2 ms·
> Ok, it's common to refer to a contextually-determined person by only their last name, but in this case it obviously shouldn't be done. Why?
by pseudalopex 1y ago
> Ok, it's common to refer to a contextually-determined person by only their last name, but in this case it obviously shouldn't be done.
Why?
- smcin 1y agoPresumably GP meant readers would be unlikely to understand 'Windsor' referred specifically to AMW.
- horisbrisby 1y agoI'm not sure I understand the royal system that well, but I think a journalists that refrains from acting on the change in demarcation or invents a new demarcation to go with his effective notability remaining would be acting out a bit of heresy against the royal monopoly on titles.
- smcin 1y agoI meant general audiences would not understand a one-word reference to 'Windsor' (single word) as meaning 'The person FKA Prince Andrew'. Whereas 'AMW'/'Andrew Mountbatten Windsor' might. 'Windsor' until now referred to the entire UK Royal Family, various towns, the castle in Berkshire, the tie knot, etc.
- pseudalopex 1y agoI believe general audiences would understand a reference to Windsor to mean the person called Andrew Mountbatten Windsor in the previous sentence. The royal family are called the royal family most commonly. Various towns, the castle, and the tie knot were not in context.