[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
I’m sure there was one precedent. Memory a bit vague, don’t recall which king it was. I think his birth name was John, or maybe Charles. But he didn’t want to be another King John. So he took his brother’s name, instead.
[/QUOTE]
Well, George VI’s birth name was Albert (Albert Fredrick Arthur George). For that matter, Queen Victoria’s first name was Alexandrina…Victoria was her middle name.
[QUOTE=erie774]
So is her shortened name “Elizabeth Faith”? Seriously, what would her “real” name be?
[/QUOTE]
From the Official Website of the British Monarchy:
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Just curious- does Jane officially count as a monarch?
[/QUOTE]
Previous thread on topic: Another british royal question: Jane Grey, was she, or was she not, a Queen?
[QUOTE=Peter Morris]
I’m sure there was one precedent. Memory a bit vague, don’t recall which king it was. I think his birth name was John, or maybe Charles. But he didn’t want to be another King John. So he took his brother’s name, instead.
[/QUOTE]
Not ringing any bells for me. After the reign of King John, there’s only been three times when a brother succeeded a brother on the throne, and none of them took their predecessor’s name: James II succeeded Charles II; William III succeeded George IV; George VI succeeded Edward VIII.
There were also two cases where the elder brother died before becoming king so the younger brother succeeded, but in neither case did the younger brother take the older brother’s name: Henry VIII succeeded his father, Henry VII, after the death of his older brother Arthur, and Charles I succeeded his father, James VI & I, after the death of his older brother, Henry.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
Just curious- does Jane officially count as a monarch? Let’s say William had a daughter and he names her Jane. Would she ascend as Jane II?
[/QUOTE]
Approximatley
[QUOTE=erie774]
So is her shortened name “Elizabeth Faith”? Seriously, what would her “real” name be?
[/QUOTE]
Elizabeth Alexandra Mary (Windsor). As royalty it’s unclear whether or not she actually has a surname, but if she does it’s Windsor. Between her marriage to Phillip and her ascending the throne she technically had his (made-up) surname of Mountbatten (as did Charles & Anne) if in deed she had one at all. A few months after she became queen Phillip’s uncle, Lord Mountbatten, joked about the “House of Mountbatten” being on the throne and this upset the Queen Mother. She then got Churchill to advise Elizabeth II to issue a decree stating that the royal family would continue to be known as the “House and Family of Windsor” and bear the surname Windsor. Phillip was not happy. Later when she had Andrew she decreed that untitled male-line descendants would have Mountbatten-Windsor as a surname, but in practice all her children have used it on the rare occasion they needed to use a surname.
That’s kinda bizarre, really. You’d think that surname would have a higher priority than first names or even titles in an instituion built on heredity.
[QUOTE=plnnr]
Approximatley
[/QUOTE]
Thank you Mr. Dylan.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
That’s kinda bizarre, really. You’d think that surname would have a higher priority than first names or even titles in an instituion built on heredity.
[/QUOTE]
The said institution far predates surnames, though.
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
Elizabeth’s father, Prince Albert, became King George VI upon his accession
[/QUOTE]
So what you’re saying is, he put “Prince Albert” in a can and became King George. Got it.
–d&r–
I believe I’ve read more than once that Princes Harry and William use “Wales” as a surname when required (and Wikipedia backs me up on this). Why don’t they use Windsor as a surname?
[QUOTE=TJVM]
I believe I’ve read more than once that Princes Harry and William use “Wales” as a surname when required (and Wikipedia backs me up on this). Why don’t they use Windsor as a surname?
[/QUOTE]
This kind of lends weight to the contention that, as royals, they really have no legal surname and can use whatever they want when it’s necessary to have one for everyday use.
[QUOTE=Sampiro]
To further confuse matters, if Prince Charles becomes king he would be King Charles III if he chooses to go in that direction, but he could also if he so desired be King George VII
[/QUOTE]
IIRC, I believe that Charles is leaning in that direction.
Wouldn’t actually, their surname be “Glucksberg”, as that was Phillip’s original last name, before he adopted his mother’s?
[QUOTE=Northern Piper]
Not ringing any bells for me. After the reign of King John, there’s only been three times when a brother succeeded a brother on the throne, and none of them took their predecessor’s name: James II succeeded Charles II; William III succeeded George IV; George VI succeeded Edward VIII.
[/QUOTE]
To clarify, IIRC, he was actually called John (I think). But when he succeeded to the throne he adopted a different name. And the name that he chose happened to be his still living younger brother’s given name.
I’ve found it. John Stewart who became Robert III of Scotland despite the fact that Robert was no part of his name, and he had a brother Robert Earl Of Fife.
Ah - Scottish not English. Interesting - thanks for pointing that out. But would his change from his given nameof “John” have anything to do with the legacy of the English King John? That’s what I thought you meant in your original post?
It seems it was John Balliol Toom Tabard who was the infamous John whose memory was being avoided in this case.
[QUOTE=Guinastasia]
IIRC, I believe that Charles is leaning in that direction.
[/quote]
I confirm having heard likewise in a possibly-debatable news report.
Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg (supply umlauts to taste)
A cadet branch of the Danish royal house (i.e., the above) was chosen for the throne of Greece.
Philip’s father was a younger son of one of the kings of Greece of that line.
His mother was a Battenberg; the branch of the family which changed it to Mountbatten was close relatives but did not include her. Philip adopted his uncle’s surname, it being a translation of his mother’s, and far more ‘British’ than S-H-S-G. (Said uncle was, of course Earl Mountbatten of Burma.)
[QUOTE=TJVM]
I believe I’ve read more than once that Princes Harry and William use “Wales” as a surname when required (and Wikipedia backs me up on this). Why don’t they use Windsor as a surname?
[/QUOTE]
Because it’s their legal appellation.
Consider: Frederic Eustace Smythe-Carstairs inherits the Earldom of Hallamshire from his bachelor great-uncle. He thereafter is styled Frederic, Earl of Hallamshire.
Her Majesty’s eldest son is officially “Charles, Prince of Wales” [and a page and a half of trailers attached to that, but that’s the key element]. Until given titles by their grandmother or moving up at her death, they are officially Prince William of Wales and Prince Harry of Wales – their legal appelation and title. When pressed with the need for a surname, they use “Wales” as, accurately, what they have for a surname.
“Windsor” is the house (dynasty) name – but it functions as a surname only for any potential descendants in the male line (including female descendants, just descended through the male line) of Her Majesty’s father’s two brothers, who do not have a title or a courtesy designation related to their father’s title to use. Her own descendants in that bind will, by proclamation, use “Mountbatten-Windsor.”
[QUOTE=Giles]
Elizabeth I never married, so she had no mother-in-law.
Mary I married Prince Phillip, later King Phillip II of Spain, so her mother-in-law was Isabella of Portugal, who also held the titles of Empress of the Holy Roman Empire and Queen of Spain.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, this is why I shouldn’t post after being awake for 24 straight hours. :eek:
I was attempting to say step-mother. That, too, would have been incorrect, however. 