The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5341  
Old 09-19-2020, 07:58 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Was Prince Charles ever referred to as Prince Charles of Edinburgh before February 1952? I don't believe he was, and wonder why not as his parents were of course the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh during King George VI's lifetime.
He was indeed and so was Anne. There is a clip about his baptism if you scroll down in this article and they talk about Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty...ideo-released/
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5342  
Old 09-19-2020, 08:07 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,494
Thank you. Wiki said he had, but... It's logical that he would have been but I've honestly never heard it mentioned.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5343  
Old 09-19-2020, 08:23 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Countessmeout View Post
He was indeed and so was Anne. There is a clip about his baptism if you scroll down in this article and they talk about Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalty...ideo-released/

It appears that Elizabeth's name was entered in the birth certificate as HRH The Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Duchess of Edinburgh.
Reply With Quote
  #5344  
Old 09-19-2020, 08:25 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Thank you. Wiki said he had, but... It's logical that he would have been but I've honestly never heard it mentioned.
Yes Wikipedia often needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

Anne's baptism. Sadly they don't mention Edinburgh but thought sweet to see the video of hers as well.




Quote:
It appears that Elizabeth's name was entered in the birth certificate as HRH The Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, Duchess of Edinburgh.
Similar to modern ones. William's for his kids says HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge. Since Elizabeth was never Princess of Wales, that would have been her proper signature.
Reply With Quote
  #5345  
Old 09-21-2020, 02:11 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
It's a funny one this because Charles was a prince because of his mother & she just happened to be married to the Duke of Edinburgh. So even though it would appear he was styled as such arguably he wasn't really a prince of Edinburgh at all. On the other hand how else would he have been styled? Of nowhere like the daughters of Princess Helena after 1917?

Conversely he could just as easily have been styled of the UK I suppose.

Incidentally. If Charlotte of Wales & her baby had survived how would her child have been styled?
Reply With Quote
  #5346  
Old 09-21-2020, 02:38 PM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 28,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post


Incidentally. If Charlotte of Wales & her baby had survived how would her child have been styled?
Her husband was style His Royal Highness Prince Leopold ,Duke of Saxony between 1818-1831 prior to becoming the king of the Belgians.

Though not sure if the child would HSH or HRH 'Prince or Princess X'.
Reply With Quote
  #5347  
Old 09-21-2020, 02:42 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
It's an interesting question. I wonder if someone has a definitive answer.
Reply With Quote
  #5348  
Old 09-27-2020, 09:25 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,872
This question was originally posted in another thread, but it most likely belongs here:

Suppose that in the future, a female Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor chooses to continue using the (Mountbatten-)Windsor name on her identity documents after marriage and registers her legitimate children as (Mountbatten-)Windsors. Would King Charles/William/George have the power to change the legal registrations of her and her children without her consent on the basis of the royal proclamations of 1917/1960? Or could/would he sue her or have her charged with an offense?
Reply With Quote
  #5349  
Old 09-27-2020, 12:53 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,317
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
This question was originally posted in another thread, but it most likely belongs here:

Suppose that in the future, a female Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor chooses to continue using the (Mountbatten-)Windsor name on her identity documents after marriage and registers her legitimate children as (Mountbatten-)Windsors. Would King Charles/William/George have the power to change the legal registrations of her and her children without her consent on the basis of the royal proclamations of 1917/1960? Or could/would he sue her or have her charged with an offense?
I wonder about that as well.

Does the Queen's Privy Council declaration simply mean that "female descendants who marry and their descendants" do not automatically bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (in accordance with the British tradition that women and their children take their husband's surname)?

Or does it go beyond that and also prohibit female descendants from adopting the surname for themselves and their children?

Likewise, although descendants in the male line automatically bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, do they have the right to adopt another if they wish?

According to the government's website: "Under English law, a person may change their surname at will."

https://assets.publishing.service.go...April_2016.pdf

The Royal Family's website states (in reference to the Queen's Privy Council declarations of 1952 and 1960): "A proclamation on the Royal Family name by the reigning monarch is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after."

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

Of course, the purpose of the statement is to emphasize that Charles (and his successors) can override the Queen's decision. But if her Privy Council declaration doesn't have the force of law, and the law allows a person to change their surname at will, could any of her other descendants also ignore her "will and pleasure" by adopting or rejecting the Mountbatten-Windsor surname for themselves?
Reply With Quote
  #5350  
Old 09-27-2020, 02:13 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,138
There are already British families with the surname of Windsor. Since the palace hasn't forced them to change their names I hardly believe that they would do so to an actual member of the Royal family.
Reply With Quote
  #5351  
Old 09-27-2020, 02:26 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
I wonder about that as well.

Does the Queen's Privy Council declaration simply mean that "female descendants who marry and their descendants" do not automatically bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor (in accordance with the British tradition that women and their children take their husband's surname)?

Or does it go beyond that and also prohibit female descendants from adopting the surname for themselves and their children?

Likewise, although descendants in the male line automatically bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, do they have the right to adopt another if they wish?

According to the government's website: "Under English law, a person may change their surname at will."

https://assets.publishing.service.go...April_2016.pdf

The Royal Family's website states (in reference to the Queen's Privy Council declarations of 1952 and 1960): "A proclamation on the Royal Family name by the reigning monarch is not statutory; unlike an Act of Parliament, it does not pass into the law of the land. Such a proclamation is not binding on succeeding reigning sovereigns, nor does it set a precedent which must be followed by reigning sovereigns who come after."

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

Of course, the purpose of the statement is to emphasize that Charles (and his successors) can override the Queen's decision. But if her Privy Council declaration doesn't have the force of law, and the law allows a person to change their surname at will, could any of her other descendants also ignore her "will and pleasure" by adopting or rejecting the Mountbatten-Windsor surname for themselves?
Thank you very much for finding these statements.

On the face of it, it appears King Charles (or whoever) would have an uphill battle to have a female member of the family charged with an offense for keeping her surname after marriage or adopting it for her children.

But would the King need to rely on prosecution? Could he simply order the registrar to change the name in the identity card or registration? And if he could, is it likely he would do so?


Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
There are already British families with the surname of Windsor. Since the palace hasn't forced them to change their names I hardly believe that they would do so to an actual member of the Royal family.
But those families are not descendants of Queen Victoria or Queen Elizabeth II and the proclamations of 1917 and 1960 are not applicable to them.
Reply With Quote
  #5352  
Old 09-27-2020, 02:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
This question was originally posted in another thread, but it most likely belongs here:

Suppose that in the future, a female Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor chooses to continue using the (Mountbatten-)Windsor name on her identity documents after marriage and registers her legitimate children as (Mountbatten-)Windsors. Would King Charles/William/George have the power to change the legal registrations of her and her children without her consent on the basis of the royal proclamations of 1917/1960? Or could/would he sue her or have her charged with an offense?
Taking your Cosima Windsor example in the other thread, I can't think that anyone could force her to either take her husband's name instead of remaining Windsor or potentially hyphenating and then giving her children her own name or a hyphenated name. It's not the same as a title where there are LPs involved. And name changes after marriage aren't automatic, you have to register it with various departments. They may ask HM as a courtesy if she is ok with it.

HM (whoever it is by then) wouldn't need to rubber stamp her marriage unlike 1917 or 1960, it's difficult to see why they would want to officially interfere in how a distant relative names their child unless for example Cosima's brother declared that he didn't want to have children and wanted to attempt to make his sister and sister's daughter his heir in a situation where the Peerage inheritance laws had not changed and the name was part of that. Then they'd probably get interested in what was going on.

I truly don't see a situation where any of the potential monarchs are ordering registrars to change the names on a birth certificate or taking people to court to insist on using only the father's name. Surely that would be lunacy and there would be a big uproar about abuse of power.

I don't foresee a situation where either Bea or Eugenie want to hyphenate Baby Mountbatten-Winsdor-Brooksbank or Baby Mountbatten-Windsor-Mapelli Mozzi. HM being traditional about these things would almost certainly still very much prefer that they just took their father's name but we don't know if she'd actually try and forbid it officially or unofficially if one or both families (or theoretically Lady Louise and most likely her Uncle in the monarch role) wanted to do that. Probably not, especially as she doesn't seem to have insisted that her granddaughters stop using "of York" and allowed Princess Marina and Princess Alice to use those titles. Or insisted Archie use Earl of Dumbarton.

Like I said before. There will be some fun in royal watching circles if/when Bea has children and if they can or will be addressed as Conte or Nobile (I think for a girl?) or if the Queen will "officially" recognise it because of the children ala some continental royal families. Obviously that's all unlikely but an entertaining exercise.
Reply With Quote
  #5353  
Old 09-27-2020, 03:34 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 2,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
Taking your Cosima Windsor example in the other thread, I can't think that anyone could force her to either take her husband's name instead of remaining Windsor or potentially hyphenating and then giving her children her own name or a hyphenated name. It's not the same as a title where there are LPs involved. And name changes after marriage aren't automatic, you have to register it with various departments. They may ask HM as a courtesy if she is ok with it.
Interesting. What would be the result if the departments did ask the King (whoever it may be by then) as a courtesy and received the answer that no, His Majesty is not OK with Lady Cosima retaining the Windsor name as a married woman? Would the departments then register a name change from Windsor to Smith (or whatever her husband's name might be) without her consent?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
HM (whoever it is by then) wouldn't need to rubber stamp her marriage unlike 1917 or 1960, it's difficult to see why they would want to officially interfere in how a distant relative names their child unless for example Cosima's brother declared that he didn't want to have children and wanted to attempt to make his sister and sister's daughter his heir in a situation where the Peerage inheritance laws had not changed and the name was part of that. Then they'd probably get interested in what was going on.

I truly don't see a situation where any of the potential monarchs are ordering registrars to change the names on a birth certificate or taking people to court to insist on using only the father's name. Surely that would be lunacy and there would be a big uproar about abuse of power.
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Many royal watchers and experts seem to believe the 1917 and 1960 statements are legally enforceable, but like you I wonder if taking a woman to court for her choice of family name would be entirely uncontroversial - even though most British women continue to follow the husband's-name tradition, some view it as a choice rather than as a legal obligation.
Reply With Quote
  #5354  
Old 09-27-2020, 04:32 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 703
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
Interesting. What would be the result if the departments did ask the King (whoever it may be by then) as a courtesy and received the answer that no, His Majesty is not OK with Lady Cosima retaining the Windsor name as a married woman? Would the departments then register a name change from Windsor to Smith (or whatever her husband's name might be) without her consent?
Since the royal family's own website makes it clear that this isn't "the law of the land" again I can't imagine a scenario where HM ordered various government departments not to allow someone to change their own name. It would almost certainly get described as "medieval". The lady in question might get questioned in the press and elsewhere about wanting "Windsor" for the perks/cache but that alone wouldn't stop it being thought of as an overbearing, problematic in many ways move.

Even if one of the members who still have to ask permission to get married, got married without permission and therefore lost their place in the succession the marriage would still be legal and trying to prevent the spouse from using M-W (as opposed to titles) probably wouldn't work because it's the ex royal's actual name.

Quote:
Thank you for sharing your perspective. Many royal watchers and experts seem to believe the 1917 and 1960 statements are legally enforceable, but like you I wonder if taking a woman to court for her choice of family name would be entirely uncontroversial - even though most British women continue to follow the husband's-name tradition, some view it as a choice rather than as a legal obligation.
It would be extremely controversial and guaranteed to make the institution look its most archaic and cruel for trying to "force" a woman to change to her married name in 2020 + and dictate what a family calls their children. And we've seen there's been no insistence that territorial designations of Bea and Eugenie have been forcibly removed or any anger that they keep using them (besides some press and commentators).

It's certainly not considered a legal obligation, even though most currently do follow it.

I just don't see that level of micromanaging what extended members of the family do or don't do. If closer family Eugenie and Jack surprisingly wanted M-W-B for their baby the Queen might not chose it herself but she might well give her blessing anyway, as she has for many things that might not have been to her personal (as opposed to official) approval. Especially as things have changed so much since 1960.

As an aside: Quite a few aristocratic families got their double, triple or even quadruple barrelled names from adding in female married in names of distinction or to stop a family name dying out because a gentleman only had daughters. Not that it applies here but it's not unknown for a family to want to reflect a pedigree from the mother's side in a name.
Reply With Quote
  #5355  
Old 09-27-2020, 05:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Northamptonshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,065
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post

As an aside: Quite a few aristocratic families got their double, triple or even quadruple barrelled names from adding in female married in names of distinction or to stop a family name dying out because a gentleman only had daughters. Not that it applies here but it's not unknown for a family to want to reflect a pedigree from the mother's side in a name.
Indeed & there are some corkers!

Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is one such. Straight out of PG Wodehouse.

Maybe we should compile a list.
Reply With Quote
  #5356  
Old 09-27-2020, 07:25 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Durham View Post
Indeed & there are some corkers!

Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax is one such. Straight out of PG Wodehouse.

Maybe we should compile a list.
Richard Drax's (Conservative MP for South Dorset) full name is Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax. Some people did believe that David Cameron (then Conservative Party leader) recommended him to change his name to Richard Drax during 2010's general election. But I do think that he is known as Richard Drax since his school days, because there's no way he could fit Richard Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax in his name tag.
https://members.parliament.uk/member/4132/contact
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Drax

In some cases, the surnames were not hyphenated at all, so there is no "barrelled" surname. Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam de Chair (her full name) is the daughter of Somerset Struben de Chair and Lady Ann Juliet Dorothea Maud Wentworth-Fitzwilliam. None of Helena's surname were hyphenated, but her mother and previous Earl Fitzwilliam(s) or even male-line descendant are. Starting from Charles William Wentworth-Fitzwilliam, 5th Earl Fitzwilliam, their surnames were "Wentworth-Fitzwilliam". The title became extinct after the death of William Thomas George Wentworth-Fitzwilliam, 10th Earl Fitzwilliam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Fitzwilliam

She was referred as Helena de Chair, before she married Hon. Jacob William Rees-Mogg (Son of William Rees-Mogg, Baron Rees-Mogg and Gillian Shakespeare Morris), who is now a Conservative MP for North East Somerset. According to the peerage website, "her married name became Rees-Mogg", but I am not quite sure if she get to keep "Wentworth Fitzwilliam", as part of her full name (i.e. Her full name becomes Helena Anne Beatrix Wentworth Fitzwilliam Rees-Mogg). On her private instagram account, she is Helena Rees-Mogg, which is picked up by her mother's (Lady Juliet) wikipedia page, under the children's subheading in the profile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Juliet_Tadgell

Her children carried their father's surname. Two of her children have "Wentworth" and "Fitzwilliam" as their middle names.
Person Page (F, #330392)
Reply With Quote
  #5357  
Old 09-28-2020, 04:04 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 703
I always think Anstruther-Gough-Calthorpe is an extremely awkward name, it just doesn't flow which is one reason I suppose some of them officially just use "Calthorpe".



That was created by the first Baronet assuming his wife's name in addition to his own Anstruther.



At least a name like Vane -Tempest- Stewart flows much better.
Reply With Quote
  #5358  
Old 10-03-2020, 04:43 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,525
I'd be very surprised if the monarch's legal power to determine someone else's name by fiat didn't end when their own children reached the age of majority. English law is very relaxed about names; anyone can take any name they please so long as they don't do it to commit fraud. Even if, somehow, the monarch coerced a registrar into not recording a particular surname, a birth certificate is not binding on someone's choice of name.

Additionally, courts found in the 17th century that no new royal prerogatives could be created by the monarch, so unless monarchs had power to force people to give up their names before (at the latest) 1611, that would not be a power the monarch could just will into being by proclamation.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


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
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 787 09-23-2020 03:21 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 67 05-24-2013 03:14 PM




Popular Tags
abdication anastasia 2020 baby names bangladesh biography bridal gown brownbitcoinqueen canada carolin chittagong clarence house coronavirus dna dubai duke of sussex dutch royal family earl of snowdon emperor facts fantasy movie general news thread george vi hill historical drama history hochberg hypothetical monarchs introduction italian royal family jewellery jumma kent languages list of rulers luxembourg mail mary: crown princess of denmark northern ireland norway norway history palestine pless popularity prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen mathilde random facts royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal re-enactments. royalty of taiwan royal wedding royal wedding gown settings startling new evidence stuart swedish queen thailand tips tracts uae customs united kingdom united states of america von hofmannsthal working royals; full-time royals; part-time royals;


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:23 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises
×