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

@Roussette good point - Tindall not Phillips!

But as she doesn't use her coat of arms on the website, not very relevant to H&M using theirs - or apparently Meghan's, not their joint one.

https://zaratindall.com/
Here it is - no coat of arms! It's clearly written, her achievements rightly noted, no verbosity, no wild claims.
The only honorific noted is the MBE which she was awarded.
I think a world class equestrian and Olympian is entitled to such merit.

No, this name is for the descendants of Prince Phillip, who was Harry's grandfather.

It is available to all descendants of Phillip and ER II, if they need a surname and don't have another one to use

(Other Mountbattens exist, but they're nothing to do with why this surname is used for late Queen's descendants)

Yes, @EdithWeston is right, and it was said upthread (or on another thread!) that Philip adopted the anglicised surname Mountbatten, his mother was Princess Alice of Battenberg.

@Maireas
Please see my last post. I pointed out there was no coat of arms on there in that post!

However all members of the RF have them

I know. I said "no Coat of Arms"?

I do apologise if you find the words 'who cares' rude. I said it with an exclamation mark so it was meant in a light-hearted way and as I said I don't mean to be rude. I see far worse posts on here as far as rudeness to be honest.
But please accept my apologies to you.

@Roussette it’s interesting as commercially it gives them
more options. Each can use their own CoA for separate projects and the joint one for joint projects.

As I have said on this thread H & M are just using their existing names and titles which they are entitled to do - so no issue no drama.

However, it is inconsistent with previous statements H & M made. Why were then not honest from the start. It does make parts of the Oprah interview in retrospect look disingenuous.

Thanks for your post @Propertylover

The Oprah interview was three years ago and I think situations evolve and change. And the interview was done at a particularly difficult time, and I think doing it was a knee jerk reaction and it should not have happened. I just don't think they could have set out their plans for the future in stone at that point.

People and the press forget that Camilla isn't the only spouse of Charles to hold the title of Duchess of Cornwall. It was one of Diana's titles too, but the Princess of Wales title was the one that was used.

maybe they just changed their minds. Archie must be starting school, so sorting his surname must be important.

The coat of arms on the website looks very tacky.

BTW the Mail is reporting that H intends to give a TV interview about Charles’ cancer

It does make parts of the Oprah interview in retrospect look disingenuous.

The one where it was claimed they were married beforehand in garden - and Archbishop of Canterbury had to say no they weren't - one where they didn't know about the letters patent in affect with titles. I do wonder how much pressure they were under to be controversial and say what Oprah wanted to hear.

BTW the Mail is reporting that H intends to give a TV interview about Charles’ cancer

I'd find that really odd TBH - it's his Dad medical information - wouldn't that been seen as invading privacy both side of the Atlantic.

IF😀 he does - it's the DM so who knows? - no doubt the Sussex Squad will say that he is 'raising awareness' and it is all part of his life of service

@Roussette I agree it has not aged well. Endgame is much more recent and why their silence on the leak from the Dutch version was deafening.

I am glad they appear to be being more true to what they actually always wanted. It will be interesting to watch over the years ahead.

Suspect he will just say what’s already out there in the public ie undergoing treatment, doing well etc.

i found the whole statement thing on they won’t be broken very odd. It reads like they genuinely think they’ve done nothing wrong and just get attacked.

i find the pair of them quite gobsmacking. Clearly they are now trying to capitalise on the good publicity that always comes with invictus. Using this time to do interviews and relaunch. Sort of jump on thr bandwagon.

i kind of watch them a bit astonished, they clearly live in a bubble, surrounded by yes People and are a bit thick ,

The interview will be about Invictus , I don’t think he will say much about Charles other than a version of doing well. Any interviewer given the chance is going to bring up Charles.

I found the whole statement thing on they won’t be broken very odd. It reads like they genuinely think they’ve done nothing wrong and just get attacked.

Yes, that’s what their supporters are always saying, too. Odd.

@Vespanest exactly.

Going back to the titles and CoA I always have a memory of Harrods with, I think 3, huge By Royal Appointment CoA on the corner of the building.

Are H & M able to do the By Royal Appointment or is it just KC, WC and PoW? I can’t remember if Diana had one as PoW.

It’s weird right, it’s like they accept no responsibility for their actions.

they are now trying to be the royal family for the USA. Except a more rent a royal model. Pay them to front up and promote any of your shit.

i read on the mail (and yes i know) that they told the invictus organiser they wished to be called sir and ma’am. Which is utterly cringe.

No they aren’t able, and they can’t use the term royal either.

Apparently the interview is for Good Morning America who have been following them around this week . Will Reeve ( presenter) has said H talks about his father’s cancer.

I suppose I’m hopping that the interview will centre on Invictus