23

From a cursory reading of succession and Houses in royal families it seems that tradition requires Houses to be inherited through patrilineange. And so when the Monarchy passes through a female there is a change of House.

Some examples of this:

  • The House of Hanover was the House Queen Victoria belonged to, and her son Edward VII was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha King, inheriting the house of his father. (Of course this name was changed to Windsor during WW1...but still remaining the same House)
  • The House of Stuart changed to the House of Hanover as succession passed through Queen Anne
  • The House of Tudors changed to the House of Stuart as succession passed through Queen Elizabeth I (Notably the House did not change between Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I because they were sisters - coming from the same father)
  • The same is true for the change between the House of Norman and the House of Plantagenet as succession passed through Empress Matilda. Though those terms exactly were not used at that time; instead it was "Norman Kings" to "Plantagenet Kings" but same idea.

The other times Houses changed in England were because of other reasons (i.e. Wars of the Roses).

So what gives? Why is Charles III not the first Mountbatten King?

Bertrand Einstein IV
  • 741
  • 6
  • 13
  • 22
    Just as a point of accuracy; George I wasn't the offspring of Anne, nor was James VI & I the offspring of Elizabeth I. In those cases, it was an entirely different and somewhat distantly separated branch of the family which took over. – GeoffAtkins Sep 14 '22 at 07:15
  • 6
    @GeoffAtkins Yes, and neither was Henry II the offspring of Stephen, whom he succeeded (and Stephen did have surviving issue). While it would be accurate to call him a Norman king, this was the point where it became relevant to distinguish which branch of that dynasty he belonged to. – Especially Lime Sep 14 '22 at 11:55
  • 3
    While it's a dramatized TV show The Crown S1E3 "Windsor" goes into this in pretty good detail. – Machavity Sep 14 '22 at 16:26
  • There was a lot of "infighting" over the name - culinating in the proclamation mentioned by Don Hosek. – Russell McMahon Sep 15 '22 at 10:26
  • 1
    @EspeciallyLime I don't think Henry II was very Norman, as his Dad, Geoffrey le Bel, was the Count of Anjou; his Mum, Matilda, was the daughter of a Norman king and a Saxon mother. – Simon Crase Sep 16 '22 at 07:35
  • @SimonCrase Well, he was about as Norman as Stephen, whose father was the Count of Blois and whose mother was the daughter of a Norman king and a Flemish mother. Both of them were also Duke of Normandy. – Especially Lime Sep 16 '22 at 08:47
  • @EspeciallyLime Both of the were also kings of England (even if Stephen wasn't terribly good at it), but that didn't make them English: I doubt whether they even spoke English. – Simon Crase Sep 16 '22 at 21:11

1 Answers1

44

Wikipedia provides a direct explanation:

Soon after Elizabeth became Queen in 1952, Lord Mountbatten observed that because it was the standard practice for the wife in a marriage to adopt her husband's surname, the House of Mountbatten now reigned. When Elizabeth's grandmother, Queen Mary, heard of this comment, she informed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and he later advised the Queen to issue a royal proclamation declaring that the royal house was to remain known as the House of Windsor. This she did on 9 April 1952, officially declaring it her "Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor."

Even so, Charles’s last name is, in fact, Mountbatten (later changed to Mountbatten-Windsor) as he was born before Elizabeth’s accession to the throne and Wikipedia also notes that genealogically speaking, Charles and his descendants belong to the House of Glücksburg.

Don Hosek
  • 4,530
  • 20
  • 25
  • 2
    Ironically, I suppose, considering Lord Mountbatten's comment, 'Mountbatten' originated as 'Battenberg'. – j4nd3r53n Sep 14 '22 at 14:15
  • Doesn't the "other than female descendants who marry" apply here? The quote isn't clear whether the proclamation is from the perspective of Queen Mary or of Queen Elizabeth. – Ben Voigt Sep 14 '22 at 19:14
  • @BenVoigt Elizabeth. – hobbs Sep 14 '22 at 20:47
  • 1
    "genealogically speaking" is genealogy paternalist? – njzk2 Sep 14 '22 at 21:01
  • It is of course open to Charles to issue a similar proclamation declaring he and his descendants are of the House of Mountbatten. – Martin Bonner supports Monica Sep 15 '22 at 07:35
  • 3
    "Even so, Charles’s last name is, in fact, Mountbatten". An alternative view is that Charles did not have a last name. He may have used Mountbatten or Mountbatten-Windsor for convenience from time to time, but was it part of his name? Depends what you mean? (It is much easier to argue that he no longer has a last name.) – Martin Bonner supports Monica Sep 15 '22 at 07:37
  • @BenVoigt "on 9 April 1952" the Queen was Elizabeth II – OrangeDog Sep 15 '22 at 09:17
  • 4
    Ironically (also) the "House of Windsor" was itself something of a fiction, as it was originally the "House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha", but George V changed it during WWI to Windsor so it would sound less German. – RBarryYoung Sep 15 '22 at 13:56
  • @RBarryYoung Not only that. Gotha was a famous aircraft manufacturer in WW1 that built the bombers that was bombing England. Not good optics - "England attacked by Gotha". – slebetman Sep 15 '22 at 16:13
  • 3
    The House of Mountbatten was Battenberg before 1917. So Mountbatten-Windsor was Battenberg-Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha before. – Uwe Sep 15 '22 at 20:36
  • 1
    @RBarryYoung Kaiser Willhelm II of Germany's only known joke was driven by this when he remarked that he looked forward to watching the Shakespeare play "The Merry Wives of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha". – matt_black Sep 16 '22 at 14:17
  • As an aside, IIRC, Philippe of Mountbatten was a notorious gaffeur, so probably that comment that prompted Queen Mary to action could be his most "facepalm" gaffes (talking about shooting oneself in the foot!) :-) – LorenzoDonati4Ukraine-OnStrike Sep 16 '22 at 19:26
  • 2
    Mountbatten was a controversial character, and would have been delighted to have his name attached to the British royal family, but nobody else including the queen would have accepted this. – Rich Sep 19 '22 at 03:33
  • 1
    Honestly, Charles III is more Glücksburg than Mountbatten or Windstor, both of his parents are direct descendant from Christian IX of Denmark ("the father-in-law of Europe"), on one side: King George V (Elizabeth II's grandfather) was the grandson of Christian IX and on the other side: King George I of Greece (Philip 's grandfather) was the son of Christian IX – Ponce Nov 15 '23 at 02:48
  • But surnames don’t work based on proportion of ancestry. My kids have a Czech surname¹ despite being only ½ Czech and on your principle should have a Spanish surname instead. – Don Hosek Nov 16 '23 at 03:08
  • Although I’m still surprised that my kids have my last name.
    • – Don Hosek Nov 16 '23 at 03:08