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

[Heavs]

Heavs-A California birth certificate typically has the mother listed with her her birth name or what was in the past known as her "maiden" name, so I'm not surprised to see "Rachel Meghan Markle." Harry's on the other hand is really odd IMO.

Thank you. On UK birth certificates there's a separate line to record the mother's maiden name when applicable, so you list both married and birth name.

Harry's is just....Odd

M-W would have been more appropriate for the US even if it wasn't listed on his birth certificate and Wales would make sense as a birth "Name" as well but definitely not HRH.

And he has enough middle names but left that space completely blank.

I think it must be fake but TMZ is usually good at getting the real thing.

 

[Alison H]

That looks fake to me. Whatever titles or styles Harry has or hasn't put on Lilibet's birth certificate, surely there's no way he could have put "the Duke of Sussex" under "first name" and "His Royal Highness" under "surname". If it had "HRH Prince Henry Charles Albert David" under "first name" and "the Duke of Sussex" under "surname", I might just about buy it, but not that.

 

[stunking]

I live in California and you have to prove you are related and have the request for the birth certificate notarized.

 

[Somebody]

Why on Earth is the "Duke of Sussex listed as his first name and "His Royal Highness" listed as his last name???
I could understand that he would use "Prince Harry" or " Prince Henry Charles Albert David" but not Duke of Sussex.

That seems absurd; we'll see how the Sussexes respond and will probably find out whether it is real or fake at some point.

In foreign countries he can freely use (if their is no obvious location for the titles)
First name: Henry
Middle Name: Charles Albert David
Last birth name: Mountbatten-Windsor

If he truly would want to stress him being a royal highness he could probably try
First name: HRH Prince Henry
Middle Name: Charles Albert David
Last birth name: of Wales (which is what he was at birth)

HRH The Duke of Sussex is in no way his birth name which is what he is supposed to supply. The only reason I can come up with why HRH is put their is that at least he did hold that from birth (unlike Sussex).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I see no reason whatsoever to question the authenticity of the birth certificate. As the certified copy indicates, one assumes it was obtained from the office of the county clerk, from which any individual can request a "certified informational copy" of vital records for unofficial purposes. Presumably, the county clerk's office would not supply a fake birth certificate.

 

[Prinsara]

I see no reason whatsoever to question the authenticity of the birth certificate. As the certified copy indicates, one assumes it was obtained from the office of the county clerk, from which any individual can request a "certified informational copy" of vital records for unofficial purposes. Presumably, the county clerk's office would not supply a fake birth certificate.

Then would you be able to explain how they are using an unrecognized foreign title in a US legal document?

 

[Heavs]

That seems absurd; we'll see how the Sussexes respond and will probably find out whether it is real or fake at some point.

In foreign countries he can freely use (if their is no obvious location for the titles)
First name: Henry
Middle Name: Charles Albert David
Last birth name: Mountbatten-Windsor

If he truly would want to stress him being a royal highness he could probably try
First name: HRH Prince Henry
Middle Name: Charles Albert David
Last birth name: of Wales (which is what he was at birth)

HRH The Duke of Sussex is in no way his birth name which is what he is supposed to supply. The only reason I can come up with why HRH is put their is that at least he did hold that from birth (unlike Sussex).

Pretty much any other name combination would make more sense.

From searching William and Harry weren't listed as "of Wales" on their birth certificates in the way the little Cambridges are listed as "of Cambridge". So maybe that's why it's out.

Kate and Meghan both included HRH as part of their surnames on their children's birth certificates eg. Catherine Elizabeth, HRH DOC. Of course there was the infamous changing of Meghan's name on Archie's for whatever reason. William and Harry both treated HRH Prince as part of their first names.

Beatrice's treats "Princess of York" as her surname.

Of course none of this is in California.

But that doesn't explain why Harry would use it alone instead of trying to make it Henry Charles Albert David HRH Prince.

It just makes him seem desperate to cram his title on there instead of his actual names and silly apart from anything else. Is this really legal?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Then would you be able to explain how they are using an unrecognized foreign title in a US legal document?

No, I have no information about that. Is there an American or Californian law or regulation against using an unrecognized foreign title in a US legal document?

 

[Osipi]

No, I have no information about that. Is there an American or Californian law or regulation against using an unrecognized foreign title in a US legal document?

I don't know about California or US laws on the matter but I think a good and reasonable explanation was given to us earlier by stunking who does live in California.

I live in California and you have to prove you are related and have the request for the birth certificate notarized.

 

[Sandy345]

I do agree. I edited my post to add that while *I* think there’s genuine sentiment to help people- I do think they’ve opened themselves up to people being skeptical. And questioning their true values.

I think they’ve taken a hatchet to their own images- especially Harry, at least for some of us, with all the public complaining. (I’m not sure Meghan had much of an image to lose.) Plenty of people who either liked them or were previously ambivalent have a negative opinion now. (And plenty are supportive to be fair.)

We’ll see how all this plays out over the long haul. It’ll be interesting.

I think the tabs don't help matters for them. Not everybody dislikes them to put it mildly. There was negativity from them at the outset by some when they were first seen together. I recall that because I read a lot about them in the media and on social media. I would not generalize that people who liked them now have a negative opinion. There are many people who never cared one way or the other from the get go.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't know about California or US laws on the matter but I think a good and reasonable explanation was given to us earlier by stunking who does live in California.

In the link to the County of Santa Barbara Clerk-Recorder Division provided in my previous post (the birth occurred in Santa Barbara County), you will read the following information:

Who can request copies?

In order to protect personal information, Certified Authorized copies of vital records are only available to specific persons as outlined by California Health and Safety Code Section 103526 .

All other individuals may request Certified Informational copies of birth, death, and public marriage records. Certified Informational copies will be imprinted with "INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY" across the face of the copy.

Note: Confidential marriage certificates are only available to the parties to the marriage and cannot be viewed by a third party without a court order.​

The copy published by TMZ is indeed labeled "Informational".

 

[Mbruno]

Why on Earth is the "Duke of Sussex listed as his first name and "His Royal Highness" listed as his last name???
I could understand that he would use "Prince Harry" or " Prince Henry Charles Albert David" but not Duke of Sussex.[

In the UK, the LPs of 1917 say that HRH and Prince are prefixed to his given names so his official name would be HIs Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David.

Following the convention that is used for peers in UK passports for example, his title of Duke of Sussex would be shown in the surname / family name field.

In the US, logic would dictate that he be listed as Henry Charles Albert David Mountbatten-Windsor, but I am pretty sure the person who filled out the birth certificate in California was completely clueless about how to do it.

 

[Prinsara]

It's quite possible the person who filled out the birth certificate was either Harry or Meghan, and some equally clueless person signed off on it.

 

[Curryong]

Why wouldn’t Harry fill out his daughter’s birth certificate in the same way he did his son’s, bar the national differences of course? He correctly filled in Archie’s birth certificate. This Informational document doesn’t look genuine to me.

For those who take note of such things a photo of Harry and Meghan, taken when they were engaged, has been spotted on a side table in a prominent position when the Queen met Boris Johnson face to face in audience after fifteen months yesterday. So her relationship with her grandson remains intact.

https://7news.com.au/entertainment/...-person-for-first-time-in-15-months-c-3211299

 

[ladongas]

Probably a fake or spoof

Lili was born on 6/4, and apparently mother and baby were discharged on 6/5. The “birth clerk” was the person who signed in space 12a on 6/7, and the “certifier”, Frances Lammer, signed in space 13a, and put her (professional) license number in space 13b, also on 6/7. The person accepting the registration signed on 6/9.

So this is either a fake, a spoof, or the genuine bc, filled in by hospital employees who were just guessing (although it surprises me that people in critical positions like that could be so careless).

What it certainly isn’t is a document filled in by a man who doesn’t know his own name.

 

[camelot23ca]

Hopefully it’s a fake. If it’s real they’ll likely have to apply for an amendment, which may mean a two page birth certificate for Lili going forward - this original document plus another page with the correct info. I don’t think they can just replace the original certificate at this point.

But I think it has to be some sort of hoax because I can’t imagine how Harry, Meghan or anyone else would have made such a weird error.

 

[yukari]

Here's what people of Dumbarton say (It's Daily Mail, but it's people with names and even photograph of them, not some anonymous source).

'An INSULT to Dumbarton!': Proud Scottish townsfolk hit back at 'virtue signalling' Meghan and Harry over claim they rejected Earldom for Archie in case he would be bullied for being ‘dumb’

(...)

Student Jade Daly, 20, added: 'Refusing that is a bit dumb in itself. I have lived in Dumbarton my entire life and I have never once been called dumb because of it.

'I guess I can see why they act like they act sometimes - but refusing the title of Dumbarton for that is stupid. I think they do get treated a bit rubbish though.

'When Meghan says she has mental health issues you cannot doubt that, especially with the mental health crisis going on.'

(...)

And Scott Murdoch, 25, a sales rep, said: 'I didn't think they could get any stupider, but there you go. I think that sums it up quite well. It's virtue signalling, to make people think they are good people.

'No children are getting bullied because of a title. They are extremely woke - your standard people that are always the victim.'

Father-of-one James McBarron, 41, said he was proud his little boy would grow up in the town and branded it 'insulting'.

Mr McBarron, who works as chef, said: 'Why have they refused that? They would never get called dumb, that would never happen. I think it's insulting. I'm from Dumbarton, lived here my whole life. If it was me, I would be proud. They should honour it.

'I'm proud to say I'm from Dumbarton, and I'm proud to have a child from Dumbarton. I mean it's part of a word. They should honour their titles. I don't think this is a problem if he is not with Meghan.'

(...)

I don't think there'll be any problem with the name, particularly in UK (I'm sure even British tabloids would not be stupid enough to use it to mock them, at the risk of complains from ppl of Dumbarton). I'm not sure about American though ... But then again it would mean implying the intention to move to the US from very early.

 

[stunking]

The birth certificate I requested was for my grown son, and it was a legal birth certificate. It was used to get the Real ID.

 

[Curryong]

We don’t know that Harry and/or Meghan have ever objected to the Earldom of Dumbarton. They’ve never mentioned it.

I can remember people on Twitter becoming hysterical about the name when the titles were announced, emphasising the ‘Dumb’ part of it, in spite of several of us explaining that Dumbarton is typically pronounced in Britain as ‘DmBartn’.

They didn’t want to know however, as they preferred to have a good laugh about the name. It still occasionally came up in Twitter over the past year or so, and I wouldn’t be surprised if tabloid journalists trawled these sites and thought it would make another nice rod to beat the Sussexes with.

 

[UglyAmerican]

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.

 

[BriarRose]

Late to the discussion but re California Birth Certificates.

The birth certificate application is done at the hospital on a computer they wheel into the room, and the staff member responsible for it took our government I.D.s to fill it out our names beforehand, then we verified it. I honestly have very little memory of the process- both times we had to do it at an odd time, and I was exhausted.

I have no idea if the information record (that's what was actually linked) is real, but it is entirely possible a hospital staff member did the same for Harry and Meghan.

Also, just because there is a record, it doesn't mean a certificate has been issued yet. We didn't get our children's birth certificates for a while - maybe a month? maybe even two months?. Record of live birth is different from a birth certificate. We could get a record of live birth immediately. It wasn't a birth certificate.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

I think he could be Earl of Dumbarton and use Mountbatten-Windsor at school. Whilst it's customary for peers to use their titles as their surname there are instances of the BRF using M-W (Prince William in the topless pics case IIRC). Louise is technically Mountbatten-Windsor but shortens it to just "Windsor" for every day use. I don't know what James uses at school.

To be fair the Telegraph article seems to cover all bases with some other sources claiming they didn't want a title and others claiming they were afraid that Charles was going to issue new LPs.

I went to school with someone who has a title and it wasn't used at all at school. Her parents used their titles on forms IIRC but all the children used the family name not their parents' title name at school.

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.

 

[Leopoldine]

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/

 

[ACO]

Harry was spotted at LAX. Seems he is on his way to the UK.

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.

Harry and Meghan haven't spoken a word about Dumbarton. Unless I missed it.

 

[Curryong]

Harry was spotted at LAX. Seems he is on his way to the UK.

Excellent news. He can isolate at FC for five days with Eugenie and family and then attend the statue unveiling, which I’m very much looking forward to.

 

[angieuk]

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

 

[Marengo]

Posts about the unveiling of the statue of the late Princess of Wales have been moved to this thread.

 

[Royalist.in.NC]

the thing is, that Harry himself said that he didn't like royal duties, didn't want to be meeting poorer people who were "free" while he wasn't, was "burned out" by being forced into all those tiresome tiring royal duties. So, well its kind of his own words that he doesn't really want to slog out there and do boring charity visits... I'm afraid that Its hard now not to feel that he has ruined himself and his image as a kindly if not very smart bloke... who did genuinely care for people. And he has abused most of his own family.. even if they WERE as bad to him as he makes out, there's nothing IMO to be gained from noisily trashing them on TV.
Maybe he'd say, if you asked him, that he "doesn't feel like that any more" and really enjoys what he's been doing in America.. (mostly IMO telling the world every time their charity makes a donation)... but he would have said, no doubt that he enjoyed the tours and the work with poorer people in his royal past. So how can one feel sure that he is genuine about committing to doing good?
I'm afraid there is an instinctive way they react, that shows how selfish they are.. when the free security from the Canadians dried up, they headed like homing pigeons to LA to borrow a house from some millionaire they didn't know, I gather.

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”?

 

[Kataryn]

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/

Wow, if that is so, it is definately a bad thing. Conditions like these are normally used to guard the publisher, agency etc. against material they didn't want but is send to them. But asking for submissions and then treat these like this is not good. It shows that they have no respect for the people whose stories they want to get.

 

[intothesea]

Whine vs whinge

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”?

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.