The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #241  
Old 08-12-2018, 09:22 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
In 1960, Queen Elizabeth II declared in Council that she and her children would continue to be known as the "House of Windsor", but that her direct descendants, other than those who are HRHs and married female descendants and their respective descendants would have the name Mountbatten-Windsor. The full text of Her Majesty's declaration is reproduced below.


In practice, it seems that even the Queen's children, when they need to use a surname for any reason, use the family name Mountbatten-Windsor, which seems to be inconsistent with the Queen's declaration that they should continue to be known as the "House and Family of Windsor".


If anything, I believe Charles could rectify that inconsistency making it officially known that the Royal House should be known as the House of Mountbatten-Winsor.

It was the queen's wish that the family continues on as "Windsor". But while this is binding as long as she lives, it need not be binding for king Charles. He studied history, he is proud of his father's family (we've seen that on many Greece-visits), he taught his sons to be proud of that, either.

So he must be aware that "Mountbatten" is just the English translation for a name (Battenberg) given to the children from a unequal marriage between a Hessian prince (whose actual birth might have been not legitimate, as there were strong rumours he was conceived on the wrong side of the blanket and only legitimized at birth) and a lowly noble lady. Through marrying back into the Hesse-family (Prince Louis Alexander who married Victoria of Hesse, daughter of Queen Victoria's daughter Alice)) and into the (BRF) Windsor-family (his brother Henry who married queen Victoria's youngest daughter Beatrice) both Battenberg-brothers became British subjects and were considered part of the BRF, so in 1917, when the Royal House changed name to Windsor, their name changed to Mountbatten and they became Marquess of Milford-Haven (Louis) and Carisbrooke (Henry).
So neither the Battenberg nor the Mountbatten-name is a legitimate Royal family name nor is it the name of Prince Philip's paternal family.



Problem is that Philips paternal family never had a "family" name. They only ever identified via their basic territorial rights as was usus in Germany. The dynasty originates from Oldenburg in North Germany. The first known count of Oldenburg lived around the time of William the Conqueror. Similar to that Prince Albert's "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is not a name, but a branch of the dynasty of the Lords of Wettin (another territorial name). So in fact, neither Charles' father nor mother have a "family"-name apart from Windsor which was "invented" for exactly this purpose in 1917.


So I wouldn't put it past Charles to let go of the Mountbatten and to stick to Windsor in case a surname is needed.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #242  
Old 08-12-2018, 09:49 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,232
Why would he go against his mother's wishes tat her husband's name was used, and his father's desire for his children ot have his name?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #243  
Old 08-12-2018, 09:51 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
It was the queen's wish that the family continues on as "Windsor". But while this is binding as long as she lives, it need not be binding for king Charles. He studied history, he is proud of his father's family (we've seen that on many Greece-visits), he taught his sons to be proud of that, either.

So he must be aware that "Mountbatten" is just the English translation for a name (Battenberg) given to the children from a unequal marriage between a Hessian prince (whose actual birth might have been not legitimate, as there were strong rumours he was conceived on the wrong side of the blanket and only legitimized at birth) and a lowly noble lady. Through marrying back into the Hesse-family (Prince Louis Alexander who married Victoria of Hesse, daughter of Queen Victoria's daughter Alice)) and into the (BRF) Windsor-family (his brother Henry who married queen Victoria's youngest daughter Beatrice) both Battenberg-brothers became British subjects and were considered part of the BRF, so in 1917, when the Royal House changed name to Windsor, their name changed to Mountbatten and they became Marquess of Milford-Haven (Louis) and Carisbrooke (Henry).
So neither the Battenberg nor the Mountbatten-name is a legitimate Royal family name nor is it the name of Prince Philip's paternal family.



Problem is that Philips paternal family never had a "family" name. They only ever identified via their basic territorial rights as was usus in Germany. The dynasty originates from Oldenburg in North Germany. The first known count of Oldenburg lived around the time of William the Conqueror. Similar to that Prince Albert's "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is not a name, but a branch of the dynasty of the Lords of Wettin (another territorial name). So in fact, neither Charles' father nor mother have a "family"-name apart from Windsor which was "invented" for exactly this purpose in 1917.


So I wouldn't put it past Charles to let go of the Mountbatten and to stick to Windsor in case a surname is needed.

Notwithstanding anything that you said, Mountbatten was Philip's legal name in the UK. I don't see Charles letting go of the name his father used for most of his life.


And, to Denville, the inconsistency in my opinion is that the Queen's children, e.g. Andrew and Anne, are known to have used occasionally in the past the last name "Mountbatten-Windsor" even though it was declared that they should continue to be known as the "House and Family of Windsor".



To me, it is clear that the Mountbatten-Windsor family (i.e. the children of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip and their respective descendants in male line) and the Windsor family (i.e. the duke of Kent's and the duke of Gloucester's children and their respective descendants in male line) should now be considered two separate families, as evidenced by the fact they bear different last names.
Reply With Quote
  #244  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:31 AM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 6,037
It's all PR in the end.
__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway
Reply With Quote
  #245  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:35 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,232
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdmirerUS View Post
It's all PR in the end.
In what way?
Reply With Quote
  #246  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:51 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Notwithstanding anything that you said, Mountbatten was Philip's legal name in the UK. I don't see Charles letting go of the name his father used for most of his life.


And, to Denville, the inconsistency in my opinion is that the Queen's children, e.g. Andrew and Anne, are known to have used occasionally in the past the last name "Mountbatten-Windsor" even though it was declared that they should continue to be known as the "House and Family of Windsor".

To me, it is clear that the Mountbatten-Windsor family (i.e. the children of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip and their respective descendants in male line) and the Windsor family (i.e. the duke of Kent's and the duke of Gloucester's children and their respective descendants in male line) should now be considered two separate families, as evidenced by the fact they bear different last names.
Since Philip is Anne and Andrew’s father and not the father of anyone in the Kent or Gloucester families I don’t understand why this is a source of so much controversy i.e. Mountbatten-Windsor vs Windsor.

I think descendants of Philip are showing respect for him by using Mountbatten-Windsor when a last name is needed.
Reply With Quote
  #247  
Old 08-12-2018, 11:08 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,232
Families can have different surnames.... and sill be part of the same family.....
Reply With Quote
  #248  
Old 08-12-2018, 01:19 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Families can have different surnames.... and sill be part of the same family.....

Not families that go by the same male line - that is very rare.


As for why I think Charles might be against the "Mountbatten"-part of the name.



Philip never was a male-line Mountbatten. His mother was born a princess of Battenberg, daughter of Louis (later Mountbatten) and Victoria of Hesse, a granddaughter of queen Victoria. But as she married into the Greek and Denmark Royal family in 1903, she never was "Lady Alice Mountbatten".



In paternal line Philip was the son of Prince Andreas of the Greek branch of the Oldenburg-Schleswig-Holstein-dynasty. This is important as Andreas was the son of George, king of Greece and prince of Denmark and his wife Olga, formerly Grandduchess of Russia and thus from Russian branch of the Oldenburg-Schleswig-Holstein- dynasty. Peter the Great's daughter Anna had married the Head of the Holstein-Gottorp branch of the Oldenburg-Schleswig-Holstein-dynasty and her son was the Tsar who with his wife Catherine the Great fathered Paul I. Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp from whom all Imperial Romanovs are descended.



So Philip was a prince of Greece and Denmark, grandson of the king of Greece, great-grandson of the king of Denmark and great-nephew of the king of Norway in paternal line and son of a 100% Oldenburg-prince. If not for WWI & II, he would have been considered quite the catch for The princess Elisabeth of the Uk. So he had to give up his paternal birthright and become part of his mother's family. Especially when we see how important Danish Royal consorts always have been for the rulers of the Uk.


And IMHO CHarles has an opinion about that and we might see what it is.
Reply With Quote
  #249  
Old 08-12-2018, 02:12 PM
Lori138's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 79
The last name of the royal family is entirely different from their "House" name, I believe. An example is the House of Orange in the Netherlands. All those female queens and yet it is still the House of Orange. It will be the same in Britain, House of Windsor no matter if the monarch is male or female.
Reply With Quote
  #250  
Old 08-12-2018, 07:58 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,846
One person people seem to be forgetting in all this discussion about the 'Mountbatten' name is Lord Louis - we all know that he had a massive influence on Charles - probably way more than his father had in many ways. I suspect that Lord Louis will have been in his ear to drop the Windsor and follow the 'norm' of the father's name - a name that Philip chose for himself as well (he didn't have to become a 'Mountbatten' when he dropped the 'of Greece and Denmark' on giving up his royal titles and taking a surname. He could have chosen any surname he wanted e.g. Smith or Jones but he took Mountbatten).
Reply With Quote
  #251  
Old 08-12-2018, 08:45 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 3,010
After the then Princess Elizabeth became queen, it was supposed that the name would be Mountbatten-Windsor. Earl Mountbatten, thought so too. He announced it, so to speak. Queen Mary and the Queen Mother thought otherwise. And so the name was to remain Windsor. Phillip stormed out, said he was less than an amoeba. He left England and sailed off to other ports. When he returned and perhaps the deal had been made before, the style of Mountbatten-Windsor was to be used as the queen decreed. Neither Mountbatten or Windsor is their name. Mountbatten being a translation of Battenberg for Prince Phillip's grandfather and Windsor being the name the English House adopted, as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was too German during WWI.
Reply With Quote
  #252  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
After the then Princess Elizabeth became queen, it was supposed that the name would be Mountbatten-Windsor. Earl Mountbatten, thought so too. He announced it, so to speak. Queen Mary and the Queen Mother thought otherwise. And so the name was to remain Windsor. Phillip stormed out, said he was less than an amoeba. He left England and sailed off to other ports. When he returned and perhaps the deal had been made before, the style of Mountbatten-Windsor was to be used as the queen decreed. Neither Mountbatten or Windsor is their name. Mountbatten being a translation of Battenberg for Prince Phillip's grandfather and Windsor being the name the English House adopted, as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was too German during WWI.
1. When the Queen became Queen it was only Mountbatten who believed that house name had changed. He was a generation early - Victoria was the House of Hanover but Edward VII was the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha

2. Queen Mary objected - rightly as Elizabeth had been born of the House of Windsor, and because her husband had created that name

3. Philip didn't storm off to other ports at all. He was with the Queen throughout 1953 and 1954. The 6 month trip wasn't until late 1956-7 (4 - 5 years AFTER all of this happened) and even then he was sent off by the Queen to represent her (don't believe the version as shown in The Crown which is a lovely fictionalised version of events ... much like Victoria ... fiction more than facts)

4. Regardless of how Philip ended up with Mountbatten - a family name created before he was born, just as Windsor was created for her family before Elizabeth was born - he CHOSE to take that name when he became a British citizen. He didn't have to take that name and could have chosen any name he wanted, one with family connection, such as the one his grandfather chose in 1917 or any other name he wanted. It was his name by choice whereas Windsor was Elizabeth's by birth because her grandfather chose that name.

5. Elizabeth didn't think the house name was Mountbatten-Windsor until 1960 when she made that decree. She assumed the house name was Windsor - following the precedence of Queens' Regnant before her - Mary and Elizabeth being Tudors, Mary and Anne being Stuarts and Victoria being Hanover with the House name changing when a male heir succeeded with a different family name. (I know some people think that James I and VI was a Stuart due to his mother totally forgetting that his father was also a Stuart and so his family name was the same through both parents. She knew that if her father hadn't issued the LPs he did in October 1948 to have her children born as HRH then Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth.
Reply With Quote
  #253  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:28 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,991
Then is it possible for King Charles III to declare that the Royal House shall become the House of Mountbatten?
Reply With Quote
  #254  
Old 08-12-2018, 10:55 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,122
The operative word is "possible". Possible, yes. Likely, no.


The possible scenario also carries the caveat that the government will not intervene which is unlikely IMO.
Reply With Quote
  #255  
Old 08-13-2018, 12:23 AM
Duke of Leaside's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
1. When the Queen became Queen it was only Mountbatten who believed that house name had changed. He was a generation early - Victoria was the House of Hanover but Edward VII was the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha
So well summarized Iluvbertie. A generation early indeed. Ironically, if Uncle Louis had kept quiet then probably things would have proceeded "normally" and the House Of Mountbatten (no hyphen or Windsor added) would have indeed reigned when Charles took the throne. By annoying Queen Mary and Churchill, Louis Mountbatten not only delayed the House Of Mountbatten but may have precluded it from ever being or maybe it will be House of Mountbatten-Windsor. It's of course to be decided by the next King.

...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post

5. Elizabeth didn't think the house name was Mountbatten-Windsor until 1960 when she made that decree. She assumed the house name was Windsor - following the precedence of Queens' Regnant before her - Mary and Elizabeth being Tudors, Mary and Anne being Stuarts and Victoria being Saxe-Coburg Gotha with the House name changing when a male heir succeeded with a different family name.

...

Wee nitpick: I believe you mean "Victoria being Hanover..." in point 5. above.
__________________
The Duke
Reply With Quote
  #256  
Old 08-13-2018, 12:33 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,846
Thanks for that pick - has now been corrected.
Reply With Quote
  #257  
Old 08-13-2018, 10:12 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Queen Claude View Post
The operative word is "possible". Possible, yes. Likely, no.


The possible scenario also carries the caveat that the government will not intervene which is unlikely IMO.
Then King Charles III merely declares that the Royal House will be the House of Mountbatten? Does not Parliament have to be involved?
Reply With Quote
  #258  
Old 08-13-2018, 10:45 PM
Queen Claude's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 1,122
My understanding is the monarch can do it unilaterally but the government can intervene in anything the monarch does. So IMO it is very unlikely that Charles will change the House name, and if he actually does then I think that the government will exercise its right to intervene.
Reply With Quote
  #259  
Old 08-14-2018, 10:09 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 5,991
Then does Parliament have to approve the change to the House of Mountbatten?
Reply With Quote
  #260  
Old 08-15-2018, 02:02 PM
Lori138's Avatar
Gentry
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Posts: 79
I don't believe that Charles WILL change the House name. Why would he? The royal family do not need a surname and the House of Windsor was chosen after long and careful consideration. There will be no House of Mountbatten.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, styles and titles, surnames


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
Titles, Surname and Protocols for the Royal Family Australian The Royal Family of Greece 424 08-27-2019 01:17 PM
Surname of the Danish Royal Family pepperann Royal House of Denmark 48 09-03-2010 05:56 AM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 3: October 2005-March 2007 Elspeth Current Events Archive 195 06-07-2007 09:24 AM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 2: May 2004-October 2005 USCtrojan Current Events Archive 220 10-10-2005 11:51 PM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 1: November 2003-May 2004 montecarlo Current Events Archive 157 05-29-2004 02:38 PM




Popular Tags
althorp american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry baby names british royal family british royals buckingham palace chittagong daisy diana princess of wales doge of venice duke of cambridge dutch dutch royals earl of snowdon facts family life family tree future games haakon vii hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume hill history hypothetical monarchs imperial household intro israel italian royal family jacobite japan jewellery kids movie king willem-alexander list of rulers mailing mountbatten names nepalese royal jewels plantinum jubilee pless prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri princess ariane princess chulabhorn walailak princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange princess ribha pronunciation queen louise random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding serbian royal family snowdon spencer family thailand thai royal family tracts uae customs unsubscribe videos wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:05 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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