The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 06-18-2016, 01:51 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,356
Im sure Harry's children will be Princes but they may not choose to use the title depending on how things are when they are older..
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 06-18-2016, 02:02 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Im sure Harry's children will be Princes but they may not choose to use the title depending on how things are when they are older..
Harry's children will be not be princes/princesses of the UK if they are born under the reign of QEII. Once Charles becomes King, any of Harry's children would then be prince/princess of the UK regardless of when they were born because they are grandchildren of the monarch.

This all is in accordance to the current letters patent. For all we know, Charles could, with his will and pleasure, deem to change things up a bit. There's no way of telling.

There are always choices that adults can make and we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
__________________

__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 06-18-2016, 02:15 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 6,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Harry's children will be not be princes/princesses of the UK if they are born under the reign of QEII. Once Charles becomes King, any of Harry's children would then be prince/princess of the UK regardless of when they were born because they are grandchildren of the monarch.

This all is in accordance to the current letters patent. For all we know, Charles could, with his will and pleasure, deem to change things up a bit. There's no way of telling.

There are always choices that adults can make and we'll just have to wait and see what happens.
According the original Letters Patent Charlotte would not have been a Princess of the United Kingdom, as it only covered the eldest living son (George) of the eldest son (William) of the Prince of Wales (Charles). But what do we see? Charlotte is a Princess... so Letters Patent can always be modified. The length of the current Sovereign is só long. Who could ever have imagined that even the longest Reign ever (Victoria) would be bypassed by a longer Reign?
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 06-18-2016, 02:28 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,539
Of course The Queen could issue new LPs for all children of Harry during her own reign as she did for William (partly I suspect she did that because she knew that the law was going to change so that is the first born child would be William's heir and didn't want a situation where the future monarch was born as Lady xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor while a younger brother was born as a Prince. It made sense in those circumstances.

Given the rumours of a smaller royal family with no role for the children of the second son in the future then she may very well decide to not issue such LPs - assuming the situation even arises where Harry marries during her reign.
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 06-18-2016, 02:43 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 6,445
In normal terms the children of Prince William and Prince Harry will not experience a Queen Elizabeth II when they reach the age of majority, or we must seriously calculate a scenario of an 108 or 110 years old Sovereign on the throne. In normal life expectanties we may assume that when the children of William and Harry reach the age on which they can pursue their own careers, it will be under the Reign of their grandfather King Charles III.
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 06-18-2016, 03:20 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
In normal terms the children of Prince William and Prince Harry will not experience a Queen Elizabeth II when they reach the age of majority, or we must seriously calculate a scenario of an 108 or 110 years old Sovereign on the throne. In normal life expectanties we may assume that when the children of William and Harry reach the age on which they can pursue their own careers, it will be under the Reign of their grandfather King Charles III.
Given as usually the royal children are off to university for a bit, by the time they settle on a precise career choice and passion, (I'm giving it 22 years as George is already going on 3), 25 years from now, Charles will be around 92. My guess is that when Will's kids reach adulthood and know what they want, their father will be the King.

You can quote me on that prediction. I don't care. I know I won't be around to have anyone tell me "I told you so" Now.. returning you to our regularly scheduled discussion of the Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor surname.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 06-18-2016, 10:39 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,808
Do you think that the Surname would ever be changed to Windsor-Mountbatten?
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 06-18-2016, 10:40 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,583
I don't. The purpose of Mountbatten-Windsor was to ensure that Philip's surname was passed down through the generations.
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 06-18-2016, 10:47 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
I don't. The purpose of Mountbatten-Windsor was to ensure that Philip's surname was passed down through the generations.
Osipi, Thank you for clarifying the purpose of the placement of Mountbatten to be first.
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 02-27-2017, 12:59 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 387
How King George V created the Windsor name for the royals | Daily Mail Online

Quote:
The man tasked with the job was Lord Stamfordham, the king's trusted private secretary. He trawled through history books but struggled to find a name untouched by the monarchy's own bloody history - passing over Tudor, Stuart and Plantagenet - before finally being struck by inspiration while working in Windsor Castle.

The remarkable story of how this royal aide influenced - and possibly secured - the future of the Royal Family was told last night in the first of a six-part Channel 4 documentary series celebrating the centenary of the House of Windsor.

[…]

In a memorandum from 15 May 1917, Lord Stamfordham wrote: 'The King bars Plantagenet and does not care about Tudor. Tudor-Stuart has been suggested.'

These were later rejected by former Prime Minister Herbert Asquith.

Lord Stamfordham wrote on June 11: 'Mr Asquith has advised against Tudor, with its recollections of Henry VIII and Bloody Mary. Mr Asquith was equally averse to Stuart, one of whom was beheaded and the last driven from the throne.'

Another option available was Fitzroy, however this was also dismissed for a number of reasons - including its connection to Henry Fitzroy, the illegitimate son of King Henry VIII.

On 20 May, Lord Stamfordham wrote: 'He does not like Fitzroy, it hinted at wealth, but that is too foreign and is not at all liked by their Majesties who also disapprove of Fritzroy and its bastard significance'.

Seemingly losing hope, on 23 May Stamfordham despaired: 'It is disastrous. The King is all for a prompt settlement.'

[…]

The turning point was on 13 June, when London was raided by the German Gotha bombers. The city and the British people were brought to their knees by aircraft carrying the name of their own Royal Family.

That same day Stamfordham finally struck inspiration while working in Windsor Castle. He outlined his proposal in a letter to the Prime Minister.
I wonder why the king barred Plantagenet and why Fitzroy was believed to "hint at wealth" or be too foreign.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 02-27-2017, 02:50 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,539
The Plantagenets were overthrown by the Tudors - not a good omen.

Fitzroy - is a name associated with the illegitimate children of the monarch (literally means 'son of the king'. The 'Fitz' type names were, and still are, quite common amongst the aristocracy as the descendants of various monarchs and other illegitimate nobles over the centuries.

I have a query for Mr Asquith (yes I know he is dead) and that it 'how can he say the last of the Stuarts was 'driven from the throne?' Last time I checked Queen Anne died very much as the monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 02-27-2017, 02:54 PM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 419
I luv Bertie: I have a query for Mr Asquith (yes I know he is dead) and that it 'how can he say the last of the Stuarts was 'driven from the throne?' Last time I checked Queen Anne died very much as the monarch.

Asquith was referring to James II who was deposed by his son in law William of orange in 1688. He was technically corrrect though as Anne was technically Oldenburg by virtue of her marriage to Prince George of Denmark.
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 02-27-2017, 03:34 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 10,539
Royal houses don't change their names with the accession of a female monarch but only when her son inherits e.g. Mary I was regarded as a Tudor and not a Hapsburg based on her husband's house. Mary II was regarded as a Tudor and not from the House of Orange and the same with Anne - she too was a Stuart just as Victoria was the last of the Hannoverians and not the first of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. That distinction went to her son, Albert-Edward.

If House names changed with the accession of a Queen taking her husband's house names as their house name then the 1500s has the Houses as Tudor, Hapsburg and then back to Tudor. The 1600s would be the Stuarts, Orange, and the Oldenburg but we don't recognise Hapsburg, Orange or Oldenburg as royal houses in Britain as the woman are members of their birth houses as reigning monarchs - just as EII is a member of the House of Windsor and not Mountbatten (Lord Mountbatten was actually wrong when he made the comment that 'now the House of Mountbatten reigns' as that wouldn't happen until Charles' reign.
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 02-27-2017, 03:56 PM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Royal houses don't change their names with the accession of a female monarch but only when her son inherits e.g. Mary I was regarded as a Tudor and not a Hapsburg based on her husband's house. Mary II was regarded as a Tudor and not from the House of Orange and the same with Anne - she too was a Stuart just as Victoria was the last of the Hannoverians and not the first of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. That distinction went to her son, Albert-Edward.

If House names changed with the accession of a Queen taking her husband's house names as their house name then the 1500s has the Houses as Tudor, Hapsburg and then back to Tudor. The 1600s would be the Stuarts, Orange, and the Oldenburg but we don't recognise Hapsburg, Orange or Oldenburg as royal houses in Britain as the woman are members of their birth houses as reigning monarchs - just as EII is a member of the House of Windsor and not Mountbatten (Lord Mountbatten was actually wrong when he made the comment that 'now the House of Mountbatten reigns' as that wouldn't happen until Charles' reign.
AFAIK it depends on who is drawing up the genealogy as most I've looked at will go to great lengths to avoid saying that Felipe II was king, y'know given that he sent the Armarda after Elizabeth and all - pretty embarrassing. Plenty of genenaologies refer to William III as house of Orange-Nassau as he remained king after Mary II died of smallpox in 1694. I was being mischievous regarding Anne, but she was called Princess George of Denmark prior to becoming Queen. There wasn't actually any real consensus over what the dynasty's name was for a long time and more often than not its what ever was applied retroactively and often policits was at work as well. A lot of the Germanic names get edited out of official ones and the issues of the naming of the post 1688 monarchs was about avoiding the fact that parliament was picking and choosing the monarch whilst still holding on to hereditary property as the bulwark of society - Norman Davies in The Isles has a field day with this type of thing.

EII is Windsor as the letters patent issued by her father was deliberately done so to avoid the problems of above - I think the same mechanism was in place in the Netherlands and Denmark regarding their female monarchs and their children. Victoria was quite vocal about her children being able to take Albert's surname and she probably would not have objected to being referred to as Coburg instead of Hannover.
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 02-27-2017, 04:05 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 7,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
If House names changed with the accession of a Queen taking her husband's house names as their house name then the 1500s has the Houses as Tudor, Hapsburg and then back to Tudor. The 1600s would be the Stuarts, Orange, and the Oldenburg but we don't recognise Hapsburg, Orange or Oldenburg as royal houses in Britain as the woman are members of their birth houses as reigning monarchs - just as EII is a member of the House of Windsor and not Mountbatten (Lord Mountbatten was actually wrong when he made the comment that 'now the House of Mountbatten reigns' as that wouldn't happen until Charles' reign.
It won't happen during Charles' reign as a given either I believe. He may or may not decide to alter the name of the House of Windsor. I did some searching and found this. I just copy/pasted the relevant paragraphs.

The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V.

It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name
__________________
“In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.”
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 02-27-2017, 04:15 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,706
Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname

None of his grandchildren would need a surname. All of William's children will be Prince and Princess. Harry's children would also Prince & Princess once Charles is King. It would be only Harry's grandkids that would need a last name. William's grandchildren would be Prince & Princess or have the last name of their father in the case of Charlotte and any future girls' children
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 02-27-2017, 04:38 PM
WreathOfLaurels's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 419
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
I wonder why the king barred Plantagenet and why Fitzroy was believed to "hint at wealth" or be too foreign.
Fitzroy was traditionally the surname of the illegetame children of the king and is still the surname of a number of the main ducal families of the U.K - mostly the ones who are the decendates of Charles II's bastards. Probably not the best choice for projecting an image of moral probity and sober living. Likewise the Plantagenet name - although it has a good ren-fair/cosplay vibe - was probably too antiquated for the 1910s - it would be like the Bourbons deciding to go back to being called the Capets. Likewise, Tudor amd Stuart are still commonish (Stuart especially) surnames in Wales and Scotland along with being very tied in popular memory to certain monarchs and time periods. Also Plantangent and Fitzroy are Norman French in origin (but then again most posh surnames in the UK are so George was being somewhat hypocritical here).
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, styles and titles, surnames


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Titles, Surname and Protocols for the Royal Family Australian The Royal Family of Greece 408 12-06-2016 06:52 PM
Surname of the Danish Royal Family pepperann Royal House of Denmark 48 09-03-2010 04:56 AM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 3: October 2005-March 2007 Elspeth Current Events Archive 195 06-07-2007 08:24 AM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 2: May 2004-October 2005 USCtrojan Current Events Archive 220 10-10-2005 10:51 PM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 1: November 2003-May 2004 montecarlo Current Events Archive 157 05-29-2004 01:38 PM




Popular Tags
albania ascot 2016 best gown best gown september 2016 best hat best outfit brunei coup d'etat crown princess mary crown princess mary fashion denmark dictatorship duchess of cambridge duke of cambridge farah diba fashion poll fashion suggestions queen maxima history king abdullah ii king carl gustaf and queen silvia king philippe king willem-alexander member introduction monarchy multiple births national day new zealand norway november 2016 october 2016 opening of parliament picture of the week politics prince alexander prince charles prince louis princess marie princess marie style princess mary princess mary casual style princess mary daytime fashion princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania fashion queen silvia september 2016 state visit state visit to denmark succession sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats women deliver conference


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises