Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname

[Andy T]

It's interesting that both 'Mountbatten' and 'Windsor' are names that were made up a century ago.

If Charles wanted something altogether different, he could go with the "House of Edinburgh" The Houses of Normandy, Lancaster & York originated from the titles of the Dukes who founded them, and unless his father outlives his mother, Charles will be Duke of Edinburgh when he becomes King. That might complicate/confuse matters in view of the plan to making Edward Duke of Edinburgh once the title merges with the crown, though.....and there's the prospect of Scottish independence....

It feels to me somehow that Elizabeth will be associated more with her forebears than her descendants and that with the prospect of a Charles III-William V-George VII-son/daughter succession, a new House is in the making.

 

[Osipi]

"The centenary of the House of Windsor has been commemorated with a new coin.
The Royal Family’s name was radically switched 100 years ago in 1917 because of anti-German feeling during the First World War.
King George V decided that it was inappropriate for the royals to hold the German name Saxe-Coburg-Gotha – which came to the family in 1840 with the marriage of Queen Victoria to Prince Albert – while Britain was fighting Germany."


New coin issued to mark House of Windsor centenary - BT

Know what is truly amazing when you think about it? The Queen and Prince Philip have been around for 91 and 96 years out of those 100.

Kind of mind blowing when you think about it.

 

[duke of poliganc]

honestly i think they should change the family name to britain something like the belgian royal family instead of keeping changing the family name to whatever the monarch or consort or the public feels and think at a certain time . instead of that we have a saxe coburg and gotha monarch who call herself a windsor and a consort who call himself a Mountbatten which is a translation of battenberg which is his mother family name which is a branch of the house of Hesse-Darmstadt and his real family name is that of his father which is the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg if the royal house is going to change from saxe coburg and gotha to Glücksburg i wouldn't mind it instead of just creating royal houses only on the base of personal individual likeness .

 

[Iluvbertie]

All names are creations at some time in History so why complain about names that were 'made up' only 100 years ago and suggest changing it to something made up at some earlier point in time.

The House of Windsor is the best known royal house in the world today so why change the modern name just because it is only 100 years old?

 

[duke of poliganc]

All names are creations at some time in History so why complain about names that were 'made up' only 100 years ago and suggest changing it to something made up at some earlier point in time.

The House of Windsor is the best known royal house in the world today so why change the modern name just because it is only 100 years old?

because it's gonna change eventually george successor maybe gonna be a girl and then they will gonna start over again like in 1953 should she and her heirs keep the name windsor or Mountbatten-Windsor or she would take the name of her husband they eventually gonna need to choose between the belgian solution or the dutch , danish and luxembourg solution . and i can tolerate the windsor more than the "Mountbatten" why would you choose the translation of the name of a morganatic branch instead of your real name of a house that can be traced back for more than a 1000 year and two of it's members are currently monarchs of two other countries !

 

[Iluvbertie]

They don't need to change at all - like the Swedes - keeping the House name of Windsor even if the family name changes. The Swedes are going to remain the House of Bernadotte even though that isn't Daniel surname at all.

In Britain Charles and Anne were Mountbatten at birth - then in 1953 the Queen announced that the name was remaining Windsor before announcing that the House name was remaining Windsor but that the family's surname was Mountbatten-Windsor.

All of her male line heirs are thus Mountbatten-Windsor even if they aren't using it as they are HRH's but they are all members of the House of Windsor.

They settled that matter with the announcement back in 1960 whereby they finalised the House name as being separate from the family name.

 

[MARG]

I believe the only reason that Harry is still using Wales is because of his father. When his father ascends the throne if Harry has not been created a Duke then he will change his name to Mountbatten-Windsor as William will become Prince of Wales and George and Charlotte will be the Wales children.

Hopefully, he is married and has a dukedom long before his father ascends the throne.

 

[Arrjann]

I believe the only reason that Harry is still using Wales is because of his father. When his father ascends the throne if Harry has not been created a Duke then he will change his name to Mountbatten-Windsor as William will become Prince of Wales and George and Charlotte will be the Wales children.

Hopefully, he is married and has a dukedom long before his father ascends the throne.

Harry is styled as 'Prince Harry of Wales'; a part of a style is not a surname. He will not change his name to Mountbatten-Windsor, but might use it when required.
When Charles become king before Harry has received a dukedom (or earldom, who knows?), he'll be styled as 'HRH The Prince Harry'.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Harry, like Beatrice and Eugenie, use the 'of xxxx' from their father's titles (and William did before them - as did Charles and Anne before the Queen's accession and the Queen herself before her father's etc) to tell everyone which line they are from.

Their family or surname however is Mountbatten-Windsor as announced by the Queen in 1960s when she said that any of her descendants that needed a surname would have the hyphenated joining of hers and Philip's. That is why we have Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor. If Louise was using HRH she would be HRH Princess Louise of Wessex and James would be HRH Prince James of Wessex. Louise is the clear example of how the names actually work in the BRF - if HRH then Prince/Princess of father's title but if no HRH they take the styles of the children of a peer - Lady for all females while heirs apparent take their father's second title as an honourary title while the younger sons are Lord. Those using Lord and Lady use the family's surname and not their father's title as a surname.

George will most likely follow the example of Edward VIII (minus the final title I expect)

HRH Prince George of Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH The Duke of Cornwall
HRH The Prince of Wales
HM The King

The only thing that may interrupt that listing is IF he marries before his father becomes King and he is then given a dukedom in his own right - like his father has now - in which case that title would take over from 'of xxxx'. Say he marries and his given the title Duke of England (yes I know it won't be that but this is an example only). Depending on whether he marries while The Queen is still the Queen or when Charles is King will depend on when this title comes in but I am assuming that HM won't be alive when George is say 25 and marrying for this example. I am also assuming that both William and George are created Prince of Wales but that isn't automatic so it may not happen for one or both of them.

HRH Prince George of Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Cornwall and Cambridge
HRH Prince George of Wales
HRH The Duke of England
HRH The Duke of Cornwall and England
HRH The Prince of Wales
HM The King

Bolded bit is example only and not 'real'.

 

[Rudolph]

Harry is styled as 'Prince Harry of Wales'; a part of a style is not a surname. He will not change his name to Mountbatten-Windsor, but might use it when required.
When Charles become king before Harry has received a dukedom (or earldom, who knows?), he'll be styled as 'HRH The Prince Harry'.

Correct, including 'The Prince Harry (Henry) ' rather than 'the Prince Harry (Henry)

 

[Ish]

I believe the only reason that Harry is still using Wales is because of his father. When his father ascends the throne if Harry has not been created a Duke then he will change his name to Mountbatten-Windsor as William will become Prince of Wales and George and Charlotte will be the Wales children.



Hopefully, he is married and has a dukedom long before his father ascends the throne.

Harry is HRH Prince Henry of Wales because of his father. When his father is monarch, he will be HRH Prince Henry (no territorial designation), unless he's been given his own dukedom by then.

However, that's different from surname. Technically he has 2 ways he can go - he can use Mountbatten-Windsor as a male line descendant of the Queen and DoE, or he can use Wales. When he was in school and the military he used Wales, but for legal papers he might use Mountbatten-Windsor (I don't know that we've seen him use a legal last name).

William has used Wales for most of his life, even after he married - he continued to use Wales while in the RAF. He used Mountbatten-Windsor when he and Kate filled charges against the French newspaper that published the topless photos. I'm not sure what he uses in the EAAA, but it's likely either Cambridge or Wales.

 

[Iluvbertie]

William had to use Mountbatten-Windsor in France as that is his actual surname.

'Wales' is simply a way to distinguish which branch of the BRF he comes from and isn't his 'surname' at all.

Using it was simply easier.

Louise uses just Windsor at school - because it is easier but officially her surname is Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Nearly all British peers, inclusive of royal peers, use their legal surnames only for legal purposes. For all remaining purposes, peers use their territorial designation as a surname ("Edward Wessex" and "James Severn"), and princes and unmarried princesses who never received a peerage use the territorial designation of their father's peerage ("Harry Wales" and "Eugenie York").

[...] a consort who call himself a Mountbatten which is a translation of battenberg which is his mother family name which is a branch of the house of Hesse-Darmstadt and his real family name is that of his father which is the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg if the royal house is going to change from saxe coburg and gotha to Glücksburg i wouldn't mind it instead of just creating royal houses only on the base of personal individual likeness .

Given that Philip's patrilineal ancestor obtained the castle of Glücksburg in 1825, the name of Glücksburg is not exceedingly old. At any rate, Prince Philip of Greece did not have a real family name up to his adoption of the Mountbatten name. The Greek royals used "of Greece" as a surname, and the former royal family of Greece claims that their family has never had a real surname.

 

[Andy T]

Nearly all British peers, inclusive of royal peers, use their legal surnames only for legal purposes. For all remaining purposes, peers use their territorial designation as a surname ("Edward Wessex" and "James Severn"), and princes and unmarried princesses who never received a peerage use the territorial designation of their father's peerage ("Harry Wales" and "Eugenie York").



Given that Philip's patrilineal ancestor obtained the castle of Glücksburg in 1825, the name of Glücksburg is not exceedingly old. At any rate, Prince Philip of Greece did not have a real family name up to his adoption of the Mountbatten name. The Greek royals used "of Greece" as a surname, and the former royal family of Greece claims that their family has never had a real surname.

To corroborate Tatiana Maria's point, I've heard HM The Queen introduce her cousin as "Edward Kent" rather than Edward Windsor.

Traditionally, English house names change when the son of a queen regnant ascends the throne but a glance through the last thousand years illustrates that a "surname" like Plantagenet, Tudor or Stuart is less common than a territorial name like Normandy, Lancaster, York, Brunswick/Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Windsor. In Scotland, the trend is much more towards surnames Balliol, Bruce, Stewart, though two of these names originated from French towns with Stewart coming the office of High Steward of Scotland (their previous surname was FitzAlan).

 

[Ish]

It's not that simple...

First it's important to remember that Normandy, Anjou, and Plantagenet are all Houses named long after the fact by historians.

Second it's important to remember that House names are typically based on the title or name of the first of that house before becoming monarch - the Hanovers and Saxe-Coburgs were royals in Germany before becoming British royals, the Tudors and Stewarts were nobles before becoming Royals.

Lancaster and York is a divide of one house (Plantagenet) because of civil war between the two; Anjou is another name for the same House and is typically divided based on how French or English the monarch was.

Windsor is not a territorial name - it's a chosen surname. If it was territorial, it would have been United Kingdom.

The Scots typically have surnames because the Balloils, Bruces, Stewarts, and Stuarts were all Scottish nobility.

FitzAlan was never a surname, it was a patronymic name held by the first High Steward (Walter FitzAlan); the second High Steward was Alan FitzWalter. The third adopted Stewart as a surname at a time when surnames were becoming popular.

 

[Andy T]

It's not that simple...

First it's important to remember that Normandy, Anjou, and Plantagenet are all Houses named long after the fact by historians.

Second it's important to remember that House names are typically based on the title or name of the first of that house before becoming monarch - the Hanovers and Saxe-Coburgs were royals in Germany before becoming British royals, the Tudors and Stewarts were nobles before becoming Royals.

Lancaster and York is a divide of one house (Plantagenet) because of civil war between the two; Anjou is another name for the same House and is typically divided based on how French or English the monarch was.

Windsor is not a territorial name - it's a chosen surname. If it was territorial, it would have been United Kingdom.

The Scots typically have surnames because the Balloils, Bruces, Stewarts, and Stuarts were all Scottish nobility.

FitzAlan was never a surname, it was a patronymic name held by the first High Steward (Walter FitzAlan); the second High Steward was Alan FitzWalter. The third adopted Stewart as a surname at a time when surnames were becoming popular.

I wasn't meaning to suggest that it was 'simple' at all, Ish. I just looked at when house names have tended to change and the different types, without going into why and wherefore at all. As you rightly point out, there are various reasons why each house acquired its name. I used 'territorial' in the sense of the name of a place rather than a name attached to a title & lands but I see your distinction. Perhaps I should have said geographical.

 

[Osipi]

Just an odd question here. Somewhere in the recesses of my sometimes out to lunch memory, I seem to recall having read that the when one sees "Fitz" in a surname it denotes a bastard. Such as the illegitimate son of Simon Applebee would be Sigmund FitzApplebee.

Is this correct at all or do I need more caffiene today?

 

[Mbruno]

To corroborate Tatiana Maria's point, I've heard HM The Queen introduce her cousin as "Edward Kent" rather than Edward Windsor.

Traditionally, English house names change when the son of a queen regnant ascends the throne but a glance through the last thousand years illustrates that a "surname" like Plantagenet, Tudor or Stuart is less common than a territorial name like Normandy, Lancaster, York, Brunswick/Hanover, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha or Windsor. In Scotland, the trend is much more towards surnames Balliol, Bruce, Stewart, though two of these names originated from French towns with Stewart coming the office of High Steward of Scotland (their previous surname was FitzAlan).

'Edward Kent" would be a normal way to refer to the Duke of Kent, just as in the TV series Victoria , the Duke of Cumberland (King Ernst Augustus of Hanover) talks to his wife about encoraging the marriage of the young Queen Victoria to her cousin (Ernst's nephew), "George Cambridge," and Victoria herself calls her uncles "Uncle Sussex" and "Uncle Cumberland".

Even in the time of the Plantagenets, if you listen to lines e.g. in Shakespeare's Henry V, the king refers to his relatives as "York", "Gloucester", etc,

 

[Ish]

Just an odd question here. Somewhere in the recesses of my sometimes out to lunch memory, I seem to recall having read that the when one sees "Fitz" in a surname it denotes a bastard. Such as the illegitimate son of Simon Applebee would be Sigmund FitzApplebee.



Is this correct at all or do I need more caffiene today?

It depends on the era.

In the Norman era it simply meant "son of" and was used in reference to legitimate and illegitimate children - the early Stewarts were "Fitz" but by no means were illegitimate.

This changed as family names became more common; if you're using an actual surname (ie Stewart) you don't also use a patronymic name (ie Fitz Alan). So the Fitz names became used more exclusively for the illegitimate children who didn't otherwise have a family name to inherit.

So, the legitimate son of Simon of Applebee born in 1066 might be known as John fitz Simon of Applebee, and a hundred years later his legitimately born grandson might be known as Henry Applebee. Henry's illegitimate son would then become Tom FitzApplebee.

 

[Dman]

I just loved the idea of using Windsor Castle to come up with the new family name for the royal family.

 

[Mbruno]

This is true. I guess my point was that, with the exception of the Bernodottes, most reigning houses don't really have surnames per se.

Cat

Actually, the Spanish royals have always used full family names. For example, King Felipe VI's official title and style is

Su Majestad D. Felipe Vi (Juan Pablo Alfonso de Todos los Santos) de Borbón y Grecia , Rey de España

Princess Leonor on the other hand, since the accession of her father, has been known as

Su Alteza Real Doña Leonor (de Todos los Santos) de Borbón y Ortiz, Princesa de Asturias ( , de Gerona y de Viana, Duquesa de Montblanch, Condesa de Cervera, Señora de Balaguer ).

Leonor's younger sister on the other hand is.

Su Alteza Real Doña Sofía (de Todos los Santos) de Borbón y Ortiz, Infanta de España

and their cousin e.g. is

Su Excelencia Don Felipe Juan Froilán de Marichalar y Borbón, Grande de España.

Note that, in the Spanish convention, the paternal family name precedes the maternal one.

 

[Mbruno]

honestly i think they should change the family name to britain something like the belgian royal family instead of keeping changing the family name to whatever the monarch or consort or the public feels and think at a certain time . instead of that we have a saxe coburg and gotha monarch who call herself a windsor and a consort who call himself a Mountbatten which is a translation of battenberg which is his mother family name which is a branch of the house of Hesse-Darmstadt and his real family name is that of his father which is the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg if the royal house is going to change from saxe coburg and gotha to Glücksburg i wouldn't mind it instead of just creating royal houses only on the base of personal individual likeness .

The name of the Belgian royal family is Saxe-Cobourg ( in French). The members of the family who are princes of Belgium, however, do not use a family name, For example, Princess Élisabeth's legal name ( in French) is

Son Altesse Royale la Princesse Élisabeth Thérèse Marie Hélêne, Duchesse de Brabant, Princesse de Belgique .




Since she doesn't use a family name , she is enrolled for example at school (in Dutch) as Elisabeth van België and people incorrectly assume "van België" is her family name. I suppose that Laurent's grandchildren for example. who will no longer be princes or princesses of Belgium under King Philippe's new 2015 royal decree , will revert to using the family name Saxe-Cobourg a
when they are born, but that remains to be seen.

Something similar applies to the Windsors. Princes and princesses of the Royal House do not use a family name and it is customary to use informally the territorial designation of their title as a pseudo-name, e,g. Richard Gloucester or Henry Wales. Descendants in male line of George V who are not HRHs and do not descend from QEII use the family name Windsor, while descendants in male line of QEII and Prince Philip who are not HRHs use the family name Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[Mbruno]

Celebrating one's 70th birthday is a wonderful milestone, Camilla is fortunate to enjoy her special day and year with her husband, children, step-children, grandchildren and others who are significant to her.

The House of Windsor has endured and been supported by many for years. IMO, there is also room to remember and recognize a woman who contributed enormously to ensuring that the House of Windsor and the lineage of her ex-husband continues.

Actually, the House of Windsor, i.e. technically the male line descendants of King George V, will no longer be on the throne of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms when the Queen passes away. It will have been replaced by the House of Mountbatten or, if you prefer, the House of Mountbatten-Windsor, i.e. the male line descendants of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and Queen Elizabeth II.

For the Windsors to stay on the throne, King George VI would have had to be succeeded on the throne by his brother, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was at the time the most senior living agnatic descendant of King George V not excluded by law from the line of succession. The Crown would then have passed to Prince Richard, the current Duke of Gloucester, and then to the current Earl of Ulster, both of whom are Windsors, unlike Charles and William, who, as I noted before, are Mountbatten-Windsors instead.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

A... For the Windsors to stay on the throne, King George VI would have had to be succeeded on the throne by his brother, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was at the time the most senior living agnatic descendant of King George V not excluded by law from the line of succession. The Crown would then have passed to Prince Richard, the current Duke of Gloucester, and then to the current Earl of Ulster, both of whom are Windsors, unlike Charles and William, who, as I noted before, are Mountbatten-Windsors instead.

That's a technicality though which only happened because Prince Philip chafed about 'what bloody use' he was when his wife had to accede to the throne at such a young age, before she had barely been able to settle down into being a wife and mother. The whole situation was very hard on her marriage and on her relationship with Philip. Her duties as a young Queen also impacted her bond and relationship in particular with young Prince Charles, as we know.

In any case, the official change to 'Mountbatten-Windsor' for the male line descendants of Queen Elizabeth happened in order to appease Prince Philip (and by extension, Lord Louis Mountbatten, who was the successful co-conspirator in arranging for Philip to be accepted as a suitable husband for Princess Elizabeth). Of course, Elizabeth was as strong-minded as she was dutiful, and therefore determined to have her way in her selection of a husband.

Not unlike feisty Princess Margaret's determination to choose Peter Townsend (which might have eventually come to pass had her father King George VI not died). I say that because even though Townsend was deemed unsuitable as a divorced man, he was the King's former equerry and a war hero. Moreover, George VI (Bertie) was very indulgent of his daughters, especially Margaret, the apple of his eye. IMO, the recent rewriting of that love affair (and especially the casting of Margaret and Peter Townsend in The Crown miniseries, is way off-base apparently on purpose).

The 'Mountbatten-Windsor' moniker is all in the family anyway what with Prince Philip and Queen Elizabeth both being descendants of Queen Victoria, and with a majority of German ancestry. It is ironically Diana's lineage and Catherine's lineage that makes future inheritors of the British throne decidedly more British ancestrally (in addition to Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother's blood lines, of course).

See corrections to the comments in this post here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

The current British royal family will remain known as 'The House of Windsor.' Only male line descendants who are not styled HRH and Prince/Princess will be known as 'Mountbatten-Windsor.'

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Actually, the House of Windsor, i.e. technically the male line descendants of King George V, will no longer be on the throne of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms when the Queen passes away. It will have been replaced by the House of Mountbatten or, if you prefer, the House of Mountbatten-Windsor, i.e. the male line descendants of Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, and Queen Elizabeth II.

For the Windsors to stay on the throne, King George VI would have had to be succeeded on the throne by his brother, Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, who was at the time the most senior living agnatic descendant of King George V not excluded by law from the line of succession. The Crown would then have passed to Prince Richard, the current Duke of Gloucester, and then to the current Earl of Ulster, both of whom are Windsors, unlike Charles and William, who, as I noted before, are Mountbatten-Windsors instead.

I thought the Royal House name was still the House of Windsor, while the family name was changed to Mountbatten-Windsor.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I thought the Royal House name was still the House of Windsor, while the family name was changed to Mountbatten-Windsor.

You are right. It's all explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

"Soon after Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, Lord Mountbatten observed that because it was the standard practice for the wife in a marriage to adopt her husband's surname, the royal house had become the House of Mountbatten. When Elizabeth's grandmother, Queen Mary, heard of this comment, she informed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and he later advised the Queen to issue a royal proclamation declaring that the royal house was to remain known as the House of Windsor. This she did on 9 April 1952, officially declaring it her 'Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor.'[4] Philip privately complained, 'I am nothing but a bloody amoeba. I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children.'[5]

On 8 February 1960, after the death of Queen Mary and the resignation of Churchill, the Queen confirmed that she and her children would continue to be known as the House and Family of Windsor, as would any agnatic descendants who enjoy the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince or Princess.[4] Still, Elizabeth also decreed that her agnatic descendants who do not have that style and title would bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor."

Therefore, the designation will remain 'The House of Windsor' upon the Queen's death. The only difference is that those descendants not styled HRH Prince or Princess, will be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. Again, this latter exception occurred in order to appease the Queen's understandably disgruntled husband, Prince Philip.

 

[Mbruno]

You are right. It's all explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

"Soon after Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, Lord Mountbatten observed that because it was the standard practice for the wife in a marriage to adopt her husband's surname, the royal house had become the House of Mountbatten. When Elizabeth's grandmother, Queen Mary, heard of this comment, she informed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and he later advised the Queen to issue a royal proclamation declaring that the royal house was to remain known as the House of Windsor. This she did on 9 April 1952, officially declaring it her 'Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor.'[4] Philip privately complained, 'I am nothing but a bloody amoeba. I am the only man in the country not allowed to give his name to his own children.'[5]

On 8 February 1960, after the death of Queen Mary and the resignation of Churchill, the Queen confirmed that she and her children would continue to be known as the House and Family of Windsor, as would any agnatic descendants who enjoy the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince or Princess.[4] Still, Elizabeth also decreed that her agnatic descendants who do not have that style and title would bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor."

Therefore, the designation will remain 'The House of Windsor' upon the Queen's death. The only difference is that those descendants not styled HRH Prince or Princess, will be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. Again, this latter exception occurred in order to appease the Queen's understandably disgruntled husband, Prince Philip.

I'm a traditionalist in these matters and, as such, I believe dynasties should be recorded patrilineally. Otherwise, the whole point of naming a dynasty wouldn't make sense. The very fact that Prince Philip's male line descendants use the family name Mountbatten-Windsor makes it clear that they belong to a different family than the Windsors (aka Saxe-Coburg anf Gotha), no matter how they choose to call their royal house.

BTW, I apply the same criteria to the Orange-Nassaus (currently, the House of Amsberg) and to any other royal house that descends from a queen regnant. The only concession I think we could make is the use of hyphenated names showing a composition of maternal and paternal family names such as Mountbatten-Windsor, Habsburg-Lorraine, or Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

It's nice that you are a traditionalist in these matters @Mbruno (and thanks for bringing up this topic). However, your traditionalist outlook has no bearing on the fact that the British monarchy after Queen Elizabeth, will continue to be known as The Royal House of Windsor.

 

[Skippyboo]

Mountbatten isn't Philip's paternal line's name. It is the Anglican version of Battenberg which is his maternal family. Anyways Charles can change it if he wants when he is King.

 

[Mirabel]

You are right. It's all explained here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor


Therefore, the designation will remain 'The House of Windsor' upon the Queen's death. The only difference is that those descendants not styled HRH Prince or Princess, will be known as Mountbatten-Windsor. Again, this latter exception occurred in order to appease the Queen's understandably disgruntled husband, Prince Philip.

But then, why does Edward's daughter Louise just use Windsor, instead of Mountbatten-Windsor?