Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Mbruno]

Anne just signed Anne. The person filling out the wedding registry used Mountbatten Windsor. You can google image the wedding registry. Maybe because it was the first wedding since the name change and Uncle Dickie was still alive to reinforce it.

I couldn't find Anne's marriage certificate. I only found Charles and Camilla's . No surname is given for Charles.

The LP that allowed Mountbatten-Windsor only excludes descendents with princely title. And Anne is The Princess Anne without a designation.

I don't understand what you mean. She has been HRH The Princess Royal since 1987. In any case, even as HRH The Princess Anne, she was already an HRH with the titular dignity of princess when she married so, under the Declaration of 1960, she shouldn't use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

Tatiana Maria and the British Royal Court site gave a different (somewhat broader) interpretation of the 1960 Declaration implying that even the HRHs with the titular dignity of prince who descend from QEII and Prince Philip must use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor if a surname is officially required. I just don't understand why one was required for Anne in her marriage certificate when it was not for her brothers. Following Skippyboo's argument, I suppose the clerk or whoever filled out (British English: filled in ?) the document simply didn't know what to do and assumed a surname had to be given.

 

[Skippyboo]

Not the marriage certificate. Wedding registry from the Abbey.

Just google princess Anne wedding registry

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks, Tatiana Maria. You posts are always very informative !

I wonder: why did Anne have to use Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage register when none of her brothers had to do the same on theirs ? Is that in any way related to the fact that she is a woman ? I don't see the logic behind it.

Likewise!

A royal expert stated to Town and Country (see the Yahoo article in Post #477) that Mountbatten-Windsor was used in the marriage registries of Anne, Andrew and Edward, but not that of prince Charles. Illogical indeed.

There is a small photograph of Anne's marriage certificate shown in the website below. It too states that the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex used the surname of "Mountbatten-Windsor" on their marriage certificates.

Mountbatten Name 4

 

[Gawin]

We're getting off-topic but...according to "The Queen: The Life of Elizabeth II" by Elizabeth Longford, Anne's name was filled in by the registrar as "Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" at the Queen's request. She quotes a comment from Buckingham Palace in October 1975:

"This was the first time that the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor" was used on an official document by any of the Queen's descendants. It was the Queen's decision that this should be done as Her Majesty wished her husband's name to appear on the Marriage Register of their daughter. (The Queen did not seek the advice of her Ministers in this matter)." (p. 218).

The certificate appears here (I had to shorten the lengthy URL):
https://tinyurl.com/y8uy82g6

The entry for Peter Phillips in the General Register Office's England and Wales Civil Registration Indexes (digital images available in Ancestry) lists his mother's maiden name as "Mountbatten-Windsor." Zara's entry lists her name as "Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise (H.R.H)."

 

[Gawin]

Likewise!

A royal expert stated to Town and Country (see the Yahoo article in Post #477) that Mountbatten-Windsor was used in the marriage registries of Anne, Andrew and Edward, but not that of prince Charles. Illogical indeed.

There is a small photograph of Anne's marriage certificate shown in the website below. It too states that the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex used the surname of "Mountbatten-Windsor" on their marriage certificates.

Mountbatten Name 4

Oops - I didn't realize you'd already posted a copy - sorry!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you for the enlightening post, and for posting the certificate! Longford's comment "The Queen did not seek the advice of her Ministers in this matter" is curious. Was there an expectation that she would?

 

[Gawin]

Thank you for the enlightening post, and for posting the certificate! Longford's comment "The Queen did not seek the advice of her Ministers in this matter" is curious. Was there an expectation that she would?

According to Lady Longford she'd persuaded Prime Minister Harold Macmillan to support her wish to add Mountbatten to Windsor so it seems she needed his support.

Because of the wording of the Order in Council it was believed by some that the Mountbatten-Windsor surname would only apply to descendants who weren't HRHs. But the Queen's instructions to have Mountbatten-Windsor recorded as Anne's surname in the marriage register ended that speculation.

Regarding the statement that the Queen did not seek her Minister's advice regarding Anne's marriage registrar, Lady Longford simply says it "had considerable significance."

So as you stated earlier "when a surname is required in official paperwork, a royal or a peer traditionally uses their family name as their surname."

 

[jacqui24]

It seems that there is some...flexibility in if a surname is needed or how it is written on documents. As the article posted above stated, while Anne, Andrew, and Edward used Mountbatten-Windsor on marriage certificate, the first official Mountbatten-Windsor’s are Lady Louise and Viscount Severn.

 

[Gawin]

I suppose it's because Lady Louise and Viscount Severn are the first not to use HRH Prince(ess) which trumps the surname.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

France doesn’t allow for change in name whereas US does. Even in that case I had to give a side eye to using Mountbatten-Windsor being legal as he was not born Mountbatten-Windsor. And you can’t group US with France. While US doesn’t recognize titles, it’s perfectly legal for her to change her name whereas it is not in France. The only consideration will be given is how is it easiest to match US and U.K. documents, not what she would have to use if a legal action is ever to take place in France.

There is nothing odd about William using Mountbatten-Windsor as his surname under circumstances where he needs one. For example France, which does not legally recognize titles or HRH.

You can't just change your name--first or last-- on a whim in the U.S. Meghan could remain Markle after marriage or she can take the legal last name of her husband that he would use when necessary--Mountbatten -Windsor. She cannot arbitrarily use Sussex--it would be his title, no matter that it would be used for convenience in the UK, Meghan would have to go to court in the U.S. and legally change her last name to Sussex.

If, hypothetically, she wanted to change her name legally in the US, wouldn't it make more sense to change it to Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Rachel Meghan Sussex or anything like that ? Matching her UK and US documents will never be possible as her UK documents will be issued in the name of HRH Rachel Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex and that is a name which, I assume, she cannot use in the US. She would probably be better off then sticking with Rachel Meghan Markle, at least until her naturalization process in the UK is complete. After that, I assume that she will renounce her US citizenship and the question of how her name will appear on her US documents will no longer apply.

EDIT: Doing a quick Google search, I found copies of Prince Charles and Diana's passports in the following link . I assume Harry's and Meghan's would be similar, right ?

Absolutely, spot on.

Given that Meghan's title wouldn't be recognized in the US, I would argue that in that case Mountbatten-Windsor would be the appropriate surname as that is exactly the situation in which that surname is to be used (if there 'is' no title). She won't be 'Princess Meghan of Sussex', but Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex (or Clarence or ...)', so the combination of her first name with Sussex would be inappropriate from my point of few (as it is well known that that combination is used for divorced former duchesses).


Could she indeed just pick whatever she likes as a surname or does it need to be related to something. As in, could she decide to take the surname 'princess of the United Kingdom'?

1) I agree

2)No she can't just pick any surname and change it without going to court, unless she is adopting her husband's surname after marriage. That just requires your marriage certificate.

 

[Mbruno]

So going back on-topic to Meghan, if she needs to change her last name on her US passport, based on the discussion above, she should change it to Mountbatten-Windsor, which is the last name she would use officially in the UK if she ever needed one after marrying Harry, right ?

I just don't think she will need a last name in her UK documents and, like Kate, could get away simply with HRH Rachel Meghan Duchess of [xxx]. Or should different rules apply to William's and Harry's wives ?

 

[Iluvbertie]

UK documents will accept the royal status but ... whenever she needs a surname outside the UK e.g. the Cambridge's law suit in France then she will use Mountbatten-Windsor as that will be her married name.

She could opt to retain her maiden name on her documents of course but then she can't use the royal status as well.

 

[jacqui24]

So going back on-topic to Meghan, if she needs to change her last name on her US passport, based on the discussion above, she should change it to Mountbatten-Windsor, which is the last name she would have to use officially in the UK if she ever needed one after marrying Harry, right ?

It...depends Harry technically isn’t a Mountbatten-Windsor as it’s been stated that the first official Mountbatten-Windsor is Lady Louise. It’s odd how the last name situation works for royals . It doesn’t seem to have consistency. But if we are to talk about official LP, then no. However, the sovereign’s wish is enough as we found out with Edward’s children not being HRHs. Now, there hasn’t been official announcement from the Queen to wish differently than the LP on the matter of last name other than existing LP. In the past, Harry used Wales as last name when required in U.K.

 

[Osipi]

Question. If the UK passport follows the traditional way of wording titles, wouldn't Kate's passport state simply HRH The Duchess of Cambridge? I believe the use of a first name and then the title was designated for divorced spouses of a peer such as Sarah, Duchess of York.

If this ruling is followed, wouldn't Meghan's UK passport just read HRH The Duchess of XXXX? This wouldn't work at all though for a US passport, I believe and she'd either have to retain the legal name of Rachel Meghan Markle or change it to Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.

Boy is there a lot of confusion about things when a British royal marries an American eh?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

So going back on-topic to Meghan, if she needs to change her last name on her US passport, based on the discussion above, she should change it to Mountbatten-Windsor, which is the last name she would use officially in the UK if she ever needed one after marrying Harry, right ?

I just don't think she will need a last name in her UK documents and, like Kate, could get away simply with HRH Rachel Meghan Duchess of [xxx]. Or should different rules apply to William's and Harry's wives ?

She doesn't need to change her last name on her US passport, women are allowed to keep their names in the US when they marry, several of my cousins have. If Meghan wants to change it she can and yes, it would be Mountbatten-Windsor.
In the UK, officially her name will be the same as other royal duchesses.

 

[jacqui24]

UK documents will accept the royal status but ... whenever she needs a surname outside the UK e.g. the Cambridge's law suit in France then she will use Mountbatten-Windsor as that will be her married name.

She could opt to retain her maiden name on her documents of course but then she can't use the royal status as well.

She can still use Markle while being Duchess of xxxx in countries that doesn’t recognize title. Kate used Middleton for the lawsuit in France.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

It...depends Harry technically isn’t a Mountbatten-Windsor as it’s been stated that the first official Mountbatten-Windsor is Lady Louise. It’s odd how the last name situation works for royals . It doesn’t seem to have consistency. But if we are to talk about official LP, then no. However, the sovereign’s wish is enough as we found out with Edward’s children not being HRHs. Now, there hasn’t been official announcement from the Queen to wish differently than the LP on the matter of last name other than existing LP. In the past, Harry used Wales as last name when required in U.K.

As you said, Harry has used Wales for a last name as a convenience, in the UK. But if Harry needed a legal last name outside of the UK--Mountbatten-Windsor would be the name he would use. It doesn't matter what the "rules" are in the UK in those circumstances.
What you keep ignoring is that outside of the UK, in many countries, Harry is only called Prince Harry as a social courtesy.

 

[jacqui24]

Question. If the UK passport follows the traditional way of wording titles, wouldn't Kate's passport state simply HRH The Duchess of Cambridge? I believe the use of a first name and then the title was designated for divorced spouses of a peer such as Sarah, Duchess of York.

That seems to be debatable too. I believe kate was listed as HRH Catherine Elizabeth Duchess of Cambridge on George’s birth certificate. The difference between married and divorced would be the HRH.

 

[Skippyboo]

The UK and US passports don’t have to match. However, she isn’t going to get a UK passport until she becomes a UK citizen which won’t happen for several years.

 

[jacqui24]

As you said, Harry has used Wales for a last name as a convenience, in the UK. But if Harry needed a legal last name outside of the UK--Mountbatten-Windsor would be the name he would use. It doesn't matter what the "rules" are in the UK in those circumstances.
What you keep ignoring is that outside of the UK, in many countries, Harry is only called Prince Harry as a social courtesy.

Actually, I don’t think there is a law saying that. I’m not sure how the last name in the France case was decided as he’s never been Mountbatten-Windsor. That wasn’t on his birth certificate. Unless he obtained French document and listed his name as Mountbatten-Windsor. If that’s the cascade, it seems to be what they are comfortable with.

 

[Gawin]

It...depends Harry technically isn’t a Mountbatten-Windsor as it’s been stated that the first official Mountbatten-Windsor is Lady Louise. It’s odd how the last name situation works for royals . It doesn’t seem to have consistency. But if we are to talk about official LP, then no. However, the sovereign’s wish is enough as we found out with Edward’s children not being HRHs. Now, there hasn’t been official announcement from the Queen to wish differently than the LP on the matter of last name other than existing LP. In the past, Harry used Wales as last name when required in U.K.

The article states that Lady Louise & Viscount Severn are the only two descendants of QEII to "officially have the surname of “Mountbatten-Windsor”.

Combined with other sources this seems to mean they are the only descendants to use the surname on a regular basis OUTSIDE OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS because they don't use the HRH Prince(ess).

For example, Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor is known as HRH Princess Beatrice of York because her title trumps her surname. She would only use Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor on legal documents requiring a surname.

But Louise Mountbatten-Windsor doesn't use the HRH Princess so she's the first descendant to actually use the surname as part of her day-to-day name/style.

So I think it's safe to assume Harry's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. He's just never had reason to use it.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Ish]

She can still use Markle while being Duchess of xxxx in countries that doesn’t recognize title. Kate used Middleton for the lawsuit in France.

Kate used Middleton because in France women don’t take their husband’s name upon marriage.

Meghan can be legally Rachel Meghan Markle or Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or even Rachel Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor if she’s so inclined. She just has to change (or not change) her name in the US after her wedding.

That doesn’t prevent her from being HRH Princess Henry of Wales (or whatever Harry’s title is after his marriage). It’s not going to be her legal name on her US passport, but legal names aren’t necessarily what people go by in public.

A perfect example is Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest; his legal name is Christopher Haden-Guest, and properly he is the 5th Baron Haden-Guest (styled as Lord Baron Haden-Guest), but he typically goes by Christopher Guest. She has kept her maiden name and is still Jamie Lee Curtis, but is also recognized as Lady Haden-Guest.

 

[Osipi]

Just to throw this in the mix. If we go by what Diana's passport as The Princess of Wales had, its possible that Meghan's UK passport (when issued ) could very well mesh with keeping her name on that as Rachel Meghan Markle.

All the information would be included in the UK passport. Her title, her given name and her maiden name. Diana's passport is a good example of that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pho...Q7AkIRg&biw=1097&bih=554#imgrc=GHHTM_w_9DbCSM:

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The article states that Lady Louise & Viscount Severn are the only two descendants of QEII to "officially have the surname of “Mountbatten-Windsor”.

Combined with other sources this seems to mean they are the only descendants to use the surname on a regular basis OUTSIDE OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS because they don't use the HRH Prince(ess).

For example, Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor is known as HRH Princess Beatrice of York because her title trumps her surname. She would only use Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor on legal documents requiring a surname.

But Louise Mountbatten-Windsor doesn't use the HRH Princess so she's the first descendant to actually use the surname as part of her day-to-day name/style.

So I think it's safe to assume Harry's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. He's just never had reason to use it.

I hope this makes sense.

Kate used Middleton because in France women don’t take their husband’s name upon marriage.

Meghan can be legally Rachel Meghan Markle or Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or even Rachel Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor if she’s so inclined. She just has to change (or not change) her name in the US after her wedding.

That doesn’t prevent her from being HRH Princess Henry of Wales (or whatever Harry’s title is after his marriage). It’s not going to be her legal name on her US passport, but legal names aren’t necessarily what people go by in public.

A perfect example is Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest; his legal name is Christopher Haden-Guest, and properly he is the 5th Baron Haden-Guest (styled as Lord Baron Haden-Guest), but he typically goes by Christopher Guest. She has kept her maiden name and is still Jamie Lee Curtis, but is also recognized as Lady Haden-Guest.

Excellent explanations, both of you.

 

[Mbruno]

Question. If the UK passport follows the traditional way of wording titles, wouldn't Kate's passport state simply HRH The Duchess of Cambridge? I believe the use of a first name and then the title was designated for divorced spouses of a peer such as Sarah, Duchess of York.

I don't know about Kate's passport, but as I linked a couple of posts before, Diana's passaport listed her name as Her Royal Highness Diana Frances The Princess of Wales, née Lady Diana Frances Spencer.

Prince George's birth certificate lists Kate as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, which is odd and suggests to me that the registrar was confused about what he should write. William is listed as His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge, which looks like a more proper style.

 

[jacqui24]

The article states that Lady Louise & Viscount Severn are the only two descendants of QEII to "officially have the surname of “Mountbatten-Windsor”.

Combined with other sources this seems to mean they are the only descendants to use the surname on a regular basis OUTSIDE OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS because they don't use the HRH Prince(ess).

For example, Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor is known as HRH Princess Beatrice of York because her title trumps her surname. She would only use Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor on legal documents requiring a surname.

But Louise Mountbatten-Windsor doesn't use the HRH Princess so she's the first descendant to actually use the surname as part of her day-to-day name/style.

Btw, when I say official, I mean whatever is on legal documents as to me that’s the most official for name. Not what is commonly known. For example, Prince Harry is officially Prince Henry even though he is known as Prince Harry to everyone. It’s whats on his legal documents.

So I think it's safe to assume Harry's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. He's just never had reason to use it.

I hope this makes sense.

Actually, that’s not true. Edward’s children has Mountbatten-Windsor on their birth certificate, which makes them official Mountbatten-Windsor. Not the case for those with HRH titles.

When I say official, I mean legally, not what they are known by. For example, Prince Harry is Prince Henry officially, but known as Prince Harry. I don’t consider Harry as official since on official docs he’d still be Henry even if he appears as Harry in CC. The more formal announcements might revert back to official name as we’ve seen with the engagement announcement.

 

[jacqui24]

[/I]Prince George's birth certificate lists Kate as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, which is odd and suggests to me that the registrar was confused about what he should write. William is listed as His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge, which looks like a more proper style.

Ah, you are right about where the HRH is at for Kate on the kids’s Birth certificate. But I think the key distinction between married and divorced in the title is HRH.

 

[Osipi]

My apologies, Mbruno, for somehow missing that you posted the information on Diana's passport. I must have missed it somehow. Can I blame a lack of caffeine? Perhaps old age? Not paying attention?

I guess when it comes to this kind of thing, its best to cover all bases just in case. As my EMT teacher always stressed "if it isn't written down, it never happened".

Think I need a donut or three.

 

[jacqui24]

Kate used Middleton because in France women don’t take their husband’s name upon marriage.

Meghan can be legally Rachel Meghan Markle or Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or even Rachel Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor if she’s so inclined. She just has to change (or not change) her name in the US after her wedding.

That doesn’t prevent her from being HRH Princess Henry of Wales (or whatever Harry’s title is after his marriage). It’s not going to be her legal name on her US passport, but legal names aren’t necessarily what people go by in public.

A perfect example is Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest; his legal name is Christopher Haden-Guest, and properly he is the 5th Baron Haden-Guest (styled as Lord Baron Haden-Guest), but he typically goes by Christopher Guest. She has kept her maiden name and is still Jamie Lee Curtis, but is also recognized as Lady Haden-Guest.

That’s actually exactly what I meant. Maybe I just didn’t explain it well enough. Meghan can change her name in US to whatever she wants. She can change it to Minnie Mouse tomorrow if she wished. That has no bearing on her title once married.

 

[Gawin]

Yes, having the surname on a birth certificate makes it "official." But in the case of the royals I don't think the lack of a surname on a birth record means there isn't a "latent" one.

For example, the GRO birth indexes list Anne, Andrew, and Edward under "Edinburgh" (father's title) while the marriage registers, as has been posted earlier, gives their surname as "Mountbatten-Windsor." Anne's maiden name is also listed as "Mountbatten-Windsor" in the entry for her son Peter's birth.

So I have the impression that while the royals have surnames, they aren't always listed on royal birth certificates.

I should also add the Lady Longford also states that "after the announcement [regarding Mountbatten-Windsor surname] the Queen was to confirm with the Home Secretary (acting for the Prime Minister) that 'all the children of Your Majesty who may at any time need a surname have the name of Mountbatten-Windsor'" (pp. 217-18).

Apparently surnames aren't needed on birth certificates for royals, odd as that seems.