The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #521  
Old 01-21-2018, 11:30 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Marlboro View Post
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).
__________________

  #522  
Old 01-21-2018, 11:43 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.
__________________

  #523  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:00 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
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.
  #524  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:16 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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".

Quote:
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.
  #525  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:17 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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.
  #526  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
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.
  #527  
Old 01-21-2018, 12:52 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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 ?
  #528  
Old 01-21-2018, 01:28 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
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.
  #529  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:16 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lewisville, United States
Posts: 837
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.
  #530  
Old 01-21-2018, 02:32 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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'?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
  #531  
Old 01-21-2018, 03:13 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post

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.
  #532  
Old 01-21-2018, 03:58 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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).
  #533  
Old 01-21-2018, 04:26 PM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,742
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!
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
  #534  
Old 01-21-2018, 04:30 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
does any UK or Commonwealth citizen want their queen to be represented by an untitled American?
Emphatically NOT..
  #535  
Old 01-21-2018, 04:51 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,421
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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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
  #536  
Old 01-21-2018, 05:36 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Lewisville, United States
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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.?
  #537  
Old 01-21-2018, 05:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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.
  #538  
Old 01-21-2018, 06:09 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post

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.
  #539  
Old 01-21-2018, 06:26 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,152
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.
  #540  
Old 01-21-2018, 06:32 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Meghan Markle: Family and Background - November 2017-May 2018 soapstar The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 3418 06-19-2018 01:39 PM
Meghan Markle: Wedding Dress Suggestions and Musings soapstar Royal Style File 1819 05-19-2018 06:22 AM
Meghan Markle: Wedding Tiara and Jewelry Suggestions and Musings Tilia C. Royal Jewels General Discussion 999 05-19-2018 06:02 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abu dhabi american anastasia 2020 baby names britannia british royal family british royals canada carolin china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing cpr dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex earl of snowdon edward vii emperor family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs interesting introduction jewellery jewelry kids movie list of rulers maxima monarchy mountbatten names nepal nepalese royal family pless prince harry princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn princess dita princess eugenie princess laurentien princess of orange queen elizabeth ii queen louise queen victoria resusci anne royal balls royal events royal family royal jewels royal spouse royalty royalty of taiwan royal wedding russian court dress spain stuart thailand thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wedding gown welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:16 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×