Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname

[EllieCat]

When the census is taken, what surname is used for the Queen and other Royals: Windsor or Windsor-Mountbatten?

Lady Louise is Mountbatten-Windsor (not Windsor-Mountbatten). I would think only those descended from Prince Phillip in the male line, and without titles of their own, would be Mountbatten-Windsor. I believe Princess Anne used this surname for one of her marriages.

 

[Molly2101]

Louise is Mountbatten-Windsor as the surname is used when she is in school. In private photos of Louise playing netball taken by a fellow child's parents her name tag said "L.M.W." I would imagine James is Mountbatten-Windsor in school too. I think Mountbatten-Windsor has a nicer sound than Windsor-Mountbatten but it could be because it's the version of the name we are used to.

I believe Anne did use Mountbatten-Windsor for her marriage register as did Andrew (and most likely Edward although his was never made public). The only living person now that will pass the surname on to their children is James, Viscount Severn. Harry's children will likely be Royal Highness but his grandchildren will probably be Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Sweden]

I felt that this would be an interesting topic.

If the last name of Prince Charles is Windsor, why does William and Harry use the name Wales instead of the correct surname?

As I understood it, Queen Elizabeth changed the old German surname to the English surname back in the 50's (?) to reflect a "British" sounding Monarch over a Germanic surname that also representing the losing side in WWII. Does anyone have any other information on this subject. Is this true? If not, what is the story on the Windsor name?

As I see it, if the true surname is Windsor then Windsor should be used instead of Wales, which only means (to me, anyway) that they are Prince Harry of Wales and Prince William of Wales only for royal purposes and Prince William Windsor of Wales etc.

Does Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie go by York?

THis would be so confusing to genealogists who are tracing ancestors by using the surname.

What is the point of the surname if the parties aren't going to use it?

The German sounding name Saxe Coburg and Gotha created conflict with England since they were waging a war against Germany. This name was changed to Windsor.

 

[Countessmeout]

That is not true. The male lineage descendants from Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip also have the name Mountbatten-Windsor. The male lineage descendants of Queen Beatrix and Prince Claus also have the name (Van Oranje-Nassau) van Amsberg. The male lineage descendants from Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik have the name Af Monpezat. Note that Daniel's surname has been changed into Westling Bernadotte. Somehow this surname is forgotten in the style of his daughter but maybe that will be repaired, to avoid confusion with the real Bernadottes.



That is the right thing to do (Mountbatten-Windsor) and hopefully they will "repair" the surname of Estelle into Westling Bernadotte too.

Note that the so-called "800 years old Grimaldi dynasty" was effectively the House De Goyon de Matignon from 1731 until 1949 and that since then the "Grimaldis" are in fact a cadet branch of the current Ducal House De Polignac.

The British royals don't have an official last name. That is why when Harry and William were in the military they were Harry Wales and William Wales. Yes, unofficially they are referred to as Mountbattan-Windsors, but Windsor takes precedence and the name of the dynasty continues as Windsor not Mountbattan. Same in Netherlands and Denmark, while their father's names were included as a title, their official last name and the name of their dynasty comes from their mother. There will never be the royal house of vanamsberg or the royal house of Mountbattan or Monzepat.

Why would they repair Estelle's name? Her last name is Bernadotte. Dniel is no longer a Westling, why would his daughter be? Westling is now Daniel's middle name. There is nothing wrong with a daughter having her mother's name and not her father's.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen herself declared, in 1960, that ALL her descendants who need a surname have the surname of 'Mountbatten-Windsor'. That is not unofficial but the official surname e.g. Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor which is how she was referred to on the wedding program and in the CC for the wedding of William and Kate. The use of Wales and York for the Princes and Princesses is the unofficial use of a surname and relates to the fact that in past generations there were often grandchildren with the same names of the 'of Wales' or 'of York' was used to distinguish them. If we go back to Queen Victoria - how many of her granddaughters were named Victoria - so using the father's title as a way to distinguish them became fashionable. As William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie went to schools they needed surnames and Mountbatten-Windsor was seen as too long for them so they used Wales and York instead. Louise and James don't use Wessex but Mountbatten-Windsor because they aren't HRH's.


Charles and Anne were 'of Edinburgh' while the children of the heiress presumptive - but if George VI hadn't issued new LPs in 1948 then they would have been born simply as Mountbatten's as Elizabeth - like all other wives had taken her husband's surname when she married.


She was encouraged to declare that the family name would remain Windsor in 1952 - leading to Philip's quip that he wasn't allowed to even pass on his name to his children but then it was pointed out, in 1960, that if the new baby about to be born had the name Windsor from birth he/she would technically be illegitimate and thus not in the line of succession as illegitimate children take the name of their mother's while legitimate ones use their father's names. That lead to the compromise of the hyphenated name.


We would have seen this with Charlotte had the Queen not issued new LPs in 2012 as she would have been Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor.


We may see it yet with Harry's children - if he marries in the present reign and the Queen doesn't issue new LPs for his children creating them HRHs.

 

[Skippyboo]

And eventually James and Harry's male descendants won't have a HRH so they will use the Mountbatten Windsor last name like the Kent and Gloucesters descendants use Windsor as a last name.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Countessmeout]

We cannot erase history, but we do not have to blindly follow the rules that were applied in the past. We can change the rules, and thus change the traditions, and in future the new rules will be the traditions and the older rules will be viewed as we now view rules such as those which applied under the Feudal system.

Exactly. Monarchies adapta and change with time to reflect the change in times. It certainly is not the first, and it is insulting to females like Vic and Estelle to refer to them as 'not real' Bernadottes. Or Leonor as Donna instead of Infanta.

Honestly where would the British monarchy be if the family didn't pass through the female branch at times. I guess instead of Elizabeth, her Uncle Henry of Gloucester would have followed her dad, and we would have King Richard IV (current Duke of Gloucester), Alexander and Claire (earl and countess of Ulster) would be prince and princess of wales, and little Xan would be the heir after them. But then again none of them would have come to the throne as they are descended from Victoria. If women weren't 'true royals' and couldn't inherit, then certainly Victoria would never have been queen. Her Uncle Ernst August would have succeeded followed by his son George V of Hannover. Our current king would be Earnst August of Hannover (the husband of Caroline of Monaco) with his eldest son as prince of Wales. Caroline would be queen consort of the UK. But then again those darn Hannoverians are descended from a female branch. Cant have that. So we have to go further back. That causes problems because we get to the whole prickly Jacobite succession issue. Would they keep a catholic male over having a female? Because James II would never have been succeeded by either Mary or Anne. And George I was descended from the female line. But then again the Stewarts would never have been king, because they were descended from the female line (Mary queen of scots). Henry VIII's son Edward would never have been followed by either of his sisters. They would have had real issues then, because Henry VIII only had sisters who had children. But then again there is that damned female line because Henry VII would never have taken the throne as he inherited through his mother. And strengthened his claim through his wife. So for a true king we are looking at Edward IV as a male line descendent of Edward III, but then his male line died out. Unfortunately the male lines were all short lived. Basically it all goes to hell from there if you want to find a living male heir only descended from the male line, who would be on the throne today.

The Queen herself declared, in 1960, that ALL her descendants who need a surname have the surname of 'Mountbatten-Windsor'. That is not unofficial but the official surname e.g. Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor which is how she was referred to on the wedding program and in the CC for the wedding of William and Kate. The use of Wales and York for the Princes and Princesses is the unofficial use of a surname and relates to the fact that in past generations there were often grandchildren with the same names of the 'of Wales' or 'of York' was used to distinguish them. If we go back to Queen Victoria - how many of her granddaughters were named Victoria - so using the father's title as a way to distinguish them became fashionable. As William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie went to schools they needed surnames and Mountbatten-Windsor was seen as too long for them so they used Wales and York instead. Louise and James don't use Wessex but Mountbatten-Windsor because they aren't HRH's.


Charles and Anne were 'of Edinburgh' while the children of the heiress presumptive - but if George VI hadn't issued new LPs in 1948 then they would have been born simply as Mountbatten's as Elizabeth - like all other wives had taken her husband's surname when she married.


She was encouraged to declare that the family name would remain Windsor in 1952 - leading to Philip's quip that he wasn't allowed to even pass on his name to his children but then it was pointed out, in 1960, that if the new baby about to be born had the name Windsor from birth he/she would technically be illegitimate and thus not in the line of succession as illegitimate children take the name of their mother's while legitimate ones use their father's names. That lead to the compromise of the hyphenated name.


We would have seen this with Charlotte had the Queen not issued new LPs in 2012 as she would have been Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor.


We may see it yet with Harry's children - if he marries in the present reign and the Queen doesn't issue new LPs for his children creating them HRHs.

I am sorry but I need to stop laughing so I can write this.

1. Charles was legitimized by his parents being married legally when he was born. No matter his last name. Yes it is traditional for children to have their father's last name when the parents are married, but Charles being a Windsor would not have made him a bastard. I am sorry but I had milk come out of my nose when I read that.

2. The Queen issued a proclamation saying her agnotic descendents who DONT carry the title Prince or Princess, will be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. So while yes, James and Louise do, that excludes all other grandchildren. Harry, William and his kids, Eugenie and Bea are all agnotic heirs with a royal title.

3. If the queen had not issued the patent, Charlotte would have been Lady Charlotte Windsor, as would any younger sibling boy or girl, as only the eldest grandson of the prince of Wales would be entitled to the princely title until Charles is king.

4. The queen issued that proclamation about Mountbatten in 1960, after the death of Queen Mary. Both Anne and Charles were born prior to this, so it would not have effected them either way. It was Andrew that it would have effected. She worried about the 'stigma' of having a mother's last name, not Actually making her son a bastard

 

[Mbruno]

The Queen herself declared, in 1960, that ALL her descendants who need a surname have the surname of 'Mountbatten-Windsor'. That is not unofficial but the official surname e.g. Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor which is how she was referred to on the wedding program and in the CC for the wedding of William and Kate. The use of Wales and York for the Princes and Princesses is the unofficial use of a surname and relates to the fact that in past generations there were often grandchildren with the same names of the 'of Wales' or 'of York' was used to distinguish them. If we go back to Queen Victoria - how many of her granddaughters were named Victoria - so using the father's title as a way to distinguish them became fashionable. As William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie went to schools they needed surnames and Mountbatten-Windsor was seen as too long for them so they used Wales and York instead. Louise and James don't use Wessex but Mountbatten-Windsor because they aren't HRH's.


Charles and Anne were 'of Edinburgh' while the children of the heiress presumptive - but if George VI hadn't issued new LPs in 1948 then they would have been born simply as Mountbatten's as Elizabeth - like all other wives had taken her husband's surname when she married.


She was encouraged to declare that the family name would remain Windsor in 1952 - leading to Philip's quip that he wasn't allowed to even pass on his name to his children but then it was pointed out, in 1960, that if the new baby about to be born had the name Windsor from birth he/she would technically be illegitimate and thus not in the line of succession as illegitimate children take the name of their mother's while legitimate ones use their father's names. That lead to the compromise of the hyphenated name.


We would have seen this with Charlotte had the Queen not issued new LPs in 2012 as she would have been Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor.


We may see it yet with Harry's children - if he marries in the present reign and the Queen doesn't issue new LPs for his children creating them HRHs.

So, when Charles becomes king, will the royal house be known as the House of Mountbatten-Windsor or will it still be referred to as the House of Windsor only ?

Will Charlotte's children, who will not be HRHs under current rules, also have the family name Mountbatten-Windsor ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

The House name is Windsor at the moment. Who knows what Charles will do?


If Charlotte's children are Mountbatten-Windsor's it would mean that she wasn't married. If she is married then her children will take her husband's name e.g. Princesses Mary, Margaret, Alexandra and Anne all have children but none of their children use either Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor but their husband's names - Harewood, Armstrong-Jones, Philips and Ogilvy - until the girls married and then they also took their husband's names.

 

[Mbruno]

The House name is Windsor at the moment. Who knows what Charles will do?


If Charlotte's children are Mountbatten-Windsor's it would mean that she wasn't married. If she is married then her children will take her husband's name e.g. Princesses Mary, Margaret, Alexandra and Anne all have children but none of their children use either Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor but their husband's names - Harewood, Armstrong-Jones, Philips and Ogilvy - until the girls married and then they also took their husband's names.

That makes sense. What about Harry's grandchildren in male line ? Will they carry the name Mountbatten-Windsor ?

 

[Tarlita]

Oh gosh now I am confused!! Never mind. Don't try to explain on my behalf.

 

[Skippyboo]

If nothing dramatic occurs and William and his line take the throne, Harry's male line grandchildren will not be HRHs and would be Mountbatten Windsors.

The HRH goes only to the male line grandchildren of the monarch for the most part. So all of Charles grandkids would be HRH during his reign. All of William's son's children will be HRH. Harry's children would be a HRH but none will pass down the HRH. So if you are a male line descent of Queen and Philip but not a HRH then you are a Mountbatten Windsor.



Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

Along the lines of this conversation, I believe that when William and Kate filed a lawsuit in France over the invasion of privacy there and the pictures that came out of it, William used William Mountabatten-Windsor and Kate used Catherine Middleton as legally, in France, they don't recognize the royal titles. It was a case where William needed a surname.

 

[Mbruno]

Along the lines of this conversation, I believe that when William and Kate filed a lawsuit in France over the invasion of privacy there and the pictures that came out of it, William used William Mountabatten-Windsor and Kate used Catherine Middleton as legally, in France, they don't recognize the royal titles. It was a case where William needed a surname.

My understanding is that, when HRHs "need" a surname, they use their territorial designation. Kate e,g, would call herself Catherine Cambridge.

I was also told that, in the past, the same rule also applied to peers (dukes, earls, etc.) with a territorial designation attached to their titles, Can anyone confirm (or deny) that ?

 

[wyevale]

Peers of the Realm do have Surnames, but sign themselves using their territorial designation ONLY, without Title. Thus the Marquess of Northampton signs himself 'Northampton'.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My understanding is that, when HRHs "need" a surname, they use their territorial designation. Kate e,g, would call herself Catherine Cambridge.

I was also told that, in the past, the same rule also applied to peers (dukes, earls, etc.) with a territorial designation attached to their titles, Can anyone confirm (or deny) that ?

The 1960 declaration was that IF any of The Queen's descendants need a surname it is Mountbatten-Windsor although women change their names on marriage and their descendants then use their husband's names.

That is why William used Mountbatten-Windsor in France - as that is his surname.

It is also the surname both Anne and Charles used on their marriage certificates. We have not seen William's but I suspect that he too used it.

The only person who uses the 'territorial' designation is the actual peer on occasions so William, in the UK, can sign himself as 'Cambridge' but not Kate who is only the wife and not the peer in her own right. Because William is royal however he signs his name as William and not Cambridge.

Currently the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent sign their names as Richard and Edward respectively but their successors will be able to sign their names as Gloucester and Kent OR use their first name and surname - their choice. The use of the territorial designation simply indicates that they are the actual title holder and not the spouse or child of said title-holder.

 

[Mbruno]

The only person who uses the 'territorial' designation is the actual peer on occasions so William, in the UK, can sign himself as 'Cambridge' but not Kate who is only the wife and not the peer in her own right. Because William is royal however he signs his name as William and not Cambridge.

Sarah, Duchess of York, said once in an interview to American TV that, after she got married, she was told to sign herself as "Sarah York". Was she lying to the interviewer, or did she receive misguided instructions from the Palace officials ?

 

[Molly2101]

Sarah, Duchess of York, said once in an interview to American TV that, after she got married, she was told to sign herself as "Sarah York". Was she lying to the interviewer, or did she receive misguided instructions from the Palace officials ?

I think that's probably right. Didn't Sophie use Sophie Wessex for her PR company?

 

[Skippyboo]

Most of the time it's just their first names. We have seen William, Catherine, Harry etc just use their first name for their signature. The territory as the last was used when a last name was needed such as in the military or university but when they are signing a guest book as a Royal its just their first name.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sarah, Duchess of York, said once in an interview to American TV that, after she got married, she was told to sign herself as "Sarah York". Was she lying to the interviewer, or did she receive misguided instructions from the Palace officials ?

Sarah may have been told to sign herself that way as the wife of York and as a way to differentiate herself from Sarah Armstrong-Jones - so simply a way, within the family and palace structure to identify herself.

I doubt that it is misguided or that she is lying as it does make sense for her to add some way of distinguishing herself from the other Sarah, who having been in the family all her life would sign things, privately, as Sarah although legal documents she would sign like all other commoners with her first and surname: Sarah Armstrong-Jones. Sarah, Duchess of York never had York as a surname as Andrew's surname has never been York. He could sign simply as York but uses Andrew and nothing else.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I think that's probably right. Didn't Sophie use Sophie Wessex for her PR company?

She needed a 'surname' for her work.

She could have continued with Rhys-Jones as many women do or changed to Mountbatten-Windsor - her married name but using Wessex was simply easier, not necessarily her legal name but one that people associate with her.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Most of the time it's just their first names. We have seen William, Catherine, Harry etc just use their first name for their signature. The territory as the last was used when a last name was needed such as in the military or university but when they are signing a guest book as a Royal its just their first name.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Even on legal documents they can simply sign their first names as they are royal and that is enough. If William or Harry are required to sign legislation as Counsellors-of-State they sign with only their first names (but so does the Queen adding R to indicate that she is The Queen).

It is a major reason why they are discouraged from giving autographs because only their name is needed on a legal documents, in Britain. Elsewhere they would have to abide by the laws of that country so using just William in France would not probably be accepted, depending on why he was signing e.g. signing a condolence book then William would be fine but signing a legal deposition he would need an official surname and we have the clear evidence from 2012 that that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My understanding is that, when HRHs "need" a surname, they use their territorial designation. Kate e,g, would call herself Catherine Cambridge.

I was also told that, in the past, the same rule also applied to peers (dukes, earls, etc.) with a territorial designation attached to their titles, Can anyone confirm (or deny) that ?

It is the custom for British peers to use their territorial designations as informal surnames, although this is not done in official documents.

 

[duke of poliganc]

is it right that the duke of edinburgh children and male line descendants are technically legally his/her highness prince/ss of denmark ?!

 

[Skippyboo]

I believe Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles when he became a British citizen. When he married then Princess Elizabeth, he was just Lt. Philip Mountbatten


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Osipi]

is it right that the duke of edinburgh children and male line descendants are technically legally his/her highness prince/ss of denmark ?!

If I'm not mistaken, Philip renounced all his titles at the time of his marriage to Elizabeth. George VI then created Philip as the Duke of Edinburgh. It wasn't until years later that Elizabeth herself made Philip a Prince of the UK in his own right.

I would wager though that all Philip's descendants can claim heritage to the Greek and Denmark lineage but they would not be considered able to hold a legal title such as you suggest.

This is just my estimation from the little I know. I'm sure there's more responses that will follow that are more right on the money.

 

[duke of poliganc]

wouldn't it needed a parliament approval to renounce his titles or it can be done by personal choice !

 

[Curryong]

Yes, I believe that's correct, Osipi. On 28th February 1947 Philip renounced his Greek citizenship (and titles) and became a British subject. He wasn't then Duke of Edinburgh, (that came on 19th November 1947) so was simply Lt. Mountbatten, adopting the name of his mother's family, the Mountbattens.

Incidentally, King George I of Greece had been Prince William of Denmark when he was chosen to ascend the Greek throne after King Otto bowed out in the 1860's. However, the Greek throne was rather a dubious proposition for such a very young man, (who knew whether he would succeed) and so I think arrangements were put quietly in place that William/George would remain a Prince of Denmark and his descendants would also have that privilege. It proved very handy and useful when King Constantine was exiled as he and his family were granted Danish passports by Queen Margrethe.

wouldn't it needed a parliament approval to renounce his titles or it can be done by personal choice !

Philip was a Greek citizen, (he was born on Greek soil on Corfu in 1921) and renounced foreign titles (those of Prince of Greece and Denmark) so the British Parliament had nothing to do with it, really. His British citizenship was granted very quickly by the Home Office officials, but I think it was generally recognised in 1947 that he would be marrying the heir to the throne, so that was understandable.

 

[Ish]

wouldn't it needed a parliament approval to renounce his titles or it can be done by personal choice !

Greek or British?

It is British law that foreign titles are not formally acknowledged by British subjects. Thus, as a British subject the DoE's foreign titles are not recognized.

As for the Greeks... I've never read that they made any stink about the DoE giving up his Greek titles. He legally wouldn't have them now regardless of whether or not his renouncement was legal - the Greek government no longer recognizes the monarchy.

For the Danes... Well, there has been nothing revoking the use of "of Denmark" by the Greek royals and by extension the DoE and his family. But they're not in the Danish line of succession.

 

[Skippyboo]

wouldn't it needed a parliament approval to renounce his titles or it can be done by personal choice !

It was a personal choice. In the UK, parliament doesn't control a person's title. It's the monarch. It's the monarch that grants people a title and determines who is a HRH.

With WWII just being over, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark marrying the future British Queen may not have sat well. So Philip chose to focus on his British mother's side of the family for his Mountbatten name


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community