Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by FashionMaven

This line made me chuckle: Meghan's credit cards and driver's license, however, will show her title as her name, Koenig explains.

Is this even true?

I would imagine it not to be true in the UK where her titles would be legally recognized but if she were to apply for a US driver's license or file tax returns to the IRS in her married name, most likely it would Mountbatten-Windsor. At least that's my guesstimate unless she chooses to retain Markle for those purposes.

[Elly C]

Originally Posted by Osipi

What you explained is true, Countessmeout, but should something happen, say in France, and Harry and Meghan had to file a legal lawsuit, it would be filed as Henry Mountbatten-Windsor and Rachel Meghan Markle. In France, Kate had to use her maiden name for that lawsuit about invasion of privacy.



Harry will use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor if and when a legal surname is required and his royal titles are not recognized.

Thanks for this Osipi, I didn't know this (people on this forum, are so knowledgable). I don't want to deviate from the topic of this thread, but can I just ask, would this apply to any country other than those in the Commonwealth?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Meghan will be getting a new husband and a new surname.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/meghan-ma...063507585.html

I believe she won't use a family name as last name. If she becomes the Duchess of Sussex, at most she may sign as 'Meghan Sussex' as Sarah sometimes used 'Sarah York' and Sophie sometimes uses 'Sophie Wessex'. Most likely, she will sign simply as 'Meghan'.

This line made me chuckle: Meghan's credit cards and driver's license, however, will show her title as her name, Koenig explains.

Is this even true?

Yes, it is. In UK documents, she will be named "HRH The Duchess of [xxx]" .

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Elly C

Thanks for this Osipi, I didn't know this (people on this forum, are so knowledgable). I don't want to deviate from the topic of this thread, but can I just ask, would this apply to any country other than those in the Commonwealth?

It would depend on the country, and whether or not they recognize foreign titles.

That said, how often is she likely to need to fill out foreign legal papers? She might travel more than the average person, but unless something goes wrong she’s not likely to need to fill out any foreign paperwork where her passport (and the name on it) won’t suffice. The exception will be the US, as she’s an American citizen and we really don’t know how that’s going to work for her at this time.

[jacqui24]

I don't know what the passport situation for BRF on official business (diplomatic passport versus regular passport and what name and such), but Meghan will be using her US passport for all travels until about 5 years after her wedding. I can't think of a good reason for her to deal with the paperwork to change her name in US other than to have her passport name match her name on the immigration paperwork in UK.

[Lady Marlboro]

This talk about passports makes me wonder - would the US give her a diplomatic passport given her status in the UK? I am assuming the BRF all have diplomatic passports so would it be awkward for Meghan to travel under a regular passport if Harry is on a diplomatic one. This has the potential to get messy. Or, maybe I have an overactive imagination!

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Lady Marlboro

This talk about passports makes me wonder - would the US give her a diplomatic passport given her status in the UK? I am assuming the BRF all have diplomatic passports so would it be awkward for Meghan to travel under a regular passport if Harry is on a diplomatic one. This has the potential to get messy. Or, maybe I have an overactive imagination!

Why would they? She's not serving in a diplomatic role for US. Any soft diplomacy trip she takes will be on behalf of HMQ.

[loonytick]

Originally Posted by Lady Marlboro

This talk about passports makes me wonder - would the US give her a diplomatic passport given her status in the UK? I am assuming the BRF all have diplomatic passports so would it be awkward for Meghan to travel under a regular passport if Harry is on a diplomatic one. This has the potential to get messy. Or, maybe I have an overactive imagination!

That's not going to be necessary for someone in her situation. The nations she visits can choose to ease the red tape for a royal visitor as much as they want, regardless of her passport. Besides, my family members who have diplomatic passports tell me there's very little difference travelling on one compared to using their "civilian" passport. The special status afforded by the diplomatic passport is something that generally only comes into play if problems arise.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by loonytick

That's not going to be necessary for someone in her situation. The nations she visits can choose to ease the red tape for a royal visitor as much as they want, regardless of her passport. Besides, my family members who have diplomatic passports tell me there's very little difference travelling on one compared to using their "civilian" passport. The special status afforded by the diplomatic passport is something that generally only comes into play if problems arise.

Actually, that is not true. For starters, you get into a fast lane at passport control, which is very convenient, especially at busy airports. Second, there are some other privileges. Following 9/11 for example, foreign visitors to the US, whether they need a visa or not, are required to be electronically fingerprinted and photographed; holders of diplomatic passports are normally exempted from that requirement.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Lady Marlboro

This talk about passports makes me wonder - would the US give her a diplomatic passport given her status in the UK? I am assuming the BRF all have diplomatic passports so would it be awkward for Meghan to travel under a regular passport if Harry is on a diplomatic one. This has the potential to get messy. Or, maybe I have an overactive imagination!

I'd have to do some research to find the information again, but I read that the BRF only travels on diplomatic passports when traveling on official trips. For private trips they use regular passports.
That doesn't mean they don't still get some VIP treatment.

[Somebody]

So, it would create a weird situation in that Meghan is considered an American civilian while representing the British queen. If something would happen with the two of them - end up in an accident or so leading to charges), she would (at least theoretically) formerly be charged, while Harry wouldn't as he is inviolable.

I don't think there is a huge difference for people who travel frequently and have frequent flyer status - they have lounge access etc already; so Meghan is fine in that respect. It would be different if she wouldn't have frequent flyer status (although most perks include a +1 if you are on a higher level).

I still think the idea to have her keep her American passport and not become a British citizen was ill-advised.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Somebody

So, it would create a weird situation in that Meghan is considered an American civilian while representing the British queen. If something would happen with the two of them - end up in an accident or so leading to charges), she would (at least theoretically) formerly be charged, while Harry wouldn't as he is inviolable.

I don't think there is a huge difference for people who travel frequently and have frequent flyer status - they have lounge access etc already; so Meghan is fine in that respect. It would be different if she wouldn't have frequent flyer status (although most perks include a +1 if you are on a higher level).

I still think the idea to have her keep her American passport and not become a British citizen was ill-advised.

I don't believe that Harry is inviolable against charges that could be brought up against him. He's just as responsible under the laws of the UK or elsewhere as everyone else is. His royal status does not put him above the law.

[loonytick]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Actually, that is not true. For starters, you get into a fast lane at passport control, which is very convenient, especially at busy airports. Second, there are some other privileges. Following 9/11 for example, foreign visitors to the US, whether they need a visa or not, are required to be electronically fingerprinted and photographed; holders of diplomatic passports are normally exempted from that requirement.

What I've been told by my brother-in-law who regularly travels with such a passport is that only some airports in some countries have special lanes, etc., and even those aren't always manned, so in actual fact travelling on that passport makes little difference.

As for fingerprint and photograph requirements, that's an individual nation's red tape which generally can be exempted as they choose for whomever they choose. It would be a matter of top officials signing off ahead of time on offering her an exemption despite her passport, but it would be possible.

All of this is for official visits only, of course. Even high-level diplomats aren't supposed to use their diplomatic passports for personal travel. That could get them in a lot of hot water.

[CyrilVladisla]

Once Meghan is married, will not some documents require Meghan's occupation to be listed? Would the correct response be Duchess?

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Actually, that is not true. For starters, you get into a fast lane at passport control, which is very convenient, especially at busy airports. Second, there are some other privileges. Following 9/11 for example, foreign visitors to the US, whether they need a visa or not, are required to be electronically fingerprinted and photographed; holders of diplomatic passports are normally exempted from that requirement.

Having travelled to the US a number of times since 9/11 (most recently last week), I have never once been fingerprinted upon entry. That may be a requirement for visas or individuals coming from some countries, but it is not a blanket rule.

Regardless, it certainly is not a rule that Meghan would have to follow as a US citizen. I actually would expect that the BRF will be taking into consideration whether or not Meghan’s citizenship is likely to be an issue for any foreign tours she takes after her marriage. It might be that some countries are deemed non-issues while others are deemed problematic and so Harry goes by himself, or the Cambridges (or another family member) go instead.

Originally Posted by Somebody

So, it would create a weird situation in that Meghan is considered an American civilian while representing the British queen. If something would happen with the two of them - end up in an accident or so leading to charges), she would (at least theoretically) formerly be charged, while Harry wouldn't as he is inviolable.

I don't think there is a huge difference for people who travel frequently and have frequent flyer status - they have lounge access etc already; so Meghan is fine in that respect. It would be different if she wouldn't have frequent flyer status (although most perks include a +1 if you are on a higher level).

I still think the idea to have her keep her American passport and not become a British citizen was ill-advised.

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.

Originally Posted by Osipi

I don't believe that Harry is inviolable against charges that could be brought up against him. He's just as responsible under the laws of the UK or elsewhere as everyone else is. His royal status does not put him above the law.

His royal status may not make him above the law, but if he had diplomatic immunity it does make filing charges tricky.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Once Meghan is married, will not some documents require Meghan's occupation to be listed? Would the correct response be Duchess?

I think Kate was listed as Princess of United Kingdom, which she is being married to a Prince of United Kingdom. Meghan will be as well once she marries. However, they just aren't princesses in their own right as Charlotte is, so they aren't Princess Kate or Princess Meghan.

Diplomatic immunity is useful when one goes to a country that have laws against things that normally isn't prosecuted against in one's own country. Even with diplomatic immunity, if someone breaks the law, they aren't just off the hook, they are sent back to home country and then prosecuted there according to the laws of their home country. This protects the person from any unjust persecution in foreign countries. Given how high profile Meghan is, I don't think that'd be happening.

I don't want to go into more about the citizenship issue as this isn't the thread for that.

But the only concern will be if she'll change her name on documents in UK in this case as I'd imagine any travel documents that allows her to get back into UK will have to match her passport. I'm not sure how HRH Rachel Meghan, Duchess of xxxxx would fit onto a US passport. Unless she uses HRH Rachel Meghan as first name and the Duchess of xxxxx as last name. Or simply Rachel Meghan and then ducal as last night. Otherwise, would she remain Rachel Meghan Markle on her official UK documents until she gains citizenship and can be issued a British passport?

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I don't believe that Harry is inviolable against charges that could be brought up against him. He's just as responsible under the laws of the UK or elsewhere as everyone else is. His royal status does not put him above the law.

Diplomatic status does put you above the law practically in some instances. Traffic violations are a well-known example that diplomats don't have to worry about and home countries typically don't pay attention to - but there are more serious cases known, such as child abuse going unpunished because the abuser is a diplomat, so it is the diplomat's own country that should take action but they don't as they don't care (as much)... or at least they care more about their diplomat than about his child.

I don't see it becoming a problem in Meghan's case in practice but there is a difference between being in a country as a diplomat compared to being held responsible under that country's laws.

A far-fetched example: if Meghan would decide to drive in Saudi Arabia (I believe it is still illegal - will be legal from June or so) she would formally be judged according to local laws, while on a diplomatic passport she wouldn't... And the Arab countries have several laws that she could easily break (without doing anything illegal in the eyes of the UK or USA) and should formally be punished for according to their laws while Harry wouldn't if he travelled on a diplomatic passport.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I don't believe that Harry is inviolable against charges that could be brought up against him. He's just as responsible under the laws of the UK or elsewhere as everyone else is. His royal status does not put him above the law.

I think Somebody was referring to diplomatic immunity, not to royal status.

As far as royal status is concerned, monarchs are generally inviolable in their respective countries (that is true AFAIK in all current European monarchies). Other members of the RF usually don't have immunity against prosecution except in Norway where the constitution says that royal princes can be prosecuted only with the King's consent. I don't know the situation in the UK as the common law system and the lack of a written constitution make it more difficult to find that information.

Originally Posted by Ish

Having travelled to the US a number of times since 9/11 (most recently last week), I have never once been fingerprinted upon entry. That may be a requirement for visas or individuals coming from some countries, but it is not a blanket rule.

Canadians may have a special status, but if you are traveling on a visa or under the Visa Waiver Program (including EU citizens), you have to be fingerprinted and photographed upon entry in the US. And I was not talking about Meghan specifically, but rather about the advantages of a diplomatic passport in general.

https://www.immihelp.com/visas/usvisit.html

https://epic.org/privacy/surveillanc...editorial.html

But the only concern will be if she'll change her name on documents in UK in this case as I'd imagine any travel documents that allows her to get back into UK will have to match her passport. I'm not sure how HRH Rachel Meghan, Duchess of xxxxx would fit onto a US passport. Unless she uses HRH Rachel Meghan as first name and the Duchess of xxxxx as last name. Or simply Rachel Meghan and then ducal as last night. Otherwise, would she remain Rachel Meghan Markle on her official UK documents until she gains citizenship and can be issued a British passport?

Most people I know who are dual citizens of the United States and another country use their US passport to leave and enter the United States and their other passport to leave and enter the country where they are also citizens. So, as long as she is a dual citizen, there is no problem in using two different names in different countries.

In fact, I believe that might be the case for Princess Madeleine's children. Leonore apparently has a US passport under the name Leonore Bernadotte O'Neill. I don't know the exact name that appears on her Swedish documents, but the Royal House's site calls her HRH Leonore Lilian Maria, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Gotland, without any family name.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Most people I know who are dual citizens of the United States and another country use their US passport to leave and enter the United States and their other passport to leave and enter the country where they are also citizens. So, as long as she is a dual citizen, there is no problem in using two different names in different countries.

In fact, I believe that might be the case for Princess Madeleine's children. Leonore apparently has a US passport under the name Leonore Bernadotte O'Neill. I don't know the exact name that appears on her Swedish documents, but the Royal House's site calls her HRH Leonore Lilian Maria, Princess of Sweden, Duchess of Gotland, without any family name.

Yes, I understand that’s the case once she dual citizen, but she won’t be British citizen for 5 years. Until then, she’ll have to use her US passport with re-entry paperwork (equivalent to US’s permenant residence card, but I don’t know if it’s a card for U.K.) to enter back into U.K.. I’d imagine the name on her U.K. paperwork and US passport would have to match in those 5 years.

[Lady Marlboro]

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.