Rump

Rump (pronounced ruhmp)

(1) The hind part of the body of an animal, as the hindquarters of a quadruped or sacral region of a bird.

(2) A cut of beef from this part of the animal, behind the loin and above the round.

(3) The buttocks.

(4) The last part, especially that which is unimportant or inferior.

(5) The remnant of a legislature, council, etc after a majority of the members have resigned or been expelled.

1375-1425: From the late Middle English rumpe from the Old Norse rumpr from the Middle Low German rump (the bulk or trunk of a body, trunk of a tree), ultimately from the Proto-Germanic rumpō (trunk of a tree, log).  It was cognate with the Icelandic rumpur (rump), the Swedish rumpa (rump), the Dutch romp (trunk, body, hull) and the German rumpf (hull, trunk, torso, trunk).  The meaning "hind-quarters, buttocks of an animal," is from the mid-fifteenth century and a borrowing from the Scandinavian sources.  The sense of a "small remnant" derives from "tail" and dates from the 1640s in reference to the English Rump Parliament (Dec 1648-Apr 1653).  The adjectival form appears first to have been used circa 1600.

Gratuitous objectification: One dozen pictures of Lindsay Lohan’s rump.

Cromwell and the Rump Parliament

The Rump Parliament is the historical term for what was left of the Long Parliament after the English Parliament was purged in 1648 of members hostile to the rebel army’s intention to try King Charles I (1600–1649; King of England, Scotland & Ireland 1625-1649) for high treason.  The Rump is best known for the memorable (and not wholly apocryphal) words of by Oliver Cromwell (1599–1658; Lord Protector of the Commonwealth 1653-1658) who, on 20 April 1653, backed by his army, (illegally) dissolved the parliament, throwing its members into the street, locking the doors.   

“You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!”

Those words were reprised by Leo Amery (1873–1955; British Tory Party politician 1911-1945) during a House of Commons debate in May 1940 in which he attacked Neville Chamberlain (1869–1940; UK prime-minister 1937-1940) over failings in the government's prosecution of the war.  Chamberlain resigned after acknowledging he'd lost the support of much of his party.  The drama of the moment meant Amery's words were well-chosen but when later used to try to dislodge a couple of twenty-first century prime-ministers, they seemed misplaced.

However, the famous quote is a paraphrase; no transcript of the speech survives but an approximation was reconstructed from the recollections of those in the house at the time.

“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors”.

Cromwell dissolving the Rump Parliament (circa 1782) by Benjamin West (1738-1820).

Ass & Arse

Arse (pronounced ahrs)

(1) One of many slang terms for the human buttocks (in much of the English-speaking world except the US).

(2) By extension, one of many slang terms applied to the rear or back-end of anything, animal, vegetable or mineral (in much of the English-speaking world except the US).

(3) In Australian slang, effrontery; cheek.

(4) In slang, a stupid, pompous, arrogant, mean or despicable etc person, a use sometimes enlivened as “arsehole” (in much of the English-speaking world except the US).

(5) A person; the self; (reflexively) oneself or one's person, chiefly their body and by extension, one's personal safety, or figuratively one's job, prospects etc (in much of the English-speaking world except the US).

(6) In biochemistry, as ARSE, the abbreviation of arylsulfatase E (an enzyme, deficiencies in which are associated with abnormalities in cartilage and bone development).

Pre 1000: From the Middle English ars, eres & ers, from the Old English ærs & ears, from the Proto-West Germanic ars, from the Proto-Germanic arsaz and cognate with the Old Frisian ers, the Dutch aars, the Old Norse, Middle Low German, Old Saxon & Old High German ars (from which modern German gained Arsch), the Greek órrhos (rump (from orso-, used frequently in compounds)), the Armenian or̄kh and the Hittite arras.  All of the nouns derive ultimately probably from the primitive Indo-European h₃érsos- (backside, buttocks, tail), the source also of the Ancient Greek ourá & orros (tail, rump, base of the spine), the Hittite arrash and the Old Irish err (tail).  In the hierarchy of vulgarity, arse had an interesting history, beginning as something purely descriptive but, because of the association with the buttocks and their functions (with all that that implies), the word soon became a vulgar form, avoided in polite conversation.  That restraint lingered well into the twentieth century but even though things are now more relaxed, a careless use of arse in the wrong time and place, in the wrong company, can still cause offence.  The Latin arse was the vocative masculine singular of arsus, the perfect passive participle of ārdeō which was used with a variety of senses (1) to burn (to be consumed by fire), (2) Of eyes which glow or sparkle, (3) in poetic use, to glisten with a feature, usually with a colour, (4) figuratively, “to burn, be strongly affected with an emotion, (5), figuratively, “to be eager” & (6) figuratively, ardently or fervently to be in love, to burn with lustful or romantic desire.  Arse is a noun & verb; arsing is a verb and arsed is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is arses.

One should avoid losing one's ticket.

There can have been few words as productive as arse in the construction of slang and idiomatic forms, some of which survived while some died out.  To “hang the arse” (slow, reluctant; tardy) was from the 1630s while the more graphic (and in some cases presumably literal) “arse-winning” referred to income gained from prostitution "money obtained by prostitution" was in Middle English in the late fourteenth century.  The familiar “arse over tit” (to fall down; to fall over) is actually an alternative form of the original “arse over tip” which was first recorded in 1884 although it had probably long been in oral use.  Arseward was a synonym of backward in the fourteenth century while the mysterious arsy-versy (backside foremost) dates from the 1530s and was probably a reduplication of arse, perhaps with suggestions of “going backwards; in reverse”.  Arsehole can of course be literal (referencing the anus) and the late fourteenth century was spelled arce-hoole, an inheritance from the Old English in which the Latin anus was glossed with earsðerl (literally "arse-thrill" with the noun thrill used in its original sense of "hole".  Asshole (a stupid, pompous, arrogant, mean or despicable etc person) is also a frequently used term of abuse.  One long-serving Australian foreign minister, early in his undistinguished term was overheard referring to poor nations as “BACs” (busted arse countries) and while he never apologized, did sit smirking in parliament while the prime-minister assured the house he’d been assured it wouldn’t happen again (presumably the leak rather than the comment).  A smart-arse (a person thought flippant or insolent, usually with a tendency to make snide remarks) should not be confused with an arse-smart (also ars-smart), the herb Persicaria hydropiper (formerly Polygonum hydropiper), named in the early fourteenth century, the construct being arse + smart (in the sense of “pain”).  The herb was also at the time once culrage and since the late eighteenth century has been known as smartweed.  Arse smart was a direct translation of the Old French cul rage, the construct being the Old French cul + rage which some sources suggest is from the Latin rabies (from rabiō (to rage)) but evidence is lacking and the French word may have been a folk etymology.

In German "My ass!" is spelled "Mein Arsch!".

The list of arse-based phrases (some of which began in the US as “ass” slang) is long and perhaps impossible wholly to compile but some of the other more frequently used forms are (1) arseage or pure arse (good and usually undeserved luck), (2) arse licker (sycophancy, also expressed as suck arse or kiss arse), sometime used in conjunction with (3) arse-kicker (stern superior) in the phrase (4) “kisses up, kicks down” which refers to those obsequious towards superior and officious to subordinates, (5) light up someone’s arse (provide encouragement in a strident or violent manner) which Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) used in typically imaginative manner, telling his staff just after the failure of the July 1944 plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler (1889-1945; German head of government 1933-1945 & head of state 1934-1945), “It takes a bomb under his arse to make Hitler see reason”, (6) arse about (and arse around) which can mean either “the wrong way around” or “behaving frivolously, wasting time”, (7) half-arsed (something done badly or improperly), (8) fat arse (someone overweight), (9) dumb arse (someone considered not intelligent or an act thought most unwise), (10) cover one's arse (to take such action as one considers necessary to avoid later blame or censure (this one definitely borrowed from the US)), (11) to break one’s arse (working hard), (12) arse in a sling (an unfortunate state in one’s personal affairs, especially if the consequence of one’s own mistakes or ill-considered actions), (13) pain in the arse (someone or something troublesome or really annoying (pain in the neck the polite alternative)), (14) kick in the arse (a form of encouragement, a punishment or combination of the two), (15) bet your arse (an expression of certainty), (16) pulled it out of one’s arse (an admission of luck), the companion phrase being (17) can’t just pull it out of one’s arse (introducing a sense of reality to a conversation), (18) stick it up (your) arse (declining an offer, invitation or suggestion) and (19) can't be arsed (can’t be bothered).

Gratuitous objectification of the callipygian: One dozen pictures of Lindsay Lohan’s ass.

Ass (pronounced ass or ahrs)

(1) Ass is a noun and the adjectival form is ass-like (assesque a bit clumsy); the noun plural is asses.  adjective: asinine

(2) Either of two perissodactyl mammals of the horse family (Equidae), Equus asinus (African wild ass) or E. hemionus (Asiatic wild ass).  They are long-eared, slow, placid, sure-footed and easily domesticated, thus long used as a beast of burden.

(3) An alternative spelling of arse (buttocks or anus) and the standard form in the US and much of Canada.

(4) A stupid, foolish, absurdly pompous or stubborn person (although when seeking to suggest stubborn, “mule” was historically the more usual form).

(5) Someone with whom sexual intercourse is desired, contemplated or achieved and in those contexts can be used also to express admiration (nice piece of ass).

Pre-1000:  From the Middle English asse, from the Old English assa, probably a pet name or diminutive form based on a Celtic form such as the Old Irish asan or the Old Welsh asen, from the Latin asinus and akin to the Greek ónos (the donkey-like ass), from a non-Indo-European language of Asia Minor, possibly the Sumerian anše (ass).  The use as an alternative spelling of arse dates from the 1860s in the US and may be related to the increase in the mixing of linguistic traditions during the Civil War.

Tree humor.

Arse thus is the British slang word referring to (1) the human or animal posterior, or (2) a stupid person.  Ass is the American equivalent and is used also as the name of the beast of burden so like “check”, in US English there is potential for confusion whereas in British & Commonwealth use, the ass/arse & cheque/check distinction avoids this although, given the differences in definition, ass is less prone than check.  Some style guides and the more helpful dictionaries caution that ass in the US is less acceptable that arse has become in the commonwealth and when speaking of the beast, donkey or mule is often used, even when zoologically dubious.  Still, the word is useful and on Reddit there’s the subreddit AITA ("Am I the asshole"), which is the clearing house for enquiries where those involved in disputes can seek views on whether they are in the wrong.  One of the “prank names” used in the TV cartoon series The Simpsons to torment sleazy old bartender Moe Szyslak was “Hugh Jass”.

Dick Assman (Assman the Gasman), Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, 1995.

Dick Assman (1934-2016) was a Canadian gas (petrol) station employee who gained his fifteen minutes (actually several months) of fame by virtue of his name which came to the attention of US talk-show host David Letterman (b 1947).  Seeing the comedic potential, Letterman in mid-1995 added a nightly segment called Assman the Gasman which lasted a few weeks but it generated for Mr Assman so much name-recognition, that it led to opportunities such as judging beauty contests.  The names Assman & Assmann are of fourteenth century German origin and are thought variations of Erasmus from the Ancient Greek erasmos (loved).  It was originally a personal name which evolved into a surname as the conventions of family names evolved in the post-feudal period.  Mr Assman enjoyed the celebrity ride but did note the name correctly is pronounced oss-man.

Mercedes-Benz 450 SEL (W116, 1972-1980).

This example of the factory’s once (mostly) logical naming convention deconstructs as 450 (referencing a 4.5 litre (276 cubic inch) version of the M117 (1971-1991) V8 + S (Sonderklasse (Special Class)) + E (Einspritzung (injection, referencing the use of fuel-injection)) + L (Lang (long, referencing the additional 100 mm (4 inches) added to the wheelbase of the LWB (long wheelbase) models).  Strictly speaking (and Germans are inclined to be strict), the LWB versions (280 SEL, 350 SEL, 450 SEL & 450 SEL 6.9) of the W116 officially were designated “V116”, the “W” standing for Wagen (car) and the “V” for verlängert (extended).  In practice, other than in the factory’s documentation the V116 designation was rarely used.  The W116 was in just about every way a better car than the model it replaced (W108/W109, 1965-1972) but collectors prefer the earlier versions because of the period charm and visual appeal.  Although the concept of the Mercedes-Benz Sonderklasse can be traced to the introduction of the 300 (W186 (1951-1957) & W189 (1957-1962)), the first official use of the term “S Class” was with the introduction of the W116 in 1972 and it was in a sense the first “modern” Mercedes-Benz with each subsequent S Class an evolution from the previous model.  When in the 1990s the order of the alpha-numerics was switched because model proliferation had rendered the traditional form unsuitable, the "S Class" designation was joined by "C Class", "E Class" etc.  

All US states allow personalized or vanity licence plates although the stipulations (alpha-numeric mix, number of characters) do vary.  Illinois Secret of State Alexi Giannoulias (b 1976) says those in his state seem to “enjoy spotting clever and funny license plates on the road” but that while “Illinoians are known for displaying customized license plates, they have to meet standards of good taste and decency.”  In a typical year, some 60,000 requests for personalized plates are processed by the office of the Secretary of State and in 2024 335 requests were denied because they “included lecherous language or sneaky swearing”.  Each time a combination of letters is rejected, it’s added to the DMV’s database of “banned plates”.  In maintaining this list of “proscribed plates”, the secretary of state's office operates something like the way the Vatican used to handle the matter of blacklisted publications.  Between 1560-1966 the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Forbidden Books) was an ever-evolving list of written works declared by the now defunct Sacred Congregation of the Index to be blasphemous, heretical or contrary to morality.  All Roman Catholics were forbidden to own, print, distribute, sell or read any work in the index.  Officially, as the ripples of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II, 1962-1965) washed through the Vatican’s corridors, the index was abolished when in 1966 the Inquisition (by then known as the Holy Office) was re-constituted as Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith but it’s not known if the list of the proscribed continues in secret to be maintained, possibly by some department of the Holy See, the existence of which is not even acknowledged.  For administrative purposes, Illinois distinguishes between a “vanity plate” (up to 3 numerals or up to 7 letters) and a “personalized plate” which can have an alpha-numeric mix (all plates have a 7 character limit and if alpha-numeric, there must be a space between letters & numbers).  A vanity plate costs US$94 upon issue and US$13 annually thereafter while personalized are charged at US $47 & US $7 respectively.

Bismarck class Schlachtschiff (battleship) KMS Tirpitz. 

Vice Admiral Kurt Assmann (1883-1962) had a career at sea before in 1933 being appointed head of the historical section of the Kriegsmarine (German Navy), a division which later became part of Oberkommando der Marine (OKM; the naval high command)).  The books he published in the post-war years are a valuable source of facts and a helpful chronology but much of his analysis about political and naval strategy was criticized on both sides of the Iron Curtain.  His nephew was naval Captain Heinz Assmann (1904—1954) who for a time served on the Bismarck-class battleship KMS Tirpitz and was later attached to Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKW; the armed forces high command).  His notable contribution to history was being in the conference room on 20 July 1944 when the bomb (which, as Dr Goebbels put it, originally was placed close to "under Hitler's ass" before being moved to the other side of the table's sturdy socle which meant the force of the blast was directed away from him) intended to kill Hitler exploded.  After recovering from his injuries, he returned to his duties at OKW and was attached to the Flensburg staff of Grand Admiral Karl Dönitz (1891–1980; head of the German Navy 1943-1945, German head of state 1945) when the latter was named in Hitler’s political testament as his successor as head of state, his curious "twilight zone coda" government lasting three weeks.  Captain Assmann subsequently was interviewed by allied investigators seeking fully to understand the chain of events of on the day of the assassination attempt.  Between 1953-1954, he served as a member of the Hamburg Parliament.

The original McDonalds Yass billboard (left) may not have been well designed but as a piece of “brand awareness” it succeeded like no other sign in Australia, images of it widely circulated and appearing often in memes.  When the Yass outlet became a 24/7 operation, the sign was re-designed (centre) to use an initial capital for “Yass” and increasing the distance between the corporate “M” (the so-called “golden arches”) and the town’s name.  That was however too subtle and Australians still got the joke; the memes continued.  Why the problem wasn’t solved by shifting the “M” to right (digitally altered image, right) isn’t known but it may be such a placement would have violated corporate guidelines.

Yass (population 6,763 (2021 census)) is a town in the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW); it sits some 174 miles (280 km) south-west of Sydney and is 37 miles (59 km) from Canberra, the national capital.  The name is believed derived from a word (either Yarrh or Yharr) in the language of the local Ngunawal people meaning “running water”.  Lady Bird Johnson (1912–2007; First Lady of the United States (FLOTUS) 1963-1969) thought the proliferation of roadside billboards an intrusive ugliness and championed the Highway Beautification Act (HBA, 1965) which was intended to control billboards, junkyards, and other unsightly features along federally funded highways while encouraging landscaping and scenic enhancement.  In the way things are done in the US (such things “hammered out” in the Congress in a cocktail of lobbying and campaign donations), over the decades the HBA was “watered down” and its provisions became interpreted with some generosity but, as amended, it remains in effect and without it, there would likely be even more roadside clutter.  The act certainly was effective in screening junkyards visible from highways but despite that, Mrs Johnson on many occasions expressed her disappointment the law did not realise its original intent.  What can be certain is if old Lyndon Johnson (LBJ, 1908–1973; US president (POTUS) 1963-1969) had ever seen the Yass McDonalds sign, he’d have had a good chuckle.

The ass in thought crime

Thou shalt not covet is one of the biblical Ten Commandments (or Decalogue), regarded by most scholars as moral imperatives.  Both Exodus and Deuteronomy describe the commandments as having been spoken by God, inscribed on two stone tablets by the finger of God, and, after Moses shattered the originals, rewritten by God on others.

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, or his male or female servant, his ass, or anything that belongs to thy neighbor.

Thy neighbor's ass (pronounced ass).

It differs from the other nine in that while they’re concerned with the actions of sinners, the prohibition on being a coveter is about a sinner's thoughts and thus, an early description of thoughtcrime (a word coined by George Orwell (1903-1950) for his dystopian 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four).  Indeed Matthew (5:28) anticipates Orwell in saying it’s not enough merely to obey the commandment “thou shalt not commit adultery” because “…I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (King James Version (KJV, 1611)).  Jimmy Carter (1924-2024; US President 1977-1981) quoted this in his Playboy interview, a statement of presidential probity neither shared nor always adhered to by all his successors and predecessors.  In that context, it should be remembered there's an (unwritten) eleventh commandment: "Thou shall not get caught".

Mugwump

Mugwump (pronounced muhg-wuhmp)

(1) A member or supporter of the Republican Party who declined to support the party's nominee James Blaine (1830–1893) during the 1884 US presidential election, (claiming he was corrupt) lending their support to the Democratic Party's candidate Grover Cleveland (1837–1908).

(2) A person who is unable to make up their mind on an issue, especially in politics (mostly US & Australia).

(3) Someone who remains neutral on a controversial issue; a person who purports to stay aloof from party politics (mostly US & Australia).  In a derogatory sense it’s used to suggest someone is a “fence sitter” or maintains an aloof and often self-important demeanor.

(4) One who switches from supporting one political party to another, especially for personal benefit (also used in this sense in Australia).

(5) Used informally (usually humorously), a (male) leader; an important (male) person (sometimes as “big mugwump”).

(6) A foolish person (a now rare Australian slang term which emerged apparently because it was conflated with “mug”).

1832: An Americanism and an artificial, nineteenth century revival of the Massachusett (English spelling) mugquomp & mummugquomp (war leader), a syncopated form of muggumquomp (war leader), the construct being the (unattested) Proto-Algonquian memekw- (assumed to mean “swift”) + -a·pe·w (man).  The alternative etymology was the Algonquian (Natick) mogki (great) + a·pe·w (thus something like “great chief).  It was folk etymology which re-interpreted the word, the re-purposed meaning referring to a person who sat on the fence, deconstructed as “their mug (face) on one side and wump (rump) on the other”.  This graphical description produced a slew of political cartoons in this vein during the 1884 US presidential election.  The original Americanism emerged in 1832 in the New England region and was a jocular word for “a great man, boss; very important person”.  By 1840 it was in satirical use as “one who thinks himself important” but faded from used before being revived for the 1884 presidential contest, originally as a term of abuse but the independents embraced it and from that it picked up the specific sense “one who holds themselves aloof from party politics."  Mugwump is a noun & verb, mugwumpery & mugwumpism are nouns, mugwumpian, mugwumping & mugwumped are verbs and mugwumpian, mugwumpesque & mugwumpish are adjectives; the noun plural is mugwumps.

Originally, the Mugwumps were those Republican Party members (or supporters) who claimed to be appalled by the corruption they said was associated with James Blaine (1830–1893), declining to support his candidacy in the 1884 US presidential election.  Unlike some of the dissident movements in US politics (the Tea Party, the Know Nothings, the Progressives etc) the Mugwumps never formed any sort of organizational structure or even self-identified as a faction.  They gained the name because they “switched sides”, supporting the Democratic Party’s Grover Cleveland (1837-1908) although in their public statements, some Mugwumps would say they were “still Republicans”, hence the association with “fence-sitting”, the term adapted for the purpose because they were sitting with “their mug (face) on one side and wump (rump) on the other”, a theme cartoonists and caricaturists took to with gusto.

Those who rat on political parties, shifting their allegiance to another risk a lifetime of suffering the enmity of their former colleagues, politics attracting haters like few other professions although Winston Churchill (1875-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955) who ratted twice reckoned the trick was to do it with style.  Fence sitters seem to attract less opprobrium but there’s often a sense of exasperation; at least with the rats one knows where one stands.  Sir John Simon (1873–1954; First Viscount Simon, cabinet minister on several occasions 1913-1945, Lord Chancellor 1940-1945) picked up the nickname “slippery Sam” for a reason (actually many) and David Lloyd George (1863–1945; UK prime-minister 1916-1922) said of him: ”He has sat on the fence so long the iron has entered into his soul.”  That probably wasn’t quite what Boris Johnson (b 1964; UK prime-minister 2019-2022) had in mind when, as Foreign Secretary, he dismissed Jeremy Corbyn (b 1949; leader of the UK Labour Party 2015-2020) as a “mutton-headed old mugwump”, although with Mr Johnson, one can never quite be sure.

MAGAwump's high priest, Mitt Romney, mugwumping (David Horsey in the Seattle Times, September 18 2023).  Note the carpetbag.

The Mugwumps have been compared with the “Anyone but Trump” movement which was an attempt by what used to be called “mainstream Republicans” to block Donald Trump’s (b 1946; US president 2017-2021) path to the party’s nomination (and from there the White House).  The movement formed but failed though it’s not far-fetched to imagine if might have gained for traction if it had used a catchy name like MAGAwumps and interestingly, in the “Guilded Age” era of the Mugwumps, their critique of the state their nation sounds little dissimilar to those heard over the last three decades.  Charles Eliot Norton (1827–1908; Harvard professor of art) in 1895 contemplated things and confessed “the greatest apprehension… about a miserable end for this century”, the United States afflicted by the “worst spirit in our democracy, … a barbaric spirit of arrogance an unreasonable self assertion.  I fear that American is beginning a long course of errors and wrong and is likely to become more and more a power for disturbance and barbarism.”  Other agreed, the anyway gloomy historian Henry Adams (1838–1918) at the same time reviewing the closing century concluded it was “rotten and bankrupt”, sunk in “vulgarity commonness, imbecility and moral atrophy”.  It all sounds so modern.

One noted for her mugwumpery is Lindsay Lohan.  In 2008 she made clear her support for Barack Obama (b 1961; US president 2009-2017) yet by 2012 was tweeting she was inclined to vote for Mitt Romney (b 1947; governor of Massachusetts 2003-2007, junior US senator (Republican-Utah) since 2019) on the basis that “employment is really important right now”.  That feeling apparently didn’t last and she reaffirmed her support for Obama, latching onto #ProudOfObama although she did once refer to him as the country's “first colored president”, a black mark against anyone who hasn’t updated their list of politically correct descriptors.  Later, her mugwumpian tendencies continued.  In 2017 she tweeted of Donald Trump: “THIS IS our president. Stop #bullying him & start trusting him” later praising the entire Trump family, calling them “kind people” although during the 2016 election she had endorsed crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013), tweeting “I couldn’t understand you more”.  However, like Mr Johnson, while one can always read what Lindsay Lohan has written, what she means can be elusive.  It’s thought she endorsed crooked Hillary but “I couldn’t understand you more” is certainly cryptic.

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.