Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

It...depends Harry technically isn’t a Mountbatten-Windsor as it’s been stated that the first official Mountbatten-Windsor is Lady Louise. It’s odd how the last name situation works for royals . It doesn’t seem to have consistency. But if we are to talk about official LP, then no. However, the sovereign’s wish is enough as we found out with Edward’s children not being HRHs. Now, there hasn’t been official announcement from the Queen to wish differently than the LP on the matter of last name other than existing LP. In the past, Harry used Wales as last name when required in U.K.

The article states that Lady Louise & Viscount Severn are the only two descendants of QEII to "officially have the surname of “Mountbatten-Windsor”.

Combined with other sources this seems to mean they are the only descendants to use the surname on a regular basis OUTSIDE OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS because they don't use the HRH Prince(ess).

For example, Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor is known as HRH Princess Beatrice of York because her title trumps her surname. She would only use Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor on legal documents requiring a surname.

But Louise Mountbatten-Windsor doesn't use the HRH Princess so she's the first descendant to actually use the surname as part of her day-to-day name/style.

So I think it's safe to assume Harry's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. He's just never had reason to use it.

I hope this makes sense.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

She can still use Markle while being Duchess of xxxx in countries that doesn’t recognize title. Kate used Middleton for the lawsuit in France.

Kate used Middleton because in France women don’t take their husband’s name upon marriage.

Meghan can be legally Rachel Meghan Markle or Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or even Rachel Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor if she’s so inclined. She just has to change (or not change) her name in the US after her wedding.

That doesn’t prevent her from being HRH Princess Henry of Wales (or whatever Harry’s title is after his marriage). It’s not going to be her legal name on her US passport, but legal names aren’t necessarily what people go by in public.

A perfect example is Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest; his legal name is Christopher Haden-Guest, and properly he is the 5th Baron Haden-Guest (styled as Lord Baron Haden-Guest), but he typically goes by Christopher Guest. She has kept her maiden name and is still Jamie Lee Curtis, but is also recognized as Lady Haden-Guest.

[Osipi]

Just to throw this in the mix. If we go by what Diana's passport as The Princess of Wales had, its possible that Meghan's UK passport (when issued ) could very well mesh with keeping her name on that as Rachel Meghan Markle.

All the information would be included in the UK passport. Her title, her given name and her maiden name. Diana's passport is a good example of that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=phot...HHTM_w_9DbCSM:

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Gawin

The article states that Lady Louise & Viscount Severn are the only two descendants of QEII to "officially have the surname of “Mountbatten-Windsor”.

Combined with other sources this seems to mean they are the only descendants to use the surname on a regular basis OUTSIDE OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS because they don't use the HRH Prince(ess).

For example, Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor is known as HRH Princess Beatrice of York because her title trumps her surname. She would only use Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor on legal documents requiring a surname.

But Louise Mountbatten-Windsor doesn't use the HRH Princess so she's the first descendant to actually use the surname as part of her day-to-day name/style.

So I think it's safe to assume Harry's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. He's just never had reason to use it.

I hope this makes sense.

Originally Posted by Ish

Kate used Middleton because in France women don’t take their husband’s name upon marriage.

Meghan can be legally Rachel Meghan Markle or Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or even Rachel Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor if she’s so inclined. She just has to change (or not change) her name in the US after her wedding.

That doesn’t prevent her from being HRH Princess Henry of Wales (or whatever Harry’s title is after his marriage). It’s not going to be her legal name on her US passport, but legal names aren’t necessarily what people go by in public.

A perfect example is Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest; his legal name is Christopher Haden-Guest, and properly he is the 5th Baron Haden-Guest (styled as Lord Baron Haden-Guest), but he typically goes by Christopher Guest. She has kept her maiden name and is still Jamie Lee Curtis, but is also recognized as Lady Haden-Guest.

Excellent explanations, both of you.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Question. If the UK passport follows the traditional way of wording titles, wouldn't Kate's passport state simply HRH The Duchess of Cambridge? I believe the use of a first name and then the title was designated for divorced spouses of a peer such as Sarah, Duchess of York.

I don't know about Kate's passport, but as I linked a couple of posts before, Diana's passaport listed her name as Her Royal Highness Diana Frances The Princess of Wales, née Lady Diana Frances Spencer.

Prince George's birth certificate lists Kate as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, which is odd and suggests to me that the registrar was confused about what he should write. William is listed as His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge, which looks like a more proper style.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Gawin

The article states that Lady Louise & Viscount Severn are the only two descendants of QEII to "officially have the surname of “Mountbatten-Windsor”.

Combined with other sources this seems to mean they are the only descendants to use the surname on a regular basis OUTSIDE OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS because they don't use the HRH Prince(ess).

For example, Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor is known as HRH Princess Beatrice of York because her title trumps her surname. She would only use Beatrice Mountbatten-Windsor on legal documents requiring a surname.

But Louise Mountbatten-Windsor doesn't use the HRH Princess so she's the first descendant to actually use the surname as part of her day-to-day name/style.

Btw, when I say official, I mean whatever is on legal documents as to me that’s the most official for name. Not what is commonly known. For example, Prince Harry is officially Prince Henry even though he is known as Prince Harry to everyone. It’s whats on his legal documents.

So I think it's safe to assume Harry's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor. He's just never had reason to use it.

I hope this makes sense.

Actually, that’s not true. Edward’s children has Mountbatten-Windsor on their birth certificate, which makes them official Mountbatten-Windsor. Not the case for those with HRH titles.

When I say official, I mean legally, not what they are known by. For example, Prince Harry is Prince Henry officially, but known as Prince Harry. I don’t consider Harry as official since on official docs he’d still be Henry even if he appears as Harry in CC. The more formal announcements might revert back to official name as we’ve seen with the engagement announcement.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

[/I]Prince George's birth certificate lists Kate as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge, which is odd and suggests to me that the registrar was confused about what he should write. William is listed as His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge, which looks like a more proper style.

Ah, you are right about where the HRH is at for Kate on the kids’s Birth certificate. But I think the key distinction between married and divorced in the title is HRH.

[Osipi]

My apologies, Mbruno, for somehow missing that you posted the information on Diana's passport. I must have missed it somehow. Can I blame a lack of caffeine? Perhaps old age? Not paying attention?

I guess when it comes to this kind of thing, its best to cover all bases just in case. As my EMT teacher always stressed "if it isn't written down, it never happened".

Think I need a donut or three.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Ish

Kate used Middleton because in France women don’t take their husband’s name upon marriage.

Meghan can be legally Rachel Meghan Markle or Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or even Rachel Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor if she’s so inclined. She just has to change (or not change) her name in the US after her wedding.

That doesn’t prevent her from being HRH Princess Henry of Wales (or whatever Harry’s title is after his marriage). It’s not going to be her legal name on her US passport, but legal names aren’t necessarily what people go by in public.

A perfect example is Jamie Lee Curtis and Christopher Guest; his legal name is Christopher Haden-Guest, and properly he is the 5th Baron Haden-Guest (styled as Lord Baron Haden-Guest), but he typically goes by Christopher Guest. She has kept her maiden name and is still Jamie Lee Curtis, but is also recognized as Lady Haden-Guest.

That’s actually exactly what I meant. Maybe I just didn’t explain it well enough. Meghan can change her name in US to whatever she wants. She can change it to Minnie Mouse tomorrow if she wished. That has no bearing on her title once married.

[Gawin]

Yes, having the surname on a birth certificate makes it "official." But in the case of the royals I don't think the lack of a surname on a birth record means there isn't a "latent" one.

For example, the GRO birth indexes list Anne, Andrew, and Edward under "Edinburgh" (father's title) while the marriage registers, as has been posted earlier, gives their surname as "Mountbatten-Windsor." Anne's maiden name is also listed as "Mountbatten-Windsor" in the entry for her son Peter's birth.

So I have the impression that while the royals have surnames, they aren't always listed on royal birth certificates.

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).

Apparently surnames aren't needed on birth certificates for royals, odd as that seems.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gawin

Apparently surnames aren't needed on birth certificates for royals, odd as that seems.

George's birth certificate says simply His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge, so, no, surnames are not needed.

[Osipi]

From all of this, I guess we can now be quite assured that the British royals not only have titles and styles but also have a legal surname should ever they need one where the titles and styles don't work.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

That’s actually exactly what I meant. Maybe I just didn’t explain it well enough. Meghan can change her name in US to whatever she wants. She can change it to Minnie Mouse tomorrow if she wished. That has no bearing on her title once married.

Thanks for clarifying, because I kept reading that you expected Meghan to have Duchess of Sussex or Meghan Sussex on her US passport because that might be what she'd use in the UK. And what she'd use in the UK would have no bearing on US legal documents.

And no she cannot just change her name to Minnie Mouse tomorrow.

I've greatly abridged the information but as this shows, unless you are changing your last name to your husband's last name because of marriage, it is a legal process.

Make sure your new name will be legal.

Fill out a petition.

File your petition with your local civil court.

Publish your name change.

Attend your hearing.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Osipi

From all of this, I guess we can now be quite assured that the British royals not only have titles and styles but also have a legal surname should ever they need one where the titles and styles don't work.

Sorry for getting off-topic!

[hel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Ah, you are right about where the HRH is at for Kate on the kids’s Birth certificate. But I think the key distinction between married and divorced in the title is HRH.

The key distinction between married and divorced is actually between "HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" and "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales" (Diana is an excellent example because she retained the HRH).

The current wife gets the definitive article, the divorced wife uses her name with a comma. A widow gets to add Dowager.

[Osipi]

Actually, I see no need for apologies. This is the beauty of having a central discussion such as this. We learn the ins and outs and the ups and downs of things that we, otherwise, would never have the occasion to learn.

Meghan's citizenship issues involve the name changes or not changed. The more that is presented how things actually are, the more we know. Knowledge is a beautiful thing.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by hel

The key distinction between married and divorced is actually between "HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" and "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales" (Diana is an excellent example because she retained the HRH).

The current wife gets the definitive article, the divorced wife uses her name with a comma. A widow gets to add Dowager.

Hel, Diana did not retain HRH. Letters patent were issued.

Queen announces new rules on HRH title | HeraldScotland

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/1..._announcement/

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by hel

The key distinction between married and divorced is actually between "HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" and "HRH Diana, Princess of Wales" (Diana is an excellent example because she retained the HRH).

The current wife gets the definitive article, the divorced wife uses her name with a comma. A widow gets to add Dowager.

As someone pointed out above, Diana did not. Sarah retained HRH post divorce, but that was gone a few months after by change in law.

[hel]

Thanks for the (double) correction.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Actually, that’s not true. Edward’s children has Mountbatten-Windsor on their birth certificate, which makes them official Mountbatten-Windsor. Not the case for those with HRH titles.

When I say official, I mean legally, not what they are known by. For example, Prince Harry is Prince Henry officially, but known as Prince Harry. I don’t consider Harry as official since on official docs he’d still be Henry even if he appears as Harry in CC. The more formal announcements might revert back to official name as we’ve seen with the engagement announcement.

If official = legally then Edward's children are not the first official Mountbatten-Windsors.

All of the Queen's descendants (Anne's children & grandchildren excepted) are legally M-B per her Order in Council dated 8 Feb. 1960. The HRH's just don't use it unless a surname is needed. But legally it's there, just latent.

I think Edward's children are just the first to be officially *declared* M-B. It's not latent in their case.