something is wrong on the Internet, part CLXVII

[calimac]

So here's an article on the status and title of Meghan and Harry's impending baby.

I know. You don't care. But in a world full of pressing cares, it's the fact that this is of no significance whatsoever that makes it refreshing to talk about.

According to the article, the baby will not automatically be designated a prince or princess. I think that's right. Among the Queen's cousins, the title of prince or princess goes down only two generations from the monarch. Whether the blessing will automatically descend upon them if and when Prince Charles becomes king, I'm not sure but I think so.

However, the article also says that Kate & Wills's children had to be individually given that status: they didn't get it automatically. That may be true for Charlotte and Louis, but the order of George V limiting the use of prince/princess is quoted in the article as not applying to "the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales." That describes Prince George. He gets it automatically, so allow me to point out that on this point Wikipedia is right and the Washington Post is wrong.

However, that's not the wrongest. This is about the title of the children of Meghan and Harry. The article says "It is believed that any children of the duke and duchess of Sussex will be known as Lord or Lady Mountbatten-Windsor." Believed by whom? Only by people who don't know the nomenclature of British nobility.

The eldest son (as the patent of Harry's duchy is the usual males-only) will be known formally as the Earl of Dumbarton, by the customary rules that the son and heir of a senior peer takes his father's highest subsidiary title by courtesy.

Other children will be known as Lord or Lady First-name followed by last name, not with last name immediately following title. See Lord Randolph Churchill in history and Lord Peter Wimsey in fiction. There's no such thing as Lord Last-name in British nomenclature, only Lord Title, and "Mountbatten-Windsor" is nobody's title. (I believe you can be Lady Last-name, but only as wife of a knight, not as part of the peerage.)

It is true that the children's legal surname will be Mountbatten-Windsor, but it's very common for people with double-barrelled last names to employ only one barrel of it in their use-names. Winston Churchill's actual surname was Spencer-Churchill (yes, he was a distant relative of Princess Di), but neither he nor his father (see above) nor any of his descendants have been known that way. The one Mountbatten-Windsor in the Lady First-name position is Prince Edward's daughter, who is styled Lady Louise Windsor. Quite possibly Harry's children will be styled likewise.

And that's the straight dope as far as I know it.

Comments

[cmcmck]

What would I know? I'm that rarest of things, an English republican.

[calimac]

So? I too am a republican, I even live in a republic. Doesn't mean I can't find this stuff interesting.

And when dealing with the history of times when nobles were significant figures - as I know you do - it's important to get the nomenclature straight. So one picks some of it up; that's how I learned most of this stuff.

[cmcmck]

I do but jest- keeping a track of who was what takes up a lot of time when you study the period I do.

[ex_inklessej388]

Haha I am the rarest of things, a monarchist Canadian. :-P

Oh the flavours of life!

[cmcmck]

Studying the Civil Wars of these islands is what led me to a republican view of these islands.

[conuly]

All I can say is I hope with this new batch of kids we get at least one picture of them with spaghetti on their heads or cake all over their faces.

[ex_inklessej388]

I am wondering where the children picked up the Mountbatten part of their name. It was dramatized in the Netflix series The Crown, but was also a real life event when she suppressed the Mountbatten in favour of Windsor. Charles was the individual in question, so I don't see why his children would pick up the name again or their children for that matter.

Just confused and hoping you can clear it up...

[calimac]

I can't offhand verify the complete accuracy of this, but here's my understanding:

I don't know what it said in The Crown, but when Elizabeth succeeded to the throne, Lord Mountbatten (Philip's uncle) went around crowing that the Mountbatten dynasty had taken over the throne, Elizabeth being a Mountbatten by marriage.

This irritated the courtiers - who didn't like Lord Mountbatten anyway - enough that Elizabeth was prevailed upon to issue a proclamation declaring that the house and family were still Windsors, her father's name.

However, several years later - maybe The Crown hasn't gotten that far yet - she modified the proclamation, probably at the urging of Philip, who felt he'd been declared a genealogical cipher. (What women normally go through anyway, but never mind that.) The house would remain the House of Windsor, but the family name - to be employed when her descendants filtered down to the non-royal level - would become the double-barreled Mountbatten-Windsor.

This is how many double-barreled English aristocratic surnames were created, to preserve the original family name of an important heiress when she married. It's a normal procedure.

[ex_inklessej388]

Lord Mountbatten is a figure of history whom I find particularly fascinating. And from what I have learned of his life at that time you are bang on. He was trying to secure the royal title over his own house given that Philip married the Queen and thus her heirs would be given his name. In the Netflix series more emphasis is put on this being yet another slight that Philip has to live with as a man married to a Queen (seeing his children give up his family name). The series has not gone far enough into her reign to cover the change or won't bother going down that path because the drama would be in taking it away, not giving it back.

I did some cursory digging and what I found was that in 1960, shortly after the death of Queen Mary and the resignation of PM Churchill, the Queen amended the proclamation to the effect that her agnatic descendants who do not have that style and title would bear the surname Mountbatten-Windsor. It gets even more technical. The reason apparently was because a constitutional expert named Edward Iwi wrote to then Prime Minister Macmillan that any future issue of the Queen (this was after Charles and Anne so it did not effect them) would bare the "badge of Bastardy" because they would be issued the name Windsor over their father. In discussions with the PM leading up to the change, the Queen apparently expressed a sentiment that she was already thinking about making the change well before the controversy came to light. Interestingly enough this does not apply to Charles or Anne at all, they are Mountbattens through and through having been born before Elizabeth ascended the throne-- the proclamation is a confirmation that the United Kingdom and realms and territories of the Commonwealth are ruled by the House of Windsor, regardless of who is on the throne. It is assumed, this would be overturned cleanly and without issue in the event of an entirely new house taking over the royal line-- the Wikipedia article is quick to point out that Royal Proclamations are not subject to statutory law.

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

[calimac]

You cite the Wikipedia article as saying that the proclamation of 1960 does not apply to Charles or Anne, as they'd already been born.

I don't think that's true. Such proclamations can change the names of persons already born - the 1917 one did - and elsewhere I read that both Anne and William have used the surname Mountbatten-Windsor on documents.

I note also that the articles on the houses seem a little hazy on the distinction between a house name and a family name. "Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" was the name of the house before it was changed to Windsor, but it was never anybody's surname.

[ex_inklessej388]

You taking a stab at the article was why I was sure to include it in the comment. Thank you! :-)