Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[texankitcat]

If it takes 5 years for Meghan to obtain British citizenship, it is quite likely M & H will have at least one, possibly two children before that. Those children would automatically have dual citizenship.

I didn’t believe for a second that she would follow the standard citizenship wait time any more than I believed that Camilla will not be Queen Consort when Charles ascends the throne when that was announced. Neither makes any sense and both are steeped in unnecessary complications in order to appease critics. I believe Camilla will be Queen Consort when the day comes, since public opinion has warmed to over time, and Meghan will be expedited in getting her British citizenship behind the sceenes in order to avoid the scenario you described and many others. What they tell the public about The citizenship issue is another matter.

 

[BorgQueen]

I have some little experience working in Dept Citizenship and Border Force here in Aust. and while I do not know the Acts governing UK dept I can tell you that in Aust. the Minister has the authority to approve an application himself anytime he wants to. People often do not know if they do not work in gov. but most Acts allow Ministers to devolve or deligate their authority and it is those delegates (Director Generals who themselves can delegate and so on) who usually sign off the relevant paperwork you see in everyday life.

However, the Minister retains the authority and he can expidite any application he wants. This happens very frequently with VIPs. There is nothing to stop a Minister from approving an application the day it is submitted if he wants.

I would expect Meghans citizenship to be expidited for many reasons but one in partcular is so she can travel overseas as a representative of the UK. That way her security and travel expenses etc would be paid by the UK gov as it is for the Royals (I guess?)when they travel at the request of their gov. It would also make the financial arrangements easier for the receiving country as well I would think.

 

[PetticoatLane]

Expedited citizenship would look very, very bad for the BRF and Harry and Meghan in particular.

It would be followed by many a sob story in the press of families who have to live apart while they wait for the citizenship stuff to be complete, or people deported for overstaying their visas leaving children motherless etc. etc. while Meghan gets special treatment. Of course all that would have nothing to do with Meghan but the 'optics' of it would be damaging for all involved.

Was citizenship not expedited for the hereditary grand duchess in Luxemburg? Even in tiny little Luxemburg, with the kind of uncritical press the BRF could only dream of having, I seem to remember that didn't go down well.

 

[BorgQueen]

I'm sure some sections of the media (the DF obviously) would have a fit over it but then, they have a fit over anything, and nothing, to suit their own agenda on any given day. I really don't think the Uk gov. and the Royal family are going to be particularly worried since I think they have the more serious matters of funding their trips, their security and having Meghan an offical representative of the UK gov. with all the protections and privliges that would involve. Besides, no matter the RF do, they will be criticised by some in the media so I think they will simply do whatever they need to do to get the job done.

If the citizenship thing isn't sorted the media will raise all sorts of issues. For instance, if she and Harry were to be invited to visit by the Chinese gov and had a meeting with Xi Jinping, is Meghan there representing US if she is not a UK citizen? They would accuse her of all sorts of fantasical conspiracy theory nonsense.

Having said that, her US citizenship would also confer on her protections, but not for representing the UK gov in an official capacity. That's a different kettle of fish altogther.

 

[Mbruno]

I have some little experience working in Dept Citizenship and Border Force here in Aust. and while I do not know the Acts governing UK dept I can tell you that in Aust. the Minister has the authority to approve an application himself anytime he wants to. People often do not know if they do not work in gov. but most Acts allow Ministers to devolve or deligate their authority and it is those delegates (Director Generals who themselves can delegate and so on) who usually sign off the relevant paperwork you see in everyday life.

However, the Minister retains the authority and he can expidite any application he wants. This happens very frequently with VIPs. There is nothing to stop a Minister from approving an application the day it is submitted if he wants.

I would expect Meghans citizenship to be expidited for many reasons but one in partcular is so she can travel overseas as a representative of the UK. That way her security and travel expenses etc would be paid by the UK gov as it is for the Royals (I guess?)when they travel at the request of their gov. It would also make the financial arrangements easier for the receiving country as well I would think.

I am pretty sure that the UK government or parliament (whoever it takes under British law) could expedite Meghan's naturalization process. In other countries, that wouldn't be an issue; in fact, it was done to Mary Donaldson in Denmark and to Máxima Zorreguieta in the Netherlands without any controversy. In the UK, however, I agree that the possibility of fast-track naturalization has become a political issue. The BBC already had an article on its website saying that Meghan would have to go through the "normal naturalization process" like any other ordinary person and the Palace seemed to confirm it. I don't see how they could go back on that promise. If they wanted to, however, I suppose there is one strong argument: the moment Meghan marries Harry, she will automatically become a princess of the United Kingdom and it would be weird for a princess of the United Kingdom not to be a UK citizen !

On the dual citizenship of the kids though, is it really automatic or would it have to be requested, e.g. by applying for a U.S passport at a U.S. embassy or consulate ?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Since Meghan lived in the US more than five years of her life with at least 2 of those years after age 14, I read the applicable section to say yes, any children would automatically be US citizens.

 

[jacqui24]

Her children born while she is a US citizen would automatically carry dual citizenship. She can renounce once she is British citizen, but the children won’t be able to to until age of majority. There is no way around it. The U.K. government can’t change the law to make them non-US citizen as that’s governed by US law, the only to prevent the children from being US citizen is if they expedite Meghan’s British citizenship and have her renounce her US citizenship prior to giving birth.

I’m beginning to think that given Harry and Meghan’s child/children will unlikely to hold public roles, there is actually an advantage to them being US citizens. It’d certainly be easier for them if they choose to live in US to avoid some of the scrutiny. As facinated as we are, we don’t run royal related stories on a daily basis like in U.K.. And if there is any concern over money they are being set up with, just leave them in US accounts and be only subjected to US tax laws. I don’t know what the tax rate is in U.K., but they wouldn’t be subjected to ordinary income tax here, only investment tax, which is typically lower. The long term capital gains tax was 15%. Haven’t checked the new tax law yet, but they would either hold or be lower.

 

[Mbruno]

Her children born while she is a US citizen would automatically carry dual citizenship. She can renounce once she is British citizen, but the children won’t be able to to until age of majority. There is no way around it. The U.K. government can’t change the law to make them non-US citizen as that’s governed by US law, the only to prevent the children from being US citizen is if they expedite Meghan’s British citizenship and have her renounce her US citizenship prior to giving birth.

I’m beginning to think that given Harry and Meghan’s child/children will unlikely to hold public roles, there is actually an advantage to them being US citizens. It’d certainly be easier for them if they choose to live in US to avoid some of the scrutiny. As facinated as we are, we don’t run royal related stories on a daily basis like in U.K.. And if there is any concern over money they are being set up with, just leave them in US accounts and be only subjected to US tax laws. I don’t know what the tax rate is in U.K., but they wouldn’t be subjected to ordinary income tax here, only investment tax, which is typically lower. The long term capital gains tax was 15%. Haven’t checked the new tax law yet, but they would either hold or be lower.

As I mentioned in another post, Princess Madeleine's children are US citizens (Leonore even has a US passport) and that is not an issue in Sweden although, under Swedish law, they might actually lose their place in the line of succession to the throne if they are not "raised within the realm" (whatever that means, as nobody seems to know exactly).

I don't think that Prince Harry's children being dual citizens would be an issue either in the UK. My previous question was not that his kids won't have an automatic right to US citizenship, but rather whether that citizenship will be acknowledged by the US government if they never apply for a US passport or live in the US for example. That is what I am not sure about. For example, under the previous scenario, would the IRS ever approach them to collect US taxes on their income ?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

As I mentioned in another post, Princess Madeleine's children are US citizens (Leonore even has a US passport) and that is not an issue in Sweden although, under Swedish law, they might actually lose their place in the line of succession to the throne if they are not "raised within the realm" (whatever that means, as nobody seems to know exactly).

I don't think that Prince Harry's children being dual citizens would be an issue either in the UK. My previous question was not that his kids won't have an automatic right to US citizenship, but rather whether that citizenship will be acknowledged by the US government if they never apply for a US passport or live in the US for example. That is what I am not sure about. For example, under the previous scenario, would the IRS ever approach them to collect US taxes on their income ?

Leonore was actually born in New York so that is an unrelated situation.
What I was reading about citizenship seems to indicate that formal procedures have to occur to claim citizenship for a child born abroad and living abroad with a U.S. citizen parent living abroad. It seems some rules were tightened up and specified February 2001 with the Child Citizenship Act.

 

[jacqui24]

I don’t see why not if they can prove the children owe taxes. They are citizens regardless if they apply for a US passport or not. That’s just proof of citizenship, not citizenship itself. Many people who might not have known they are US citizens can claim ignorance. Just don’t see that flying with the royals.

 

[Somebody]

The intention isn’t for her to not become a UK citizen - she’s going through the process, which can take up to 5 years.

I am aware of that. That's exactly the part I think was ill-advised. If she is to represent the British queen, she should be British. The alternative is to not represent the queen the first 5 years of her marriage and only do private projects

I didn't mean to open up such a can of worms asking about a diplomatic passport. I guess one of the reasons I wondered about it was because I don't think the US is going to recognize her British title (ie HRH Duchess of X) on her US passport. I still think all of this is going to be a mess.

Does her name officially change upon marriage in the UK or are additional steps required (like in the US) and do the UK rules apply to non-citizens or is her nationality leading (which seems more logical - in that case she can either legally stay Rachel meghan Markle or have her surname changed to Mountbatten-Windsor (as the duchess part most likely is not recognized).

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Does her name officially change upon marriage in the UK or are additional steps required (like in the US) and do the UK rules apply to non-citizens or is her nationality leading (which seems more logical - in that case she can either legally stay Rachel meghan Markle or have her surname changed to Mountbatten-Windsor (as the duchess part most likely is not recognized).

What are you asking exactly?
Meghan will have to travel on a U.S. passport with U.S identification until she has British citizenship. Her name can remain Markle or she could change it to Mountbatten-Windsor once married if she chooses. Duchess whatever would not appear on official U.S. identification. British laws/rules have no bearing on U.S. documents.

 

[jacqui24]

not disagreeing with you, but just to point out another possibility. She could change her legal last name to ducal (Sussex or whatever she becomes the duchess of) if she wants in US if she changes her last name. My understanding is that Harry and William doesn’t use Mountbatten-Windsor in U.K. as that only applies to descendents without a princely title. In their U.K. documents, I don’t believe they use a last name. Or they used Wales as they were/are Princes William and Harry of Wales. George also uses Cambridge as his last name.

 

[Mbruno]

I am aware of that. That's exactly the part I think was ill-advised. If she is to represent the British queen, she should be British. The alternative is to not represent the queen the first 5 years of her marriage and only do private projects

The logic flaw IMHO is that the BBC, the British press, and the politicians want Meghan to go through the normal naturalization process as any "ordinary person" when, in fact, she won't be an "ordinary person", but rather a princess of the United Kingdom. As Somebody said, I don't see how a princess of the United Kingdom, who has official representation duties on behalf of the British monarch, may not be a British citizen.

Again, the Danes and the Dutch dealt with a similar issue very quickly in the cases of Mary and Máxima. I understand immigration is a hot political issue in the UK these days, but I don't see the reason why Meghan's fast tracking her naturalization process has become such a big "no-no".

What are you asking exactly?
Meghan will have to travel on a U.S. passport with U.S identification until she has British citizenship. Her name can remain Markle or she could change it to Mountbatten-Windsor once married if she chooses. Duchess whatever would not appear on official U.S. identification. British laws/rules have no bearing on U.S. documents.

Exactly. Since Meghan does not hold any public office in the US, she is not legally barred under the US constitution or any US law from holding any foreign title of nobility or royalty like duchess or princess. However, those titles won't be officially recognized in the US and, therefore, cannot be used in US documents.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

not disagreeing with you, but just to point out another possibility. She could change her legal last name to ducal (Sussex or whatever she becomes the duchess of) if she wants in US if she changes her last name. My understanding is that Harry and William doesn’t use Mountbatten-Windsor in U.K. as that only applies to descendents without a princely title. In their U.K. documents, I don’t believe they use a last name. Or they used Wales as they were/are Princes William and Harry of Wales. George also uses Cambridge as his last name.

In the French court case, William used William Mountbatten-Windsor as his name. UK titles are not applicable to French or U.S. legal documents-Sussex or whatever title name is not legally applicable in U.S.
Social use is entirely different and of course anything could be used.
But it doesn't matter what is official or used in the U.K. when we are talking about a legal name on a U.S. passport.

 

[jacqui24]

In the French court case, William used William Mountbatten-Windsor as his name. UK is different and not applicable to French or U.S. legal documents-Sussex or whatever title name is not legally applicable in U.S.
Social use is entirely different and of course anything could be used.

France doesn’t allow for change in name whereas US does. Even in that case I had to give a side eye to using Mountbatten-Windsor being legal as he was not born Mountbatten-Windsor. And you can’t group US with France. While US doesn’t recognize titles, it’s perfectly legal for her to change her name whereas it is not in France. The only consideration will be given is how is it easiest to match US and U.K. documents, not what she would have to use if a legal action is ever to take place in France.

 

[Mbruno]

France doesn’t allow for change in name whereas US does. Even in that case I had to give a side eye to using Mountbatten-Windsor being legal as he was not born Mountbatten-Windsor. And you can’t group US with France. While US doesn’t recognize titles, it’s perfectly legal for her to change her name whereas it is not in France. The only consideration will be given is how is it easiest to match US and U.K. documents, not what she would have to use if a legal action is ever to take place in France.

If, hypothetically, she wanted to change her name legally in the US, wouldn't it make more sense to change it to Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Rachel Meghan Sussex or anything like that ? Matching her UK and US documents will never be possible as her UK documents will be issued in the name of HRH Rachel Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex and that is a name which, I assume, she cannot use in the US. She would probably be better off then sticking with Rachel Meghan Markle, at least until her naturalization process in the UK is complete. After that, I assume that she will renounce her US citizenship and the question of how her name will appear on her US documents will no longer apply.

EDIT: Doing a quick Google search, I found copies of Prince Charles and Diana's passports in the following link . I assume Harry's and Meghan's would be similar, right ?

 

[jacqui24]

if her U.K. documents say HRH Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, then the closest match will be Rachel Meghan Sussex. I believe they all use territorial designation as last name unless there is a specific reason why she can’t. She can in US even if her title isn’t officially recognized. Again, technically Harry isn’t Harry Mountbatten-Windsor as he is excluded in the LP allowed the Queen and DoE’s descendents to use Mountbatten-Windsor as he does have a princely title.

 

[Curbside]

I really think the easiest thing would be to use her own name on her US documents. It’s a hassle to change your name on documents here, and there’s probably no good reason to do it. The US now allows for dual citizenship, and there are some decent reasons to retain it.

 

[Somebody]

What are you asking exactly?
Meghan will have to travel on a U.S. passport with U.S identification until she has British citizenship. Her name can remain Markle or she could change it to Mountbatten-Windsor once married if she chooses. Duchess whatever would not appear on official U.S. identification. British laws/rules have no bearing on U.S. documents.

I am asking what the rule is for name changes in Britain upon marriage (although I assume it doesn't apply to her as long as she is a US citizen). In the US women have to actively change their surname after marriage if they choose to do so (it isn't automatic), some countries automatically 'add' the husband's surname to the wife's surname (or 'change it'); others countries ask the couple to indicate beforehand what the name will be upon marriage (in: becoming effective at the same time the marriage is made official). So, that was what I was wondering...

Meghan cannot have two different legal names. She either is Rachel Meghan Markle or Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor (or something else); and it seems that as it has been communicated that she remains an American citizen that it will depend on her whether she goes to whatever place you have to go to (she will know as she already changed her name twice) to either keep it Markle or change it to Mountbatten-Windsor (most likely, as that is to be used if not titled).

if her U.K. documents say HRH Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, then the closest match will be Rachel Meghan Sussex. I believe they all use territorial designation as last name unless there is a specific reason why she can’t. She can in US even if her title isn’t officially recognized. Again, technically Harry isn’t Harry Mountbatten-Windsor as he is excluded in the LP allowed the Queen and DoE’s descendents to use Mountbatten-Windsor as he does have a princely title.

Given that Meghan's title wouldn't be recognized in the US, I would argue that in that case Mountbatten-Windsor would be the appropriate surname as that is exactly the situation in which that surname is to be used (if there 'is' no title). She won't be 'Princess Meghan of Sussex', but Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex (or Clarence or ...)', so the combination of her first name with Sussex would be inappropriate from my point of few (as it is well known that that combination is used for divorced former duchesses).

not disagreeing with you, but just to point out another possibility. She could change her legal last name to ducal (Sussex or whatever she becomes the duchess of) if she wants in US if she changes her last name. My understanding is that Harry and William doesn’t use Mountbatten-Windsor in U.K. as that only applies to descendents without a princely title. In their U.K. documents, I don’t believe they use a last name. Or they used Wales as they were/are Princes William and Harry of Wales. George also uses Cambridge as his last name.

I don't think George uses Cambridge as his last name on legal documents - but yes, just like William and Harry did with Wales and Beatrice and Eugenie with York, they use the territorial designation in daily life if they don't want to use their full title.

Could she indeed just pick whatever she likes as a surname or does it need to be related to something. As in, could she decide to take the surname 'princess of the United Kingdom'?

The logic flaw IMHO is that the BBC, the British press, and the politicians want Meghan to go through the normal naturalization process as any "ordinary person" when, in fact, she won't be an "ordinary person", but rather a princess of the United Kingdom. As Somebody said, I don't see how a princess of the United Kingdom, who has official representation duties on behalf of the British monarch, may not be a British citizen.

Again, the Danes and the Dutch dealt with a similar issue very quickly in the cases of Mary and Máxima. I understand immigration is a hot political issue in the UK these days, but I don't see the reason why Meghan's fast tracking her naturalization process has become such a big "no-no".

And if the argument would be that Mary and Máxima (and Stephanie) married the heirs; Marie was also fast-tracked (as was Alexandra I believe) and married a 'second son'.

I wonder whether they really thought it through, as there are representation issues (in my view), issues with children who might be born with the American nationality, tax-issues, etc.

Does anyone know how the citizenship issue was dealt with for Autumn (relatively recently) and for Birgitte (and Marie-Christine) in the past?

If, hypothetically, she wanted to change her name legally in the US, wouldn't it make more sense to change it to Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Rachel Meghan Sussex or anything like that ? Matching her UK and US documents will never be possible as her UK documents will be issued in the name of HRH Rachel Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex and that is a name which, I assume, she cannot use in the US. She would probably be better off then sticking with Rachel Meghan Markle, at least until her naturalization process in the UK is complete. After that, I assume that she will renounce her US citizenship and the question of how her name will appear on her US documents will no longer apply.

EDIT: Doing a quick Google search, I found copies of Prince Charles and Diana's passports in the following link . I assume Harry's and Meghan's would be similar, right ?

Thanks! That's helpful. And might be an argument to keep it at 'Rachel Meghan Markle' as for Diana her birth name 'née: Lady Diana Frances Spencer' was included. So, there would be a match between her US and UK documents.

 

[jacqui24]

I don't think George uses Cambridge as his last name on legal documents - but yes, just like William and Harry did with Wales and Beatrice and Eugenie with York, they use the territorial designation in daily life if they don't want to use their full title.

Could she indeed just pick whatever she likes as a surname or does it need to be related to something. As in, could she decide to take the surname 'princess of the United Kingdom'?

George doesn’t use a last name on U.K. legal documents I believe. All of them would just be HRH Prince(ss) of xxxx.

And yes, in US she could change it to whatever she likes. They just don’t recognize it as a title, but as a name. But I doubt she’s going to change it to princess of U.K. lol

Does anyone know how the citizenship issue was dealt with for Autumn (relatively recently) and for Birgitte (and Marie-Christine) in the past?

I don’t know about the other two (I think Marie Christine at one point said she’ll never become British even if she lives in the country?), but I doubt any special treatment was given to Autumn. For one thing, it’s easier for her to obtain citizenship as she was already citizen of a commonwealth country. Meghan isn’t. Another issue here is that Autumn doesn’t represent the Queen on official business, which is the only reason why some would see it as a good thing to expedite for Meghan.

If I remember correctly, the Home Secretary can expedite citizenship as he sees fit. It’s a matter of public optics though.

 

[Somebody]

I don’t know about the other two (I think Marie Christine at one point said she’ll never become British even if she lives in the country?), but I doubt any special treatment was given to Autumn. For one thing, it’s easier for her to obtain citizenship as she was already citizen of a commonwealth country. Meghan isn’t. Another issue here is that Autumn doesn’t represent the Queen on official business, which is the only reason why some would see it as a good thing to expedite for Meghan.

If I remember correctly, the Home Secretary can expedite citizenship as he sees fit. It’s a matter of public optics though.

There is indeed a big difference. However, if the process would have been expedited in their cases (when less important; and especially in Autumn's case Canadian citizenship would be perceived different than American citizenship), that would be all the more reason to do the same for Meghan. If they didn't, that doesn't mean that it isn't the right thing to do for Meghan as she is expected to represent the queen with the three other ladies weren't at the time of their marriage (although that changed rather quickly afterwards for Birgitte - so her case is probably most interesting).

 

[MARG]

Optics aside, does any UK or Commonwealth citizen want their queen to be represented by an untitled American? If Harry and Meghan visit NZ and Australia for an official tour on behalf of HM, only Harry is royal and Meghan cannot be if she enters these countries under a US Passport. She would enter these counties as Meghan Markle or Clarence or Sussex, US citizen, travelling on a US Passport.

Now that is OPTICS!

 

[wyevale]

does any UK or Commonwealth citizen want their queen to be represented by an untitled American?

Emphatically NOT..

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The traditional ways of the British royal family and the British peerage make a distinction between social and legal use.

When a surname is required in daily life, a royal or a peer traditionally uses their territorial designation as their surname. The then Prince William of Wales used William Wales at school and in the military.

When a surname is required in official paperwork, a royal or a peer traditionally uses their family name as their surname. Princess Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage register. Surnames in official paperwork are, in fact, rarely required for peers and royals, but when required, their family name is their official name.

Does anyone know how the citizenship issue was dealt with for Autumn (relatively recently) and for Birgitte (and Marie-Christine) in the past?

Section 6, subsection 3 of the Nationality Act of 1948 provided that a woman married to a United Kingdom citizen was entitled to be registered as a U.K. citizen. That provision was repealed on January 1, 1983. The Duchess of Gloucester and Princess Michael of Kent married into the Royal Family in 1972 and 1978.

British Nationality Act 1948
British Nationality Act 1981

 

[Curbside]

Optics aside, does any UK or Commonwealth citizen want their queen to be represented by an untitled American? If Harry and Meghan visit NZ and Australia for an official tour on behalf of HM, only Harry is royal and Meghan cannot be if she enters these countries under a US Passport. She would enter these counties as Meghan Markle or Clarence or Sussex, US citizen, travelling on a US Passport.

Now that is OPTICS!

How soon would she be expected to represent outside of the UK?

Wouldn't she have a title once she marries? I don't see how her passport would make any difference. Whatever fast tracking is happening when the BRF visits these countries would probably unofficially be extended to Harry's wife. What sorts of procedures would she be missing out on that cannot be addressed by unofficially waving her through, seeing that it should be pretty obvious what her identity is, that she probably isn't going to blow up the plane, etc.?

 

[jacqui24]

Optics aside, does any UK or Commonwealth citizen want their queen to be represented by an untitled American? If Harry and Meghan visit NZ and Australia for an official tour on behalf of HM, only Harry is royal and Meghan cannot be if she enters these countries under a US Passport. She would enter these counties as Meghan Markle or Clarence or Sussex, US citizen, travelling on a US Passport.

Now that is OPTICS!

The title is bestowed by the Queen. It has nothing to do with her citizenship. She will be Duchess of whatever the Queen gives. And an HRH, as that’s given by the Queen as well.

Just like William had to use William Mountbatten-Windsor in France when they filed the lawsuit. Doesn’t mean he’s no longer Duke of Cambridge.

 

[Mbruno]

When a surname is required in official paperwork, a royal or a peer traditionally uses their family name as their surname. Princess Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage register. Surnames in official paperwork are, in fact, rarely required for peers and royals, but when required, their family name is their official name.

Thanks, Tatiana Maria. You posts are always very informative !

I wonder: why did Anne have to use Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage register when none of her brothers had to do the same on theirs ? Is that in any way related to the fact that she is a woman ? I don't see the logic behind it.

 

[Skippyboo]

Anne just signed Anne. The person filling out the wedding registry used Mountbatten Windsor. You can google image the wedding registry. Maybe because it was the first wedding since the name change and Uncle Dickie was still alive to reinforce it.

 

[jacqui24]

Thanks, Tatiana Maria. You posts are always very informative !

I wonder: why did Anne have to use Mountbatten-Windsor on her marriage register when none of her brothers had to do the same on theirs ? Is that in any way related to the fact that she is a woman ? I don't see the logic behind it.

The LP that allowed Mountbatten-Windsor only excludes descendents with princely title. And Anne is The Princess Anne without a designation.