The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/windsor-mountbatten-windsor-name-of-royal-house-and-surname-18643.html)

HRH Kimetha 05-02-2007 02:38 AM

Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname
 
I felt that this would be an interesting topic.

If the last name of Prince Charles is Windsor, why does William and Harry use the name Wales instead of the correct surname?

As I understood it, Queen Elizabeth changed the old German surname to the English surname back in the 50's (?) to reflect a "British" sounding Monarch over a Germanic surname that also representing the losing side in WWII. Does anyone have any other information on this subject. Is this true? If not, what is the story on the Windsor name?

As I see it, if the true surname is Windsor then Windsor should be used instead of Wales, which only means (to me, anyway) that they are Prince Harry of Wales and Prince William of Wales only for royal purposes and Prince William Windsor of Wales etc.

Does Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie go by York?

THis would be so confusing to genealogists who are tracing ancestors by using the surname.

What is the point of the surname if the parties aren't going to use it?:smile:

Sister Morphine 05-02-2007 03:03 AM

Mountbatten-Windsor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Both William & Harry and Beatrice & Eugenie use their fathers' titles (Wales and York) as surnames occasionally [such as when they were in school, they were William Wales and Beatrice York, for example], although their actual surnames would be Mountbatten-Windsor, as that is their fathers' surname.


Quote:

An Order-in-Council was issued in 1960, which stated the surname of male-line descendants of the Duke and the Queen who are not Royal Highnesses or Prince or Princess was to be Mountbatten-Windsor. This was to address the Duke's complaint that he was the only father in the country unable to pass his name to his children. In practice, however, the Queen and the Duke's children have all used Mountbatten-Windsor as the surname they prefer for themselves and their male-line children.

Windsor became the name of the Royal house not in the 50s, but during WWI because of unpopular sentiment toward the Germans at the time (obviously).

Quote:

In 1917, during World War I, anti-German feeling among the people resulted in the Royal Family exchanging use of all of their German titles and house names for English-sounding versions........Thus, the name Wettin was replaced with Windsor, which also became the name of the Royal House through an Order-in-Council of King George V.

Iluvbertie 05-02-2007 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRH Kimetha
I felt that this would be an interesting topic.

If the last name of Prince Charles is Windsor, why does William and Harry use the name Wales instead of the correct surname?

Wales designates that William and Harry are the children of the Prince of Wales - it really isn't their surname but indicates to which branch of the royal family they belong.

Quote:

As I understood it, Queen Elizabeth changed the old German surname to the English surname back in the 50's (?) to reflect a "British" sounding Monarch over a Germanic surname that also representing the losing side in WWII. Does anyone have any other information on this subject. Is this true? If not, what is the story on the Windsor name?
The change of names came about during World War I and involved not only the Royal Family but other families as well such as the Battenburgs who changed their name to Mountbatten. (Philip is a descendent of the Prince of Battenburg who did this and thus the name Mountbatten is linked with Windsor).

Quote:

As I see it, if the true surname is Windsor then Windsor should be used instead of Wales, which only means (to me, anyway) that they are Prince Harry of Wales and Prince William of Wales only for royal purposes and Prince William Windsor of Wales etc.
The RF actually don't use a surname as such. The surname officially for the grandchildren, if needed, would be Mountbatten-Windsor not Windsor as Philip's surname at the time of the marriage was Mountbatten and the Queen added that to the Windsor name for those of her descendents who actually need a surname.

Quote:

Does Princesses Beatrice & Eugenie go by York?
Yes - think about poor old Queen Victoria who had a number of granddaughters names after her - by saying 'of Wales' etc she knew which one was being referred to.

Quote:

THis would be so confusing to genealogists who are tracing ancestors by using the surname.
If a geneologist was at the point of tracing ancestors and they were getting to that level of royalty then the 'of' is just as relevant, if not of more use in the situation of multiple grandchildren through sons having the same surname.

Quote:

What is the point of the surname if the parties aren't going to use it?:smile:
For most royals they never use them anyway as they use their title not their surname.

magnik 05-02-2007 06:51 AM

Members of the Royal Family can be known both by the name of their Royal house, and by a surname, which are not always the same. And often they do not use a surname at all.

The Royal Family > Titles and succession > Royal Family name


SIDOROFF 04-22-2008 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 757371)
Of course he is. The House of Windsor is intended to continue in perpetuity and not change its name when the next female heir comes along. In many countries the House doesn't change when a female monarch is married; it depends on the country. The bloodline is the same whether the name changes or doesn't change.

It is the house name that will stay the same, not the house.

SIDOROFF 04-22-2008 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by serenissima (Post 757372)
The name of our dynasty is Windsor but not Mountbatten.

It has no reason to be Mountbatten, it should be Oldenburg.

Jo of Palatine 04-23-2008 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SIDOROFF (Post 757381)
It has no reason to be Mountbatten, it should be Oldenburg.

I realise Sidoroff has been banned and I understand that seeing how much completely wrong information came his/her way in an aggressive manner, but I've been wondering for years why "Oldenburg"? I have heard that prince Philip considered to name himself "Oldhouse" from "Oldenburg, but why Oldenburg at all? He isn't related to the Oldenburgs, AFAIK?

BeatrixFan 04-23-2008 12:09 PM

I always thought it should be Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Or just Glucksburg.

Jo of Palatine 04-23-2008 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 757655)
I always thought it should be Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. Or just Glucksburg.

Yes, that's the family he is from. He is not an Oldenburg. or are the Oldenburgs SHSG's, too? Where's Warren when one needs him? :flowers:

BeatrixFan 04-23-2008 12:17 PM

Can you imagine if they had their original surnames and put them together? The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. I like it actually!

Stefan 04-23-2008 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 757657)
Yes, that's the family he is from. He is not an Oldenburg. or are the Oldenburgs SHSG's, too? Where's Warren when one needs him? :flowers:

The House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg is a junior line of the House of Oldenburg.

Jo of Palatine 04-23-2008 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stefan (Post 757666)
The House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg is a junior line of the House of Oldenburg.

I just found out, too, thank you. The Gottorps are a line of the Oldenburgs as well, interesting!

Russophile 04-23-2008 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 757660)
Can you imagine if they had their original surnames and put them together? The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. I like it actually!

What do you do when you write a check? :rolleyes::biggrin:

LadyCat 04-23-2008 06:30 PM

Weren't the surnames originally "place" names( Battenberg, Hesse, etc.)? And with the current surname "Windsor" didn't Georgie just continue the trend?


Cat

Russophile 04-23-2008 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyCat (Post 757837)
Weren't the surnames originally "place" names( Battenberg, Hesse, etc.)? And with the current surname "Windsor" didn't Georgie just continue the trend?


Cat

Yes, but George changed it because it sounded too German and Windsor sounded more English during the 1st WW.

serenissima 04-23-2008 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 757855)
Yes, but George changed it because it sounded too German and Windsor sounded more English during the 1st WW.

Oh, and the Gotha bombers were attacking our land but the king's family name had Gotha in it !

LadyCat 04-23-2008 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russophile (Post 757855)
Yes, but George changed it because it sounded too German and Windsor sounded more English during the 1st WW.

This is true. I guess my point was that, with the exception of the Bernodottes, most reigning houses don't really have surnames per se.

Cat

Leslie2006 04-23-2008 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine (Post 757671)
I just found out, too, thank you. The Gottorps are a line of the Oldenburgs as well, interesting!

and Gottorp is part of the Romanov line - Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov. The House of Romanov is also a branch of the Oldenburg House.

Jo of Palatine 04-24-2008 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyCat (Post 757837)
Weren't the surnames originally "place" names( Battenberg, Hesse, etc.)? And with the current surname "Windsor" didn't Georgie just continue the trend?


Cat

Interesting that "Coburg" actually is a town in Bavaria, not Saxony... And Sonderburg is in Denmark but Glücksburg in Germany. But that has historic reasons, of course.

prince nathan 10-10-2008 11:51 AM

Windsor/Mountbatten - Name of Royal House
 
I was wondering might the House of Windsor be changed to the House of Mountbatten when Charles becomes King. There is precedence in history. When Queen Victoria reigned, it was over the House of Hanover, her 'maiden' name, But when her son, Edward VII, succeeded her it was over the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - his fathers family name.
On a side-note I think it would be a nice tribute to the Prince Philip.

cmkrcwi 10-10-2008 02:33 PM

I think he'll probably change it to Mountbatten-Windsor. I believe all the Queen's children used that as their surname on their marriage certificates even though that name is only supposed to be for nonroyal descendants of Her Majesty and royal descendants (those entitled to the style and title of HRH Prince or Princess and of course, the Monarch) would continue to be known as The House of Windsor.

Menarue 10-10-2008 02:39 PM

It is a strange thing that the Prince Philip´s name was not Mountbatten, it was his mother´s name which he adopted when he had to choose a surname. Then again Windsor was not the name of the royal family either until they took the name of their castle. A very nice name too, very English.

EmpressRouge 10-10-2008 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 835548)
It is a strange thing that the Prince Philip´s name was not Mountbatten, it was his mother´s name which he adopted when he had to choose a surname. Then again Windsor was not the name of the royal family either until they took the name of their castle. A very nice name too, very English.

It was technically his mother's family's name. Princess Alice had already married into the Greek Royal Family (1903) by the time the Battenbergs changed it (1917), so she was never a Mountbatten. Perhaps Charles should change the name of the house to Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg-Windsor :ermm:. Imagine the confusion during roll call if the future Danish, Norwegian, Greek, and British royals all attended the same school/class under their House name.

Elspeth 10-10-2008 08:05 PM

I think the name Windsor, since it's an English place name rather than a royal family name, was meant to be used in perpetuity. Now we have the precedent of royals marrying commoners, and even in Camilla's case untitled commoners, we're going to run the risk of the House of Bloggs or something if a female heir presumptive marries a boyfriend from university who doesn't have noble antecedents. Much safer to leave it with Windsor at this point.

Empress 10-10-2008 09:32 PM

Imagine if this was the case in the Netherlands, where Napoleon forced them to adopt last names, and they (the Dutch) thinking that it was a lark, choose names like Hondenpoep and Van der Laan, translated loosely to Dog Poop, and From the Street respectively. Imagine what you would end up with for a Royal House. YIKES.

wbenson 10-11-2008 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth (Post 835756)
I think the name Windsor, since it's an English place name rather than a royal family name, was meant to be used in perpetuity. Now we have the precedent of royals marrying commoners, and even in Camilla's case untitled commoners, we're going to run the risk of the House of Bloggs or something if a female heir presumptive marries a boyfriend from university who doesn't have noble antecedents. Much safer to leave it with Windsor at this point.

I agree. Although I kind of like how "Mountbatten-Windsor" sounds, it would set a precedent for an ever-expanding house name with whatever names come along.

Although Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha would be kind of fun, too...

Or they could use "Edinburgh" and name the house Windsor in England and Edinburgh in Scotland. Then that gets into the Welsh and Northern Irish feeling left out, though, and "House of Cardiff" and "House of Belfast" just sound (more) contrived.

Menarue 10-11-2008 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge (Post 835750)
It was technically his mother's family's name. Princess Alice had already married into the Greek Royal Family (1903) by the time the Battenbergs changed it (1917), so she was never a Mountbatten. Perhaps Charles should change the name of the house to Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg-Windsor :ermm:. Imagine the confusion during roll call if the future Danish, Norwegian, Greek, and British royals all attended the same school/class under their House name.

You forgot to add Saxe-Cobourg-Gotha that would give them more fun when they were signing documents.... :lol:

Jo of Palatine 10-11-2008 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge (Post 835750)
It was technically his mother's family's name. Princess Alice had already married into the Greek Royal Family (1903) by the time the Battenbergs changed it (1917), so she was never a Mountbatten. Perhaps Charles should change the name of the house to Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg-Windsor :ermm:. Imagine the confusion during roll call if the future Danish, Norwegian, Greek, and British royals all attended the same school/class under their House name.

But "Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg" is not a family name - this family simply has no family name. The name is just a territorial placement of the family. Originally the "House" they are from reigned in Oldenburg (Germany). Thus the "House of Oldenburg". In 1448 one member was elected king of Denmark - he founded the lines that held estates and lands in Holstein (Gottorp and Sonderburg) and were known then by their lands name. Sonderburg's lands again were divided and one branch got Augustenburg, another Glücksburg, a third Beck. As the main possession of the last two lines (which merged) is today the kingdom of Denmark, they are calling themselves "of Denmark". The branch who was elected for Norway is similarily "of Norway".

So as Philip is only a descendent in direct male line form the branch that reigned over S-H-S-Glücksburg but he isn't reigning there, he has no claim to that name. Only dynastically a claim to be descended from them. He was Philip "of Greece and Denmark" but as I explained, this was not his name, it was based on the fact that his branch was still recognized by the main line of Denmark and reigned in Greece.

BTW: it's the same with Hanover, only that the family of Hanover has a known name (Welfs) but is not known by that in form of a family name. In 1918 the title was reduced to a family name, nowadays "von Hannover" is used as a family name, though originally it isn't. Same with Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. Saxony was the dukedom turned kingdom, the Coburg (town in Bavaria) - Gotha (town in Saxony) were the branch who held these towns and the surrounding area as their dukedom. It's a very typical way to describe reigning houses in Germany while in Britain there is always a family whose Head was granted a title but who could hold different possessions/estates under the same title.

Menarue 10-11-2008 04:16 AM

Here in Portugal when a family has "de" in their name, which I think is the equivalent of "von", the name following it is a place name but over the years in many cases it has come to be used as a surname. In my husband´s family cousins and even brothers and sisters have ended up with a different surname because of this which makes things very difficult some times. Much easier to be a royal and sign just your first name. The present Infantas of Spain are "de España y Grecia". The Spanish make this even more complicated by putting the mother´s name last.... All very interesting but of course the name of the Spanish House is Borbón.
I like the name Windsor and I hope it isn´t changed. A beautiful castle and very apt to take that name.
If I have made any mistakes over this I am sure someone will rapidly put me right.

branchg 10-11-2008 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by prince nathan (Post 835440)
I was wondering might the House of Windsor be changed to the House of Mountbatten when Charles becomes King. There is precedence in history. When Queen Victoria reigned, it was over the House of Hanover, her 'maiden' name, But when her son, Edward VII, succeeded her it was over the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - his fathers family name.
On a side-note I think it would be a nice tribute to the Prince Philip.

It was the House of Hanover until the death of Queen Victoria. Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, so Edward VII, George V, George VI and Queen Elizabeth II, are actually of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (or Wettin) as male-line descendants of Prince Albert.

Since Elizabeth married Prince Philip of Greece & Denmark, after her death, Charles would actually be of the House of Glucksburg (officially the name of the Greek Royal House). Since Philip legally renounced his Greek titles and rights when he was naturalized to British citizenship as Lt. Philip Mountbatten, RN, it is arguably the House of Mountbatten that would reign after The Queen dies.

I think it's likely Charles may change the name of the royal house to Mountbatten-Windsor to honour his father.

magnik 10-11-2008 01:49 PM

Try here:
Part II: British Royal Family

1. What is the surname of the royal family?

alt.talk.royalty FAQ: British royalty and nobility

Jo of Palatine 10-11-2008 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 836035)
Since Elizabeth married Prince Philip of Greece & Denmark, after her death, Charles would actually be of the House of Glucksburg (officially the name of the Greek Royal House).

As I tried to explain, the S-H-S-Gluecksburg are just a branch of the House of Oldenburg and do not have a family name. That's why Philip had to choose one when he was naturalized: British citizens obviously need surnames. He wanted "Oldcastle" (English for Oldenburg) first but the Mountbattens convinced him that Mountbatten would be better. While king George V. in 1917 decreed that his family takes on Windsor as their surname.

If the S-H-S-G in fact had a family name there would have been no need for the queen of Denmark to bestow the title of Count/Countess of Monpezat (Greve/Grevinde af Monpezat) on her descendants in order to honour her husband and his family name. She could simply have added the Monpezat to S-H-S-G... ;)

branchg 10-11-2008 02:22 PM

Yes, of course you are correct. Glucksburg really has no meaning, especially since Philip took Mountbatten as his surname.

House of Mountbatten-Windsor would be nice once Charles is King.

EmpressRouge 10-12-2008 11:04 AM

What if in the future, they adopt Mountbatten-Windsor. And then, there is another heiress presumptive, say William only has daughters, marries a guy named Smith and took his name, would the family name be Smith-Mountbatten-Windsor? If they keep hyphenating the names, soon, Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg won't sound too awkward.

Vasillisos Markos 06-18-2009 06:24 AM

Didn't the Queen proclaim that her children would be styled Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor? Isn't she the last monarch who can claim the Windsor name?

Iluvbertie 06-18-2009 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos (Post 954919)
Didn't the Queen proclaim that her children would be styled Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor? Isn't she the last monarch who can claim the Windsor name?


That would be the normal sense in that her descendents would take her husband's name but what she actually said was:

that those of her descendents who actually needed a surname would have Mountbatten-Windsor but that the House name would remain as Windsor so Charles will be a member of the House of Windsor but his male line greatgrandsons through Harry, for instance would be Mountbatten-Windsor not just Windsor.

Of course Charles could change his mother's instructions and issue new ones. It is also worth noting that on both Charles' and Anne's marriage certificates they used the name Mountbatten-Windsor and not just Windsor.

If Charles follows his mother's instruction I believe he will be the first King whose family name is different to the House name since the Middle Ages at least (in England that is).

jonnydep 06-18-2009 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vasillisos Markos (Post 954919)
Didn't the Queen proclaim that her children would be styled Windsor-Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor? Isn't she the last monarch who can claim the Windsor name?

hi
yes you are correct, but mountbatten-windsor is the family name. the royal house remains that of windsor !!!!

HM Queen Catherine 06-18-2009 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnydep1 (Post 955006)
hi
yes you are correct, but mountbatten-windsor is the family name. the royal house remains that of windsor !!!!

Actually, the declaration of the family name Mountbatten-Windsor was originally intended to be used only by the male-line descendants of Elizabeth II who are not entitled to be HRH. For example, the grandson of Prince Harry, who would not be HRH, and would therefore need a family name. That name would be Mountbatten-Windsor.

The Royal Family primarily does not have the need of a family name, and generally does not use one.

Even though the declaration of the family name was to be used for those members of the family not entitled to use HRH, Elizabeth II's children have taken to using the name already. The first use of Mountbatten-Windsor was on the marriage register of HRH The Princess Royal to Mr. Mark Phillips in 1973.

But yes, they are still the House of Windsor. :flowers:

jonnydep 06-19-2009 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Menarue (Post 835548)
It is a strange thing that the Prince Philip´s name was not Mountbatten, it was his mother´s name which he adopted when he had to choose a surname. Then again Windsor was not the name of the royal family either until they took the name of their castle. A very nice name too, very English.

well, prince philip, adopted his uncles surname that of mountbatten, as his mother alice, princess andrew of greece, was not mountbatten at all. she married as a princess of battenburg, long before the family changed the name from battenburg to that of mountbatten in 1917.......

branchg 06-20-2009 10:27 PM

Battenberg was meaningless too. It was granted to the morganatic line of the Grand Ducal House of Hesse-Darmstadt when Prince Alexander married Julia von Haucke, who was denied equal rank and created HiiH Countess von Battenberg (later elevated to HSH Princess von Battenberg). Since Alice's father married Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Princess Victoria of Hesse, she was born a direct descendant of Queen Victoria.

Her uncle, HSH Prince Henry of Battenberg, also married into the British royal family when he wed HRH The Princess Beatrice, the Queen's youngest daughter and mother of the future Queen Victoria Eugenie of Spain and The Earl of Carisbrooke.

In 1917, Alice's parents, who spent most of their lives in England, were created Marquess and Marchioness of Milford Haven by George V and relinquished their German princely styles and titles. At that point, Louis anglicized Battenberg to "Mountbatten" to provide a new style for his children who now carried courtesy styles as chldren of a British Peer. His son, Louis, was later granted his own peerage as Earl Mountbatten of Burma for service to Great Britain and as Viceroy of India before independence.

jonnydep 06-21-2009 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 956136)
Battenberg was meaningless too. It was granted to the morganatic line of the Grand Ducal House of Hesse-Darmstadt when Prince Alexander married Julia von Haucke, who was denied equal rank and created HiiH Countess von Battenberg (later elevated to HSH Princess von Battenberg).

quite true, it is also rumoured that prince alexander of hesse, his elder sister elizabeth and his younger sister marie (later empress of russia) was not the true issue of the grand duke ludwig II, the father being the court chamberlian, baron von grancy. however the grand duke regonised them as his own children !!!!

when this was mentioned to tsar nicholas I of russia (maries future father in law), he made the following comment "who are you and who am i, who can prove such a thing ?" which is apt, as the tsar's own father (tsar paul) , is said to be the son of soltukov, a lover of empress catherine and not that of her husband tsar peter !!!!.

yes the grand ducal house of hesse is full of morganatic marriages. ludwig III and his brothers all had morganatic wives. even queen victoria's son in law, ludwig IV had married morganatically a second time, following the early death of the grand duchess alice.

well i could go on.........

branchg 06-21-2009 12:38 PM

And Alexander II had four illegitimate children from his long-time mistress, Princess Catherine Dolgorukov, whom he married morganatically a month after the death of The Empress Marie, creating her and their children, Prince & Princess Yurievsky/skaya.

His son, HIH Grand Duke Alexander, became Tsar after the premature death of his brother, Nicholas, and was the father of Nicholas II, the last Tsar of All Russias. Princess Victoria's sisters, Elizabeth and Alexandra of Hesse-Darmstadt, both married sons of Alexander III (Alix becoming Empress) and were tragically murdered by the Bolsheviks in the Revolution.

jonnydep 06-21-2009 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 956334)
Princess Victoria's sisters, Elizabeth and Alexandra of Hesse-Darmstadt, both married sons of Alexander III (Alix becoming Empress) and were tragically murdered by the Bolsheviks in the Revolution.

well, not quite, elizabeth (ella) had married the grand duke / prince sergei, the 5th son of tsar alexander II and thus brother of tsar alexander III. sergei was blown to bits by a bomb in moscow on the 17th feb 1905 !!:smile:

branchg 06-21-2009 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jonnydep1 (Post 956349)
well, not quite, elizabeth (ella) had married the grand duke / prince sergei, the 5th son of tsar alexander II and thus brother of tsar alexander III. sergei was blown to bits by a bomb in moscow on the 17th feb 1905 !!:smile:

Oops! Yes, you're right!

hwilli32 06-26-2009 10:12 PM

Is William's surname really Mountbatten-Windsor vs. Windsor??

Iluvbertie 06-27-2009 01:08 AM

The House name is Windsor, but for those of her descendents who need to use a surname, it is Mountbatten-Windsor and has been since 1960.

Charles and Anne both used Mountbatten-Windsor on the marriage certificates in 1973 and 1981 respectively.

Therefore, if William actually needs to use a surname it would be Mountbatten-Windsor.

He uses Wales, but that isn't his surname but a designation that he is a child of the Prince of Wales.

Ella Kay 06-27-2009 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 958598)
The House name is Windsor, but for those of her descendents who need to use a surname, it is Mountbatten-Windsor and has been since 1960. Charles and Anne both used Mountbatten-Windsor on the marriage certificates in 1973 and 1981 respectively.

Not exactly. While it's true that both Charles and Anne did use Mountbatten-Windsor on those certificates, according to the 1960 Letters Patent, their surname is legally Windsor. Here's an excerpt from the actual text of the 1960 order:

"Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

As William is both a prince and an HRH, his surname is "Windsor" according to the 1960 Letters Patent.

Lumutqueen 06-27-2009 01:37 PM

So how come if charles and Anne are have HRH and prince and princess respectively. How come they used the surname mountbatten-Windsor? :flowers:

Ella Kay 06-27-2009 01:47 PM

Maybe as a gesture to their father? I know he was reportedly upset that he couldn't give his last name to his children.

Ella Kay 06-27-2009 08:02 PM

Yes, William will still be a monarch from the House of Windsor if he reigns.

The name of the royal house in charge tends to change for a couple of reasons. Historically, it often was because a member of a rival family seized power (think Yorks and Lancasters from the Wars of the Roses). In more recent times, the name has changed when a female monarch was reigning and her children took the name of her husband's royal house (i.e., when Queen Victoria, from the House of Hanover, married Prince Albert, from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha; their son, Edward VII, was a monarch of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha). So, according to that old way of doing things, the name of the house should technically change with Charles (from Windsor to Mountbatten, I suppose, though the house name of the Greek royal family is Glucksberg). But the 1960 Letters Patent ensured that it would remain "Windsor."

Whew. I think that's right. Hope it makes some sense! :lol:

Iluvbertie 06-27-2009 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ella Kay (Post 958728)
Not exactly. While it's true that both Charles and Anne did use Mountbatten-Windsor on those certificates, according to the 1960 Letters Patent, their surname is legally Windsor. Here's an excerpt from the actual text of the 1960 order:

"Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

As William is both a prince and an HRH, his surname is "Windsor" according to the 1960 Letters Patent.

My post said 'for those that need a surname' for a reason. It implies that there are descendents who don't need a surname. I didn't think it was necessary to once again spell for everyone on here the specifics of the LPs.

The whole point of my post is that William allegedly uses other surnames e.g. Smith and I simply suggested that if he isn't going to use HRH Prince William of Wales and thus need a surname then it should be Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, as if he needs a surname than under the 1960s LPs that is his surname.

Charles and Anne did have Mountbatten-Windsor put on their marriage certificates which is what I said. Not that they needed to use a surname but that one was used and that when it was used Mountbatten-Windsor was the surname used.
Quote:

Originally Posted by hwilli32 (Post 958804)
when William ascends the throne, the royal family will still be the House of Windsor, correct?
...And what reasons would cause that to ever change?

It will remain the House of Windsor unless Charles or William at their accession choose to change it to something else. To do that they will been to issue new LPs to change it and at the moment we have no indication that there is any intention to do so.

Ella Kay 06-28-2009 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 958835)
The whole point of my post is that William allegedly uses other surnames e.g. Smith and I simply suggested that if he isn't going to use HRH Prince William of Wales and thus need a surname then it should be Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, as if he needs a surname than under the 1960s LPs that is his surname.

I think this is the question, though, if we can perhaps discuss this civilly. William does not legally have a surname. He is, legally, HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis of Wales. But when he does use one (for school or the military or whatever) -- as someone who still enjoys the style and title of HRH and prince -- I would argue that the 1960 Letters Patent do not establish that his surname should be Mountbatten-Windsor.

They simply establish that any male-line descendants who are not princes/princesses and/or who do not hold HRHs should use the surname "Mountbatten-Windsor." The first people who will have to deal with that question will probably be Harry's children (if they are born while The Queen is still living) or Viscount Severn's children. William's not covered under that provision.

So, since the 1960 letters patent did not establish that he should take the "Mountbatten-Windsor" surname when he needs one, I'd argue that he may still use "Windsor" -- though "Wales" seems to be his most frequent choice. I think you're dealing with a scenario in which William renounces his titles, but I think the question is more about what his surname would be right now, in present circumstances.

Iluvbertie 06-28-2009 05:24 PM

As my whole point arose because he allegedly uses 'Smith' as a cover when liasing with Kate in hotel rooms and another poster used the term 'legally' when talking about this situation and another poster didn't understand the use of that word I tried to explain it, as I understand it.

As Charles and Anne have already set the precedent of HRH Prince/ess xxx using Mountbatten-Windsor it is reasonable to assume that all of the Queen's descendents who aren't going to use the HRH Prince/ess for some reason would use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname.

Just because he doesn't need one, in a technical sense, doesn't mean that if he does want to use one, then Mountbatten-Windsor would be the logical choice to honour a much loved grandfather.

Precedent is important when dealing with British matters and Charles and Anne have already set that precedent and that is what has to be taken into consideration as those legal documents would never have been allowed to stand had the Queen wanted to indicate otherwise. That Mountbatten-Windsor appearing on their marriage certificates speaks more loudly than anything about what the Queen intended with the LPs - that whenever any of her descendents needed a surname (and whether Charles and Anne needed one at the time of their marriages is questionable but a surname was used) then it was to be Mountbatten-Windsor.

All your convoluted arguments don't remove the precedent of Charles and Anne and on that basis my argument that, if William is going to use a surname (other than a fictional one like 'Smith') then it should be Mountbatten-Windsor.

I have found an interesting article https://www.thestandard.com.hk/archiv...d_str=19990220 which actually supports my view. It does make sense of course that by keeping just Windsor then they are taking the mother's/grandmother's maiden name and that is only don't by children born out of wedlock so by adding the 'Mountbatten' the children are clearly from a legitimate line. This article also points out that Charles and Anne, at birth, had the surname of Mountbatten.

Ella Kay 06-28-2009 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 959150)
All your convoluted arguments don't remove the precedent of Charles and Anne and on that basis my argument that, if William is going to use a surname (other than a fictional one like 'Smith') then it should be Mountbatten-Windsor.

The precedent of the two children deciding to use "Mountbatten-Windsor" on the marriage certificates is indeed an interesting aspect of this, as I posted before. However, as my attempts at discussing this with you are being considered merely "convoluted arguments," I'm not going to bother taking it any further. This isn't a debate, it's a conversation, but I suppose you don't see it that way, Iluvbertie.

Roslyn 06-28-2009 06:59 PM

This business of the Wales boys' surname is an interesting one.

The extract from the 1960 LP as cited by Ella Kay above only specifically mentions HM's children as being House and Family of Windsor, and descendants other than the Prince/Princess HRHs as Mountbatten-Windsors. No mention at all of future grandchildren Prince/Princess HRHs. It was probably assumed they would take their Royal parent's surname, but times and attitudes change, and IMO they can call themselves whatever they like, within reason.

I think that if, by calling themselves Mountbatten-Windsor, Anne & Charles have set any precedent it is that HM's children are not bound to comply with the 1960 LP, since the LP expressly provided for them to be known as Windsors. I suspect they included their father's surname as a sign of affection & respect for him.

William and Harry have been Wales for so long maybe it will stick. It is possible it is something that was discussed with their parents when they were young. Maybe they want to call themselves Wales not Windsor. As for what they do put on their marriage certificates, only time will tell.

After all, "Windsor" itself was only a name of convenience.

branchg 06-29-2009 09:03 PM

The Queen's letters patent simply states when a surname is required for her descendants, it is "Mountbatten-Windsor". As a matter of form, royals do not use surnames because they are HRH with their own titles and styles.

The House is styled "Windsor" by order-in-council. It actually remains the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha until the death of The Queen. At that point, with Charles as the new Sovereign, it would technically become "Mountbatten-Windsor", which he may decide to do officially once he is King.

king of scotland 06-29-2009 10:27 PM

They were trying to go incognito. So why would he use the last name Mountbatten-Windsor. People will just have to put 2 and 2 together and they will figure it out. He might as well have signed the guestbook, Prince William of Wales, your future king.

jwrobel0398 05-29-2010 03:07 AM

So the RF chose to hide their Germanic heritage, (to be more appealing to the British citizenry) as well as to add insult to injury in regards to their decision to leave the Kaiser out in the wind and on his own? I think that is known as spineless.

Iluvbertie 05-29-2010 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwrobel0398 (Post 1086703)
So the RF chose to hide their Germanic heritage, (to be more appealing to the British citizenry) as well as to add insult to injury in regards to their decision to leave the Kaiser out in the wind and on his own? I think that is known as spineless.

I don't understand.

During WWI anti-German feelings were running very high with even German breeds of dogs being attacked. As early as 1914 Prince Louis of Battenburg was forced out as First Sea Lord because of his German connections and there were even suggestions in some papers that he was probably selling information to his cousins in Germany (of course this was propaganda put out by press barons, the government and private individuals but the idea was doing the rounds).

To have the British RF have a German sounding name was incongruous to the British people and government. They could have kept the German name and who knows what might have happened or they could Anglicise that name.

It was certainly an act of self-preservation.

How did the leave the Kaiser hanging in the wind? He was removed from his own country due to a revolution and an army that no longer supported him. He lived the rest of his life in The Netherlands.

In 1918 there is no way that the British government would have allowed him to enter Britain as he was the enemy and the government fought an election with the campaign slogan of Kill the Kaiser - this was the government mind you not the royal family advocating this. The government won a large majority so it is clear that the British people wouldn't have allowed the Kaiser to come to Britain but he didn't ask anyway as the Dutch took him in.

Lumutqueen 05-29-2010 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwrobel0398 (Post 1086703)
So the RF chose to hide their Germanic heritage, (to be more appealing to the British citizenry) as well as to add insult to injury in regards to their decision to leave the Kaiser out in the wind and on his own? I think that is known as spineless.

I'm sorry but you can hardly call a decision to protect your own country and family, spineless.
The Kaiser was kicked out of his own country, and rightly so.
The British public wouldn't have let him near Britain after the war.
They chose to change their house name to show solidarity to the British people, if I was in there shoes I would have done exactly the same.
I think you need to re-define spineless.

Russophile 05-30-2010 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwrobel0398 (Post 1086703)
So the RF chose to hide their Germanic heritage, (to be more appealing to the British citizenry) as well as to add insult to injury in regards to their decision to leave the Kaiser out in the wind and on his own? I think that is known as spineless.

Would you rather they had left their name in the Germanic form and leave themselves open to criticism and hostility not unlike what Empress Alexandra of Russia experienced?

Iluvbertie 05-30-2010 04:56 PM

I have always wondered why the Russian royal family didn't promote the relationships between Nicholas and Alexandra to George V - they were, of course, both were his first cousins. But they didn't counter the 'German woman' claims and her relationship to the Kaiser (her first cousin but not his).

Russophile 05-31-2010 08:03 PM

By that point it was already too late. Alexandra had isolated herself from court and mistakenly had the opinion that "The People" loved her and the Tsar so she wasn't going to listen to any gossip. Case in point, Aunt Meichen (Grand Duchess Vladimer) was a German Princess of Mecklenberg-Schwerin yet nobody associated her with Germany, she was as Russian as the two-headed eagle.

Iluvbertie 05-31-2010 08:54 PM

You are right to a certain extent but they never tried and therefore I wonder why they didn't try.

Russophile 06-01-2010 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1087701)
You are right to a certain extent but they never tried and therefore I wonder why they didn't try.

A myriad of reasons, I suspect. From all that I have read (Massie's N & A, Kings Alexandra, N & A in their own words, GD Alexander's Once a grand duke & ALways a grand duke and Marie Pavlovna the younger's book, Crawfords Michael and Natasha, etc.) Alexandra was shy and stubborn. Puritanical and demanding. Playing in the glittering Russian Court was a game she was not good at and like a spoilt child, she took her ball and went home. Leaving Minnie and Meichen to vie for most glittering hostess. They were seen and heard and Alexandra was shut up having children. She (Alix) didn't present herself to court and thus it was bound to be miscontrued by the courtiers as snubbing them.
And of course when Rasputin came on the scene. . well. . . that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Lumutqueen 10-26-2010 05:42 AM

I guess this is the right thread to ask, someone in the Swedish Forum brought this to my attention and I did some research on the matter.

According to Wikipedia,

Quote:

The most prominent member of the House is Elizabeth II, the reigning monarch over the Commonwealth realms. However, the head of the House of Windsor (cadet branch of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) is Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, as the senior male-line descendant of King George V, who founded the house by changing its name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor. The overall head of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, including the Windsor branch, is Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.
House of Windsor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've tried researching other websites to find a counter argument, but can't, there is nothing on the Royal Website either.
Hope someone can help.

Zonk 10-26-2010 07:29 AM

I believe that is incorrect.

If in the House of Windsor ONLY males could inherit than I suppose he would be Richard IV and Head of the House of Windsor.Similar to Hanover when Victoria became Queen, her uncle became King of Hanover because women couldn't inherit. This is the Hanover that the Current Ernst August is the Head of.

Rirchard would be the senior male from the line of George V that is true. But since males and female can becomes King and Queen I think that is a moot point. I don't understand how Elizabeth can be Queen and not Head of the House of Windsor.

Iluvbertie 10-26-2010 05:56 PM

The article though is referring to the fact that the House of Windsor is a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which didn't allow female inheritance. That inheritance comes from Prince Albert not Victoria and from Albert then Richard of Gloucester is the senior male and thus Head of the family. The difference is that Britain allowed female inheritance but as the line from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha then it is Gloucester and that Headship will more further apart over future generations.

You show it beautifully with Victoria and Ernst - Victoria's claim to the throne was due to her Hannoverian ancestry but she couldn't be the Head of the House of Hannover due to her gender ans so too Elizabeth can't be the Head of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and its translation into the House of Windsor but she can be The Queen.

It is to do with the different rules between German houses and the British system.

Zonk 10-26-2010 07:27 PM

I see...so they are saying basically in the House of Windsor/Saxe-Coburg and Gotha line, Richard is the Head of the House because he is of the male persuasion. That makes sense then. But really, since they are no longer the House of Saxe Goburg and Gotha but actually the House of Windsor....it doesn't make sense? Its basically a moot point. Richard is the senior in a house that no longer exists.

I mean they are talking in hypotheticals.

Not trying to be funny...but that does make sense?

Lumutqueen 10-27-2010 03:07 AM

What you say makes sense, but I can understand why HM cannot be Head of The House.

Zonk 10-27-2010 06:07 AM

In simple terms.....the House of Windsor pre 1917 used to be known as the House of Saxe Coburg Gotha which favors favors male progmeniture...as such...because Richard is the grandson of George V he would be the Head of the House.

Edward VII > George V > Henry, Duke of Gloucester > Richard, Duke of Gloucester

You cant be a woman in the German ruling sytem and be head of the House. I am also assuming that women can't rule in the German rulling system? This is a question as I don't follow German royalty to that detail but now that I think about it...there have never been any woman rulers, is that correct?

HM Queen Catherine 11-02-2010 01:50 PM

The House of Windsor, under Queen Elizabeth II, is a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha. The Head of the House of Windsor is Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, because he is the senior male-line descendant of King George V, who founded the house by changing its name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor.

The current head of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, Duke of Saxony. He has been the head of the princely house since 23 Jan 1998, and is the grandson of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg und Gotha, the last ruling duke. He is in the line of succession to the British throne being a great-grandson of Queen Victoria's youngest son Leopold, Duke of Albany, and has both German and British nationality.

But because membership to European royal houses is determined by patrilineal descent, The Prince of Wales and his sons, though they are still the House of Windsor, are members of the cadet branch of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.. which itself is a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg.

Christoph, The Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, has been the head of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg and the entire House of Oldenburg since 1980. His eldest son, Friedrich Ferdinand, Hereditary Prince of Schleswig-Holstein, will eventually inherit both headships.

This may mean a split of the House of Windsor when Charles becomes king.

The Head of the House of Windsor (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha branch) will continue to fall on the male-line descendants of the Duke of Gloucester.

The Head of the House of Windsor (Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg branch) will fall to Charles and William, respectively, thus uniting the monarch with the headship of his house.

The agnatic descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and the Duke of Edinburgh are and will remain members of the House of Oldenburg.

HM Queen Catherine 11-02-2010 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zonk (Post 1152388)
You cant be a woman in the German ruling sytem and be head of the House. I am also assuming that women can't rule in the German rulling system? This is a question as I don't follow German royalty to that detail but now that I think about it...there have never been any woman rulers, is that correct?

Since Germany subscribed to Salic Law, you are correct.

This law has had a formative influence on the tradition of statute law in Central Europe, especially in the German states, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, parts of Italy, Austria and Hungary, Romania, and the Balkans.

It regulates succession according to sex, barring women from inheriting any sovereign estate, title or ancestral lands.

The basis of the law was to preserve the noble bloodlines through male inheritance in perpetuity. A female would marry and take the name of her husband's house, and her children would continue her husband's bloodline but not her own.. thus, she was prevented from "tainting" the blood of her father with the blood of her husband.. nor was she allowed to inherit any of his ancestral property or title.

On very rare occasions, exceptions were made, but only if ALL the male line branches had been exhausted, including distant male relatives. In such cases, the closest female descendant of the last reigning titleholder was allowed to inherit, but she was not allowed to reign. That duty fell to her husband, and then to their sons and so forth.

Though Britain does practice male-preference primogeniture, they never fully subscribed to the Salic Law which dominated both France and Germany's statutes of inheritance.

And as in my previous post, membership of a royal European house is based solely on patrilineal descent.. which makes it virtually impossible for a female to be the head of any royal house.

Paul992234177 12-02-2010 09:47 AM

Mountbatten-Windsor vs Wessex
 
I would just like to say that James and Louise are not Mountbatten-Windsors. Mountbatten-Windsor is only used by male line descendants of the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh who do not have a royal titles at birth. at the moment there is no one that this applies to. When Prince Harry and Lord Severn have children then they will be Mountbatten-Windsors but only then and that is only if the Queen is alive then because when Prince Harry becomes the son not grandson of a monarch he will transmit a royal titles to his children. They bear Wessex in place of a surname because they are not entitled to a surname like William Wales and Harry Wales. The royal family is one of the british anomolies in surnames with the dukes of Buccleuch and the earls of Mar (not Kellie) for whom the normal rules do not apply.

Lumutqueen 12-02-2010 10:06 AM

If that's the case, and only male-line descandants can. Why did Princess Anne use it for her second marriage?

Lady Louise Windsor is known as Windsor not as Lady Louise Wessex.

There are 12 members of the royal family, all the ones close to the throne, who have at one point used Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname. They can use the surname, it just isn't used officially, due to the ambigious wording of the Order-In-Council issued in 1960.

Iluvbertie 12-04-2010 10:28 PM

The actual wording of the 1960s LPs is very clear - for any descendent needing a surname it is Mountbatten-Windsor. So Charles, Andrew, Edward, William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise and James IF they ever need a legal surname and not a style or title then that surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

That being said - they don't generally need to use one.

Diarist 04-05-2011 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1222535)
Come to think of it, the surname Charles would use if he needed one at all would probably be Mountbatten-Windsor correct?


Actually no: as I said on another thread, shortly after her accession, the Queen declared that the issue of her marriage and their descendants in the MALE line should bear the name of Windsor.

Hope this helps,

Alex

Osipi 04-05-2011 07:57 PM

Thanks Diarist. I've really been enjoying reading what you have posted and looking forward to reading many more.

Out of curiosity I did go and read the letters patent issued in the matter of the Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor surname. From what I read it states "Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

I really love these days where I actually learn something. :biggrin:

Lumutqueen 04-06-2011 03:39 AM

The majority of the members of the royal household have made use of the surname. I believe they prefer it to simply Windsor, as it honours there father as well.

Iluvbertie 04-06-2011 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diarist (Post 1227940)
Actually no: as I said on another thread, shortly after her accession, the Queen declared that the issue of her marriage and their descendants in the MALE line should bear the name of Windsor.

Hope this helps,

Alex

She said that in 1952 and then issued new LPs in 1960 that actually changed that to the fact that those male line descendents who needed a surname would have the surname 'Mountbatten-Windsor'.

It is that name that was used on Charles first marriage register and Anne's I think. I am not sure about Andrew and Edward.

KittyAtlanta 04-06-2011 01:30 PM

I always assumed that M-W as a surname would officially come in to play with Harry's children. Silly me.

I am pretty sure Charles didn't use a surname at the 1981 wedding. Don't know about 2005.

Iluvbertie 04-06-2011 05:17 PM

There are a number of reports, coming out since 1981, that on the marriage certificate Charles name was put down as 'Mountbatten-Windsor' as was Anne's.

The column for surname was filled in and that was what was put there.
The alternative would be to leave the surname column blank.
Who put it there though is another question as I have also read that it was done after Charles and Diana left the registry at St Paul's - so they had signed it and then it was filled in with Mountbatten-Windsor.

Andrew also used Mountbatten-Windsor on his marriage certificate.

1222 04-06-2011 06:45 PM

I have a question also. Why then are Prince William and Prince Harry called by the last name Wales in the Military ?

Osipi 04-06-2011 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1222 (Post 1228336)
I have a question also. Why then are Prince William and Prince Harry called by the last name Wales in the Military ?

Most likely because as they are HRH they do not use a surname. As they are Princes of Wales. they go by William Wales and Harry Wales.

Iluvbertie 04-06-2011 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1222 (Post 1228336)
I have a question also. Why then are Prince William and Prince Harry called by the last name Wales in the Military ?


This is also traditional - the royal children of a royal duke use that duke's designation as their surname. The York girls also use York as a surname although it actually isn't their surname at all but it is also a lot simpler than Mountbatten-Windsor. (Maybe Philip should have adopted 'Smith' as his name when he became a British subject)

HIM_David 04-26-2011 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan (Post 757660)
Can you imagine if they had their original surnames and put them together? The House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg. I like it actually!



Dont forget Wettin

The House of Wettin-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg

But in all actuality I believe since the current royal family is a decedent from Queen Victoria, who was formally Princess Victoria of Kent, they should be the House of Wettin-Hanover or just the house of Hanover.

However, I do like the Idea of House of Hanover-Kent. After all Victoria's Father was Duke of Kent.

HIM_David 04-26-2011 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta (Post 1228248)
I always assumed that M-W as a surname would officially come in to play with Harry's children. Silly me.

I am pretty sure Charles didn't use a surname at the 1981 wedding. Don't know about 2005.

HRH Charles only used his given names during the Marriage ceremony in 1981 which Di famously flubbed.

Iluvbertie 04-27-2011 06:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HIM_David (Post 1239155)
HRH Charles only used his given names during the Marriage ceremony in 1981 which Di famously flubbed.


That is all people do use during the cereminy but when they fill in the paperwork a surname is one of the spaces.

Ive 07-10-2012 07:44 AM

Charles last name
 
Hello,
i'm from Germany an I hope my english is good enough for you to understand.

The last two hours I read a lot about the british royal family and I have found a few different informations about some facts. Maybe you can help me and tell me what is right an wrong.

First I have read that the names "Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha" and "Battenberg" were changed into "Windsor" and "Mountbatten" in 1917 by King Georg V.
So HM The Queen is a born Windsor and HRH Prince Philip was born as a Mountbatten.
My first question: After or with the marriage of this both, has anyone of them changed it's last name? Or are they still a Windsor and a Mountbatten?

And whats about the children like Charles. Whats normal in the british royal house. Does the childs get the surname of the Queen or of the father, even if he is only prince consort and not the king?

And then I read something about a declaration of the queen from 1952/1960. That means that she bears the name of Windsor. Her descendants should be Windsor-Mountbatten's, unless they are bearing one of the titels HRH, Prince or Princess.

So Charles is a known as His Royal Highness and should bear the name Windsor. But I can find a lot of pages, were Charles is called a Mountbatten-Windsor.
(The german wikipedia: Charles Mountbatten-Windsor, Prince of Wales
or another german pagewith a portrait: Prinz Charles - Portrait auf WUNDERWEIB.de)

I'm really confused :confused:, please help a new german member.
Thousand thanks :smile:

Iluvbertie 07-10-2012 08:00 AM

In 1917 the British Royal Family changed its family name from the German name of Prince Albert to that of Windsor so Elizabeth was born with Windsor as her family name.

In the same year Prince Louis of Battenburg changed his name from the German to Mountbatten. Prince Louis' daughter was Prince Philip's mother.

In 1947, when Philip renounced his Greek and Danish titles he took the Anglicised version of his mother's family's name and became Philip Mountbatten and it was with that name that he was married.

Both Prince Charles and Princess Anne were born with the surname of Mountbatten, but never used it as George VI issued LPs to give them the styles of HRH Prince/Princess from birth - otherwise Anne would have been born Lady Anne Mountbatten and Charles would have been Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth.

When the Queen ascended the throne in 1952 she issued a statement that said that her children were to have the family name of Windsor - upsetting Philip in the process as it meant that he couldn't give his name to his own children.

In 1960 a compromise was reached whereby those children and grandchildren who aren't HRH Prince/Princess will have the surnam Mountbatten-Windsor. The first to formally use that name was Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, especially in the wedding service for Prince William.

ALL of the Queen's children, if they have a surname at all it is Mountbatten-Windsor and on both Anne and Charles' first marriage registers that name appears but it isn't clear who put it in - they themselves or some official filling in the paperwork.

The announcement in 1960 also said that the Mountbatten-Windsor name only applied to those descendents who needed a surname and those who are HRH Prince/Princess don't need a surname on a day to day basis.

Technically Charles, William, Harry, Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie, Edward, Louise and Sophie (and the spouses of the males) are Mountbatten-Windsor due to the joining of their father's and their mother's names.

Ive 07-10-2012 08:40 AM

Thank you very much iluvbertie.
So if I have understood right, The Queen is still a Windsor an her husband still a Mountbatten but they do not need to bear a surname, because of her titles.
And Charles and Anne were born as Mountbattens but they never used the surname for the same reasons. Right so far?

So it was normal that the children bears the name of the father even though the mother hold a higer style or title? And thats what the Queen changed in 1952? Very interesting. I thought the person with the higher titel hands the name down to the childs.

So the Queen curtails a right of her husband and in 1960 the compromise gave Philip a part of his old rights back. And from now on the childs should named Mountbatten-Windsor.
So Charles and Anne were born as Mountbatten, changed the name in 1952 in Windsor an then 1960 in Mountbatten-Windsor, Andrew and Edward were born as Mountbatten-Windsor. But not really, because they do not need a surname too? In the birth certificates is it written, but it is not used? Am I right?

You write, that the spouses of the males get Mountbatten-Windsors too, so Kate is a M.-W. today, not longer a Middleton? But she do not use the surname because she is a RH.
So if a woman marries a member of the royal family, she gets the name, if a man marries a member of the royal family he do not change his name, an stop using his "old" surname, if he became a RH. Right?

Thanks for your patience.

NGalitzine 07-10-2012 08:51 AM

Yes if a woman marries into the royal family she assumes the surname (if required) of her husband.
If a man marries into the royal family he keeps his own surname.....Philip Mountbatten, Anthony Armstrong-Jones, Mark Phillips, etc and with the exception of Prince Philip his children bear his surname.
The name of the royal house remains Windsor but descendents of QEII requiring a surname use the family name Mountbatten-Windsor.

Ive 07-10-2012 09:23 AM

I think I figured it out with your help (if i have not done a mistake in my last summary post), there is just one little question. Do they not have a surname or have they one on the paper which they are simply not using.
Is the surname cleared if a person gained a title or just (i do not know the right word) muted/silent?

NGalitzine 07-10-2012 09:50 AM

They have a surname but generally an HRH has no use for a surname. They only sign with their Christian name.
The Duke of Cambridge uses William Wales as an officer in the armed forces. The Duke of York's children went by Beatrice York and Eugenie York at university. The then Prince Richard of Gloucester went by Richard Gloucester when he was a practicing architect in London.

Osipi 07-10-2012 10:28 AM

It still is a pet peeve of mine when we hear of females that have married into the royal family still referred to by their former surname such as Camilla Parker-Bowles, Kate Middleton and Sarah Ferguson. In my mind I feel that at least the media could use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

royalistbert 07-10-2012 10:37 AM

:previous:
I hate that two. Well at least with Camilla they are getting right finely. :whistling:

csw 07-10-2012 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1440291)
It still is a pet peeve of mine when we hear of females that have married into the royal family still referred to by their former surname such as Camilla Parker-Bowles, Kate Middleton and Sarah Ferguson. In my mind I feel that at least the media could use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor.

I agree. It seems like the media thinks people are too simple-minded to recognize them when referred to by their proper names.

SLV 07-10-2012 11:02 AM

Why would W&H and B&E use those names if they had the W-M option at hand? Now they are associated with these names, but that wasn't the case when they started using them.

Ive 07-10-2012 11:06 AM

Sorry, sometimes for me it is difficult to translate/understand.
The Duke of Cambridge, Prince William is William Wales and his Brother is Harry Wales. The Reason? The father of them is The Prince of Wales?

And you Osipi are angry about womans which are keeping the old surname after a wedding? So is this made by the media or is it really? Is Camilla Parker-Bowles still a Parker Bowles and Kate still a Middleton or are both of them Mountbatten-Windsors (and do not use the surnames)?

Confused again?!?!
Have the Ladys found a loophole to keep the old (used) surnames?

Ive 07-10-2012 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royalistbert (Post 1440295)
:previous:
I hate that two. Well at least with Camilla they are getting right finely. :whistling:

my english is not good enough to understand this joke...:sad:

But I think you do not like her and her name sounds like something stupid and she not deserves the name M-W :devil:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises