Duchess Meghan & the curious case of Archie’s birth certificate: a racist royal mystery!

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, pose with their newborn son

This weekend, there was a completely bizarre surge of nonsensical royal stories, mostly old stuff which has been “newly rediscovered” or regurigitated stories with some new and stupid twist. This story is all of the above. It seems that HRH Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex, took her name (but not her title) off of Archie’s birth certificate. She did this in 2019, and the royal commentators are trying to make Meghan sound like she was being purposefully awful, or like she was trying to “snub” Duchess Kate. It’s the weirdest thing.

Harry and Meghan secretly erased her first names from son Archie’s birth papers. “Rachel Meghan” was taken out to leave just “Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex”. The unprecedented move could be seen as a snub to the Cambridges who have included Kate’s names on her children’s certificates. It may also be viewed as Harry aligning his wife with mum Di, who always used “Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales”.

Archie was born on May 6, 2019, and his birth was registered on May 17. The change was made on June 5 amid rumours of a growing rift between Harry, brother William and their partners. Days later, the Sussexes walked away from the Fab Four’s joint charity. Within months they quit royal life.

The Queen’s ex-press secretary Dickie Arbiter said: “Maybe this was an early part of their plan.”

Lady Colin Campbell, who spotted the amendment, said: “It is extraordinary and raises all kinds of questions about what the Sussexes were thinking.”

Expert Ingrid Seward said: “For a royal to change a birth certificate is unprecedented but to remove forenames is remarkable. Perhaps this is another sign they were desperate to do something different to the Cambridges.”

[From The Sun]

In case you were wondering how in the world this could be interpreted as a “snub” of William and Kate, Kate is listed on her children’s birth certificates as “Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge,” and her occupation is listed as “Princess of the United Kingdom.” Meghan’s occupation is also listed the same way on Archie’s birth certificate, but almost one month exactly after Archie was born, the Sussexes went back and changed the birth certificate so that it merely had Meghan’s royal title. My first thought was that there are set rules about names and titles appearing on legal documents like a birth certificate, and it’s not like Meghan was making this decision solo. As it turns out, Meghan was (justifiably) pissed off about this particular story and the royal reporters unhinged suggestion that Archie’s birth certificate would be in any way a “snub” of g–damn Kate. Meghan issued this statement through her rep:

“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 this U.K. 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.”

[Meghan’s statement via ET Canada]

Yep. As I said, these decisions aren’t made alone in a room, by just the parents, especially in royal situations. It sounds like when Archie was born, Harry and Meghan did copy what Kate and William had done for their kids’ birth certificates, then the palace made them go back after a month and edit out Meghan’s name. Which is racist and dehumanizing – the Black duchess wasn’t allowed to PUT HER NAME on her son’s birth certificate, and that was dictated to the Sussexes by the Palace. That alone should have been the story, but then some idiots in the royal commentary group decided to make this racist curiosity into their normal dumbf–k melodrama. Meghan SNUBBED Kate by… being the victim racists!

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, pose with their newborn son

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, pose with their newborn son

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

245 Responses to “Duchess Meghan & the curious case of Archie’s birth certificate: a racist royal mystery!”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Elizabeth Regina says:

    Of all the low down rotten dirty things that family has done, this takes the cake. That vile family is in steady decline and it will take a miracle to get them back on track as they are unintelligent, lazy and tone deaf. Wow.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I shouldn’t be shocked by this by now – but I still am. The Palace really did have her name erased on her own child’s birth certificate! They really really wanted her erased from the royal family. This is so fucking gross. It really makes me wonder what other insanely gross racist shit Meghan was subjected to by the Palace. I think they would never have left it it was only the press that was the issue. I think things were really bad behind the scenes – both with the other royals and their staff.

      • Tasz says:

        Can I ask a dumb question? The statement from the Duchess says “public”. Then goes on to mention legal documents. Is it possible that the carnival clowns are referring to a publically released summary and not the actual legal birth certificate? The Dim surely loves its clickbait.

      • Nic919 says:

        I think we are starting to find out more of the “if you only knew what I knew” that Harry had stated during the South Africa interview.

        There is just no excuse to justify this. It’s dehumanizing and since they was only applied to Meghan it’s beyond racist.

      • anotherlily says:

        Taz – In the UK all registered birth certificates are public documents and anyone can get a copy. There will also be the original certificate given to Harry when he registered Archie’s birth. Some of the royal birth certicates are available online if you google for them, which I did. Those for William,Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie all follow the protocol applicable to royal mothers who are royal by marriage but not by birth. The mothers are HRH and ‘Princess of the United Kingdom’ is their occupation. However, only a born royal can include her own names with HRH. This is why Prince Michael’s wife is Princess Michael and not Princess Marie Christine. Her husband is the younger brother of the Duke of Kent and has no other title.

        Diana and Sarah followed the protocol and their own names are not included. They would have had no choice. William, to his credit, put ‘Catherine Elizabeth’ in front of the HRH which is also a breach of protocol but not a serious breach since it isn’t implying royal birth. Harry did exactly the same for Meghan. However the Palace response was to ‘dictate’ an amendment and remove ‘Rachel Meghan’ from the official record. Meghan has now made it clear that this was done against her own and Harry’s wishes.

        There are legal implications. AFAIK this has never happened before. The Cambridges broke with tradition and used a new format for including the mother’s Christian names. And that was OK. The Sussexes followed with the same format. And that was not OK. In their case the mother has her Christian names removed, without her consent. A difference between the two mothers is that one is British and white and one is American with a black heritage. It fits the legal definition of racial discrimination. Meghan’s situation is the same as Kate’s but Meghan has been treated less favourably in that situation.

        The implications are shocking. There are resonances of slavery in the action of removing someone’s names.

        I’m no lawyer but I can see a number of grounds for legal action against ‘The Palace’. The Queen herself cannot be prosecuted or sued but those working for her can face legal action. Also, the Queen’s conduct in this could be used as evidence that she is no longer able to fulfil her duties.

        I have the impression that this particular piece of news didn’t emerge by accident. There could be several serious issues in the pipeline and the Palace is leaking distorted information to the tabloids in an effort to prevent or prejudice action by the Sussexes.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It may be protocol and tradition that only the mother’s title is added (unless she is a blood royal). However, it is dehumanizing and archaic – as well as confusing since in this day and age even royals divorce. If Andrew remarried then there’d be a new Duchess of York who isn’t the mother of his daughters who only have the title Duchess of York listed as mother on their birth certificates. So there’s so many reasons for chucking this particular royal tradition in the bin.

      • notasugarhere says:

        FYI Philip’s first name isn’t on his children’s birth certificates. He’s listed as HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

      • Noodle says:

        @anotherlily, thank you for the detailed explanation

      • Tasz says:

        @AnotherLily – Thank you for the crash course in royal birth certificates. I was confused.

      • Ann says:

        Shocking, and so perfectly symbolic of all of it. It’s like the British version of the “Obama Faked His Birth Certificate” conspiracy theory on which Trump built his political brand. Dehumanizing.

      • molly says:

        @anotherlily- thank you! That’s exactly the explainer I was hoping to find.

      • Boxy Lady says:

        @notasugarhere That’s crazy! I know he had to denounce his royal connections to Greece and Denmark before he married then Princess Elizabeth and pledge fealty to the UK but he’s just as much a descendant of Queen Victoria as his wife is. Apparently, this BRF BS of erasure has been going on for decades but oh yay , it’s not just the women. <>

      • Becks1 says:

        @anotherlily – thanks for the explanation and you really did hit the nail on the head – this paragraph:

        T”here are legal implications. AFAIK this has never happened before. The Cambridges broke with tradition and used a new format for including the mother’s Christian names. And that was OK. The Sussexes followed with the same format. And that was not OK. In their case the mother has her Christian names removed, without her consent. A difference between the two mothers is that one is British and white and one is American with a black heritage. It fits the legal definition of racial discrimination. Meghan’s situation is the same as Kate’s but Meghan has been treated less favourably in that situation.”

        Meghan has been treated differently than Kate in this specific situation and the only thing that I can think of for that is because Meghan is black and Kate is white.

        This looks really bad for the royals and saying its a “clerical error” is not going to make it go away.

      • Nic919 says:

        The protocol has to be applied consistently or it should not be applied at all. Either they remove Kate’s names from Cambridge kids certificates or they fix Meghan’s. A birth certificate is a legal document and removing a mother’s given names is ridiculous. It’s a common law country and just getting married is not a legal name change. You assume a married name out of custom but in most common law countries the woman’s legal name is still the one she was born with unless she changed her birth certificate. Drivers licences and passports make provisions for changing a name due to marriage but that’s why you need to show a marriage certificate because it’s one of the few documents that lets you use a name outside of the one you were born with. (Or changed legally later on).

        Therefore it was only ever a nonsense custom to simply place the title and not the given names even when they did it for Diana, Fergie and I guess Phillip.

        (Civil law countries operate different and Quebec as well)

      • HeyJude says:

        She should get it amended again to return it, but this time under occupation she should put- Racial equality activist and Princess of the the United Kingdom.

        What are the palace shrews gonna do now? Kick them out of the family? They already left their crazy asses.

      • April Ward says:

        Thanks for the detailed explanation!!!

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Thanks for saying my thoughts. I spent all of yesterday completely incensed over this matter and I hate when I allow myself to let these losers get me that way. If I had been anywhere near anyone royal yesterday who knows what I would have been guilty of. They refuse to just let this woman get on with her life, it’s become like an addiction to incite hate against her and something needs to be done. If a boyfriend/husband or girlfriend/wife attacked someone with such regularity they would be brought up on charges, yet these so-called reporters are allowed to just spew and spew with zero consequences.

    • Myra says:

      Not only was the Palace racist in erasing a black woman from her own child’s birth certificate, but then to have the media twist this story to make Meghan, a victim of the Palace’s racism, the villain in all this. Of course, they had to make it appear as a snub to the Aryan Princess.

      Many people try to point to xenophobia, classism and sexism as the source of all this hatred/smear campaign, but it all comes down to racism, in my opinion. They’ve done everything to erase her existence in that family. I hope history remembers how the first biracial princess in the BRF was treated.

      • Nyro says:

        It’s all about race at its core and the fact that she shatters their white supremacy myth. She is far and away better, superior, than all of them. There’s not a thing any onvoting of them has over her. Nothing, from the queen on down. Her very existence alone is a threat to their racist worldview. It’s the Obamas all over again. And like the Obamas, Meghan will indeed come out on top. We’re already seeing the fruits. This is not going to end like the BRF, the BM, and the royalist haters think it will. The grave they’ve been digging for her and Harry is actually going to end up being the resting place of the British monarchy.

    • Nev says:


      They keep on getting lower.

      Go on Duchess.

    • My Two Cents says:

      An update on the Telegraph late on Sunday stated that a KP source said it simply a ‘clerical error’ and nothing more… so that was all they would say. The weird question is why would a 2019 document become news now? why now if not to try to distract from Kate’s exhaustion? and then why would KP not come forward to say it was an error as soon as this ‘news’ hit the news cycle and people were blaming Meghan for, I don’t even know what? plotting to leave from the beginning? it makes no sense to me, but people (Dickie Arbiter) had opinions. They of course did nothing until the Sussex spokesperson came forward. Disgusting behaviour, as always!

      • Becks1 says:

        What was the clerical error – the correction? Because that takes some nerve to say that “oh we went back and changed the birth certificate but that was just a clerical error.” and if what Harry originally wrote was the clerical error – then why wasnt the same true for William and what he wrote for the Cambridge kids?

      • Nic919 says:

        A clerical error is a vague response. Either it was an error to remove her name, or it is an error that Kate’s name is still on. So an intrepid journalist should make another FOI and sort this out.

      • Harper says:

        Saying it’s a clerical error is a way of trivializing the offense. It is just another way that the palace is continuing to other Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex and mother of the Queen’s great-grandchild.

      • My Two Cents says:

        The MIrror now states, ‘Meghan’s extraordinary rebuke of the Palace has caused bewilderment’…. Is this the same bewilderment that Prince Andrew had when the FBI insisted he hadn’t spoken to them ?

        ‘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.’

        They are so fucked up! First they admit it’s a clerical error again, then they say try to blame Meghan again?

      • Lady D says:

        Why did they go to KP for an explanation? Did not the edict come from BP? Another example of William sticking his nose in where it doesn’t belong.

      • Nic919 says:

        No US passport permits royal titles for identification so whatever royal courtier made up that bs is utterly ignorant of the US and why that country was even formed.

        They are just looking for a way to explain why this was done to Meghan but not Kate.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      You know what’s really interesting? The Palace did that to Diana as well.

      Diana, Kate, Meghan, but only Kate gets her name on her kids’ birth certificates.
      Hmm… wonder why that would be… maybe because both Diana and Meghan were hated by the courtiers and the Family from the very beginning of their associations with the BRF?

      • Nic919 says:

        I think it was because William wouldn’t be challenged on what he does and it was a silly custom to not include a woman’s given names in the first place. That the palace was petty enough to force a change for Meghan, conveniently ignoring that Harry did what his brother had already done three times, tells you how short sighted the palace courtiers are. And of course racist too.

    • This is repulsive. And the tabloid response is repulsive. More evidence for why they chose to walk away.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Not just the royal family, but these three despicable individuals who tried to spin this as a criticism of Harry and Meghan:

      The Queen’s ex-press secretary Dickie Arbiter;
      Lady Colin Campbell; and
      Ingrid Seward

      Arbiter, Campbell, and Seward have outed themselves as racist, uninformed, vicious liars.

      • Dollycoa says:

        Exactly. I bet they’re reeling from that slap in the face, after decades of never being questioned when they print rubbish and leaks pitting one side against the other or basically make stuff up. It couldn’t happen to a better bunch of people than those obsquious sycophants who dont have an original thought in their head. They are just performing monkeys for the Royals.

  2. Persephone says:

    Wow…anything to sell the story of poor, beleaguered Kate the victim.

  3. Belli says:

    This was such a weird story, especially since it happened in 2019 and is coming out now (nothing to do with Kate’s tragic exhaustion, I’m sure). It does look like they did Archie’s birth certificate in the same form as the Cambridges (reasonable). Why the palace told them to change it though… well, we know why. The royals were so pressed that Meghan got pregnant and it looks like they wanted to erase her in any way they could.

    I appreciate the tone of the Sussexes’ note though. I didn’t think they could be any more Done than they already were, but “carnival of so-called experts” is exquisite.

    • Vavavoom says:

      It’s DISGUSTING! I’m actually quite angry here reading about this. Poor Meghan.. and Archie. And Harry. I’m so proud of him for standing by and defending his family.

      As for “carnival of so-called experts”… that’s right up there with “basket of deplorables” for me. Gold.

  4. VS says:

    All of this because Duchess Melania said she was exhausted….the spokesperson killed it with “carnival of so-called ‘experts’” … that’s such an appropriate name for those gossipers trying to pass off as ‘journalists’

    • Noki says:

      Who is their Spokesperson???Ha their wording is fantastic🤣

      • Harper says:

        I’m thinking that wording is straight out of Meghan’s mouth. Carnival of experts is probably what she called them under her breath from royal day one. Now she’s just calling them that to their face. I hope we continue to get more glorious clap back from her.

      • Ania says:

        I hope the spokeperson is Meghan and she decided to show the Palace that this is enough and she’s not playing.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      #exhaustiongate has exposed more than they bargained for. The House of Windsor is on its last legs. So happy the ‘carnival of so called experts’ are exposing themselves.

    • Ginger says:

      Kate needs to grow up and deal with the fallout every time she says or does something stupid. She needs to quit throwing Meghan to the wolves. Her statement clearly says she will not be used as a scapegoat anymore. Kate is such a weak women, my God.

      • Becks1 says:

        Its really disturbing to think that KP or whoever was sitting on this birth certificate story and decided to leak it this weekend to distract from Kate’s “exhausted” blunder. What else are they sitting on to use as distractions every time Kate messes up?

    • Nana says:

      I just read that as ‘graspers trying to pass off as “journalists”‘, which is basically the same thing anyway…

    • UK tabloids and their ‘carnival of so-called experts’……I absolutely loved the Sussexes statement! The 👑🐀Rota and those kiss ass ‘commenters’ are really sucking at the bottom of the barrel now aren’t they? I hope the Sussexes sue them for damages.

    • Lady D says:

      @VS, Where the statement says “it would be laughable were it not so offensive” is that Meghan talking directly to BP? I would just love it if the queen thought she was talking to her and her palace rats.

    • FicklePickle says:

      Oooooohohoho yes. And we all know what populates carnivals…well, aside from screaming children and people that paid too much for a funnel cake 8 inches across covered in a mountain of whipped cream bigger than their head.

      I just mean, now I have a well-mannered means of calling people clowns. I love it!

  5. Noki says:

    So they removed her named and just left her title,like Archie doesnt have an actual mother just a vessel that birthed him. I am rather shocked that they agreed,it seems like they wanted to make it clear that should anything happen Archie will belong to the RF.

    • Nao says:

      “,it seems like they wanted to make it clear that should anything happen Archie will belong to the RF.”

      That’s how I read it as well. Their tittle on the birth certificate, their child. To order that the name of a child’s mother be removed from his birth certificate is diabolical.

    • Carmen-JamRock says:

      Who said they agreed? In fact, H&M’s statement specifically said it was DICTATED by the palace
      (and btw, they hv proof of this.) The statement said specifically: “….this was not requested by [Meghan] or [Harry.]” And it said further: “…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.”

      BTW, after H&M legal team issued that statement, the palace said it was a “clerical error.” Tal abt raising MORE questions!

      • I’d like to see that ‘clerical error’ investigated. The Sussex statement is CRYSTAL clear that the Sussexes have the receipts to prove it was done against their wishes and by Buckingham Palace. I say bring it, Meghan…..call those asses out by name.

    • Amy Too says:

      And then to try to twist it and make it seem like Meghan changed it because she already wanted to leave the family. In that case, wouldn’t she have changed it to just say “Rachel Meghan Markle”? Why would she take out her personal info and just leave the “royal” parts if she wanted to leave the royal family? That makes no sense and for them to even try to spin it like it does is horrible and it just shows how evil they are, how far they will go to slander her.

    • FC says:

      The agony she must have felt when they did this, my god. No wonder they GTFO.

      I hate speculating on pregnancy, but I’m praying Meghan is secretly pregnant right now and we don’t hear from her until after she gives birth. Giant f-you to that family and the press.

      • bloemheks says:

        It would be interesting to see what a US birth certificate would look like if they have another child. Titles aren’t recognized. When they are included in legal documents they are ignored. Undoubtedly her full name, Rachel Meghan Markle will be listed as the mother.

  6. Amy Bee says:

    It must have been devastating for Meghan and Harry for the Palace to tell them, soon after Archie’s birth, that they had to take her name off his birth certificate. I hope they can get to put Meghan’s name back on the birth certificate. It was clearly case of trying to erase Meghan from the record books. Diana’s name was also not allowed on her children’s birth certificate. I can imagine that the Palace doing this to Harry and Meghan only further convinced them that they needed to leave. This was also around the time that she was forced to attend Trooping. Another question is who tipped off Lady Colin Campbell of the change. It has to be that some one in the Palace gave her the information.

    • Levans says:

      @Amy Yes I do recall that being a tough Trooping event with Meg looking like she would cry. You could feel how tense the situation was from the photos.

      • Amy Bee says:

        Harry was definitely pissed off during the carriage ride and Meghan as much as she tried appear ok, she looked uncomfortable.

    • Becks1 says:

      We’ve speculated on here that Archie’s birth was the tipping point for Harry, and the more that we learn about things like this, its clear why. And these are just the things we KNOW about! Imagine what else was going on behind the scenes.

    • CC2 says:

      “I am our son’s mother” cuts deeper now.

    • bloemheks says:

      Since the US doesn’t recognize titles Archie essentially has no legal mother here. The line may as well be blank.

      • Carmen-JamRock says:

        Um….his mother has an actual name. One she’s had for over 39 years.

      • anotherlily says:

        I don’t know what is meant by ‘the US doesn’t recognize titles’. The US doesn’t have a system of titles but other countries do and if they constitute part of someone’s legal identity then they have to be acknowledged.

        Meghan doesn’t cease to be Archie’s legal mother in the US because she has acquired a title through marriage. The title is the equivalent of ‘Mrs’. Any married woman has the right to follow the practice of using her husband’s name. She wasn’t awarded the title, like an honour, it became hers on marriage.

        Following your logic Archie also has no legal father in the US.

        Harry was born with HRH status which denotes a Prince. He has no given surname. His dukedom was bestowed on marriage which is the custom for a royal Prince of his position as a son of the heir to the throne. Neither his HRH status or his dukedom can be removed.

        In due course Archie will inherit the title of Duke of Sussex. This is his legal right. His position in the line of succession to the throne is also determined by law and not by anyone’s choice. He could currently be known by one of the subsiduary titles attached to the dukedom e.g Earl of Dumbarton, however Harry and Meghan have decided to raise him without any title. (AFAIK the situation changes at 18 and becomes Archie’s decision)

        Harry is legally His Royal Highness Prince Henry (plus 3 other names), Duke of Sussex. In practice ‘Sussex’ can be used as a surname (Harry used ‘Wales’ as a surname before he became Duke of Sussex) or the royal family name of ‘Mountbatten – Windsor’ can be used. ( from the Queen’s dynastic ‘House’ of Windsor and the surname Philip, who had no surname at birth, had acquired from his wider family connections.)

        Meghan will be identified in various US legal documents, including her passport. She may be using the format Harry gave in Archie’s birth certificate i.e. Rachel Meghan, HRH Duchess of Sussex (maiden name Markle), or the format given in the Queen’s statement – Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.

      • Nic919 says:

        A US passport won’t permit a title for official legal identification. It’s the basis for why that country was formed in the first place.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        Article I, section 9, of the US Constitution says:

        No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

        So the US and its states cannot “grant” a title of nobility, and no employee of the US or its states can accept a title from a foreign state without the approval of Congress. Harry’s kids are not being give titles by the United States, and they are not employees of the US government. If the kids (or Harry and Meghan themselves) received titles from Britain, there is no reason the US cannot recognize those titles.

        But, I also don’t think those titles hold the same cache/prestige they used to — not after the royal family exposed itself as useless, dysfunctional, racist, misogynistic dinosaurs who have no place in the modern world. The Sussexes should run from those tainted titles and protect their kids from them.

      • Maccs says:

        >>The US doesn’t have a system of titles but other countries do and if they constitute part of someone’s legal identity then they have to be acknowledged.

        Let me clear it up for you: the Founding Fathers were pretty much allergic to having any kind of formal aristocracy here. Their loathing for George III was pretty deep: for someone like John Adams, it is hard to like a man who ordered troops to be at Bunker Hill and they shot your little brother Elihu. (Really did happen: Elihu Adams later died from his wounds.) If I were you, I would go reread the Declaration of Independence. Too many forget that at its essence it is a manifesto.

        Harry is legally recognized as Henry Mountbatten-Windsor in the USA. His wife, uhhh, well, it is a mouthful: Rachel Meghan Markle-Mountbatten-Windsor. Their son is Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The point of the matter is that America’s legal system DOES NOT GIVE A RAT’S ASS IF YOU ARE ROYAL. THE LEGAL IDENTITY OF PRINCE DOES NOT EXIST. The reason Queen Elizabeth is given any attention at all is because she is Head of State, not because she is queen. And in practice, her children and grandchildren are treated as proxies. So it has been since the dawn of the 20th century.

        Everything you describe only has force within the UK. It has been 240 years since America had a king and the odds of the USA going back to having a monarch are about the same as Donald Trump skipping down the lane and throwing candy to small children. Legally, in the USA, Harry’s a private citizen. The US government likely recognizes him as a foreign national married to a citizen and their baby is a dual citizen. (Whatever visa or a green card Harry has, that one is a mystery but clearly it allows him to stay in California.). In practice it also probably recognizes that Harry has quit his job as being his grandmother’s proxy.

  7. Levans says:

    Could forcing Meghan to remove her name be used to try to recall just Harry and Archie to the UK? I recall reading somewhere that technically the children up to a certain time pint in the line of succession are considered wards of the queen. I could be wrong here but I don’t trust Petty Betty and Crew AT ALL!

    • equality says:

      Could that be why Archie didn’t return to the UK after the move to Canada? They are afraid that Liz will try to take custody? Since Archie is also a US citizen, I wonder how that would play out. I wonder if they have gotten him a birth certificate as a US citizen born overseas.

      • Amy Bee says:

        Let’s hope they got a US birth certificate because the British one has basically rendered Archie motherless.

    • bub244 says:

      No. Sorry to be blunt, but I am sick of hearing this particular piece of speculation being floated. There is no way that, in the year 2021, the Queen would try to separate Archie from his parents and take him back to Blighty – even if it were legally enforceable, which I’m not sure it is. There’s plenty to be worried about and to criticise here, mostly that Meghan was the victim of a horribly racist and dehumanising agenda. We don’t need to invent any further reasons to be angry.

      • Kalana says:

        I think the Palace would quietly behind the scenes assert their authority to whatever they could get away with.

        The Palace has repeatedly been caught lying and behaving abusively. They were even outed for secretly helping the DM with their case. They absolutely would point out wherever they could undermine Harry and Meghan’s authority over their own child. That is a form of harassment which justifies keeping Archie away.

      • Levans says:

        I agree @K, this is another way to harass and bully Harry and Meghan. Sorry @Bub but I wouldn’t put it past the Firm to hang that threat over their head even if it wasn’t entirely based on legal arguments… what legal argument could they have made up to force the removal of her name?!

      • equality says:

        And yet in the year 2021 there are still people who consider themselves anointed by God to rule over other people and have them bow down to them. And people who accept bowing down and walking behind other people (even someone’s own spouse) because of being in line to the throne. There are still people who consider themselves superior because of skin color, being born into a certain family, having a meaningless, unearned title. I think the Palace has shown that their thinking is in the past and not the present century.

      • bub244 says:

        Guys. Seriously. The RF are petty and awful. That doesn’t mean they are going to kidnap Archie. There would be a total uproar and it would hasten the monarchy’s inevitable downfall. Meghan’s name was removed as a further way of dehumanising and othering her – that’s awful enough as it is.

      • Hell Nah! says:

        This move by the Palace is gross in the extreme. I am as disgusted as I am delighted that Meghan is now in a position (and location) to Clap Back hard on these monsters.

      • CC2 says:

        Yep. The Queen or the Future King’s will never do this now or in the future. All it takes is Meghan and Harry’s public plea and President Biden and the media worldwide will jump on her throat so fast, she won’t be immortal no more. They will never, ever try to take a son away from their parents.

      • molly says:

        Yeah, they don’t need Archie. They might put up a fight for George, just keep the line of succession, but it’s 2021. You can’t steal a kid back from a foreign land.

      • Dollycoa says:

        I dont think they would do it because the PR would be disastrous, but I bet they are hoping the marriage ends and Archie and Harry come back to the UK. Diana’s father and Fergies father got sole custody of the children after the parents divorce and the mothers were demonized to facilitate this. It was quite common in the aristocracy. They live in the past as it it. I think that is the worst thing about Kate stans. They want nothing more than for a child to be separated from his mother and to he brought up by a family that so far have proved that they are terrible at it.

    • Olivia says:

      Yes this goes back to a very stupid and archaic royal law involving one king (can’t remember which) being pissy about how is son was raising his grandson. It is literally not a thing that would ever happen in 2021. The Queen does not and would not have custody of her grand children. FULL. STOP. It would be laughed out of any British court. I’m not annoyed at you Levans as you acknowledge that you’re not sure it’s true, but there are message boards full of people who legitimately think this is a thing. It is NOT.

      I agree I’m sure palace operatives could pull some shady sh*t, but they’re not powerful enough to alter custody of a minor child. They’re just not. Even if Meghan and Harry were to get divorced, (or Kate and William, or even going back to Charles and Diana) there might be some legal implications to minor children who will one day have a constitutional role (so basically only George, and William at the time of his parent’s divorce) but in the modern age this still would not negate the parent’s custody.

      • Levans says:

        Thanks @Olivia for your thoughts here. Sounds like there is a law but not likely to be used, which is helpful to note because the whole purpose of removing her name, in addition to dehumanize Meghan, could also serve as an implicit threat…even it if it is unlikely to happen. Just knowing that such a law is on the books coupled with this attempt to erase her would be enough to frighten any new mom, particularly in a foreign country with a powerful family. It all serves to bully and harass Meghan.

      • JaneBee87 says:

        @Levans It wasn’t a law – it was an opinion stated in a judgement given by a court of dubious composition a few centuries ago. At best, it’s dodgy precedent that a modern UK court would never apply. It was not ‘a’ law as it was not legislation enacted by Parliament.

      • Levans says:

        @JaneBee, I’m just using the language Olivia used. I am not an expert in royal law/opinion/decree so I used the language Olivia used.

      • Katherine says:

        Yeah you’re right “law” isn’t even the totally accurate term. They have these screwy royal decree things but most of them don’t have corresponding civil law. And something as seriously taken as child custody definitely would not. This particular one had to do with one specific situation and essentially a Royal family falling out hundreds of years ago. No way it is still assumed that the Queen has custody of the minor royal children.

      • anotherlily says:

        The law originates from 1717 when the King’s “right of supervision” was extended to his minor grandchildren. Later in that century a requirement of the monarch’s consent to marry was extended to all the monarch’s family.

        In modern practice it has given the Queen the right to be consulted about her grandchildren’s education and by implication the right to veto parents’ choices. The Queen used this right to refuse permission for the York Princesses to attend a school in Switzerland. The Queen’s permission is also required before minor grandchildren can be taken out of the UK although it seems this is now an administrative formality. What might have happened if the Yorks had gone ahead and taken their daughters to the Swiss school is the point where this law would have needed clarification.

        UK law is formed and changed through practice as well as parliamentary process. Laws are constantly being clarified and amended as cases come before courts. There is now a body of legislation to protect children’s rights. The law now emphasises parental responsibilities. Children have rights, parents and guardians have responsibilities. In any legal dispute involving a child UK law provides independent representation to the child to ensure that their views and wishes are heard. Decisions are made on the basis of what is in the child’s best interests taking their views and wishes into account.

        The Queen has no license to act outside the law. They are technically her laws and she has taken an oath to uphold them. She cannot kidnap Archie from his parents. She cannot legally do anything to endanger him or cause him harm or distress. She can be removed as Sovereign very speedily through the Regency legislation if necessary.

      • JaneBee87 says:

        @anotherlily I am in complete agreement, but again, the bit on the Sovereign and custody of (great)grandchildren is not ‘the law’ or ‘a law’ or even some sort of royal decree. It was a majority opinion in a judgement from a questionably composed court dating back hundreds of years. It is, at best, incredibly weak precedent. I get that this might be difficult from a civil law background, but it’s pretty straightforward in the common law system. Let’s not perpetuate misinformation, that, let’s be honest, is likely to be seized upon by Cambridge stans to further harass the Sussexes. Celebitchies are far better than this!

  8. aquarius64 says:

    On Harry and William’s birth certificates Diana is listed HRH the Princess of Wales.

    • Nic919 says:

      Diana and Fergie don’t have their names on the birth certificates, but that was in the 80s. Unless we suddenly are told that Kate’s name was removed from them later on, even though for every single child we saw it there, they cannot justify this. They specifically targeted Meghan by dehumanizing her.

      • Amy Too says:

        And Kate had just had Louis, too. So very very recently before Meghan had her name taken off the birth certificate because of “protocol” they allowed Kate to have her name on Louis’s. It’s disgusting. It seems like they were moving into modern times by finally allowing mothers to be acknowledged and then decided to change it specifically because they didn’t want Meghan’s name on Archie’s because she was Meghan.

    • Mumbles says:

      One of the most bizarre reasons that came out early in this story was that *Meghan* made the change “as a tribute” to Diana. That blew my mind. It was unbelievable.

      The Cambridges were right to include Kate’s name , and the Sussexes were right to include Meghan’s. These babies were carried and delivered by real women, not titles.

      Curious whether Edward and Sophie’s children have her name in their certificates.

  9. ABritGuest says:

    Weird non story, weird that Lady CC was even looking at Archie’s birth certificate right now, weird take by the Scum & the ‘carnival of experts’ (epic shade lol).

    Glad that Meghan smacked them down as clearly they don’t play when it comes to Archie and the palace was gonna stay quiet if she hadn’t said it was palace officials who made the amendment request. Sad they even have to comment but the thirsty press was looking at the next controversy, probably after Kate faced a lil backlash for her exhausted comments

    • EllenOlenska says:

      I tend to doubt Lady Colin Campbell discovered it. I’m guessing a reporter either discovered it or got a tip and that Lady “I’ll say anything for a quid “ Campbell was just a handy shill to put a “ royal adjacent” quote out.

      • UnionSnack says:

        I double this. She is known as a lady but wait, she was a wife of a lord just for 8 month. She is nothing at society and working as a toilet tank (money for the outcoming “truth”) to keep acceptable for a “lady” level of life.
        Someone just beckoned her with money and release this through her.

      • Bex says:

        Based upon the signature and date of the copy, someone requested the copy two weeks ago, which just so happened to be the second day of Meghan’s summary judgment hearing. That’s not a coincidence.

        Now, if a palace source had briefed about this change/”clerical error” (yeah, right), the tabloid (or whomever) made a point to get that copy in hand ASAP, and the tabloid held onto the story until they needed a reason to use it (to deflect from Kate’s “exhausted” comment).

        What the tabloid obviously did not plan for was the swift public backlash regarding the palace removing Meghan’s name (because NO ONE could fathom why a woman with a month old son would be removing her name from her newborn’s birth certificate), that Meghan would not only vehemently refute the assertions, but she’d lay blame with palace officials AND have proof of which palace official dictated the change.

        These tabloids, royal “experts”, and “palace sources don’t know who they’re f****** with.

      • Mila says:

        @UnionSnack I agree I doubt she has many society friends or connection a) because of her sex/gender (no way are/will/have they ever excepted her on that basis) b) because S he is such a grotesque and slimey grifter who doesn’t seem to be able to keep her mouth shut and I don’t think aristos like the type in the way she does it HOWEVER I do think as of recent Charles and his lackeys have been using that for just this reason although they don’t respect her AT ALL she would do anything for a royal connection/admiration

    • And remember how they were all baying for the birth certificate to be released the moment he was born. I remember when they finally got their hands on it (within 30 days of birth wasn’t it), nothing was said about her name. All the stories were that she dared to include a title. They can’t keep their attack stories on point. If one form of attack doesn’t work, they spin it to a different angle of attack. This must be so EXHAUSTING FOR KATE…….having to read how Meghan continues to attack her with every breath. 🤯

  10. Izzy says:

    The white duchess gets to keep her name on her childrens’ birth certificates. The biracial duchess does not. Can’t qwhite figure out why that is…

  11. Sofia says:

    I also heard of this story this weekend and honestly, I was so exhausted by it yet it has nothing to do with me so I can’t imagine how Meghan feels – but that statement gave me a pretty good idea.

    William and Harry’s birth certificate says HRH The Princess of Wales so the palace could have asked them to change it because of that BUT it doesn’t seem they made the Cambridges do those changes (unless this is a new “rule” made and the Cambridges can’t change their kids certificate because deadlines have passed idk idk) so yeah, it definitely feels like “let’s erase Meghan!”

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Regarding that precedent: we all now know exactly how Diana was treated by her husband and the Palace = as a broodmare. Her name was probably never even put on the certificates. However, with Kate’s name on her children’s birth certificates, there’s a new precedent. And we shouldn’t forget that the Palace didn’t just not put Meghan’s name on the certificate, they ERASED her name after her husband put her name on their son’s birth certificate!!!!!!!!!

      Meghan’s husband put her name on their son’s birth certificate – and then his family had her name ERASED from the same document! It is bad enough on its own but given the fact that Meghan is biracial, the implications are even worse.

      • TIFFANY says:

        @art historian.

        This also explains why Diana fought tooth and nail to keep Camilla or anyone Charles marries from having the title of Princess of Wales.

        They will literally be Harry and Cannot’s mother in the eyes of the court.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Diana didn’t ‘fight tooth and nail’ to prevent anyone else from having the title of Princess of Wales. She had absolutely no control over titles. She willingly gave up her HRH in exchange for more money from Charles, her lawyer admitted it. She lied about it to the press AFTER she found out Fergie had kept her HRH in her divorce. Diana raised such a stink, the Queen issued new Letters Patent removing HRH from anyone who divorces out of the family.

        Legally Camilla is HRH Camilla, The Princess of Wales. She *chooses* to go by ones of Charles’s other titles, but she could choose to go by her highest legal title whenever she wants.

        If Diana was still alive, Charles and Camilla would have married eventually anyway. There would have been two Princess of Wales, because that’s how titles work.

        – HRH Camilla, The Princess of Wales
        – Diana, Princess of Wales (divorced version of ex-husband’s title)

        If horrible Andrew were to remarry, the same would apply to Fergie.

        – HRH New Wife’s First Name, The Duchess of York
        – Sarah, Duchess of York (divorced version of ex-husband’s title)

        If William divorces Kate while he’s Duke of Cambridge, same will happen.

        – HRH New Wife’s First Name, The Duchess of Cambridge
        – Kate, Duchess of Cambridge

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nota – except that its not HRH First name, its just HRH title. So Kate is HRH The Duchess of Cambridge, not HRH Catherine the Duchess of Cambridge. But your overall point still stands – Camilla IS the princess of wales and there was nothing Diana could have done about it had she lived to see their marriage. Same way Camilla WILL be the queen and calling her “princess consort” is stupid unless they change the rules to make Kate a princess consort as well.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I mixed that up again? Aren’t they referred to as First Name, HRH The Female Version of Husband’s title?

        Wait, that’s what you’re saying. I just typed it wrong again many times over. Lord. Just like me typing David was Charles’s nephew the other day. I must learn to read each post three times before hitting Submit Comment.

      • Sofia says:

        @Nota legal titles in the BRF are HRH (for those who have them) The Duke/Duchess/Earl/Countess/Prince/Princess of *area*. Names aren’t used UNLESS it’s a divorce for example Diana, Princess of Wales instead of HRH The Princess of Wales.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nota I figured you were just typing too fast, lol. I was reading something once that explained it has to do with who the HRH attaches to. So that’s why for Charles, it was HRH The Princess Elizabeth the Duchess of Edinburgh, and Philip was just HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (on the birth certificate.)

    • Becks1 says:

      Also, there is no way the royal family did not realize that George’s birth certificate had Kate’s name listed. his birth certificate was a big deal when it was made public. And they apparently listed her the same way for Charlotte and Louis. so if George’s was “wrong” and they didnt want to change it because it would look bad, why not make them change it down the line for Charlotte and Louis?

      I know the palace is all “we only defend something that makes Kate look bad” but at this point I do think Buckingham Palace needs to come out with a very clear statement about this, because it comes off as “we didnt want the black woman listed as mother to an heir to the throne” (even if he is 7th in line) so if there is ANY other kind of reason for it, however archaic it may be (even if its “this is the standard and the Cambridge certificates are incorrect”), they need to clarify the issue NOW.

      • Sofia says:

        I agree. I was just thinking if they made this rule in 2019 or something hence the Cambridges kids were all born and perhaps it was too late to enforce the rule for them.

      • Ginger says:

        People should be questioning the Cambridge kids birth certificate because those are done incorrectly.

      • Nic919 says:

        Becks I agree. It does seem as though Fergie and Diana did not have their names on the certificate so if it was done to Meghan for some protocol nonsense then it has to be done to the ones for the Cambridge kids as well. There is no way to justify targeting the biracial duchess like this when the white one had all three of her kids before.

        It is just so blatantly racist.

      • February-Pisces says:

        Are the royal reporters going to go mad at how kate ‘broke tradition’? Nah of course not.

        I don’t think the palace cares about how racist they look, considering their entire fanbase is made up of racists.

      • bonobochick says:

        I saw something yesterday via the Telegraph that the BRF is claiming it was a “clerical error.” 🤡

      • TheOriginalMia says:

        There’s no way the BRF is going to change the Cambridge kids’ birth certificates and incur the wrath of William. I remember the kerfuffle about George’s birth certificate. I also remember the speculation that William was flipping off the BRF by adding Kate’s name and listing her occupation as Princess of the Realm. Simple thing to do would be to revert Archie’s back to the original, but the BRF won’t. It’s about protecting the heir after all.

      • Emmitt says:

        I think Buckingham Palace, Clarence House and Kensington Palace should come out and say Meghan is not a part of this, will never be accepted and do not come back to England ever. Archie and Harry are welcome, you are not. Just straight up say that instead of playing all these games.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        @Emmitt, they are cowards so they won’t ever show their hands willingly. They sneak around and use the gutter press to do their bidding and then walk around acting like they are above it all. Their subjects either loves them, or are apathetic so either way they get to remain as they are.

  12. Becks1 says:

    One theory I saw on twitter about this that makes sense to me is that Kate and William were “wrong” in how they filled out the birth certificate, but considering how high-profile George’s was and how there was already some heat for describing Kate as a “princess of the United Kingdom”, they weren’t made to change it. Then Harry and Meghan just followed their lead but were told it was incorrect, for whatever reason, because as people pointed out, Diana’s name is not listed on the birth certificate of her boys.

    Now, the three questions this raises for me are:

    1) why is Kate considered so untouchable that a “mistake” like this cant be fixed (is it that she’s white? Is it William’s incandescent rage?)

    2) Why is it the protocol that names arent listed? Meghan is the mother of Archie, not the title. It really seems old fashioned and backwards to not list her name but only her title. When you consider the extreme racism she was facing at the palace and in the press, it just adds another level because it does seem like a very strong attempt at erasing her role as Archie’s mother, which is….bad.

    3) who leaked this change to the press? This was almost 18 months, 2 years ago. Why is this just coming out now?

    Finally – damn that clapback from their spokesperson. they are not playing with the tabloids anymore.

    • Cee says:

      I actually agree with your points. Why were the Cambridges allowed to be wrong?

      • Becks1 says:

        Right! Either the Cambridges are wrong, and are being allowed to continue being wrong (although why listing the mother’s name is “wrong” is definitely something to be discussed….) or there is no real rule or protocol about this and they changed Archie’s just to erase Meghan in a racist power move, which is a really REALLY bad look for the palace.

        Again the gold standard advisors messed up – someone thought that leaking this change would make Meghan look back but that response from the Sussexes is pretty strongly worded and does not make the palace look good, at all.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Agreed, Becks1. If this really is a protocol issue, they need to immediately order the changes for all of the W&K kids too.

      • Cee says:

        I definitely agree in that the Cambridge version is better and should be the norm. Both parents are equally important regardless of who is the Royal one and who is the married in.

      • Not just wrong but wrong x 3 (George, Charlotte, and Louis)…… I really want someone to tackle this BS from the Palace. Louis is barely a year older than Archie. Amazing how quickly the Palace acted to correct Sussex mistake, but Cambridge mistake on all 3 birth certificates still goes uncorrected. Clerical error my ass!

    • Nic919 says:

      There is no explanation outside of the obvious here. If they are sticklers for protocol then they must apply it to the Cambridge birth certificates because as it stands those are the only ones who don’t match the rest. And it’s not a rank argument because Diana was higher rank when she gave birth.

      Also lady colon Campbell made an FOI request, which can take several months, so she was likely tipped by a courtier on this.

      • JT says:

        It’s clear that the palace thought that H&M would remain silent in this issue as they don’t issue many statements regarding the tabloid “news.” Meghan making this clearly worded statement laying it all at the RFs feet caught them off guard. At this point there is nowhere for the royals to pivot in regards to this and really no excuse seeing as W&K’s birth certificates have Kate’s name.

    • windyriver says:

      @Becks, re: number one, I’m going with William. Either they initially made a mistake on the Cambridge birth certificates, or Kate/Carole/(William) decided they wanted Kate’s name on there. Can easily see William refusing to change it afterwards; possibly he decided/was encouraged to establish a new protocol, that would apply to his children because they are the direct heirs. I assume Kate and Carole are involved in this, because I don’t see William caring, or even initially thinking about, something that followed the same form as his own birth certificate. But once he was asked to change it, he put his foot down, because he’s the FFK, likes to flex his power, and most of all, people don’t want to cross him.

      And so, removing Meghan’s name from Archie’s birth certificate can also be seen as a William power play, that only his children would have the mother’s name. Of course it’s totally possible it was also a racist move, and who knows how they explained it to Harry and Meghan, but it could just as easily be primarily about status, which is totally in Kate and Carole’s ballpark.

      Meanwhile, this family should thank their lucky stars that Harry and Meghan are keeping their mouths shut about what’s gone on the past few years. If it were me, knowing what they could spill, I’d go out of my way not to antagonize them further (e.g., by leaking stuff like this) – they really have learned nothing at all from Diana.

      • Shelley says:

        Not only did they remove Meghan’s name, they added “Prince” to Henry’s name. All around strange.

  13. Snuffles says:

    I know a lot of people jumped to the worst conclusion (that this was just step one of them erasing her from Archie’s life which would eventually lead to them removing her from this earth).

    While I don’t think that was the case (but I wouldn’t put it past them considering it as a last resort), I personally think it was a step they were taking to eventually claim custody of Archie based on some Archaic rule that gives the Queen custody of a certain number of the heirs in lines to the throne. I think they were moving that chess piece in place in a bid to control her.

    I think they did the same to Diana and made it clear to her when she was alive that she legally didn’t have custody of William and Harry and that the Queen was in control of their upbringing. Because, I have no doubt that Diana would have moved her and her kids to America after the divorce if she legally could.

    I think Harry peeped that move and immediately began plotting his escape from The Firm. And that’s why, if I were Harry and Meghan, I would not let Archie step foot on UK soil until he is 18. And would also take steps to
    confirm his American citizenship. And also make clear their wishes who can take custody of Archie should anything happen to them.

    • Becks1 says:

      But they did not do this to Kate. And we can say its because they knew Kate would fall in line, in the event of a divorce, but in 1982 they still thought Diana would fall in line as well. I wonder what Beatrice and Eugenie’s birth certificates say? If its Sarah or HRH the duchess of york.

      • Snuffles says:

        I don’t know. But I think Diana had zero legal recourse because William and Harry were 2nd and 3rd. Meghan has more because Archie is #7, untitled and technically also an American citizen.

      • Nic919 says:

        Fergie’s name is not there for Beatrice. So the outlier here is Kate.

      • Becks1 says:

        Above someone mentioned that Sarah Ferguson is not listed either, its just the Duchess of York. So maybe this WAS just standard for royal birth certificates, which is super messed up – but then we still have the question of why the Cambridge birth certificates were never changed if indeed they were filled out “incorrectly.”

      • notasugarhere says:

        Philip doesn’t have his name on the birth certificates either. He’s HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (Lieutenant, R. N.)

      • L4frimaire says:

        @Snuffles, People jumped to the worst conclusions because we have seen the worst from the Royal family in regards to Meghan. As pointed out, this protocol is outdated and archaic. This type of wording should be reserved for royal or church or christening records, not for a modern nation states that have databases and official records to help determine one’s legal status and citizenship. Is there still a basic government birth certificate with all the basic standard names on it for when Archie needs a passport or getting a drivers license or whatever? Regardless of the official reasoning behind it, a birth certificate is a child’s first official legal document, and proves one’s existence officially. There should be just standard basic legal requirements, regardless of the parents legal status or rank. These women are still equal citizens and entitled to basic human rights and legal protections, and this type of erasure, whether it’s Diana, or Sarah Ferguson, and in this case, Meghan, just is outdated, classist and sexist. Does this compromise the custodial rights of parents who’s names are left off birth certificates? Imagine if the names of children of refugees or immigrants ( I guess technically that’s what Meghan was) was left off birth certificates. It seems very iffy, and coming on top of the other negative story they were pushing out there, basically threatening her if she comes to the UK this summer, made it look sinister, like they were setting up something with regards to her child. This keeps up, we’ll all be wearing tin hats.

    • Sofia says:

      As someone highlighted above, the archaic rule of the monarch having custody of grandkids (Archie is a great-grandkid to boot) is just that – an archaic rule. It was created during a time where child custody laws were non-existent. If the BRF even attempted it, it would not hold up in any international court.

      A 94 year old can’t take away her great-grandson from his parents in 2021. No matter what the law said 200 years ago or whatever.

      • Snuffles says:

        @Sofia That would require that family having some common sense and an awareness of the real world. But as we have learned, these people are completely out of touch with the rest of the world, tone deaf and think they are entitled to whatever they want.

      • Sofia says:

        @Snuffles: it’s not about common sense and doing what they want, it’s about what the law says. They may be able to have sway in British court but they definitely will not in American courts.

        There’s a lot to be pissed at but this is just a ridiculous archaic law that isn’t true and will not be held up in any court. Let’s not act like the BRF has a serious chance in hell to take Archie away legally.

      • Becks1 says:

        Could you imagine the international fallout if the Queen (or charles in the future) tried to take custody of Archie away from his American mother? It’s not even about whether they “could,” they just absolutely would not because it would cause an international crisis.

      • Sofia says:

        @Becks: exactly! They would face a lot of international condemnation if they tried to take away Archie from his parents. Heck, people in the UK will very likely call them out for it

    • Emmitt says:

      Archie doesn’t need to confirm American citizenship, he is an American citizen because his mother is an American citizen. Archie probably has always had an American passport (as well as the EU passport) too.

  14. Stef says:

    It’s both sad and disgusting to see the tabloids will create whatever BS contraversy they can just to sell stories.

    The more time passes and the more garbage that comes out of the UK bashing Meghan and Harry, the more I understand why they left. I hope they stay in the US and have a wonderful, prosperous, and happy life away from the blood sucking vultures of the press and their toxic royal family.

    • Brit says:

      The tabloid media need money and clicks desperately and Meghan was their money maker. They’re also upset because they don’t have access to Archie either. Harry and Meghan don’t have social media, which is not giving the press content. They’re not back in the U.K. either and the family can’t leak anything to them. They desperately need Harry, Meghan and Archie.

      • Stef says:

        I think you’re quite right, and Meg and Harry know it too. It’s no wonder they left, I applaud them for doing so.

        It’s just so messed up how tabloids will sell their soul to make a buck, with no care for how it hurts people, especially innocent children. It makes me so mad.

  15. Amy Bee says:

    It’s also important to note that the Palace who told Harry and Meghan to change the birth certificate remained silent on the story until Meghan put out her statement. I believe the Palace had a hand in getting this story out there in a further attempt to undermine Meghan and to distract from Kate’s misstep during the week.

    • VS says:

      Exactly @Amy Bee; I am surprised people aren’t talking about this more. They were fine being silent while watching Meghan getting dragged by their racist sycophants for something she didn’t do. Yet they have the audacity to react only after Meghan & Harry did.
      Thx lord, Meghan is back home with her baby

    • Harper says:

      Kate was getting roasted this weekend for her exhaustion comments. This tidbit was most likely held back and then given to the Sun now because Kate was locked in her room crying and Carole was threatening to go nuclear if the attention wasn’t put back on that royal prince stealer Meghan Markle.

    • Lorelei says:

      @Amy Bee, imo that fact proves (as if it isn’t obvious to all of us anyway) that whoever ordered the change KNEW that they were doing something wrong/sketchy. They stayed quiet about it this entire time for a reason. It’s disgusting. “Clerical error” my ass.

  16. Cecilia says:

    So why is kate allowed to keep her name that way on all 3 of her kids birth certificates but meghan was asked to make a correction?

  17. SarahCS says:

    This is racist nonsense. The part I’m loving is that they can now release their own (excellently worded and shady) statements and put the record straight. The heady taste of freedom.

  18. tee says:

    The real tea is, 1) the British press is sitting on mundane Meghan stories to publish on demand when a senior royal screws up, and 2) Kate gets to use her name on her kids’ birth certificates when no other married-in royal mother has been able to. I think people underestimate the power Kate wields…

    This was a welcome distraction from my responsibilities yesterday, but what a deeply stupid story when you think about it.

    • Nic919 says:

      I don’t think Kate has any power in keeping her name on it. They just didn’t care about protocol when it came to this. William filled out that form incorrectly three times so if anything it’s probably related to his power.

      Women remain broodmares in that family and have no importance beyond that. If there ever was a Cambridge divorce, she would not be treated any better than Diana was.

      • tee says:

        You don’t think she wields power through him? For sure, what Will wants Will gets, but Will is likely to request things on Kate’s behalf as well. And these days, especially, I’m convinced that she increasingly calls the shots because his image needs her. She and their children are the best thing about him, and I feel like she’s acutely aware of that.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I agree, Nic919. The power rests with William not Kate. He didn’t bother to learn how to fill out the form properly according to protocol, and the Palace didn’t care about protocol with them. We’ll see if the Palace doesn’t immediately change the W&K kids certificates.

        If Kate had power over William, we wouldn’t keep seeing the pro-Kate, anti-William embiggening. Kate and Carole know William has been straying for years. Since Harry has married so happily and obviously for love, both William and Kate have been showing the strain of their business arrangement. William has been auditioning replacements, which has Kate and Carole on the back foot.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes, right now, Kate is good for William’s image. But, if William decides he’s done with Kate, she will no longer be good for his image – meaning there will be an onslaught of stories and leaks that do NOT paint Kate in a good light and that make it look like William had no choice but to leave her – and Carole and Kate both know that.

      • molly says:

        Given how passionate Diana/William were about her titles (“Don’t worry Mummy, I will give [HRH] back to you one day when I am king.”), it would not surprise me if William wrote Kate’s name on there for his mother. Maybe it really bothered her that she wasn’t on his birth certificate? Will certainly felt protective of her royal status.

        (I just wish he would have gone to bat to let Harry do the same thing.)

      • notasugarhere says:

        Diana gave up her HRH willingly for more money from Charles, her lawyer admitted it. The lies she cried to the press about it later do not erase that fact.

        William never does anything for anyone but himself. When he insists people curtsy to Kate, that is merely because how people treat Kate is a reflection on how they perceive William’s status. He considers it a bash to HIS position, with no concern about Kate.

        If William actually cared about how his mother was treated, or if he cared about how Kate is treated? He wouldn’t have spent the past twenty years cheating on Kate. Nor would he have accepted Anmer Hall as their marital home, given that’s where Charles and Camilla had their relationship.

  19. Over it says:

    Say it again, carnival of so-call royal experts. Lmao. You go megs, bye Dick,so long lady /more tramp Collins, sit your old dried up ass down sewage Ingrid. These f——-ing dip shits like why you keep messing with this woman? You really think she would prefer her son thinks duchess is more important than her actual name? I would have said to the palace say what again.? No my name isn’t hrh it’s Meghan mrs Sussex if you bitches want to be nasty .

  20. Carnival of experts! LOL. Meghan, suck it to them! The clowns are Campbell, Nicholls, Seward, DArbiter, Palmer, Wootton, Tominey, Mills, PMorgan, etc. The Duchess of Sussex is not amused at all. She refused to join these clowns in their circus to be controlled and manipulated. She even threw BP under the bus. She doesn’t want to be part of that circus anymore. She’s now the ringmaster of her life. Independent and unafraid.

  21. TheOriginalMia says:

    I shouldn’t be shocked, but I am. They just wanted to erase her existence. Just couldn’t leave it alone. Just had to stick that knife in her back one final time. The disrespect!

  22. Lizzie says:

    The first time I saw this story it said that Diana is listed on her children’s birth certificates as Princess of Wales , and this change was a sweet nod to Diana. How quickly that story changed.
    Same with Meghan not going to England this summer, the story went from it is not a snub to it is definitely a snub.

  23. L84Tea says:

    Just when I think I can’t get any more disgusted with the RF, they sink even lower. This is a whole other level of inhumane. It might have been different if H&M had been instructed to keep their names off and only use titles, but the fact that they did add her name and it got ERASED after the fact is just degrading and disgusting.

    I also agree with whoever said it above, I think the press is sitting on a number of stories, ready to spin any time Kevin or Karen puts their foot in it.

  24. February-Pisces says:

    So I’ve been thinking about this and I’m truly shocked. This story only came out because Kate’s “exhausted” comment went down as well as a fart in a lift. Anyway the original story was to try and make it look like Meghan ‘snubbed’ Kate yet I don’t see how not putting your name on your child’s birth certificate is considered a snub to someone else. They also tried to make it look like Meghan ‘was all about her title’. Seriously she’s left, she’s doesn’t give af about her f*cking titles.

    Anyway they actually did the same thing to Princess Diana, so I’m thinking the palace thought removing Meghans name from her own child’s birth certificate would give them some sort of control over her and archie. To have only her title, which the palace could take away, would compromise her rights to archie. I don’t know the legalities of this, but it was definitely done to compromise Meghan, just like they compromised Diana.

    • Bren says:

      I agree this was done to compromise Meghan’s future actions and decisions. This was done around the time the press was working overtime with the help of the palace courtiers to drive Meghan out. The plan went awry when Harry left too. The royal rota will always try to slant whatever bit of information they get to make Meghan look like the villain.

  25. Snuffles says:


    I don’t think they would succeed in taking custody either. But I also feel they are THAT STUPID to try it or thought they could use the threat of it to control Harry and Meghan, but Harry called their bluff. Just like they never thought that Meghan would go to the mattresses with her lawsuit over her letter to her father. They REALLY thought she would drop it.

    I’m just saying no one, since Diana, has ever truly challenged that family. Add to the fact that Harry clearly took lessons learned from what happened to his mother and made much smarter moves.

    • Ann says:

      I think they are entitled and out of touch enough to……consider it. A normal person would know that it would never fly, but they’re not normal. I think they have some awareness of how legally difficult it might be, and of the PR disaster it would be, or at least Charles does. Betty is stuck in the past. BUT they might think they could use it for leverage, could threaten to do it? Which they can’t, since Harry and Meghan know their rights and know how the law works. But it wouldn’t surprise me if they thought they could.

  26. BnLurkN4eva says:

    I am sure Harry and Meghan got Archie sorted out in America so all legal documents have been issued with the appropriate parentage and that Archie is properly established as an American citizen. I just don’t trust that family and truthfully any entity in that country since I believe they all fall in line with that Elizabeth person. Meghan and Archie needs to never set foot back on British soil and truthfully, Harry needs to avoid going there also since any return of his without Meghan will be spun into something sinister.

  27. Sunday says:

    This is truly disgusting; the fact that this “leaked” now is nothing more than an obvious tip-off by the palace to once again cover up for keen’s mis-keenings, and it reaches a new subterranean level of abuse because they absolutely knew this story would encourage all those deranged haters who deny that Meghan was ever pregnant, claimed Archie is a doll, etc.

    It also gives a whole new weight and meaning to the foreword from the Archewell launch: “I am my son’s Mother.” Just heartbreaking.

  28. Digital Unicorn says:

    “To see this U.K. 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.”

    I love this burn from her team, esp the ‘carnival of experts’. Now what shall we call this carnival?!?!

    – Carnival of Racist Carcasses

  29. Xantha says:

    So let me get this straight:
    On Friday, Kate described being “exhausted” and “doing her kid’s haircuts” during the pandemic and everyone rightfully pointed out how she has a large staff in a large country estate(one article estimates it’s around 44,000 square ft.https://www.gloucestershirelive.co.uk/news/property/royal-family-gloucestershire-homes-rack-4716174) so her exhuastion is nothing like a non rich mother’s exhaustion. Clearly this is not the reaction KP had wanted or expected.

    So sometime on Saturday-Sunday, the press suddenly got a hold of and published a copy of Archie’s birth certificate and tried really really hard to make it seem like Meghan was bad for not putting her own name on said certificate.

    Then we find out that this action was dictacted by the Palace through a wonderfully sassy response by Meghan’s spokesperson. And now no one’s talking about Kate coming off as a spoiled rich girl who doesn’t know how good she has it, they are now focusing not only on this birth certificate drama, but also the odious implications it has.

    Do I have that right?

    • notasugarhere says:

      I sense a Berkshire granny’s and PoorJason’s hands in this.

    • Becks1 says:

      So, if the theory that this was leaked to deflect from Kate’s “exhausted” comment is true – then to me it says that all is really not well in the house of Cambridge and that there is an internal war going on with the royal family at large, because no way would the Queen and Charles want this story out there, considering how bad it makes the royals look, especially given William’s tweets yesterday about racism. (which just made people remember how racist the royals actually are.) This is deflecting from Kate but making the royal family overall look really bad, so if this tidbit was leaked, it was not with approval from Clarence House, so coupled with the story about Carole’s influence on the Cambridge kids – look for some retaliation from Charles.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        Maybe. But I’m going with they are just all very dumb people who reside in a bubble and have no clue how they look to normal people. They are surrounded by yes folks and all their messes are cleaned up and even if the mess cannot be cleaned, what can anyone do to them?

        Or, maybe they are flaunting their evil untouchableness before the world. I mean, their subjects are too conditioned to call for their proverbial heads, or they think they can do no wrong, so what do the royals have to worry about? Personally, I think they are trolling us all and we have to try harder to ignore their useless selves.

    • Korra says:

      Don’t forget the part where Meghan is being chastised by the RRs for daring to speak up about the drama they started. Tom Sykes wrote a nasty piece in the Daily Beast that Meghan needs to curtail her anger and it isn’t a good look for her…some bs like that.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        They prefer their victims silent. Remember in the old days when Meghan was still duchessing in England how she had to just take it lying down? How her friends had to hide just to defend her in a magazine in another country? How she had absolutely no voice? Yeah, that’s how they prefer things and this speaking up and clearing up the lies, thereby interrupting the agenda is causing too much headaches for the “carnival of experts.”

      • Bex says:

        He has a lot of nerve pulling the “angry Black woman” trope.

  30. February-Pisces says:

    Deleted, wrote comment in wrong place.

  31. Other Renee says:

    I wonder whether Sophie’s or Anne’s or even the Queen’s names appear on their children’s birth certificates. Or Philip’s for that matter.

    • notasugarhere says:

      For Charles, the parents names are listed as

      HRH The Princess Elizabeth Alexandra Mary, The Duchess of Edinburgh

      HRH The Duke of Edinburgh (Lieutenant, R. N.)

      • Other Renee says:

        Notasugarhere, that’s interesting. Without Philip’s actual name, it makes him seem like a sperm donor (male equivalent of a brood mare).

      • notasugarhere says:

        That’s partly why he referred to himself as ‘a bloody amoeba’ when it came to the kids not getting his last name. Even in his fit, he wasn’t using the term ‘sperm donor’ because that would have been too frank even for him.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        It is just all-round gross and offensive that the non-Windsor parents don’t have their names on the birth certificates of their own children. It is utterly dehumanizing. Maybe it is an old royal protocol but in this day and age it says something really troubling about how this family regards anyone who isn’t born a Windsor.

      • L4frimaire says:

        If they list the names of the blood royals first, why not just list the names of the spouse afterwards, e,g, HRH Duke of Edinburgh, Philip Andreou, etc. it’s weird to erase a parents first name in this data driven day and age. It reduces them to nothing more then DNA.

    • Sid says:

      I’m betting Sophie’s name is not her children’s birth certificates, just like Diana’s and Sarah’s names weren’t. I am guessing Anne’s is, as she is a blood royal.

      So what do the most up-to-date birth certificates of the Cambridge children look like? If Kate’s name is still on them, then the legitimate press needs to raise a stink.

      • Becks1 says:

        Anne’s name would also be on the BC because she doesnt have a title. I’m sure it says Princess Anne (I presume so at any rate) but there wouldnt be a title to sub in the way they used Diana’s or Meghan’s.

  32. Merricat says:

    The RF are apparently incapable of perceiving reality outside their bubble–since H&M left, it has been one pr disaster after another, especially for the Cambridges, and they seem not only unable to stop hanging themselves with every bit of rope they take up, but unaware that they are doing it. This is a truly horrible story, and it’s not Meghan who comes off looking bad.

    • L4frimaire says:

      The Sussexes have basically stayed out of the royals way, and even keep their meetings with their British charities private for the most part. Whatever direction the royals are going in is completely on them, so dragging the Sussexes name into everything each time something doesn’t quite work out for the royals is their problem and theirs alone. They need to stop attacking Meghan to salve their egos. People are tired with Covid, economic disruption, their weak government and the Brexit difficulties . They don’t have time to prop up the royals because they really are exhausted.

  33. Abena Asantewaa says:

    This sounds sinister, after the facts. How did this story came to be, and how come the Palace never came out to clarify, when as usual Meghan was being abused by the likes of Ingrid Seaward and the rotten rota? I want to know what hocus pocus reason was given to Meghan about the exclusion of her name on her child’s birth cert, I am guessing, something on the lines of some non existent protocol, or a Century old tradirion!

  34. CC2 says:

    I’m so glad Meghan can now shut down anything she wants. This was a dumb story that made no sense-whether it was a snub to Kate or a nod to Diana.

    Meghan made this statement very intentionally-to refute this + also voice her disdain over the change. It’s clear that she doesn’t want to be nameless and it bothered her, and I’m glad we’re seeing the magnitude of the BS she put up with, little by little.

  35. L4frimaire says:

    This was too much yesterday. The royals and tabloids were being insufferable yesterday with all their bullsh*t. We haven’t seen Meghan in months, only heard from her in the podcast, yet these bully clowns decided to swarm her with a bunch of negative attack stories. How is it even legal to remove a mothers legal name off her child’s birth certificate? There must be certain legal requirements if both parents are known. It seems so underhanded, and regardless of royal protocols, there should be a standard for legal documents like birth certificates. How can you just alter documents like that! Also it’s incredibly sexist to think it’s ok to not list a mother on a birth certificate, like she’s some anonymous vessel. Just so wrong. Then they drag this up from 2019 to attack her with. Glad she pushed back hard and called them the clowns they are. Now they’re crying about being called out for their ignorance. There is something seriously, collectively wrong over there with this mass demonization of this woman.

  36. Lunasf17 says:

    This is odd to me. Don’t you have to list the actual parents names on birth certificates? Can I just remove my birth name from my daughter’s birth certificate and put my job title? I’m guessing not. Royal stuff makes zero sense to me most of the time! So ridiculous as usually.

    • Sofia says:

      So Duchess of Sussex isn’t her job, it’s her title. It can also be used as a surname if she wants aka Meghan Sussex.

      This applies to aristos as well. If they’ve got a title, they can in legal documents such as passports put their title down in the surname space. So for example, if you were Luna Smythe and you were the Duchess of London, you can put your title down as your name/surname and call yourself Luna London

  37. FC says:

    It looks like the American press (including CB, obvs) is picking this up and running it with the RIGHT angle. I hope they drag the BRF until the document is changed: https://www.eonline.com/news/1233163/meghan-markle-s-name-was-removed-from-archie-s-birth-certificate-but-not-at-her-request?content=organic&source=twitter-enews&cmpid=social&medium=link-post

    • Emmitt says:

      Archie’s birth certificate doesn’t need to be changed unless everyone else’s (William, Harry, Beatrice, Charles etc) are changed.

      The documents that need to be changed are George’s, Charlotte’s and Louis’.

      If Charles can’t have his daddy’s name on his birth certificate, neither should George/Charlotte/Louis.

      If William couldn’t have his mother’s name on his birth certificate, neither should George/Charlotte/Louis.

      George/Charlotte/Louis are not any more special than William or Charles, so if those people had their parents’ names erased from their birth certificates, so should George/Charlotte/Louis. Erase Kate’s name from their birth certificates immediately.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        WHAT should be questioned and changed is the dehumanizing practice of omitting the non-Windsor parents’ names from the birth certificates of their own children. The protocol is archaic and dehumanizing and should be changed – not the birth certificates of George, Charlotte and Louis. Kate is their mother and her given name should be on their birth certificate. Meghan’s should never have been erased. The protocol needs to change – and William and Kate had set a new precedent that conforms to this day and age. The protocol had already been de facto changed and I very much doubt that it was a protocol that was ever enshrined in writing. The fact that only Archie’s birth certificate was changed confirms that this is not about some archaic protocol but about Meghan and her race. The erasure of Meghan’s given name was about using archaic protocol as a stick to beat her with – it was just a tool for racist abuse.

  38. Well Wisher says:

    The original source of the information came from the Sun and the rebuttal did not offer any explanation. The Sussexes and BP agreed in general that the birth certificate used titles instead of names as of all the grandchildren of the reigning monarch. In the case of the Cambridge three children, their mother’s name was included as the Queen passed a royal decree ensuring that they are titled at birth. The difference is she did not use the decree at Archie’s birth so the change in the birth certificate will ensure that Archie become titled when his grandpa becomes king. The tradition of the grandchildren of the reigning monarch is upheld.
    According to history, one of the former monarchs (a King George?) had an acrimonious relationship with his heir or heirs and enact a royal writ? making his heirs to the level wards of the monarchy rather than their parents. This did not extend to the great grandchildren, hence the Queen stepping in to ensure that Cambridge children have titles. The correction in Archie’s birth certificate ensures that he will be titled as his cousins when Prince Charles becomes king. There is no snub nor erasure, just a legality to protect Archie and ensure he has his birthright.

    • Becks1 says:

      What? No, lol. That’s definitely not it. Diana’s name was not listed on William’s birth certificate, and certainly no one is challenging his birthright.

      George was entitled to being prince at birth, but Charlotte and Louis were not, and THAT is what the Queen changed. (and if Charlotte had been the oldest, and then George, George would have been prince while charlotte was lady, which was a big driver of the change.) the titles and honorifics etc come from William and Harry as the blood royals, so Kate’s name being on the birth certificate would not affect that.

      And your whole argument overlooks the point that Archie’s BC was changed to REMOVE Meghan’s name completely, not supplement it so it looked like Kate’s name on the Cambridge BCs.

      Archie IS titled now, he’s just not HRH Prince Archie, but he is entitled to that when Charles becomes king as a grandson in the male line of the monarch. That has nothing to do with his birth certificate. Again that is part of why the queen issued the decree changing the rules for the Cambridge kids – because Charlotte and Louis would be entitled to HRH Prince/ss when Charles became king anyway, so she just skipped that step for them.

      • Well Wisher says:

        As far as I am aware, Diana’s name is not on the birth certificate of her two sons. The titles are the inheritance hence the use of both parents titles. Prince George being future king and his siblings were given titles by edict. The Queen is not allowed to use that indiscriminately. Titles can be bestowed to her grandchildren by stated by the decree of the former monarch, this would have occurred in Archie’s case if his grandfather,Prince Charles was the reigning monarch. But Archie is the great grandchild of the reigning monarch and is called Master Archie Harrison Windsor-Mountbatten. The only heir that uses Prince Philip’s surname.

        We will disagree respectfully.

      • Becks1 says:

        Honestly, its not a matter of disagreeing. I just dont understand your point.

        Diana’s name is not on the birth certificate of her two sons. So then why is Kate’s? Why was Archie’s altered to REMOVE Meghan’s name? Meghan’s title was already on it, as is Kate’s (on her children’s BCs.)

        Archie is “going by” Master Archie but I think officially he’s Archie, Lord Dumbarton. Something like that. same way James Wessex is James, Viscount Severn (he’s using one of the lesser titles of his father.) So it was a very conscious choice on the part of H&M to NOT have Archie go by his title from birth.

        the Queen issued new letters patent when Kate was pregnant with George, that’s why the Cambridge kids are all HRH. Before that only the oldest grandson of the Prince of Wales would have been HRH, which was considered a bad look in case the son wasnt born first. (thats based on the letters patent of 1917 I believe, which also provides that all grandchildren in the male line of the monarch are HRH Prince/ss.) So she changed it, since they are all entitled to HRH once Charles becomes king anyway. Its kind of the same way Lady Louise Windsor (and Viscount Severn) are HRH, they just dont use it.

        All that to say – the birth certificate would not impact how they were titled, because that’s governed by the letters patent, and even if Ithe BC DID play some part in that, it still wouldnt make sense because Diana’s name was not listed, but Kate’s was.

    • Bex says:

      Great-grandchildren aren’t grandchildren. George, Louis, Charlotte, and Archie are great-grandchildren.

      The only minor grandchildren that the Queen has is the Wessex kids.

      That distinction matters.

  39. RoyalBlue says:

    Everyone has said it all. Racism at play here. The commonwealth countries should give them the boot.

    So racist Dickie, Lady Colin and all the others didn’t think it best to first consult with the palace before running with the story? What the hell kind of two-bit reporters are they anyway?

    Someone in the palace with an extremely nasty personality is sitting down collecting a paycheck for leaking, and there seems to be no accountability. No consequence for leaking. This is par for the course. Perfectly acceptable. I get it, the preservation of the monarchy must be done at all costs, and it must be protected against all threats. It seems that the biggest threat is Meghan, and their first line of defense is the Rota.

    as my grandmother used to say, their Karma is coming surely, coming soon, coming certainly, night or noon.

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      I’ve never wanted to see the universe give back in a circle back what was put out the way I want to see in this case.

  40. Steph says:

    What will the birth certificate say when she gives birth in America?

  41. Lissdogmom02 says:

    I think she should be able to put any variation of her name she so chooses she’s the one who gave birth she gets to decide. The tabloids/media is so vile to her it’s ridiculous. I wouldn’t blame her if she made a yearly trip back after the plague or less. She doesn’t owe anyone her peace and this seems to be the price they’d like paid. She’s a private citizen why can’t they just back off.

  42. Abby says:

    The rage I would feel as the mother, and even more so if I were Prince Harry, watching my son’s mother be erased by name on my child’s birth certificate. I’d GTFO immediately, too.

    As someone who comes from a toxic family and is now divorcing someone from a toxic family, I am so glad that the chaos from both of their families of origin have not driven them apart. They have turned toward each other instead of getting triangulated with toxic parents and having mixed loyalties. My ex had extensive other issues while Harry seems like he’s generally a solid person. Thank goodness he is rightly invested in protecting Meghan and not towing the line to Grammy. And you can even ‘hear’ Meghan’s ‘voice’ in the rebuttal. Like, pay attention to real sh*t, and don’t think for a second we decided to erase me from Archie’s birth certificate. I LOVE that she isn’t going to sit silently now that she’s safely in the US.

    • GuestwithCat says:

      Oof, sorry to hear about what you’ve been through there, Abby. There’s been some times when my husband prioritized his “family of origin” when they were acting like a pack of chumps and it was infuriating. I had to forge my own relationships with each of them to deal with them directly. I’m not angry at my husband, because I understand the complex play of factors that resulted in him doing that. Still, it was something I had to come to terms with and it was not easy.

      But I’ve been pretty fortunate in the in-law department. They’re entertainingly awful when life gets dull and needs some spice, but genuinely good when you need them to be, and I have come to love and appreciate them as my own family. I can only imagine the misery you’ve endured and I wish you all the best on your divorce and a lighter peaceful life ahead.

  43. Jay says:

    This seems like a clickbaity headline with potential unforeseen consequences – like, it’s just another in a long line of openly racist stories about Meghan and Archie that quotes one of these royal “experts”, but from my point of view it seems like a huge own goal to admit the palace’s role in it all. Do they really want this story out there? I can’t figure out who benefits here, other than Dickie Arbiter.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      I agree. This story was such an epic backfire for the palace because it turns out that Kate may be the odd one out with her name on her kids’ certificates. Basically Meghan’s was corrected to fit the “protocol” of the royal wives before her…except Kate. There definitely WAS a double standard in Meghan’s certificate being quickly corrected vs. Kate’s certificates being allowed to slide in their inaccuracy, and that’s what’s getting so much ire in people’s reactions. The palace clearly didn’t expect Meghan to respond to their latest smear attempt (and in such a delicious way too…verbal equivalent to a backhand slap). Now they’re getting even more criticism for racism on top of Will’s mealy-mouthed football statements.

      • L4frimaire says:

        I want to know what was the motivation in putting this out there, especially almost 18 months after the fact. Then to frame it as a snub to Kate Middleton, when had nothing to do with her. What exactly was it supposed to accomplish?

      • Beach Dreams says:

        I think the motivation was quite simple: to distract from the PR blunders of another royal (this time Kate). Both Will and Kate have been in PR fiascos of their own making for the past year, but this is arguably the worst backlash Kate’s gotten in several years (even more than her CW Day snub imo). A lot of people were quite scathing in their reaction to her “I’m SO exhausted” whining, and these were mostly ‘normal’ folks who don’t pay attention to the RF.

        Framing the story as a ‘snub’ to Kate was probably a bonus for the palace because they’re already so accustomed to throwing Meghan under the bus to prop up Kate. It would’ve been a perfect redirect of attention if Meghan hadn’t promptly shut the story down and highlighted the fact that the palace was in control of making the change. Sure, people eventually stopped talking about Kate’s exhaustion, but the result is so much worse for the RF’s image as a whole.

      • Amy Too says:

        What is especially galling to me is that this is essentially Kate throwing Meghan under the bus AND YET claiming that she (Kate) was the victim of Meghan’s viscous snub or whatever. Like sure, maybe you’re kate and you screwed up by claiming to be exhausted so you go to your number one redirection tactic and leak something mean/racist/embarrassing and awful for Meghan that has the added benefit of reminding everyone how much more special you’re treated compared to Meghan. That’s already shi*ty and mean, but then Kate goes the extra mile to claim that what was actually a racist attack on Meghan that probably hurt her deeply and went against every single one of her instincts and principles was actually Meghan being a B to attack Kate. Why on earth would she go that far!? It points the finger directly back at her, especially since the spin makes zero sense.

        Real story: In a move that humiliates and dehumanizes Meghan (again), Meghan is forced to have her own name erased from her son’s birth certificate even though Kate gets the privilege of having her name on her kids’ birth certificates. Kate decided to make this private humiliation public hoping to distract from her own bad behavior.

        Spin: Someone randomly looks at Archie’s birth certificate and discovers that Meghan went through the trouble of filing for a while new birth certificate in which she erases her own name from her own son’s birth certificate as a way to be mean to Kate.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      It is mindboggling that who ever leaked this didn’t see that it isn’t Meghan that looks bad in this story, it’s the BRF who look bad, especially with the response from the Sussexes. Did they think that Meghan and Harry wouldn’t response? They proven that they they absolutely react when it comes to false stories about their son or their charitable commitments.

      • Jay says:

        Yes, perhaps it shows even more how very insular and limited their worldview must be! Epically bad decision making.

        Also, isn’t this kind of another missed opportunity for Woke William? It seems to me that referring to Kate by her actual name on their children’s birth certificate is sensible, and while of course I can’t know if William and Kate were directly involved in pressuring the Sussexes to change Archie’s birth certificate, they must have known about it.

        Why wouldn’t they want the Sussexes to copy them for a change, and keep the format of the birth certificate? Surely that’s what the “new modern royals” I keep hearing about from People magazine would do.

        This was a perfect chance to make the Cambridges seem like they are setting a new precedent (which Meghan and Harry decided to follow!) that drags the royals firmly in the direction of the 20th century.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        I suspect that the move to erase Meghan’s name from the birth certificate came from BP. Apparently, the Queen’s current Private Secretary doesn’t like Meghan and the allegedly clashed more than once over how to do things (regarding Meghan’s work as a royal). I think this man used an archaic piece of protocol to stick it to Meghan.

        The question now is: who leaked this story? Apparently, it was leaked a while ago because, as stated in another post on this story, someone from the paper that broke the story filed a FOI on the birth certificate about 2 weeks ago. So someone in the Palace (BP?) leaked to the reporter in question that there was a story regarding Archie’s birth certificate a while ago. The reporter followed up to see the amended certificate and then sat on the story until now.

        The reason why the story is ridiculously spun as a slight to Kate is because pitting the women against each other is an old media strategy when it comes to royal reporting, especially in Britain.

  44. Lala456 says:

    Ugh, this is so gross. I saw more than the usual articles about Meghan pop up on my google news feed and the headlines were of course so nasty. It’s tiring. And I can’t believe that the “gold standard” courtiers don’t realize yet that we all know what’s up. Bill and Kathy make a mistake and magically a lot of anti-Meghan articles pop up. They are still operating as if the internet doesn’t exist. There’s sites like this and Lainey that call it out as well as so many people on twitter noticing exactly what they are doing. It’s so obvious now and makes them look so nasty and childish. But then again, I’m glad. Keep making mistakes. Even monarchy fans will probably get tired of hearing about H & M at some point.

  45. BnLurkN4eva says:

    Every time the loser twosome messes up, the gutter press find a way to abuse Meghan and that was the life Harry was supposed to live out and be happy about it. Poor Meghan, no one could have prepared her for this level of abuse and don’t even see any end in sight unless the people of the UK rise up and do something about their hateful tabloids. Harry and Meghan will just have to continue on as they are and imo the best way to fight back is for Harry to completely reject his family and all they stand for. No going back there, the charities can be served the way they have been during the pandemic.

  46. Chelsea says:

    Thank you for doing an excerpt of the original article as i refuse to click on the Sun. The fact that Ingrid Sewald who is so renowned as a royal ‘expert’ and “historian’ didnt know that Diana’s first name wasn’t on William and Harry’s birth certificates and that Fergie’s wasnt on the York girls is really remarkable. The fact that she then proceeded to use her ignorance to attack Meghan for not following royal protocol when in fact Meghan was following royal protocol that was forced on her is absolutely absurd. It makes perfect sense why that statement from their press secretary had so much heat on it and why it called out the ‘carnival of so called ‘experts”.

    This comes off to me like The Keens sent someone at The Sun this story to get the heat off Kate’s “exhausted” comments and they thought they’d get away with this huge ass lie because Meghan hasnt been seen in a few months and hasnt released any statements at all this year. They thought wrong. They should know by now not to use things regarding Archie; the Sussexes will always fight back.

    Now that H&M pushed back Buckingham Palace ran to the Telegraph to claim this was a clerical error whatever that means but there is a serious question to be asked here of WHY Kate was able to keep her name on her children’s birth certificate after William filed it with both her first and middle name but when Harry did the same for Archie they made Meghan remove her name? There’s a very clear double standard here and the palace and the royals deserve to get dragged like this especially with William being dumb enough to tweet about racism yesterday. I am so glad that Harry got Meghan and Archie out of there and didnt bring Archie back when they visited those couple of times at the start of last year. I hope they can keep him away from this sh*tshow for a long time.

  47. lanne says:

    I hope Harry and Meghan sit down with Oprah sometime soon. They don’t even have to “burn it to the ground” like Diana (even though any statement they make will be viewed that way.) They just need to tell their own story (and let the Palace sweat before they do so).

  48. Carmen-JamRock says:

    @ L4frimaire said upthread that this was all sooooo much yesterday; that the royals and tabloids were being insufferable with all their bullsh*t; that we haven’t seen Meghan in months, weve only heard from her in the podcast; yet the bully clowns decided to swarm her with a bunch of negative attack stories.

    The logical thing to ask is, why? Why all these attacks now? Why now, when M hasnt been seen in abt 2 months nor heard from for the entire month of January and theyve already exhausted themselves criticizing the podcast? Granted, we could say its because H’s win against MoS had a new angle which was published (all over the international media, btw) this morning. And as we know, attacking M serves to attack H also.

    But I believe I know the reason for the out of the blue attack on M: the judge in M’s case against the big sh*trag MoS et al is set to make his ruling this wk: whether to grant M the summary judgement or send the case to trial.

    So just as how, when FF was abt to be launched, there was a feeding frenzy of bullsh*t from the usual carnival of clowns, so too, with the big news coming down the pike in a matter of days. Perhaps even tmrw.

    Theyre anticipating that M will get her wish. Hence the preemptive attacks.

  49. bettyrose says:

    It doesn’t sound like any unique rules were applied to Meghan, but even so. It’s one thing to grow up in that world and know the rules. It’s another to be plucked from the 21st century and told your name won’t appear on the birth certificate. GEEBUS! I don’t know how Meghan kept her cool for as long as she did (I guess access to luxurious spa treatments helped, but good for her for getting out).

    • L4frimaire says:

      The article was framed in such a way that it made it look like Meghan changed the birth certificate out of some ulterior motive, when she didn’t make nor request the change, it was never publicized at the time it happened and there was no explanation until she pushed back. The press decided to use this dead letter against her, regardless of what the original intent was. Now people are seeing it as an attempt at erasure because that’s what it looks like.

      • L4frimaire says:

        Also, acces to luxurious spa treatments? Really? Like she didn’t have that before? Even I have access to luxurious spa treatments but don’t think it requires taking my name off my kids birth certificate. This whole debacle looks like setting up some birtherism nonsense.Like no one was thinking about this except for some random palace person with a grudge and fixation from this child’s birth.

      • bettyrose says:

        I try to remind myself that Meghan has many blessings in her life. A wonderful husband, beautiful child, supportive mother and friends, and a gorgeous mansion. That’s a lot, right? Because otherwise, it’s inconceivable to me how she could have endured all of this. That’s her friggin’ child! Whom she gestated and birthed! I just . . . the amount of things wrong with trying to erase her as the mother in the 21st CENTURY . . . This is absolute insanity. But now that they’re back in the modern world, the truth is that a passport is as good as a birth certificate so as long as Archie keeps a current passport, that bizarre birth certificate never needs to be part of his life.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        This whole debacle about Archie’s birth certificate is yet another proof how inhuman the royal institution is – at least the way the Windors and the palace machine manages the British monarchy. I’ve talked about this before – I think that the palace machine is stuck in the 19th century in terms of how things are run and that things haven’t changed because the Windsors are dumb, incurious and emotionally stunted people (in part due to the inhumanity of the palace machine). I think that the senior staff wield quite a bit of power because the Queen is incurious, not very bright and lacking in empathy. She’s been insulated away from the rest of the world her entire life (with a very spotty education) and she just does what has always been done because it is easier. Her extreme longevity has just brought all this to a head. She’s been Queen for more than half a century and during that time the institution hasn’t been able to adapt well to a changing world and that has become even more acute as she and Philip has gotten older.

  50. GuestwithCat says:

    The more they leak trying to sink the Sussexes, the more the Royals show how wise the Sussexes were to leave this sh*t show.

    Even if it is some sort of crazy ass protocol or law, what kind of sane and functional system prioritizes the name and identity of an individual beneath their stupid g-damn title on the certificate of birth of their own child?

    I can’t imagine how hurt and appalled Harry and Meghan were at this horrid snub. Clerical error my butt! And worse, the palace didn’t speak up until Meghan and Harry stuck up for themselves.

    So again, the palaces reveal more about their real selves by what they do and don’t respond to and how. They are all irredeemable.

  51. Sarah I says:

    This makes me so angry, like many of the above. I don’t see how the Palace can get away with it, and what explanation would they give, when they give ALL of Harry’s names and his title AND Prince. So the thought that popped into my head was that they only wanted the title for mother and not her name was if somehow someday Harry remarried, then Meghan’s name would not be anywhere apparent, and it could somehow seem as if the new Duchess was his mother. Well, it made sense to me when I thought about it.

    • Julia K says:

      The Palace is now saying that it was Meghans own staff that did the changing, not them.

      • Beach Dreams says:

        I saw that new “explanation” too and it makes no sense.

        1) Of course the palace wants to pin this on Meghan alone by claiming it’s HER “former staff”.
        2) The “former staff” they’re referring to are KP employees. Harry and Meghan were under BP for at least two months when she gave birth.
        3) They’re saying it was to match changes to her American passport, which is an especially stupid claim on their part because the US does not recognize titles. She simply cannot have her title as her name on her US passport.

        Again, this new spin makes no sense and it smacks of desperation from the RF. They didn’t expect such a sharp and direct statement from Meghan and now they’re scrambling to clean up the backlash they’re facing. It seems like BP wants to kick the blame to KP (whether accurate or not) in a roundabout way while trying to discredit Meghan.

      • Julia K says:

        @beach dreams, you bring up very good points. I agree that this makes no sense. This must be serving some purpose but what and for whom is this an issue and why now?

      • Ginger says:

        Staff that worked for the palace and did as they were told. They are trying to shift the blame but it all comes back to the palace and RF.

        The passport theory makes no sense and is very weak.

      • Bex says:

        That US passport claim is absurd in the fact that HER child’s birth certificate would not be used to determine her identity.

        It also doesn’t explain why they changed Harry’s to include Prince, yet do not mention that he “wanted the birth certificate to match”HIS passport.

        Also…my name is different on my son’s birth certificate than it is now (as I got re-married). I wouldn’t need to amend his birth certificate in order to verify that I am his mother.

        These palace officials are morons, and obviously have never requested a US passport.

  52. JRenee says:

    How much more did they endure that we don’t know about? This is so sad and hurtful!

  53. starryfish29 says:

    I think the original intent was to make her seem uppity, as though she was hyper focused on being recognized by her title. The problem is that as usual once the story unravels it’s the palace that looks bad. They’re going with ‘clerical error’ as the line on what happened, but that’s a remarkable coincidence that the ‘clerical error’ only affected Meghan’s names & not Harry’s. It’s just another piece in this creepy attempt to erase Meghan from the royal narrative in any way that they can, including having the audacity to deny her right to have her name on her own son’s birth certificate, like he’s just Harry’s.

  54. SURE says:

    Sorry if this question has already been asked but does anyone think that it was William who wanted Meghan’s name removed? After all Meghan will never be queen consort so why should she be given the same leeway (respect) that was afforded to Kate. Thoughts?

    • ArtHistorian says:

      I think it came from BP and the Queens Private Secretary. It is said that he dislikes Meghan very much and that they clashed several times. I wouldn’t be surprised if he used “protocol” as a stick to beat her with. There are several players in the mess that eventually lead to Sussexit – it has become clear that several of the Queen’s senior staff didn’t like Meghan and put road blocks in her way (most likely for racist reasons).

      William and his staff certainly play a major part but he wasn’t the only player.

  55. blunt talker says:

    Of all the things I read this weekend this one upset me the most-When the Duchess stated through her reps that the palace had made this change-my first thought this is definitely when Harry and Meghan started thinking about leaving the UK-They did Diana the same way-Someone on a talk show today said this is the way the royal family show they disapprove a female in the family-They did not like Diana and they do not like Meghan-Ever wonder why Archie has not been back to the UK-They could have brought him in January 2020 or in March 2020-there’s something about this change that bothers people as if they are trying to erase Archie’s mother for whatever reason-her racial heritage or her own strong will. It is a very hateful and vile things to do to the child’s mother. I would tell any senior royal to their face this is evil and downright evil-Queen Elizabeth-Prince Charles-Prince William-May God have mercy on their souls.

  56. Keri says:

    The brf deserves every inch of grief they get over this. I hope they never recover and become irrelevant as soon as yesterday