Surname of Female Monarch Following Marriage to Equal?

[KaiserKatze]

In the modern era, female monarchs generally rule within their own right and, as the one of higher status (for example, Queens Elizabeth or Wilhelmina, whose husbands were of lower status), keep their family name. At the most extreme, they might hyphenate.

My question is: If one of these queens had married someone of closer status (the son of a reigning king) or even of arguably higher status (the son of a reigning Emperor), would there have been a greater chance of a full name change or hyphenation to avoid upsetting the marital family?

Example 1: One marries the son of the King of Sweden

Example 2: One marries the son of a (surviving and reigning) Russian Emperor

 

[Jürgen]

European royalty doesn’t have surnames.

 

[KaiserKatze]

European royalty doesn’t have surnames.

The changing of Queen Elizabeth's surname upon marriage was a point of major contention, so on that front I will have to disagree. The Russians, Germans, and Dutch all have very long-standing familial names, too, not to mention the Habsburgs becoming the Habsburg-Lorraine's

 

[Lalli]

Officially European royal families indeed haven't surnames so it is bit irrelevant beside some such notable families like Romanovs, Habsburgs or Hohenzollerns. Sure there is dynastic name but that is not so important on everyday life. And probably even more irrelevant when royal-royal marriages are not mandated anymore and not sure would there even be scenario where royal-royal marriages would are mandatory with 1900 POD. Nowadays only few could tell what is last name of many royal families.

 

[Jürgen]

The changing of Queen Elizabeth's surname upon marriage was a point of major contention, so on that front I will have to disagree. The Russians, Germans, and Dutch all have very long-standing familial names, too, not to mention the Habsburgs becoming the Habsburg-Lorraine's

They’re not surnames, they’re house names.

 

[KaiserKatze]

They’re not surnames, they’re house names.

Ah, I see, I didn't know the distinction.

Officially European royal families indeed haven't surnames so it is bit irrelevant beside some such notable families like Romanovs, Habsburgs or Hohenzollerns. Sure there is dynastic name but that is not so important on everyday life. And probably even more irrelevant when royal-royal marriages are not mandated anymore and not sure would there even be scenario where royal-royal marriages would are mandatory with 1900 POD. Nowadays only few could tell what is last name of many royal families.

I do agree for the most part, but I also think of how much it came up in regards to the WW1 change to "Windsor" or the progressive union as "Mountbatten-Windsor"

 

[Jürgen]

Ah, I see, I didn't know the distinction.

The main difference is how they’re inherited and how they can change. King Charles could decide tomorrow that Prince Andrew and his children is no longer allowed to call himself a Windsor and instead they should be called for example York. Of course, he’s limited to do so to the Windsors who are his subjects, a sideline living in Sweden would change names.

Prince Philip is also good example of this, because he was in fact not Mountbatten, he was in fact Philip of Schleswig-Holstein-Sönderburg-Glücksburg (Glücksburg for short), Prince of Greece and Denmark. Of course Glücksburg was original Schleswig-Holstein-Sönderburg-Beck but renamed themselves Glücksburg when the original Glücksburg line had gone extinct, of course Beck and the original Beck was both sidelines to Sönderburg (with the main line having gone extinct, and Glücksburg being the only surviving line). But Sönderburg was just sideline to the House of Oldenburg, which also the ancestral line to thecyounger Romanov line. So if we were talking about patrilineal surnames, Charles should be Charles von Oldenburg or Karl von Oldenburg.

But it didn’t work that way, Oldenburg was simply an informal house name, and the member named themselves after the domains they ruled, they called themselves “of Denmark”, “of Russia”, ”of Norway”, “of Sweden”, “of Greece”, “of Gottorp”, “of Oldenburg“ and now “of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain”.

 

[TeluguKhan]

But it didn’t work that way, Oldenburg was simply an informal house name, and the member named themselves after the domains they ruled, they called themselves “of Denmark”, “of Russia”, ”of Norway”, “of Sweden”, “of Greece”, “of Gottorp”, “of Oldenburg“ and now “of the United Kingdoms of Great Britain”.

But Wilelm 2 did not call himself von Deutschland,he called himself von Hohenzollern

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

As far as I know Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) was still Mary Tudor even though she was married to Phillip II of Spain, and Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots) was still Mary Stuart even though she was married to the King of France

 

[yulzari1]

As far as I know Mary Tudor (Bloody Mary) was still Mary Tudor even though she was married to Phillip II of Spain, and Mary Stuart (Queen of Scots) was still Mary Stuart even though she was married to the King of France

In the case of Mary Tudor she and Phillip both ruled jointly so both were monarchs in their own right. When she died he remained the ruling monarch. The locals rather disagreed.

 

[Thomas Jefferson]

Regardless of the precedent/'rules,' I think that in practice a reigning female monarch would be under pressure to retain her surname/house name to avoid the impression that the marriage constituted a 'hostile takeover' by the husband's home country, similar to how the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha renamed itself the House of Windsor and Prince Philip adopted the surname Mountbatten to avoid appearing too German.

 

[pompejus]

I have no doubt it depends on the country. I do know that in the Netherlands it is the house of Orange-Nassau who rules the Netherlands and it does not matter who the (potential) queen marries. It will remain the house of Orange-Nassau. If she marries the son of an emperor, it will still be the house of Orange-Nassau. If she would marry the king of another country, the queen will still be of Orange-Nassau and the child who succeeds her as monarch will be too. Since according to the Dutch constitution personal Unions are(well were) not allowed, that should not be a problem with the monarch of the other country, who would be able to keep its house, I guess.

This is different in the UK, where the name of the house changes (or at least changed) when a reigning queen married a noble and one of their children would succeed the queen.

 

[pjmidd]

In the case of Mary Tudor she and Phillip both ruled jointly so both were monarchs in their own right. When she died he remained the ruling monarch. The locals rather disagreed.

Not true, they were monarchs of different realms in their own right and consort in the other. Mary's marriage contract was very clear that Philip only got the title of King of England whilst Mary lived and he, technically, was subject to Mary in England. The English nobility was very worried about being merged into Spain so put all sorts of obstacles and checks in place.

 

[Jürgen]

But Wilelm 2 did not call himself von Deutschland,he called himself von Hohenzollern

They were forced to make their house names into surnames, Greece have tried to to do the same with their former royal family, but they have given the Greek government a one fingered salute. The German and Austrian royal families have been more willing to deal with these demands from their former subjects.

 

[X Oristos]

They were forced to make their house names into surnames, Greece have tried to to do the same with their former royal family, but they have given the Greek government a one fingered salute. The German and Austrian royal families have been more willing to deal with these demands from their former subjects.

The Hohenzollern and the Habsburg have a different relationship with their countries. A history of centuries and they saw themselves as leaders of their whole nation. They basically made Austria and Germany. In contrast the former royal house of Greece spent the 20th century dividing rather than uniting, after being imposed by the Great Powers. The Kings were basically party bosses and their realm was that of the royalist right. They wanted to rule not reign and rule as leaders of a specific faction.

The last king Constantine II happened to be a monarch of very limited intellectual ability who led a institutional coup against the elected government and a couple years later was scheming to establish a royalist dictatorship. The Junta of Colonels managed to do a coup first and the monarch sanctioned their regime. Later on, he decided he didn't like it and led a laughably incompetent coup against them that failed. Overall, one can see how the republican goverments of post-1974 Greece saw their former monarchs under a not flattering light.

 

[da Racontor]

The queen would retain her house name & there wouldn't be any issues from anyone. The only reason she might be "adopted" into her husband's house is if it was more prestigious.

The only thing that might cause an issue is if she wanted the child to be part of her house instead of her husband's. If there wasn't a larger reason, like her house being much more prestigious or a Saxe-Coburg Gotha/Windsor issue, there'd probably be some fighting.



Another thing to remember in addition to house names not being surnames. Women replacing there last name isn't the only tradition in the Christian West.
For example, may ancestor only started doing that a few generations back when the immigrated to the USA. Prior to that, the followed the French Canadian tradition.

Granted I believe not taking the husband's surname is more popular in Catholic countries, but it's not like the idea is novel to Europe.