Why do they use Wales as a surname for Princes William and Harry, when surely their surname is Windsor?
452581
They've always used Wales as their last name in school ever since they were small children. It helped them fit in not being a "Windsor" in class. \nAs for last names in general, the royal family tends to use whatever names they want willy-nilly. They don't need last names, and only recently have royals really used them, because more and more of them have more regular "civilian" style lives, outside of the palace. \nPrince Edward, the Earl of Wessex, goes by Edward Wessex, but before he got married and got that title, he used to go by Edward Windsor. His wife Sophie also goes by Sophie Wessex. Prince Andrew (the Duke of York)'s daughters both go by Beatrice and Eugenie York. \nIt's just a way of distinguishing themselves from one another and trying to fit into the populace a little better.\nLast names really don't mean too much to them.\nAnd in 1960, the Queen made it "law" that her descedants would take the surname Mountbatten-Windsor to include her husband's last name, not just her own. And Windsor, I believe, was not a family name. George V changed it from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (which WAS a family name) to keep it less German sounding.
1159838
The title 'Prince of Wales' may be possessed only by the eldest son of a Sovereign. \n\nThere is no automatic succession to this title, which at every vacancy becomes merged in the Crown, and is renewed only by the Sovereign. \n\nThe title 'Princess of Wales' applies only to the wife of the Prince of Wales. The title cannot be used by the Sovereign's daughter, even if she is heir to the throne. For example, the Queen was known as Princess Elizabeth until she succeeded to the throne.\n\nThe present Prince of Wales is 21st in the line, counting several who were never formally invested. He can trace his descent back through the Tudors to the original Princes of Wales, of whom the last native Prince of Wales was Llywelyn ap Gruffydd (1246-82). \n\nEdward II was the first Prince of Wales in the present line; he was formally created Prince of Wales by his father Edward I in 1301 and he was invested before Parliament in Lin
1132102
When the monarch dies or abdicates, the crown passes to the next in line.\nIf the outgoing monarch has one, the first in line is the eldest son (so Prince Charles is currently first in line), or the eldest son of the eldest son (Prince William is second in line).\nWhen the previous King died in 1952, he had no sons. First in line was his eldest daughter, Princess Elizabeth, so she became Queen Elizabeth II.\n\nBecause sons have priority over daughters, there have been more Kings as monarch than Queens.\nHowever, the wife of a King is also called a Queen, whereas the husband of a Queen is not called a King, but a Prince-Consort.\nHence Elizabeth II is Queen, and Phillip is Prince-Consort.
176021
William the Conquerer. Known before then as The Duke of Normandy aka William the Bastard.
693336
King George VI\nhttp://www.royal.gov.uk/OutPut/Page147.asp
1129414
some of the answers got very close ......but no cigar.\nAlbany is a corruption of the Gaelic word for Scotland. Alba, which was then a title bestowed on Blah Blah the first duke of  Albany.\n\nChris
445325
I'm the American son of a British father, so I hold dual national status and carry both US and UK passports. I am thus able to view this from both perspectives, I think, so I'll toss in my two cents/pence.\n\nThe Royals are indeed pointless in terms of actual power and general usefulness (the Queen is only the titular head of state and wields no real power that I can see -- and quite right too!) and they cost the British taxpayer an absolute fortune to house, clothe, feed and protect in the almost obscene luxury and style to which they are accustomed. \n\nThat said, they also bring in mega tourist dollars/pounds/euros and all the media attention associated with prestige, pomp and circumstance. I sometimes wonder if they are more beloved in the former British colonies than at home. Odd, that. Still, there are very clearly many Britons who remain loyal and supportive of the titular monarchy, even as there are many who would love nothing better than to see them deposed and made to work for a living. It is quite a conundrum, isn't it?\n\nAs to your query about why they interest people so much, your guess is as good as mine. I expect it's because we live in such a celebrity culture (on both sides of the pond and in most other modern, westernized nations, as well) and people just can't get enough of this sort of thing. It goes without saying that I am made nauseous by this fact, but I am hardly representative of either my fellow countrymen or those in the land of my forebears. \n\nFor what it's worth, I think the much-maligned Prince Charles is actually an intelligent and generally decent man with sound ideas regarding the environment, architecture, etc. His father is a complete jackanapes who puts his foot in his mouth on a regular basis. The Queen herself is okay with me, albeit as pompous and dowdy as a modern monarch could even dream of being. I always liked the late Princess Diana and was sorry for her tragic loss. I like Fergie, as well. Prince William seems a decent and responsible sort but Harry is trouble and will doubtless remain so, his training at Sandhurst notwithstanding.\n\nI'll not bother with the rest of the Royals and I expect you have your own well-formed views in any case. I think the best and fairest thing to do would be for the British people to hold a referendum on the desirability of the monarchy, literally a popular vote with an up or down verdict. I confess I would be very intrigued to see the end result. Please keep me posted, ok?
467375
Heres a couple sites you can try.\nhttp://www.nameseekers.co.uk/surname.htm\nhttp://www.searchforancestors.com/surnames/origin/
329676
king charles the second\n\nthis link may help you
186657
It means a near-equal companion to a reigning member of royalty. So Duke of Edinborough is a consort to Queen Elizabeth---he is her husband, but not quite her equal since there can only be one reigning monarch on the throne of England---and Queen Elizabeth is it.\n\nSometimes the term is also applied to diplomatic companions.
231763
http://www.genuki.org.uk/indexes/SurnamesLists.html\n\nI think this is what you mean!\nHope so!
654598
The answer is Jr.(Junior) whether for male or female.\nIt's commonly used in Britain and the US - it just means 'a younger person having the same name as their parent'.
1049275
If you go by legality it is Mount Baton because that is Prince Phillip's last name.\n\nHowever because of carrying on the House of Windsor, the Queen goes by the last name of Windsor.\n\nConfusing I know but that is the way with British Royalty.
144215
No.  Prince William has been going out with a London sociallite for 4 years now I believe.
1146835
William has a fiancee, but I can't remember her name. Harry had a South African girlfriend, daughter to a tycoon, I can't remember her name either.
1029309
The surname of Burls originated in England.  This was the name given to the cup bearers of noble families.  It is derived from the word "byrle" which means "cup bearer or butler."  Hope this helps.  You can view a picture of the Burls family crest at http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/burles-family-crest.htm
302890
My cousin did our genealogy and discovered our family descended from English royalty. I don't know his name, I was young and was kind of ho-hum about it at the time but other family members were real excited about it. Sorry, no link.