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

[CyrilVladisla]

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

 

[Somebody]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Stefan]

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)'.

And this was also done by his tow predecessors as consort of Queens as Queen Juliana was also Duchess zu Mecklenburg and Queen Beatrix and her sisters are aklso Princesses zur Lippe-Biesterfeld. So one can exxpect that this will also be done for the future husband of Princess Catharina-Amalia.

 

[JR76]

Prince Daniel in Sweden for example.

I can see more families adopting what the Swedish have done, and having the husband take on the family name of his royal wife.

Due to the adoption of a new Swedish name law in 2017 a future consort of Princess Estelle would not have to take her surname given that a child of theirs would automatically receive the surname of the parent who gave birth to them unless otherwise reported to the Swedish Tax Office.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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).

And this was also done by his tow predecessors as consort of Queens as Queen Juliana was also Duchess zu Mecklenburg and Queen Beatrix and her sisters are aklso Princesses zur Lippe-Biesterfeld. So one can exxpect that this will also be done for the future husband of Princess Catharina-Amalia.

To add to the posts above: Legally, the situations with respect to fathers' and mothers' titles/surnames actually vary a great deal between the Netherlands, Denmark, and Belgium.


Netherlands: Both "of Orange-Nassau" from "Prince of Orange-Nassau" and "van Amsberg" from "Jonkheer van Amsberg" are recognized as surnames. The Royal Decree of February 16, 1966 decreed that the children of Princess Beatrix and Prince Claus would "de volgende titels en namen dragen: Zijne (Hare) Koninklijke Hoogheid Prins (Prinses) der Nederlanden, Prins (Prinses) van Oranje-Nassau, Jonkheer (Jonkvrouwe) van Amsberg."

Denmark: "of Monpezat" is recognized as a part of the title "Count(ess) of Monpezat" rather than a surname. The press release via which the Queen created her descendants Count(ess) of Monpezat addressed it as a title ("tillægges titel af ’greve af Monpezat"), and the members of the Royal House who carry the title Count(ess) of Monpezat have still not been civilly registered with a surname.

Belgium: Under King Baudouin, the Belgian court claimed that for female-line children, "of Belgium" was merely a title, not a surname, but King Albert II believed otherwise. King Philippe overruled both of his predecessors with his 2015 royal decree, according to which "of Belgium" is no longer viewed as a (legal) surname even for the male line. Today, for the children and male-line grandchildren of Princess Astrid, "of Austria-Este (Habsburg-Lorraine)" is viewed as their legal surname.

Due to the adoption of a new Swedish name law in 2017 a future consort of Princess Estelle would not have to take her surname given that a child of theirs would automatically receive the surname of the parent who gave birth to them unless otherwise reported to the Swedish Tax Office.

Wasn't that the situation under the old name law as well? According to the the second paragraph of §1, if the parents' surnames were different from one another, and they made no report to the Tax Office, the child received the mother's surname.

 

[Kataryn]

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

That she did but she still was a princess of Hanover, princess of Braunschweig-Lüneburg (that is the name of the whole family including the Electoral and later Royal line of Hanover) because she was born one as daughter of the Duke of Kent. There is always the difference between the "Royal House" where status and titles derive from and the "Royal family" where people get their surname or name of locality the family is originally from.


And I'm not sure though that she lost her Royal title of princess of Hannover, because she still was the male line granddaughter of a Hanoveran king and had the right to it since birth. But yes, when she married, she became a member of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It is stated on the website of the British Royal Family that Windsor and Mountbatten-Windsor are official surnames appropriate for use on legal documents, even for members of the family with a royal title.



The Royal Family name | The Royal Family
https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name

Members of the Royal Family can be known both by the name of the Royal house, and by a surname, which are not always the same. And often they do not use a surname at all.

Before 1917, members of the British Royal Family had no surname, but only the name of the house or dynasty to which they belonged. [...]

In 1917, there was a radical change, when George V specifically adopted Windsor, not only as the name of the 'House' or dynasty, but also as the surname of his family. [...]

However, in 1960, [...] 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.

The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

For the most part, members of the Royal Family who are entitled to the style and dignity of HRH Prince or Princess do not need a surname, but if at any time any of them do need a surname (such as upon marriage), that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

The surname Mountbatten-Windsor first appeared on an official document on 14 November 1973, in the marriage register at Westminster Abbey for the marriage of Princess Anne and Captain Mark Phillips.​

 

[Durham]

My understanding has always been that they all have a surname. There's nothing to stop any of them using it with plain Mr/Mrs/Ms in place of a title or style.

 

[Osipi]

The statement made by the Queen on the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor is the formal explanation. It doesn't stop any of her descendants from *choosing* to use that surname if they please as in the case of Anne signing her wedding register.

Harry, very well could decide to use Mountbatten-Windsor in the US and The Duke of Sussex while he's in the UK. Similar to Charles being known as The Duke of Rothesay when he is in Scotland.

 

[Durham]

Harry, very well could decide to use Mountbatten-Windsor in the US and The Duke of Sussex while he's in the UK. Similar to Charles being known as The Duke of Rothesay when he is in Scotland.

Sounds like a good compromise. It would certainly lessen much (all?) of the criticism on this side of the pond.

Maybe it's already being considered.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The statement made by the Queen on the surname of Mountbatten-Windsor is the formal explanation. It doesn't stop any of her descendants from *choosing* to use that surname if they please as in the case of Anne signing her wedding register.

The choice to use Anne's surname Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage register was made by the Queen, according to a Buckingham Palace statement:

We're getting off-topic but...according to "The Queen: The Life of Elizabeth II" by Elizabeth Longford, Anne's name was filled in by the registrar as "Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor" at the Queen's request. She quotes a comment from Buckingham Palace in October 1975:

"This was the first time that the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor" was used on an official document by any of the Queen's descendants. It was the Queen's decision that this should be done as Her Majesty wished her husband's name to appear on the Marriage Register of their daughter. (The Queen did not seek the advice of her Ministers in this matter)." (p. 218).

The certificate appears here (I had to shorten the lengthy URL):
https://tinyurl.com/y8uy82g6

I should also add the Lady Longford also states that "after the announcement [regarding Mountbatten-Windsor surname] the Queen was to confirm with the Home Secretary (acting for the Prime Minister) that 'all the children of Your Majesty who may at any time need a surname have the name of Mountbatten-Windsor'" (pp. 217-18).

 

[Osipi]

Sounds like a good compromise. It would certainly lessen much (all?) of the criticism on this side of the pond.

Maybe it's already being considered.

The 'after a year" review perhaps? It will be interesting to see what the future holds. ?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Harry, very well could decide to use Mountbatten-Windsor in the US and The Duke of Sussex while he's in the UK. Similar to Charles being known as The Duke of Rothesay when he is in Scotland.

Sounds like a good compromise. It would certainly lessen much (all?) of the criticism on this side of the pond.

Maybe it's already being considered.

If he were to follow the custom of the British peerage, he would be known as Harry Sussex in any circumstance where he did not use his title, with the exception of official documents.

Most British peers (royal peers included) use the name of their peerage informally as a surname in situations where there is no need for their legal surname but the use of their title is undesirable.


A poster here compiled a list of British peers who follow the custom in their choice of professional name:

William Cavendish is the son of The Duke of Devonshire - courtesy titles are Marquess of Hartington & previously Earl of Burlington but he doesn't use them, preferring to be known as Bill Burlington. He's a photographer.

Charles Beauclerk is the son of The Duke of St Albans - courtesy title is the Earl of Burford but he never uses it and just calls himself Charles Beauclerk.

Arthur Wellesley is the son of The Duke of Wellington - courtesy titles are the Marquess of Douro & the Earl of Mornington. He never uses the Douro title & professionally (finance & business) calls himself Arthur Mornington.

George Spencer-Churchill is the son of The Duke of Marlborough - courtesy titles are Marquess of Blandford and Earl of Sunderland. He doesn't use his title when he plays polo or models clothing (he's done both as George Spencer-Churchill & George Blandford) & on Instagram he uses George Blandford & George Spencer-Churchill.

Henry Fitzalan-Howard is the son of The Duke of Norfolk - courtesy title is Earl of Arundel but he just called himself Henry Arundel in his motor racing days.

Alexander Windsor is the son of The Duke of Gloucester - courtesy title is the Earl of Ulster but he has referred to himself as Alex Ulster professionally.

Edward Windsor is the grandson of The Duke of Kent - courtesy title is Baron Downpatrick but he just calls himself Eddy Downpatrick professionally. He'll become the Earl of St Andrews when his Grandfather dies & eventually Duke of Kent - interesting to see if he changes his everyday name then.

There are several examples of Earl's sons not using their courtesy titles but I'll just include the following two for interest:

The Queen's cousin Thomas Anson, 5th Earl of Lichfield didn't use his title professionally & instead used the name Patrick Lichfield throughout his photographic career.

The Queen's nephew David Armstrong-Jones, was Viscount Linley & is now 2nd Earl of Snowdon but hasn't used his titles professionally & instead has always used the name of David Linley.

That said, it does have the potential to confuse Americans who are unacquainted with the custom.

 

[Durham]

And the late Duke & Duchess of Devonshire published under Andrew & Deborah Devonshire. Not their actual surname Cavendish.

So there seem to be no hard & fast rules.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Indeed, in the UK one can apparently use whatever name one desires, except in official documents (where a change of name would need a legal process).

https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll

But the majority of peers seem to prefer to keep to the traditional custom of using the name of their peerages as their informal surname.

 

[Durham]

Indeed, in the UK one can apparently use whatever name one desires, except in official documents (where a change of name would need a legal process).

https://www.gov.uk/change-name-deed-poll

But the majority of peers seem to prefer to keep to the traditional custom of using the name of their peerages as their informal surname.

As you imply they sign with their territorial designation as far as I'm aware.

Ah the British class system. Makes for some good comedy.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

 

[Mbruno]

The choice to use Anne's surname Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage register was made by the Queen, according to a Buckingham Palace statement:

Prince Harry on the other hand used "Henry Charles Albert David of Wales" on his marriage certificate, with "of Wales" as de facto surname.


The use of the paternal peerage as surname was actually the custom among the "grandchildren of France" (i.e. , the King's grandchildren who were not also the Dauphin's children). The "children of France", who included the King's children, the Dauphin's children, and, I think, also the children of the eldest son of the Dauphin used "of France" as surname (similar to King Albert II's interpretation of the use of "de Belgique / van België" in his family).


I wonder if Beatrice and Eugenie followed Harry and also used "of York" on their marriage certificates rather than "Mountbatten-Windsor".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Does anybody know the reason the Royal Family retreated from the announcement in 2003 that the daughter of the Earl of Wessex would be called Lady Louise Windsor, instead of Mountbatten-Windsor?

Buckingham Palace announced that the Earl and Countess of Wessex are to call their newborn daughter Louise Alice Elizabeth Mary Mountbatten-Windsor.

She will, however, be generally known by the more easily remembered title of Lady Louise Windsor, a Palace spokesman added.​

Apparently, something changed, since by the time she became a bridesmaid in the wedding of Prince William in 2011 she was called Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Somebody]

Weren't they trying to say that she officially is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Winsor; as she was correctly called on the official list as a bridesmaid, while in daily life she uses 'Windsor' as a surname (for example at school etc). As far as I am aware, that is indeed how she is called in daily life.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Weren't they trying to say that she officially is Lady Louise Mountbatten-Winsor; as she was correctly called on the official list as a bridesmaid, while in daily life she uses 'Windsor' as a surname (for example at school etc). As far as I am aware, that is indeed how she is called in daily life.

She was at first called Lady Louise Windsor officially.

Announcement of the christening of Lady Louise Windsor | The Royal Family

 

[CyrilVladisla]

On July 17, 1917 The House of Windsor is born.