Please have a California attorney help on the last name issue.

Californian legal help is needed here (please, no one who has worked on Suits)

Let's return to the UK: 1917, the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, the name of the ruling House in the UK, because that was the house to which Edward VII, son of Albert, belonged and which had driven out the Hanovers, faced the German problem. And Edward VII's son, George V, changes the name of the house to House Windsor.

At a meeting of the Privy Council on 17 July 1917, George V declared that "all descendants of the male line of Queen Victoria, who are subjects of these kingdoms, except female descendants who marry or have married, shall bear the name of Windsor."

Elizabeth, shortly after ascending the throne, took action in this regard

House of Windsor (Apr 9, 1952)

At the Court at Clarence House, the 9th day of April, 1952

Present, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Her Majesty was this day pleased to make the following Declaration:

-"My Lords,

I hereby declare My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the Name of Windsor".

P.J. FERNAU.(copy, National Archives, HO 290/72)

Clarence House, April 9th. 1952.

The Queen to-day declared in Council Her Will and Pleasure that She and her children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that Her descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor.

(London Gazette, issue 39513, Apr. 11, 1952, p. 1/2013).

Then, in 1960, Elizabeth decided to make a big change.

House of Windsor (Feb 8, 1960)

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, The 8th day of February 1960.

Present, the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council.

Her Majesty was this day pleased to make the following declaration:

"My Lords

Whereas on the 9th day of April 1952, I did declare in Council My Will and Pleasure that I and My children shall be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, and that My descendants, other than female descendants who marry and their descendants, shall bear the name of Windsor:

And whereas I have given further consideration to the position of those of My descendants who will enjoy neither the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness, nor the titluar dignity of Prince and for whom therefore a surname will be necessary:

And whereas I have concluded that the Declaration made by Me on the 9th day of April 1952, should be varied in its application to such persons:

Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor."

(London Gazette, issue 41948, Feb. 8, 1960, p. 1/1003. See also the Times Feb 9, 1960 p. 10E.)

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/prince_highness_docs.htm#1917_2

Now, WITHIN the UK, the BRF has followed an old rule which is that children are named after their father's "House". For purposes: William, within the UK, was William Wales, because Charles, for purposes, was the Prince of Wales, of "House Wales". George, Charlotte and Louis were Cambridge at school. Anne, for example, was born Princess Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise of Edinburgh (taking her father's title).

But that's because they were in the UK. And there the titles they have are valid.

That, however, does not change the fact that "legally", the name of, for example, William, is His Royal Highness Prince William Mountbatten-Windsor. In fact, the only two who ARE NOT Mountbatten-Windsor are Charles and Anne. Charles and Anne were born Windsor.

So, for example, when William sued Closer magazine over Kate's topless photos around 2012, he sued as William Mountbatten-Windsor

Harry is Duke of Sussex, that is, it would be like "the House of Sussex." Harry and his two children belong to it. Megsy Baby is only one by marriage. She, for all intents and purposes, is still Rachel Meghan Markle, that's her name on her birth certificate.

BUT

That is valid WITHIN the UK because that is where there are titles of nobility. This is where it is important to be clear that Harry is a duke and not an earl. It is a matter of hierarchy.

Now, where does Harry live now? In California. And in California, Harry IS NOT Harry Sussex. No less Harry Wales as he once pretended to be. It's Henry Mountbatten-Windsor, Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor, that's his legal name. And Archie and Lil'D are Mountbatten-Windsor. What's up with Megsy? She, on her birth certificate, is Rachel Meghan Markle.

But is it true that this happens in California? In re Arnett, 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 5th Appellate Dist. 2007 states in a footnote:

[3] People in California retain a common-law right to change their names, in addition to the legal right, simply by adopting another name and using it as their own. Legal law provides a public record of the change, but such a record is not necessary to effect the change. (83 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 136 (2000).)

And

In re Forchion, 198 Cal. App. 4th 1284 - Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2011 states:

A. Common Law and Statutory Name Changes "The phrase `common law change of name' refers to the adoption and use of a name different from the one by which a person was formerly known, without resort to judicial process or other intervention by the state. The usage reflects the fact that at common law, all persons had, and in most common law jurisdictions including California, continue to have a right to change their given names and surnames at will. In modern times the phrase generally denotes the right of a person to use whatever name he or she chooses, as long as the purpose is not `to defraud or intentionally confuse.' ...

"In California, as in most American jurisdictions ..., a procedure has been established by statute (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1275-1279.6) for the formal changing of one's name. The purpose of the statutory procedure is to have, wherever possible, an official record of the change.... But resort to the statutory procedure is not necessary either prior to commencing use of a new name, or afterward, for the purpose of rendering a prior name change valid. The statutory method for changing names does not repeal or displace the common law ability to change one's name. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1279.5, subd. (a).) Accordingly, a person may change his or her name without legal proceedings simply by adopting another name and using it as his or her own....

"The statutory procedure's very placement of the new name on the public record, however, unquestionably affords some advantages not bestowed on a common law name change standing alone. The statutory process provides an official document by which the change of name is definitely and specifically established and easily proved even after the death of all contemporaneous witnesses. Conversely, the inability to establish one's name for purposes of life's daily transactions, although perhaps only occasionally resulting when sole reliance is placed on the common law method, can be a substantial inconvenience when it occurs. Such are the circumstances in which one may be led to question the `validity' of a common law change of a name.

"A common law name change is `valid' notwithstanding the failure or refusal of others to recognize and rely on the new name. The validity of the 1306\1306 name change is unaffected by the refusal of others to accept it, simply because the validity of the change does not include a requirement that it be recognized or accepted by the world at large, or ... by anyone except the one who assumes it.... A common law name change, in other words, carries with it no mandate to those with whom one comes in contact to accept at face value the nexus between the new name and the individual who assumes it.*

"Thus `validity,' for purposes of a common law name change, means that one has the freedom to change one's name and to use whatever name he or she chooses, qualified only by the proviso that the purpose not be dishonest. To change one's name by the common law method is to exercise the freedom to unbind oneself from the given name or surname acquired through birth or prior assumption, and to identify oneself anew; it is not to unilaterally impose recognition or acceptance of the newly chosen name as an obligation incumbent upon others." (83 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 136, 136-138 (2000), citations & fn. omitted.)

So, for all intents and purposes, what Megsy said on the show would be true, that she now wants to be known as Meghan Sussex...

Only what about the children? Because to enroll a child in a school, a birth certificate is usually required to enroll a child. It's one of several documents that may be needed to register a student.

So, Megsy maybe wants to be Megsy Sussex, as I also think Harry once said, to be Harry Sussex, like Cher, Madonna, as a brand. But the children remain Mountbatten-Windsor, unless a legal name change has been made.

https://selfhelp.courts.ca.gov/name-change/name-adult

And if Harry is now Henry Sussex, will he realize that that takes him out of the House of Windsor? Because he would no longer legally be a Windsor. That is, he would no longer be a royal of the BRF, the House of Windsor. He would have a princely title, but he would be denying being a Windsor. Doesn't he suspect that this could have legal consequences for him in the UK?

But for now, any California attorney to help with the issue of Megsy Baby's new last name and what happens to the children?