Talk:Mountbatten-Windsor

message: I have removed the reference to the Queen only having one paternal uncle and no aunts - two of her FOUR paternal uncles and an aunt were still living at the time of this surname's introduction. 195.188.40.144 (talk) 09:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'One uncle and no aunts'?

message: The article states that Mountbatten-Windsor is "informally used by members of the Royal Family descended from Queen Elizabeth II as their surname, as shown at the marriages of the Duke of York and the Princess Royal, both having been registered with Mountbatten-Windsor in their entries in the marriage registers". However, is not a marriage register a formal document and thus a formal declaration?204.126.251.245 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Informal" Usage 

message: I'm not sure of the significance of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, styling himself "Edward Wessex".  I recall hearing the Queen introduce Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, to Lech Wałęsa, then President of Poland, as simply "Richard Gloucester".Hebbgd (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Wessex 

message: The section titled "Male-line descendants of Elizabeth II" seems to show several female-line descendants -- August Brooksbank, the Tindalls, and the Phillipses. Should they be removed?  Powers T 14:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male-line descendants of Elizabeth II 

message: Considering that, under English law, anyone is free to take whatever name he or she wants unless it is for farudulent purposes, could someone who is not a male-line descendant of the Queen use the name Mountbatten-Windsor?179.208.240.220 (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of the name Mountbatten-Windsor by non-royals

message: The Queen's 1960 declaration very clearly states that Mounbatten-Windsor applies only to those not entitled to be styled HRH. Was Prince Charles styled HRH? Yes, therefore he was a Windsor, not a Mountbatten-Windsor. The fact that he considers himself, as do the others, a Mountbatten-Windsor is in deference to his father, the only man in Britain not allowed to give his children his name, as Philip famously complained. And you have to wonder if that isn't what Elizabeth hoped would happen, even though that's not how she stated it, specifically indicating the Royal House would remain Windsor. 
Here's what the Royal website says: "It was therefore declared in the Privy Council [in 1960] that The Queen's descendants, other than those with the style of Royal Highness and the title of Prince/Princess, or female descendants who marry, would carry the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.
The effect of the declaration was that all The Queen's children, on occasions when they needed a surname, would have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor."
Bold is mine. These two statements contradict each other. It's that simple. The best way to explain the status quo is that those who are Windsor de jure are Mountbatten-Windsor de facto.  2600:4040:5D38:1600:9083:D031:9A6D:40AE (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  de jure/de facto 

message: If the name is used for "male-line descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip", then doesn't that mean the royal house is now technically the House of Mountbatten-Windsor considering King Charles is a male-line descendant? 2A02:C7F:14B4:3400:41C:5BD9:6D44:355C (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Mountbatten-Windsor is used for male-line descendants who are not entitled to be styled His/Her Royal Highness. Since Charles as Prince of Wales was an HRH, he was a Windsor, not a Mountbatten-Windsor. Now it is certainly true that he and the rest of Elizabeth's descendents consider themselves Mountbatten-Windsors, but that is simply out of respect for Philip, and not according to the Queen's 1960 decree. On the other hand, Charles III can designate the Royal House as whatever he chooses, so we shall see. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:9083:D031:9A6D:40AE (talk) 02:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Mountbatten-Windsor 

message: The page Succession to the British throne shows that two additional people in line to the thrown: Sienna Mapelli Mozzi (b. 2021) at position 10 and August Brooksbank (b. 2021) at position 12. Perhaps its a technicality that they don't have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor but surely they should be recognised within the chart at Mountbatten-Windsor#Male-line_descendants_of_Elizabeth_II_and_Philip. Sienna and August are still descendants of the Duke of York- they're his grandchildren no? The whole thing is confusing because it shows Anne as 14th in-line to the thrown, but her page says 16th. I'm sure there's stylistic or perhaps procedural technicalities due to lineage for presenting it this way but it is ultimately confusing for the lame/ordinary reader. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue with Succession  

message: There are at least two references to the name Mountbatten-Windsor being used for only the male line, then elsewhere it states that HRH Princess Anne also uses the Mountbatten-Windsor name.
which is correct? This needs to be updated in line with the correct use of the name. Dbridge276 (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  References to male line only? 

message: There is an RfC on Talk:Charles III#RfC: Inclusion of "Agnatic house" which may relate to this article. Feel free to contribute. Estar8806 (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on Charles III