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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The Brits have tried similar things, but Lance Corporal Billy Windsor 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 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 in front of Her Majesty.
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 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.’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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) 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.
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.
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.
