Will Prince Harry Change Family's Last Name to Spencer Amid Feud With Royals? Know About Secret Chat With Princess Diana's Brother
Prince Harry is allegedly planning on changing his family name to Spencer. The title was used by Princess Diana as her surname. The Duke of Sussex has reportedly discussed it with his uncle and the former Princess of Wales' brother, Charles.
According to the Daily Mail reports, Harry taking his mother's last name would mean the abandonment of the Mountbatten-Windsor title, which has been used by the British Royal family for ages.
Prince Harry' s suggestion of changing his last name comes almost five years after the Duke and the Duchess of Sussex took an exit from Buckingham Palace. Moreover, the former royal member has also locked horns with the Prince of Wales and the monarch since.
As for his chat with Charles Spencer, Prince Harry met his uncle during one of his rare visits to his home country. However, Spencer asked the Duke not to take such a step, as it would invite new legal challenges.
Charles Spencer's advice to Prince Harry
Speaking about Prince Harry's conversation with his uncle Charles, a friend of the Duke's revealed to the media portal, "They had a very amicable conversation and Spencer advised him against taking such a step."
Meanwhile, Harry himself has used Wales as his last name, as both his parents were known as the Prince and Princess of Wales. As for his children, both Archie and Lilibet add Mountbatten-Windsor to their names.
Previously opening up about her Sussex family name, Meghan Markle shared with People Magazine that she did not realise the deeper meaning attached to the name until she had children.
The Duchess went on to explain, "It's our shared name as a family, and I guess I hadn't recognized how meaningful that would be to me until we had children." She further added, "I love that that is something that Archie, Lili, H, and I all have together. It means a lot to me."
Prince Harry and Meghan Markle married each other in 2018 and left the royal family in 2020, following the birth of their son.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
41 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
MobLand is a slow-burning, psychologically charged gangster drama that delivers, mostly
The world of crime dramas has never lacked violent spectacle or Shakespearean family dysfunctions—but MobLand, the new British series produced by Guy Ritchie, aims higher. It attempts to fuse gangster violence with psychological nuance, and though not always seamless, the result is a gripping, intelligent series that's willing to sacrifice pace for atmosphere and emotional depth. At its heart, MobLand is less about who pulls the trigger first and more about who's playing the longer, more dangerous mind game. With veteran actors like Pierce Brosnan and Helen Mirren at the helm and Tom Hardy's scene-stealing intensity at its core, the show dares to ask: What happens when the real warfare is waged not on streets, but in the recesses of the criminal mind? In the first season, after Liam Harrigan (Jack Bannon), the reckless nephew of gun kingpin Conrad Harrigan (Pierce Brosnan), accidentally kills Marcus Stevenson (Daryl McCormack), son of drug lord Richie Stevenson (Geoff Bell), a fragile truce between the two London crime families collapses. As tensions rise, the Harrigans' loyal fixer Harry Da Souza (Tom Hardy) is tasked with containing the fallout, while Conrad's calculating wife Maeve (Helen Mirren) pulls strings behind the scenes, triggering a brutal and complex gang war. The biggest strength of the show lies in its layered storytelling. Ronan Bennett's writing opts for cerebral tension over gratuitous violence, using suspense and subtle power plays to drive the narrative. Each move feels like a chess piece placed with purpose. Pierce Brosnan is terrifyingly good as Conrad Harrigan, playing against his usual suave persona with sneering menace and psychopathic flair. Helen Mirren as Maeve, the Lady Macbeth-esque matriarch, is equally arresting. Together, they command the screen, weaponizing love and power in terrifying ways. But the real star is Tom Hardy. As Harry Da Souza, Tom delivers one of his best performances in years—stoic, unreadable, yet emotionally dense. He's a man with a moral code working in an amoral world, and Hardy plays him with a quiet storm that's always threatening to erupt. Director Guy Ritchie's fingerprints are evident in the sharp cinematography, kinetic editing, and carefully stylized violence. The aerial shots of the English countryside and tonal shifts in lighting—bright in scenes of affluence, darker in grittier moments—are subtle but effective choices that add layers to the storytelling. The show also earns points for refusing to spoon-feed viewers. It demands attention, observation, and patience—traits that reward you with compelling character arcs and devastating plot twists. For all its strengths, MobLand stumbles in its pacing and balance. The first few episodes feel like they're trying too hard to be clever, withholding too much information and slowing the momentum. Viewers looking for immediate gratification may struggle to stay engaged. The emotional subplots—particularly Harry's strained marriage—veer into clichéd territory. The overused trope of the emotionally unavailable male antihero doesn't offer anything new, and the repeated "you're never present" dialogue begins to grate. Some supporting characters, especially those introduced in subplots involving sexuality or past trauma, are written with a heavy hand. Their stories feel like they're inserted more to tick off diversity checkboxes than to organically contribute to the narrative. These arcs lack the nuance and integration that the main story achieves, making them feel forced rather than progressive. Lastly, the season finale—while packed with action—feels rushed and less thoughtful than the slow-burn buildup that preceded it. Cliffhangers work when they're earned, and here, the ending comes across as a desperate grab for a Season 2 rather than a natural crescendo. MobLand is an ambitious, slow-burn crime series that mostly succeeds thanks to stellar performances, sharp writing, and its commitment to psychological depth. While it occasionally stumbles under the weight of its own seriousness and tries too hard to cater to modern sensibilities, the show ultimately delivers a fresh take on the gangster genre. For fans of Ray Donovan, The Sopranos, or even Guy Ritchie's own The Gentlemen, this is a must-watch.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Yuvika Choudhary on registering her marriage 7 years after wedding with Prince: We had to do it for our daughter
"We tried at least three times, but it always got delayed," Yuvika Chaudhary shares with a laugh as she reveals what took her and Prince Narula to officially formalize their marriage. Speaking to us, the actor-couple, who tied the knot on October 12, 2018, took to their vlogs three days ago (May 27, 2025) and shared that the delay was due to their constantly clashing schedules and that now they are officially married. "My mom even booked a slot for us, but every time Prince was either traveling or shooting for Roadies. Time never matched. He would start the paperwork, fill out the forms, but he just didn't have the time to finish," reveals Yuvika. It wasn't until the couple welcomed their daughter that the urgency truly kicked in. "Now that we have to travel and documentation has to be very strong, we couldn't delay it any longer. We had to do it legally. It was on the priority list," she says. "We could have finished this before, but our timings never matched. And then, after our daughter came, everything just started aligning. It's like it was meant to happen now. She came, and then everything started falling into place," shares Yuvika, adding, "We are responsible parents now and needed to finish it. It's not good to delay such things." Sharing her excitement after officially registering the marriage, Yuvika says, "I told Prince, 'Now I'm officially going to use your surname,' and he felt so happy." She adds, "It was important for documentation, yes, but it also gave a new kind of completeness." Talking about their bond, Yuvika shares how they celebrated the big step. "We didn't throw a big party or anything. Har pal celebration hua, with our kind of masti—laughing, eating, pulling each other's leg. That's how we celebrate—through love and humour." Adding, she says, "Our daughter will get to see all this—how her parents laughed, lived, and loved." Addressing the divorce rumours and how they affected her and her family, Yuvika says, "Trolls will talk. It's a part of life now. But I don't focus on that. You don't know the real story behind what we are shooting, and then you make comments based on what you suppose is correct." The 41-year-old actor further adds, "I have such a beautiful life going on. I don't want to spoil it by giving importance to negativity. I post my content, but I don't go through the comments, especially the trolls—I ignore them. That's the main reason we haven't shown our daughter's face. Troll us if you want, but don't drag children and families into this. If you have a problem, talk to me or Prince. We are public figures, not our parents, not our child." "In many areas, people don't register marriages, but for me, it was important. Being Indian and being in the public eye, we must respect the government and the legal system. Now that we are parents, it's our responsibility to make sure everything is done properly. This was not just my decision, but Prince's too. We both wanted to get all the papers and documentation sorted out legally. It's the right thing to do," concludes Yuvika. Speaking about today's generation and how they view relationships, Yuvika feels times have changed drastically. "I see so much confidence and clarity in the younger generation. They know what they want at a very early age. But patience is lacking. Nobody wants to go through the struggle. But struggle is important—it builds you. Without pain, you can't understand your own strength." She expresses concern about the trend of avoiding responsibility. "Everything is about 'me time' now. No one wants to be responsible for anyone else. That's why there are so many weird terms—situationships, benching, ghosting. No one wants to commit. It's like they're constantly changing ships—friendship, situationship, whatever—without actually sailing in one."
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Reevaluating Indian Royalty: Misconceptions in Popular Media
I don't want to talk too much about 'The Royals' . All I will say is that the show is not at all well-researched. The onscreen depiction of royalty in India has been off the mark all the time, and the depiction (of Indian royalty) in popular media continues to be off the mark. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Too much importance is always given to decadent lifestyles and profligacy. It feels as if royal families are living only in the past-that's the kind of general overview that all of them (movies and shows) have. It's as if royals are just squandering away wealth and not doing anything at all. There is nothing covering royalty as it is today. These portrayals are not at all realistic. The west has always been fascinated about Indian royalty-the lifestyle and riches. Unfortunately, that has become the overarching story of royalty. If you look at a show like Downton Abbey , apart from talking about the privileges, it also highlights the challenges of being royalty in today's times. However, the onscreen portrayals of royalty in India only talk about the exploitation of legacy. In reality, a lot of royal family members are going back to their roots and working with communities. This has been a politically motivated narrative right from the time of independence. The 'real' royals are making a difference, including several ladies of the house. There are so many examples. Princess Brijeshwari Kumari Gohil of Bhavnagar is working at the grassroots, doing exemplary work to restore and retain the heritage of Bhavnagar. Princess Vaishnavi Kumari of Kishangarh is playing a key role in reviving art, while Princess Gauravi Kumari of Jaipur is also doing exemplary work with the Princess Diya Kumari Foundation. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Many of them have studied abroad and come back to work at the grassroots. Everyone has a great sense of responsibility and pride for their roots. They are taking care of it because nobody else can do it. We rarely talk about the contribution of royalty. My father, MK Dr Ranjitsinh Jhala (author, conservationist, and former IAS officer), was one of the earliest royal family members to give up a comfortable life and work as a government servant. We only hear about the jewels of Jam Saheb , but nobody talks about the exquisite cricketer that Ranjitsinh ji was, or about his contribution in putting cricket on the map of India, organising cricket camps in Jamnagar etc. Even today, our most prestigious domestic cricket tournament (Ranji Trophy) is named after him. It did not suit the political class to talk about the contribution of royalty, what they did for the people. I am happy that my daughter Padmajaraje has started young and she is doing social work at Shri Maharani Chimnabai Stree Udyogalaya. The narrative of how Indian royalty aligned with the British and exploited the subjects-this has been a very systematic, thought-out narrative, to club colonialism and royalty in one bracket. There's no doubt there were alliances and associations with the British. However, how politics and diplomacy work is complex. If I talk about Baroda, it maintained decorum with the British to run the state without hindrance, even if the royals did not like it at a personal level. One has to understand that the royals were not there just for decorative purposes, they had to run the administration too. We only see what the media has shown us, but people don't understand the complexity of the situation. Also, royal families have never spoken up about themselves. Creating this stereotype about royalty always suited the political class. In reality, states had to engage with the British to run their kingdom. For centuries of royalty, there will be some incompetent, decadent people ('bad royal apples'). But states were run by royals for 400-500 years. To say how a large part of the country was run for hundreds of years and the entire royalty of India was rubbish-that is really overstating it. The perception will change only if history is documented more evenly. It's also up to us (royals) to document our own history because nobody has collated what different states did in their tenure. More awareness needs to be created and it's important for people to put their authentic stories out there. One has to be prepared for backlash too. After my recent post, there was a backlash in the comments section. It's because a particular mindset has been created for so many years about royalty. – As told to Soumitra Das #IndianRoyalty #PopularMedia #TheRoyals #Politics Agree? Disagree? Write to us at: byinvitation@timesofi The views expressed by the author are personal
