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)

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:44 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises