ROYAL SURNAMES.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Dr. Littledale's usual accuracy has, surely, deserted him in this matter P Of the names which he gives as cases of sur- names in Royal Houses, most are, undoubtedly, territorial titles. The Prince of Wales's children are called Prince or Princess So-and-so of Wales. Is their surname " Wales " P If not, Hapsburg, Valois, Hohenstauffen, can hardly be surnames ; Romanoff, Wasa, Stewart, on the contrary, probably are ; Buonaparte, Bernadotte, of course. Tudor became one, no doubt, but only, I imagine, about the time when the family became Royal. The father of Owen of Tudor was presumably "Tudor [Theodore] ap" someone else. This system has continued in some parts of Wales to within the memory of living men.
As to the surname of the Queen, is there evidence for Well, or Guelf, or (to take Dr. Littledale's ugly form) Gwelf, beyond that of the document he emotes, and of an occasional brutality in Reynolds's Newspaper and its like P That is, can any instance be found in which any of her Majesty's ancestors signed themselves john, or James, or Thomas Wolf, or Guelfo,— the only forms which they could have used ? Was not Well rather the Christian name of an early chief of the House into which the Italian family of Azzo d'Este married, and were not Well's descendants called " the House of Wel f," as we say "the House of Omri "; or, if there were several, were they not " the Welfs," as we say "the Georges " P—I am, Sir, &c., A. J. B.
Previous page
