Recent footage of William graduating and Harry being in the Army have all referred to them as Harry Wales etc.  Harry even has Wales as the name on his military uniform.  Is their name not Windsor?
203890
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.
116785
King Ludwig, you know the guy from Neuschwanstein, also the current King of Monaco isnt married (but has a son). Those are all the ones i know.
191764
The book is called "Dusty Warriors: Modern Soldiers at War  \n" by Richard Holmes\n\nRichard Holmes is one of Britain's leading historians, who has brought us Tommy, Sahib, and who last year presented his BBC television series on Winston Churchill. This week sees the publication of his new book 'Dusty Warriors: Modern Soldiers at War', in which he focuses on life as a British soldier serving in present-day Iraq. Kirsty talks to Richard Holmes about his new book, which as he admits is a curious hybrid of history and journalism.\n\n'Dusty Warriors' is out now in hardback.\n\n\nyou can buy the book from amazon.com http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0007212844/026-0495087-6236417
451101
Is it fair that Prince William gets to be king and I don't?\n\nIs it fair to everyone else in the UK that their tax dollars go to support a family of unelected morons?\n\nLife isn't fair.  From where I'm sitting, Prince William is one of the luckiest of us.
489323
Shows the ignorance of some people here. King George I or II were not a Kings in the U.S.A. and therefore would have no title in our country. That would mean that if George W was anointed "King" he WOULD be "King George the 1st" of the U.S.A. \n\nOn a brighter note though, if he is anointed perhaps it will be with eggs again like it was in his inauguration in 2000, only this time without the cover of the Secret Service and a Limo.
588298
There has been talk in the past of doing away with royalty in the UK.  They no longer have any say in government affairs but they do serve a purpose, as good will ambassadors and someone for the rest of us to talk about ;-)
238285
once we've got this senior by the name of Fanny D!ck i'm not joking! i came across a parcel with a name mr.stickboner at the post office! when i was senior in high school,we've got this junior by the name of george bush!but he transfered just after a few weeks.hm..homeschool?haha.just guessing.peace out
462477
We would appreciate being informed if this date suits his Excellency, or if another date is more convenient.\n\nWe were trained to never use "you" when referring to royalty. One could not say "How do you do?"  It had to be "How does His Highness do?"  I think it is inappropriate to address royalty as "you" in any part of conversation.
199585
no, he's most likely a split op.  He goes to basic this summer and his AIT the summer after he graduates.  There's no way you could fit basic and AIT into one summer.  You cannot be deployed until you are MOS qualified, which means you have completed AIT.  So he won't be deployed while in high school.  He can go to basic, and other training, but he won't be send over seas
454716
i do not think so huracane this has been talked about so many times and everytime it is brough up there is a group of people who just want to keep the kingdoom . i personally think they are a waste of money which could be use in making a lot of good in the world , even with all the charities they support .\n\n by the way i also heard about what the other answerer said about charles renoucing to the crown and i also know that willian is way more popular than him . people seem to like him a lot so it will be determinant in their future . so my answer is not this will not happen , at least not for now .
307597
Yes. They would find a lovely title for her and put her in with the addled Queen Mum. Charles would then ascend, unfortunately. I don't think he has the nads for it , frankly. Young William, yes.
542205
I will give you an eyewitness statement. First, I'm not from Texas (I'm a Tar Heel!!! - GO NC!!), second I'm not in the National Guard, I'm active duty. Now the account, I served with an active duty battalion that was assigned 2 National Guard companies - one was from Kansas and one was from Texas. They were truck companies, and both saw heavy action. On a side note, I found both units to be extremely professional in their duties. Neither shirked from any mission assigned to them and had an amazing "Can Do" attitude. If I had any negative comments about the Guard units I have served with - they are minor. I found they had a bit of a height/weight and PT shortcoming, but they more than made up for that with their Mission First attitude. My BC had a board in his office/tent with a collection of all the Guard patches of units we had run into over there. I don't recall a single state missing from his board - we even had a couple territory patches (Guam and PR). So whoever posted that on a Yahoo Board is simply giving into conspiracy BS and once again, as they almost always seem to be - are yapping away and have NEVER spent a day. Isn't it curious how the folks who seem to to come up with this crap have a mysterious lack of service to go along with their tripe?
323703
Princess Diana, up until her divorce, was Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales.  Had she remained married to Prince Charles she would've been queen when the present Queen dies, as Charles is next in line to the throne. On her divorce she retained her title of Princess of Wales, as she was the mother of the future King - William, 2nd in line to the throne after Charles.  Fergie was married to Charles' younger brother Andrew and was known as the Duchess of York. It is extremely unlikely she would ever have been queen unless something happened to wipe out half the royal family!
639660
I believe the Investigation is still going on, some say she may have been murdered and that is a good question.\n\nDodi Fayed was born in Egypt but he has Saudi Arabian Royal Blood in him and the Windsors are rivals with the House of Saud.\n\nIt is alleged Princess Diana was gonna marry Dodi Fayed and that the Windsors did not want that to happen.\n\nIt is a mystery as to if Princess Diana really was gonna marry Dodi Fayed or what all went on, Prince Charles himself was questioned by British Authorities about the Accident.
443671
Apparently it is, isn't it??\nEeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!\nWooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!\nAhem. Yes.\nI FOUND A LINK TO IT!!\nhttp://raincloud.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/orderofthephoenix/10seconds/10sec_500.asx\nI ALSO FOUND A VIDEO WITH BEHIND THE SCENES CLIPS!!!\nhttp://www.harrypotterfanzone.com/videos/index.php?act=download&id=12\n*is now very very very happy*\nHere, have the full length version:\nhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lRAqxGgfng&mode=related&search=\nTeehee
502572
Did you know that the British royal family changed their surname (last name) in 1917?" \n\nYes, it's true, the British royal family changed their last name from Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Windsor in 1917. The reason? World War One broke out in 1914 and anit-German sentiment was at its height in 1917. In protest, King George V renounced all the German titles belonging to him and his family and adopted the name of his castle, Windsor. \n\nHere's a look at the proclamation: \n\n"from the date of this Our Royal Proclamation Our House and Family shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that all the descendants in the male line of Our said Grandmother Queen Victoria who are subjects of these Realms, other than female descendants who may marry or may have married, shall bear the said Name of Windsor "\n\n\nWe headed back to the search results and found the British Monarchy's official web site, which explained the history of the family's surname in a bit more detail. \nThe Royal family name of Windsor was confirmed by Queen Elizabeth II after her accession in 1952. However, in 1960, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh decided they wanted their direct descendants to be distinguished from the rest of the Royal family (without changing the name of the Royal House), as Windsor is the surname used by all the male and unmarried female descendants of King George V. \n\nSoon thereafter, it was declared 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. (In 1947, when Prince Philip of Greece took the Oath of Allegiance, he became naturalized, and assumed the name of Philip Mountbatten as a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy.) \n\n\nHope this helps
211287
U.S. Grant, what did you expect from a Civil War General/ US President who drank whiskey, smoked cigars (lots of them) and was a fearless horseman. He was a very colorful figure and almost of legendary status. He graduated from West Point, like Patton and other legendary war generals. Most of them having pretty much the same attitude. War is Hell...Fight the Battle, Win the War, get it over with and go home.