The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #6021  
Old 10-11-2021, 06:29 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
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
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #6022  
Old 10-12-2021, 07:48 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #6023  
Old 10-12-2021, 09:25 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prinsara View Post
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...
Reply With Quote
  #6024  
Old 10-12-2021, 09:37 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Manchester, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,499
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?!
Reply With Quote
  #6025  
Old 10-12-2021, 09:41 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6026  
Old 10-12-2021, 10:32 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,690
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6027  
Old 10-12-2021, 10:43 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alison H View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #6028  
Old 10-12-2021, 11:54 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.ne...derBreak_W.pdf
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyl...their-spouses-

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


Quote:
Originally Posted by SLV View Post
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6029  
Old 10-12-2021, 12:24 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #6030  
Old 10-13-2021, 03:07 AM
SLV's Avatar
SLV SLV is offline
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 1,690
Thank you Tatiana.
__________________

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 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 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




Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness commonwealth countries crown jewels doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo hello! highgrove history house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×