Are you aware that the procreation process doesn't discriminate on surname? My DNA is 50/50 of my parents. Surnames and patrilineal succession is a social construct - that's it. Using a surname to prove "pure lineage" of a head of a family is ridiculous and insulting.
Twist it how you like, but dynastic procreation is the same as non-dynastic procreation. Prince CP's children have the exact same amount of Bernadotte genes as Estelle, Oscar, Leonore and Nicolas. I.e. 50%
Of course there is always a father and always a mother and of course anyone's DNA is 50% - 50%. But that is not what happens here. The question is: who is fooling who.
Take the Houses of Orange-Nassau and of Nassau. Their "founding father" Dudo von Laurenburg, Count of Nassau lived from 1060 - 1123. Century after century the dynasty procreated in the male lineage. Century after century females in the dynasty married into other families and their offspring was regarded as
part of the family in which they married.
In 1962, Wilhelmina, the very last Orange-Nassau died. In 1985 Charlotte, the very last Nassau died. At present the House of Nassau will become totally extinct as Elisabeth Clotilde von Rintelen born Gräfin von Nassau-Merenberg is the very last alive, 75 years old.
But suddenly Juliana von Mecklenburg, Jean de Bourbon de Parme, Beatrix zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, Henri de Bourbon de Parme, Willem-Alexander von Amsberg are seen as "Nassau". A bigger masquerade is not possible.
In the genealogy of the House de Bourbon de Parme, Jean and Henri are direct and legitime male agnates of the Maison de Bourbon. But in the genealogy of the "House of Nassau", the very same Bourbons are suddenly also agnates of the House of Nassau. Please, spare me the laughter. There is a big inconsequence in this whole logic. And as always, with the political correct brigade here, we play along with the theatre.
Phantasialand is in Brühl, but seems to have expanded.
For Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands at least the surname of the father has never been "hidden". Juliana was a Duchess of Mecklenburg, Jean and Henri are Princes de Bourbon de Parme, Beatrix is a Princess zur Lippe-Biesterfeld, Willem-Alexander is a Jonkheer van Amsberg, Frederik is a Count de Monpezat. So their paternal "contribution" remained visible.
But where is "Zorreguieta" in this? And where is "Tjessem Hoiby" in this? And where is "Westling" in this? It is just one big and inconsequent vaudeville. I strive for factuality.
It is as it is. Do it then with two surnames and -for the sake of continuity of centuries of tradition- with the father's one always as first one:
Jean de Bourbon de Parme - de Nassau
Ingrid-Alexandra Glucksborg - Tjessem-Hoiby
Estelle Westling - Bernadotte
Christian de Laborde de Monpezat - Donaldson
Catharina-Amalia von Amsberg - Zorreguieta
Leonor de Borbón - Ortiz
Elisabeth von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha - d'Udekem d'Acoz
50% - 50% mom and dad
100 % the whole DNA
Always both names
No discrimination
No who-is-fooling-who
Voilà