- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 34,516
Another royal question
- Thread starter kenny
- Start date
justginger
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 3,712
rosetta
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,417
It goes back to the rules of primogeniture. Plain old sexism, in other words.
A sovereign queen, as opposed to a queen consort, cannot make her husband a king. Similarly, the daughter of a sovereign, a princess, cannot make her husband a prince. Only men, you see, have the ability to confer princess or queen status on their spouse. A king always trumps a queen, so Prince Philip is not king.
When William succeeds to the throne, Kate will be queen because a king makes his spouse a queen, but not the other way round. However, she will not be the Sovereign, and she will not be the Monarch. Only the person who is born to rule - like the new Prince George - will be the Sovereign and Monarch. Kate's official title will be Queen Consort.
When I said that the daughter of a sovereign cannot make her husband a prince, that is why neither of Princess Anne's husbands were called Prince after they married her. They remained Captain Mark Philips and Timothy Laurence. This is the reason why Princess Anne's daughter and son are Zara and Mark Philips, and why her brother Prince Andrew's children are princesses. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, but Zara and Mark Philips. Princess Anne declined HRH status for her children, but they could never have been princes or princesses unless she had married a prince.
In addition, Carole Middleton will be the queen's mother but she will never be Queen Mother. The Queen Mother is someone who is the mother of a reigning monarch and has also been a queen herself. So, when Kate's son succeeds the throne, if Kate is still alive she will be called Queen Mother, like the last Queen Mother who died in 2002. She was the current queen's mother and had been Queen Consort to George VI when Edward abdicated. Kate will have been Queen Consort and then will be the mother of a reigning monarch.
Clear as mud??
You asked who decides...the system is at least a thousand years old.
ETA: Rosetta put it much more succintly!
ETA 2: Until quite recently, only children of the Sovereign and their male-line grandchildren could have a royal title. This means that Princess Anne would not have been a princess at all when she was born, but merely Lady Anne Mountbatten. But George VI changed this. He made it so that any grandchildren of the Sovereign could have a royal title. Princess Anne's is rather nice: she is the Princess Royal.
A sovereign queen, as opposed to a queen consort, cannot make her husband a king. Similarly, the daughter of a sovereign, a princess, cannot make her husband a prince. Only men, you see, have the ability to confer princess or queen status on their spouse. A king always trumps a queen, so Prince Philip is not king.
When William succeeds to the throne, Kate will be queen because a king makes his spouse a queen, but not the other way round. However, she will not be the Sovereign, and she will not be the Monarch. Only the person who is born to rule - like the new Prince George - will be the Sovereign and Monarch. Kate's official title will be Queen Consort.
When I said that the daughter of a sovereign cannot make her husband a prince, that is why neither of Princess Anne's husbands were called Prince after they married her. They remained Captain Mark Philips and Timothy Laurence. This is the reason why Princess Anne's daughter and son are Zara and Mark Philips, and why her brother Prince Andrew's children are princesses. Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie, but Zara and Mark Philips. Princess Anne declined HRH status for her children, but they could never have been princes or princesses unless she had married a prince.
In addition, Carole Middleton will be the queen's mother but she will never be Queen Mother. The Queen Mother is someone who is the mother of a reigning monarch and has also been a queen herself. So, when Kate's son succeeds the throne, if Kate is still alive she will be called Queen Mother, like the last Queen Mother who died in 2002. She was the current queen's mother and had been Queen Consort to George VI when Edward abdicated. Kate will have been Queen Consort and then will be the mother of a reigning monarch.
Clear as mud??
You asked who decides...the system is at least a thousand years old.
ETA: Rosetta put it much more succintly!
ETA 2: Until quite recently, only children of the Sovereign and their male-line grandchildren could have a royal title. This means that Princess Anne would not have been a princess at all when she was born, but merely Lady Anne Mountbatten. But George VI changed this. He made it so that any grandchildren of the Sovereign could have a royal title. Princess Anne's is rather nice: she is the Princess Royal.
rosetta
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 3,417
babs23r
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 739
ok guys, here goes. Rosetta got it mostly correct, except that Queen Elizabeth could have named Prince Philip as King Consort. it was her decision not to "upgrade " his title, albeit in name only. Princess Anne's children could have been named Prince and Princess, but Princess Anne didn't want to put the burden of prince and princess on them because of all of the pressure that would come with the title.She knew that they would never be put on the throne , so that was her decision. Lady Diana was not really a " commoner" because she was born an aristocrat. Also, Prince Charles had to ,marry a virgin, pretty hard to find a royal one. Kate is a real commoner, but because of the disastrous marriage of Charles and Diana, they let William marry for love. Kate will be Queen Consort. Lord knows what Camilla will be called, the ghost of Diana still lurks. Whew, I 'm exhausted.
SB621
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2009
- Messages
- 7,864
babs23r|1374713057|3489560 said:
Sorry, Babs, but you're completely wrong about all those things. Princess Anne declined an HRH status for her children, but they could never have been prince or princess unless she had married a prince. They could have been called Her/His Royal Highness, and that's what Anne declined for them, but their father was untitled and was not a prince. The rules of primogeniture say that a princess cannot confer prince status on her husband. Therefore the children are not the children of a prince, and it's the male line that confers the status.
The title King Consort does not exist, and has never existed. A king is always a sovereign. A king always trumps a queen. That is why Philip is Prince Philip and not King Philip.
Lastly, Diana was indeed a commoner. The bluest-blood aristocrat is still a commoner. "Commoner" merely means that you are not royal. You are only royal if you have married into the royal family or you are born into it. You are only royal if you have the title "His Royal Highness" or "Her Royal Highness". No aristocrat has that title; they are earl, duke, lady, countess, marquess etc but they are not royal. There is only royal or commoner, nothing in between. So, odd as it sounds, Lady Diana Spencer was indeed a commoner, as were all the characters of Downton Abbey, had they been real. What those aristocrats are is upper-class.
When you say you don't know what Camilla will be called, I do. She will be Queen Consort, and Queen Camilla. That is the system and that is what will happen. It's like when Americans ask me, a lot, "Do you think Prince Charles will be king?" It annoys me because that's as nonsensical as me asking, "Do you think Obama will get a third term?" The system is the system and it does not change, ever. The only way that Charles will not be king is if he dies before the Queen. And assuming he outlives her, he will be King, Sovereign, Monarch, Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith, and Camilla will be queen. It has been thus for at least a thousand years, it is enshrined, and the chances of it changing are about as likely as Obama is to get a third term.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 13,375
SB, historically it's interesting but Rosetta is right - it's really sexist and shouldn't be that way in the modern world! The UK has been making noises about changing the rules of primogeniture but it hasn't been changed, and now that Kate and William's first-born is a boy, I don't suppose it will change now.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
JulieN|1374714220|3489575 said:
You're right. When Diana and Charles got married, there was talk of her being called Princess Charles, but that was dropped, and if the Queen hadn't bestowed a dukedom on William, Kate would have been Princess William. That's because princesses in their own right are born, not made. So, Diana was not Princess Diana, she was the Princess of Wales and later Diana, Princess of Wales. Everyone called her Princess Diana, of course, but she was not Princess Diana. Fergie's daughters are called Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie because they were born princesses in their own right, the daughters of a prince. If the queen hadn't bestowed a dukedom on Andrew, making them the Duke and Duchess of York, Fergie would have been called Princess Andrew. Again, she couldn't be Princess Sarah because she was not born a princess.
When Charles succeeds to the throne, William will be Prince of Wales. The eldest son of the Sovereign is always the Prince of Wales. So Kate will be the Princess of Wales before she becomes Queen Consort, but she will never be Princess Catherine as she was not born a princess. But the media and the public will call her Princess Catherine, of course, in the same way they called the late Princess of Wales Princess Diana, even thought that was not her title.
It is within the Queen's power to create someone a princess in their own right, though. The Queen has done this only once, when she created Princess Alice. Alice was the wife of the Queen's uncle, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester. So she was the Duchess of Gloucester. The Queen allowed her to be called Princess Alice to recognise the fact that she had been the wife of a prince who was the son of a monarch, George V, and to recognise her incredible public service during the war and after. It's the only time a woman who was not born a princess has been allowed to call herself Princess Firstname. Kate shouldn't hold her breath for that one!
AGBF|1374714846|3489586 said:Smith1942|1374713725|3489569 said:
Good work, Smith. Except, and I shall have to look this up, if one has a seat in the House of Lords I am not sure one is common.
Deb
Hah, well, in today's UK, anybody can be elected to the House of Lords - which is a good thing, since it only used to be hereditary peers and they were all aristocrats....but it does give rise to the likes of Lord Sugar. He has a seat and he is as rough as hell. Souf London conman - excuse me, successful businessman - made good, millions of pounds, Lords seat...and yeah, rough as hell. He's the guy on the British version of You're Fired! or whatever it's called.
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2006
- Messages
- 11,419
) royal rules and naming rights?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
Smith1942|1374715477|3489596 said:
This was on another website and I believe it is correct. "Nobles in Britain are the holder of the title only - not their spouse or children.
They were aristocrats but not nobles. Lord Lorne who married Queen Victoria's daughter Louise was also a commoner as was almost the husband of Edward VII's daughter Louise. The reason I say almost was that Victoria created him Duke of Fife for the wedding thus raising him to noble status."
If one was noble, one was not common. But only the title holder, who could sit in The House of Lords, was noble, The family might be aristocracy, but was not noble. Thus the family of the peer was common. The website pointed out that Lady Diana Spencer was common. Princess Margaret's husband, on the other hand, was ennobled-made the Earl of Snowden-before they were married.
AGBF
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
From what I understand: when people say Kate is a "commoner" (as contrasted to Diana)... what they are really saying is "her family was not from the aristocracy or from royalty, and they are from the middle class by birth." In contrast, Diana was from an aristocratic family. She did not hold title before her marriage (Her father was a Viscount then an Earl and her mother was also from aristocracy and upon her marriage her title was a courtesy through her husband-- per Smith on primogeniture above)-- so Diana wasn't a ' peer or peeress' either. She was addressed as Lady Diana Spencer, but that did not make her a peer as "lady," in this context, is a courtesy prefix reflecting her status as an Earl's daughter only. So she was a 'commoner' but she was an 'aristocrat' by birth. They are not mutually exclusive. Kate is a commoner, and by birth her family isn't aristocratic. Kate is more "Princess Grace" than "Princess Diana." Hopefully her marriage will be happier than either of those lady's.
I think the options are:
Commoner
Peer (still commoner but you have a substantive title) or Peeress (including female peers in their own right, and the wives of holders of peerage titles by courtesy)
Royal married or born royal to a male royal and legitimate (and to be styled His/Her Royal Highness you have the letters patent conferring that on you) or born to a female royal and have a special designation granted to your children (which Princess Anne refused) and legitimate.
A commoner can be from any class-- even royalty (if the parents have declined the formal titles like Zara Philips). And so can a peer (a person granted a title can be born from any class). So you can be a peer without being royalty-- therefore commoner. And you can be a peer AND be royalty. And you can be born into a royal family and still be a commoner (Zara Philips).
It's weird. And I didn't even really get into 'courtesy titles' or morganatic marriages.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
I think the options are:
Commoner
Peer (still commoner but you have a substantive title) or Peeress (including female peers in their own right, and the wives of holders of peerage titles by courtesy)
Royal married or born royal to a male royal and legitimate (and to be styled His/Her Royal Highness you have the letters patent conferring that on you) or born to a female royal and have a special designation granted to your children (which Princess Anne refused) and legitimate.
A commoner can be from any class-- even royalty (if the parents have declined the formal titles like Zara Philips). And so can a peer (a person granted a title can be born from any class). So you can be a peer without being royalty-- therefore commoner. And you can be a peer AND be royalty. And you can be born into a royal family and still be a commoner (Zara Philips).
It's weird. And I didn't even really get into 'courtesy titles' or morganatic marriages.
Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2003
- Messages
- 22,161
babs23r
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 739
ok, let me know if I am wrong about this, but from what I understand, the Queen could have given Princess Anne's husband a title, and her children could have been royal. She didn't want that for her children. it seems as if the Queen can bestow a title on anyone. the Middletons now have a coat of arms that was given to them by the queen.
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
babs23r|1374717091|3489625 said:
No. Two separate things.
A title doesn't make you royal. It makes a peer.
Being a peer still means being commoner unless you are royal.
Letters of Patent can 'make' you royal.
Anne declined TWO things. She declined titles/peerage for her husband (that her children could inherit). AND she declined "HRH" designation" ( and Letters Patent) for her children.
She could have accepted the titles/peerage. Declined the HRH and Letters Patent. Kids still common. Can inherit peerage titles.
She could have declined the peerage titles. Accepted the HRH and Letters Patent. Kids have no peerage titles. Are Royal.
It's the HRH/Letters Patent thing that technically makes you "Royal" not a peerage title (or any other).
HRH is a designation ONLY for someone is has letters patent stating that they have a right to that title and that they are Royal.
AGBF|1374716287|3489611 said:Smith1942|1374715477|3489596 said:
This was on another website and I believe it is correct. "Nobles in Britain are the holder of the title only - not their spouse or children.
They were aristocrats but not nobles. Lord Lorne who married Queen Victoria's daughter Louise was also a commoner as was almost the husband of Edward VII's daughter Louise. The reason I say almost was that Victoria created him Duke of Fife for the wedding thus raising him to noble status."
If one was noble, one was not common. But only the title holder, who could sit in The House of Lords, was noble, The family might be aristocracy, but was not noble. Thus the family of the peer was common. The website pointed out that Lady Diana Spencer was common. Princess Margaret's husband, on the other hand, was ennobled-made the Earl of Snowden-before they were married.
AGBF
So, Lord Sugar was not a hereditary peer, he was elected to the House of Lords. He was from a very poor, working-class background. But you are not talking about anyone in the House of Lords above - correct? The title you're talking about when you say "Nobles in Britain are the holder of the title only" - you're talking about the actual title holder, such as the Earl of Wessex, or the Lord of Northumberland? You're not talking about the House of Lords anymore but about their hereditary titles? The titles came first. Hereditary peers are in the House of Lords because they have titles, they do not have titles because they are in the House of Lords. That is only the case where you have elected peers, who can be working class people like Lord Sugar.
If I'm correct, then yes, only the holder of the title is the nobleman. So in Downton Abbey, Lord Grantham is the nobleman. However, he is still a commoner, because he is not royal. You are royal or you are a commoner. Nobles are still commoners because they are not royal. There is nothing in between. So, if Earl Spencer, Diana's father, had married Princess Anne, it still would have been a marriage of a royal and a commoner. And their children would still have been Lady or Lord and not prince or princess, because even though he was an earl he was not royal so his children couldn't be either, and a princess can't turn a spouse into a prince.
babs23r
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2012
- Messages
- 739
Gypsy|1374717461|3489632 said:
You're right, Gypsy. I'm not sure if the queen offered a peerage to Anne's husband, though. But she did decline the HRH, although her children could never have been princes or princesses, since they weren't the children of a prince. They could have been HRH Zara Philips, and HRH Peter Philips, and I know she declined that. Interesting point about the peerage, though. Not sure if it was offered or not.
babs23r|1374717091|3489625 said:
Sorry babs, but that's also wrong! Coats of Arms are awarded by the College of Arms and anybody can apply. There's a fee, of course. But it doesn't mean that anybody can get a coat of arms. You have to be a person of substance holding a civil or military commission, or someone who has achieved distinction in a field beneficial to society as a whole. The College of Arms decides. It isn't anything to do with the Queen.
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
I'm not sure if peerage was offered or not, come to think of it. Good point.
But the difference is still there. Titles/Peerage are different from Letters Patent and HRH designation. It gets confusing if you think of HRH as a 'title'... it's best to think of it as a designation I find. Titles are often equated with peerage. So I use 'designation' because it reminds me that they are separate animals.
But the difference is still there. Titles/Peerage are different from Letters Patent and HRH designation. It gets confusing if you think of HRH as a 'title'... it's best to think of it as a designation I find. Titles are often equated with peerage. So I use 'designation' because it reminds me that they are separate animals.
Gypsy|1374716604|3489616 said:
Gypsy - just to be clear, titles such as Lady Diana Spencer are considered real titles, not courtesy titles. Diana did have a title before marriage, and upon divorce, when Prince Philip threatened to take away her title, meaning her royal one, she was able to say to him, "My title is a lot older than yours, Philip" - meaning her Spencer title, which is very old. Just because the family titles emanate from the male earl or lord, doesn't make the relatives' titles less of a title. Diana was certainly considered titled, and the rules of primogeniture are the same for the royals and for the aristocracy. So by the logic described above, Kate, Duchess of Cambridge, would not be considered titled - which of course, she is. When a woman marries and the couple have children, the wives and daughters become real duchesses, countesses, ladies, etc in their own right, even if they are not the peer. It's not just a courtesy title. (The sons will inherit the peerage, anyway.)
Also, just so you know, a letters patent is not issued for every single person who becomes royal. They are issued once in time, laying down the law for the succession of a particular line. So, George VI issued a letters patent stating that all grandchildren of a monarch could be royal, not just the male ones. This allowed Princess Anne to be Princess Anne and the Princess Royal, instead of Lady Anne Mountbatten. But that letters patent will stand until someone sees fit to change it. It doesn't have to be reissued every time a sovereign has a female grandchild.
ETA: Good idea to think of being royal as a designation. I'm going to do that, too.
It is very complex, I know!
AGBF|1374716287|3489611 said:Smith1942|1374715477|3489596 said:
This was on another website and I believe it is correct. "Nobles in Britain are the holder of the title only - not their spouse or children.
They were aristocrats but not nobles. Lord Lorne who married Queen Victoria's daughter Louise was also a commoner as was almost the husband of Edward VII's daughter Louise. The reason I say almost was that Victoria created him Duke of Fife for the wedding thus raising him to noble status."
If one was noble, one was not common. But only the title holder, who could sit in The House of Lords, was noble, The family might be aristocracy, but was not noble. Thus the family of the peer was common. The website pointed out that Lady Diana Spencer was common. Princess Margaret's husband, on the other hand, was ennobled-made the Earl of Snowden-before they were married.
AGBF
Deb - that would be highly irregular. Because otherwise, anybody could propose marriage to Princess Margaret and then run off with their shiny new title before getting hitched, setting themselves up as an aristocrat, accepting book offers, etc - I mean, horrors! So I looked it up, and he was created Lord Snowdon 18 months after the marriage, because of concerns that Princess Margaret's children wold be born without a title.
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
Smith... 
http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/dame.aspx Per Debretts: "A peeress (including female peers in their own right, and the wives of holders of peerage titles by courtesy) ...." I guess it depends on your definition of courtesy title. When you marry title holder you are elevated to being a PEER. But you are not the title holder. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, so they cannot frequently hold a hereditary peerage title in their own right. When their spouses die, the title passes to the next heir of the body and when that heir marries they are given the designation "dowager" to add to their title. A courtesy title.
As for Lady Diana. She never held a peerage title before her marriage. http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/diana-spencer.html She had a brother who inherited her father's title. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, including her father's title. Lady Diana Spencer (first name, last name) is not a peerage title. It is a honorary prefix. I have no idea why she made that comment (or if she made it, for sure). But it wasn't in reference to an actual peerage title she held before her marriage to my knowledge. Unless one of her father's lesser titles (not the Earldom) was able to be passed to her. But I doubt that as she had older sisters as well. All "Lady" titles that are peerage are Lady Last Name or Lady Title. Not Lady First Name Last Name. The style of address of first name and last name tells you it is a not a peerage title. "The daughters of a duke, marquess or earl have the courtesy title of 'Lady' before their forename and surname." http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/courtesy-titles.aspx
Mark Philips was "RUMORED" to have been offered a peerage... IF You believe Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Phillips So... we'll never know.
http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/dame.aspx Per Debretts: "A peeress (including female peers in their own right, and the wives of holders of peerage titles by courtesy) ...." I guess it depends on your definition of courtesy title. When you marry title holder you are elevated to being a PEER. But you are not the title holder. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, so they cannot frequently hold a hereditary peerage title in their own right. When their spouses die, the title passes to the next heir of the body and when that heir marries they are given the designation "dowager" to add to their title. A courtesy title.
As for Lady Diana. She never held a peerage title before her marriage. http://www.thebiographychannel.co.uk/biographies/diana-spencer.html She had a brother who inherited her father's title. Women are ineligible to succeed to the majority of hereditary peerages, including her father's title. Lady Diana Spencer (first name, last name) is not a peerage title. It is a honorary prefix. I have no idea why she made that comment (or if she made it, for sure). But it wasn't in reference to an actual peerage title she held before her marriage to my knowledge. Unless one of her father's lesser titles (not the Earldom) was able to be passed to her. But I doubt that as she had older sisters as well. All "Lady" titles that are peerage are Lady Last Name or Lady Title. Not Lady First Name Last Name. The style of address of first name and last name tells you it is a not a peerage title. "The daughters of a duke, marquess or earl have the courtesy title of 'Lady' before their forename and surname." http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/titles/courtesy-titles.aspx
Mark Philips was "RUMORED" to have been offered a peerage... IF You believe Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Phillips So... we'll never know.
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
Okay. Found the source of Diana's alleged comment to Prince Philip. "Almost a year before, according to Tina Brown, the Duke of Edinburgh had warned the Princess of Wales: "If you don't behave, my girl, we'll take your title away." The Princess of Wales is said to have replied: "My title (The Lady Diana Frances Spencer) is a lot older than yours, Philip."'
She wasn't speaking accurately. She meant "My father's title is older than that of the House of Windsor/ Saxe Gotha." And she did have a courtesy title of Lady Diana Francis Spencer before her marriage. She was not referring to any title she was the actual holder of, however.
In a sense she was right about the Spencer line. And in a sense she was wrong, since she was speaking to Prince Philips (allegedly) specifically: Prince Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, and Denmark has Europe's oldest monarchy.
She wasn't speaking accurately. She meant "My father's title is older than that of the House of Windsor/ Saxe Gotha." And she did have a courtesy title of Lady Diana Francis Spencer before her marriage. She was not referring to any title she was the actual holder of, however.
In a sense she was right about the Spencer line. And in a sense she was wrong, since she was speaking to Prince Philips (allegedly) specifically: Prince Philip was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, and Denmark has Europe's oldest monarchy.
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2008
- Messages
- 13,352
Gypsy
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2005
- Messages
- 40,225
AprilBaby|1374721895|3489687 said:
Yes and no.
It's easier just to link you to the article here: http://www.upi.com/blog/2013/07/23/Prince-Williams-surname-Wales-is-one-of-three-choices-for-royal-baby/2801374590028/
The royal baby will have the title of Prince of Cambridge, he does not need to have a surname.
If Catherine and William want to include a surname, they can choose between Mountbatten-Windsor, Wales and Cambridge.
George V adopted Windsor in 1917 after Windsor Castle, changing it from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, because of anti-German sentiment in World War I. The Queen and Prince Phillip then combined their surnames to get Mountbatten-Windsor, which was passed on to Prince Charles.
Prince William uses the name of his royal house, Wales, for his military role. The couple could also use Cambridge, the name given them upon their marriage.
The Ultimate Guide to Men’s Wedding Bands: Metals, Fit & Finish
The Ultimate Guide to Men’s Wedding Bands: Metals, Fit & Finish - 06/27
Chipped Diamonds: Causes, Risks, and What You Should Do About It
Chipped Diamonds: Causes, Risks, and What You Should Do About It - 06/27
300x240.png)