King Charles III is of the House of Mountbatten-Windsor (oft rendered as just Windsor), as was his mother before him, as will his son and Heir Apparent, the (likely) King William V. Best I can figure, the only way for a non-Windsor to get the throne any time soon (viz, within the next 50 or so years) would be if somehow William’s sons died or abdicated and it went to Charlotte. So then the next royal House in the UK would belong to whatever name Charlotte and her husband took???
What would have to happen for an upcoming British monarch to not be of House (Mountbatten-) Windsor?
If it would be Queen Charlotte, she would get to choose her name, just as George V and Elizabeth II did.
And my bet (looking far into the future when I probably won’t be around), is that just like Queen Elizabeth, she would confirm that she is of the House of Windsor. That’s been the name now for over a century, and by then it would be even more firmly ensconced.
Plus, by then, any lingering “the girl takes her husband’s name” silliness would be stamped out (again, in my guess).
Are you talking about how Elizabeth declared stuff like
So was it her Will and her Pleasure that female descendants who marry and their descendants not bear the Name of Windsor?
I suppose if you are Queen you have the awesome power of making up your own name; not sure who would pop up claiming they are the real House of Windsor and she is kicked out.
I would interpret that as saying that female descendants who marry can, as in her own case, choose whether to retain the family name or to choose something else. The boys don’t get that choice, apparently.
It seems to apply to Charlotte whether she becomes Queen Regnant or not. In either case, she may choose to take her husband’s family name or to keep her own, or to make a new name based on both family names.
Or make up something all new? Queeny McQueenface?
Her baptismal name is Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, so she could presumably choose to be Queen Charlotte, Queen Diana, or Queen Elizabeth III.
IIRC, the royal family doesn’t actually have a surname per se, so in the unlikely event of her becoming Queen she could choose to style her house as anything she liked. Wasn’t “Windsor” itself just settled on because being “the house of Hanover” was no longer politically viable once WWI broke out?
Actually, the previous house name was Saxe-Coberg and Gotha. But yes, it was too German for that war.
But I think the real question would be, at what point does a Queen have exactly the same status as a King, and doesn’t have to clarify what her name and house is after her marriage?
A King doesn’t have to do that. Neither George VI nor Charles III had to do so. Why should Queen Charlotte have to do so?
Charlotte isn’t ever going to be queen unless she outlives her older brother and his offspring or royal incest comes back into fashion.
Yes, but we’re dealing with the hypothetical in the OP. Plus, if Prince George dies without issue, she will become Queen. It’s not unknown for young royals to die without issue. That’s how George V became king.
Or older royals to die without issue, for that matter. That’s how Victoria became Queen. Three uncles died without lawful issue, so she scooped the pot.
From Wikipedia, I get this info:
Now, therefore, We, out of Our Royal Will and Authority, do hereby declare and announce that as from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor
It looks to me like the name of the House is actually Windsor.
Or Parliament just adopts an act awarding the Crown to some person outside the family. Which Parliament could do, because under the British constitution it could do anything it wants to.
Absent Parliament disenfranchising the House of Windsor, which is inconceivable unless we become a republic, it is inevitable that the next monarch will inherit the Crown by virtue of their descent from that House. There’s just too many of them for it to be otherwise.
All the men close to the top of the order of succession are inevitably Windsors. The women closest to the top of the list were also born Windsors, and I don’t think their marital status would change that, not least given QEII’s precedent.
Thus, the first person who could credibly claim not to be a Windsor in the order of succession is Ms Sienna Mapelli Mozzi, currently 10th in the order of succession. Given that the Mapelli Mozzi are nobles themselves, then that would presumably be the new royal house, given the precedent of Edward VII.
This is most likely if her mother dies without becoming queen regnant herself, when the QEII precedent could easily kick in again.
Reading further, it seems that Anne (and the king) were born Mountbattens, and the old queen changed their surname to Windsor later. And that eventually some of the old queen’s male line descendents will become Mountbatten Windsors when they drop out of the royal family. And that the sweeping decision to retrospectively change Victoria’s family into the Windsors affected surprisingly few people.
Either way, it seems the king could easily decide for himself that the royal family is now Mountbatten. Or Oldenburg. Or anything else he likes, I suppose. Is it actually official he has decided to stick with Windsor?
Strictly speaking, it was Albert’s family whose name was changed to Windsor; Victoria was born into the House of Hanover.
I’d be okay with the “House of Charlotte,” but I really think hypothetical Queen Charlotte should just change the name of the family to the House of Chanel.
Add a little class to the organization.
Traditionaly a queen-regnant remains a member of her birth house, but her offspring are members of their father’s house. So Lord Mountbatten was incorrect when he started boasting about the House of Mountbatten being on the throne when Elizabeth II ascended, which prompted her to issue a proclaimation making her children Windsors instead of Mountbattens. That in turn upset Prince Phillip so in 1960 they decided their untitled male-line descendants would have Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname; inpractice the titled ones use it too. There was speculation Charles III would change the name of the royal house to Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor, but he chose not to.
Strictly speaking, in this country we do actually consider a woman’s children, grand children, and later descendents to be ‘her family’. And those were the people whose name was changed.
She could also choose to reign under a completely different name. there is no requirement to rule under a name given at birth.
She could also choose to reign under a completely different name. there is no requirement to rule under a name given at birth.