Harry and Meghan explored changing surname to Spencer amid children's passport delays

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex explored the idea of changing their family name to Spencer amid repeated delays by British officials to issue passports for their children, the Guardian has been told.
The suggestion was a result of 'sheer exasperation' and came during a face-to-face meeting between Prince Harry and his uncle Earl Spencer. He was understood to be enthusiastic and supportive of the name change.
Adopting the birth name of his mother, Diana, would likely have further deepened the rift between the Harry and the royal family, which shows no signs of being healed.
However, the discussion became moot because the UK passports for Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet were finally issued almost six months after the initial applications – days after lawyers for the Sussexes sent a letter threatening to pursue a data subject access request.
This could have revealed details of the delays – and the nature of any behind-the-scenes discussions between British officials responsible for issuing the documents.
One source told the Guardian that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex feared that UK officials were dragging their feet because the passport applications included the titles HRH (His/Her Royal Highness) for both children.
The applications also used the surname Sussex, which the family had already started using publicly; until 2023, Archie had both US and British passports under the name Mountbatten-Windsor.
'There was clear reluctance to issue passports for the kids,' a source close to the Sussexes said.
The standard wait time for a passport is three weeks. But after three months without receiving them because of 'technical issues', it is understood Harry and Meghan reapplied using the 24-hour passport service, only to have their meeting cancelled at the last minute owing to a 'systems failure.'
The source claimed that 'the king hadn't wanted Archie and Lili to carry the titles, most of all the HRH, and the British passports, once created, would be the first and perhaps the only legal proof of their names'.
The source added: 'Harry was at a point where British passports for his children with their updated Sussex surnames (since the death of Queen Elizabeth II) were being blocked with a string of excuses over the course of five months.
'Out of sheer exasperation he went to his uncle to effectively say, 'my family are supposed to have the same name and they're stopping that from happening because the kids are legally HRH, so if push comes to shove, if this blows up and they won't let the kids be called Sussex, then can we use Spencer as a surname'?'
The Guardian understands that Prince Harry wants to keep the HRH titles for his children so that when they grow older they can decide for themselves whether they want to become working royals, or stay out of public life.
He and Meghan dropped the honorific in 2020 as part of the arrangement agreed with Queen Elizabeth II when they stopped performing royal duties.
The couple are believe to have been angered by a report in the Mail on Sunday earlier this week, which claimed Earl Spencer had advised Harry not to change his name, saying the legal hurdles were insurmountable.
'It's completely untrue,' a source said.
The Guardian put a series of questions to the Home Office and Buckingham Palace about the delays to the passport applications, and asked whether officials processing the documents had been seeking or taking advice from them.
The Home Office said it was its longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases.
Buckingham Palace made clear it would not be commenting on any personal matters relating to members of the royal family. But it denied making any suggestions or objections to the passports being issued with HRH in the titles.
A spokesperson for the Duke of Sussex said: 'We do not comment on private issues pertaining to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's children.'
Earl Spencer was also approached but he had not responded at the time of publication.
In May, Harry lost a legal challenge over the level of taxpayer-funded security he is entitled to while in the UK, but it is understood he intends to challenge the ruling.
He had challenged the dismissal of his high court claim against the Home Office over the decision of the Executive Committee for the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures, known as Ravec, that he should receive a different degree of protection when in the country after he stepped down.
The prince considers that his mother, Diana, might still be alive if she had continued to have the security protection offered to other royals.
However, three senior judges at the court of appeal rejected Harry's claim that he had been 'singled out' for 'inferior treatment' and that his safety and life were 'at stake' after a change in security arrangements that occurred when he stepped down as a working royal and moved abroad.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

17 minutes ago

• Times

Leaving oil and gas in the ground was always a pipe dream

Just call me Mystic Mac. As I forecast in this space earlier this month, the UK has finally opened the door to the development of the Rosebank oilfield off Shetland and the Jackdaw gas field off Aberdeen. Ed Miliband, the net zero secretary, famously said that drilling in these two modest reserves would constitute 'climate vandalism'. Well, it looks like he will shortly have to get his spray paint out and daub 'Just Start Oil' on the door of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. To be honest, it didn't take supernatural foresight to predict that these totemic fields would ultimately get the go-ahead. They were given licences by the last government. Production was halted only by a bizarre judgment by the Court of Session in Edinburgh. In January Lord Ericht ruled in favour of the climate activists, Uplift and Greenpeace, who argued that the UK government hadn't carried out a full environmental impact assessment of the emissions from the burning of fossil fuels downstream. It had merely provided an assessment of the carbon dioxide from the process of extracting it and piping it ashore. New methods of extraction can and are producing significant reductions in producer emissions. But the UK government had not formally included an assessment of the downstream emissions since it was deemed self-evident that burning hydrocarbons produces greenhouse gases. What did the court expect? That it would be used to oil bicycle chains and fill balloons? Shell says that Jackdaw alone would produce enough gas to heat 1.4 million households. The environmental and health impact on those households of withdrawing their main source of heating was not, of course, considered in this pettifogging ruling — because that would have required an ounce of common sense. Nor did the court recognise that the gas, which would have to be imported to fuel those domestic boilers if Jackdaw were stoppered, might produce more emissions than using our domestic supply. Yet it should be patently obvious that shipping liquefied natural gas 3,000 miles from America by tanker is more profligate in emissions than using what's produced by extraction from our backyard. The court was tacitly endorsing the perverse logic of the Scottish government and lobbyists such as Greenpeace that, in some morally inexplicable way, imported oil and gas is good while ours is bad. But Sir Keir Starmer was never going to start shutting down an industry that generates about £25 billion a year, according to Offshore Energy UK, and supports around 100,000 jobs. Pointlessly sacrificing these new fields would only have indicated to the few companies still operating in the region that the government is hell bent on closing down the North Sea prematurely. The new rules announced last week by Michael Shanks, the energy minister, will allow further development of the Cambo and Clair fields, expansion of which had also been placed on hold following the January court ruling. This whole episode served only to showcase the absurdity of what is being called the managerial 'lanyard class's' thinking about energy. The Treasury is not stupid and was never going to endorse an exercise in performative self-harm. Nor was No 10. 'Keeping it in the ground', as Patrick Harvie used to advocate, was not what Labour meant by a rational and measured transition to renewable energy. The UK depends on oil and gas for 75 per cent of its energy usage. So the UK government has rejigged the approval process to include a statement of the bleedin' obvious — viz, that burning oil and gas produces emissions. Industry sources believe, rightly, that by submitting this new and more politically correct prospectus, they will be able to go ahead. That is, if firms like Equinor haven't given up in disgust. They're already being hit by a 78 per cent profits tax on North Sea oil, which makes you wonder why they bother. It's not as if the oil price is exactly soaring right now, despite the nasty business in the Strait of Hormuz. Companies such as Harbour Energy have given up and pulled out. Norwegian-owned Equinor, in Rosebank, is hanging on, presumably in the hope that it will be well placed to bid for future wind farm development. It installed the first commercially viable floating wind farm, Hywind, off Peterhead. All of which underlines the lamentable state of our whole approach to energy. Oil companies, demonised by the environmental lobby, happen to possess the very skills and technology which will be needed if and when the green energy bonanza finally materialises. Greenpeace seems to think the wind energy in the North Sea can be harnessed by Native American dream-catchers and transmitted into people's homes by daisy chains. In fact it requires heavy-duty platforms, implanted in turbulent waters, to support wind turbines the size of the Eiffel Tower — and also the laying of undersea cables to get it to the grid (if it can be upgraded in time). This is not very different, technologically, from what fossil fuel companies have been doing for the past 50 years. Rosebank and Jackdaw are not going to solve the UK's strategic energy deficit. They are rather modest operations in a North Sea field that is in steep and irrevocable decline. The glory days are over. But we still need whatever they can provide, if only to ensure a measure of energy security and help reduce costly imports. One of the more specious arguments currently deployed by opponents of Rosebank and Jackdaw is that their hydrocarbons will be exported and are therefore of no use here. Not so: gas goes directly to the UK. Oil is mostly exported to Rotterdam for refining, but it comes back as petrol and other products. It isn't refined here because we've closed nearly all our own refineries, such as Grangemouth, because of our perverse belief that it is morally preferable to import hydrocarbons. Abandoning the North Sea won't bring forward net zero by a single day. It will merely increase our dependency on authoritarian governments in the Middle East, make energy bills even more unaffordable, and deprive the UK of billions in oil revenues to spend on the NHS. Predictably, the Scottish government has not responded to the energy U-turn. The SNP is still under the sway of environmental cretinism. No wonder Fergus Ewing, a voice of energy sanity, has decided to walk. Perhaps Ed Miliband may be following him in the not-too-distant future.

The Sun

38 minutes ago

• The Sun

Border crisis deepens as over 1,000 migrants cross Channel in just 48 hours despite France upping patrols

MORE than 1,000 migrants have crossed the Channel in small boats in just 48 hours. They arrived in 15 dinghies — despite French police ramping up beach patrols and deploying tear-gas to deter launches. 2 2 Home Office figures show 437 crossed in seven small boats on Friday, followed by 583 in eight the next day. It brought the total for the week to 2,083, and the tally for the year so far to 18,400 — up nearly 6,000 compared with this time in 2024. The surge heaps huge pressure on PM Sir Keir Starmer, who last week admitted the situation was 'deteriorating'. French officers were seen ramping up tactics on the beaches, firing gas at groups preparing to launch. But some stood by as migrants waded into the sea and clambered aboard dinghies unchallenged. The PM and French leaders Emmanuel Macron are expected to hold a summit next month focused on tackling the problem. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp said Labour has 'totally lost control of our borders' after scrapping the Rwanda deterrent 'before it even started'. He added: 'Every single immigrant needs to be removed to a location outside Europe the minute they arrive. 'We need to repeal the Human Rights Act to stop illegal immigrants and foreign criminals abusing our rules to stay. 'And we should suspend the fishing deal until the French actually do what they are supposed to and stop these boats at sea.'

The Independent

44 minutes ago

• The Independent

Keir Starmer claims Kneecap Glastonbury performance ‘not appropriate'

Irish hip-hop trio Kneecap are scheduled to perform at Glastonbury next weekend, despite controversy surrounding one of its members. Band member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh has been charged under the Terrorism Act for allegedly displaying a Hezbollah flag at a London show last year. Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated he does not think Kneecap's performance at Glastonbury is appropriate due to the ongoing court case. Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch called for the BBC not to broadcast Kneecap's performance, citing the charge and accusing the band of extremism. The band denies supporting Hamas or Hezbollah, calling the charge a distraction, and has publicly linked the issue to their support for Palestine.