Questions about British Styles and Titles 1: Ending 2022

[TLLK]

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."

 

[TLLK]

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.

 

[Alisa]

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.

 

[AC21091968]

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

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).

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.

 

[Curryong]

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.

 

[Alisa]

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.

 

[Alisa]

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.

 

[AC21091968]

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".

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

 

[RandyDrx]

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......"

 

[Curryong]

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.

 

[AC21091968]

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.

I have mentioned in my previous post (Post #5498) that both Palace staffs and Sussex communication teams have made mistakes before or release statements that are unclear or contradictory to their own previous announcements. Two obvious (and most talk to death) examples are titles of the Wessex children (Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn) and Princess Eugenie (after her wedding in 2018).

In regards to changing birth certificate or birth registration registration, the UK government website mentioned that you can only applied for correction of birth registration if the information is wrong.

What corrections can be made
You can apply for a birth registration correction when the information is wrong - for example if a mistake was made when recording a parent’s occupation.

You cannot apply for a correction to show new information if circumstances change after you’ve registered your child’s birth, for example if you change your name after getting married again.

However, you can apply to re-register the birth if the natural parents get married at a later date.

After the correction (if the application is approved), there will be a note added to the margin of the full birth certificate, which shows the correct information and when the correction is made. The original information will always be shown in the register. I guess the note is the photograph of the Harry and Meghan's name change from the Sun's article.

What the correction looks like
If your application is approved, a correction is made in the register in the office for the area where your child was born.

The original information will always be shown in the register. After the correction has been authorised, a note will be added to the margin of the register. This will explain what the correct information is and when the correction was made.

All full birth certificates that are issued after the correction will include the note in the margin.

Short birth certificates only include the child’s details and will not have a note in the margin - they just show any correct new details.

https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration

Only the father and mother could applied for correction of birth registration, which means the application (of correction on birth registration) should theoretically be filed (or at least signed) by Harry and Meghan themselves.

Who can apply
The following people can apply for a correction:

• the mother
• the father (if his details are on the certificate)

If you’re applying to change a child’s name and both parents are named on the certificate, both must sign the application form.

The child named on the certificate may be able to apply for a correction if their parents are not available.

https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/who-can-apply

Along with filling the application form of "correct details on a birth registration", the father and mother need to send in documents to proof that the information given at the time of registration is wrong. The documents should be valid at the time when the child was born

Proving the registration is wrong
You’ll need to show that the information given at the time of the registration was wrong. You must send in documents with your application that show what the correct information should have been. These documents should be valid or dated around the time your child was born.

Documents you can send in include a:

• passport
• photocard driving licence
• bank, building society or credit card statement
• letter from a hospital or doctor
• letter from a government department

If you are not able to send in proof, corrections cannot usually be made.

All certified copies sent with the application will be destroyed if you do not ask for them to be returned.

https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/how-to-apply

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And the Palace never ever lies? [...] 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.

The Palace declined to comment on the Sussexes' statement. I am not sure how "no comment" could be a lie.

The Sussexes have every right to defend themselves (like other royals do) when the tabloids fictitiously write things about them.

Per the statement issued by the Sussexes themselves, the written facts were not fictitious. The birth certificate was in fact amended (to add "Prince" and remove "Rachel Meghan").

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?

If so, why did George, Charlotte and Louis's birth certificate has not changed yet. [...] I don't see how "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex" is incorrect, given that it's how Catherine was written.

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.

The birth certificates of the Cambridge children may very well have been amended in the same manner (and my guess would be that they have been). The original news story was silent on the subject of the Cambridge birth certificates.

The amendment to the birth certificate of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor was reported only because it was "spotted" by Lady Colin Campbell. Assuming that Lady Colin was conducting research into the Sussexes and not the Cambridges, I suppose she would not have spotted any amendments made to the birth certificates of the Cambridge children.

 

[RandyDrx]

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.

I'm not saying they haven't, but Harry and Meghan do have a tendency to leak stuff to the media via Omid Scobie or Sunshine Sachs, because they know the palace most of the time won't comment because of the "never complain, never explain" policy, that's why many people weren't surprised when Meghan admitted that she gave private information to the authors of FF via a third party.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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/

The full statement further states that the change was "was not requested by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex nor by The Duke of Sussex".

The change of name on public documents in 2019 was dictated by The Palace, as confirmed by documents from senior Palace officials. This was not requested by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex nor by The Duke of Sussex. 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.

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

We have debated before whether the monarch possesses the authority to dictate the legal names of her family members. I have argued in the past that she did, given that this seems to be the understanding of most British royal watchers, but other members here have convinced me to be more skeptical.

That is the reason why the mention in the Sussexes' statement of having "documents from senior Palace officials" is interesting. If we assume, like most British royal watchers, that the monarch is entitled to amend the legal name of her grandson and granddaughter-in-law, one would expect the senior Palace officials could send documents requesting the name change directly to the civil register office.

But in reality the "senior Palace officials" apparently sent their "documents" to the Sussexes themselves, and that suggests it was legally up to the Sussexes to request the alterations to their names.

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.

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 suspect AC21091968 was referring to the additional details in the statement. It plainly asserts that the Duchess of Sussex saw the request from Buckingham Palace to remove her given names from the birth certificate as "odd", saying "To [...] suggest that she would oddly want to be nameless on her child’s birth certificate, or any other legal document". (As earlier posts observed, it would not be odd in terms of precedent, given that the Princess of Wales and the Duchess of York were both "nameless" in the birth certificates of their children.) The statement further makes the point with the use of "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex", including her given name (whereas Harry is styled as simply The Duke of Sussex).

Many of the posts in this discussion have taken note of the words "dictated by The Palace". If the phrasing creates an impression that the Palace was dictatorial, that would seem to be an embellishment, since the couple apparently agreed to the Palace's request at the time. But the term may merely be expressing that the couple were taking dictation, so to speak.

 

[Queen Claude]

It would be interesting to see if the birth certificates of the Cambridge children have been altered.

George and Charlotte's birth certificates are handwritten and my recollection is that William completed George's birth certificate and Charlotte's is in the same handwriting. So it seems like William (understandably IMO) took it upon himself to include his wife's name on the birth certificate although technically she is The Duchess of Cambridge.

This "precedent" was set in 2013, continued in 2015 with Charlotte and 2018 with Louis.

When Archie was born in 2019, Harry followed the precedent set by William's and then, according to the statement, altered it a few weeks later based on a "dictate" from "The Palace". I can totally believe that someone from "The Palace" contacted the Sussexes and told them what the "correct" way was to address themselves. What I wonder is if "The Palace" did the same thing to William back in 2013 and he to them to naff off while The Sussexes chose to comply.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

It would be interesting to see if the birth certificates of the Cambridge children have been altered.

George and Charlotte's birth certificates are handwritten and my recollection is that William completed George's birth certificate and Charlotte's is in the same handwriting. So it seems like William (understandably IMO) took it upon himself to include his wife's name on the birth certificate although technically she is The Duchess of Sussex.

This "precedent" was set in 2013, continued in 2015 with Charlotte and 2018 with Louis.

When Archie was born in 2019, Harry followed the precedent set by William's and then, according to the statement, altered it a few weeks later based on a "dictate" from "The Palace". I can totally believe that someone from "The Palace" contacted the Sussexes and told them what the "correct" way was to address themselves. What I wonder is if "The Palace" did the same thing to William back in 2013 and he to them to naff off while The Sussexes chose to comply.

The handwriting document is the registering of the birth, the source for the birth certificate.
A birth certificate is the document which is issued by the municipal registry.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When Archie was born in 2019, Harry followed the precedent set by William's and then, according to the statement, altered it a few weeks later based on a "dictate" from "The Palace". I can totally believe that someone from "The Palace" contacted the Sussexes and told them what the "correct" way was to address themselves. What I wonder is if "The Palace" did the same thing to William back in 2013 and he to them to naff off while The Sussexes chose to comply.

Your theory would account for the timing of the (known) request occurring in 2019 rather than in 2013. Another possibility is that the usage of the wives' forenames was not considered worth the effort of "correcting" in its own right, in which case the missing "Prince" would have been the incentive for Buckingham Palace to contact the Sussexes with the request that they apply for a correction to Archie's birth registration in 2019, with the modification to Meghan's name being added as a convenience.

I find it somewhat odd that the Palace apparently considers it incorrect for the wives to make use of their forenames in legal documents, but not for the husbands. If Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales was the correct form to address the princess in a legal document, surely her husband should have been addressed in the same document as His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales, rather than His Royal Highness Prince Charles Philip Arthur George Prince of Wales?

 

[Somebody]

Would it make any difference whether the mother is a UK citizen or a US citizen? I wonder what legal document was used to alter Meghan's name on the birth certificate; as apparently normally a passport is used (according to the information about what to bring if you want changes made) but her US passport won't say 'HRH The Duchess of Sussex'.

 

[Mbruno]

I have mentioned in my previous post (Post #5498) that both Palace staffs and Sussex communication teams have made mistakes before or release statements that are unclear or contradictory to their own previous announcements. Two obvious (and most talk to death) examples are titles of the Wessex children (Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn) and Princess Eugenie (after her wedding in 2018).

In regards to changing birth certificate or birth registration registration, the UK government website mentioned that you can only applied for correction of birth registration if the information is wrong.



After the correction (if the application is approved), there will be a note added to the margin of the full birth certificate, which shows the correct information and when the correction is made. The original information will always be shown in the register. I guess the note is the photograph of the Harry and Meghan's name change from the Sun's article.


https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration

Only the father and mother could applied for correction of birth registration, which means the application (of correction on birth registration) should theoretically be filed (or at least signed) by Harry and Meghan themselves.


https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/who-can-apply

Along with filling the application form of "correct details on a birth registration", the father and mother need to send in documents to proof that the information given at the time of registration is wrong. The documents should be valid at the time when the child was born


https://www.gov.uk/correct-birth-registration/how-to-apply

Two facts stand out from your very informative post:


1) Only the parents can apply for a birth certificate correction. So the version that the correction was "dictated" by the Palace doesn't seem credible unless Harry and Meghan willingly agreed to it.


2) The omission of "Prince" before Harry's given names was definitely an error that warranted correction. I don't see how the inclusion of Meghan's given names before HRH The Duchess of Sussex could be construed as an error. If it is, why is the Palace not demanding a correction to George's birth certificate also?

 

[Alisa]

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".



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

In the same way that a palace spokesman issues a statement to clarify or post the official word when false, fictitious, and inaccurate information is being spread. ..Harry & Meghan have every right to do the same.

I chose to believe the couple as there is no reason to lie and no benefit to having a de-personalized style and title on the birth certificate.

 

[Claire]

I am afraid really nothing about this makes sense -
there doesn't seem to have been a actually reason to change the document.
I would like to see the actually birth certificate and the Cambridge and Wessex's ones as it does seem that no-one follows the same guidelines. SO why make a change to something so remotely indifferent?
All it does is fuel more conspiracy theories about Archie's birth - something I would think that both the Sussex's and the Palace would realize.

 

[AC21091968]

In the same way that a palace spokesman issues a statement to clarify or post the official word when false, fictitious, and inaccurate information is being spread. ..Harry & Meghan have every right to do the same.

I chose to believe the couple as there is no reason to lie and no benefit to having a de-personalized style and title on the birth certificate.

Except the Palace spokesperson defends royal family members and royal family as a whole. On most occasions, the statements have been diplomatic and were the last resort to use in order to shut down rumours or fake news. The Sussex communication teams however, only defends Harry and Meghan, were used frequently at every opportunity and do not appear diplomatic (in this case throwing the complete blame at Buckingham Palace staff). The Palace staff and Sussex communication teams are different.

Harry & Meghan can take the high road by just ignoring what the tabloid have been publishing about them, like some public figures do. Instead they have reinforces the narrative that they want censorship of the press and online forum (as evident in Harry's call for social media platform to crackdown on hate speech, or just "ideas they disagree"). Again, I abhorred what the tabloids (The Sun, Daily Mail and Daily Mirror) have spun the narrative, but I do not believe in suppression of speech nor would I waste my times or giving them revenue by reading them (when they reported on the Royal Family).

Judging from the UK government website (which is very reliable), only the father and mother themselves could file for application to correct the child's birth registration and birth certificate. And they would also have to provide documents to prove that the details were wrong in the first place. So ultimately, it's up to Harry and Meghan to lodge the correction application. The argument that "the Palace staff dictates the correction" is out of the window if Harry and Meghan choose to follow the Palace staff's direction rather than reject it. This is why I remained very sceptical on what the Sussex communication team have released and considered them as PR rather than the "true fact".

 

[Curryong]

People can and do fill in forms and papers in connection with government regulations at the direction of others, and do so all the time, without necessarily beginning the process themselves or wishing to alter whatever information they have already given.

There seems to be a determination to show the Sussexes and their team to be liars. However, Buckingham Palace oversees everything that royals do in every aspect of their lives. We know this. And this would be especially so when a senior member of the royal Family fills out documents.

If it was determined by them that Harry had filled out the original birth certificate 'improperly' and not in the same way as say his father had for his birth and his brother's, then I can well imagine officials at BP sending documents/forms to the Sussexes with 'suggestions' as to the 'correct procedure'. And the Sussexes would then have shaken their heads but complied, reluctantly.

We don't know either whether any of the birth certificates for the Cambridge children have been amended, 'corrected', brought into unison, in the same way.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the idea of the mother having her names and title was an issue surely it would have been picked up with George's rather than repeated with both Charlotte's and Louis' before Archie was born?

 

[Curryong]

But we don't know whether the Cambridge children's birth certificates were amended, perhaps at the same time as Archie's. All we've seen are the originals, filled in by William.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ging-name-archies-birth-certificate-dictated/

On Sunday, Buckingham Palace sources suggested that a "clerical error and nothing more than that" was to blame for the alteration to Archie’s certificate.​

The Palace's "suggestion" seems undeservedly negative towards the employees of the register office. Whether the original registration documents were submitted to the register office by the Duke of Sussex in person or by a Buckingham Palace official, I would imagine that any clerk transcribing the information submitted for the registration of a royal child would be careful not to make mistakes.

Would it make any difference whether the mother is a UK citizen or a US citizen? I wonder what legal document was used to alter Meghan's name on the birth certificate; as apparently normally a passport is used (according to the information about what to bring if you want changes made) but her US passport won't say 'HRH The Duchess of Sussex'.

Perhaps it does? The linked article states:

The Telegraph understands that the Duchess of Sussex altered all her official documents - including her US passport - following her marriage.​

 

[AC21091968]

Russell Myers, Royal Editor of the Daily Mirror (A tabloid, hence should be taken a pinch of salt) has written an article lining up the sequence of events (some are just allegation). The article is written in first person and colloquial.

The omission of 'Prince' alongside Harry’s name was simple enough to correct , a challenge us mere mortals will thankfully not have to contend with, although particularly important for historical record one could argue.

Latterly was Meghan’s alteration, but on first examination the original document appears to be entirely accurate.

The entry read ‘Rachel Meghan, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex’.

The amendment, which garnered the attention of the royal sleuths, saw Meghan's names dropped in favour of stylising the former actress simply as 'Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex'.

Within hours, palace sources attempted to quell the initial outcry, with the suggestion that both changes were down to “clerical error and nothing more than that".

But no sooner had daylight broken on the West Coast of America, Meghan has instructed her spokesmen to publish an extraordinary rebuke of the Palace, suggesting it was they who “dictated” the amendments, while calling out “senior Palace officials” as the culprits.

Royal sources have revealed this has been met with a sense of “bewilderment” in the Palace.

One royal source revealed to me that Meghan ordered her staff to make the change to Archie's birth certificate in order to "to fall in line with amendments she'd already made to her passport".

The amendment was made by Meghan and Harry's personal team when they had their own staff based at Kensington Palace, who in turn reported to Buckingham Palace, so the sharp rebuke of "the Palace" makes even less sense.

However, courtiers have diplomatically suggested the tone of Meghan's statement from her spokesman was "somewhat unfortunate". One aide revealed: "There is no set protocol with these things.

The birth certificate is a civic document so there are options on how it is filled out. "The language used suggesting it was 'the Palace' who 'dictated' it is somewhat unfortunate, as it certainly wasn't addressed like that.

"The statement and its wording poses more questions than it answers unfortunately."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-ne...r.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

 

[TLLK]

Russell Myers, Royal Editor of the Daily Mirror (A tabloid, hence should be taken a pinch of salt) has written an article lining up the sequence of events (some are just allegation). The article is written in first person and colloquial.






https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-ne...r.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

So if I read this correctly, Meghan wanted to alter the mother's line on the the birth certificate so it would reflect the changes that had been made to her passport.

Royal sources have revealed this has been met with a sense of “bewilderment” in the Palace.

One royal source revealed to me that Meghan ordered her staff to make the change to Archie's birth certificate in order to "to fall in line with amendments she'd already made to her passport".

The amendment was made by Meghan and Harry's personal team when they had their own staff based at Kensington Palace, who in turn reported to Buckingham Palace, so the sharp rebuke of "the Palace" makes even less sense.

 

[Curryong]

Meghan never said in hers and Harry's statement that it was Buckingham Palace who dictated the changes to Archie's birth certificate. It was the media, including social media, who concluded that it was Buckingham Palace she was referring to, and not KP.

Also it's worth remembering that senior staff at KP have to regularly report on all relevant happenings to a senior official of the Household at BP. They were certainly doing so when the Sussexes were still at KP.

[.....]

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[.....]

[.....]
It was the statement issued by the spokesperson for the Sussexes, not the statement from the anonymous source, which used the potentially negative term "odd" to describe one of the amendments made to the birth certificate.

So if I read this correctly, Meghan wanted to alter the mother's line on the the birth certificate so it would reflect the changes that had been made to her passport.

One royal source revealed to me that Meghan ordered her staff to make the change to Archie's birth certificate in order to "to fall in line with amendments she'd already made to her passport".

It is interesting that at the time Princess Madeleine of Sweden married Christopher O'Neill, a dual citizen of the US and UK, a considerable number of royal watchers insisted that as a US citizen he was not allowed to even share the titles of his wife by courtesy, let alone use them legally. (Ultimately, the King and Mr. O'Neill decided that he would remain untitled.) Clearly, those speculations were incorrect.