Harry & Meghan change their surname

[Gottseidank]

… from Mountbatten-Windsor to ‘Sussex’.
Apparently it’s to strengthen their brand.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-harry-meghan-sussex-archie-lilibet-children-name-royal-title-cnvf7d9jf

They are called Sussex because they are a Prince and a Princess and their parents are the Duke & Duchess of Sussex.

Mountbatten - Windsor is the surname used by the Queen & Prince Philip's male line descendents who are not Prince/Princess. Archie & Lilibet were not Prince & Princess at birth so used the surname.

I don't know how it works in the US though. I wonder if they've had to legally change their surnames as obviously there are no American.

It comes with significant privilege, though!

Maybe they are preparing for a time when William will slim down the Monarchy in a similar way to the Danes.

It's not the name change, it's all the fuss and stuffiness around it, self promotion etc ... people are bored of them being so high and mighty in their own heads but actually they're pretty shocking as people with sod all to offer

What Harry and Meghan are doing is actually very traditional for a royal couple.

Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis were all registered as 'HRH Name of Cambridge' on their birth certificates.

As pp's have said, their given names became 'HRH Name of Wales' when Prince William became PoW.

The York girls were born HRH's, so were also styled as 'HRH Name of York'.

Lady Louise and Viscount David (when born), children of Prince Edward and Sophie were not born HRH's. Their birth certificates have their surname as Mountbatten-Windsor, although they used just Windsor at school (not Wessex).

Both Archie and Lilibet's birth certificates show their surname as Mountbatten-Windsor. Lili's looks very different in style as obviously it's a US birth certificate.

I think (although fully prepared to accept my understanding is wrong) the difference is that Harry & Meghan have chosen Sussex as a surname for Prince Archie & Princess Lili when neither of the children are HRH's.

I suppose the situation is unprecedented in that Harry & Meghan are still HRH's, but agreed not to use this title. Even if they started using HRH again, the children are not HRH's so wouldn't use Sussex as a surname in the UK.

Mountbatten-Windsor was just a made up name anyway.

George V decided to change the family name to Windsor just over 100 years ago. The Mountbatten bit was supposed to be because Philip was miffed that he was the only man whose children couldn't have his name. Which was funny as his father wasn't a Mountbatten, his mother was a Battenberg, the English branch of her family changed their name to Mountbatten.

I vaguely remember the change from Windsor to Mountbatten-Windsor so I imagine that was the 60s.

Harry deciding to be a Sussex doesn't seem an issue.

The titles are obviously very important to them, maybe they're just trying to future proof it for the children. I doubt if William would stop them using Duke/Duchess, Prince/Princess.

One thing I always wondered about the "titles" thing - when they were first born they were Mr and Miss but, for example, Louise has always been "lady Louise" so I've wondered if that entire conversation between Meghan and Oprah was badly figured out because it was two Americans talking about it. Did Meghan think that her children should be Prince and Princess? Probably. But arguably, should they have been "Lord and Lady" from day 1? Also probably.

It's also complicated because I think Edward's Essex title has been granted to him in in perpetuity - so his son inherits it. But many of the other titles - Edinburgh, York are not. I'm not sure about Sussex, it looks like actually, it HAS been granted to Harry and will be passed to Archie.

@Iwasafool - that's because Philip's name was Schleswig Holstein Sonderberg Glucksberg.
There were anglicised Mountbatten relatives (from his mother's side) in the UK, so that seemed an appropriate surname to take. Although Philip renounced his princely status, George VI reinstated them on marriage.

@goldierocks I THINK the key difference is the "of" Wales or "Of" Sussex.

So if you are a prince or princess, you would not be styled: Prince Archie Sussex but actually Prince Archie OF Sussex. Similarly, you would not be Prince Archie OF Mountbatten-Windsor. As a prince, at times at which it is not appropriate to use the title (eg at school or work, buying a plane ticket etc) He may choose to use Archie Sussex as a convenient way to identify himself outside of royal circles.

Whereas when they were born, they were NOT prince/princess so they were registered as Archie/Lillibet Mountbatten-Windsor. ie first name surname.

From birth, @GingerIsBest , the children could have been the Earl of Dumbarton and Lady Lilibet Mountbatten Windsor. Their parents chose not to take that route. I remember Omid Scobie announcing that. No titles
Obviously they have changed their minds. Their children were always going to be so titled on their grandfather ascending to the throne.

Are the children HRHs?

I can’t imagine living in the US and actually using a Prince/ Princess title.

Archie and Lily could have been Lord and Lady from birth. Archie could have been known as the Earl of Dumbarton from birth.

Only Edinburgh of the recent titles haven't been granted in that way. Wessex was, hence James inheriting use of it with his father's upgrade. Sussex is set that way. York was, but as titles only go down the male line its likely to revert back to the crown as he only has girls, however if Andrew has a son before he dies that son would inherit the York title.

Aah, okay, so that was a choice at the time? Interesting. Maybe they were worried that if they did that it would be harder to swap to Prince/Princess when Charlies became king? Odd.

So I guess technically Archie is currently Prince Archie of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton as his full title?

I rather suspect MM will use it - makes her
Sound more grandiose to be the mum of a princess and prince

York was, but as titles only go down the male line its likely to revert back to the crown as he only has girls, however if Andrew has a son before he dies that son would inherit the York title. I thought I'd read somewhere that it wasn't hereditary and that's why Beatrice's son couldn't inherit? But it's more ridiculous and to do with the fact that Andrew 's daughters can't even hold it for their sons!? Ick.

And actually, now I think about it, I remember seeing this before and being annoyed that Beatrice couldn't inherit it in her own right in the first place!

Part of the issue is the way H & M go about announcing things rather than following historical processes.

Archie & Lilibet were entitled to the Prince & Princess titles as soon as HMQEII died. As minors it was entirely H & Ms decision whether or not to use their titles.

H & M chose when to announce it and allegedly caught BP on the hop so they quickly had to update the website etc. Protocol would have seen them tell KC and Buckingham Palace would do the formal announcement allowing time to get the website ready to go.

The Sussex children are HRHs.

All grandchildren of the monarch from the male line are automatically HRH Prince or HRH Princess.

I think this is a big fuss over nothing. If they’d followed the usual rules of titles and styles, if Harry and Meghan had needed to use a surname after their marriage - which they didn’t, because Harry is a Prince - the convention would for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to use Harry Sussex and Meghan Sussex - i.e. their highest title would become their surname.

Archie and Lilibet would follow this convention, at which stage male primacy has an impact. As oldest son, Archie would take his father’s second title, Earl Dumbarton, as both a courtesy title and surname (so he’d be Lord Archie Dumbarton) Lilibet doesn’t get a courtesy title, but as the daughter of a Duke she’s entitled to style herself as Lady using the familial surname, even if she’s the only one in the family who uses it! So she would be Lady Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor, like Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones was the daughter of Lord Snowden (Anthony Armstrong-Jones), and the sister of David Linley (David Armstrong-Jones, with courtesy title Viscount Linley)….

BUT the entitlement to Princely titles changes all that. Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet would not traditionally need a surname. Modern life has moved on though, and they do really need one for official documents and school enrolments etc. It has became the norm for Princes/Princesses to adopt the designation of their parents’ highest title as a surname (so, Harry Wales, George Cambridge etc - though he might be George Wales now, we don’t know).

I can’t even get exercised about the fact that Meghan still uses Markle, so has no need of Sussex. The youngest Mitford sister, Deborah, married Lord Andrew Cavendish in the 1940s, and due to the death of his older brother in WWII went through several different titles and styles and ended up as the Duchess of Devonshire. She mostly signed her name in correspondence as “Debo Devonshire” but wrote books as “Deborah Mitford Duchess of Devonshire” - so it’s all a bit of a free for all!

In terms of birth registration which some PPS have mentioned, on the General Register Office indexes of births the surnames of George, Charlotte, Louis and Archie are all shown under Mountbatten.

It's not that H&M have changed their minds about using titles for their children. It's because Harry's father is now king and the monarch's grandchildren are known as prince/princess. That's what has changed.

Arguably, part of the problem is that the Palace didn't immediately update the website at the point at which QE2 died. Protocols for a shift in title were implemented instantly - clearly long agreed and a plan in place. But Archie and Lillibet were excluded, including within about a day when it was announced that W&C would be Prince and Princess of Wales immediately.

Don't get me wrong, I think Meghan and Harry don't always do themselves any favours, but the pettiness that seems to come out of the palace is ridiculous and contributes massively to the problem. This an organisation that has full protocols for what happens when the monarch dies, so really, it shouldn't have been a big deal.

It is hereditary, but only on the direct male line and doesn't skip generations.

So it can't go to Beatrice or her daughter. Nor can it go to Eugenie or her eldest son.

@GingerIsBest I felt for Beatrice too - primogeniture still matters.