Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[Heavs]

Concerning the Privy Council declarations of 1960 and 1917, on most occasions when I have inquired or commented on the potential legal restrictions which they may or may not impose on female-line descendants of the Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor families, members of this forum have answered that the vast majority of UK children are given their father's name and the female Windsors and Mountbatten-Windsors are guaranteed to follow tradition. I am well aware of all of this, and have said as much many times. I simply do not see how it is relevant to the legal questions involving the Privy Council declarations.

However, it is obvious that many do consider it to be relevant, so perhaps there is a point I am overlooking. Could anyone explain how the law, or the interpretation of the law, is affected by the tradition?

Well the tradition of taking the father's surname, especially when the parents are married is likely a large reason why the declarations were worded like that for female line descendants in the first place. And why M-W would only ever have been considered potentially necessary if a baby was born out of wedlock. Because it was taken for granted that

I think it's at least semi relevant because of the above and because it also governs the likelihood of say Bea or Eugenie from wanting to use M-W and potentially challenge the ruling even though they are married. Or Lady Gabriella Kingston for someone non Mountbatten.

If the UK had a tradition of using both parents names or choosing which parents name to use then it might have been written differently in the first place. Especially as particularly in 1917 it would have been assumed that most of the female descendants would be marrying royalty or aristocracy who had their own pedigree/name to pass on like the Earl of Harewood.

I also think tradition is relevant to the discussion because whilst it has nothing to do with what's actually legal or not for Princesses or Lady X Windsor etc the fact that Zara Phillips for example did not use Phillips-Tindall for her children despite being definitely "legally allowed" to potentially shows that the declarations of the privy council are not the only thing stopping us from having Sienna Elizabeth Mountbatten-Windsor-Mapelli-Mozzi.

All in my opinion.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thank you, Heavs, your explanation is extremely helpful!

I've always thought that opposite inferences may be drawn based on the traditions being taken for granted. We might infer that because the traditions are taken for granted, the government and the family meant for the law to be defined by the tradition. Or, we might infer that because the traditions are taken for granted, the government and the family presumed it would be unnecessary to define them into law.

Either way, it is profoundly unlikely that any of the current Windsors or Mountbatten-Windsors would want to contest the ruling. However, if Prince George has a daughter as his heiress, I could imagine there will be pressure on the royal family to conceive of a way for her to keep the Windsor name and transmit it to her children (perhaps with a fresh Privy Council declaration), even if she personally would prefer to take her husband's name.


On a related issue, the declaration of 1952 determined that Queen Elizabeth and her children, but not her husband, would have the family name of Windsor. Subsequently, the declaration of 1960 modified it to Mountbatten-Windsor for the children, but not for Elizabeth, who remained a Windsor, nor for Philip, who remained a Mountbatten. Two questions I have are:

It was important to the Duke of Edinburgh to have the same family name as his children. Why did the declaration of 1952 not give Philip, alongside his wife and children, the family name of Windsor?

Elizabeth II is a traditionalist in these matters and, if she had a free choice, would most certainly have taken her husband's name. Why did the declaration of 1960 not allow her to have the family name of Mountbatten-Windsor, as it did for her children?

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

 

[Prinsara]

It was important to the Duke of Edinburgh to have the same family name as his children. Why did the declaration of 1952 not give Philip, alongside his wife and children, the family name of Windsor?

Because from Philip's perspective, he had gone from a very fractured family and having no last name to establishing himself and his career a bit as "Mountbatten". He had already given up essentially everything else as Elizabeth's consort. Making him "Philip Windsor" wouldn't have assuaged any of those feelings. He wanted them to have his name, not "the same" one, and it's evident by the paper trail he and his uncle left with regards to the 1960 one.

Elizabeth II is a traditionalist in these matters and, if she had a free choice, would most certainly have taken her husband's name. Why did the declaration of 1960 not allow her to have the family name of Mountbatten-Windsor, as it did for her children?

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm

Because she is the head of the house and it would have been taken as a modification there, I suppose. And as the monarch, when would she ever need to use it? Bit superfluous.

 

[Mbruno]

Because from Philip's perspective, he had gone from a very fractured family and having no last name to establishing himself and his career a bit as "Mountbatten".

Having no last name was by no means derogatory in Philip's case. On the contrary, it was a marker of his special status as a member of a sovereign Royal House. The territorial designations used by some Royal Houses (e.g. de France, van België, etc.) are not legal family names in the modern sense, but they are (or were historically) "names of dominion" just as, in some monarchies, the personal arms of the Sovereign are still "arms of dominion" even today.

I imagine that, if he had had the choice, Philip would have preferred to be known as "Philip of Greece (and Denmark)" with the style and titular dignity of HRH Prince to which he was entitled, rather than assuming the surname "Mountbatten". Just like his cousin Princess Sophia, for example, kept the the name "Sofía de Grecia" with the added style and title of "Su Majestad la Reina" to which she became entitled by virtue of her marriage to the King of Spain.

I know that is not what you meant, but your comment may give readers the misleading impression that assuming the name "Mountbatten" was an upgrade for Philip compared to his previous "unfavorable" condition of "having no family name" when, on the contrary, that was a demotion in my opinion from being known as "Philip of Greece".

Elizabeth II is a traditionalist in these matters and, if she had a free choice, would most certainly have taken her husband's name. Why did the declaration of 1960 not allow her to have the family name of Mountbatten-Windsor, as it did for her children?

The traditionalist position would be for her children to take their father's house name, but not herself. Queen Victoria did not take Prince Albert's name; she was the last British monarch of the House of Hanover. King Edward VII, on the other hand, was the first monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.


Note also that a house name does not necessarily coincide with a family name properly, especially considering that sovereign families did not take "burgher names" in the modern sense. Their "names" normally came from territorial designations, peerages and/or fiefdoms.

 

[Prinsara]

Philip may have preferred to stay a prince, but by the time the name issue came up, he was Mountbatten and clung tenaciously to that. Having him give up his name twice would be highly unusual for a spouse of either gender, even including his grandmother Victoria Milford Haven.

 

[Mbruno]

Well the tradition of taking the father's surname, especially when the parents are married is likely a large reason why the declarations were worded like that for female line descendants in the first place. And why M-W would only ever have been considered potentially necessary if a baby was born out of wedlock. Because it was taken for granted that

I think it's at least semi relevant because of the above and because it also governs the likelihood of say Bea or Eugenie from wanting to use M-W and potentially challenge the ruling even though they are married. Or Lady Gabriella Kingston for someone non Mountbatten.

If the UK had a tradition of using both parents names or choosing which parents name to use then it might have been written differently in the first place. Especially as particularly in 1917 it would have been assumed that most of the female descendants would be marrying royalty or aristocracy who had their own pedigree/name to pass on like the Earl of Harewood.

In the modern world, unlike in the Ancien Régime, there are many situations where people need to use a family name. That was especially the case for descendants of a British sovereign who, by virtue of the Letters Patent of 1917, would not be princes or princesses.

In the case of descendants in maternal line, it was assumed, according to custom, that, regardless of pedigree, they would take their father's surname and, therefore, there was no need to assign them any other family name. Descendants in paternal line could, I suppose, take their mother's family name in England, but that would have been unusual, so I imagine that, for practical reasons, the declarations to the Privy Council had to be made to avoid them being "nameless".

Using the hyphenated name Mountbatten-Windsor was a compromise to signal agnatic descent from Prince Philip (as Mountbatten was, in practice, his assumed name in Britain) and, at the same time, indicate paternal descent from a monarch of the Royal House of Windsor.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Because from Philip's perspective, he had gone from a very fractured family and having no last name to establishing himself and his career a bit as "Mountbatten". He had already given up essentially everything else as Elizabeth's consort. Making him "Philip Windsor" wouldn't have assuaged any of those feelings. He wanted them to have his name, not "the same" one, and it's evident by the paper trail he and his uncle left with regards to the 1960 one.

Because she is the head of the house and it would have been taken as a modification there, I suppose. And as the monarch, when would she ever need to use it? Bit superfluous.

You make good points, but what gives me pause is that Philip regarded Mountbatten as "his" name although he acquired it just five years earlier and had only used it for some months before his marriage. What is to say he could not have likewise adopted Windsor as his "own" name?

 

[Prinsara]

You make good points, but what gives me pause is that Philip regarded Mountbatten as "his" name although he acquired it just five years earlier and had only used it for some months before his marriage. What is to say he could not have likewise adopted Windsor as his "own" name?

It was the only practical last name he'd ever had, and the one he was announced to marry under. And like I said, having had to subsume everything else about himself into his wife's life, how would being Windsor have felt like his own, rather than a complete and total acquiescence?

In addition, he was still pushing Mountbatten as his name in 1960, so he evidently had no inclination to start preferring Windsor.

 

[Osipi]

Just off the top of my head, I would think that seeing as this occurred in the late 1940s, a man's way of thinking was that he was the head of the household and his wife and children should bear his name as such. It irritated him that he was marrying someone that would have to retain the "head of household" as far as the House of Windsor was concerned. This was shown by Philip's actual words at the time and continued to probably bother him until the Queen issued her letters patent of 1960 denoting the use of the Mountbatten-Windsor surname.

From Philip's own mouth: "I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his children!" he fumed when the Queen was persuaded to keep Windsor. "I'm nothing but a bloody amoeba!" Philip struggled to find purpose in the limited role set out for him.

He did go on though to find a whole lot of purpose and meaning in the role he chose to fulfill and did it beautifully and never failed once to support his Queen and his wife.

 

[wbenson]

Concerning the Privy Council declarations of 1960 and 1917, on most occasions when I have inquired or commented on the potential legal restrictions which they may or may not impose on female-line descendants of the Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor families, members of this forum have answered that the vast majority of UK children are given their father's name and the female Windsors and Mountbatten-Windsors are guaranteed to follow tradition. I am well aware of all of this, and have said as much many times. I simply do not see how it is relevant to the legal questions involving the Privy Council declarations.

However, it is obvious that many do consider it to be relevant, so perhaps there is a point I am overlooking. Could anyone explain how the law, or the interpretation of the law, is affected by the tradition?

I don't think there are really any legal answers to that issue, because the Privy Council declarations aren't laws, and as far as I know they impose no legal duties on anyone. There is no royal power to name other people's children, and English law does not regulate people's surnames.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't think there are really any legal answers to that issue, because the Privy Council declarations aren't laws, and as far as I know they impose no legal duties on anyone. There is no royal power to name other people's children, and English law does not regulate people's surnames.

If someone assumed the last name Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor in England, could that be construed as fraudulent or implying a title or family connection that one does not hold/have? That would constitute grounds for rejecting a name registration, wouldn't it?


I find it odd that assuming arms that are registered to another person is an offense in the UK (although it is rarely prosecuted in England), but assuming somebody else's name is not. In countries where personal arms are legally protected, including republics like France, the legal protection extended to arms (or titles) is described as the same as the protection extended to names. It sounds like an inconsistency to me.


I wonder if that is historically related to the fact that the peerage didn't really use last names, being referred instead by their titles, so protecting titles or arms was more important than protecting names?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't think there are really any legal answers to that issue, because the Privy Council declarations aren't laws, and as far as I know they impose no legal duties on anyone. There is no royal power to name other people's children, and English law does not regulate people's surnames.

Personally I now lean towards the same view, but my question was directed at the many people who believe there is a legal duty to follow the tradition. I presume that's the position many posters hold because on the occasions when I've asked questions about the law, many of the answers have discussed the tradition. On the other hand, Heavs's post above explained some routes by which traditions might influence interpretation of the law without the traditions per se being legally binding.


The UK government agrees that for the general public, the patrilineal naming traditions are not legally binding. The quoted government note does not mention the Windsors or the Privy Council declarations.

3. Upon marriage, while it is traditional for the woman to take the man's surname, it is also perfectly acceptable for the woman to keep her maiden name or the couple to create their own 'double-barrelled' or hyphenated surname by using both of their original surnames. Civil Partnerships also allows for each partner to keep their original surname, take their partner ́s or create their own double-barrelled or hyphenated surname by using both of their original surnames. The British Marriage Certificate states the surnames of the parties prior to their marriage and is supporting evidence of a request by either party to change their surname. No additional documentation is required under UK law.

5. Parents may give their child any forename or surname. No additional documentation is required under UK law although there is a facility for doing so through the UK courts by way of a Deed Pollor Statutory Declaration. The surname given to a child when its birth is registered in the UK is generally, but not always, that of the father. However it sometimes happens, especially in the case of persons born outside marriage, that the surnames of the parents, in any order, are used (hyphenated or not) to provide a double-barrelled surname. English law places no restrictions as to what surname may be registered for a child in the UK.

 

[Denville]

If someone assumed the last name Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor in England, could that be construed as fraudulent or implying a title or family connection that one does not hold/have? That would constitute grounds for rejecting a name registration, wouldn't it?




I wonder if that is historically related to the fact that the peerage didn't really use last names, being referred instead by their titles, so protecting titles or arms was more important than protecting names?

I've never heard of Barbara Windsor being criticised though I doubt it is her real name

 

[Mbruno]

I've never heard of Barbara Windsor being criticised though I doubt it is her real name

Wikipedia says her name was Barbara Ann Deeks.

 

[Heavs]

Unless a person changed their name to "Windsor" for the express purpose of trying to pretend to be a related to the BRF for money or other fraud I don't think they'd be criticised or penalised.

Windsor was a surname in the UK before the BRF switched to it. Just like York, Bagshot, England, Gloucester, Wiltshire etc are also place name surnames, some with royal connotations.

 

[Denville]

Wikipedia says her name was Barbara Ann Deeks.

Yes - I know but I dont know why she changed it to Windsor. It might have been a name somewhere back in the history of her family. However I assume that since noone's ever said that she should nolt be using the royal name, it isn't an issue.

 

[JR76]

Our Babs changed her name after being cast in her first film around the time of the Coronation "because it sounded posher".

 

[royal-blue]

If Andrew was to stop being a Prince, however this may come about, would his daughters still be Princesses?

Likewise if he was stripped of his dukedom, would his daughters still be Princesses "of York"?

 

[Osipi]

If Andrew was to stop being a Prince, however this may come about, would his daughters still be Princesses?

Likewise if he was stripped of his dukedom, would his daughters still be Princesses "of York"?

This is something that really is a moot question as none of the above is ever really going to happen in our lifetime. Andrew could be the second coming of evil incarnate but by birth, he's the son of a monarch and that designates him as a prince. Unless Andrew (being evil incarnate) does something totally treasonous to the monarchy, the government of the UK and it's people, no one is going to touch taking away his peerage.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If Andrew was to stop being a Prince, however this may come about, would his daughters still be Princesses?

Likewise if he was stripped of his dukedom, would his daughters still be Princesses "of York"?

The last time someone was scrapped was because of high treason, fighting at the side of the King's enemies, that was after WWI.

Since then no any peerage has been revoked. Not even for murder. And as the Duke of York is not even charged with any crime, let alone to one of the category of "treason" or "murder", it is all purely theoretical.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

At the moment there is no pressure on the Queen or Parliament to revoke titles, but theoretical questions have always been welcome in this thread, and discussions about much more improbable scenarios (such as Prince William marrying Princess Madeleine of Sweden or the British monarchy being abolished in Elizabeth II's lifetime) have taken place here.

To answer the question, Prince Andrew and his daughters are Prince and Princess on the basis of the Letters Patent of 1917, which stipulate that "the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign [...] shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess".

In order to strip Andrew of his princely title, the Queen would be obliged to either amend the Letters Patent, or more likely decree an exception as far as Andrew is concerned. The wording of the hypothetical announcement or letters patent used to strip Andrew of his princely title would determine whether his daughters would also be stripped as a result.

"York" and "of York" are now confined to informal private use for Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. Their formal designations according to Buckingham Palace are Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank. https://www.royal.uk/succession

 

[wbenson]

If someone assumed the last name Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor in England, could that be construed as fraudulent or implying a title or family connection that one does not hold/have? That would constitute grounds for rejecting a name registration, wouldn't it?

If someone was doing it for an actual fraudulent purpose, that would be illegal, but I believe there's nothing inherently fraudulent about claiming to be someone else's relative, even if that person is the Queen. The fraud would be if they went on a speaking tour and got people to pay them for stories about childhood visits to Sandringham for Christmas, or used their name to get someone to loan them money, something like that.

 

[Kataryn]

Wouldn't it have been very difficult to get Victoria back on to the throne when her cousin's ascension would have hinged on her already being treated as "dead" and disposed (not deposed)? If she couldn't be treated as heir to the child, it seems quite hard to just recall her if need be.

I guess the real problem is the fact that the British monarchy knows no "interregnum" like other monarchies do. That means the moment the sovereign dies the next one accends the throne. As unborn children don't legally "exist", an unborn child couldn't ascend to the throne. Thus Victoria would have been queen the moment her uncle died, no matter if there was an unborn child or not.



Did the idea of immediately ascension already exist when Richard III. send his nephews to the tower? I can't actually remember if the elder little prince was already king or not...


Or was that an idea the Hannoverans brought with them?



As for the "demise" of Victoria: IMHO she would have been back to being princess Victoria of Kent when the Royal persona of "Queen Victoria" was considered "demised". But she still would have been the first-in-line after William's baby. And surely the government would have found an appropriate title for this once and potential future queen. Not one already existing but a new one. Like "HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother" which was a new title IIRC. But don't ask me what this would have been...

 

[Alison H]

Windsor is a very common surname. People have been called Windsor since long before the royal family took the name. Likewise, there are hundreds of thousands of people, mainly in Scotland, whose surname is either Stuart or Stewart. Lancaster and York are also quite common surnames, and Tudor, although not common, is sometimes found, especially in Wales. You couldn't really stop anyone from changing their surname to Windsor.

Calling yourself Mountbatten-Windsor might be pushing it, as that surname is unique to the descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip, but I doubt that it'd be illegal. I don't even think that it'd be illegal to claim to be related to the Queen. Sorry to bring up a TV programme, but a character in Coronation Street used to claim to be an illegitimate descendant of Edward VII! As wbenson said, it'd only be illegal if someone was using it for financial gain or to claim some sort of privileges.

Richard III's eldest nephew was Edward V: he became king as soon as Edward IV died. Well, unless you believe all the codswallop about Edward not really being married to Elizabeth Woodville because of a precontract with Eleanor Butler, but that's beside the point.

Barbara Windsor did actually take her stage name from the Royal Family, but it was because she was a big fan and was becoming a professional actress around the time of the Coronation, so thought it'd be nice to use the name. She was always very proud of her working-class East End origins, so I doubt she intended for anyone to think she was actually related to the Queen .

And can you imagine starting school and telling the other 4-year-olds in your class that your name was Sienna Mountbatten Windsor Mapelli Mozzi, and the next kid saying that her name was Mary Smith?!

 

[Mbruno]

I guess the real problem is the fact that the British monarchy knows no "interregnum" like other monarchies do. That means the moment the sovereign dies the next one accends the throne. As unborn children don't legally "exist", an unborn child couldn't ascend to the throne. Thus Victoria would have been queen the moment her uncle died, no matter if there was an unborn child or not.

I am not sure. In Roman law, for example, an unborn child would be considered in that case to have been "legally born", even if not physically born. The Dutch constitution also follows that principle, which is not surprising as it stems from Roman-Dutch law.

Article 26 [Status of an Unborn or Stillborn Child]
For the purposes of hereditary succession, the child of a woman pregnant at the moment of the death of the King is deemed already born. If it is stillborn it is deemed to have never existed.

I don't know how English law handles that matter though.

Windsor is a very common surname. People have been called Windsor since long before the royal family took the name. Likewise, there are hundreds of thousands of people, mainly in Scotland, whose surname is either Stuart or Stewart. Lancaster and York are also quite common surnames, and Tudor, although not common, is sometimes found, especially in Wales. You couldn't really stop anyone from changing their surname to Windsor.

I think there are two different situations. One is a person whose family has borne the name Windsor (or Stuart, or Lancaster, etc.) for generations and who is registered with that name upon birth. Another situation would be someone who was born with another name, like Barbara Deeks, and assumed the last name Windsor as an adult (I don't know if she did that formally by a deed poll or not).


As Wbenson said, there doesn't appear to be any problem with the latter unless a fraudulent intent is clearly established, but still, I would say it differs from the former and from your argument.

 

[SLV]

How easy is it to change your name in the UK?
A neighbour of mine (in the Netherlands) had to go through a big bureaucratic machine, with psychological analyses and letters of support from friends to legally change her first and last name.

 

[Denville]

Windsor is a very common surname. People have been called Windsor since long before the royal family took the name. Likewise, there are hundreds of thousands of people, mainly in Scotland, whose surname is either Stuart or Stewart. Lancaster and York are also quite common surnames, and Tudor, although not common, is sometimes found, especially in Wales. You couldn't really stop anyone from changing their surname to Windsor.

Calling yourself Mountbatten-Windsor might be pushing it, as that surname is unique to the descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip, but I doubt that it'd be illegal. I don't even think that it'd be illegal to claim to be related to the Queen. Sorry to bring up a TV programme, but a character in Coronation Street used to claim to be an illegitimate descendant of Edward VII! As wbenson said, it'd only be illegal if someone was using it for financial gain or to claim some sort of privileges.

Richard III's eldest nephew was Edward V: he became king as soon as Edward IV died. Well, unless you believe all the codswallop about Edward not really b!

Ah I reemmber that - it was Vera Duckworth, was it? but there are people in RL who claim to be descdendants of members of the RF... probalby they do really believe they are.. but no action is taken against them as far as I know

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The UK government agrees that for the general public, the patrilineal naming traditions are not legally binding. The quoted government note does not mention the Windsors or the Privy Council declarations.

I had the impression that few women in the UK continued to use their original surname after marrying a man, and that it was almost out of the question for married parents to use anything other than the father's surname alone for their children, but according to a 2016 study by YouGov, the alternatives are less unpopular than I had thought.

After combining the percentages corresponding to the different options:

18% of British men would, if married, prefer their spouse to either keep their surname alone or combine it with the man's surname. If there were children from the marriage, 12% of men would prefer the children to take their spouse's or both parents' surname(s).

28% of British women would prefer to keep or combine their own surname if they married, and 23% would prefer the children from the marriage to take their surname or both parents' surname(s).

2% of both women and men would prefer to take a new, completely different surname on marriage for themself and their spouse.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...lts_160912_NameswithRela_AgeGenderBreak_W.pdf
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifesty.../six-ten-women-would-like-take-their-spouses-

Granted, these numbers would unquestionably be much lower if only royalty and aristocracy were asked for their opinions.

How easy is it to change your name in the UK?
A neighbour of mine (in the Netherlands) had to go through a big bureaucratic machine, with psychological analyses and letters of support from friends to legally change her first and last name.

Very easy. See the link quoted above from my last post.

Surnames

1. Under English law, a person may change their surname at will. The law concerns itself only with the question whether the individual has in fact assumed and has come to be known by a surname different from that by which they were originally known. So long as that is the case the change of surname will be valid. The process is not subject to any documentary formalities although there is a facility for doing so through the UK courts by way of a Deed Poll or Statutory Declaration.

Forenames

2. As long as it is not done for fraudulent or other unlawful purposes, a person may assume any forename without any formalities and can identify themselves with, and be identified by, the assumed name. There is some uncertainty in English law as to whether a Christian (Baptismal) forename can be legally displaced. A determination of a person's legal forename can only be made by a UK Court. However an assumed forename used in place of the name given on baptism is still valid for the purposes of legal identification if it is by this name that the individual has generally become known.

 

[Mbruno]

Granted, these numbers would unquestionably be much lower if only royalty and aristocracy were asked for their opinions.

I think "the aristocracy" approaches family names from a different point of view. Yes, wives of peers normally take their husbands' last names. However, a peer and his wife do not use their family names, not even on the photo pages of their passports, but are referred instead by their titles, which uniquely identify them. That also extends to children of peers who use courtesy titles and their respective wives.


I guess the point I have been trying to make is that surnames/family names., at least in England and ancient France, are/were mostly a custom for commoners/burghers, not for peers or royalty, who don't (or historically didn't) need them, although peers do have legal family names recorded in this case in the observations page of their passports and mentioned in official announcements in the London Gazette like appointments or promotions in the royal orders for example.


I suppose that, in the modern world, as family names are increasingly needed in different situations, we will increasingly see peers and even royals increasingly using them too.


On a different note, I don't think it is necessarily true that "commoner" or "aristocratic" women have different positions on keeping their maiden names or not. From what I understand, the main reason to keep one's maiden name is not your social origin, but rather if you use or are known by that name professionally and need to keep it for that reason. It is worth noticing that, even in Spain, where parents are normally very traditional about naming of children in paternal line, married women, however, do not take their husband's names.

 

[SLV]

Thank you Tatiana.