The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #5481  
Old 01-31-2021, 11:03 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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/royalt...dding-invites/
Then I have absolutely *no* idea at all.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #5482  
Old 01-31-2021, 11:07 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 3,978
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
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #5483  
Old 01-31-2021, 11:18 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #5484  
Old 01-31-2021, 11:44 AM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5485  
Old 01-31-2021, 12:15 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5486  
Old 01-31-2021, 01:03 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 2,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukari View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5487  
Old 01-31-2021, 01:34 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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/sussex...-story-155300/


Quote:
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.”
Reply With Quote
  #5488  
Old 01-31-2021, 02:04 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by TLLK View Post
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/sussex...-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?
Reply With Quote
  #5489  
Old 01-31-2021, 02:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,781
Actually, I liked the response the Sussexes gave.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #5490  
Old 01-31-2021, 02:38 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,784
So the Palace made the call to keep Meghan's name off.
Reply With Quote
  #5491  
Old 01-31-2021, 02:55 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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?
It's definitely raising more questions. All that really needed to be amended was correcting the line for father by adding the title "Prince."
Reply With Quote
  #5492  
Old 01-31-2021, 02:57 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 5,195
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
So the Palace made the call to keep Meghan's name off.
Or the couple chose to remove it after reviewing Harry's birth certificate and followed the example for the mother line. Until there's clarification, it's just speculation.
Reply With Quote
  #5493  
Old 02-01-2021, 12:01 AM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,002
That it was dictated by Buckingham Palace makes more sense but I must confess I am not the least bit surprised.

I wonder if the Sun, Daily Mail , or Lady Colin Campbell will issue apologies. They made all sorts comments on the couple's actions and characters without getting the full story.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #5494  
Old 02-01-2021, 12:30 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Madame Verseau View Post
So the Palace made the call to keep Meghan's name off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
That it was dictated by Buckingham Palace makes more sense but I must confess I am not the least bit surprised.

I wonder if the Sun, Daily Mail , or Lady Colin Campbell will issue apologies. They made all sorts comments on the couple's actions and characters without getting the full story.
I have to agree with Mbruno on the Sussex's response. I don't buy into the Sussexes response that Buckingham Palace dictate the decision. If so, why did George, Charlotte and Louis's birth certificate has not changed yet. Yes, I get that the Cambridges lived in Kensington Palace, but surely if there is a mistake in their Birth Certificates, KP would also have to amend theirs (George, Charlotte & Louis's).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
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?

I get how Harry's got "Prince" added to the father's section of Archie's birth certificate. It was a mistake back then and it is corrected to how William and Charles names were written. I don't see how "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex" is incorrect, given that it's how Catherine was written. I think it's really absurd that the BP would force Meghan to adopt a traditional naming system where women only carry her husband's name, whilst Catherine can still carried her first and middle names.

To me, the response sounds that the Sussex Communication Teams are just shifting the blame at Buckingham Palace and pushing the narrative that Meghan is a victim of the "oppressive and toxic" monarchy/royal family.

Don't get me wrong, I hated how the tabloid has spun this event as "Meghan snubbing the royal family" or "Meghan giving nods to Diana". However, I also dislike how the Sussex Communication Teams have to make digs at Buckingham Palace staff just to get back at the tabloid.
Reply With Quote
  #5495  
Old 02-01-2021, 12:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
Well, IMO if BP staff dictated these changes to Archie's Birth Certificate last June without publicly announcing anything and knowing full well how the British media were going to act when they found out, (as they do with anything connected with the Sussexes) then they should wear it.

The Sussex team would not tell an outright lie about something like that as BP might retaliate.

The Sussexes apparently also have copies of the documents sent to them by BP setting out the changes or the spokesperson would hardly have referenced these in the statement.
Reply With Quote
  #5496  
Old 02-01-2021, 01:14 AM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
I have to agree with Mbruno on the Sussex's response. I don't buy into the Sussexes response that Buckingham Palace dictate the decision. If so, why did George, Charlotte and Louis's birth certificate has not changed yet. Yes, I get that the Cambridges lived in Kensington Palace, but surely if there is a mistake in their Birth Certificates, KP would also have to amend theirs (George, Charlotte & Louis's).




I get how Harry's got "Prince" added to the father's section of Archie's birth certificate. It was a mistake back then and it is corrected to how William and Charles names were written. I don't see how "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex" is incorrect, given that it's how Catherine was written. I think it's really absurd that the BP would force Meghan to adopt a traditional naming system where women only carry her husband's name, whilst Catherine can still carried her first and middle names.

To me, the response sounds that the Sussex Communication Teams are just shifting the blame at Buckingham Palace and pushing the narrative that Meghan is a victim of the "oppressive and toxic" monarchy/royal family.

Don't get me wrong, I hated how the tabloid has spun this event as "Meghan snubbing the royal family" or "Meghan giving nods to Diana". However, I also dislike how the Sussex Communication Teams have to make digs at Buckingham Palace staff just to get back at the tabloid.
The Sussexes have every right to defend themselves (like other royals do) when the tabloids fictitiously write things about them. They said the mandate came from Buckingham Palace. Would you rather them lie or keep silent whilst people and the media draw their names through the mud?

I never believe Meghan would eliminate her given names from her child's birth certificate. Glad I was proved right.
Moreover, if Meghan is the vain individual that her detractors paint her to be ("MEghan..etc) erasing her name is completely at odds with that. Why would she chose to be some vague, nameless title.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #5497  
Old 02-01-2021, 01:17 AM
Alisa's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: , United States
Posts: 3,002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
Well, IMO if BP staff dictated these changes to Archie's Birth Certificate last June without publicly announcing anything and knowing full well how the British media were going to act when they found out, (as they do with anything connected with the Sussexes) then they should wear it. The Sussex team would hardly outright lie about something like that as BP could retaliate.
I agree that they should. However I doubt that they would as it would cast them in a negative light. People would comment on the different standards set for Catherine versus the one set for Meghan. Before you know it the "R" word would come up again.
__________________
Those who plot the destruction of others often perish in the attempt. ---Phaedrus
Reply With Quote
  #5498  
Old 02-01-2021, 03:06 AM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
The Sussexes have every right to defend themselves (like other royals do) when the tabloids fictitiously write things about them. They said the mandate came from Buckingham Palace. Would you rather them lie or keep silent whilst people and the media draw their names through the mud?
Other members of the royal family have nasty and false stories thrown at them and the Palace staffs do not always make announcement in shutting them down. Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie gets abhorrent treatment from the tabloid (ugly stepsisters, scroungers) and the Palace staff or their representative did not even intervene. Even when Camilla was styled as Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall (legally she is The Princess of Wales), she still got flack by the tabloids. Other Celebrities, politicians and public figures get more vitriolic abuse (media and members of the public) than the Royal Family members, yet some of them just brush it off or even make jokes about it. Some of them just say "Being in public life means you should be expecting stories you don't like, it's freedom of press".

Quote:
I never believe Meghan would eliminate her given names from her child's birth certificate. Glad I was proved right.
Moreover, if Meghan is the vain individual that her detractors paint her to be ("MEghan..etc) erasing her name is completely at odds with that. Why would she chose to be some vague, nameless title.
How do you know the Sussex communication is telling the truth?

I would not be so sure about the Sussex's statement or Palace statement by themselves, given that there were some inaccuracies in the past, when things are released. I would wait until there is more information released from the Palace and considered both sides of the argument
Reply With Quote
  #5499  
Old 02-01-2021, 03:06 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alisa View Post
The Sussexes have every right to defend themselves (like other royals do) when the tabloids fictitiously write things about them. They said the mandate came from Buckingham Palace. Would you rather them lie or keep silent whilst people and the media draw their names through the mud?

I never believe Meghan would eliminate her given names from her child's birth certificate. Glad I was proved right.
Moreover, if Meghan is the vain individual that her detractors paint her to be ("MEghan..etc) erasing her name is completely at odds with that. Why would she chose to be some vague, nameless title.

Because being married to a Prince is the reason why she achieved global fame?

Also, this comment from the DM says it all:

"As if Megs does what she's told by Buckingham Palace......"
Reply With Quote
  #5500  
Old 02-01-2021, 03:17 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,427
And the Palace never ever lies?

So the suggestion here is that the Sussexes are lying? An odd response in the statement to mention documents given to them by the Palace if so. If they then produce the documents sent to them by the officials then these same BP officials would then be shown up for what they are.

Meghan is known everywhere as Meghan Markle, a name the British tabloids still give her two and a half years after her wedding.

And as of June last year, if BP had asked for alterations to the birth certificate, a British document, then of course Meghan and Harry would have felt compelled to comply. As for comments in the Fail, they are just beyond the Pale.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, consort, duke of york, kate, princess beatrice, queenmother, spouse, styles and titles, titles uk styles


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Non-British Styles and Titles Lord Sosnowitz Royal Ceremony and Protocol 792 08-22-2021 12:16 PM
Abdication Beatrix and Inauguration WA: Titles, Names, Succession, Precedence Princess Robijn King Willem-Alexander, Queen Máxima and family 78 08-21-2021 07:14 AM
Diana's Styles and Titles florawindsor Diana, Princess of Wales (1961-1997) 894 11-26-2019 11:04 PM
Titles and Styles of Harry, his Future Wife and Children Aussie Princess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1897 11-29-2017 03:13 AM
Styles and Titles Nahla10 Ruling Family of Dubai 50 06-02-2017 02:28 PM




Popular Tags
american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britannia british british royal family camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries coronation crown jewels customs dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers meghan markle monarchists monarchy mongolia names pless politics portugal prince harry queen elizabeth ii queen victoria st edward sussex suthida thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:46 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×