In yet another spectacular misunderstanding of British aristocracy, Meghan has now decided that "Meghan Markle" is passé.
The latest identity shift? She’s now Meghan Sussex. Enter Lord Ivar Mountbatten, King Charles's second cousin and one of the few remaining members of the extended royal family willing to set the record straight. When asked by Town & Country about Meghan’s bold new surname choice, he wasted no time in calling it out for what it is—completely inaccurate. Even the famously reserved British aristocracy, who usually adhere to an unspoken rule of dignified silence, couldn’t resist weighing in on Meghan’s latest attempt at reinvention.
This revelation came to light during Meghan’s now-infamous Netflix series, With Love, Meghan—a five-hour-long spectacle that most critics agree could have been condensed into a two-minute infomercial for self-pity. In what was arguably the only marginally interesting moment of the entire series, Meghan sat down with actress Mindy Kaling and dramatically announced, “It’s funny, you keep saying Meghan Markle. You know, I’m Sussex now.” Mindy’s expression—frozen in polite bewilderment—spoke for millions.
By “Sussex,” Meghan meant the title she received upon marrying into the royal family—the very institution she has spent years both clinging to and condemning. The same title she claims was bestowed upon her by a “cruel and racist” monarchy plotting her downfall. And yet, Meghan was not finished. She went on to explain that she adopted “Sussex” as her last name because, as a mother, she naturally wanted to share a surname with her children. A touching sentiment, except for one glaring issue: her children don’t even use the name Sussex. Their legal surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, a fact Meghan seemingly forgot while crafting her latest royal narrative.
Lord Ivar, likely suppressing a sigh at yet another inquiry into Meghan’s ever-changing identity, confirmed what most already knew—her family name is not Sussex. It is Mountbatten-Windsor. While noble titles may be useful for monogrammed towels and securing prime seating at charity galas, they do not function as legal surnames. “Her children are called Archie and Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor; they’re not called Archie and Lilibet Sussex because Sussex is a title,” he explained, probably wondering why a woman who married a prince still needs basic genealogy explained to her. He further clarified that while Harry and Meghan are indeed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry’s actual surname remains Mountbatten-Windsor, making Meghan’s legal name Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor—not Sussex. Unless she’s planning to rewrite British history, she may need to reconsider her approach to surname shopping.
This entire spectacle raises an intriguing question—what exactly is Meghan’s real name these days? If she’s no longer Meghan Markle and isn’t legally Meghan Sussex, then who is she? Rachel Ragland? Rachel Sussex? Rachel Mountbatten-Windsor? Royal commentators note that in social settings, it’s not uncommon for a titleholder to be referred to informally by their title—Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, for example. But adopting a title as a surname? That’s a Meghan special. And if there’s anything we’ve learned about the Duchess of Duplicity, it’s that she treats names, titles, and narratives the way she treats family—easily discarded when inconvenient.
In a few years, will she suddenly embrace Mountbatten-Windsor because it sounds posh? Will she insist on being called Meghan of Montecito? Or perhaps she’ll take the Madonna route and drop the surname entirely? With Meghan, nothing is off the table in her ongoing saga of identity reinvention.
In the end, Lord Ivar Mountbatten simply said what most were already thinking—Meghan is incorrect. But since when has that ever stopped her?
