Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Did we ever establish that the decision to refer to Harry and Meghan as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was a "mistake?" (This is an honest question.)

As far as I know, it was announced that they would be referred to that way, and many people pointed out that they "could not" be referred to this way because that was the correct (style? manner of referring to?) a woman divorced from The Duke of Sussex. Of course, that is quite correct.

But as far as I know, just because that is the way a divorced Duchess of Sussex would be referred to, this is no reason it could not also refer to this particular situation, which is unprecedented. Now, it may not be the most sensitive thing to do- referring to Meghan the same way she would be referred to if she were divorced from Harry, and Harry the way he would be if in some world the title belonged to his wife and he divorced her- but that is not grounds for saying it was wrong or a mistake. Just perhaps that it should be reconsidered and something more sensitive thought of. Unless, of course, there was some acknowledgement that a mistake had been made.

 

[Durham]

Isn't she Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex? Wasn't that what they (the palace) came up with?

Hence the annoying way journalists (& not just them) confuse "The" & "the" when writing about the couple.

 

[Excalibur]

Bear in mind the situation at the time of the Wessex marriage. In 1999, William and Harry were just coming of age, with Beatrice and Eugenie right behind them. Four HRH grandchildren. Edward and Sophie were destined to work at paying jobs, and there was no immediate (or otherwise) plan for them to join The Firm. So by the same reckoning neither would their children.
And there was an underlying movement to "slim down" the monarchy. So it made sense that the children not be styled in a way that would imply they would be working royals. Fast forward 10 years. Beatrice and Eugenie are told to get "real jobs", that they are no longer needed. Then another 10 years. Andrew is benched and Harry and Meghan are making a fast exit from The Firm. It wouldn't surprise me if at least one of the Wessex children is being considered to take on some royal work. Louise has accompanied her mother on the occasional engagement and seems to enjoy it. (I don't know if James has or not.) If this happens, I can see Lady Louise transforming into HRH Princess Louise and fulfilling her duties with aplomb. JMO

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Did we ever establish that the decision to refer to Harry and Meghan as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was a "mistake?" (This is an honest question.)

As far as I know, it was announced that they would be referred to that way, and many people pointed out that they "could not" be referred to this way because that was the correct (style? manner of referring to?) a woman divorced from The Duke of Sussex. Of course, that is quite correct.

But as far as I know, just because that is the way a divorced Duchess of Sussex would be referred to, this is no reason it could not also refer to this particular situation, which is unprecedented. Now, it may not be the most sensitive thing to do- referring to Meghan the same way she would be referred to if she were divorced from Harry, and Harry the way he would be if in some world the title belonged to his wife and he divorced her- but that is not grounds for saying it was wrong or a mistake. Just perhaps that it should be reconsidered and something more sensitive thought of. Unless, of course, there was some acknowledgement that a mistake had been made.

There was somewhat of an acknowledgement of a mistake. Buckingham Palace apparently told Sky News that it "believe[d] that was said erroneously", which is slightly more equivocating than if they had simply stated that it was erroneous.

https://news.sky.com/story/royal-review-after-meghan-given-title-of-divorced-woman-11913741

However, in the event that the Palace reconsidered after being surprised by accusations of insensitivity, it is doubtful that they would acknowledge that openly.

Isn't she Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex? Wasn't that what they (the palace) came up with?

Hence the annoying way journalists (& not just them) confuse "The" & "the" when writing about the couple.

The Palace now refers to her as The Duchess of Sussex.

https://www.royal.uk/duchess-sussex

She herself has at times used Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex commercially.

 

[Denville]

Did we ever establish that the decision to refer to Harry and Meghan as Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex was a "mistake?" (This is an honest question.)

As far as I know, it was announced that they would be referred to that way, and many people pointed out that they "could not" be referred to this way because that was the correct (style? manner of referring to?) a woman divorced from The Duke of Sussex. Of course, that is quite correct.

But as far as I know, just because that is the way a divorced Duchess of Sussex would be referred to, this is no reason it could not also refer to this particular situation, which is unprecedented. Now, it may not be the most sensitive thing to do- referring to Meghan the same way she would be referred to if she were divorced from Harry, and Harry the way he would be if in some world the title belonged to his wife and he divorced her- but that is not grounds for saying it was wrong or a mistake. Just perhaps that it should be reconsidered and something more sensitive thought of. Unless, of course, there was some acknowledgement that a mistake had been made.

Good point. I think that the staff at BP were probably snowed under with work at that particular time and if that way of referring to Meghan etc was wrong by the usual standards.. it is due to pressure of work. ANd since it was an unprecedented situation there may not have been great clarity on how the couple should be referred to, when they were n ot allowed to use their HRH...

 

[Somebody]

IF there is no clarity the easy option is NOT to answer the question until you know what it is (going to be) - or tell that it 'hasn't been decided yet'. Blaming 'it was so busy and unprecedented' is not a convincing argument that BP never makes mistakes; implying that we should trust 100% whatever they say answering any other question.

 

[Denville]

IF there is no clarity the easy option is NOT to answer the question until you know what it is (going to be) - or tell that it 'hasn't been decided yet'. Blaming 'it was so busy and unprecedented' is not a convincing argument that BP never makes mistakes; implying that we should trust 100% whatever they say answering any other question.

Im sure they were under pressure from the Press who were agog with excitement over the issue of Harry and Meghan leaving and I'm sure they were getting questions from the public as well...
Not answering questions right then was not an option and its quite possible they made a mistake in their haste. However for someone on the BP staff writing a reply to a written enquiry on an issue that had been decided years before, and getting it wrong seems much more unlikely to me. Of course people in offices make mistakes at times.. but I think it is much more likely that staff might make a mistake at a time of crisis, when they had been working very hard, and been chased up by the Press about the Harry issue....than someone writing a reply to a routine question, at a time of no particular crisis....

 

[Iluvbertie]

If this happens, I can see Lady Louise transforming into HRH Princess Louise and fulfilling her duties with aplomb. JMO

I very much doubt that Louise would be asked to step up when there are two ladies who have been princesses since birth ahead of her in the line of succession.

It is clear that Beatrice and Eugenie aren't going to be asked having already been told they are not wanted or needed. If the 9th and 10th in the line of succession aren't wanted or needed why would the current 13th who will be 14th very soon?

 

[AC21091968]

Questions about British Styles and Titles

I would like to ask about on the names or style of address on the royal birth certificate, particularly on the father and mother. From looking at Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Princess Louis' birth certificate, no commas (,) were used and there is a distinction between "born/blood royal" and "married in royals" (I put these in quotations, because it may sound pejorative). Under Name and surname:

William is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge

Catherine is Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge​

For the George, Charlotte and Louis, they were:

His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge

Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge

His Royal Highness Prince Louis Arthur Charles of Cambridge​

However, when I looked up Prince William's birth certificate, the name and style of address appears to be slightly different

William is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis

Charles is His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Prince of Wales

Diana is Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales​

I wonder why "of Wales" was left off William's birth certificate and how Diana is written and addressed without her first and middle names, Diana Frances. I was thinking about the difference between the titles "Duke of Cambridge" and "Prince of Wales" could be the reason.



Photos of Birth Certificates

Prince George: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/m...6888_f394aabd-ddab-4a7d-a184-e17fa864de35.jpg

Princess Charlotte: https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/royal-baby-birth-certificate.jpg?w=800&quality=85

Prince Louis: https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3.../prince-louis-birth-certificate-1-2000a-1.jpg

Prince William: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e6/65/c2/e665c26a45f90950880a6eb796da3841.jpg



I'm also posting this because Harry and Meghan's "Name and surname" on Archie's birth certificate has allegedly changed according to a picture released by The Sun (I know its unreliability...). The date shown in this picture is 21st January 2021. The tabloids (The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Mail) have spun it to imply that Meghan is following Diana or even worse snubbing the Cambridges.



The changes were

His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex --> His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex

Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex --> Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex

​

I'm actually surprise on how "Prince" was initially left out of Harry's name and surname, before the change. Harry is now been written on Archie's birth certificate as the same way as William (on George, Charlotte and Louis'). Meghan was initially written and styled in the same way as Catherine, before changing it similar to Diana's (i.e. without the first and middle names). I am still unsure about the discrepancy though.



Picture showing the change of name and surname on Archie's birth certificate: https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content...AMENDED_JANUARY_2021jpg-JS633382649.jpg?w=620

Archie's Birth Certificate: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1303F/production/_107078877_054018812-1-nc.png



Articles from these three tabloids:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Rachel-Meghan-Archies-birth-certificate.html

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13898...es-first-names-from-archie-birth-certificate/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-quietly-changes-name-23415649

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I'm also posting this because Harry and Meghan's "Name and surname" on Archie's birth certificate has allegedly changed according to a picture released by The Sun (I know its unreliability...). The date shown in this picture is 21st January 2021. The tabloids (The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Mail) have spun it to imply that Meghan is following Diana or even worse snubbing the Cambridges.

[...]

Picture showing the change of name and surname on Archie's birth certificate: https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content...AMENDED_JANUARY_2021jpg-JS633382649.jpg?w=620
Archie's Birth Certificate: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1303F/production/_107078877_054018812-1-nc.png

Whilst The Sun's and other tabloids' unreliability in regards to speculative gossip is well known, I would say that any "allegations" that they have engaged in forging legal documents pertaining to the royal family are completely unsubstantiated. I see no reason for suspecting that the many lawfully obtained copies of royal birth certificates which have been published in the press have been doctored, or why any person would have an interest in falsifying such an inconsequential amendment.

ETA: It is interesting that so many people question the reliability of Belgian royal birth certificates even though there is no sign of any inconsistency, whereas up until now the British royal birth certificates are treated as authoritative despite the obvious signs of inconsistency.

 

[Heavs]

I don't know why they might change Archie's birth certificate. If following Diana was so important, wouldn't they have done that from the start?

It seems ludicrous to start messing around with the birth certificate and invite a lot of weird speculation just for that. There are plenty of other ways they can/will/are trying to emulate Diana.

All I can think of is that they want to make sure all the titles are on there and emphasised for some reason but other than that I have no idea.

 

[Mbruno]

I would like to ask about on the names or style of address on the royal birth certificate, particularly on the father and mother. From looking at Prince George, Princess Charlotte and Princess Louis' birth certificate, no commas (,) were used and there is a distinction between "born/blood royal" and "married in royals" (I put these in quotations, because it may sound pejorative). Under Name and surname:

William is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis Duke of Cambridge
Catherine is Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge​

For the George, Charlotte and Louis, they were:

His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge
Her Royal Highness Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge
His Royal Highness Prince Louis Arthur Charles of Cambridge​

However, when I looked up Prince William's birth certificate, the name and style of address appears to be slightly different

William is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis
Charles is His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Prince of Wales
Diana is Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales​

I wonder why "of Wales" was left off William's birth certificate and how Diana is written and addressed without her first and middle names, Diana Frances. I was thinking about the difference between the titles "Duke of Cambridge" and "Prince of Wales" could be the reason.

Photos of Birth Certificates
Prince George: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/m...6888_f394aabd-ddab-4a7d-a184-e17fa864de35.jpg
Princess Charlotte: https://api.time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/royal-baby-birth-certificate.jpg?w=800&quality=85
Prince Louis: https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3.../prince-louis-birth-certificate-1-2000a-1.jpg
Prince William: https://i.pinimg.com/564x/e6/65/c2/e665c26a45f90950880a6eb796da3841.jpg

I'm also posting this because Harry and Meghan's "Name and surname" on Archie's birth certificate has allegedly changed according to a picture released by The Sun (I know its unreliability...). The date shown in this picture is 21st January 2021. The tabloids (The Sun, Daily Mirror and Daily Mail) have spun it to imply that Meghan is following Diana or even worse snubbing the Cambridges.

The changes were

His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex --> His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex
Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex --> Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex
​

I'm actually surprise on how "Prince" was initially left out of Harry's name and surname, before the change. Harry is now been written on Archie's birth certificate as the same way as William (on George, Charlotte and Louis'). Meghan was initially written and styled in the same way as Catherine, before changing it similar to Diana's (i.e. without the first and middle names). I am still unsure about the discrepancy though.

Picture showing the change of name and surname on Archie's birth certificate: https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content...AMENDED_JANUARY_2021jpg-JS633382649.jpg?w=620
Archie's Birth Certificate: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1303F/production/_107078877_054018812-1-nc.png

Articles from these three tabloids:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Rachel-Meghan-Archies-birth-certificate.html
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13898...es-first-names-from-archie-birth-certificate/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-quietly-changes-name-23415649

Diana's passport allegedly included Diana Frances in the observation about her maiden name.


I wouldn't read too much into the use of "Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" vs. "HRH The Princess of Wales" only. I would attribute the differences mostly to inconsistency among notaries or different practices over the years (William's and George's birth certificates were produced 31 years apart in time).


My superficial impression of traditional British naming custom is that a married woman's civil identity is completely absorbed into her husband's, hence the use of naming conventions like "Lady John Russell" or "The Hon Mrs George Charles Spencer". Perhaps the use of "Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" signals an evolution in terms of highlighting the separate, individual civil identity of the mother in the birth certificate. It would be disappointing if Meghan, being allegedly a feminist, reverted to old practices and changed her name to "HRH The Duchess of Sussex" only in Archie's birth certificate.

 

[tommy100]

Bear in mind that the birth has to be registered by either parent or

If the parents cannot register the birth (for example, for medical reasons), certain other people can do it:

someone who was present at the birth
someone who is responsible for the child
a member of the administrative staff at the hospital where the child was born

So unless the Lord Chamberlain was at the bottom of the hospital bed and could be sent to register the birth using all protocol then it really is up to the parents (and in all the cases listed the father) and what he writes down at that moment that goes on record which may well explain discrepancies between what Charles wrote 30+ years before William.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My superficial impression of traditional British naming custom is that a married woman's civil identity is completely absorbed into her husband's, hence the use of naming conventions like "Lady John Russell" or "The Hon Mrs George Charles Spencer". Perhaps the use of "Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge" signals an evolution in terms of highlighting the separate, individual civilian identity of the mother in the birth certificate. It would be disappointing if Meghan, being allegedly a feminist, reverted to old practices and changed her name to "HRH The Duchess of Sussex" only in Archie's birth certificate.

I agree with your analysis of traditional British naming conventions, but I would guess that the difference between Diana and Catherine arises from the increase in usage of forenames in British address from the 1980s to the 2010s.

We know that the Sussexes are not feminists in regards to titles at least. Upon marriage they accepted titles holding to patriarchal naming conventions and inheritance rules. Had their genders been reversed, they would not have been given a choice to become HRH The Duchess of Sussex and HRH The Duke of Sussex. A female Harry and a male Meghan would have been forced to settle for becoming HRH Princess Henrietta, Mrs. Morgan Markle, and Mr. Morgan Markle. Likewise, they accepted their dukedom on the basis that any female children of theirs would be discriminated against and made ineligible to succeed by their gender.

Bear in mind that the birth has to be registered by either parent or

If the parents cannot register the birth (for example, for medical reasons), certain other people can do it:

someone who was present at the birth
someone who is responsible for the child
a member of the administrative staff at the hospital where the child was born

So unless the Lord Chamberlain was at the bottom of the hospital bed and could be sent to register the birth using all protocol then it really is up to the parents (and in all the cases listed the father) and what he writes down at that moment that goes on record which may well explain discrepancies between what Charles wrote 30+ years before William.

It would be interesting to know whether any other British royal birth certificates have been amended in the same fashion. Perhaps all of the inconsistencies really were brought to the attention of the Lord Chamberlain?

In any case, the speculation about purposeful comparisons to the late Princess of Wales or the Cambridges sounds extremely farfetched, particularly with the change only being "spotted" by chance more than a year later.

 

[yukari]

However, when I looked up Prince William's birth certificate, the name and style of address appears to be slightly different

William is His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis
Charles is His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Prince of Wales
Diana is Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales​

I wonder why "of Wales" was left off William's birth certificate and how Diana is written and addressed without her first and middle names, Diana Frances. I was thinking about the difference between the titles "Duke of Cambridge" and "Prince of Wales" could be the reason.

You know what, since technically Camilla IS The Princess of Wales, so does it mean now she's legally William's (birth) mother?

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, but the impression I get with this leaving the name of the mother and just putting her title is that if/when something happened, the child's mother would always be the father's current wife.

Let's put it this way, what if hypothetically speaking, on Lady Lara Spencer's birth certificate the mother's name were "The Countess Spencer" (no name), who would you think her mother is (without goggling it if you don't know her)? Victoria Lockwood (Charles' first wife)? Caroline Freud (his 2nd wife)? or Karen Villeneuve (his current wife)?

 

[Jacknch]

In short no - in the UK a birth certificate simply records a set of facts (correct and verified at the time they took place) that are required to be recorded by law. Subsequent changes to individual circumstances do not alter the facts as they stood at that time.

I can't think of any circumstances legal or otherwise that would cause confusion as to the legal birth mother of a child or require the birth certificate to act as proof - even if someone of the same name as the birth mother existed.

 

[yukari]

In short no - in the UK a birth certificate simply records a set of facts (correct and verified at the time they took place) that are required to be recorded by law. Subsequent changes to individual circumstances do not alter the facts as they stood at that time.

I can't think of any circumstances legal or otherwise that would cause confusion as to the legal birth mother of a child or require the birth certificate to act as proof - even if someone of the same name as the birth mother existed.

I see ...
So what's the need of the change then?
If they remove the HRH from the birth certificate, in a way it make sense (kind of following the deal of their exit). But removing her name?

 

[Mbruno]

I see ...
So what's the need of the change then?
If they remove the HRH from the birth certificate, in a way it make sense (kind of following the deal of their exit). But removing her name?

I understand that the birth certificate needed to be changed to insert "Prince" before Harry's name, which was an appropriate correction. As I said, I can't possibly understand the reason why Meghan, being someone who allegedly stands for women empowerement, would agree to have her given names deleted from her son's birth certificate. I agree with Tatiana Maria that the Diana explanation is far-fetched.

 

[Osipi]

II wonder why "of Wales" was left off William's birth certificate and how Diana is written and addressed without her first and middle names, Diana Frances. I was thinking about the difference between the titles "Duke of Cambridge" and "Prince of Wales" could be the reason.

I think the reasoning would be that when William was born, he was a Prince of the UK but his father is the one that held the title Prince of Wales. His mother was The Princess of Wales and when registering the birth, they used that. Putting in William as a "Prince of Wales" would be assigning a title to him that, at the time, he didn't have.

During his life though, William did use "William Wales". That's different than calling himself a Prince of Wales. With Beatrice and Eugenie being "of York", its using a ducal designation and not an actual title. ?

 

[Mbruno]

I think the reasoning would be that when William was born, he was a Prince of the UK but his father is the one that held the title Prince of Wales. His mother was The Princess of Wales and when registering the birth, they used that. Putting in William as a "Prince of Wales" would be assigning a title to him that, at the time, he didn't have.

During his life though, William did use "William Wales". That's different than calling himself a Prince of Wales. With Beatrice and Eugenie being "of York", its using a ducal designation and not an actual title. ?

The OP's point is that unmarried children of the Prince of Wales are normally styled "HRH Prince/Princess [Given Name] of Wales" like children of royal dukes who are sons of a British sovereign. William was referred to as "HRH Prince William of Wales" before becoming "HRH The Duke of Cambridge" as it can be seen on his wedding invitation card linked below.


https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018032247241/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-wedding-invites/

 

[Osipi]

The OP's point is that unmarried children of the Prince of Wales are normally styled "HRH Prince/Princess [Given Name] of Wales" like children of royal dukes. William was referred to as "HRH Prince William of Wales" before becoming "HRH The Duke of Cambridge" as it can be seen on his wedding invitation card linked below.


https://www.hellomagazine.com/royalty/2018032247241/meghan-markle-kate-middleton-wedding-invites/

Then I have absolutely *no* idea at all.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

For comparison, this article shows the birth certificates of Prince Andrew (1960) and Princess Beatrice (1988).


For Andrew:

Elizabeth is Her Majesty The Queen

Philip is His Royal Highness The Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh

Andrew is Andrew Albert Christian Edward​

For Beatrice:

Andrew is His Royal Highness Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward Duke of York

Sarah is Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of York

Beatrice is Beatrice Elizabeth Mary, Princess of York​

 

[Mbruno]

For comparison, this article shows the birth certificates of Prince Andrew (1960) and Princess Beatrice (1988).


For Andrew:

Elizabeth is Her Majesty The Queen

Philip is His Royal Highness The Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh

Andrew is Andrew Albert Christian Edward​

For Beatrice:

Andrew is His Royal Highness Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward Duke of York

Sarah is Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of York

Beatrice is Beatrice Elizabeth Mary, Princess of York​

Ultimately I think it boils down to what the parents wanted to be written down in the certificate as Tommy said.


It makes sense to me that Diana and Sarah would be recorded as HRH The Princess of Wales and HRH The Duchess of York with no reference to their given names as that is the British custom for married women in their position. That is why I find it significant that "Catherine Elizabeth" appears on George's birth certificate and disappointing that "Rachel Meghan" has been deleted from Archie's.



I find it strange that "Prince" and "HRH" are omitted from Andrew's birth certificate as he was legally entitled to use both from birth under the LPs of 1917, which BTW instruct that his given names be preceded by those prefixes.



I had never seen the style "Beatrice Elizabeth Mary, Princess of York" before either, but again that is probably how Andrew thought her name should be recorded (he is not terribly bright).

 

[Madame Verseau]

I don't see the big deal on the birth certificate name update. I yet to see Letters Patent or Act of Parliament to officially strip Meghan of HRH. I believe she is called HRH the Duchess of Sussex in the lawsuit. So Meghan can legally be referred as HRH but not in commercial enterprises as agreed in Sussexit as with Harry. I think Meghan is legally Princess Henry of Wales. So if there is no violation of law for affixing the legal titles what is the program? I think it's tabloids trying to gin up a scandal.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't see the big deal on the birth certificate name update. I yet to see Letters Patent or Act of Parliament to officially strip Meghan of HRH. I believe she is called HRH the Duchess of Sussex in the lawsuit. So Meghan can legally be referred as HRH but not in commercial enterprises as agreed in Sussexit as with Harry. I think Meghan is legally Princess Henry of Wales. So if there is no violation of law for affixing the legal titles what is the program? I think it's tabloids trying to gin up a scandal.

The controversy is not about "HRH The Duchess of Sussex", which was already on the birth certificate BTW. Rather, the issue is why the name Rachel Meghan has now been struck out.

 

[Kataryn]

You know what, since technically Camilla IS The Princess of Wales, so does it mean now she's legally William's (birth) mother?

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, but the impression I get with this leaving the name of the mother and just putting her title is that if/when something happened, the child's mother would always be the father's current wife.

Let's put it this way, what if hypothetically speaking, on Lady Lara Spencer's birth certificate the mother's name were "The Countess Spencer" (no name), who would you think her mother is (without goggling it if you don't know her)? Victoria Lockwood (Charles' first wife)? Caroline Freud (his 2nd wife)? or Karen Villeneuve (his current wife)?

At the time of William's irth it was unconceivable that the Royal marriage would end in divorce. Any marriage but theirs. And later it was clear it was the princess of Wales at the date of birth which Camilla wasn't.

 

[TLLK]

The controversy is not about "HRH The Duchess of Sussex", which was already on the birth certificate BTW. Rather, the issue is why the name Rachel Meghan has now been struck out.

I am a little surprised that Archie's mother's lovely name has been removed, but I can see that the title of "Prince" for Harry should have been on the original certificate.


The Sussexes have reportedly issued a statement via a spokesperson in regard to the changes.


https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/susse...rts-following-birth-certificate-story-155300/

A Sussex spokesperson said on Sunday evening: “The change of name on public documents in 2019 was dictated by The Palace, as confirmed by documents from senior Palace officials.
“To see the UK tabloid and their carnival of so-called ‘experts’ chose to deceptively whip this into a calculated family ‘snub’ and suggest that she would oddly want to be nameless on her child’s birth certificate, or any other legal document, would be laughable were it not offensive.
“There’s a lot going on in the world; let’s focus on that rather than creating clickbait.”

 

[Mbruno]

I am a little surprised that Archie's mother's lovely name has been removed, but I can see that the title of "Prince" for Harry should have been on the original certificate.


The Sussexes have reportedly issued a statement via a spokesperson in regard to the changes.


https://royalcentral.co.uk/uk/susse...rts-following-birth-certificate-story-155300/

Unfortunately that note raises more questions than answers. Why would the Palace "dictate" to remove the name Rachel Meghan from Archie's birth certificate but not suggest that the name Catherine Elizabeth be also removed from George's ? Or was George's birth certificate also changed?

 

[Osipi]

Actually, I liked the response the Sussexes gave. ?

 

[Madame Verseau]

So the Palace made the call to keep Meghan's name off.