# Okay, so what are 'military patronages'? (Harry Sussex) **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 19, 2020, 5:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652 "2020-01-19T05:07:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/21 "2020-01-20T06:10:28Z")
> [@Ranger\_Jeff](#): > > I expect for formal signatures he signs himself as “Harold” and whatever else after that. His given name is Henry, not Harold. Formally he is (or was up to being made a duke) “His Royal Higness Prince Henry of Wales”. But except in the most formal contexts he has always gone by “Harry”; it was announced at his birth this would be so. He has generally signed himself “Harry”. Forename only is the usual form of signature for a prince of the UK; his brother signs himself “William”. (The only exception is the Prince of Wales, who conventionally signs as “Charles P”.) Presumably his informal signature, used with his intimates, will continut to be Harry, because why not? But in formal contexts I expect he will follow the conventions used by non-royal dukes. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/22 "2020-01-20T06:24:24Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > “Signature” was a poor word choice on my part. > > I meant how he has used his name in general. > > He has used Wales and Windsor in the past. > > Has he ever referred to himself as Harry Sussex? SFAIK he has never used Windsor. He used “Wales” in place of a surname when he was in the army. This is in keeping with the general practice used by holders of British titles; e.g. the Earl of Pembroke, whose family name is “Herbert”, is referred to as William Pembroke rather than William Herbert and, if in the army, would be addressed as, e.g., Captain Pembroke. When in the forces Harry was Lieutenant Wales, later Captain Wales. He left the army before being made Duke of Sussex but, were he to be serving now, he would be, e.g., Major Sussex. ---
**Author:** ![SanVito](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sanvito/32/2805_2.png) [@SanVito](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanVito)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 10:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/23 "2020-01-20T10:18:17Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > “Signature” was a poor word choice on my part. > > I meant how he has used his name in general. > > He has used Wales and Windsor in the past. > > Has he ever referred to himself as Harry Sussex? Royals don’t use surnames the way the rest of us mere mortals do. His name isn’t Harry Sussex, It’s Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. So he may call himself Prince Harry, or The Duke of Sussex (or just ‘Sussex’), but not, traditionally, Harry Sussex. Most non-Royal Dukes have a separate surname from their title, so for example the Duke Of Westminster is Hugh Grosvenor, but would sign himself ‘Westminster’. Royals don’t. The army thing was an anomaly born out of Harry and William wanting to have ‘ordinary names’ to be one of the men (unlike their Uncle who’s military name before he got his Dukedom was Sub Lieutenant Prince Andrew). ‘Wales’ was a pretty-much made up surname to reflect their father’s highest rank. ---
**Author:** ![Grim\_Render](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@Grim\_Render](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grim_Render)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/24 "2020-01-20T11:38:08Z")
> [@Banksiaman](#): > > Perhaps to emphasise the importance of the ceremonial as opposed to the command and fund-raising aspect, a regiment of the Norwegian Army has a penguin as its [Colonel-in-Chief](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Majestet_Kongens_Garde). To be fair he’s worked his way up the ranks, and he is a King Penguin so the Daily MAil can’t get whipped up abut commoners. > > It seems a missed opportunity for Britain. Surely they have a stoat somewhere who won’t embarrass the family. I served under Colonel Olav. He did inspections as I remember. Of course he wasn’t a Colonel back then. They say its the highest rank a Penguin has ever achieved in the Norwegian Army, good for him. By no means the worst officer I ever had. He normally lives in the Edinburgh zoo Penguin exhibit I believe. Draws a normal wage that goes to the upkeep of the exhibit. Totally unconfirmed tales has it that during the crash in 2008 or 2009 a beancounter was sent up to cut costs, and it had to be explained to him several times that he could not save any money by cutting the Penguin exhibit, because one of the Penguins was paying for it. ---
**Author:** ![APB](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8e8cbc/32.png) [@APB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/APB)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/25 "2020-01-20T12:12:06Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > Royals don’t use surnames the way the rest of us mere mortals do. > > His name isn’t Harry Sussex, It’s Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. So he may call himself Prince Harry, or The Duke of Sussex (or just ‘Sussex’), but not, traditionally, Harry Sussex. > > Most non-Royal Dukes have a separate surname from their title, so for example the Duke Of Westminster is Hugh Grosvenor, but would sign himself ‘Westminster’. > > Royals don’t. > > The army thing was an anomaly born out of Harry and William wanting to have ‘ordinary names’ to be one of the men (unlike their Uncle who’s military name before he got his Dukedom was Sub Lieutenant Prince Andrew). ‘Wales’ was a pretty-much made up surname to reflect their father’s highest rank. But non-royal peers can use their title as if it is their surname or can (very informally) be referred to as such. So, for example, [Prince William has referred in public to the current Duke of Westminster as ‘Hugh Westminster’ and to the late Duke as ‘Gerald Westminster’](https://www.royal.uk/speech-duke-cambridge-handover-defence-national-rehab-centre-nation?page=1). Plenty of peers do this in professional contexts when they don’t want people to think that they are flaunting their title. Obvious examples from the not-too-distant past involving non-royal peers closely related to the Queen would be ‘David Linley’ and ‘Patrick Lichfield’. Given that they want to redefine their positions, I see no reason why the Sussexes might not now do the same. But it is one thing for them to do so themselves and quite another for other people to presume so. As things currently stand, calling him ‘Harry Sussex’ really only works if you know him personally or are a gossip columnist trying to imply that you do. ---
**Author:** ![ASL\_v2.0](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asl_v2.0/32/3525_2.png) [@ASL\_v2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ASL_v2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/26 "2020-01-20T12:52:54Z")
I don’t think what he is called or how he is styled needs to have any bearing on his signature. What some have referred to as a “formal signature” or what have you, I would, I suspect, call “writing ones name in cursive.” i.e. not a signature. If he currently signs himself “Harry” in a mostly illegible scrawl, I see no reason for that to change. But, as an odd bit of trivia, his surname could perhaps be adopted as [Mountbatten-Windsor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountbatten-Windsor). ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/27 "2020-01-20T13:05:21Z")
If he signs “Sussex,” he’s not using his title as a family name. He’s just abbreviating “Duke of Sussex,” an appellation that doesn’t follow the given name-family name format. ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/28 "2020-01-20T18:56:46Z")
> [@Banksiaman](#): > > It seems a missed opportunity for Britain. Surely they have a stoat somewhere who won’t embarrass the family. The Brits have tried similar things, but Lance Corporal [Billy Windsor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Windsor_(goat)) of the Royal Welch Fusiliers (a Kashmir goat) had to be reduced in rank after “inappropriate behavior” during a parade celebrating the Queen’s Birthday: he tried to head-butt the drummers, among other missteps. Meanwhile, [Corporal Cruachan IV](https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a25935678/queen-elizabeth-prince-harry-cruachan-iv-shetland-pony-mascot-scottish-royal-regiment/) of the Royal Regiment of Scotland (a Shetland pony) tried to eat the Queen’s bouquet of flowers one year, and on a different occasion [dropped a load of manure](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6031245/The-Queen-arrives-Balmoral-Castle-start-annual-summer-break-Scotland.html) in front of Her Majesty. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/29 "2020-01-20T22:28:13Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > Royals don’t use surnames the way the rest of us mere mortals do. > > His name isn’t Harry Sussex, It’s Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex. So he may call himself Prince Harry, or The Duke of Sussex (or just ‘Sussex’), but not, traditionally, Harry Sussex. > > Most non-Royal Dukes have a separate surname from their title, so for example the Duke Of Westminster is Hugh Grosvenor, but would sign himself ‘Westminster’. > > Royals don’t. > > The army thing was an anomaly born out of Harry and William wanting to have ‘ordinary names’ to be one of the men (unlike their Uncle who’s military name before he got his Dukedom was Sub Lieutenant Prince Andrew). ‘Wales’ was a pretty-much made up surname to reflect their father’s highest rank. That’s pretty much what I thought. So why, in GQ, is there a thread with Harry Sussex in the title? ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2020, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/30 "2020-01-20T23:27:44Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > That’s pretty much what I thought. So why, in GQ, is there a thread with Harry Sussex in the title? How many of the people reading that title did NOT know who was being referred to? You’ll see a lot of news stories referring to “the Sussexes” (or the Cambridges, or, back in the day, the Waleses) as a kind of shorthand reference to people whose official name is long, cumbersome, and/or (as for example in this case) uncertain. In fact, the recent statement from [Buckingham Palace](https://www.royal.uk/statement-her-majesty-queen-0) calls them the Sussexes, although the term has no particular legal basis or justification. The guy doesn’t have a legal surname, and what name he will be using going forward is not crystalline clear; the palace refers to him both as the Duke of Sussex and as just plain Harry, while one reporter has asserted the press office told her he’d be ‘Harry, Duke of Sussex.’ ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/31 "2020-01-21T00:05:35Z")
> [@SanVito](#): > > The army thing was an anomaly born out of Harry and William wanting to have ‘ordinary names’ to be one of the men (unlike their Uncle who’s military name before he got his Dukedom was Sub Lieutenant Prince Andrew). ‘Wales’ was a pretty-much made up surname to reflect their father’s highest rank. I’d wager a small amount that when Andrew signed up all the forms were still paper-based, but when William and Harry did there was a computer form that insisted on _something_ being entered as a surname. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/32 "2020-01-21T00:48:08Z")
I seem to recall that they used the names William Wales and Henry Wales for their school purposes too, years before any military service. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/33 "2020-01-21T00:52:31Z")
I wonder what his passport and driver’s license show. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/34 "2020-01-21T01:26:24Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > I wonder what his passport and driver’s license show. UK passports typically give a peer’s formal title, so his would show “HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex” (assuming he has had occasion to renew it since his marriage). Not sure what the practice with driving licences is. ---
**Author:** ![Senegoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senegoid/32/6606_2.png) [@Senegoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Senegoid)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/35 "2020-01-21T05:58:45Z")
Seems like it would serve the Royal family conveniently if they had a well-established, perhaps even legal statutory, protocol for assigning each Royal a “normal” surname, according to some known convention, to be used in all those kinds of cases where a “normal” surname is expected. This could be along with any other names, titles, styles, or other terms of identification that nobles and peers and aristocrats and royals use. Of course, maybe the whole point of all those titles and styles was to create a gulf of separation between them and the common folk. If so, then having “normal” names kind of defeats the purpose. Most of us Americans have little or no understanding of how all that works, as we made a conscious and deliberate choice in the earliest days of the republic to not have any royalty or aristocracy, and it’s all kind of alien to us. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/36 "2020-01-21T06:45:15Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Seems like it would serve the Royal family conveniently if they had a well-established, perhaps even legal statutory, protocol for assigning each Royal a “normal” surname, according to some known convention, to be used in all those kinds of cases where a “normal” surname is expected . . . They do. If the male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth find themselves needing to use a surname, that surname is “Mountbatten-Windsor”. This was established by a Privy Council declaration made in 1960. For collateral members of the family - those descended from George V, but not from Elizabeth II - the surname is “Windsor”. The thing is, people with royal styles and titles don’t often find themselves in need of a surname, for two reasons. First, a British prince or princess is formally known only by his or her given name. Secondly, they all or nearly all have peerage titles as well as royal titles, and - like anyone with a peerage title - in circumstances where us mere mortals identify ourselves with a surname, they tend to identify themselves with their peerage titles. So, to find the surname of this particular family actually in use, you need to get to a point where a male-line descendant of the monarch is so far removed from the throne that they no longer have either a royal or a peerage title - or, they have such titles but opt not to use them. An example of the former would be Lord Frederick Windsor, a male-line great-grandson of George V, who has no title; an example of the latter would be Lady Louise Windsor, a male-line granddaughter of Elizabeth II, who could call herself HRH Princess Louise of Wessex but doesn’t. Were Harry to use a surname, it would be “Mountbatten-Windsor” (though, like his cousin Louise, he might abbreviate it to “Windsor”). But, although he has renounced the use of his royal title, he has not renounced the use of his peerage title and, if he does as other peers do, he will be “the Duke of Sussex” or, in less formal contexts, “Harry Sussex” or, in even less formal contexts, just “Sussex”, so he’s unlikely to find himself using his surname very often. > [@Senegoid](#): > > Of course, maybe the whole point of all those titles and styles was to create a gulf of separation between them and the common folk. If so, then having “normal” names kind of defeats the purpose. That is exactly the point. > [@Senegoid](#): > > Most of us Americans have little or no understanding of how all that works, as we made a conscious and deliberate choice in the earliest days of the republic to not have any royalty or aristocracy, and it’s all kind of alien to us. A wise choice! ---
**Author:** ![slash2k](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@slash2k](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/slash2k)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 7:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/37 "2020-01-21T07:59:42Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > They do. If the male-line descendants of Queen Elizabeth find themselves needing to use a surname, that surname is “Mountbatten-Windsor”. This was established by a Privy Council declaration made in 1960. For collateral members of the family - those descended from George V, but not from Elizabeth II - the surname is “Windsor”. Nitpick: this applies only to those male-line descendants who do NOT have the style of Royal Highness or the title of Prince(ss) of the United Kingdom. ([cite](https://www.royal.uk/royal-family-name?page=3)) Until now, Harry has had the style and title, so he doesn’t qualify under the 1960 declaration to use Mountbatten-Windsor. Going forward, it’s not really clear yet whether he is giving up the style and title, or still has them but just won’t use them, or exactly what the situation will be. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 11:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/38 "2020-01-21T11:46:46Z")
> [@Senegoid](#): > > Seems like it would serve the Royal family conveniently if they had a well-established, perhaps even legal statutory, protocol for assigning each Royal a “normal” surname, according to some known convention, to be used in all those kinds of cases where a “normal” surname is expected. This could be along with any other names, titles, styles, or other terms of identification that nobles and peers and aristocrats and royals use. > > Of course, maybe the whole point of all those titles and styles was to create a gulf of separation between them and the common folk. If so, then having “normal” names kind of defeats the purpose. > > Most of us Americans have little or no understanding of how all that works, as we made a conscious and deliberate choice in the earliest days of the republic to not have any royalty or aristocracy, and it’s all kind of alien to us. I don’t think there’s a legal requirement to have a given name and a family name, is there? Maybe European countries have such requirements, but I don’t think it’s mandatory in the United States. Anyway I believe the British royalty’s tradition of using a given name and a title started long before family names became standard for everyone. ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2020, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652/39 "2020-01-21T13:06:44Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > I don’t think there’s a legal requirement to have a given name and a family name, is there? Maybe European countries have such requirements, but I don’t think it’s mandatory in the United States. Nor in the UK. It can present practical difficulties, though, if you opt for something unconventional and inconsistent with other forms of your name that you’ve previously used. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/okay-so-what-are-military-patronages-harry-sussex/846652.md?page=1)