Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 7,397
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States

Maybe Harry himself doesn't know exactly what his name is , although I wonder where 'George' came from.From the notation "See ECF [Electronic Case File] no. 7 at 1.", I assume the judge was citing a submission from one of the parties to the case. Presumably, either the Duke's lawyers or the US federal lawyers either said or submitted a document saying that was his name, "George of Wales" and all.
[...] Harry is not a party in the lawsuit at all. It is alawsuit between the Heritage foundation and the US government. If you read the different filling, it is in the original filling of the Heritage foundation this name came up. Just Judge or his clerk just used what was filled
It looks like the titles he received upon marriage are also included as part of his name.And I presume they used what would be his “birth name”.
It seems like no one in America knows what Harry or Meghan's names are....It looks like the titles he received upon marriage are also included as part of his name.
I have to admit, this one lawsuit is one where Harry and Meghan have my sympathies. This is very much a case of Harry being targeted because of who he is, in my opinion.Hi
i have been reading this forum for a while, but come on, i know it is a local sport to find every fault but Harry is not a party in the lawsuit at all. It is alawsuit between the Heritage foundation and the US government. If you read the different filling, it is in the original filling of the Heritage foundation this name came up. Just Judge or his clerk just used what was filled
yes, these were my thoughts too. I don't think there's any official document (maybe in their multiple lawsuits, or in the official documentation of their business ventures or otherwise) where we have seen her referring to herself as such, so it is puzzling that she says so in a way that sounds like we should all know about it?I've still never seen Meghan calling herself 'Meghan Sussex'. Can someone point me to a place where she did? As far as I can tell, she has not used 'Sussex' as her surname in public - but only 'Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex'.
i have seen this too. to me, it looks like they really wanted to make sure this detail was known. why, we can all just guess, but it is not an accident or a harmless comment - it was intentional that this was specifically mentioned, in two different channels (people magazine and the show).I will note that Meghan also echoed these comments in her promotional interview/cover story with People. For whatever reason, getting this point across was a major PR point reinforced in multiple channels.
I don't think that ignorance is limited to America.It seems like no one in America knows what Harry or Meghan's names are....
To be honest, I find it a bit confusing myself.It seems like no one in America knows what Harry or Meghan's names are....
It's Mountbatten-Windsor.To be honest, I find it a bit confusing myself.
Is their surname Sussex? Or Windsor? Or Mountbatten-Windsor (which is lengthy, so I understand why some minor royals seem to have quietly dropped the Mountbatten part).
Or do they disregard a surname entirely?
Royals have mostly used their territorial designations as their surnames, that may be changing with the younger generation.It's Mountbatten-Windsor.
That only applies to the descendants of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip.
However:
1. Princess Anne's children have Phillips/Tindall as a surname instead.
2. William and his children, Harry and his children, Beatrice, Eugenie, Andrew, Edward and James are all Prince/Princess/Duke/Viscount, so don't usually use a surname. And Beatrice and Eugenie would now use their married surnames anyway.
3. Prince Andrew's grandchildren have the surname of their fathers.
So it's only ever used in relation to Louise. The press tend to refer to her as Lady Louise Windsor, largely because Mountbatten-Windsor's so long, and we don't really know whether she calls herself Windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor!
But, yes, the official surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.
To be honest, I find it a bit confusing myself.
Is their surname Sussex? Or Windsor? Or Mountbatten-Windsor (which is lengthy, so I understand why some minor royals seem to have quietly dropped the Mountbatten part).
Or do they disregard a surname entirely?
I remember it was reported when George started school at Thomas's Battersea that he would be called George Cambridge. Here's one such article.IIRC from some years ago (prior to QEII's death), William's children were referred to as Cambridge, but I don't recall if that was an assumption or credibly sourced.
Performers and authors and entertainers may use surnames that are not their legal ones, but to get a school to call a student something that is not their legal last name would seem very odd indeed, no matter how rich, private, or Californian the institution.
We don't really know if Meghan's children use Sussex at school or for any other official purpose in the United States. Their birth certificates list their surnames as Mountbatten-Windsor.Royals have mostly used their territorial designations as their surnames, that may be changing with the younger generation.
William and Harry used Wales up until they got their own dukedoms. William used Mountbatten-Windsor for a lawsuit.
IIRC from some years ago (prior to QEII's death), William's children were referred to as Cambridge, but I don't recall if that was an assumption or credibly sourced.
Per Meghan, her children use Sussex.
Beatrice and Eugenie definitely use / used York as a surname.
Edward and Sophie have been referred to as Wessex, but like William's children, I am not sure if that is an assumption or if it was credibly sourced. In their case, I can see why their children would go by Windsor / Mountbatten-Windsor, because it was expected that in due time that Edward would get the Edinburgh dukedom.
In the example you provide, the school is still addressing the pupil by a legal surname of at least one of their parents (and for fairly serious psychological and legal reasons). Not a name that belongs to no one, legally (for a status whim).I have heard of cases in the US and UK where a child was given the father's surname at birth, the parents subsequently separated, the child lived with the mother after the parents' separation, the mother wished the child to change to her (the mother's) surname, the mother was unable to obtain the necessary consent from the father/courts for a legal name change for the child, and so the child's legal surname remains that of their father but the child is addressed at school by their mother's surname at the mother's request.
The documents unsealed today are heavily redacted and no new information about Harry’s visa application has come out of it.
The Times article
![]()
Prince Harry’s US visa documents unsealed after drug claims
archived 18 Mar 2025 20:10:42 UTCarchive.ph
The DM article
![]()
Prince Harry's US immigration documents are unsealed
Prince Harry did not get special treatment when he emigrated to the United States, the Trump administration has revealed.www.dailymail.co.uk
Honest question, why do you need to know the nature of the visa he applied for? Is it a matter of public interest? Why should anybody but the US Government and the applicant, be it Harry or anybody else be entitled to that kind of private information? DHS said the procedures were followed at the judge agreed. It should end thereDo we at least know what kind of visa Harry applied for? That has been a topic of speculation for a long time.
Yep, a public school at least, will use the legal name on their birth certificate. They might call them by a nickname (such as Liz for Elizabeth) but they would be enrolled by their legal name.I don’t understand how Archie and Lili could use “Sussex” at school in the US. Performers and authors and entertainers may use surnames that are not their legal ones, but to get a school to call a student something that is not their legal last name would seem very odd indeed, no matter how rich, private, or Californian the institution.
And we know neither Meghan nor Harry have legally changed their last name per Californian law, so…
No, we don’t, that was one of the reasons for redaction, apparently.Do we at least know what kind of visa Harry applied for? That has been a topic of speculation for a long time.