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

[duke of poliganc]

i meant the danish and greek parliaments

 

[Countessmeout]

I would think the Danish passports had likely as much to do with Constantine being married to Anne-Marie of Denmark, as it did with George I's Danish roots. Margrethe was not likely to leave her sister and her family without a passport, even if Constantine wasn't a Danish prince.

 

[Skippyboo]

Greek or British?

It is British law that foreign titles are not formally acknowledged by British subjects. Thus, as a British subject the DoE's foreign titles are not recognized.

As for the Greeks... I've never read that they made any stink about the DoE giving up his Greek titles. He legally wouldn't have them now regardless of whether or not his renouncement was legal - the Greek government no longer recognizes the monarchy.

For the Danes... Well, there has been nothing revoking the use of "of Denmark" by the Greek royals and by extension the DoE and his family. But they're not in the Danish line of succession.

Also all of Philip's children and certain grandchildren/great grandchildren are British Princes/Princesses so they don't need a Danish or Greek title to use.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[duke of poliganc]

I would think the Danish passports had likely as much to do with Constantine being married to Anne-Marie of Denmark, as it did with George I's Danish roots. Margrethe was not likely to leave her sister and her family without a passport, even if Constantine wasn't a Danish prince.

and actually they could have british passport any time they wont as "heirs of the body" and legitimate descendants of Sophia, Electress of Hanover

Also all of Philip's children and certain grandchildren/great grandchildren are British Princes/Princesses so they don't need a Danish or Greek title to use.

but the british titles are limited i think in one or two generation the lines of prince edward and prince henry will become Commoners or nobility at best unlike the danish and greek titles wish don't have limits

 

[Skippyboo]

But that's the point of limiting who is a British HRH to keep it limited to close members of the monarch's family. Edward chose for his kids not to be HRHs. Harry's grandkids won't be HRH's. They will be styled as Lord and Lady except for the heir to Harry's future dukedom. The great grandchildren of the monarch should be commoners unless you in the direct line to the throne like George and Charlotte.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[duke of poliganc]

But that's the point of limiting who is a British HRH to keep it limited to close members of the monarch's family. Edward chose for his kids not to be HRHs. Harry's grandkids won't be HRH's. They will be styled as Lord and Lady except for the heir to Harry's future dukedom. The great grandchildren of the monarch should be commoners unless you in the direct line to the throne like George and Charlotte.

i never liked the british titles system i think the luxembourg version of Prince/Princess of Nassau is the best solution

 

[Iluvbertie]

But that's the point of limiting who is a British HRH to keep it limited to close members of the monarch's family. Edward chose for his kids not to be HRHs. Harry's grandkids won't be HRH's. They will be styled as Lord and Lady except for the heir to Harry's future dukedom. The great grandchildren of the monarch should be commoners unless you in the direct line to the throne like George and Charlotte.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Under the existing Letters Patent Harry's children will be Lord/Lady xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor in the present reign. If he is given a title on marriage then the eldest son will be entitled to use Harry's second title, assuming he has more than one, as a courtesy title. Once Charles becomes King they will automatically become HRH Prince/Princess of yyyy (insert Harry's title).

Edward chose to not use HRH for his children but the LPs weren't repealed or re-issued and there is therefore some debate about whether or not 'The Queen's will' being made known is enough to deny that styling forever.

It is for this reason I don't see Charles trying to strip Beatrice and Eugenie of their HRHs - as it would also mean denying HRH to Harry's children which I don't think he would ever do.

The great-grandchildren through the males aren't HRH's and girls can't pass it on even to grandchildren.

Personally I would give issue LPs limiting the HRHs further - the children of the monarch, the spouse of the heir apparent and the children of said heir apparent. I wouldn't give HRH to the spouses of younger children or to the great-grandchildren of the monarch. Under my system the HRH's would be Philip, Charles, Anne, Andrew, Edward, William, Harry and Camilla only. In the next reign Kate, George and Charlotte would move up to HRH but no one else would have it - now or in the future and then only George's spouse and children would every get it.

 

[Skippyboo]

Well there is two great grandchildren with HRHs now. George would have been a HRH without the new LPs from the Queen. To me it seems silly for George and Charlotte not to be HRH at birth and then become ones whenever the Queen dies.

People get confused by Kate not being Princess Catherine. George, future King, son of Prince -not a Prince but Earl of Strathearn however just for a bit then he is HRH Prince George of Cornwall & Cambridge.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It is not all that complicated. Descendants of the Sovereign in the direct lineage (here: The Queen - The Prince of Wales - the children of The Prince of Wales - the grandchildren of The Prince of Wales) all are a Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom with the prefix HRH.

All other descendants of a Sovereign in the male lineage are Prince (Princess) of the United Kingdom as well, with the prefix HRH, but only when they are not furtherer related to a Sovereign for more than three degrees of consanguinity.

This build-in mechanism prevents that the group of Princes and Princesses of the UK becomes too large. The royal family is enormous: look at that balcony... But the number of real Princes and Princesses of the UK is pretty limited and it will only decrease since a lot of royals have an advanced age.

 

[Iluvbertie]

In the group of The Queen's grandchildren - 8 in total - only two can currently pass on HRH and for Harry that would only happen in the next reign anyway. I don't think the Queen will issue new LPs for Harry's children (if she was going to do so she would have done so in the same LPs as she did for William's children).

That means that it is possible that Harry's children will be Lord/Lady for some years and then HRHs so why not change it to just the grandchildren and no great-grandchildren during the reign?

The reason there are so many at the moment is that George V had 6 children of whom three sons had 7 HRH children between then with 5 of those children still living. The Queen then had 4 children with 3 sons to pass on HRHs.

If William has no more children or has a third who is a girl then only George will be able to pass on HRH into the next generation.

 

[Denville]

Im sure Harry's children will be Princes but they may not choose to use the title depending on how things are when they are older..

 

[Osipi]

Im sure Harry's children will be Princes but they may not choose to use the title depending on how things are when they are older..

Harry's children will be not be princes/princesses of the UK if they are born under the reign of QEII. Once Charles becomes King, any of Harry's children would then be prince/princess of the UK regardless of when they were born because they are grandchildren of the monarch.

This all is in accordance to the current letters patent. For all we know, Charles could, with his will and pleasure, deem to change things up a bit. There's no way of telling.

There are always choices that adults can make and we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Harry's children will be not be princes/princesses of the UK if they are born under the reign of QEII. Once Charles becomes King, any of Harry's children would then be prince/princess of the UK regardless of when they were born because they are grandchildren of the monarch.

This all is in accordance to the current letters patent. For all we know, Charles could, with his will and pleasure, deem to change things up a bit. There's no way of telling.

There are always choices that adults can make and we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

According the original Letters Patent Charlotte would not have been a Princess of the United Kingdom, as it only covered the eldest living son (George) of the eldest son (William) of the Prince of Wales (Charles). But what do we see? Charlotte is a Princess... so Letters Patent can always be modified. The length of the current Sovereign is só long. Who could ever have imagined that even the longest Reign ever (Victoria) would be bypassed by a longer Reign?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Of course The Queen could issue new LPs for all children of Harry during her own reign as she did for William (partly I suspect she did that because she knew that the law was going to change so that is the first born child would be William's heir and didn't want a situation where the future monarch was born as Lady xxxx Mountbatten-Windsor while a younger brother was born as a Prince. It made sense in those circumstances.

Given the rumours of a smaller royal family with no role for the children of the second son in the future then she may very well decide to not issue such LPs - assuming the situation even arises where Harry marries during her reign.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In normal terms the children of Prince William and Prince Harry will not experience a Queen Elizabeth II when they reach the age of majority, or we must seriously calculate a scenario of an 108 or 110 years old Sovereign on the throne. In normal life expectanties we may assume that when the children of William and Harry reach the age on which they can pursue their own careers, it will be under the Reign of their grandfather King Charles III.

 

[Osipi]

In normal terms the children of Prince William and Prince Harry will not experience a Queen Elizabeth II when they reach the age of majority, or we must seriously calculate a scenario of an 108 or 110 years old Sovereign on the throne. In normal life expectanties we may assume that when the children of William and Harry reach the age on which they can pursue their own careers, it will be under the Reign of their grandfather King Charles III.

Given as usually the royal children are off to university for a bit, by the time they settle on a precise career choice and passion, (I'm giving it 22 years as George is already going on 3), 25 years from now, Charles will be around 92. My guess is that when Will's kids reach adulthood and know what they want, their father will be the King.

You can quote me on that prediction. I don't care. I know I won't be around to have anyone tell me "I told you so" Now.. returning you to our regularly scheduled discussion of the Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor surname.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Do you think that the Surname would ever be changed to Windsor-Mountbatten?

 

[Osipi]

I don't. The purpose of Mountbatten-Windsor was to ensure that Philip's surname was passed down through the generations.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I don't. The purpose of Mountbatten-Windsor was to ensure that Philip's surname was passed down through the generations.

Osipi, Thank you for clarifying the purpose of the placement of Mountbatten to be first.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

How King George V created the Windsor name for the royals | Daily Mail Online

The man tasked with the job was Lord Stamfordham, the king's trusted private secretary. He trawled through history books but struggled to find a name untouched by the monarchy's own bloody history - passing over Tudor, Stuart and Plantagenet - before finally being struck by inspiration while working in Windsor Castle.

The remarkable story of how this royal aide influenced - and possibly secured - the future of the Royal Family was told last night in the first of a six-part Channel 4 documentary series celebrating the centenary of the House of Windsor.

[…]

In a memorandum from 15 May 1917, Lord Stamfordham wrote: 'The King bars Plantagenet and does not care about Tudor. Tudor-Stuart has been suggested.'

These were later rejected by former Prime Minister Herbert Asquith.

Lord Stamfordham wrote on June 11: 'Mr Asquith has advised against Tudor, with its recollections of Henry VIII and Bloody Mary. Mr Asquith was equally averse to Stuart, one of whom was beheaded and the last driven from the throne.'

Another option available was Fitzroy, however this was also dismissed for a number of reasons - including its connection to Henry Fitzroy, the illegitimate son of King Henry VIII.

On 20 May, Lord Stamfordham wrote: 'He does not like Fitzroy, it hinted at wealth, but that is too foreign and is not at all liked by their Majesties who also disapprove of Fritzroy and its bastard significance'.

Seemingly losing hope, on 23 May Stamfordham despaired: 'It is disastrous. The King is all for a prompt settlement.'

[…]

The turning point was on 13 June, when London was raided by the German Gotha bombers. The city and the British people were brought to their knees by aircraft carrying the name of their own Royal Family.

That same day Stamfordham finally struck inspiration while working in Windsor Castle. He outlined his proposal in a letter to the Prime Minister.

I wonder why the king barred Plantagenet and why Fitzroy was believed to "hint at wealth" or be too foreign.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Plantagenets were overthrown by the Tudors - not a good omen.

Fitzroy - is a name associated with the illegitimate children of the monarch (literally means 'son of the king'. The 'Fitz' type names were, and still are, quite common amongst the aristocracy as the descendants of various monarchs and other illegitimate nobles over the centuries.

I have a query for Mr Asquith (yes I know he is dead) and that it 'how can he say the last of the Stuarts was 'driven from the throne?' Last time I checked Queen Anne died very much as the monarch.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I luv Bertie: I have a query for Mr Asquith (yes I know he is dead) and that it 'how can he say the last of the Stuarts was 'driven from the throne?' Last time I checked Queen Anne died very much as the monarch.

Asquith was referring to James II who was deposed by his son in law William of orange in 1688. He was technically corrrect though as Anne was technically Oldenburg by virtue of her marriage to Prince George of Denmark.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Royal houses don't change their names with the accession of a female monarch but only when her son inherits e.g. Mary I was regarded as a Tudor and not a Hapsburg based on her husband's house. Mary II was regarded as a Tudor and not from the House of Orange and the same with Anne - she too was a Stuart just as Victoria was the last of the Hannoverians and not the first of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. That distinction went to her son, Albert-Edward.

If House names changed with the accession of a Queen taking her husband's house names as their house name then the 1500s has the Houses as Tudor, Hapsburg and then back to Tudor. The 1600s would be the Stuarts, Orange, and the Oldenburg but we don't recognise Hapsburg, Orange or Oldenburg as royal houses in Britain as the woman are members of their birth houses as reigning monarchs - just as EII is a member of the House of Windsor and not Mountbatten (Lord Mountbatten was actually wrong when he made the comment that 'now the House of Mountbatten reigns' as that wouldn't happen until Charles' reign.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Royal houses don't change their names with the accession of a female monarch but only when her son inherits e.g. Mary I was regarded as a Tudor and not a Hapsburg based on her husband's house. Mary II was regarded as a Tudor and not from the House of Orange and the same with Anne - she too was a Stuart just as Victoria was the last of the Hannoverians and not the first of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. That distinction went to her son, Albert-Edward.

If House names changed with the accession of a Queen taking her husband's house names as their house name then the 1500s has the Houses as Tudor, Hapsburg and then back to Tudor. The 1600s would be the Stuarts, Orange, and the Oldenburg but we don't recognise Hapsburg, Orange or Oldenburg as royal houses in Britain as the woman are members of their birth houses as reigning monarchs - just as EII is a member of the House of Windsor and not Mountbatten (Lord Mountbatten was actually wrong when he made the comment that 'now the House of Mountbatten reigns' as that wouldn't happen until Charles' reign.

AFAIK it depends on who is drawing up the genealogy as most I've looked at will go to great lengths to avoid saying that Felipe II was king, y'know given that he sent the Armarda after Elizabeth and all - pretty embarrassing. Plenty of genenaologies refer to William III as house of Orange-Nassau as he remained king after Mary II died of smallpox in 1694. I was being mischievous regarding Anne, but she was called Princess George of Denmark prior to becoming Queen. There wasn't actually any real consensus over what the dynasty's name was for a long time and more often than not its what ever was applied retroactively and often policits was at work as well. A lot of the Germanic names get edited out of official ones and the issues of the naming of the post 1688 monarchs was about avoiding the fact that parliament was picking and choosing the monarch whilst still holding on to hereditary property as the bulwark of society - Norman Davies in The Isles has a field day with this type of thing.

EII is Windsor as the letters patent issued by her father was deliberately done so to avoid the problems of above - I think the same mechanism was in place in the Netherlands and Denmark regarding their female monarchs and their children. Victoria was quite vocal about her children being able to take Albert's surname and she probably would not have objected to being referred to as Coburg instead of Hannover.

 

[Osipi]

If House names changed with the accession of a Queen taking her husband's house names as their house name then the 1500s has the Houses as Tudor, Hapsburg and then back to Tudor. The 1600s would be the Stuarts, Orange, and the Oldenburg but we don't recognise Hapsburg, Orange or Oldenburg as royal houses in Britain as the woman are members of their birth houses as reigning monarchs - just as EII is a member of the House of Windsor and not Mountbatten (Lord Mountbatten was actually wrong when he made the comment that 'now the House of Mountbatten reigns' as that wouldn't happen until Charles' reign.

It won't happen during Charles' reign as a given either I believe. He may or may not decide to alter the name of the House of Windsor. I did some searching and found this. I just copy/pasted the relevant paragraphs.

The Royal Family name of Windsor was confirmed by The Queen after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided that they would like their own direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal Family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of George V.

It was therefore declared in the Privy Council that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

Unless The Prince of Wales chooses to alter the present decisions when he becomes king, he will continue to be of the House of Windsor and his grandchildren will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

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

 

[Skippyboo]

None of his grandchildren would need a surname. All of William's children will be Prince and Princess. Harry's children would also Prince & Princess once Charles is King. It would be only Harry's grandkids that would need a last name. William's grandchildren would be Prince & Princess or have the last name of their father in the case of Charlotte and any future girls' children

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I wonder why the king barred Plantagenet and why Fitzroy was believed to "hint at wealth" or be too foreign.

Fitzroy was traditionally the surname of the illegetame children of the king and is still the surname of a number of the main ducal families of the U.K - mostly the ones who are the decendates of Charles II's bastards. Probably not the best choice for projecting an image of moral probity and sober living. Likewise the Plantagenet name - although it has a good ren-fair/cosplay vibe - was probably too antiquated for the 1910s - it would be like the Bourbons deciding to go back to being called the Capets. Likewise, Tudor amd Stuart are still commonish (Stuart especially) surnames in Wales and Scotland along with being very tied in popular memory to certain monarchs and time periods. Also Plantangent and Fitzroy are Norman French in origin (but then again most posh surnames in the UK are so George was being somewhat hypocritical here).

 

[eya]

"The centenary of the House of Windsor has been commemorated with a new coin.
The Royal Family’s name was radically switched 100 years ago in 1917 because of anti-German feeling during the First World War.
King George V decided that it was inappropriate for the royals to hold the German name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha – which came to the family in 1840 with the marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert – while Britain was fighting Germany."


New coin issued to mark House of Windsor centenary - BT

100 Years since Royal Family take the Windsor name

100 years since Royal Family adopted Windsor name - ITV News

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Am I right that only two decendants "are known with" the Mountbatten-Windsor surname:

The Prince of Wales
The Duke of Cambridge
Prince George of Cambridge
Princess Charlotte of Cambridge
Prince Henry of Wales

The Princess Royal
Peter Phillips
Zara Phillips

The Duke of York
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York

The Earl of Wessex
Lord James Mountbatten-Windsor, Viscount Severn
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor

 

[Osipi]

The list you provided is correct. Its been reported though that both Charles and Anne signed their marriage registry "Mountbatten-Windsor" and William had to use William Mountbatten-Windsor when pressing charges in France over the photographs that are now going into criminal court.

From what I've read previously, William had to use Mountbatten-Windsor as in France, territorial titles and royal titles of foreign countries are not recognized.
It was a case of needing a surname for legal purposes.