The "House Name" of Britains royal family is WINDSOR.  What is the "Family Name" of the royal family of Monaco
347996
Grimialdi is the last name of the Prince of Monaco.
205019
Men  Women \nDuke  Duchess \nMarquis (MAR-kwis)  Marchioness (MAR-shon-ess) \nEarl  Countess \nViscount (vEYE-count)  Viscountess (vEYE-count-ess) \nBaron  Baroness \nKnight  Knight's lady \n\n\nRoyalty refers only to the monarch and his/her immediate family. \n\nNobility refers to peers and their families.
968179
Firstly and most crucially, the royal family DOES NOT live off the taxpayer. HRH Queen Elizabeth II is the owner of crown property (ie the Duchy of Lancaster). The tax which the government receives from the residents and businesses in the duchy itself is collected and a portion of that tax money is given to the queen herself. In essence, it is the monarchy which subsidizes the government NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.\nFrom this income, she must pay her staff and the other royals who are on the Civil List.\nThis nonsense that the British royal family lives off the taxpaying public is mere tripe. You can debate the merits of giving any portion of the taxes the government receives frmo the Duchy of Lancaster to the British Royal Family but you can't debate what constitutes fact.\nHope that helps.
1051068
America did have a royal family of its own. It was called the House of Hanover, and they fought a little something called the American Revolution to get rid of it. \nAre you seriously suggesting that you would like to have a royal family to sit around as nothing more than figureheads, and putting a tremendous drain on the public purse, or do you want them to be ruling royalty, and throw out the democratic process? \nI somehow don't think either of those options would be very popular.
596076
I presume you are British, as I am. I believe in the Royal Family for one important reason; national pride.\n\nSure they don't do much, or even really have that much power any more. But the monarchy if what defines Britain and being British to a lot of people, especially those from abroad.\n\nBritain has sold out big time; there are maybe two truly British car companies left (Ariel and Noble, off the top of my head- even Morgan is powered by BMW!) when there were literally dozens in the post-war era. Our sports are dominated by foreign talent; how many of Manchester United's team are actually from Manchester- or even Britain at all?! The England team manager is foreign. A large percentage of British companies, from retail to technology, are owned by foreign interests.\n\nThe rates of immigration are soaring, although this in itself is a good thing as it promotes world knowledge and understanding to those who will isten. The English language is becoming saturated with slang derived from these foreign migrants and the old school virtues of chivalry and the good old British gentleman have been flushed down the pan.\n\nMy grandfathers, and thousands of others, fought for the British way of life, their 'King and Country', and we should honour them by upholding the traditional British values they lived and died by, whilst moving forward in to a new world with the rest of the globe.\n\nEven our patron Saint, George, was a Turk, and I am not oblivious to the fact that the British royal family were, in themselves, of Nazi stock. However, we must forgive (but not always forget) the blemishes of the past; living in a multi-cultural society has given us the opportunity to do just this whilst upholding our common values of decency and strength in the face of adversity.\n\nSo yes, I think we should keep the royal family even if, I admit, Prince Phillip has never ironed my shirt or made me a cup of tea. They are a bastion of British culture when few others remain. Ask anyone what the first things that come to mind are when you say 'Britain'- I'll bet the queen will be in there, along with Buckingham Palace. And bad teeth. Remember the monarchy also represents our kin in Canada, Australia and a few more places that I wil not list here. \n\nRule Brittania!\n\nAnd...breath...
915762
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
1140092
This sentence is standard english.  \n\nSo is the Queen.
1052251
Monaco is officially a "Principality", therefore its leader is a Prince.  In the same way, England is officially a "Kingdom", so its leader is a King (or Queen).\n\nI suppose if he really wanted to, he could re-name the country to become a Kingdom and take the new title, but its pretty much just a formality thing at this point anyway.
1142288
Hi, here is a genealogy page for the royal houses of Europe. You can access Britain and count the number of descendants of Queen Victoria.  Then scroll down and check out the Queen Victoria chart, because there are questions and discrepancies. The figure of "over 200" comes from a court case (settled in the 1970s - so more descendants now) about royal trusts and who under Queen Victoria's will had access to them.\nhttp://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Monarchies_of_Europe.htm\nhave fun
372202
Prince.\n\nOne s makes 'princes', 2 s's make 'princess'.
667813
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!
242369
surnames, actually stem from the a person's title for royalty, and for other people it would come form their occupations, ex. Bob the Smith, of John the Taylor, and their family would be associated by the father.  over time it just caught on and surnames would evolve and transformed into what they are today
35835
How the Peerage is Ranked:\nDuke\nMarquess\nEarl\nViscount\nBaron\nI'll get back to you on the rest.
342690
HENRY  \nGender: Masculine \n\nUsage: English \n\nPronounced: HEN-ree   [key] \n \nFrom the Germanic name Heimerich which meant "home ruler", composed of the elements heim "home" and ric "power, ruler". This name was introduced into Britain by the Normans. It was borne by eight kings of England including the infamous Henry VIII, as well as six kings of France and seven kings of Germany. Other famous bearers include arctic naval explorer Henry Hudson, novelist Henry James, and automobile manufacturer Henry Ford.
550805
Sorry, but how would anyone know the answer except Prince William. My advice is to find his email address and go ask him.
568906
On his wedding day in June 1999, Prince Edward was created the Earl of Wessex and as a result of this, his wife became HRH the Countess of Wessex. Had Edward not been given a title, his wife Sophie would have been known as HRH Princess Edward. \n\nAs the younger son of a Duke, the wife of Prince Michael of Kent, upon marriage, became known as Princess Michael of Kent. \n\nWhen a woman marries into the royal family, she takes the title of her husband. She doesn't become a Princess in her own right, therefore Sophie is not entitled to be called Princess Sophie. During her marriage, Diana, Princess of Wales was inaccurately known as Princess Diana. Her official title upon marriage became HRH The Princess of Wales. \n\nAs for Prince Edward's daughter, Louise, as a grandchild of a sovereign in the male line, IS entitled to be known as HRH Princess Louise. However, it was decided at the time of her parents marriage that any children born would take the title of the children of an Earl and not be known as HRH/Prince or Princess. This decision was made to allow Louise, as a minor royal, to grow up with more freedom and without the burden that royal titles come with. \n\nHowever, it must be noted that Letter's Patent were never issued to officially prevent her from using her royal title. So at some point in the future she could, if she chose, decide to be known as HRH Princess Louise.
548765
The previous answer is correct. For more information, visit www.royal.gov.uk. This is the official website of the British Monarchy and has a wealth of information.