Meghan Markle: Citizenship and Religious Conversion


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
There is too much information regarding the names and it's confusing. Why isn't Harry just Harry Wales, I thought that is what he and William went by in the army. Also I thought Eugenie and Beatrice used York as a de-facto last name.
 
Legally though their last name is Mountbatten-Windsor ...if they have to use a last name that is the one they have to use on legal docs etc.


LaRae
 
You have to pay that fine (at this point), if you give up citizenship in the US, to the IRS.

America charges $2,350 to hand in your passport, a fee that is more than twenty times the average of other high-income countries. The U.S. hiked the fee to renounce by 422%, as previously there was a $450 fee to renounce, and no fee to relinquish. Now, there is a $2,350 fee either way.

Not that it's a huge sum for someone like Meghan.


LaRae


Interesting - I didn’t realize that the US did that.

I do think give then the potential complexities of her remaining a US citizen it is highly likely that she’ll eventually give it up, with the cost of doing so being less than the hassle of keeping her citizenship.

I agree with you. No way she will wait the full 5 years and have the kids be dual citizens. Also you bring up another thing... taxes. I just see them wanting to avoid all that as much as they possibly can. Seems more like a hassle and I while some will be crabby about it, I think majority would understand it.


I think the people who will be bothered by it will largely be (some) Americans who see Meghan as their Princess. On the flip side, it could help to endear her to the Brits, as she’s seen as embracing her new country more.

There is too much information regarding the names and it's confusing. Why isn't Harry just Harry Wales, I thought that is what he and William went by in the army. Also I thought Eugenie and Beatrice used York as a de-facto last name.


Technically, members of the British Royal Family do not have a last name within Britain. They use Mountbatten-Windsor as a last name when they require a legal last name, but typically use their title as a surname in more social settings. This is a common practice among the nobility in Britain; you often see British peers/eldest sons of peers (who use their father’s secondary titles) using the title as a surname socially.

Harry is Harry Wales within some categories, but his legal last name were he to need one is Mountbatten-Windsor.
 
Last edited:
:previous: I feel some who have had to wait and/or have had difficultly with getting citizenship will also have issues with it. Not long after the engagement announcement happened I saw many talking about her potentially being fast-tracked and spoke a lot about why it would upset them.
 
:previous: I feel some who have had to wait and/or have had difficultly with getting citizenship will also have issues with it. Not long after the engagement announcement happened I saw many talking about her potentially being fast-tracked and spoke a lot about why it would upset them.


I am incredibly jaded on this issue, I have to admit.

I think the reason why they didn’t fast track it from the get-go is because they realized it would be a horrible PR move - the British media is iffy on Meghan at best, and so had they announced the engagement and a pre-wedding citizenship move it would have been met with universal criticism.

In announcing it the way they have, they give the impression of it being the intention for Meghan to go through the normal process. Post-wedding though, I expect to see the media use her continued non-British citizenship against her, especially as she begins to represent the Queen in other countries, continues to have to pay US taxes (opening up hers and Harry’s finances to foreign criticism). At that point, Meghan getting an expedited citizenship can be played off as being in the interest of Britain.
 
Interesting - I didn’t realize that the US did that.

I do think give then the potential complexities of her remaining a US citizen it is highly likely that she’ll eventually give it up, with the cost of doing so being less than the hassle of keeping her citizenship.

I think the people who will be bothered by it will largely be (some) Americans who see Meghan as their Princess. On the flip side, it could help to endear her to the Brits, as she’s seen as embracing her new country more.

Evidently a number of countries have this fine for renouncing citizenship...the US is the most expensive one as I understand it.

As an American..I don't really care if someone gives up their citizenship or not..that's their decision. Not my business.

I have expected all along that she will give it up after they marry.


LaRae
 
In announcing it the way they have, they give the impression of it being the intention for Meghan to go through the normal process. Post-wedding though, I expect to see the media use her continued non-British citizenship against her, especially as she begins to represent the Queen in other countries, continues to have to pay US taxes (opening up hers and Harry’s finances to foreign criticism). At that point, Meghan getting an expedited citizenship can be played off as being in the interest of Britain.

You are likely right. Meghan seems to be getting involved already per marriage so it will only increase once she is officially a member of the family. Her still being a US citizen will bother some and I can see them using that as the excuse to speed it up. It is a clever play especially if she does become pregnant within the first year of marriage. Even bigger reason. I see both sides of it though.
 
:previous: I feel some who have had to wait and/or have had difficultly with getting citizenship will also have issues with it. Not long after the engagement announcement happened I saw many talking about her potentially being fast-tracked and spoke a lot about why it would upset them.
I think "The Duke of XXXXX and Meghan Markle a US citizen with a US Passport visiting another country on behalf of the Crown would really grate in a lot of places, not least the government. I think they would prefer that which is "Made in the UK".

The BRF has always gone where the government has asked and they represent both Queen and Country. Prince and Princess of . . . Duke and Duchess of . . . But, if Meghan is still a US citizen it, it will give the media a few more inches of column space and will make for really good headlines.
 
I hope they fast track her citizenship and give it to her on her wedding day, as was done for Crown Princess Mary of Denmark and Queen Maxima of the Netherlands. The government should do it for a wedding present.
 
Actually, the post by jacqui24 is correct, it would depend on residence and the naming customs of that country. Sorry if I confused things further about the marriage vs residence, I was thinking of Meghan's case where she will be living in the country where she will get married.

To give another example, say she marries a Spanish guy and they live in Spain. Things would be much easier as she will not be required nor expected to change her name. She will always be Rachel Meghan Markle. Had they gotten married in the U.S. and she decides to use her husband's surname, she can do so by doing the necessary red tape with the marriage license as basis.

If she marries in either the US or UK, I believe all she needs to do to take her husband's surname is to go to each relevant office (banks, social security, Foreign Ministry for new passports or whichever agency, etc), present her marriage license, fill out some forms and she would be entitled to hew new surname. In the UK, if and when she becomes a citizen and starts the process of getting her UK passport, I believe she would have to bring around her marriage license in order to be able to use her husband's surname. Again, same with banks and other places that require one to get IDs or update information for identity reasons after marriage.
Thanks for trying to clarify things. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Why would a UK authority have anything to say about the legal name of a non-citizen? And if you refer to the US authorities: they don't recognize titles, so how can she legally become 'the Duchess of X' according to American law?

Hmmm, let's say after she marries Prince Harry she stays a US citizen (dual with UK) and gets a new US passport and wants her names on both UK and US passports to be consistent. I believe she just has to present her marriage license to the US Consulate in London and her old passport. Some countries require report of marriage to foreigners before they can do a name change but I think it is easier between UK-US marriages. Again, actual people with experience feel free to correct me.
My question was specifically about the situation in which she isn't a British citizen yet, so ONLY a US citizen. So, are you saying that the name on her British passport (when she first becomes a UK citizen) does NOT depend on her American passport but can be something completely different?

The question would be, what is Harry's name going to be in the marriage license as her new surname would depend on that, would she even want to change her name in her US documents in the first place as her maiden name would be just as legal.
Whether she wants to change it or not is indeed a different question. I am trying to understand how a foreign country can decide that a different country's citizen legally has a different name... (Living in a foreign country myself and until recently a country in which they use two surnames, I've heard that sometimes they do require you to also take your mother's surname if you nationalize; but before that the name on your official paperwork from your country of citizenship is used in all official documents)

People need to remember that the rest of the world, although most have now followed the Western world's style of having first names and last names, has some interesting names and titles that do end up in their passports. Javanese names, Chinese names, Muslim names, heck even Hispanic names with their two lastnames...all these make Harry's HRH Prince of Wales name not that unusual. In some countries, let's say hypothetically that Prince George (whose birth certificate has made the rounds) seeks asylum in a country that follows birth certificates to the letter in their passports, his first name would actually be "His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge" with a blank surname, OR first name ""His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis" and lastname "of Cambridge," depending on the judgment of thE bureaucrat processing his document.
That's very true indeed. However, this would apply once she becomes a UK citizen; it doesn't indicate what happens UNTIL she is a British citizen. Other countries might have a hard time to fill out someone's name in the appropriate spaces in your visa but that doesn't change your name.

Since she is a US citizen and married a US citizen, they probably just executed a marriage license at the Consulate or filed a Report of Marriage if they got married outside the consulate premises, so no laws of Jamaica applied.
That makes sense!
 
Of course Mary and Maxima were marrying the Crown Prince. Meghan is marrying someone much, much lower in the line of succession who will only go lower in the years ahead while they were going to move closer to the position of consort of the monarch.

If Kate has twins (and I don't think she is) Harry won't even need the Queen's permission to marry.

It is also, I believe, I requirement in their respective countries for the spouse of the monarch and the spouse of the heir to the throne to be a citizen of that country. That isn't the case in the UK. You don't even have to be British citizen to be in the line of succession.
 
At Charles's accession to the throne Harry will be going higher in the succession until George has a child and that might be another twenty five years away.

And he's hardly going to be Prince Invisible in the years ahead (nor will Meghan) in terms of Royal engagements and public life, while George passes through school, university and probably the armed services. We are looking there at another two decades or more.

Plus, if George and Charlotte are childless when William becomes King in say another quarter of a century, then Harry goes up the line of succession again.

Not to mention that Harry will be one of the only two sons of King Charles, and (eventually) King William's only brother.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Exactly. Harry's place in the line is less important but it means very little in terms of his own status and popularity. Harry will be one of two children of the monarch and then later the only sibling of the monarch. He is not going away anytime soon and likely will see his role increase more in coming years.
 
Of course Mary and Maxima were marrying the Crown Prince. Meghan is marrying someone much, much lower in the line of succession who will only go lower in the years ahead while they were going to move closer to the position of consort of the monarch.

If Kate has twins (and I don't think she is) Harry won't even need the Queen's permission to marry.

It is also, I believe, I requirement in their respective countries for the spouse of the monarch and the spouse of the heir to the throne to be a citizen of that country. That isn't the case in the UK. You don't even have to be British citizen to be in the line of succession.

Princess Marie of Denmark and the former Princess Alexandria of Denmark both were granted citizenship upon marriage, so clearly that had nothing to do with marrying crown princes. The bottom line is, she is going to be carrying out duties representing the monarch for the rest of her life unless something drastic happens. It's a bit odd. And I'm not sure how the people would feel about the grandchildren of a monarch to carry dual citizenship until they are 18. I actually think it's better for any children they might have to have that option if they prefer to pursue a more private life in US once they are old enough. Any trust set up for them can just be kept in US to avoid British taxes and FBAR disclosures. But then again, I'm American.
 
Last edited:
-

EDIT: Would Meghan and Harry's firstborn son, as the heir to a dukedom, be registered in the UK as [xxx] Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of [xxx] ? Would the predicate "The Right Honourable" be also used before his name on British documents ?
No. Harry will be always be The Earl of XXX, along with Duke and Baron (if HM creates him those titles as expected). His first son, if not "HRH Prince Firstname of Dukedom" would "borrow" the next highest title as a courtesy, like James does with Severn, but he would not hold it in his own right until he is also Duke - the titles are a package deal.
 
Thanks for trying to clarify things. I just have a hard time wrapping my head around it. Why would a UK authority have anything to say about the legal name of a non-citizen? And if you refer to the US authorities: they don't recognize titles, so how can she legally become 'the Duchess of X' according to American law?

You're mixing different things here. Harry's legal name is Henry Charles Albert David. His title is Prince Henry of Wales. When Meghan marries, her legal name will remain Rachel Meghan Markle (unless she changes her last name), but her title will be Princess Henry of Wales (unless Harry is granted a peerage). Her title is by courtesy because of who she is married to, and her citizenship has nothing to do with that. So long as she is married to Harry and he remains Prince Henry of Wales, then she is recognized as Princess Henry of Wales.

Within the UK, Harry doesn't need a surname (as a royal), and is able to use his title on legal paperwork. Within the US system, were Harry to ever for some reason require a legal name it would be Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor.

Technically, if he wishes to, Harry could use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname within Britain - as indicated by the fact that Anne's marriage certificate noted her name as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. If it's Meghan's intention to change her name in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if Harry recorded his name with this surname just to simplify things.

My question was specifically about the situation in which she isn't a British citizen yet, so ONLY a US citizen. So, are you saying that the name on her British passport (when she first becomes a UK citizen) does NOT depend on her American passport but can be something completely different?

The name on her British passport, when she gets one, can include her titles. This is not her name, this is her titles; in all likelihood her name as it appears on any British legal paperwork post-marriage is going to include her title. Her name on her childrens' birth certificates will likely be Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex (or whatever surname she takes after marriage and title she holds) - this is comparable to how Kate was named on George and Charlotte's birth certificates.
 
Still think it's better for the future kids to have dual citizenship.They arent going to be working royals so I don't see a problem
 
Still think it's better for the future kids to have dual citizenship.They arent going to be working royals so I don't see a problem

we dont know wehther they will be working royals or not,
 
:previous: Exactly. Harry's place in the line is less important but it means very little in terms of his own status and popularity. Harry will be one of two children of the monarch and then later the only sibling of the monarch. He is not going away anytime soon and likely will see his role increase more in coming years.

No. Harry will be always be The Earl of XXX, along with Duke and Baron (if HM creates him those titles as expected). His first son, if not "HRH Prince Firstname of Dukedom" would "borrow" the next highest title as a courtesy, like James does with Severn, but he would not hold it in his own right until he is also Duke - the titles are a package deal.

You're mixing different things here. Harry's legal name is Henry Charles Albert David. His title is Prince Henry of Wales. When Meghan marries, her legal name will remain Rachel Meghan Markle (unless she changes her last name), but her title will be Princess Henry of Wales (unless Harry is granted a peerage). Her title is by courtesy because of who she is married to, and her citizenship has nothing to do with that. So long as she is married to Harry and he remains Prince Henry of Wales, then she is recognized as Princess Henry of Wales.

Within the UK, Harry doesn't need a surname (as a royal), and is able to use his title on legal paperwork. Within the US system, were Harry to ever for some reason require a legal name it would be Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor.

Technically, if he wishes to, Harry could use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname within Britain - as indicated by the fact that Anne's marriage certificate noted her name as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. If it's Meghan's intention to change her name in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if Harry recorded his name with this surname just to simplify things.



The name on her British passport, when she gets one, can include her titles. This is not her name, this is her titles; in all likelihood her name as it appears on any British legal paperwork post-marriage is going to include her title. Her name on her childrens' birth certificates will likely be Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex (or whatever surname she takes after marriage and title she holds) - this is comparable to how Kate was named on George and Charlotte's birth certificates.

we dont know wehther they will be working royals or not,
Well I can only say Remember Sweden where stuff happened as it is wont to do resulting in Carl Gustav becoming his grandfather's heir at the ripe old age of 4!
 
Whether she wants to change it or not is indeed a different question. I am trying to understand how a foreign country can decide that a different country's citizen legally has a different name... (Living in a foreign country myself and until recently a country in which they use two surnames, I've heard that sometimes they do require you to also take your mother's surname if you nationalize; but before that the name on your official paperwork from your country of citizenship is used in all official documents)

I actually like this part in a very perverse way. :D Basically it is because each country have their own naming customs and can interpret your birth certificate in their own way. This is a huge pain in the :whistling: for consular officers and for people living in a different country from the one that issued their birth certificates.

I will digress a bit from Meghan Markle but to give an example, some countries have middle names, some have maiden names, some have titles. If a Spaniard with a name Enrique Iglesias Preysler applies for a US visa, for instance, he has to decide which surname to put...Iglesias? Iglesias Preysler? If a Filipino, whose country's naming custom would be in this order-Enrique Preysler Iglesias, uses his mother's surname as one of his names in his birth certificate gets a US visa, does he put Preysler Iglesias as surname, or as given name "Enrique Preysler" because the US does not ask for your mother's maiden name but only "Given Names" and "Last Name." In the end, the key is to be consistent as really, it only becomes a problem when one document does not match another document.

Of course this is for ordinary citizens and in Meghan's case, I am certain that in the UK it won't be as bureaucratic because it really only becomes bureaucratic when one has to prove identity and everyone knows them, so no problem there. In the US, in the very weird occasion a bureaucrat asks for documents from her about her identity and sees inconsistencies, at most she would just need to have an affidavit stamped by the Foreign Office stating she is "One and the same" person and list all the names she goes by and the supporting docs, and that would be it.
 
I can't understand why this has sparked off so much discussion. Meghan will almost certainly change her citizenship, IMO.. and it will probably be fast tracked for her to become a British citizen, if necessary. and she will use her husband's title as her "name"..ie HRH Princess Henry or more likely HRH the Duchess of X.
She wont have any problems because she will have expert people sorting the whole thing out...
 
You're mixing different things here. Harry's legal name is Henry Charles Albert David. His title is Prince Henry of Wales. When Meghan marries, her legal name will remain Rachel Meghan Markle (unless she changes her last name), but her title will be Princess Henry of Wales (unless Harry is granted a peerage). Her title is by courtesy because of who she is married to, and her citizenship has nothing to do with that. So long as she is married to Harry and he remains Prince Henry of Wales, then she is recognized as Princess Henry of Wales.
Thanks. So, her legal name remains the same but as spouse of she can use his titles.

Within the UK, Harry doesn't need a surname (as a royal), and is able to use his title on legal paperwork. Within the US system, were Harry to ever for some reason require a legal name it would be Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor.

Technically, if he wishes to, Harry could use Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname within Britain - as indicated by the fact that Anne's marriage certificate noted her name as Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. If it's Meghan's intention to change her name in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if Harry recorded his name with this surname just to simplify things.
What would be preferred by the British peopke, that she keeps her legal name as is or thst she changes it to Mountbatten-Windsor?

The name on her British passport, when she gets one, can include her titles. This is not her name, this is her titles; in all likelihood her name as it appears on any British legal paperwork post-marriage is going to include her title. Her name on her childrens' birth certificates will likely be Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex (or whatever surname she takes after marriage and title she holds) - this is comparable to how Kate was named on George and Charlotte's birth certificates.
Main difference is that Catherine is a British citizen and Meghan is not, so it will be interesting to see which name they would put on a birth certificate as her legal name will be RMM unless she changes it.
 
Denville said:
I can't understand why this has sparked off so much discussion. Meghan will almost certainly change her citizenship, IMO.. and it will probably be fast tracked for her to become a British citizen, if necessary. and she will use her husband's title as her "name"..ie HRH Princess Henry or more likely HRH the Duchess of X.
She wont have any problems because she will have expert people sorting the whole thing out...


We all know she will have expert people sorting everything out and will have 0 problems on these things for the rest of her life... But for some people it is a fun mental exercise to figure out how these things will be taken care of at the micro level.

I skim the parts about the sponsors for confirmation, I'm pretty sure others can do the same on the nitty-gritty bits about consular aspects of citizenship. ;)
 
Would the predicate "The Right Honourable" be also used before his name on British documents ?

That predicate is used for Privy Councillors, so IF Harry is [at any point] made one, he will be addressed as such..
 
We all know she will have expert people sorting everything out and will have 0 problems on these things for the rest of her life... But for some people it is a fun mental exercise to figure out how these things will be taken care of at the micro level.

I skim the parts about the sponsors for confirmation, I'm pretty sure others can do the same on the nitty-gritty bits about consular aspects of citizenship. ;)
I suppose I think it just doesn't matter... the bods that work for thm will sort it out.
as for confirmation I'd regard that as a bit more important... but I only got involved in the discussion because someone mentioned a sponsor and I had never heard of one...
 
Thanks. So, her legal name remains the same but as spouse of she can use his titles.


What would be preferred by the British peopke, that she keeps her legal name as is or thst she changes it to Mountbatten-Windsor?


Main difference is that Catherine is a British citizen and Meghan is not, so it will be interesting to see which name they would put on a birth certificate as her legal name will be RMM unless she changes it.

Catherine was not named Mountbatten-Windsor or Middleton on George’s birth certificate , but rather just Catherine Elizabeth followed by her title and style. I don’t expect Meghan to use a last name like Mountbatten-Windsor or Markle in the UK.

BTW, the same custom is observed in the Netherlands for royal spouses. Máxima was named HRH Princess Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, on her daughters’ birth certificates, without a last name. By contrast, in Spain or Belgium, royal spouses use their maiden family name in legal documents and, even in Sweden, we have learned recently that Sofia uses the last name Bernadotte although her husband and his sisters normally do not use a last name .
 
Last edited:
Catherine was not named Mountbatten--Windsor or Middleton on George’s birth certificate , but rather just Catherine Elizabeth followed by her title and style. I don’t expect Meghan to use a last name like Mountbatten-Windsor or Markle in the UK.

BTW, , the same custom is observed in the Netherlands for royal spouses. Máxima was named HRH Princess Máxima, Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau, on her daughters’ birth certificates, without a last name. By contrast, in Spain or Belgium, royal spouses use their maiden family name in legal documents and, even in Sweden, se have learned recently that Sofia uses the last name Bernadotte although her husband and his sisters normally do not use a last name .

Again, the difference is that Máxima was Dutch when her children were born... To me it makes a big difference if you use the custom of the country of your citizenship (of course that prevails) or the country that you are only 'living in' while not a citizen (in that case, I'd say her legal name should be used - so that is unless they speed up her process, which I think would be the wise thing to do).
 
Again, the difference is that Máxima was Dutch when her children were born... To me it makes a big difference if you use the custom of the country of your citizenship (of course that prevails) or the country that you are only 'living in' while not a citizen (in that case, I'd say her legal name should be used - so that is unless they speed up her process, which I think would be the wise thing to do).

I guess we will have to wait for Meghan to have a child to see what they will do. Although it is unlikely, she may already be a British citizen by then.

Just to correct my previous message, Máxima was referred to as "Her Royal Highness Máxima Princess of the Netherlands, Princess of Orange-Nassau" on Alexia's birth certificate , and not as "HRH Princess Máxima [...]" as I had written before.

Just to contrast, see the notices below of the royal decrees giving the Grand Cordon of the Order of Léopold to Princess Mathilde and Princess Claire of Belgium. They are both referred to by their maiden names. For example:

Par arrêté royal du 14 juillet 2004 a été nommée :

Grand Cordon

la Princesse Claire Coombs, Princesse de Belgique.

Ordres nationaux Ordre de Léopold Par arrêté royal du 19 septembre 2000 a été nommée : Grand Cordon La Princesse Mathilde, Marie, Christine, Ghislaine, Comtesse d'Udekem d'Acoz, Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique .





http://www.etaamb.be/fr/arrete-royal_n2001015137.html

https://vlex.be/vid/commandeur-anick-calster-princesse-mathilde-52309215
 
Last edited:
Again, the difference is that Máxima was Dutch when her children were born... To me it makes a big difference if you use the custom of the country of your citizenship (of course that prevails) or the country that you are only 'living in' while not a citizen (in that case, I'd say her legal name should be used - so that is unless they speed up her process, which I think would be the wise thing to do).
She doesn’t need to be British for Britain to recognize her title and a member of the royal family. Members of royal family do not use a last name and when required uses Mountbatten Windsor, but that’s so rarely in Britain to need it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom