Nail

Nail (pronounced neyl)

(1) A slender, typically rod-shaped rigid piece of metal, usually in many lengths and thicknesses, having (usually) one end pointed and the other (usually) enlarged or flattened, and used for hammering into or through wood, concrete or other materials; in the building trades the most common use is to fasten or join together separate pieces (of timber etc).

(2) In anatomy, a thin, horny plate, consisting of modified epidermis, growing on the upper side of the end of a finger or toe; the toughened protective protein-keratin (known as alpha-keratin, also found in hair) at the end of an animal digit, such as fingernail.

(3) In zoology, the basal thickened portion of the anterior wings of certain hemiptera; the basal thickened portion of the anterior wings of certain hemiptera; the terminal horny plate on the beak of ducks, and other allied birds; the claw of a mammal, bird, or reptile.

(4) Historically, in England, a round pedestal on which merchants once carried out their business.

(5) A measure for a length for cloth, equal to 2¼ inches (57 mm) or 1⁄20 of an ell; 1⁄16 of a yard (archaic); it’s assumed the origin lies in the use to mark that length on the end of a yardstick.

(6) To fasten with a nail or nails; to hemmer in a nail.

(7) To enclose or confine (something) by nailing (often followed by up or down).

(8) To make fast or keep firmly in one place or position (also used figuratively).

(8) Perfectly to accomplish something (usually as “nailed it”).

(9) In vulgar slang, of a male, to engage in sexual intercourse with (as “I nailed her” or (according to Urban Dictionary: “I nailed the bitch”).

(10) In law enforcement, to catch a suspect or find them in possession of contraband or engaged in some unlawful conduct (usually as “nailed them”).

(11) In Christianity, as “the nails”, the relics used in the crucifixion, nailing Christ to the cross at Golgotha.

(12) As a the nail (unit), an archaic multiplier equal to one sixteenth of a base unit

(13) In drug slang, a hypodermic needle, used for injecting drugs.

(14) To detect and expose (a lie, scandal, etc)

(15) In slang, to hit someone.

(16) In slang, intently to focus on someone or something.

(17) To stud with or as if with nails.

Pre 900: From the Middle English noun nail & nayl, from the Old English nægl and cognate with the Old Frisian neil, the Old Saxon & Old High German nagal, the Dutch nagel, the German Nagel, the Old Norse nagl (fingernail), all of which were from the unattested Germanic naglaz.  As a derivative, it was akin to the Lithuanian nãgas & nagà (hoof), the Old Prussian nage (foot), the Old Church Slavonic noga (leg, foot), (the Serbo-Croatian nòga, the Czech noha, the Polish noga and the Russian nogá, all of which were probably originally a jocular reference to the foot as “a hoof”), the Old Church Slavonic nogŭtĭ, the Tocharian A maku & Tocharian B mekwa (fingernail, claw), all from the unattested North European Indo-European ənogwh-.  It was further akin to the Old Irish ingen, the Welsh ewin and the Breton ivin, from the unattested Celtic gwhīnā, the Latin unguis (fingernail, claw), from the unattested Italo-Celtic əngwhi-;the Greek ónyx (stem onych-), the Sanskrit ághri- (foot), from the unattested ághli-; the Armenian ełungn from the unattested onogwh-;the Middle English verbs naile, nail & nayle, the Old English næglian and cognate with the Old Saxon neglian, the Old High German negilen, the Old Norse negla, from the unattested Germanic nagl-janan (the Gothic was ganagljan).  The ultimate source was the primitive Indo-European h₃nog- (nail) and the use to describe the metal fastener was from the Middle English naylen, from the Old English næġlan & nægl (fingernail (handnægl)) & negel (tapering metal pin), from the Proto-Germanic naglaz (source also of Old Norse nagl (fingernail) & nagli (metal nail).  Nail is a noun & verb, nailernailless & naillike are adjectives, renail is a verbs, nailing is a noun & vern and nailed is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is nails.

Nail is modified or used as a modifier in literally dozens of examples including finger-nail, toe-nail, nail-brush, nail-file, rusty-nail, garden-nail, nail-fungus, nail-gun & frost-nail.  In idiomatic use, a “nail in one's coffin” is a experience or event that tends to shorten life or hasten the end of something (applied retrospectively (ie post-mortem) it’s usually in the form “final nail in the coffin”.  To be “hard as nails” is either to be “in a robust physical state” or “lacking in human feelings or without sentiment”. To “nail one's colors to the mast” is to declare one’s position on something.  Something described as “better than a poke in the eye with a rusty nail” is a thing, which while not ideal, is not wholly undesirable or without charm.  In financial matters (of payments), to be “on the nail” is to “pay at once”, often in the form “pay on the nail”.  To “nail something down” is to finalize it. To have “nailed it” is “to perfectly have accomplished something” while “nailed her” indicates “having enjoyed sexual intercourse with her”.  The “right” in the phrase “hit the nail right on the head” is a more recent addition, all known instances of use prior to 1700 being “hit the nail on the head” and the elegant original is much preferred.  It’s used to mean “correctly identify something or exactly to arrive at the correct answer”.  Interestingly, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) notes there is no documentary evidence that the phrase comes from “nail” in the sense of the ting hit by a hammer.

Double-headed nails.

Double-headed nails are used for temporary structures like fencing.  When the shaft is hammered in to the point where the surface of the lower head is flat against the surface of that into which it's being hammered, it leaves the upper head standing proud with just enough of the shaft exposed to allow a claw-hammer to be used to extract nail.  There is a story that as part of an environmental protest against the building or demolition of some structure (the tales vary), activists early one morning went to the temporary fencing around the contested site and hammered in all the double-headed nails.  This is believed to be an urban myth.

The sense of “fingernail” appears to be the original which makes sense give there were fingernails before there were spikes (of metal or any other material) used to build stuff.  The verb nail was from the Old English næglian (to fix or fasten (something) onto (something else) with nails), from the Proto-Germanic ganaglijan (the source also of the Old Saxon neglian, the Old Norse negla, the Old High German negilen, the German nageln and the Gothic ganagljan (to nail), all developed from the root of the nouns.  The colloquial meaning “secure, succeed in catching or getting hold of (someone or something)” was in use by at least the 1760; hence (hence the law enforcement slang meaning “to effect an arrest”, noted since the 1930s.  The meaning “to succeed in hitting” dates from 1886 while the phrase “to nail down” (to fix in place with nails) was first recorded in the 1660s.

Colors: Lindsay Lohan with nails unadorned and painted.

As a noun, “nail-biter” (worrisome or suspenseful event), perhaps surprisingly, seems not to have been in common use until 1999 an it’s applied to things from life-threatening situations to watching close sporting contests.  The idea of nail-biting as a sign of anxiety has been in various forms of literature since the 1570s, the noun nail-biting noted since 1805 and as a noun it was since the mid-nineteenth century applied to those individuals who “habitually or compulsively bit their fingernails” although this seems to have been purely literal rather than something figurative of a mental state.  Now, a “nail-biter” is one who is “habitually worried or apprehensive” and they’re often said to be “chewing the ends of their fingernails” and in political use, a “nail biter” is a criticism somewhat less cutting than “bed-wetter”.  The condition of compulsive nail-biting is the noun onychophagia, the construct being onycho- (a creation of the international scientific vocabulary), reflecting a New Latin combining form, from the Ancient Greek ὄνυξ (ónux) (claw, nail, hoof, talon) +‎ -phagia (eating, biting or swallowing), from the Ancient Greek -φαγία (-phagía).  A related form was -φαγος (-phagos) (eater), the suffix corresponding to φαγεῖν (phageîn) (to eat), the infinitive of ἔφαγον (éphagon) (I eat), which serves as aorist (essentially a compensator for sense-shifts) (for the defective verb ἐσθίω (esthíō) (I eat).  Bitter-tasting nail-polish is available for those who wish to cure themselves.  Nail-polish as a product dates from the 1880s and was originally literally a clear substance designed to give the finger or toe-nails a varnish like finish upon being buffed.  By 1884, it was being sold as “liquid nail varnish” including shads of black, pink and red although surviving depictions in art suggests men and women in various cultures have for thousands of years been coloring their nails.  Nail-files (small, flat, single-cut file for trimming the fingernails) seem first to have been sold in 1819 and nail-clippers (hand-tool used to trim the fingernails and toenails) in 1890.

Francis (1936-2025; pope 2013-2025) at the funeral of Cardinal George Pell (1941-2023), St Peter’s Basilica, the Vatican, January 2023.

The expression "nail down the lid" is a reference to the lid of a coffin (casket), the implication being one wants to make doubly certain anyone within can't possible "return from the dead".  The noun doornail (also door-nail) (large-headed nail used for studding batten doors for strength or ornament) emerged in the late fourteenth century and was often used of many large, thick nails with a large head, not necessarily those used only in doors.  The figurative expression “dead as a doornail” seems to be as old as the piece of hardware and use soon extended to “dumb as a doornail” and “deaf as a doornail).  The noun hangnail (also hang-nail) is a awful as it sounds and describes a “sore strip of partially detached flesh at the side of a nail of the finger or toe” and appears in seventeenth century texts although few etymologists appear to doubt it’s considerably older and probably a folk etymology and sense alteration of the Middle English agnail & angnail (corn on the foot), from the Old English agnail & angnail.  The origin is likely to have been literally the “painful spike” in the flesh when suffering the condition.  The first element was the Proto-Germanic ang- (compressed, hard, painful), from the primitive Indo-European root angh- (tight, painfully constricted, painful); the second the Old English nægl (spike), one of the influences on “nail”.  The noun hobnail was a “short, thick nail with a large head” which dates from the 1590s, the first element probably identical with hob (rounded peg or pin used as a mark or target in games (noted since the 1580s)) of unknown origin.  Because hobnails were hammered into the leather soles of heavy boots and shoes, “hobnail” came in the seventeenth century to be used of “a rustic person” though it was though less offensive than forms like “yokel”.

Nails and pins

Mug shot “pin” from TeePublic featuring Lindsay Lohan (b 1986, left), Donald Trump (b 1946; POTUS 2017-2021 and since 2025) and Paris Hilton (b 1981, right).  In this context, although the product really is “the badge”, the name was gained from the built-in pin supplied to secure the object to clothing.

As designs, a nail and a pin are similar, obviously differing only in scale but the function of each is different.  A nail’s primary purpose is to function as a structural fastener joining materials (most typically two or more pieces of wood) although there are specialized nails driven into substrate by impact (variously with hammers or nail guns (sometimes called “pin-nailers”, some of which are built to fire “panel pins” (very slender nails) or small “headless nails”).  A nail relies on friction and compression in the surrounding material for its holding strength.  Pins look like scaled-down nails but mostly are used for alignment, retention or pivoting, rather than structural load-bearing.  Because of their more delicate construction, pins often are inserted through specific-purpose, pre-existing holes and in many cases are intended to be temporary and are thus removable.  Visually, both nails and pins have heads (round, flat, clipped etc) and a tapered shank with a tip pointed for pointed tip for penetration (“snub-nosed” nails do exist but are rare) and both are designed slightly to deform the surrounding material when driven.  The most obvious difference is that a pin’s head is very small and some are spherical and made from plastic; they’re designed only to be pushed with finger-pressure rather than being hit with a hammer.  Although the term “pin” is used for some specialized devices used in building and engineering (dowel pin, pivot pin, gudgeon pin (also as wrist pin), roll pin, cotter pin etc), the word is most associated with the tailor’s pin (used mostly in textiles and usually clipped to “pin”).  In jewelry design and textiles there are also variants including the “lapel pin” and the fashion industry’s device of last resort, the “safety pin”.

Pinhead in publicity shot for Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992).

Clive Barker's (b 1952) supernatural horror movie Hellraiser (1987) was based on his novella The Hellbound Heart (1986) and was a surprise hit, making it a franchise which has thus far spawned nine sequels, the most recent released in 2022.  The plot involved a mysterious puzzle box that, when opened, summoned the Cenobites, a group of extra-dimensional, sadomasochistic beings unable to differentiate between pain and pleasure.  It was a good premise for a horror movie but the character who really captured the audience's imagination was the unnamed figure viewers dubbed “Pinhead”.  Although Pinhead appeared in the original film for fewer than ten minutes, the character became the franchise’s focal point and has since dominated the publicity material for subsequent releases.  The popularity of Hellraiser has been maintained and it’s hoped that for the next release the producers will offer the part to Peter Dutton (b 1970; leader of the Liberal Party of Australia 2022-2025).

Peter Dutton captured by a photographer during a happy moment (left), Pinhead with the box able to summon the Cenobites (centre) and and artist's depiction of Mr Dutton in “Pinhead mode” (digitally altered image, right).

No longer burdened with tiresome parliamentary duties since losing his seat in the 2025 Australian general election, Mr Dutton has time for a third career and he should be good at playing an unsmiling character who speaks in a relentless monotone; really, all he need do is act naturally.  It’s suspected also he’ll be good at learning a script given the decades he spent parroting “talking points” and TWS (three word slogans).  While it’s an urban myth Mr Dutton wasn’t offered the part of Lord Voldemort in the Harry Potter movie franchise because he was deemed “too scary”, as Pinhead he’d be “just scary enough”.  While the LNP (Liberal National Party) state government in Queensland recently has appointed Mr Dutton to the board of the QIC (Queensland Investment Corporation, the investment manager of the state’s Aus$135 billion in assets), it’s understood his duties in the Aus$130,000 per annum role will be neither onerous or time-consuming so there’ll be ample opportunity for film-shoots.  Although when in opposition the LNP had decried the ALP (Australian Labor Party) government’s frequent appointment of ALP figures to lucrative sinecures, once in office the LNP continued the “jobs for the boys” tradition and Mr Dutton is the latest in a long line of right-wing politicians with a history of extolling the virtues of “private enterprise” and criticizing “government waste” who seem anxious to get back on the public payroll as soon as their political careers end.  Reassuringly for taxpayers who may have been worried Mr Dutton would not be able to continue to enjoy the lifestyle to which their taxes made him accustomed (“entitled” as he might have put it), it’s believed his director’s fees from QIC will not affect his parliamentary pension (understood to be between Aus$260,000-Aus$280,000 per annum).

The Buick Nailhead

In the 1930s, the straight-8 became a favorite for manufacturers of luxury cars, attracted by its ease of manufacture (components and assembly-line tooling able to be shared with those used to produce a straight-6), the mechanical smoothness inherent in the layout and the ease of maintenance afforded by the long, narrow configuration, ancillary components readily accessible.  However, the limitations were the relatively slow engine speeds imposed by the need to restrict the “crankshaft flex” and the height of the units, a product of the long strokes used to gain the required displacement.  By the 1950s, it was clear the future lay in big-bore, overhead valve V8s although the Mercedes-Benz engineers, unable to forget the glory days of the 1930s when the straight-eight W125s built for the Grand Prix circuits generated power and speed Formula One wouldn’t see until the 1980s, noted the relatively small 2.5 litre (153 cubic inch) displacement limit for 1954 and conjured up a final fling for the layout.  Used in both Formula One as the W196R and in sports car racing as the W196S (better remembered as the 300 SLR) the new 2.5 & 3.0 litre (183 cubic inch) straight-8s, unlike their pre-war predecessors, solved the issue of crankshaft flex (the W196's redline was 9500 compared with the W125's 5800) by locating the power take-off at the centre, adding mechanical fuel-injection and a desmodromic valve train to make the things an exotic cocktail of ancient & modern (on smooth racetracks and in the hands of skilled drivers, the swing axles at the back not the liability they might sound).  Dominant during 1954-1955 in both Formula One & the World Sports Car Championship, they were the last of the straight-8s in top-line competition.

Schematic of Buick “Nailhead” V8, 1953-1966.

Across the Atlantic, the US manufacturers also abandoned their straight-8s.  Buick introduced their overhead valve (OHV) V8 in 1953 but, being much wider than before, the new engine had to be slimmed somewhere to fit between the existing inner-fenders (it would not be until later the platform was widened).  To achieve this, the engineers narrowed the cylinder heads, compelling both a conical (the so-called “pent-roof”) combustion chamber and an arrangement in which the sixteen valves pointed directly upwards on the intake side, something which not only demanded an unusual pushrod & rocker mechanism but also limited the size of the valves.  So, the valves had to be tall and narrow and, with some resemblance to nails, they picked up the nickname “nail valves”, morphing eventually to “nailhead” as a description of the whole engine.  The valve placement and angle certainly benefited the intake side but the geometry compromised the flow of exhaust gases which were compelled by their anyway small ports to make a turn of almost 180^o on their way to the tailpipe.  As an indication of the heat-soak generated by that 180^o turn, the surrounding water passages were very wide. 

It wasn't the last time the head design of a Detroit V8 would be dictated by considerations of width.  When Chrysler in 1964 introduced the 273 cubic inch (4.5 litre) V8 as the first of its LA-Series (that would begat the later 318 (5.2), 340 (5.5) & 360 (5.9) as well as the V10 made famous in the Dodge Viper), the most obvious visual difference from the earlier A-Series V8s was the noticeably smaller cylinder heads.  The A engines used as skew-type valve arrangement in which the exhaust valve was parallel to the bore with the intake valve tipped toward the intake manifold (the classic polyspherical chamber).  For the LA, Chrysler rendered all the valves tipped to the intake manifold and in-line (as viewed from the front), the industry’s standard approach to a wedge combustion chamber.  The reason for the change was that the decision had been taken to offer the compact Valiant with a V8 but it was a car which had been designed to accommodate only a straight-six and the wide-shouldered polyspheric head A-Series V8s simply wouldn’t fit.  So, essentially, wedge-heads were bolted atop the old A-Series block but the “L” in LA stood for light and the engineers wanted something genuinely lighter for the compact (in contemporary US terms) Valiant.  Accordingly, in addition to the reduced size of the heads and intake manifold, a new casting process was developed for the block (the biggest, heaviest part of an engine) which made possible thinner walls.  "Light" is however a relative term and the LA series was notably larger and heavier than Ford's "Windsor" V8 (1961-2000) which was the exemplar of the "thin-wall" technique.  This was confirmed in 1967 when, after taking control of Rootes Group, Chrysler had intended to continue production of the Sunbeam Tiger, by then powered by the Ford Windsor 289 (4.7 litre) but with Chrysler’s 273 LA V8 substituted.  Unfortunately, while 4.7 Ford litres filled it to the brim, 4.4 Chrysler litres overflowed; the Windsor truly was compact.  Allowing it to remain in production until the stock of already purchased Ford engines had been exhausted, Chrysler instead changed the advertising from emphasizing the “…mighty Ford V8 power plant” to the vaguely ambiguous “…an American V-8 power train”.

322 cubic inch Nailhead in 1953 Buick Skylark convertible (left) and 425 cubic inch Nailhead in 1966 Buick Riviera GS (with dual-quad MZ package, right).  Note the “Wildcat 465” label on the air cleaner, a reference to the claimed torque rating, something most unusual, most manufacturers using the space to advertise horsepower or cubic inch displacement (CID).

The nailhead wasn’t ideal for producing top-end power but the design did generate prodigious low-end torque, something much appreciated by Buick's previous generation of buyers who much had relished the low-speed responsiveness of the famously smooth straight-8.  However, like everybody else, Buick hadn’t anticipated that as the 1950s unfolded, the industry would engage in a “power race”, something to which the free-breathing Cadillac V8s and Chrysler’s Hemis were well-suited.  For that, the somewhat strangulated Buick Nailhead was not at all suited and to gain power the engineers were compelled to add high-lift, long-duration camshafts which enabled the then magic 300 HP (horsepower) number to be achieved but at the expense of smoothness; tales of Buick buyers (long accustomed to straight-8s that ran so smoothly at idle it could be hard to tell if the things were running) returning to the dealer to fix the “rumpity-rump” became legion.  Still, the Nailhead was robust, relatively light and offered what was then a generous displacement and the ever inventive hot-rod community soon worked out the path to power was to use forced induction and invert the valve use, the supercharger blowing the fuel-air mix into the combustion chambers through the exhaust ports while the exhaust gases were evacuated through the larger intake ports.  Thus, for a while, the Nailhead enjoyed a role as a niche player although the arrival in the mid 1950s of the much more tuneable Chevrolet V8s ended the vogue for all but a few devotees who continued use well into the 1960s.  Buick acknowledged reality and, unusually, instead of following the industry trend and drawing attention to displacement & power, publicized their big torque numbers, confusing some (though probably not Buick buyers who were a loyal crew who sometimes would look down on more expensive Cadillacs because they were "flashy").  The unique appearance of the old Nailhead retains some nostalgic appeal for the modern hot-rod community and they do sometimes appear, a welcome change from the more typical small-block Fords or Chevrolets.

Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird (1964-1999).

Not confused about numbers was the USAF (United States Air Force) which was much interested in power for its aircraft but also had a special need for torque on the tarmac and briefly that meant another quirky niche for the Nailhead.  The Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird (1964-1979) was a long-range, high-altitude supersonic (Mach 3+) aircraft used by the USAF for reconnaissance between 1966-1998 and by the NASA (National Aeronautics & Space Administration) for observation missions as late as 1999.  Something of a high-water mark among the extraordinary advances made in aeronautics and materials construction during the Cold War, the SR-71 used Pratt & Whitney J58 turbojet engines which featured an innovative, secondary air-injection system for the afterburner, permitting additional thrust at high speed.  The SR-71 still holds a number of altitude and speed records and Lockheed’s SR-72, a hypersonic unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is said to be in an “advanced stage” of design and construction although whether any test flights will be conducted before 2030 remains unclear, the challenges of sustaining in the atmosphere velocities as high as Mach 6+ onerous given the heat generated and stresses imposed by the the fluid dynamics of air at high speed.

Drawing from user manual for AG330 starter cart (left) and AG330 starter cart with dual Buick Nailhead V8s (right).

At the time, the SR-71 was the most exotic aircraft on the planet but during testing and early in its career, just for the engines to start it relied on a pair of even then technologically bankrupt Buick Nailhead V8s.  These were mounted in a towed cart and were effectively the turbojet’s starter motor, a concept developed in the 1930s as a work-around for the technology gap which emerged as the V12 aero-engines became too big to start by hand but lacked on-board electrical systems to trigger ignition.  The two Nailheads were connected by gears to a single, vertical drive shaft which ran the jet up to the critical speed at which ignition became self-sustaining.  The engineers chose the Nailheads after comparing them to other large displacement V8s, the aspect of the Buicks which most appealed being the torque generated at relatively low engine speeds, a characteristic ideal for driving an output shaft, torque best visualized as a "twisting" force.  After the Nailhead was retired in 1966, later carts used Chevrolet big-block V8s but in 1969 a pneumatic start system was added to the infrastructure of the USAF bases from which the SR-71s most frequently operated, the sixteen-cylinder carts relegated to secondary fields the planes rarely used.

Patent

Patent (pronounced pat-nt or peyt-nt)

(1) The exclusive right, granted by a government to an inventor (or owner of the invention) to manufacture, use or sell an invention for a certain length of time.

(2) An invention or process protected by an exclusive right to manufacture, use, or sell it.

(3) An official document conferring on the inventor the exclusive right to manufacture, use, or sell an invention; letters patent.

(4) Protected by an exclusive right given to an inventor to manufacture, use, or sell an invention; patented; the holding of an exclusive right to manufacture, use, or sell an invention.

(5) Relating to, concerned with, or dealing with the granting of exclusive rights to sell or manufacture something, especially inventions (ie the matter of “patent law” dealt with by a “patent attorney”.

(6) Of or pertaining to a right, privilege etc conferred by a patent.

(7) To take out a patent on; obtain the exclusive rights to (an invention, process, etc) by securing a patent.

(8) In US law, the instrument with which by which the federal government conveys a legal title in fee-simple (freehold) to public land.

(9) An ellipsis of patent leather (a varnished, high-gloss leather used in fashion for shoes, handbags, coats and such).

(10) As patent leather, a hide treated in a way which results in a very shiny surface.

(11) Of plate glass, ground and polished on both sides,

(12) In pharmaceuticals, (of a medication) sold without a prescription and usually protected by an exclusive legal right to manufacture (described often as “patent remedies” or “patent drugs”).

(13) In medicine, (of a duct or passage in the body) open or unobstructed.

(14) In medicine (including veterinary medicine) of an infection, in the phase when the organism causing it can be detected by clinical tests.

(15) In phonetics, open, in various degrees, to the passage of the breath stream.

(16) In metallurgy to heat a metal above a transformation temperature and then quench (cool) it in preparation for cold-drawing, wire pulling etc.

(17) In gambling, the combination of seven bets on three selections, offering a return even if only one bet comes in.

(18) In baking (of flour), fine, and consisting mostly of the inner part of the endosperm of the grain from which it is milled.

(19) In botany (and sometimes in horticulture and agriculture generally), expanded or spreading.

(20) Lying open; not enclosed or shut in (often as “a patent field” and applied also to open doorways, passages and such.

(21) Readily open to notice or observation; evident unconcealed, conspicuous, palpable, clear (usually in the phrase “patently obvious”).

(22) To originate and establish as one's own.

(23) A characteristic or quality that one possesses; in particular (hyperbolic) as if exclusively; a monopoly (often in the form “got a patent on”).

(24) An official document granting a right (the significance of the "patent" element in "letters patent" being it indicated the document was openly published an accessible to all (ie in the sense of the Latin patēns).

(25) Any right granted by such a document.

1250–1300: As an adjective, patent was from the Middle English patent, from the Latin patent-, stem of patēns (open, standing open), present participle of patēre (to stand open, lie open).  The Middle English noun patent (document granting an office, property, right, title, etc.; document granting permission, licence; papal indulgence, pardon) was either a clipping of “letters patent”, a translation of the Medieval Latin littera patēns or litterae patentēs (open letters) or was directly from the Anglo-Norman and Middle French patente (which endures in modern French as patent) or a clipping of the Anglo-Norman lettres patentes, Middle French lettres patentes, lettre patente and Old French patentes lettres (document granting an office, privilege, right, etc or making a decree).  The adjective patent (granting a right, privilege, or power) emerged late in the fourteenth century while the sense of “open to view, plain, clear” was in use by at least 1505 and use as an adverb dates from the mid fifteenth century.

The verb dates from the 1670s and was derived from the Middle English nouns patent & patente (wide open; clear, unobstructed; unlimited; of a document: available for public inspection), from the Anglo-Norman & Middle French patent and directly from their etymon the Latin patēns (open; accessible, passable; evident, manifest; exposed, vulnerable), the present active participle of pateō (to be open; to be accessible, attainable; to be exposed, vulnerable; of frontiers or land: to extent, increase), from the primitive Indo-European pete or peth- (to spread out; to fly).  The verb originally was used in the sense of “to obtain right to land" by securing letters patent” while the meaning “obtain a copyright to an invention” was in use by at least 1822, building on the earlier meaning (recorded in 1789) “obtain an exclusive right or monopoly” a privilege granted by the Crown by the issue of letters patent.  Patents issued thus (for a licence granted by a government covering a new and useful invention, conferring exclusive right to exploit the invention for a specified term of years) came into use in the 1580s.  Patent is a noun, verb & adjective, patenter, patentor, patentee, patentholder, patency, patentability, impatency, patency & prepatent are nouns, patented is a verb & adjective, patenting is a verb, patentable, antipatent, patentlike, patentfree, patentless & impatent are adjectives and patentably & patently are adverbs; the noun plural is patents.  The derived forms (nonpatentable, unpatentability, repatent etc) are used as required.

Alice Geek Teck^TM strapless bra.  The product was released with Geek Teck^TM still in its "Pat. pend" phase.

The Alice Geek Teck^TM strapless bra was released in 2015, its novelty being the use of “Patent-Pending Geek Teck^TM” panels which exploited the Van Der Waals forces (intermolecular electrostatic attractive forces) created by their silicone construction with microscopic hair-like structures known as setae (analogous to those found on the feet of geckos, famous for their ability to attach themselves (upside-down) to ceilings, using, if need be, only one foot.  The theory was the Geek Teck^TM panels would “stick to” the wearer’s skin thereby enhancing the most important design imperative of the strapless bra: staying up.  US patent 9,402,424 was assigned to Kellie K apparel LLC but it seems not to have succeeded which is unfortunate because there’s a gap in the market for a genuinely gravity-defying strapless bra.

The familiar term “patent pending” (often seen stamped on products in the abbreviated form “Pat. pend.”) is used to indicate a patent application has been filed but has not yet been granted.  The significance of the use is: (1) it can act to deters competitors, signalling to potential “copycats” that patent protection is expected to be granted, thus discouraging attempts at imitation, (2) it’s thought to lend credibility to a product, thus conferring a marketing advantage, (3) it can make a product more attractive to potential investors because a patent grants years of protection from competition and (4) the existence of the label can in subsequent infringement proceedings lead to a higher award of damages because it can be used as evidence the other party did not act “in good faith”.  However, the mere existence of a “Pat. Pend.” label does not provide legal protection and others may still (at their own risk) copy and sell the product, something of significance because patent applications can take months (or even years in complex or contested matters) to process and there have been cases where a company violating a subsequently granted patent has “come and gone” (taking with them their profits) by the time a patent is granted.  Importantly, a manufacturer cannot mark something as “Pat. Pend.” just to try to ward of potential competition and in most jurisdictions it’s unlawful to use the term if no application has been filed.  In legal slang, “patentees” and “patentspeak” are terms referring to the legal and technical jargon used in the handling of patents while “patentometrics” is the statistical analysis of patents.

In law, “patent troll” is an informal term used (usually disparagingly) to describe an individual or company which acquires and enforces patents in an aggressive and opportunistic manner, often with no intention of producing, marketing, or promoting the subjects of the patents.  The term is based on the similar concepts “trademark troll” and “copyright troll” and in more formal use a “patent troll” is usually styled a “patent assertion entity” or a “non-practicing entity”.  The seemingly curious business model (making money by neither producing or selling stuff to which one holds the exclusive patent) works usually through litigation or (more typically) the threat of litigation, exploiting the cost–benefit imbalance between contesting versus settling a lawsuit.  Sometimes speculatively but usually because potential targets have been identified, patent trolls will (1) buy older or unused patents from bankrupt companies, small inventors or concerns which have no further use for them or (2) file new patents that are broad or vague, something especially prevalent in highly technical fields where change is rapid (anything IT related the classic example) and specialists can amass hundreds or even thousands of patents, some unambiguously enforceable, some with enough of a hint of validity to be a creditable threat.  Thus equipped, patent trolls search for possible targets for litigation, the ideal victims being (1) companies so big they might settle a claim for what is (for them) a small sum (though most lucrative for the trolls who may have done little more than send a C&D (cease & desist letter)) or (2) smaller companies which cannot afford the cost of litigation (they might settle for less but it’s still a profit to the troll) because even if a case successfully is defended, the cost of doing so can, in the US, run to millions.

What that means is the troll’s business model has three potential revenue streams: (1) licensing fees, (2) one-off settlements and (3) court-awarded damages (in the rare instances in which a case goes to trial).  With no costs associated with R&D (research & development), product testing, production or marketing, a troll’s overheads are comparatively minimal and limited usually to legal and administrative fees.  Highly developed practitioners of trolling also use elaborate company structures made up of trusts, shelf companies and such, often in trans-national form, the jurisdictions chosen on the basis of which is most advantageous for a certain purpose (secrecy, taxation arrangements, limitations of liability etc); all these layers can protect a troll’s assets from counter-claims.  Patents are also “just another asset” and once assembled become a portfolio which can be leveraged as investment vehicles, something done often by the device of bundling them in securitized form, sometimes S&Ded (sliced & diced) for sale to investors, not as individual patents but as a percentage of the whole.

Some products become known as “patent something” because they gained their original uniqueness by virtue of patent protection.  In nautical use, a “patent log” is a mechanical device dragged from the stern of the vessel and used to indicate the craft’s speed through the water; most consist of a rotator (ie on the principle of a propeller) and reading unit, connected by a stiff line (usually covered with a flexible, protective skin).  Even in the age of electronic sensors, patent logs remain in use because they are simple, reliable, low maintenance units which require no external power source, the rotator spinning as it proceeds astern, the rotations of the connecting line registered by a wheel works and dial mounted to the vessel's rail.  The earliest versions of mechanical logs had the counting attached directly to the rotator, meaning the apparatus had to be hauled aboard to “take a reading” so the US innovation in the 1860s of a connecting line (spinning a la the mechanical speedometers which later would appear in automobiles) was an advance which made the thing a “real time” device.

An 1881 Patent Log by Thomas Walker, on display at the Smithsonian Natural History Museum.

For many reasons, to know a vessel’s true speed was an important part of seamanship and “log” element in the name came from the old way sailors determined speed.  Since the sixteenth century, the technique had been to attach knotted rope to a wooden log which was heaved overboard and, the knots being tied at regular intervals, the number of knots counted off over a short period indicating the speed.  From this came the standard unit of speed at sea being the “knot” (one knot being equal to one nautical mile per hour and few things annoy old salts more than the expression “knots per hour”).  The log method obviously was inexact because of the variables to which it was subject so the mechanical device was a great advance.  A company founded by Thomas Walker (1805-1873) as a nautical instrument maker based in Birmingham (in England about as far as one can get from the sea) received a patent for a mechanical log in 1878, sometime before one was granted by the US patent office although that application was submitted in 1877.

Lindsay Lohan during blonde phase in Lanvin patent leather coat, New York City, May 2007.

“Patent leather” describes a hide which has been coated with a process using a substance which produces a high-gloss finish, so shiny as to be described as “like a polished, glazed ceramic”.  In fashion, the attraction of patent leather is that despite the brittle appearance, it retains all the flexible qualities and durability of leather while being almost waterproof (although intrusion can of course be possible at the seams).  Most associated with shoes, boots, handbags and coats, the original patent leather seems exclusively to have been produced in black but a wide range of colors have long been available so the material quickly became a favourite of designers.  In the late 1700s when patent leather first became commercially available in England, the lacquer coating was linseed oil-based but what revolutionized things and made mass-production more viable was the invention by metallurgist Alexander Parkes (1813–1890) of Parkesine, the first man-made “plastic”; it was one of his dozens of patented inventions, thus the name “patent leather”.  It was Parkesine which enabled the development of multi-colored patent leathers and because the product literally is “leather with a synthetic coating”, it’s one of the natural products most easily emulated (in appearance) by a plastic alternative although the imitations never possessed the same qualities.  Interestingly, many of the various processes used early in the nineteenth century to patent leather were never patented.

The former Court of Star Chamber (1836), drawing by unknown artist.

There were also “patent theatres”.  In England letters patent were for years a standard device in the administration of censorship, something that attracted increased interest from governments as soon as the printing presses began to operate at scale.  The printing press was one of the great creations of civilization but their availability appalled priest and politician alike because the last thing they wanted was “the common people” being given ideas (which they knew quickly would become heresy and sedition).  Under Henry VIII (1491–1547; King of England (and Ireland after 1541) 1509-1547) proclamations against heretical and seditious publications soon appeared and in 1538 a statute was added declaring books must be licensed for printing by the Privy Council or other royal nominees.  What this did was create a flourishing black market for works produced by illegal presses and this battle between censorship and “underground” publications would for some 450 years characterize the way things were done in England.  One critical development came in 1557 when the Stationers' Company was granted a “charter of incorporation” which provided that only members of the company (or others holding a special patent) were allowed to print any work for sale in the kingdom.  In 1586, the ever imaginative Court of Star Chamber devised an ordinance which directed that no printing press might be set up in any place other than London (with the exception of one each for the university towns Oxford and Cambridge) and rigorously, the Star Chamber enforced this law with their usual zeal and although the court was in 1641 abolished by the Long Parliament, governments didn’t lose their fondness for censorship; under the Commonwealth restrictions were tightened with all “unofficial periodicals” (a move aimed at troublesome “newsletters, precursors to modern magazines and newspapers) banned and while the Rump Parliament of 1659 permitted “licensed newsbooks”, severely their issue was restricted.

During the Restoration period neither the government’s strategy or tactics much changed and material deemed libellous or offensive (values which cast a wide net) to the state or Church could see offenders fined, imprisoned pilloried or hanged (the last invoked if the offence was judged “high treason”).  By the eighteenth century things had somewhat been relaxed but Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was nevertheless compelled to flee to France when his book Rights of Man (1791) was declared “subversive” and a warrant issued for his arrest; even an article condemning the use of disciplinary flogging by the military could attract a fine of Stg£1,000 (then a small fortune) and two years in prison.  Being popular entertainment and accessible to even the illiterate, censorship of the theatre was important and the licensing of individual plays seems to have begun as early as the 1640s with an inspired piece of legislation in 1572 deeming all players (actors) “rogues and vagabonds” unless they belonged to (1) a baron of the realm, (2) somebody of higher rank or (3) were licensed by two justices.

Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, London, one of the original two "patent theatres".

Later, London’s theatrical companies worked under royal patents created by issue of the appropriate letters patent.  Curiously, governments, while much concerned with the preservation of political & ecclesiastical power, had rather neglected public morality but the Puritans were appalled by even the idea of the theatre.  Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) and his ilk thought the stage a place of immorality and in 1542 the Long Parliament prohibited all dramatic performances.  Inevitably, with theatres closed, an underground movement arose, the best documented of which were the Droll-Humours.  At or after the Restoration, letters patent were issued so companies could be formed and in 1662 these conferred on the recipients the exclusive right to present, in public, plays in public within the City of Westminster.  It proved a lucrative business and after the deaths of the original holders of the rights, lawyers began their squabble over to whom or what entity the letters patent should be conveyed; the disputes dragged on for some time before ultimately they were settled on the Covent Garden and Drury Lane theatres.  These enduring institutions thus came to be called the “patent theatres” and what the letters called “drama” was confined to the patent theatres.  However, nobody had bothered to define exactly what constituted “legitimate drama” and that remained a source of dispute among critics and lawyers, resolved only when the Theatres Act (1843) rendered the original letters patent inoperative.

Drawing of patent hammer, attached to Mr Richard’s application to the US Patent Office. the image is from the Trowel and Masonry Tool Collector Resource.

In stone-masonry, a “patent hammer” is a specialized hammer used by stonemasons for dressing stone, the head having two faces formed by a number (at least 2 but usually with 4, 6, 8, 10 or 12 “cuts” (blades) broad, thin chisels bolted side by side); the bolts could be loosened, allowing the blades to be removed to be re-sharpening or replaced.  The head of a patent hammer was heavy and the tool was used for finishing granite or the harder grades of sandstone and the choice of which to use was dictated by nature of the stone and the finish desired.  Historically, the most commonly used jaw opening was ⅞ inch but other graduations between ½ and one inch were widely produced and in the jargon of the trade, the number of cuts per nominal inch became the nominal description (eg an “8-cut finish”).  Essentially a time-saving device, use of a patent hammer allowed a stonemason to render a grooved surface more quickly and with more consistency than when using a single hand chisel.  The tools were in various places known also as the “patent bush hammer” “Scotia hammer” and “patent Scotia hammer” although, as a general principle, the Scotias usually were lighter and featured smaller jaw openings.  The tool gained its name from the patent granted in 1828 to Joseph Richards (1784-1848) of Braintree, Massachusetts and although the evidence suggests similar devices had for centuries been in use (presumably crated ad-hoc by stonemasons or tool-makers), this issue of the 1828 patent triggered an onrush of patent applications for stonemasonry tools and the US Patent Office (which classed them as “bush hammers” or “mill picks” to distinguish them from other hammers) soon had literally dozens of variants on the books.

In English law, letters patent and royal decrees (now more commonly styled as royal proclamations) are instruments with which the Crown exercises its prerogative powers, but they differ in form, purpose, and legal effect.  Letters patent are formal, written documents issued under the Great Seal, open for public inspection, declaring the monarch’s will in a matter of public record; they are addressed to all subjects, not to an individual or private recipient.  As an administrative device, letters patent are used to confirm rights, titles, offices, or privileges (including creating or conferring peerages or knighthoods) granting corporate charters (universities or city incorporations etc), issuing patents of invention or land grants and appointing public offices of state (governors, judges etc).  As legal devices, they operate as instruments of grant rather than command and unusually, take effect by virtue of being published, not by their delivery, registration or some form of gazetting.  Importantly, they can be subject to judicial challenge and voided if found to have been issued ultra vires (a legal maxim from the from Latin ultra vires (beyond the power) meaning (in this case) held to be beyond the monarch’s lawful prerogative) so although sounding something of an echo of the days of absolute power being exercised from the throne, they do operate within modern constitutional limits.

A royal proclamation is a command or declaration made by the monarch and issued over their signature but almost always drafted by the responsible ministers in government and published in the Gazette.  While a term like “royal proclamation” sounds like it might be used for commands like “off with their heads”, in modern use, typically, they’re invoked to announce or enforce policies, order, or regulations and that this is done under the royal prerogative is merely procedural.  So, while most are prosaic, (the regulation of this and that; announcing public holidays or public ceremonies etc), historically, royal proclamations have declared war and routinely still are the instrument summoning or dissolving parliament.  In the narrow technical sense the royal proclamation operates as an executive command rather than a grant but has a valid force of law only when issued under a lawful prerogative or statutory authority (since the Bill of Rights (1689), proclamations cannot create new offences or change existing law without the consent of both houses of parliament (as modified by the Parliament Acts (1911 & 1949)).

Mr Andrew Mountbatten Windsor (the former Prince Andrew, Duke of York) in the Garter robe he no longer dons (at least not when in public view).  Mr Mountbatten Windsor is the great grandson of King George V.

Because most are procedural, letters patent usually barely register in the public consciousness but, around the world, their use in late 2025 in the matter of Andrew Albert Christian Edward Mountbatten Windsor (b 1960) certainly made headlines.  Mr Mountbatten Windsor once was styled HRH (His Royal Highness) Prince Andrew, Duke of York, KG (Knight Companion of the Most Noble Order of the Garter), GCVO (Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order) but the controversy about his alleged conduct with certain young women associated with the convicted child sex offender Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019) meant that between 2022 and 2025, almost all his many titles gradually were (in one way or another) put into abeyance before his brother Charles III (b 1948; King of the United Kingdom since 2022) issued the letters patent effectively removing all.

Until that point, the gradual nibbling away of Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s array of titles had been an example of inept crisis management with him in 2022 ceasing to be a “HRH” in a “public capacity” but remaining one in his “private capacity”.  That didn’t mean he could use it only in his bedroom but meant it couldn’t be used were he to appear at any “official public event”.  While one being able to call oneself “HRH” only in private (presumably among consenting adults) might sound a bit of a slap on the royal wrist, it is possession of styles and titles which determine one’s place in the “order of precedence”, something of great significance to those who move in certain circles because where one sits on the pecking order determines things like who has to bow or curtsy to whom and whether at events one gets to sit somewhere nice with the dukes & earls or is shunted off into a corner with the provincial mayors and eldest sons of knights.  As a weapon, the removal of the “HRH” has been used against the Duchess of Windsor (Wallis Simpson; 1896–1986), Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) and the Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle; b 1981).  Although Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s notorious television interview (approved by the palace courtiers against the advice of the media pros) seemed at the time the nadir of the crisis management of the “Andrew problem” (ranking with Boeing’s handing of the 737 Max’s “issues” and Intel’s attempt to “non-handle” the flaws in the original Pentium’s inbuilt math co-processor), the “drip feed” of the way his styles and titles gradually were eroded made things worse still.  As a footnote, the former Prince Andrew is now known as “Andrew Mountbatten Windsor” rather than “Andrew Windsor” because his father (Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (1921–2021)) was upset his sons wouldn’t bear his name so the “Mountbatten” was added.

Revelations about his alleged conduct continued to emerge and in mid October, 2025, it was announced that following discussions with the king, he would cease to make use of the styles of address to which he was entitled as a duke and twice a knight of the realm (both knighthoods being in orders of chivalry in the personal gift of the sovereign (his mother) with no involvement by government).  That didn’t mean he ceased to be a duke (with subsidiary peerages) or the possessor of two knighthoods in orders of chivalry, just that he would no longer “use them”.  That meant for all public purposes he would revert to what he was by virtue of his birth: plain old “Prince Andrew”.  Had the revelations stopped there, the “fix” might have worked but as fresh accusations continued to appear, not only was the press making trouble but there were suggestions “the Andrew problem” might be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons where members enjoy what’s called “parliamentary privilege” (the right to make even defamatory statements without risk of legal action).  What appeared to be of particular interest to some politicians was Mr Mountbatten Windsor remaining eighth in the line of succession to the British throne (and thus the monarchies of Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada and such).

Accordingly, on 30 October 2025, the palace announced the king would be removing all his brother's styles, titles, and honours.  While technically this does not revoke the peerages, it does mean they are no longer “effective” and thus not affecting the vital order of precedence.  On 3 November, the king issued letters patent stripping Andrew of both the style “HRH” and title “prince”.  That the king can do this by the mere inking of a sheet of vellum is because (1) letters patent are a powerful tool and (2) in 1917 George V (1865–1936; King of the United Kingdom & Emperor of India 1910-1936) effectively codified the monarch’s authority in such matters; no involvement by parliament being required.  In 1917 the UK was at war with the German Empire so anti-German sentiment was about and as well as changing the royal family’s name from the obviously Teutonic Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor, the opportunity was taken for an “agonizing reappraisal” of the domestic structure.

Letters Patent issued by George V, 30 November 1917.  When mention was made to the "Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland", the reference was literally to a big wax seal.

Thus, King George V issued letters patent restricting use of the titles “Prince” & “Princess” and the style “HRH” to certain close relatives of the monarch: (1) the children of the sovereign, (2) the male-line grandchildren of the sovereign (3) and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales (ie the heir apparent’s eldest son).  Other descendants of the monarch would be styled as children of dukes (Lord or Lady).  In doing this George V wasn’t claiming or asserting a new royal prerogative (it had long been acknowledged) but his issue of the 1917 Letters Patent was the moment it was codified and assumed the force of a formal decree.  That’s why it’s misleading to say the UK doesn’t have a written constitution; it’s just all the bits and pieces don’t appear in one consolidated document al la the US, Australia or the old Soviet Union.  The words of the 1917 Letters Patent were:

“Whitehall, 30^th November, 1917.  The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 30th day of November, 1917, to declare that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms.

And forasmuch as it has become expedient that the usage whereby the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and of Prince or Princess shall be borne by other descendants of Our said Grandfather of blessed memory shall cease, We do hereby further declare that the said styles, titles or attributes shall not henceforth be borne by such descendants of Our said Grandfather save those above mentioned.”

Legally, “Our said Grandfather” actually referred to Victoria (1819–1901; Queen of the UK 1837-1901) and what the proclamation did was revoke the practice from Victoria’s time where almost all male-line descendants of the monarch were styled as princes or princesses.  Some countries still operate on the Victorian basis and a particular example is Saudi Arabia, a nation where, under their interpretation of the Sharia, kings and princes may enjoy more than the four wives which is the accepted limit in most Islamic nations which permit polygyny.  The royal scions have thus proliferated and if one moves in certain exulted circles, apart from the odd waiter or hairdresser, it can be possible to go through life and never meet a Saudi who is not a prince or princess.  In Saudi, for many reasons, it would be difficult to change the system but in Demark there recently was a cull of princes and princesses (the titles that is) with those who didn’t make the cut reverting to being count and countess of this and that.  For almost a century the 1917 Letters Patent remained the convention followed but  on 31 December 2012, Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) issued letters patent extending both HRH and Prince or Princess status to all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales:

“Whitehall, 31^st December, 2012.  The QUEEN has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated the 31st day of December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.”

What that achieved was a bit of “title creep”.  Under the George V rule, only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would have been styled a prince; younger siblings would not have been princes or princesses but rather Lord or Lady Mountbatten-Windsor.  What Elizabeth II’s 2012 Letters Patent did was equalize things so all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales would be both HRH and princes or princesses; it’s a thoughtful great-grandmother who thinks of a way to avoid sibling rivalry.  There have since been no further general amendments to the 1917 convention although the royal prerogative has been used to grant or remove titles individually, such the letters patent issued granting the titles prince & princess to the Duke of Sussex’s children.

Windsor Castle, September, 2025.

The UK government's state banquet in honor of the visiting Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025), hosted in Windsor Castle in September 2025.  Where one sits on the UK's order of precedence will influence (1) whether one is invited and (2) whether one gets a "good" seat.  Among US presidents, Mr Trump's second state visit was unprecedented.

So, titles and styles are quite a thing in royal families because they operate as a pecking order atop a pecking order.  Despite the frequency with which the claim is made, the British royal family is not wholly averse to change and one change they would be welcome would be things going back to how they were done decades or centuries ago: In 1938, George VI (1895–1952; King of the United Kingdom 1936-1952), being driven through Surry in the company of a US journalist, gestured through the window towards Runnymede, telling his companion: “That’s where the troubles started”.  For the institution of the monarchy, there have since 1215 been many troubles, some quite serious but apart for a brief, aberrant, republican interlude, one royal household or another has remained in place, challenges dealt with as they’ve arisen.  For the royal family, the matter of “the Andrew problem” is not so much what he’s alleged to have done (which could have been handled with the odd wry smile and otherwise never spoken of) but the ghastliness of it becoming public knowledge among “the common people”.  The attraction of “fixing things” by the use of letters patent is it’s quick and (it’s hoped) will mean “the Andrew problem” doesn’t end up being discussed in the House of Commons.  That would be bad enough but once such things start they can get out of hand and if one matter about the royal family is being discussed in parliament, there’s no guarantee it wouldn’t lead to other aspects being questioned.  There are many things about the royal family and their place in the UK’s constitutional apparatus which they’d prefer not be discussed and certainly not in the House of Commons.  As a tactic, the letters patent may well keep the commoners in the Commons at bay but Mr Mountbatten Windsor’s life may yet get worse because various institutions in the US are interested in questioning him in relation to alleged offences committed on US soil and an extradition request is not impossible.