Verified answer

No, it sounds like the name given to a girl who is the daughter of socially insecure parents who have just attained an upper middle class income but who still have most of their social connections among the lower class crowd.

As others have said, royal princesses don't have surnames; they use the name of the place they are princess of. Thus, when the present Queen of the UK was still a princess, she was Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom. The daughters of the Duke of York are Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York. And so on.

The only kind of princesses who have surnames are non-royal ones from countries where 'Prince' and 'Princess' are traditionally titles for non-royal aristocratic families, equivalent to 'Duke' and 'Earl' in Britain. Pre-revolutionary Russia was one such country, so some families who fled the Russian Revolution in 1917 and live in Western Europe or America still use titles like Prince Michael Obolensky and Princess Maria Galitzine. The Kingdom of Italy was another, and although aristocratic titles no longer have any meaning in Italy, posh people still use them, calling themselves Princess Cristina Pallavicini and Prince Luigi Caliraghi.

But 'Conway' is a name of British origin, so it's a nonsensical surname for a princess.

Hi Caitlyn. I think Victoria is a great name for a princess but perhaps you could modernising it by changing the spelling. How about Victorya?

Princesses, like dogs and slaves, have only one name.

Since most princesses don't have last names...no.

You seem to forget one important detail... royals DON"T HAVE SURNAMES.

Conway, indeed. Ha!

Not Conway. And Victoria sounds a little like you are trying too hard, but it's not too bad. Try looking up some names of British nobles and see what comes up.

Good luck!

Lady Morgana