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

Yes, you can see a couple of cards in there.

People do care because, whether you like it or not, in this country we still have a monarchy. How it operates nowadays incorporates its associated history and titles are part of that.

It's pastime, by the way, not pass time, when you're referring to a hobby or interest.

So down the line, I assume that the Duke of Sussex title just becomes a normal hereditary title not a HRH title? ie Archie's son would just be a regular duke, not a royal duke?

Yes - once titles get past Grandchildren of monarch they cease to be referred to as Royal Dukedoms. It's also the person who is a prince and has HRH not the dukedom itself which is royal.

If the children stay in USA it remains to be seen how useful the titles will be to them and their decedents - and if they aren't they can just not use them.

But actually getting all legal stuff and rebranding done at once making it clear what surname is so kids legal name is ready for schools for social and paperwork etc seems sensible.

Also in unlikely event titles was striped - their legal surname in USA wouldn't be affected I assume - as if it's now legally the surname of the kids.

Meghan gave ann impassioned speech to tween and teenaged girls in which she told them that women and girls should be each other’s champions and supports because they/ we are “linked, not ranked - right?”. She was already the Duchess of Sussex at the time.

”Linked not ranked” always spring to my mind each time she refers to herself as Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex.

Yes, Archie's son will be a regular duke, as will the sons of the current Dukes of Gloucester and Kent. These will cease being royal dukedoms.

Interestingly, when King Charles gave his brother Prince Edward the Dukedom of Edinburgh (another traditional royal dukedom), he gave it for life. So Edward's son will be Earl of Wessex in his own right (already uses the title by courtesy) on his father's death, but not Duke of Edinburgh.

I always thought that if I found myself marrying a Prince then got given a Duchess title I'd be pretty pissed off.

Little girls want to grow up to princesses not Duchesses.

Duchesses are old, and there are lots of them randomly about, and definitely imagined to be below princesses in most people's imagination. Certainly in America.

I also thought Sussex is a crap place to be a Duchess of. It's non descript and doesn't have weight.
TBF I also thought Cambridge was a crap one too.

The good ones are York and Edinburgh.

Prince and Princess of Wales are the most dashing glamorous titles though.

Especially for Kate being the next to hold the title after Diana. It has such resonance.

So let them be duke and duchess of Sussex if they want to. I don't think it's going to change much for them except make them look like their cosplaying being royal in America.

Especially for Kate being the next to hold the title after Diana. It has such resonance.

She may be the next to use it after Diana, but she holds it after Camilla.

Thanks all - I see now.

always thought that if I found myself marrying a Prince then got given a Duchess title I'd be pretty pissed off.

Part of the reason for all this duke and duchess business is that the British RF insists on differentiating between princesses by birth and those by marriage. Married ones need to be Duchess of something or else they would be Princess Henry or such (as in Princess Michael of Kent). The British RF just need to do what the continental royals do and allow a married-in princess to use her first name, as in Princess Marie of Denmark or Princess Laurentien of the Netherlands.

Mine is Princess Sparkle Athena

Tbh, this bit (referring to William) is just as hilarious on the Cambridge children's birth registration "Prince of the United Kingdom".

Oh people won't like thus response, it's only bad if H&M do something

I thought that was their name. I always call H and M by Sussex. I've never called them Mountbatten.

I thought as a granddaughter of QE Louise is technically a princess whether she chooses to use that title or not. So she could be known as Louise Wessex.

I don't think anyone cares what name they use the commotion seems to come from using royal coronets and coat of arms on website. They promised Queen Elizabeth they wouldn't use Sussex brand for commercialised profit making but blatantly using coronet and coat of arms to do so. The coronet and coat of arms should be taken away from them.

@caringcarer
Zara has a coat of arms with coronet etc. She is sponsored by many different companies, no doubt her royal connection helps.
Peter Phillips ditto.
Andrew, Beatrice, Eugenie all have coat of arms with coronets etc. All these are non working Royals
Could you tell me why H&M should be different and not have a coat of arms?

To be pedantic 😀they all have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor, not just the untitled ones.

Traditionally those with titles would use the title, those without would fall back on the surname.

I assume using the title as a surname is because Mountbatten-Windsor is a bit of a mouthful.

@Roussette I can't find Zara Phillips website - could you link?

Agree being a mouthful, also wasn't he the dodgy uncle?

There have been rumours flying around, but since Operation Yewtree I keep an open mind on those sorts of rumour.

Most posters in this thread are pointing this out and that it is a non-story or asking/answering a question.

@Roussette of course they have coats of arms. What is interesting is why is Harry’s absent from the website. What about their joint coat of arms?

I promise I'm not being rude but ...who cares?!

If it had been just Harry's, that would have been a wrong because it's H&M so everything is a problem!

How weird you can't find it. Her name is Zara Tindall not Phillips. If you put in Zara Tindall on Google, it's at the very top. Very first one! And no she doesn't show her coat of arms, her choice.

Yes, you are being rude.

There have been several sets of exchanges on this thread about why people differ in what they care about. You seem to care about reigniting that derailment.

@Propertylover I agree, I think that a site that is the Office of both would naturally use the joint Coat of Arms as there is one available. Using only one (either one) makes the partnership look unequal.