All three of those names are location surnames, which is a pretty common source of surnames. Highly likely at least some of the holders of the surname are from that prosaic route.

Windsor was only adopted by the Royal Family in WWI because they were looking to repudiate their German connections, so any family connections would be pretty solidly established, and the peasant use of the surname would probably be older.

Maybe this can help you. I just do not know anything about rise ad spread of surnames from the UK, but those you cite seem to be just toponymics: they relate to the place they come from. This is only a guess; I mean, it could happen that these surnames existed prior to the establishment of the same names to the lands associated with them- but I'm almost sure Lancaster had its name way before than the Lancasters have.

Anyway, I can tell you about the same case in Spain. The deal with surnames here is almost the same: many of them are toponymics and patronymics, which means that they refer either to the place where they come from or to the father of whoever bears the surname. Fernández means "the son of Fernando", as in "Johnson", "Johannssen" etc. My first surname (Spanish-speaking people have two surnames), Conesa, relates to a place in Catalonia, near the Pyrennées, and those who bore it were usually people from there, who just were away from the place, as a way to identify them- it is way more spread in Murcia, bottom South of Spain, than in Catalonia, due to the repopulation of Murcia being made by Catalanes.

Same happens with other many surnames referring to determined places: Navarro, Jaén, Zamora, Carrizo... are just names referring to the procedure of those bearing them.

So, anyway, the nobility just got their surnames in a similar manner, and many of the most important nobles in Spain had totally generic surnames as Fernández, just because some X noble was the son of some Fernando, etc.

For a long time only nobles had surnames, and peasants later adopted those of the noble being the owner of the lands where they were from. As a matter of fact, the word "family" stands, actually, for "the congregation of someone's slaves, workers and servants", and, of course, a family is considered so because they share the same surname.

In this case, at least, it was not a mater of prestige, more than a matter of functionality, to adopt the surname of your "owner", same as happened with the black slaves in the USA- before they got free and adopted their own surnames, they bore those of their owners, and many of them even kept those after being freed.