The Duke & Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 5: June-July 2021

[Royalist.in.NC]

Makes me think the "birth certificate" they got ahold of somehow is a fake one. There's no way a legal birth certificate in California would condone using HRH or a British peerage title in place of a legal name. What did they list the mother as? Tungsten Flower?

I agree, it looks fake! Meghan’s name is listed correctly as it has her maiden (birth) name as Markle.

 

[Denville]

Yep, they have shot themselves in the foot. Particularly Harry has. After all the whining about royal duties, why should anyone believe that he is truly motivated to do good works now?

As an aside, will some British posters please explain the difference between “whinging” (love that word!) and “whining”?

its the same thing. Complaining and sounding miserable...
I know Harry aint bright but really he HAS IMO shot himself in the foot. Considering that he's supposed to be using his "compassion" to make a living now... as yu say who's going to beleive him that he sincerely wants to do that? They haven't done much practical kindly works over the past year.. and well, if they go out delivering meals on wheels again, how do we know that we wont hear him some day saying how he hated having to do that?

 

[Tarlita]

Quite simply if an author reads the fine print they won't submit anything, I would imagine. I mean whats the point.

 

[Denville]

Quite simply if an author reads the fine print they won't submit anything, I would imagine. I mean whats the point.

I agree. It is very off putting.. and I can't imagine why anyone would bohter to try and write anything for this set up.

 

[Moran]

Denville, even if we don't hear them saying how he hated having to do that, the harm is already done.

It's a little exasperating wondering what the difference is between the food you want to feed to a toddler and the same food scooped off the floor. But there is a difference and it's free choice. Scoop it off the floor, and you're a free (just tiny) person expressing your rights. Eat it when your parents are feeding it to you, and you're horribly repressed, hence whining and throwing it all around looks like a great option.

But at Harry's age, one is supposed to have grown out of it some 35 years ago, right? Especially if we're talking about helping people.

 

[Alison H]

Unless you've got a very interesting story to tell, you're probably not going to make a fortune from your story about how you did your elderly neighbour's shopping all through lockdown or your children's school did a sponsored fun run to raise money for the local hospital, to be fair, and some people may just like the idea of getting their picture in the newspapers or, in this case, on Archewell's website. I wouldn't particularly expect to be paid for that - but I don't like the idea, that, if the story actually did attract attention, it could be used in books or on TV and you wouldn't even get any credit, or that it could be edited to give an impression which may not be what you intended.

 

[Somebody]

In the US kids fill out so many computer forms and answer bubble sheets with not enough room for long names - it is really frustrating. The smart way to go would be Archie H. Sussex or Archie H. Windsor. Nobody in California is going to call him the Earl of Dumbarton. But the more H & M talk about it the more likely some immature parent will remember it and tell one of Archie’s classmates thinking it is funny and then he WILL get teased.

Archie isn't 'Archie Sussex' (he might be one day but isn't now); he could have been Earl of Dumbarton and use 'Archie Dumbarton'; or Lord Mountbatten-Windsor and use Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (or Windsor indeed for short) - which is what his parents decided on as well; but without the courtesy title.

Does anyone here subscribe to Private Eye? I do. It comes to me snail mail. It's an English periodical that has been pointing out hypocrisy for years.

They have a story on P. 26 in vol. 1549 about Archewell.

Archewell.com is entreatying people to send in their stories about "actioning compassion." You can see it right there on Archewell.com. They want you to share your story for a chance to be featured. Or, "you can describe a time you felt connected with friends, family or your community."

The problem Private Eye had is in the Terms and Conditions. A person who submits their uplifting experience to Archewell loses all copyright, gets no royalties, no nothing, worldwide, in perpetuity.

Archewell also has the right to edit, crop, revise and condense. The contributor is not entitled to any credit, consideration, payment of any kind. I'm a bit of a publishing novice, so you big city editors correct me if I have this wrong.

There's a whole lot more, but the big sticking point with Private Eye seems to be the potential legal obligations of the person who submits a story about compassion, in that you get one word wrong and someone sues Archewell, you are on the the hot seat and legally responsible for damages and court-ordered awards, even though you submitted a heartfelt post to a seemingly philanthropic group in the expectation you were building communities and hoping to share empathy with like-minded people. And they own your material and copyright.

See, The Terms and Conditions also spell out that the submitted stories may be used by the Archewell non-profit, as well as the money-making LLC branch of the couple's interests, regards to publications, films, books etc. again, with no payment, public recognition, right of copyright or ... well, no coddling, that much is certain.


https://archewell.com/terms-conditions/

Interesting I guess some H&M fans are just happy to be probably featured and don't mind them profiting from it and personally taking on the limited risk that might come from each of those stories being (misre)presented. Maybe H&M can recommend some lawyers if they unexpectedly end up needing one as they are quite experienced.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I’m not British but I lived in Europe a little while and most spoke British English.

Whining can be used in any situation. A dog can whine for attention, a child can whine during a long car trip, an adult can whine that they hate their job, etc.

Whinging is used for adult behavior. It is also often seen as being more petty than whine. For example, I can whine I hate my job because the hours are long, the boss is truly cruel, and the pay is minimal.

I can whinge about my job if I just started it and complain because my coworker seems more respected and better paid, even though she’s been a longtime employee.

Thank you, Intothesea! Your examples really helped me see the nuances between the two words

And welcome to the Royal Forums - hope you will enjoy!!

 

[Somebody]

If this were a serious attempt at a believable fake, I think whoever made it would have used a less ridiculous combination of names. As someone said upthread, any possible combination would have been better.

Meghan's American ID documents most likely all have her pre-marriage information. Maybe they have a different last name if she changed hers to Mountbatten-Windsor or whatever Harry's is, but I doubt they have either HRH or Duchess on them, because they were originally issued back when she was just plain old Rachel Meghan Markle. But Harry's would have been issued for the first time more recently, and would have been based on the info from his passport. If his passport said "His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex," then I can see how this might have happened.

Do you mean Harry's American ID? Why would he have an American ID? I assume he has an American driver's license but other than that his basic mean of identification would be his UK passport I would think...

And if I recall correctly from previous discussions on how peers are referenced in their passports, his full first/middle names are surely included in the passport - (Duke of) Sussex might be used as last name. HRH will be mentioned somewhere but there is certainly more information than just 'HRH The Duke of Sussex'.

 

[Mbruno]

If this were a serious attempt at a believable fake, I think whoever made it would have used a less ridiculous combination of names. As someone said upthread, any possible combination would have been better.

Meghan's American ID documents most likely all have her pre-marriage information. Maybe they have a different last name if she changed hers to Mountbatten-Windsor or whatever Harry's is, but I doubt they have either HRH or Duchess on them, because they were originally issued back when she was just plain old Rachel Meghan Markle. But Harry's would have been issued for the first time more recently, and would have been based on the info from his passport. If his passport said "His Royal Highness The Duke of Sussex," then I can see how this might have happened.

See the PDF file linked below for guidance on how to record titles in British passports.



https://assets.publishing.service.g...ads/attachment_data/file/959788/Titles_V7.pdf


For a British Duke, see p.21, the following guidance is given:

If the customer is a Duke , you must:



•update the forenames field with the customer’s forenames



•update the surname field with ‘The Duke of [title]’



•add the observation ‘THE HOLDER IS HIS GRACE [forenames and family surname] DUKE OF [title]’

For example, for the current Duke of Norfolk, the photo page would record


Name Field: Edward William
Surname Field: The Duke of Norfolk


The observation page would say: "The Holder is His Grace Edward William Fitzalan-Howard, Duke of Norfolk".



Unfortunately there is no official guidance for inclusion of royal titles in UK passports, bu, if we extrapolate the guidance above for peers and also apply the requirement in the LPs of 1917 that Harry's forenames be preceded by HRH Prince, I assume the photo page of his passport most likely reads as


Name Field: His Royal Highness Prince Henry Albert Charles David
Surname Field: The Duke of Sussex



I wonder how that got translated into



Given Name: The Duke of Sussex
Surname: His Royal Highness


in the birth certificate.

 

[Somebody]

See the PDF file linked below for guidance on how to record titles in British passports.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ads/attachment_data/file/959788/Titles_V7.pdf

For a British Duke, see p.21, the following guidance is given:

For example, for the current Duke of Norfolk, the photo page would record

Name Field: Edward William
Surname Field: The Duke of Norfolk

The observation page would say: "The Holder is His Grace Edward William Fitzalan-Howard, Duke of Norfolk".

Unfortunately there is no official guidance for inclusion of royal titles in UK passports, bu, if we extrapolate the guidance above for peers and also apply the requirement in the LPs of 1917 that Harry's forenames be preceded by HRH Prince, I assume the photo page of his passport most likely reads as

Name Field: His Royal Highness Prince Henry Albert Charles David
Surname Field: The Duke of Sussex

I wonder how that got translated into

Given Name: The Duke of Sussex
Surname: His Royal Highness

in the birth certificate.

Thanks! However, wouldn't the 'His Royal Highness' be part of the observation (if it was consistent with that of peers)? Or would 'Prince' be part of the first name and therefore would the need be felt to include HRH as well in the name field... Upon second thought, yours makes a lot of sense.

Alternatively,
Name Field: Henry Albert Charles David
Surname Field: The Duke of Sussex

Observation: "The Holder is His Royal Highness Prince Henry Albert Charles David, Duke of Sussex".

(I assume Mountbatten-Windsor would not be included as that was stipulated to be used for non-HRH's).

 

[Denville]

its probably a fake..

 

[Alison H]

His official name would be Prince Henry Charles Albert David, Duke of Sussex. I can't see any way that a birth certificate would be issued without his actual forenames, i.e. Henry Charles Albert David, on it, whatever form was used for the titles.

 

[Denville]

I often wonder if Harry had been the first born son; how harder it would have been for him and Meghan to have just walked away. But then, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor left it all behind; so who knows?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-Prince-Harry-never-repay-Royal-Bank-Dad.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...aughter-Lilibet-Dianas-birth-certificate.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...le-unveiling-statue-Princess-Diana-Covid.html

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...fly-London-unveiling-statue-mother-Diana.html

Im sorry to think this but I think that Harry would have left no matter what, if it suited him. Even if he was brought up as a future King. Possibly had he had kingship to look forward to, it might have held him in place but I think that Harry wants what he wants .. and wont listen to anyone (nor Will Meghan) if told that he can't have it...

 

[Heavs]

If Harry had to put something that was "his name at birth" as a last name then he should have put down HRH Prince instead of just HRH which looks and sounds ridiculous. And then if he really wanted Henry Duke of Sussex as his first name. And he didn't even bother to use the middle name column when he has a lot.

Because as it allegedly stands Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness is not his name.

 

[Erin9]

I often wonder if Harry had been the first born son; how harder it would have been for him and Meghan to have just walked away. But then, the Duke and Duchess of Windsor left it all behind; so who knows?



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/...-Prince-Harry-never-repay-Royal-Bank-Dad.html



]

Hard to say. He might have been a very different person had he been the first born. Or not.

My favorite line of the article is how Harry and Meghan transitioned from working royals to exploiting royals. Nice, succinct sum up.

 

[Mbruno]

Thanks! However, wouldn't the 'His Royal Highness' be part of the observation (if it was consistent with that of peers)? Or would 'Prince' be part of the first name and therefore would the need be felt to include HRH as well in the name field... Upon second thought, yours makes a lot of sense.

Alternatively,
Name Field: Henry Albert Charles David
Surname Field: The Duke of Sussex

Observation: "The Holder is His Royal Highness Prince Henry Albert Charles David, Duke of Sussex".

(I assume Mountbatten-Windsor would not be included as that was stipulated to be used for non-HRH's).

I don't know the answer for sure, but my interpretation of the LPs is that HRH Prince must be prefixed, in his case, to his given names, so I guess it would appear in the name field.

It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour.

Prince George's birth certificate for example listed the father's name as "His Royal Highness Prince William Philip Arthur Louis, Duke of Cambridge".


In any case, it is extremely odd that Lili now has an official US birth certificate where her father is named "The Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness" and neither his given names (Henry etc) nor his family name when needed (Mountbatten-Windsor) are mentioned.

 

[Heavs]

I don't know the answer for sure, but my interpretation of the LPs is that HRH Prince must be prefixed, in his case, to his given names, so I guess it would appear in the name field.



Prince George's birth certificate for example listed the father's name as "His Royal Highness Prince William Philip Arthur Louis, Duke of Cambridge".


In any case, it is extremely odd that Lili now has an official US birth certificate where his father is named "The Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness" and neither his given names (Henry etc) nor his family name when needed (Mountbatten-Windsor) are mentioned.

That would also mean that HRH by itself is wrong.

UK birth certificates just ask for the whole name in one go and don't break it down into first, middle and surnames which makes it easier to just write out the whole thing without worrying.

If wikipedia is correct both Andrew and Anne used Mountbatten-Windsor on their marriage certificates so surely Harry could use it on a US birth certificate where titles aren't legal anyway. He's basically given his surname as the equivalent of Mister.

Ah well.

 

[victor1319]

What?

Am I the only one, who laughed about this "given name" = Duke of Sussex... thingy? ?

Albeit it reminds me a bit of the "let them eat cake" thingy from the French Revolution, which was a sinister piece of Propaganda, to show, how out of touch and out of sense with the commoners Marie-Antoinette alledgedly was.

 

[UglyAmerican]

Do you mean Harry's American ID? Why would he have an American ID? I assume he has an American driver's license but other than that his basic mean of identification would be his UK passport I would think...

And if I recall correctly from previous discussions on how peers are referenced in their passports, his full first/middle names are surely included in the passport - (Duke of) Sussex might be used as last name. HRH will be mentioned somewhere but there is certainly more information than just 'HRH The Duke of Sussex'.

I mostly meant the driver's license. We don't have a national ID in the US, other than passports, which most Americans don't even have and no one carries around with them. (There isn't the same need for them, really - it's a very large country geographically, and one can experience the full range of climates from Alaska to Hawaii without needing a passport, so international travel is less common.) I'm not sure whether he even has a driver's license, honestly. I don't imagine he drives himself very many places. But if not, he'd need a state non-driver ID, which is the same thing except it's not an authorization to drive.

If they're following the usual immigration rules that apply to mere mortals, he'd probably also have a permanent resident card ("green card") by now, and he'd need to keep that on him. It's the same size as a driver's license or credit card, and would have whatever name was on the documents he used to establish his identity when he applied for it.

 

[Denville]

Am I the only one, who laughed about this "given name" = Duke of Sussex... thingy? ?

Albeit it reminds me a bit of the "let them eat cake" thingy from the French Revolution, which was a sinister piece of Propaganda, to show, how out of touch and out of sense with the commoners Marie-Antoinette alledgedly was.

For goodness sake, its almost certianly a fake. Why would Harry put that down? he's no genius but he cant have forgotten his name....

 

[Osipi]

Am I the only one, who laughed about this "given name" = Duke of Sussex... thingy? ?

Albeit it reminds me a bit of the "let them eat cake" thingy from the French Revolution, which was a sinister piece of Propaganda, to show, how out of touch and out of sense with the commoners Marie-Antoinette alledgedly was.

This is just another report making the rounds from Harry and Meghan that shows just how "displaced" they are from reality. They may believe it's keeping them in the forefront of the public domain but the truth, to me, is that the more they say and do, the more they're discrediting themselves and, as others have stated, shooting themselves in the foot.

The attention is going to fade and diminish and unless they have something really tangible to offer, I think things are going to dry up for them. Where would they go from there is anyone's guess.

 

[muriel]

There are press reports that Harry has now arrived in the UK

 

[Osipi]

I'm actually glad Harry is going to make it for the statue unveiling next Thursday. No matter what has gone on, this is his mother's statue and hopefully it'll be a day totally devoted to her memory.

 

[muriel]

I'm actually glad Harry is going to make it for the statue unveiling next Thursday. No matter what has gone on, this is his mother's statue and hopefully it'll be a day totally devoted to her memory.

I also hope he spends a little bit of time with William and Catherine, and the kids when he is over in the UK. I am not expecting any immediate magic, but seeing some of that familial environment may have a longer term impact in helping Harry resolve his own feelings towards his birth family.

 

[Alison H]

It's a shame for the children. Louis must barely remember him, but George and Charlotte must wonder why Uncle Harry vanished from their lives.

 

[Osipi]

It's a shame for the children. Louis must barely remember him, but George and Charlotte must wonder why Uncle Harry vanished from their lives.

Especially George. I remember when the Obamas came to visit, little George pipes up "Why is Uncle Harry being so quiet?". I think Harry genuinely loved to get down and play with the kids and have a rip roaring good time and George remembers that.

 

[Mbruno]

I mostly meant the driver's license. We don't have a national ID in the US, other than passports, which most Americans don't even have and no one carries around with them. (There isn't the same need for them, really - it's a very large country geographically, and one can experience the full range of climates from Alaska to Hawaii without needing a passport, so international travel is less common.) I'm not sure whether he even has a driver's license, honestly. I don't imagine he drives himself very many places. But if not, he'd need a state non-driver ID, which is the same thing except it's not an authorization to drive.

If they're following the usual immigration rules that apply to mere mortals, he'd probably also have a permanent resident card ("green card") by now, and he'd need to keep that on him. It's the same size as a driver's license or credit card, and would have whatever name was on the documents he used to establish his identity when he applied for it.

I am not sure if he has a permanent resident card ("green card"). First, I don't know if he is already eligible for a green card even though he is married to an American wife. Second, according to reports in the press, he might be in the US on a diplomatic visa instead.


If he has a green card, I doubt it says his name is "The Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness". I don't expect it either to have his name recorded as His Royal Highness Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

 

[Osipi]

I am not sure if he has a permanent resident card ("green card"). First, I don't know if he is already eligible for a green card even though he is married to an American wife. Second, according to reports in the press, he might be in the US on a diplomatic visa instead.


If he has a green card, I doubt it says his name is "The Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness". I don't expect it either to have his name recorded as His Royal Highness Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

Logic tells me that the acceptable legal name for a green card would be Henry Mountbatten-Windsor. I seriously doubt that Harry would qualify for a diplomatic visa now as he no longer is in any way, shape or form, connected to the British government or the monarchy of the UK other than being a blood relative of the House of Windsor.

 

[Mbruno]

Logic tells me that the acceptable legal name for a green card would be Henry Mountbatten-Windsor. I seriously doubt that Harry would qualify for a diplomatic visa now as he no longer is in any way, shape or form, connected to the British government or the monarchy of the UK other than being a blood relative of the House of Windsor.

To get a diplomatic (A1) visa, I suppose he would have to make an application sanctioned by the UK government. If the UK backed it, I don't think the US would question it.


Again, I don't know what his immigration status is. I was just referring to reports in British tabloids , which might be accurate or not, that he had an A1 visa. Here is a brief explanation on that type of visa from Wikipedia:

The A-1 visa is granted to ambassadors, ministers, diplomats, consular officers, and their immediate family members.[a][3] While government officials normally do not qualify for an A-1 visa if they are traveling for non-official, non-governmental purposes, heads of state and heads of government always qualify and must apply for an A visa regardless of their purpose of travel.[4] Visitors on an A-1 visa cannot be tried under US law for a crime, and may travel to and from the country an unlimited number of times. There is no maximum length of stay for individuals admitted on an A-1 visa, and there is no requirement to maintain a foreign residence.[3]