Previous Message

To answer your question at least partially, and in the case of HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex - here we have the case of an HRH born on foreign (American) soil. She does have of course her claim to UK citizenship, but also there is that document she might have been issued at the time of her birth in California - Consular Birth Registration certificate. Harry or one of his gophers might have snuck down to the UK Consulate in L.A. and obtained that document. Who knows? What is certain however is that they had to have a California birth certificate issued to her either from Sta. Barbara or L.A. county. And that document in turn would have had to have stated a legal recognized surname. But, according to what Charles above states, "Because" she and her father are both HRH Prince/Princess, there is no surname on any of Harry's passport or other British legal identification. So then, what becomes of Lilibet when the County Recorder in St. Barbara or L.A. has to issue that birth certiicate with a SURNAME on it? Logical answer surely: she does have that right to the Mountbatten-Windsor name, HRH or not because there is nothing else to rely on in such a situation. The same applies to the moment when she has to travel overseas - she could of course be put on a British passport, BUT...if it is a U.S . passport, which is also her right, then again the U.S. passport office will rely on her California birth certificate...i.e., Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor.