The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

Maybe Harry himself doesn't know exactly what his name is , although I wonder where 'George' came from.

 

[natessance]

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

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] 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, you're right, my mistake. I should have said "the Foundation's lawyers" rather than "the Duke's lawyers".

 

[Ghost]

And I presume they used what would be his “birth name”.

 

[Queen Claude]

And I presume they used what would be his “birth name”.

It looks like the titles he received upon marriage are also included as part of his name.

 

[OwlBranch]

It looks like the titles he received upon marriage are also included as part of his name.

It seems like no one in America knows what Harry or Meghan's names are....

 

[victor1319]

Please excuse the following as perhaps really stupid... But Prince Harry is an Englishman and British citizen, so he should have an English name and a British passport with this name in it...

And of course is Meghan the Duchess of Sussex! She is very proud of it and mentions this in the press it is her name! And of course can Americans have an exotic name! The question is: Can Meghan hold a government office? I would think: Rather not! Because she holds a foreign title, an English one (!) and is related to the Crown - so, no way!

 

[HRHHermione]

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

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.

 

[carlota]

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'.

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 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 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).

 

[Queen Claude]

It seems like no one in America knows what Harry or Meghan's names are....

I don't think that ignorance is limited to America.

 

[Mirabel]

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.
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?

 

[Somebody]

Officially, Harry's, Archie's and Lilibet's surname, if they need one, is Mountbatten-Windsor, as is the case for all (non-married) male-line descendants of the late duke of Edinburgh and late queen Elizabeth II. We don't know whether Meghan officially changed her surname to match that of her husband or still has 'Markle' as surname.

 

[Alison H]

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?

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.

 

[Ghost]

They follow the law: the children take the surname of the father. HLMTQ and Prince Philip had theirs barreled, Mountbatten-Windsor. Anne became Philips after her first marriage and is now Lawrence, probably. The York girls have theirs husbands’ surname now. In their generation there are now only William, Harry and Louise and James who still bear Mountbatten-Windsor, as in any family.
The titles are a different story altogether. It’s the British custom.

 

[Queen Claude]

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.

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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 hope the above posts have answered all of your questions, but if not: Are you asking about legal surnames or the surnames people use in their daily lives? Are you asking about surnames which are mostly theoretical, or surnames that are actually used? Are you asking about the surnames of the Sussex family, or the wider royal family? The answer will depend on what you are asking.

 

[Kenya]

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.

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.

I have no problem with Archie and Lilibet using the last name Sussex now, even though they both used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor at birth. I don't even care if Meghan wants to call herself Sussex too. I just think the way she went about expressing that to Mindy Kaling was awkward and cringe-inducing.

 

[Prinsara]

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…

 

[Alison H]

I wouldn't have thought that it mattered that much. For something like a passport or driving licence, yes, or even for public exams, but not for a school, as long as they can identify the child.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

Isn't it simply that parents rarely ask schools to address a child by a surname other than their legal one? In principle, I don't see how addressing a child by a forename different than their legal forename (such as "Lili" for Lilibet Diana) would differ from addressing a child by a surname different than their legal surname.

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

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.

Prince William's children's birth certificates name them "His/Her Royal Highness Prince/Princess [given names] of Cambridge" although they are not "of Cambridge" anymore and are now styled "of Wales".

The rule in the UK is that family names (surnames) are omitted in official documents for members of the Royal Family who have the dignity of Prince/Princess. Otherwise, male-line descendants of Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II, except female descendants who are married, must use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. In fact, even princes/princesses who are male-line descendants of Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth II, when they need it, may use the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. Princess Anne used it for example in her marriage certificate, although she actually didn't have to.

Archie in particular was not a prince yet when he was born, which is why his UK birth certificate has his surname as Mountbatten-Windsor. The same would have been true if Lilibet had been born in the UK, but she was born in the US, and her US birth certificate says Mountbatten-Windsor too.

Archie and Lilibet would have stopped using Mountbatten-Windsor had they stayed in the UK , per British custom, but, since they are in the US now, I am not sure if applying British customs to a US setting makes sense.

 

[Prinsara]

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.

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).

It would make some sense if Archie and Lili went to school under “Markle”, but that’s clearly not the wishes of their parents.

If identity and status and whatnot are so important to Meghan and Harry, they should have to make the legal maneuvers like most of the rest of US citizens and residents do, not just be catered to for their viewers and their brand.

 

[Ghost]

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 UTC

archive.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

 

[Curryong]

That was expected by everyone who has followed this case between the Heritage Foundation and the Dept of Homeland Security. Hope the right wing Heritage Foundation are satisfied.

However the Press, media and public commentators won’t be happy. [.....]

 

[Mbruno]

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 UTC

archive.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

Do we at least know what kind of visa Harry applied for? That has been a topic of speculation for a long time.

 

[natessance]

Do we at least know what kind of visa Harry applied for? That has been a topic of speculation for a long time.

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 there

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

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…

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.

 

[Ghost]

Do we at least know what kind of visa Harry applied for? That has been a topic of speculation for a long time.

No, we don’t, that was one of the reasons for redaction, apparently.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

I found this whole visa issue ridiculous anyway. Of course we do not know the type of visa Harry has, but that information was not to be disclosed anyway.
Take Liam Payne for example, who tragically died in Buenos Aires, a well known and self confessed drug user who went to Buenos Aires - among other things - to go to the US Embassy to declere himself 'drug free' to obtain the renewal of his US visa (resident in Florida), had to see a doctor who ticked a few boxes and gave a go. A few days later he died in a massively drug related incident.
If any visa dependant resident who ever did/does/has lied about drugs had to leave the US, well.....