belong to the
Commonwealth of Nations (former parts of the British Empire). So she and
her offspring have a large pool of names to choose from.
It was a romantic notion when Queen Victoria chose to change the name of
her dynasty from 'Hanover' to that of her consort, 'Saxe-Coburg Gotha',
and a politic patriotism when their descendent King George V changed it
again to the British-sounding 'Windsor', which it remains to this day.
Our Queen's consort Phillip was 'Prince of Greece and Denmark' until he
renounced his place in those lines of succession on marrying Princess
Elizabeth. He took the name 'Mountbatten', from his mother's title
'Princess Alice of Battenberg' whose father changed the name to
'Mountbatten' after becoming a British subject and serving in the Royal
Navy in WWI. (Prince Phillip also served in the Royal Navy, during WWII).
<http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx>
Are Battenberg cakes stiull available?
They were last time I bought one, which was a few months ago.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
the Omrud
2012-09-08 17:08:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Irwell
Post by Whiskers
Our Queen's consort Phillip was 'Prince of Greece and Denmark' until he
renounced his place in those lines of succession on marrying Princess
Elizabeth. He took the name 'Mountbatten', from his mother's title
'Princess Alice of Battenberg' whose father changed the name to
'Mountbatten' after becoming a British subject and serving in the Royal
Navy in WWI. (Prince Phillip also served in the Royal Navy, during WWII).
<http://www.royal.gov.uk/Home.aspx>
Are Battenberg cakes stiull available?
Certainly. AFAIK, they're sold in every supermarket. Also, in
Bridgnorth is a shop which sells "home made" Battenburgs. I know this
because my sister brought me one a few months ago.
--
David
Don Phillipson
2012-09-08 22:12:01 UTC
Permalink
Are Battenberg cakes still available?
Apparently still sold at Waitrose (a British chain grocery)
but I was surprised to see only one brand. Is Kipling a
house brand of Waitrose?
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Peter Duncanson [BrE]
2012-09-09 11:13:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 18:12:01 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
Post by Don Phillipson
Are Battenberg cakes still available?
Apparently still sold at Waitrose (a British chain grocery)
but I was surprised to see only one brand. Is Kipling a
house brand of Waitrose?
No. The brand name is actually "Mr Kipling".

http://www.mrkipling.co.uk/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Kipling

http://www.premierfoods.co.uk/our-brands/mr-kipling/
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)
Mike L
2012-09-11 17:45:37 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 12:13:23 +0100, "Peter Duncanson [BrE]"
Post by Peter Duncanson [BrE]
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 18:12:01 -0400, "Don Phillipson"
Post by Don Phillipson
Are Battenberg cakes still available?
Apparently still sold at Waitrose (a British chain grocery)
but I was surprised to see only one brand. Is Kipling a
house brand of Waitrose?
No. The brand name is actually "Mr Kipling".
http://www.mrkipling.co.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Kipling
http://www.premierfoods.co.uk/our-brands/mr-kipling/
And horrid soggy stuff does Mr Kipling churn out: just the job when
all you want's a sugar rush with crumbs. I think better bakers are
still making it, though.
--
Mike.
Stan Brown
2012-09-09 11:54:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whiskers
There isn't a 'real family name' for Royalty. Both our present monarch and
her consort are descended from the 'House of Hanover', and so by way of the
'House of Stewart' and the Normans can trace their line (somewhat
tortuously) to the Saxon kings of Wessex - and also probably to more or
less every Royal 'house' of post-Roman Europe. Of course, it would be
difficult to find any European person who can't, if you cared to trace the
lineages far enough.
You don't have to go very far. Almost all European royalty are
descended from Victoria or Christian IX or both.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Whiskers
2012-09-09 12:41:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Whiskers
There isn't a 'real family name' for Royalty. Both our present monarch and
her consort are descended from the 'House of Hanover', and so by way of the
'House of Stewart' and the Normans can trace their line (somewhat
tortuously) to the Saxon kings of Wessex - and also probably to more or
less every Royal 'house' of post-Roman Europe. Of course, it would be
difficult to find any European person who can't, if you cared to trace the
lineages far enough.
You don't have to go very far. Almost all European royalty are
descended from Victoria or Christian IX or both.
I'm pretty sure I'm not descended from either of them; but Alfred the Great
or Charlemagne are removed by so many generations that I think there's a
pretty good chance that I (and most other Europeans) could find them in our
lineage if we only had the records.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Irwell
2012-09-09 17:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whiskers
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Whiskers
There isn't a 'real family name' for Royalty. Both our present monarch and
her consort are descended from the 'House of Hanover', and so by way of the
'House of Stewart' and the Normans can trace their line (somewhat
tortuously) to the Saxon kings of Wessex - and also probably to more or
less every Royal 'house' of post-Roman Europe. Of course, it would be
difficult to find any European person who can't, if you cared to trace the
lineages far enough.
You don't have to go very far. Almost all European royalty are
descended from Victoria or Christian IX or both.
I'm pretty sure I'm not descended from either of them; but Alfred the Great
or Charlemagne are removed by so many generations that I think there's a
pretty good chance that I (and most other Europeans) could find them in our
lineage if we only had the records.
That is how Tess of the Dubervilles got in trouble.
R H Draney
2012-09-09 21:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Whiskers
There isn't a 'real family name' for Royalty. Both our present monarch and
her consort are descended from the 'House of Hanover', and so by way of the
'House of Stewart' and the Normans can trace their line (somewhat
tortuously) to the Saxon kings of Wessex - and also probably to more or
less every Royal 'house' of post-Roman Europe. Of course, it would be
difficult to find any European person who can't, if you cared to trace the
lineages far enough.
You don't have to go very far. Almost all European royalty are
descended from Victoria or Christian IX or both.
Is the Monegasque royal family included in that list?...r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Stan Brown
2012-09-10 10:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by R H Draney
Post by Stan Brown
You don't have to go very far. Almost all European royalty are
descended from Victoria or Christian IX or both.
Is the Monegasque royal family included in that list?...r
They're not royal, only "serene", like the old Republic of Venice.
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
R H Draney
2012-09-10 21:54:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by R H Draney
Post by Stan Brown
You don't have to go very far. Almost all European royalty are
descended from Victoria or Christian IX or both.
Is the Monegasque royal family included in that list?...r
They're not royal, only "serene", like the old Republic of Venice.
Note to self: compose future SDC question likening Princess Caroline to a
manatee....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
Robert Bannister
2012-09-11 01:21:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by R H Draney
Post by Stan Brown
You don't have to go very far. Almost all European royalty are
descended from Victoria or Christian IX or both.
Is the Monegasque royal family included in that list?...r
They're not royal, only "serene", like the old Republic of Venice.
I get like that after a few glasses of wine.
--
Robert Bannister
Robert Bannister
2012-09-09 01:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by PAUL {HAMILTON ROONEY}
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
They don't use their real family name any more. It has scandalous,
fatherlandish connotations.
...and cake-ish.
--
Robert Bannister
bob
2012-09-10 08:28:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales.     I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
They don't use their real family name any more.  It has scandalous,
fatherlandish connotations.
Which one did you have in mind? Elizabeth was born to a house that
had bee Saxe-Coburg and Gothe (before 1915), and Phillip was born to a
branch of the house of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderberg-Glügsberg (that
being the Danish royal line). He officially gave that up and adopted
Mountbatten before they were married, that having been anglicised from
Battenberg in 1915. As per the subject of this thread, he is
presumably Admiral of the Fleet Edinburgh. I beleive Brenda signs
herself Elizabeth R.

Robin
Stan Brown
2012-09-08 11:43:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Children of the Prince of Wales are Prince(ss) ____ of Wales, unless
they have their own titles (as William now does). Children of the
Duke of York are Prince(ss) _____ of York, and so on.

It's not quite clear what is the last name of the royals. Her
Majesty issued a ruling making the last name of some of her
descendants Mountbatten-Windsor, but even after repeated readings I
could not figure out unambiguously whom it applies to. The name of
the royal house is Windsor. See here for more:

http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-1

So Harry is Prince Harry of Wales. "Wales" is not his surname but is
the last word of his name, so like his father and brother before him,
in the military he is "Wales".
--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com
Don Phillipson
2012-09-08 12:27:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Prince Harry went through the Sandhurst RMA where cadets are
identified by surname. Sandhurst probably coined "Wales" for
this purpose and it was found convenient for his later army service.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Jerry Friedman
2012-09-08 14:04:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales.     I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Titles have been used as names in England for centuries. In
Shakespeare, the Duke of Gloucester is called "Gloucester" and the
King of France is called "France".

In Dorothy L. Sayers's books, set in the 1920s and '30s, the Duke of
Denver is referred to as "Denver" by other aristocrats. His son is
the Viscount Saint-George, and when the latter is a student at Oxford,
where surnames were used in most circumstances, he introduces himself
by saying, "My name's Saint-George".

My only non-fictional source on this is /Love, Death, and the
Universe/, by Nigel Rees, which says that Princess Anne calls (or used
to call) Prince Charles "One-Take Wales" because of his skill in front
of cameras.
Post by Don Phillipson
Prince Harry went through the Sandhurst RMA where cadets are
identified by surname.  Sandhurst probably coined "Wales" for
this purpose and it was found convenient for his later army service.
Coined? Other members of the British royal family have served in the
military (and attended Eton, where I believe pupils are identified by
surname), so I'd have thought there was an established procedure.

--
Jerry Friedman
Mark Brader
2012-09-08 17:51:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Friedman
In Dorothy L. Sayers's books,
written and
Post by Jerry Friedman
set in the 1920s and '30s, the Duke of
Denver is referred to as "Denver" by other aristocrats. His son..
the Viscount Saint-George, and when the latter is a student at Oxford,
where surnames were used in most circumstances, he introduces himself
by saying, "My name's Saint-George".
By the way, when Prince Edward hosted a TV show some years ago, the
name he used on the show was Edward Windsor.
--
Mark Brader "People who think for a living have always
Toronto been especially prone to confuse thinking
***@vex.net with living." -- G.L. Sicherman
Andrew B
2012-09-08 19:37:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
In Dorothy L. Sayers's books,
written and
Post by Jerry Friedman
set in the 1920s and '30s, the Duke of
Denver is referred to as "Denver" by other aristocrats. His son..
the Viscount Saint-George, and when the latter is a student at Oxford,
where surnames were used in most circumstances, he introduces himself
by saying, "My name's Saint-George".
By the way, when Prince Edward hosted a TV show some years ago, the
name he used on the show was Edward Windsor.
That would probably be before he became Earl of Wessex; subsequent to
that he's used the name "Edward Wessex".
GordonD
2012-09-08 21:03:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
In Dorothy L. Sayers's books,
written and
Post by Jerry Friedman
set in the 1920s and '30s, the Duke of
Denver is referred to as "Denver" by other aristocrats. His son..
the Viscount Saint-George, and when the latter is a student at Oxford,
where surnames were used in most circumstances, he introduces himself
by saying, "My name's Saint-George".
By the way, when Prince Edward hosted a TV show some years ago, the
name he used on the show was Edward Windsor.
Was that the calamitous "It's a Royal Knockout"?
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
Guy Barry
2012-09-09 06:32:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by GordonD
Post by Mark Brader
By the way, when Prince Edward hosted a TV show some years ago, the
name he used on the show was Edward Windsor.
Was that the calamitous "It's a Royal Knockout"?
No, it was while he had his own TV production company, Ardent Productions,
which was notoriously unsuccessful. He presented a documentary entitled
"Edward on Edward" about his great-uncle Edward VIII. The story of the
company and the programme is here (along with "It's a Royal Knockout", which
was earlier):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/mar/05/themonarchy.broadcasting
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
2012-09-10 20:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Barry
Post by GordonD
Post by Mark Brader
By the way, when Prince Edward hosted a TV show some years ago, the
name he used on the show was Edward Windsor.
Was that the calamitous "It's a Royal Knockout"?
No, it was while he had his own TV production company, Ardent Productions,
which was notoriously unsuccessful. He presented a documentary entitled
"Edward on Edward" about his great-uncle Edward VIII....
The show I had in mind was another Ardent production, "Crown and Country".
In the IMDB his primary name is "Edward Wessex"; here's their list of his
appearances:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0921844/#Self

There's actually at least one other Prince Edward in the Royal Family
currently, the first cousin once removed (in the older direction) of the
one I'm talking about. He's Duke of Kent and *his* IMDB primary name is
Edward Windsor, although they only show one screen credit for him and
that was as the Duke of Kent.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3985006/
--
Mark Brader, Toronto Well, somebody had to be the pedant here!
***@vex.net -- David Keldsen

My text in this article is in the public domain.
Guy Barry
2012-09-11 06:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
The show I had in mind was another Ardent production, "Crown and Country".
In the IMDB his primary name is "Edward Wessex"; here's their list of his
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0921844/#Self
Why isn't "Edward on Edward" listed there then? It's got its own IMDb
entry:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0250357/
--
Guy Barry
Mark Brader
2012-09-11 08:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Barry
Post by Mark Brader
The show I had in mind was another Ardent production, "Crown and Country".
In the IMDB his primary name is "Edward Wessex"; here's their list of his
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0921844/#Self
Why isn't "Edward on Edward" listed there then?
Huh? Oh, I see, the page depends on browser settings. I was talking
about the "Self" section, but it may be collapsed when you open the page.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto Premature generalization is
***@vex.net the square root of all evil.
Guy Barry
2012-09-11 10:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Guy Barry
Why isn't "Edward on Edward" listed there then?
Huh? Oh, I see, the page depends on browser settings. I was talking
about the "Self" section, but it may be collapsed when you open the page.
Ah, got it now.

As I recall Ardent Productions' first series was "Annie's Bar", a disastrous
Channel 4 soap opera about the House of Commons, which had a few cameo
appearances from actual MPs. I remember that Edwina Currie got into trouble
for plugging her book in the first episode.
--
Guy Barry
micky
2012-09-08 23:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
In Dorothy L. Sayers's books,
written and
Post by Jerry Friedman
set in the 1920s and '30s, the Duke of
Denver is referred to as "Denver" by other aristocrats. His son..
the Viscount Saint-George, and when the latter is a student at Oxford,
where surnames were used in most circumstances, he introduces himself
by saying, "My name's Saint-George".
By the way, when Prince Edward hosted a TV show some years ago, the
name he used on the show was Edward Windsor.
Isn't he related to Harry Wales? When they meet at parties, how will
they know they are related?
the Omrud
2012-09-09 09:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
In Dorothy L. Sayers's books,
written and
Post by Jerry Friedman
set in the 1920s and '30s, the Duke of
Denver is referred to as "Denver" by other aristocrats. His son..
the Viscount Saint-George, and when the latter is a student at Oxford,
where surnames were used in most circumstances, he introduces himself
by saying, "My name's Saint-George".
By the way, when Prince Edward hosted a TV show some years ago, the
name he used on the show was Edward Windsor.
Isn't he related to Harry Wales? When they meet at parties, how will
they know they are related?
My sister and I have different surnames. We generally have no problems
recognising that we're related.
--
David
micky
2012-09-09 20:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Omrud
Post by micky
Post by Mark Brader
Post by Jerry Friedman
In Dorothy L. Sayers's books,
written and
Post by Jerry Friedman
set in the 1920s and '30s, the Duke of
Denver is referred to as "Denver" by other aristocrats. His son..
the Viscount Saint-George, and when the latter is a student at Oxford,
where surnames were used in most circumstances, he introduces himself
by saying, "My name's Saint-George".
By the way, when Prince Edward hosted a TV show some years ago, the
name he used on the show was Edward Windsor.
Isn't he related to Harry Wales? When they meet at parties, how will
they know they are related?
My sister and I have different surnames. We generally have no problems
recognising that we're related.
Whew. That's a relief.
micky
2012-09-08 23:23:43 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 07:04:27 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Friedman
Post by Jerry Friedman
Post by Don Phillipson
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales.     I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Titles have been used as names in England for centuries. In
Shakespeare, the Duke of Gloucester is called "Gloucester" and the
King of France is called "France".
Where does that leave Anatole France, Charles de Gaulle, Jomo
Kenyatta, and Captain America?
Post by Jerry Friedman
In Dorothy L. Sayers's books, set in the 1920s and '30s, the Duke of
Denver is referred to as "Denver" by other aristocrats. His son is
the Viscount Saint-George, and when the latter is a student at Oxford,
where surnames were used in most circumstances, he introduces himself
by saying, "My name's Saint-George".
Hmm.
Post by Jerry Friedman
My only non-fictional source on this is /Love, Death, and the
Universe/, by Nigel Rees, which says that Princess Anne calls (or used
to call) Prince Charles "One-Take Wales" because of his skill in front
of cameras.
Post by Don Phillipson
Prince Harry went through the Sandhurst RMA where cadets are
identified by surname.  Sandhurst probably coined "Wales" for
this purpose and it was found convenient for his later army service.
Coined? Other members of the British royal family have served in the
military (and attended Eton, where I believe pupils are identified by
surname), so I'd have thought there was an established procedure.
In case I'm distracted later, thanks to everyone for their help in
this.
Irwell
2012-09-08 15:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Taffy Harry?
Curlytop
2012-09-08 18:12:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Wasn't there a Captain America in some comic book or other years ago? Why
shouldn't my homeland be equally honoured by having its own national
superhero?
--
ξ: ) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply
R H Draney
2012-09-08 19:55:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curlytop
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Wasn't there a Captain America in some comic book or other years ago? Why
shouldn't my homeland be equally honoured by having its own national
superhero?
I'm afraid that for the time being you'll have to be content with part-ownership
of this fellow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Britain

....r
--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.
GordonD
2012-09-08 21:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Curlytop
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Wasn't there a Captain America in some comic book or other years ago?
For values of "years ago" up to and including "now".
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God."
the Omrud
2012-09-08 22:02:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by GordonD
Post by Curlytop
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Wasn't there a Captain America in some comic book or other years ago?
For values of "years ago" up to and including "now".
Filmed partly in Manchester, which has buildings which could passed for
the Bronx in the 30s, or whenever it was set. A friend of mine had a
tiny part in the film.
--
David
Mike L
2012-09-08 23:09:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 19:12:26 +0100, Curlytop
Post by Curlytop
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Wasn't there a Captain America in some comic book or other years ago? Why
shouldn't my homeland be equally honoured by having its own national
superhero?
Well, Captain Wales certainly has a more tasteful uniform. And he
flies.
--
Mike.
Robin Bignall
2012-09-09 01:53:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike L
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 19:12:26 +0100, Curlytop
Post by Curlytop
Post by micky
I heard on the news that Prince Harry is referred to i the British
army as Captain Wales. I thought he was the Dukelet of Wales, or
something like that, and that his last name was Bourbon or Plantagenet
or something.
I thought Wales was part of Great Britain and not a family name.
Wasn't there a Captain America in some comic book or other years ago? Why
shouldn't my homeland be equally honoured by having its own national
superhero?
Well, Captain Wales certainly has a more tasteful uniform. And he
flies.
He has flies, too, and I hope he zips up before riding an Apache.
--
Robin Bignall
(BrE)
Herts, England

[Just joined Facebook against my better wishes, but the IBMPC group is
irresistible.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...