Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname

[Queen Claude]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Then does Parliament have to approve the change to the House of Mountbatten?

As I mentioned previously my understanding is that the monarch can act unilaterally to change the name, so to answer your question Parliament does not have to approve the name change and if the government agrees or is indifferent then the name change will happen via a unilateral act by the monarch, but if the government disagrees then they can intervene.


George V changed the House name to Windsor via a royal proclamation in 1917.


In 1952 Elizabeth II issued a royal proclamation declaring that House name would remain Windsor and she and her male descendants will be known as Windsor. She did not instigate this, she was advised to do so by the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill who was alerted by Elizabeth's grandmother that Louis Mountbatten.


In 1960 Elizabeth II declared that her non-royal male descendants will be surnamed Mountbatten-Windsor. She consulted with the Prime Minister prior to issuing the declaration.


On paper these are unilateral declarations of the monarch but the 1952 and 1960 declarations illustrate that the monarch is being advised by or consulting the government before making the declarations related to the House name or even just the surname of non-royal descendants.

[Excalibur]

In accordance with historical precedence, the name of the Royal House will be Mountbatten when HM passes. Had the Windsor name-change and the Windsor-Mountbatten "clarification" not occurred, we would see the name changing from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Mountbatten as a simple matter of course.

I fully expect Charles, by his own admission a "traditionalist", to acknowledge the House of Mountbatten.

It would be a tribute to both his Uncle Dickie and, of course, to his father, Prince Philip, who dedicated the last 70+ years of his life to royal service with nary a complaint, except that he couldn't pass his name on to his children. Possibly Charles' way of righting a wrong?
Also, a way of Charles putting his own stamp on the monarchy, to distinguish the reign of Charles III from that of Elizabeth II.

I can see it.

[Denville]

I don't believe Charles will change the name. His father's name is preserved as part of the Mountbatten Windsor surname.. and the name of the Royal House is Windsor... and Im sure he will stick with that.

[Queen Claude]

Philip changed his name from Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark to Philip Mountbatten in 1947. At the time he was actually engaged to Elizabeth but the engagement had not been publicly announce. The name change to Mountbatten was a PR tactic to make it seem like Princess Elizabeth was marrying a Brit and not a foreign prince which in post-war Britain was the more palatable choice. Philip was created the Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day so basically he was Philip Mountbatten for a few months in 1947.

The irony of all ironies is that the argument to have Mountbatten be the House name for the British Royal Family is to adhere to patrilineal naming conventions and Mountbatten is a name Philip adopted as an adult that comes via his mother's family not his father's family.



I think that House of Windsor is here to stay. One, Windsor is a better "brand name" (IMO) and current sensibilities seem to be more accepting of a royal house having a name associated with the country being represented and neither Mountbatten, Battenberg, nor Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg is quintessentially British.


There is no greater traditionalist than George V and he was the one who changed the name. Survival trumps all.

[Denville]

I agree, I think that the compromise was that PHilip's name would be included for any of his descednants who needed to use a surname, but the House would remain Windsor. I would say that while Charles respects his father, he would go with Windsor as the House name.. as it has as you say a better "brand" recognition....

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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 [...]

Did Queen Mary I, Queen Mary II, and Queen Anne actually use the names Tudor and Stuart after their marriages, or are we simply following the modern custom of using the names of their paternal families (much as we use Mary of Teck instead of Mary Windsor for the consort of King George V)?

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

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

Under German law, Queen Victoria lost her membership of the Royal House of Hannover when the union of the British and Hanoverian crowns was terminated in 1837, and became a member of the Ducal House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha when she married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in 1840.

Succession laws in the House of Braunschweig
House laws of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Did Queen Mary I, Queen Mary II, and Queen Anne actually use the names Tudor and Stuart after their marriages, or are we simply following the modern custom of using the names of their paternal families (much as we use Mary of Teck instead of Mary Windsor for the consort of King George V)?

Their house names came from the birth names. As none of those listed had children to inherit the throne the house name didn't change but if any of them had had a child to succeed them then the house name would have changed - as it did when George I succeeded being descended from the Stuarts but through a female line his house name took that of his father - James I and VI - Elizabeth (Stuart) who married and changed her name so her daughter wasn't born a Stuart but was still in the line of succession even though born a member of the house 'of the Palatinate'. When Sophie married she changed from 'of the Palatinate' to 'of Hanover' and so her son and his descendants were Hanoverians.

What name they used AFTER their marriages is irrelevant to the name of the House as their house names came from their birth names but their children's house names would come from their husband's birth names. That is the same as any other woman. The children take their names from their father's not their mother's.

Victoria remained a member of the House of Hanover but her children were from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and so when her son succeeded as Edward VII he was the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of the UK etc.

When The Queen succeeded in 1952 she was of the House of Windsor and would remain as such, despite her married name being Mountbatten as the wife of Philip Mountbatten. Had Lord Mountbatten said nothing, as he was wrong anyway, then Charles would succeed as the first King of the House of Mountbatten. Because Mountbatten opened his mouth inaccurately the Queen first off confirmed what was in fact the case anyway - that the House name was Windsor (which it was during her reign). The mistake she made in 1952 was to declare that her children would take her maiden name ... which then lead to her being advised in 1960 that having a new baby born with her maiden name would mean he was regarded as illegitimate (not necessarily the case but the reality at the time was that a child always took their father's name and only the children of single mothers kept their mother's name as they were illegitimate). She very quickly added Mountbatten to the Windsor name to prevent any such questions - especially as the rumours of her having an affair with Porchester were doing the rounds and that Philip wasn't Andrew's father (I have never believed that but the rumours were around back then and are still around today).

[Denville]

I'd have hoped she added Mountbatten to signify that she had a husband who was not only the father of her children but someone she loved and whose support she depended on, and that he wanted to give his name to his children,,.,.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Their house names came from the birth names. As none of those listed had children to inherit the throne the house name didn't change but if any of them had had a child to succeed them then the house name would have changed - as it did when George I succeeded being descended from the Stuarts but through a female line his house name took that of his father - James I and VI - Elizabeth (Stuart) who married and changed her name so her daughter wasn't born a Stuart but was still in the line of succession even though born a member of the house 'of the Palatinate'. When Sophie married she changed from 'of the Palatinate' to 'of Hanover' and so her son and his descendants were Hanoverians.

What name they used AFTER their marriages is irrelevant to the name of the House as their house names came from their birth names but their children's house names would come from their husband's birth names. That is the same as any other woman. The children take their names from their father's not their mother's.

Victoria remained a member of the House of Hanover but her children were from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and so when her son succeeded as Edward VII he was the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of the UK etc.

When The Queen succeeded in 1952 she was of the House of Windsor and would remain as such, despite her married name being Mountbatten as the wife of Philip Mountbatten. Had Lord Mountbatten said nothing, as he was wrong anyway, then Charles would succeed as the first King of the House of Mountbatten. Because Mountbatten opened his mouth inaccurately the Queen first off confirmed what was in fact the case anyway - that the House name was Windsor (which it was during her reign). The mistake she made in 1952 was to declare that her children would take her maiden name ... which then lead to her being advised in 1960 that having a new baby born with her maiden name would mean he was regarded as illegitimate (not necessarily the case but the reality at the time was that a child always took their father's name and only the children of single mothers kept their mother's name as they were illegitimate). She very quickly added Mountbatten to the Windsor name to prevent any such questions - especially as the rumours of her having an affair with Porchester were doing the rounds and that Philip wasn't Andrew's father (I have never believed that but the rumours were around back then and are still around today).

Using hyphenated/compound names for descendants of female sovereigns is not that uncommon, see e.g. Habsburg-Lorraine, Bragança-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or Orléans-Bragança. Mountbatten-Windsor seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

Their house names came from the birth names. As none of those listed had children to inherit the throne the house name didn't change but if any of them had had a child to succeed them then the house name would have changed - as it did when George I succeeded being descended from the Stuarts but through a female line his house name took that of his father - James I and VI - Elizabeth (Stuart) who married and changed her name so her daughter wasn't born a Stuart but was still in the line of succession even though born a member of the house 'of the Palatinate'. When Sophie married she changed from 'of the Palatinate' to 'of Hanover' and so her son and his descendants were Hanoverians.

What name they used AFTER their marriages is irrelevant to the name of the House as their house names came from their birth names but their children's house names would come from their husband's birth names. That is the same as any other woman. The children take their names from their father's not their mother's.

Victoria remained a member of the House of Hanover but her children were from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and so when her son succeeded as Edward VII he was the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of the UK etc.

I was asking whether the listed queens actually kept their birth names as their house names after their marriages, or if it is only modern Britons who call them the House of Tudor, House of Stuart, and House of Hanover, following the custom of using their birth names as their house names after their deaths.

Under German law, at least, Queen Victoria belonged to the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha instead of the house of Hanover after marriage (the message quoted in your post has links to the house laws of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha).

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Using hyphenated/compound names for descendants of female sovereigns is not that uncommon, see e.g. Habsburg-Lorraine, Bragança-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or Orléans-Bragança. Mountbatten-Windsor seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

In Portugal, it seems the collective name of the house remained Bragança, but members of the royal family used compound names that included the family names of queens/kings consort. For example, King Carlos I (grandson of Queen Maria II) was surnamed de Bragança Saboya Bourbon Saxe-Coburgo Gotha.

[CyrilVladisla]

Did Queen Elizabeth II have to obtain her grandmother Queen Mary's permission for the Royal Family's name to remain Windsor?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Did Queen Elizabeth II have to obtain her grandmother Queen Mary's permission for the Royal Family's name to remain Windsor?

Why would she need queen Mary's permission when 1) she was the head of the family (as queen) and 2) she was a born Windsor while her grandmother was a born princess of Teck?!

[Alison H]

There are reports (possibly apocryphal) about Queen Mary saying huffily that her late husband had founded the House of Windsor in perpetuity and "no Battenberg marriage" was going to change it - could that be what you're thinking of? It was up to the Queen to decide, but I think Queen Mary would have been very annoyed if she'd wanted to change the name!

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Queen Claude

Philip changed his name from Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark to Philip Mountbatten in 1947. At the time he was actually engaged to Elizabeth but the engagement had not been publicly announce. The name change to Mountbatten was a PR tactic to make it seem like Princess Elizabeth was marrying a Brit and not a foreign prince which in post-war Britain was the more palatable choice. Philip was created the Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day so basically he was Philip Mountbatten for a few months in 1947.

The irony of all ironies is that the argument to have Mountbatten be the House name for the British Royal Family is to adhere to patrilineal naming conventions and Mountbatten is a name Philip adopted as an adult that comes via his mother's family not his father's family.

Because of what you pointed out, it puzzles me why the courtiers and government officials involved in the negotiations over the family name never proposed the Duke of Edinburgh changing his own name to Windsor as a way to address the pressure put on by the Duke to give his name to his children. He considered Mountbatten to be his name, and an acceptable name to give to his children, in spite of having adopted the name as an adult and via a woman (namely his mother). In that vein, the courtiers could have at least given consideration to proposing that he adopt the name of Windsor for himself and give that name to his children.

[O-H Anglophile]

I think that is a more likely scenario to be considered in the western world in the 21st century than in the mid 20th century.
Prince Daniel in Sweden for example.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

I think that is a more likely scenario to be considered in the western world in the 21st century than in the mid 20th century.
Prince Daniel in Sweden for example.

With almost every western monarchy adoption equal primogeniture, and now five countries with a female heir apparent (or heir to the heir) this will become more of an issue. I can see more families adopting what the Swedish have done, and having the husband take on the family name of his royal wife. At least with the husband of the future monarch it makes sense.

[Tarlita]

Prince Philip's father Prince Andrew of Greece and Denmark belonged to the royal house of Schleswig - Holstein - Sonderburg Glucksburg.

Queen Victoria's husband Prince Albert belonged to the house of Saxe - Coburg - Gotha.

[moby]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

With almost every western monarchy adoption equal primogeniture, and now five countries with a female heir apparent (or heir to the heir) this will become more of an issue. I can see more families adopting what the Swedish have done, and having the husband take on the family name of his royal wife. At least with the husband of the future monarch it makes sense.

Princess Leonor won't have a problem with this, since according to Spanish law and customs she won't be expected nor required to use her husband's name when she marries. The best thing is, she and her husband are also allowed by law for their children to have Borbon first in the order of their last names.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by moby

Princess Leonor won't have a problem with this, since according to Spanish law and customs she won't be expected nor required to use her husband's name when she marries. The best thing is, she and her husband are also allowed by law for their children to have Borbon first in the order of their last names.

Other countries (The Netherlands and Denmark) already found a modus operandi for this situation (although Christian is of course not one of the female heirs).

In the case of prince Claus (and prince Bernhard and prince Hendrik before him), he did NOT get his wife's surname but was made a prince of the Netherlands (just like his daughter-in-law Máxima was made a princess of the Netherlands). Their children took both their mother's and father's titles; using one of their mother's titles (van Oranje-Nassau) as surname (mostly shortened to 'van Oranje'); which is also considered the name of the royal house. So, I don't see a reason for Amalia's husband to take on her surname; her children will surely be 'van Oranje(-Nassau)'.

In Denmark, they did something similar - albeit the addition of 'count of Monpezat' was a more recent one.

Even in Belgium, they already found a modus operandi, given that they wanted to make sure that Astrid's children were 'princes and princesses of Belgium' - using the surname 'of Belgium' -, so in the 90's they first made sure that their children added their mother's title/surname and later on also that her husband received her title (adding it to his own palet of titles - but the one that is primarily used in Belgium).

[CyrilVladisla]

Originally Posted by Alison H

There are reports (possibly apocryphal) about Queen Mary saying huffily that her late husband had founded the House of Windsor in perpetuity and "no Battenberg marriage" was going to change it - could that be what you're thinking of? It was up to the Queen to decide, but I think Queen Mary would have been very annoyed if she'd wanted to change the name!

Alison H., Thank you for the explanation. Mentioning Queen Mary and "no Battenberg marriage" specifies that Queen Mary felt that no one was going to alter what her dear husband had begun.