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

[Kataryn]

In 1960, Queen Elizabeth II declared in Council that she and her children would continue to be known as the "House of Windsor", but that her direct descendants, other than those who are HRHs and married female descendants and their respective descendants would have the name Mountbatten-Windsor. The full text of Her Majesty's declaration is reproduced below.


In practice, it seems that even the Queen's children, when they need to use a surname for any reason, use the family name Mountbatten-Windsor, which seems to be inconsistent with the Queen's declaration that they should continue to be known as the "House and Family of Windsor".


If anything, I believe Charles could rectify that inconsistency making it officially known that the Royal House should be known as the House of Mountbatten-Winsor.

It was the queen's wish that the family continues on as "Windsor". But while this is binding as long as she lives, it need not be binding for king Charles. He studied history, he is proud of his father's family (we've seen that on many Greece-visits), he taught his sons to be proud of that, either.

So he must be aware that "Mountbatten" is just the English translation for a name (Battenberg) given to the children from a unequal marriage between a Hessian prince (whose actual birth might have been not legitimate, as there were strong rumours he was conceived on the wrong side of the blanket and only legitimized at birth) and a lowly noble lady. Through marrying back into the Hesse-family (Prince Louis Alexander who married Victoria of Hesse, daughter of Queen Victoria's daughter Alice)) and into the (BRF) Windsor-family (his brother Henry who married queen Victoria's youngest daughter Beatrice) both Battenberg-brothers became British subjects and were considered part of the BRF, so in 1917, when the Royal House changed name to Windsor, their name changed to Mountbatten and they became Marquess of Milford-Haven (Louis) and Carisbrooke (Henry).
So neither the Battenberg nor the Mountbatten-name is a legitimate Royal family name nor is it the name of Prince Philip's paternal family.



Problem is that Philips paternal family never had a "family" name. They only ever identified via their basic territorial rights as was usus in Germany. The dynasty originates from Oldenburg in North Germany. The first known count of Oldenburg lived around the time of William the Conqueror. Similar to that Prince Albert's "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is not a name, but a branch of the dynasty of the Lords of Wettin (another territorial name). So in fact, neither Charles' father nor mother have a "family"-name apart from Windsor which was "invented" for exactly this purpose in 1917.


So I wouldn't put it past Charles to let go of the Mountbatten and to stick to Windsor in case a surname is needed.

 

[Denville]

Why would he go against his mother's wishes tat her husband's name was used, and his father's desire for his children ot have his name?

 

[Mbruno]

It was the queen's wish that the family continues on as "Windsor". But while this is binding as long as she lives, it need not be binding for king Charles. He studied history, he is proud of his father's family (we've seen that on many Greece-visits), he taught his sons to be proud of that, either.

So he must be aware that "Mountbatten" is just the English translation for a name (Battenberg) given to the children from a unequal marriage between a Hessian prince (whose actual birth might have been not legitimate, as there were strong rumours he was conceived on the wrong side of the blanket and only legitimized at birth) and a lowly noble lady. Through marrying back into the Hesse-family (Prince Louis Alexander who married Victoria of Hesse, daughter of Queen Victoria's daughter Alice)) and into the (BRF) Windsor-family (his brother Henry who married queen Victoria's youngest daughter Beatrice) both Battenberg-brothers became British subjects and were considered part of the BRF, so in 1917, when the Royal House changed name to Windsor, their name changed to Mountbatten and they became Marquess of Milford-Haven (Louis) and Carisbrooke (Henry).
So neither the Battenberg nor the Mountbatten-name is a legitimate Royal family name nor is it the name of Prince Philip's paternal family.



Problem is that Philips paternal family never had a "family" name. They only ever identified via their basic territorial rights as was usus in Germany. The dynasty originates from Oldenburg in North Germany. The first known count of Oldenburg lived around the time of William the Conqueror. Similar to that Prince Albert's "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" is not a name, but a branch of the dynasty of the Lords of Wettin (another territorial name). So in fact, neither Charles' father nor mother have a "family"-name apart from Windsor which was "invented" for exactly this purpose in 1917.


So I wouldn't put it past Charles to let go of the Mountbatten and to stick to Windsor in case a surname is needed.

Notwithstanding anything that you said, Mountbatten was Philip's legal name in the UK. I don't see Charles letting go of the name his father used for most of his life.


And, to Denville, the inconsistency in my opinion is that the Queen's children, e.g. Andrew and Anne, are known to have used occasionally in the past the last name "Mountbatten-Windsor" even though it was declared that they should continue to be known as the "House and Family of Windsor".



To me, it is clear that the Mountbatten-Windsor family (i.e. the children of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip and their respective descendants in male line) and the Windsor family (i.e. the duke of Kent's and the duke of Gloucester's children and their respective descendants in male line) should now be considered two separate families, as evidenced by the fact they bear different last names.

 

[AdmirerUS]

It's all PR in the end.

 

[Denville]

It's all PR in the end.

In what way?

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Notwithstanding anything that you said, Mountbatten was Philip's legal name in the UK. I don't see Charles letting go of the name his father used for most of his life.


And, to Denville, the inconsistency in my opinion is that the Queen's children, e.g. Andrew and Anne, are known to have used occasionally in the past the last name "Mountbatten-Windsor" even though it was declared that they should continue to be known as the "House and Family of Windsor".

To me, it is clear that the Mountbatten-Windsor family (i.e. the children of Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip and their respective descendants in male line) and the Windsor family (i.e. the duke of Kent's and the duke of Gloucester's children and their respective descendants in male line) should now be considered two separate families, as evidenced by the fact they bear different last names.

Since Philip is Anne and Andrew’s father and not the father of anyone in the Kent or Gloucester families I don’t understand why this is a source of so much controversy i.e. Mountbatten-Windsor vs Windsor.

I think descendants of Philip are showing respect for him by using Mountbatten-Windsor when a last name is needed.

 

[Denville]

Families can have different surnames.... and sill be part of the same family.....

 

[Kataryn]

Families can have different surnames.... and sill be part of the same family.....

Not families that go by the same male line - that is very rare.


As for why I think Charles might be against the "Mountbatten"-part of the name.



Philip never was a male-line Mountbatten. His mother was born a princess of Battenberg, daughter of Louis (later Mountbatten) and Victoria of Hesse, a granddaughter of queen Victoria. But as she married into the Greek and Denmark Royal family in 1903, she never was "Lady Alice Mountbatten".



In paternal line Philip was the son of Prince Andreas of the Greek branch of the Oldenburg-Schleswig-Holstein-dynasty. This is important as Andreas was the son of George, king of Greece and prince of Denmark and his wife Olga, formerly Grandduchess of Russia and thus from Russian branch of the Oldenburg-Schleswig-Holstein- dynasty. Peter the Great's daughter Anna had married the Head of the Holstein-Gottorp branch of the Oldenburg-Schleswig-Holstein-dynasty and her son was the Tsar who with his wife Catherine the Great fathered Paul I. Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp from whom all Imperial Romanovs are descended.



So Philip was a prince of Greece and Denmark, grandson of the king of Greece, great-grandson of the king of Denmark and great-nephew of the king of Norway in paternal line and son of a 100% Oldenburg-prince. If not for WWI & II, he would have been considered quite the catch for The princess Elisabeth of the Uk. So he had to give up his paternal birthright and become part of his mother's family. Especially when we see how important Danish Royal consorts always have been for the rulers of the Uk.


And IMHO CHarles has an opinion about that and we might see what it is.

 

[Lori138]

The last name of the royal family is entirely different from their "House" name, I believe. An example is the House of Orange in the Netherlands. All those female queens and yet it is still the House of Orange. It will be the same in Britain, House of Windsor no matter if the monarch is male or female.

 

[Iluvbertie]

One person people seem to be forgetting in all this discussion about the 'Mountbatten' name is Lord Louis - we all know that he had a massive influence on Charles - probably way more than his father had in many ways. I suspect that Lord Louis will have been in his ear to drop the Windsor and follow the 'norm' of the father's name - a name that Philip chose for himself as well (he didn't have to become a 'Mountbatten' when he dropped the 'of Greece and Denmark' on giving up his royal titles and taking a surname. He could have chosen any surname he wanted e.g. Smith or Jones but he took Mountbatten).

 

[COUNTESS]

After the then Princess Elizabeth became queen, it was supposed that the name would be Mountbatten-Windsor. Earl Mountbatten, thought so too. He announced it, so to speak. Queen Mary and the Queen Mother thought otherwise. And so the name was to remain Windsor. Phillip stormed out, said he was less than an amoeba. He left England and sailed off to other ports. When he returned and perhaps the deal had been made before, the style of Mountbatten-Windsor was to be used as the queen decreed. Neither Mountbatten or Windsor is their name. Mountbatten being a translation of Battenberg for Prince Phillip's grandfather and Windsor being the name the English House adopted, as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was too German during WWI.

 

[Iluvbertie]

After the then Princess Elizabeth became queen, it was supposed that the name would be Mountbatten-Windsor. Earl Mountbatten, thought so too. He announced it, so to speak. Queen Mary and the Queen Mother thought otherwise. And so the name was to remain Windsor. Phillip stormed out, said he was less than an amoeba. He left England and sailed off to other ports. When he returned and perhaps the deal had been made before, the style of Mountbatten-Windsor was to be used as the queen decreed. Neither Mountbatten or Windsor is their name. Mountbatten being a translation of Battenberg for Prince Phillip's grandfather and Windsor being the name the English House adopted, as Saxe-Coburg and Gotha was too German during WWI.

1. When the Queen became Queen it was only Mountbatten who believed that house name had changed. He was a generation early - Victoria was the House of Hanover but Edward VII was the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha

2. Queen Mary objected - rightly as Elizabeth had been born of the House of Windsor, and because her husband had created that name

3. Philip didn't storm off to other ports at all. He was with the Queen throughout 1953 and 1954. The 6 month trip wasn't until late 1956-7 (4 - 5 years AFTER all of this happened) and even then he was sent off by the Queen to represent her (don't believe the version as shown in The Crown which is a lovely fictionalised version of events ... much like Victoria ... fiction more than facts)

4. Regardless of how Philip ended up with Mountbatten - a family name created before he was born, just as Windsor was created for her family before Elizabeth was born - he CHOSE to take that name when he became a British citizen. He didn't have to take that name and could have chosen any name he wanted, one with family connection, such as the one his grandfather chose in 1917 or any other name he wanted. It was his name by choice whereas Windsor was Elizabeth's by birth because her grandfather chose that name.

5. Elizabeth didn't think the house name was Mountbatten-Windsor until 1960 when she made that decree. She assumed the house name was Windsor - following the precedence of Queens' Regnant before her - Mary and Elizabeth being Tudors, Mary and Anne being Stuarts and Victoria being Hanover with the House name changing when a male heir succeeded with a different family name. (I know some people think that James I and VI was a Stuart due to his mother totally forgetting that his father was also a Stuart and so his family name was the same through both parents. She knew that if her father hadn't issued the LPs he did in October 1948 to have her children born as HRH then Charles would have been born as Lord Charles Mountbatten, Earl of Merioneth.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Then is it possible for King Charles III to declare that the Royal House shall become the House of Mountbatten?

 

[Queen Claude]

The operative word is "possible". Possible, yes. Likely, no.


The possible scenario also carries the caveat that the government will not intervene which is unlikely IMO.

 

[Duke of Leaside]

1. When the Queen became Queen it was only Mountbatten who believed that house name had changed. He was a generation early - Victoria was the House of Hanover but Edward VII was the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha

So well summarized Iluvbertie. A generation early indeed. Ironically, if Uncle Louis had kept quiet then probably things would have proceeded "normally" and the House Of Mountbatten (no hyphen or Windsor added) would have indeed reigned when Charles took the throne. By annoying Queen Mary and Churchill, Louis Mountbatten not only delayed the House Of Mountbatten but may have precluded it from ever being or maybe it will be House of Mountbatten-Windsor. It's of course to be decided by the next King.

...

5. Elizabeth didn't think the house name was Mountbatten-Windsor until 1960 when she made that decree. She assumed the house name was Windsor - following the precedence of Queens' Regnant before her - Mary and Elizabeth being Tudors, Mary and Anne being Stuarts and Victoria being Saxe-Coburg Gotha with the House name changing when a male heir succeeded with a different family name.

...

Wee nitpick: I believe you mean "Victoria being Hanover..." in point 5. above.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thanks for that pick - has now been corrected.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The operative word is "possible". Possible, yes. Likely, no.


The possible scenario also carries the caveat that the government will not intervene which is unlikely IMO.

Then King Charles III merely declares that the Royal House will be the House of Mountbatten? Does not Parliament have to be involved?

 

[Queen Claude]

My understanding is the monarch can do it unilaterally but the government can intervene in anything the monarch does. So IMO it is very unlikely that Charles will change the House name, and if he actually does then I think that the government will exercise its right to intervene.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Then does Parliament have to approve the change to the House of Mountbatten?

 

[Lori138]

I don't believe that Charles WILL change the House name. Why would he? The royal family do not need a surname and the House of Windsor was chosen after long and careful consideration. There will be no House of Mountbatten.

 

[Queen Claude]

Then does Parliament have to approve the change to the House of Mountbatten?

As I mentioned previously my understanding is that the monarch can act unilaterally to change the name, so to answer your question Parliament does not have to approve the name change and if the government agrees or is indifferent then the name change will happen via a unilateral act by the monarch, but if the government disagrees then they can intervene.


George V changed the House name to Windsor via a royal proclamation in 1917.


In 1952 Elizabeth II issued a royal proclamation declaring that House name would remain Windsor and she and her male descendants will be known as Windsor. She did not instigate this, she was advised to do so by the then Prime Minister Winston Churchill who was alerted by Elizabeth's grandmother that Louis Mountbatten.


In 1960 Elizabeth II declared that her non-royal male descendants will be surnamed Mountbatten-Windsor. She consulted with the Prime Minister prior to issuing the declaration.


On paper these are unilateral declarations of the monarch but the 1952 and 1960 declarations illustrate that the monarch is being advised by or consulting the government before making the declarations related to the House name or even just the surname of non-royal descendants.

 

[Excalibur]

In accordance with historical precedence, the name of the Royal House will be Mountbatten when HM passes. Had the Windsor name-change and the Windsor-Mountbatten "clarification" not occurred, we would see the name changing from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Mountbatten as a simple matter of course.

I fully expect Charles, by his own admission a "traditionalist", to acknowledge the House of Mountbatten.

It would be a tribute to both his Uncle Dickie and, of course, to his father, Prince Philip, who dedicated the last 70+ years of his life to royal service with nary a complaint, except that he couldn't pass his name on to his children. Possibly Charles' way of righting a wrong?
Also, a way of Charles putting his own stamp on the monarchy, to distinguish the reign of Charles III from that of Elizabeth II.

I can see it.

 

[Denville]

I don't believe Charles will change the name. His father's name is preserved as part of the Mountbatten Windsor surname.. and the name of the Royal House is Windsor... and Im sure he will stick with that.

 

[Queen Claude]

Philip changed his name from Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark to Philip Mountbatten in 1947. At the time he was actually engaged to Elizabeth but the engagement had not been publicly announce. The name change to Mountbatten was a PR tactic to make it seem like Princess Elizabeth was marrying a Brit and not a foreign prince which in post-war Britain was the more palatable choice. Philip was created the Duke of Edinburgh on his wedding day so basically he was Philip Mountbatten for a few months in 1947.

The irony of all ironies is that the argument to have Mountbatten be the House name for the British Royal Family is to adhere to patrilineal naming conventions and Mountbatten is a name Philip adopted as an adult that comes via his mother's family not his father's family.



I think that House of Windsor is here to stay. One, Windsor is a better "brand name" (IMO) and current sensibilities seem to be more accepting of a royal house having a name associated with the country being represented and neither Mountbatten, Battenberg, nor Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg is quintessentially British.


There is no greater traditionalist than George V and he was the one who changed the name. Survival trumps all.

 

[Denville]

I agree, I think that the compromise was that PHilip's name would be included for any of his descednants who needed to use a surname, but the House would remain Windsor. I would say that while Charles respects his father, he would go with Windsor as the House name.. as it has as you say a better "brand" recognition....

 

[Tatiana Maria]

5. Elizabeth didn't think the house name was Mountbatten-Windsor until 1960 when she made that decree. She assumed the house name was Windsor - following the precedence of Queens' Regnant before her - Mary and Elizabeth being Tudors, Mary and Anne being Stuarts and Victoria being Hanover [...]

Did Queen Mary I, Queen Mary II, and Queen Anne actually use the names Tudor and Stuart after their marriages, or are we simply following the modern custom of using the names of their paternal families (much as we use Mary of Teck instead of Mary Windsor for the consort of King George V)?

1. When the Queen became Queen it was only Mountbatten who believed that house name had changed. He was a generation early - Victoria was the House of Hanover but Edward VII was the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha

Under German law, Queen Victoria lost her membership of the Royal House of Hannover when the union of the British and Hanoverian crowns was terminated in 1837, and became a member of the Ducal House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha when she married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha in 1840.

Succession laws in the House of Braunschweig
House laws of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

 

[Iluvbertie]

Did Queen Mary I, Queen Mary II, and Queen Anne actually use the names Tudor and Stuart after their marriages, or are we simply following the modern custom of using the names of their paternal families (much as we use Mary of Teck instead of Mary Windsor for the consort of King George V)?

Their house names came from the birth names. As none of those listed had children to inherit the throne the house name didn't change but if any of them had had a child to succeed them then the house name would have changed - as it did when George I succeeded being descended from the Stuarts but through a female line his house name took that of his father - James I and VI - Elizabeth (Stuart) who married and changed her name so her daughter wasn't born a Stuart but was still in the line of succession even though born a member of the house 'of the Palatinate'. When Sophie married she changed from 'of the Palatinate' to 'of Hanover' and so her son and his descendants were Hanoverians.

What name they used AFTER their marriages is irrelevant to the name of the House as their house names came from their birth names but their children's house names would come from their husband's birth names. That is the same as any other woman. The children take their names from their father's not their mother's.

Victoria remained a member of the House of Hanover but her children were from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and so when her son succeeded as Edward VII he was the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of the UK etc.

When The Queen succeeded in 1952 she was of the House of Windsor and would remain as such, despite her married name being Mountbatten as the wife of Philip Mountbatten. Had Lord Mountbatten said nothing, as he was wrong anyway, then Charles would succeed as the first King of the House of Mountbatten. Because Mountbatten opened his mouth inaccurately the Queen first off confirmed what was in fact the case anyway - that the House name was Windsor (which it was during her reign). The mistake she made in 1952 was to declare that her children would take her maiden name ... which then lead to her being advised in 1960 that having a new baby born with her maiden name would mean he was regarded as illegitimate (not necessarily the case but the reality at the time was that a child always took their father's name and only the children of single mothers kept their mother's name as they were illegitimate). She very quickly added Mountbatten to the Windsor name to prevent any such questions - especially as the rumours of her having an affair with Porchester were doing the rounds and that Philip wasn't Andrew's father (I have never believed that but the rumours were around back then and are still around today).

 

[Denville]

I'd have hoped she added Mountbatten to signify that she had a husband who was not only the father of her children but someone she loved and whose support she depended on, and that he wanted to give his name to his children,,.,.

 

[Mbruno]

Their house names came from the birth names. As none of those listed had children to inherit the throne the house name didn't change but if any of them had had a child to succeed them then the house name would have changed - as it did when George I succeeded being descended from the Stuarts but through a female line his house name took that of his father - James I and VI - Elizabeth (Stuart) who married and changed her name so her daughter wasn't born a Stuart but was still in the line of succession even though born a member of the house 'of the Palatinate'. When Sophie married she changed from 'of the Palatinate' to 'of Hanover' and so her son and his descendants were Hanoverians.

What name they used AFTER their marriages is irrelevant to the name of the House as their house names came from their birth names but their children's house names would come from their husband's birth names. That is the same as any other woman. The children take their names from their father's not their mother's.

Victoria remained a member of the House of Hanover but her children were from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and so when her son succeeded as Edward VII he was the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of the UK etc.

When The Queen succeeded in 1952 she was of the House of Windsor and would remain as such, despite her married name being Mountbatten as the wife of Philip Mountbatten. Had Lord Mountbatten said nothing, as he was wrong anyway, then Charles would succeed as the first King of the House of Mountbatten. Because Mountbatten opened his mouth inaccurately the Queen first off confirmed what was in fact the case anyway - that the House name was Windsor (which it was during her reign). The mistake she made in 1952 was to declare that her children would take her maiden name ... which then lead to her being advised in 1960 that having a new baby born with her maiden name would mean he was regarded as illegitimate (not necessarily the case but the reality at the time was that a child always took their father's name and only the children of single mothers kept their mother's name as they were illegitimate). She very quickly added Mountbatten to the Windsor name to prevent any such questions - especially as the rumours of her having an affair with Porchester were doing the rounds and that Philip wasn't Andrew's father (I have never believed that but the rumours were around back then and are still around today).

Using hyphenated/compound names for descendants of female sovereigns is not that uncommon, see e.g. Habsburg-Lorraine, Bragança-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or Orléans-Bragança. Mountbatten-Windsor seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Their house names came from the birth names. As none of those listed had children to inherit the throne the house name didn't change but if any of them had had a child to succeed them then the house name would have changed - as it did when George I succeeded being descended from the Stuarts but through a female line his house name took that of his father - James I and VI - Elizabeth (Stuart) who married and changed her name so her daughter wasn't born a Stuart but was still in the line of succession even though born a member of the house 'of the Palatinate'. When Sophie married she changed from 'of the Palatinate' to 'of Hanover' and so her son and his descendants were Hanoverians.

What name they used AFTER their marriages is irrelevant to the name of the House as their house names came from their birth names but their children's house names would come from their husband's birth names. That is the same as any other woman. The children take their names from their father's not their mother's.

Victoria remained a member of the House of Hanover but her children were from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and so when her son succeeded as Edward VII he was the first King of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha of the UK etc.

I was asking whether the listed queens actually kept their birth names as their house names after their marriages, or if it is only modern Britons who call them the House of Tudor, House of Stuart, and House of Hanover, following the custom of using their birth names as their house names after their deaths.

Under German law, at least, Queen Victoria belonged to the house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha instead of the house of Hanover after marriage (the message quoted in your post has links to the house laws of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha).

Using hyphenated/compound names for descendants of female sovereigns is not that uncommon, see e.g. Habsburg-Lorraine, Bragança-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or Orléans-Bragança. Mountbatten-Windsor seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

In Portugal, it seems the collective name of the house remained Bragança, but members of the royal family used compound names that included the family names of queens/kings consort. For example, King Carlos I (grandson of Queen Maria II) was surnamed de Bragança Saboya Bourbon Saxe-Coburgo Gotha.