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

@JSMill i agree. I would call KC sir as he is older than me. but the idea of calling harry or Meghan, William, kate and so on....no way

The royals do seem to have a flexible approach to their surnames (dropping Saxe-Coburg etc)

Yes and that was done for appearance's sake too, back in WWI when they no longer wanted to be seen as "a bunch of Germans"

I criticise H&M for plenty, but at least they're only using a name they're entitled to rather than inventing a whole new one

@GingerIsBest I can see your suggested wording that BP could have used may have worked.

I have a lot of experience tiptoeing around a hyper sensitive family member and no matter what I do it’s always wrong and gets a backlash.

What happens to their prince/princess titles when charles passes and william is King?

They stay as they are.

The male line grandchildren of the monarch are entitled to the titles as per the 1917 LPs.

Several of George V’s grandchildren were born after his death and titled as male line grand children of a monarch

Charles dying won’t change anything for them (unless William changes LPs)

They’ve announced it to coincide with rebranding and website launch so it’s reasonable to see it as a branding exercise.

They have been inconsistent to the point of dishonesty on the issue of names/titles/commitment to ‘equality’ etc so further developments invariably raise eyebrows

@Gottseidank there you go. Your latest comment proves the pp right. Digging digging.

What they have done is to utilise the first time they publicly use their names as part of the launch of the new website. The website launch is the day before they arrive in Canada for the Invictus games so maximising publicity for both.

H & M are perfectly entitled to do that.

They are also entitled to choose to be followed by a Netflix TV crew, which is alleged to be happening. I assume it’s a behind the scenes look at Invictus. The RF did something similar with the Coronation.

Robert would be Robert Crawley Lord Grantham or Earl of Grantham. Crawley is the family name and Grantham is the title.

Yes, but he would be referred to as Robert Grantham, his titular name

Remember there's a layer of military usage with Invictus as well.

Even after they've all retired, those junior often still call commissioned officers and senior NCOs "Sir", and wives of officers default to "Ma'am" (until they tell you to stop it) which does save quite a lot of name remembering!

But of course, it's a bit different for the Sussexes, as a) IG people will all know their names and b) Harry, though commissioned, was not particularly senior.

It was a bit weird - in some circumstances, the Waleses would call DH "Sir" and salute him (ie in strictly military formal environments as he outranked them), but in others he would call them "Sir" (representational) and salute them. Or at least I think that's how it worked.

I think the way the Sir/Ma'am thing is being reported looks bad for the Sussexes, as it's widely seen as standing on rank, so it's a shame it was said at all. The "just call me Harry" was a better stance

They didn't seem so bothered about birth right when they decided not to use the versions their DC were entitled to at birth - Earl of Dumbarton (or Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor) and Lady Lili Mountbatten-Windsor

Unchanged.

They are still the DGC of a monarch, even after that monarch is deceased. Just as the York sisters are still Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie.

Yes, very possibly. Are you too surprised?

Staggering if true.

That's not quite true. They may have the right to use the HRH style, but it is not automatically conveyed upon them. Although they were grandchildren of the reigning monarch, neither Princess Anne's children nor Prince Edward's children were styled HRH.

I think that unless you're in the close direct line of succession, it's rather pretentious to take that HRH style.

Personally I think it's also very pretentious of the Sussexes to give their children "prince" and "princess" titles - and very hypocritical. They claimed to want to get away from the Royal Family, yet they plonk those silly titles onto their children! Why would they do that for any reason other than to inflate their sense of importance? It's a very un-British thing to do, imo.

Never mind the title, is that the same center stone in Meghan’s newly returned engagement ring?? It’s MAHOOSIVE 😱

Anne's children are not descended in the male line, Anne being female.

Edward's children are entitled to use HRH (and Prince/ss) but their parents chose not to use those titles, but that they should be known by their 'lesser' titles. Louise has turned 18 and not used HRH Princess, so presumably is happy with that.

I can't read the article but I wonder if it's just easier especially when dealing with another countries legal system and conventions to have it legally fixed and clear what it is - so no confusion about dealing with titles and HRH stuff.

There are actually quite a few royals from different countries who have lived, or who are living, in the US. Generally, they can call themselves whatever they want. US states tend to be fairly liberal (not in a political sense) about what people call themselves as long as they are not using names to commit fraud.

That's why we will need new LPs at some point (ideally before George marries).

Because there's currently a mismatch between the rules for HRH Prince/ss and abolition of male preference in primogeniture.

Because if Charlotte had been born first, and KC still alive when Charlotte and hypothetically younger George had their DC, then there would be the nonsense that Charlotte's DC would be Lord/Lady (even though they are the direct line) as HRH Prince/ss is only for DGGC who are the DC of the eldest son of the PoW.

So at a minimum, they need to change it to DGGC who are DC of the eldest child in the direct line (as there would be no PoW if heir apparent was female)

And whilst they're about it, they might have a think about what's the best arrangement for titles/styles for offspring of "spares". And do it soon, so it's can't possibly be taken as a snub by anyone directly involved before actual marriages have happened or real DC are in the picture,

They may have the right to use the HRH style, but it is not automatically conveyed upon them.

Under the current LPs, it is automatic once a person becomes a grandchild of the monarch in the male line. The LPs can be changed, of course. Charles could do it, but seems disinclined to. William could do it when he becomes king, but he would likely be affecting his own grandchildren, not just Charles's.

What they told Oprah was total nonsense. Archie could have had a title when he was born. Earl of Dumbarton I think. But they didn't t want that. Can't say I blame them for once. Them when the Queen died and they became grandchildren of the new monarch they were entitled to be Prince and Princess.

Well said, and excellent explanation.