Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion

[Mbruno]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/...her_apos_s_side_as_lawyers_make_announcement/

 

[jacqui24]

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]

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.

 

[wbenson]

All of the Queen's descendants (Anne's children & grandchildren excepted) are legally M-B per her Order in Council dated 8 Feb. 1960.

Does the Queen actually possess the legal authority to name her grandchildren by Order-in-Council? Most are adults and therefore capable of choosing their own names whenever they please, and the others have living parents. She seems to have raised a family that will respect her wishes as expressed in the order, but I'm doubtful that it actually means anything legally. If her descendants use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname, I think it would ultimately be because of their choice, not the royal prerogative. Your "legal" name in most common law jurisdictions is whatever name you choose to use.

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.

US citizenship either is or isn't. If it exists, it's automatic and doesn't need to be claimed. It's recommended that parents register foreign births with the US government, as this makes it easier to prove when necessary, but simply being born to a qualifying citizen is all that's needed.

The Child Citizenship Act regards children who weren't born as US citizens. It was passed to make it easier for them to attain citizenship automatically if they ever moved to the United States. (I think it was the result of some very unfortunate cases involving adoptees whose new parents failed to fill out the naturalization paperwork. Some of them made some bad choices as young adults and ended up being deported, despite being raised as Americans by Americans, all because their parents didn't fill out a form. The law made it so that any child of a US citizen who lives in the USA with that parent automatically becomes a citizen, with no naturalization filing required.)

 

[Spheno]

That seems to be debatable too. I believe kate was listed as HRH Catherine Elizabeth Duchess of Cambridge on George’s birth certificate. The difference between married and divorced would be the HRH.

She is Catherine Elizabeth HRH The Duchess of Cambridge

 

[Osipi]

In most cases though other than birth certificates and passports though, the only thing that would be printed (such as Ascot passes, place cards etc.) it would just be HRH, The Duchess of Cambridge.

It will be the same for Meghan no matter where she goes whether it be a state dinner at Buckingham Palace or at the White House or Ascot. It will be HRH, The Duchess of XXXX. Legal documents can get a bit trickier as we've seen.

 

[Spheno]

Does the Queen actually possess the legal authority to name her grandchildren by Order-in-Council? Most are adults and therefore capable of choosing their own names whenever they please, and the others have living parents. She seems to have raised a family that will respect her wishes as expressed in the order, but I'm doubtful that it actually means anything legally. If her descendants use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname, I think it would ultimately be because of their choice, not the royal prerogative. Your "legal" name in most common law jurisdictions is whatever name you choose to use.

the Queen does possess the legal authority to name her grandchildren
Royal Musings: Custody of royal grandchildren

 

[Gawin]

Does the Queen actually possess the legal authority to name her grandchildren by Order-in-Council? Most are adults and therefore capable of choosing their own names whenever they please, and the others have living parents. She seems to have raised a family that will respect her wishes as expressed in the order, but I'm doubtful that it actually means anything legally. If her descendants use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname, I think it would ultimately be because of their choice, not the royal prerogative. Your "legal" name in most common law jurisdictions is whatever name you choose to use.)

What???? I didn't choose my surname. It's the same as my father's and has been since my birth. That's the law. Yes, I can change it but by default it's whatever the law says it is - in this case my father's.

So yes, the Queen's adult children can CHANGE their surnames but until they do that it's legally Mountbatten-Windsor by default.

An Order in Council has the force of law:
https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/orders/

 

[Curbside]

What???? I didn't choose my surname. It's the same as my father's and has been since my birth. That's the law. Yes, I can change it but by default it's whatever the law says it is - in this case my father's.

So yes, the Queen's adult children can CHANGE their surnames but until they do that it's legally Mountbatten-Windsor by default.

An Order in Council has the force of law:
https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/orders/

Actually, you can name your kids whatever you want in the U.S.

 

[Gawin]

Yes, and my parents chose my father's surname. They also chose my first & middle names. And, unless I change them, that's my legal name. You don't choose your legal name at birth. Except maybe Lady Gaga. ?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

US citizenship either is or isn't. If it exists, it's automatic and doesn't need to be claimed. It's recommended that parents register foreign births with the US government, as this makes it easier to prove when necessary, but simply being born to a qualifying citizen is all that's needed.

The Child Citizenship Act regards children who weren't born as US citizens. It was passed to make it easier for them to attain citizenship automatically if they ever moved to the United States. (I think it was the result of some very unfortunate cases involving adoptees whose new parents failed to fill out the naturalization paperwork. Some of them made some bad choices as young adults and ended up being deported, despite being raised as Americans by Americans, all because their parents didn't fill out a form. The law made it so that any child of a US citizen who lives in the USA with that parent automatically becomes a citizen, with no naturalization filing required.)

Not exactly. From the U.S. Department of State official website--

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...isition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Actually, you can name your kids whatever you want in the U.S.

At birth your parents choose your legal name (yes, first and last), but once you have a legal name you can't just change it willy nilly without legal steps taken to do so.

 

[Mbruno]

Not exactly. From the U.S. Department of State official website--

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock
A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

https://travel.state.gov/content/tr...isition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html

That is off-topic, but, in any case, I have no doubt that the child acquires citizenship at birth provided that the American parent meets the residence requirements above (which Meghan does). My point was that, even in the case that the child is American, the US government cannot be given legal notice of his or her existence unless the child is registered in a US embassy or consulate, or their parents apply for a US passport for the child for example. In other words, although the child doesn't have to claim citizenship to get it under those circumstances, his/her US citizenship may remain permanently unacknowledged for all practical purposes if the child never travels or lives in the US. In fact, even if the child travels to the US, he/she could still enter the US with a foreign passport and the immigration official would not be able to know that the child is a US citizen.

 

[Gawin]

At birth your parents choose your legal name (yes, first and last), but once you have a legal name you can't just change it willy nilly without legal steps taken to do so.

You're right, in the U.S. there's a formal legal process you must follow.

The process is much easier in the UK. But unless you change it, even by simply USING another name, by default you still bear the name you were given at birth.

 

[loonytick]

Of course, complicating all of this is that the specific legalities of naming vary from state to state in the US.

For example in some states, parents can choose whatever surname they choose for their child when filling out the birth certificate. In mine the child must share a last name with at least one parent on the certificate; parents wanting to give their child a different last name have to then go through the more complicated legal name change procedure.
https://www.npr.org/2014/09/15/347954339/creating-your-baby-s-last-name-tennessee-says-no

Generally speaking, though, a name change at marriage is a fairly streamlined procedure in most states if the wife opts to adopt the same surname listed for her husband on the marriage certificate. A marriage certificate or register without a last name would mean additional legal hurdles to jump through. So I suspect the specifics of how Harry is named on the marriage register might signal for us what route she's going with her legal identity in the US.

 

[Gawin]

Good point! I'm learning at lot!

Hopefully Harry and Meghan are reading this forum so they're aware of all of these issues too. ?

 

[Curbside]

Of course, complicating all of this is that the specific legalities of naming vary from state to state in the US.

For example in some states, parents can choose whatever surname they choose for their child when filling out the birth certificate. In mine the child must share a last name with at least one parent on the certificate; parents wanting to give their child a different last name have to then go through the more complicated legal name change procedure.
https://www.npr.org/2014/09/15/347954339/creating-your-baby-s-last-name-tennessee-says-no

Generally speaking, though, a name change at marriage is a fairly streamlined procedure in most states if the wife opts to adopt the same surname listed for her husband on the marriage certificate. A marriage certificate or register without a last name would mean additional legal hurdles to jump through. So I suspect the specifics of how Harry is named on the marriage register might signal for us what route she's going with her legal identity in the US.

https://brentwoodhomepage.com/brentwood-couple-wins-right-to-pick-their-childs-last-name/

An update on this case. I repeat, in the United States, you can name your kid whatever you want.

In many of my legal documents, I use my former last name. When I was married before, I hyphenated my surname with my ex's, but only socially and on a few credit cards. I never changed it officially and filed for divorce using my own name.

For the sake of simplicity, Meghan may choose to use her own surname after she marries, at least in the U. S.

 

[Gawin]

https://brentwoodhomepage.com/brentwood-couple-wins-right-to-pick-their-childs-last-name/

An update on this case. I repeat, in the United States, you can name your kid whatever you want.

No, you can't. The case you refer to only applies to Tennessee.

https://www.thebump.com/a/baby-name-rules

But I suspect the laws mentioned in the above article will be successfully challenged at some point. For example, there's already a move toward abolishing California's ban on the use of diacritics.

California's 30-Year Ban on Accents, Tildes & Umlauts on Official Documents May Be Coming to an End

See also an article from the George Washington Law Review
https://gir.im/http://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/80-1-Larson.pdf

 

[Curbside]

Right. Since this was successfully challenged in Tennessee of all places, it may as well be the same everywhere. It's just that most people don't do this, although it's pretty common to give a child a surname of a father who is not named on the birth certificate.

 

[Somebody]

Would Meghan even be able to be 'HRH the duchess of X' if she isn't a British citizen yet? What status would that title have (just a 'people like to call you this' versus 'you are the Duchess of X'?). I'm sure there are examples from others within the peerage...

 

[Somebody]

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.

If this ruling is followed, wouldn't Meghan's UK passport just read HRH The Duchess of XXXX? This wouldn't work at all though for a US passport, I believe and she'd either have to retain the legal name of Rachel Meghan Markle or change it to Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor.

Boy is there a lot of confusion about things when a British royal marries an American eh?

Per this link (earlier shared by another poster), it most likely says:
Her Royal Highness
Catherine Elizabeth
The Duchess of Cambridge
Née Catherine Elizabeth Middleton

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Would Meghan even be able to be 'HRH the duchess of X' if she isn't a British citizen yet? What status would that title have (just a 'people like to call you this' versus 'you are the Duchess of X'?). I'm sure there are examples from others within the peerage...

In the UK, after marriage, yes. That will be what she uses. She can even be called that all around the world--but not on her US passport and US legal documents.

 

[Osipi]

I agree. Upon marriage, the wife takes on the feminine form of the titles and styles of her husband. It has nothing to do with citizenship but with marriage.