Buckingham Palace claims they didn’t dictate anything about Archie’s birth certificate

Royal baby

As we discussed, the royal reporters thought they could do a thing about Archie’s birth certificate. Archie’s BC had to be updated almost one full month after he was born, and Meghan’s name was taken off the document and in its place was only Meghan’s title, the Duchess of Sussex. The royal reporters gleefully suggested that this was some kind of “snub” of Kate, or some kind of early plot by Meghan involving the Sussexit. Meghan shot down the story by saying that the name change was “dictated by The Palace” and “not requested by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex nor by The Duke of Sussex.” She called out the “carnival” of royal commentators who suggested that Meghan “would oddly want to be nameless on her child’s birth certificate, or any other legal document,” and that the suggestion “would be laughable were it not offensive.”

The removal of Meghan’s name from the document was racist – the white duchess got HER name on her children’s birth certificates – and dehumanizing. Those same royal commentators who lied about Meghan and lied about her child’s birth certificate are now gleeful that they got a response from her. Tom Sykes has a petty piece about how Meghan’s statement proves that “Meghan still really hates the establishment at Buckingham Palace and resents them for depriving her of her voice, agency, and autonomy.” Sykes also points out that the Sun reached out to Meghan ahead of the publication of their story and that she didn’t comment. Which… why would she? The same publication which has spread lies about her for years, along with the Mail? At the end of Sykes piece, he noted this: “On Sunday, Buckingham Palace sources suggested that a ‘clerical error and nothing more than that’ was to blame for the alteration to Archie’s certificate.” A clerical error? A deliberate change in the birth certificate 29 days after Archie was born is merely a clerical error?

And if that’s not enough, it seems that Meghan’s icy statement sent Buckingham Palace into crisis mode. Not only did someone at BP push the “clerical error” excuse, but now this convoluted excuse is being pushed:

Meghan Markle left Buckingham Palace officials “baffled” by her statement saying they forced her to change her name on baby Archie’s birth certificate, Page Six is told. Shortly after her 2018 wedding to Prince Harry, Markle — who was born Rachel Meghan Markle — had her name officially changed to Meghan, HRH The Duchess of Sussex, we have confirmed. This name is now believed to be on her passport and all official documents, as officially required by the Garter King of Arms and Senior Herald in England.

The Queen was the one to gift the Sussexes their titles upon their marriage. But following Archie’s birth at London’s private Portland Hospital on May 6, 2019, his mom’s name was registered as “Rachel Meghan, Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex.” This was later amended to “Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex” that June.

However, after Meghan’s statement, a well-placed source told us, “This is totally baffling. The Palace did not dictate anything, this amendment was made by staff within their former office at Kensington Palace and higher-ups at Buckingham Palace were always kept in the loop.”

Another source confirmed the Palace had nothing to do with it, adding, “The birth certificate was changed by the former Office of The Duke and Duchess to ensure consistency in the name and title of The Duchess of Sussex with other private documents.”

The Sussexes, however, did not request the change, we are told. It is believed to have been carried out by their former staff.

[From Page Six]

*sips tea* It sounds like Buckingham Palace is throwing Kensington Palace under the bus, right? BP is saying “it wasn’t us, we were merely kept in the loop.” Meghan’s statement said “dictated by the Palace” – which means she clearly believed the order came from BP, not KP, which does run independently. Even if there was a legitimate mix-up and KP staffers were unsure about how Meghan’s name and title should be listed given her married-name change on her documentation, that still doesn’t explain why they refused to even list her as HRH Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex. They just put her title there. They could have taken off “Rachel” and just left “Meghan” and her title. Anyway, sounds like Meghan’s got some petty bitches scramblin’.



Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, social media, Backgrid.

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

130 Responses to “Buckingham Palace claims they didn’t dictate anything about Archie’s birth certificate”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Sofia says:

    I’m pretty sure they were under BP by the time this all happened so yeah, it’s on BP. You could argue some new wayward staffer or whatever went to KP thinking Meghan’s staff were still there but I assume KP staff would have redirected them back to BP.

    Also, I doubt her title is on her documents such as passport. She has a US passport and they don’t recognise titles in those IIRC but will wait for a lawyer or someone who works with passports to tell me I’m wrong ;). British passports do but Meghan doesn’t have a British passport so how is her title in her passport?

    Again you could argue she put “Sussex” or “Mountbatten-Windsor” as a surname but those are not her titles. Even Sussex isn’t her full title. It’s the “Duchess” part that is the main bit.

    • Jenn says:

      They were under BP when Archie was born. Meghan and Harry’s staff were never independent they reported to BP. So BP cannot pass the buck.

    • Becks1 says:

      Good catch, they were definitely under BP (they switched to them sometime in February or March of that year if I remember correctly?) so BP cannot throw KP under the bus here. But they sure did try, didnt they?

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The Queen’s Private Secretary is said to really dislike Meghan – so I wouldn’t be surprised if he had used an archaic protocol as a stick to beat her with.

      • February-Pisces says:

        I’m so confused getting my head around this. I think because KP leaked the story in the first place to cover Kate’s ‘exhausted’ backlash, then with harry and meghans statement, BP now got dragged into it. BP are probably p*ssed that KP leaked it in the first place and now they are left to pick up the mess they left. I already see on Twitter the carnival of so-called experts have gathered to take shots at Meghan.

        The haters are trying really hard to find a way to blame her for this, but really can’t justify it.

    • Xantha says:

      As an American who’s in the middle of having my passport renewed, US laws don’t recognize noble titles at all. And considering that the US fought a bloody war to get away from a monarchy, it makes sense.

      If you want your name changed you have to give a copy of your marriage certificate with your new name. At most she would be either Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor or Rachel Meghan Sussex.

      There’s no need for the birth certificate to match with a passport and being an American Meghan can’t legally go by The Duchess of Sussex anyway. This is BP trying cover themselves and failing cause they don’t know US laws.

      • Becks1 says:

        I can see the BC needing to match up with the passport for international travel for peons (if you are taking a baby out of the country they’re going to want to make sure you have the right to do so), but I dont think customs would be that strict with the Sussexes. Someone also mentioned below that Meghan likely had a diplomatic passport, so her title was probably on that.

        BUT then we’re still back to – her title WAS on the original birth certificate! It just also had her name! It wasnt like the original BC read “Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor” and they switched it to Duchess of Sussex. It said “Rachel Meghan HRH the Duchess of Sussex.” So the whole “it has to match up with the passport” for any legal reasons STILL doesnt make sense because her title was on there.

        And then AGAIN we circle back to – if Kate was allowed to put her name on the BC, what name is on her diplomatic passport? (if we work under the theory that meghan had a diplomatic one with her title on it.) I would assume those would be filled out in a very uniform way so does Kate’s name on her kids BCs not match what is on her passport, and if so, why wasnt that deemed a problem?

      • Xantha says:

        In order to get a diplomatic passport, you have to be an actual diplomat of a country. Often times that person is an employee of the Government of some type. It would make no sense for her to have a diplomatic passport because the original plan was for her and Harry to live in the UK and represent the BRF. So my best bet would be on her having a regular American passport since she did a lot of traveling long before she met Harry and wasn’t a US diplomat in any shape or form.

        And yes the whole argument is pointless because it doesn’t answer the question why was her actual name put on Archie’s birth certificate, then taken off. I think the Sussexes are 100% telling the truth here: BP dictated the change against their wishes.

      • BABSORIG says:

        @Becks1, what “diplomatic passport” would Meghan have? It definitely wouldn’t be American, she is not an American diplomat just because she married prince Harry. It was also widely reported that Meghan would not be allowed to “jump the line” so if anything Meghan was on spouse visa in the UK and therefore the only passport she possesses is a US passport that doesn’t allow inclusion of titles so………
        SMH, this shit is really stinky at this point, can BP please STFU and let this die?

      • Becks1 says:

        @Babs oh I obviously dont know if she does have a diplomatic passport. I dont know what kind of passports the royals use when they travel and how Meghan’s being American might complicate that. But that’s the only way I can see the “she needs to match the passport” make sense since her name would definitely be on her US passport (whether she changed it to her married name or not.) And she definitely has a US passport, I dont think anyone is questioning that.

        I think people in general are getting too hung up on the idea of “her passport” when that was clearly a BS excuse thrown out by the palace to try to cover their tracks. It doesnt really matter what any of us did when we renewed our passports or whatever.

      • BABSORIG says:

        @Becks1 I get yr point. And I believe people not letting the passport explanation pass is because its a way we tell these f#cks that we know they’re lying. And we know they do read this site so tomorrow they’ll probably run with the “Meghan has a diplomatic passport” yadda yadda yadda excuse so no, I’m shooting that down real quick in case they get any ideas.😁😁

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @All my CB Buddies – If the names of the birth certificate(s) has to match up with the names on passport(s), will the Cambridge kids BCs have to be changed when PwBT & Keen Trainbridge become the P&P of Wales and then again when they become K&QC of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

        This WHOLE story makes absolutely NO FRACKING SENSE!!!!

      • Amy Too says:

        But if everything needed to match, and they are telling us that she has legally changed her name to “Meghan, HRH the Duchess of Sussex,” and they claim that is on all her official documents including her passport, even though that doesn’t make any sense bc she has an American passport where “HRH the Duchess of Sussex” wouldn’t even be included, then “Rachel Meghan, HRH Duchess of Sussex” should have been changed to “Meghan, HRH Duchess of Sussex,” and not “HRH Duchess of Sussex.” This new lie doesn’t make any more sense than “it was a clerical error.” And it sounds like BP is trying to say that her staff just did it for her without her consent and while BP was always updated and kept in the loop about it (but Meghan wasn’t?) they didn’t “dictate it.” So whose idea was it? BP claims it wasn’t their mandate (was it their “request,” though? Is the word “dictate” what they’re arguing? Is this a semantics argument?) Meghan and Harry say it wasn’t their idea. So it was their staffers making a major decision about her legal documents without consulting her but while still updating BP the whole way? This doesn’t make the palace look better!

      • Chica says:

        None of their attempts to explain this makes sense of course bc that’s exactly what they want, while trying to make Meghan look like a liar. The avg. person reading this is not seeking to investigate this to see how much convoluted BS there is and suss out the lies from the palaces. It’s to sow confusion and distrust of Meghan. However, people in her corner and following the story can see it’s all a pile of garbage they’re playing at. It’s crazy they would even try Meghan. because she spoke about the proof it was dictated by documents saying so. I can imagine she has copies of any exchanges she had where she voiced her displeasure about her name being removed from her son’s birth certificate.

    • sally says:

      I would like to see both birth certificates, the old one and the one that has been changed.

      Perhaps Meghan changed her last name in her passport post-marriage? Or is she still “Rachel Meghan Markle”?
      Harry’s passport probably says something like: Henry Wales, Henry Mountbatten – Windsor. Perhaps he even (ab)used his title as his last name: Henry Duke of Sussex. Then he would be Mr. Duke of Sussex and Meghan would be Mrs. Duke of Sussex.

      I think you might be able to put your aristo title-by-marriage into your passport as your “stage name”. A lot of identification documents do allow you to add some kind of “stage name” into your documents. For example: stage name: Marilyn Manson, birth name: Brian Hugh Warner.

      • Amy Bee says:

        But Meghan has an American passport not a British one.

      • Sofia says:

        Yeah so if you’ve got a title and you’ve got a UK passport, you can use your title and put it in the last name column.

        For example, in Kate’s passport, its probably:
        First Name(s): Catherine Elizabeth
        Last Name: Duchess of Cambridge

        Same with Harry:
        First Name(s): Henry Charles Albert David
        Last Name: Duke of Sussex

        Before becoming the Duke, Harry probably used Wales as a last name in his passport as its custom to use your father’s highest title when you need a surname when it comes to the royals.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        This has nothing to do with anything but: The American Julie Fisher, who married Luke Montague heir to the Earl of Sandwich, stated in an interview that Luke’s name on his American Express Card is “Viscount Hinchingbrooke”

    • PEARL GREY says:

      A couple of weeks from now we will probably hear that it was indeed dictated by the palace with their explicit intention, just like when they tried to scramble to pass the buck to courtiers over who was behind the decision to deny Harry’s wreath, only to find out it was indeed Betty of House Petty all along. They aren’t fooling anyone but those who want to be fooled.

    • anotherlily says:

      The statement about the US not ‘recognizing’ titles is being widely used to suggest that titles make documents invalid and make title holders somehow invisible. This is not the case. It simply means that titles have no standing in the US and no special significance.

      Numerous people with foreign titles are able to live, study and work in the US. One example being His Serene Highness Prince Maximillian of Liechtenstein who attended Harvard and worked for many years in the US where he was generally known as Prince Max.

      Numerous American women have married European titled men and thereby acquired titles. Their children may have US citizenship and this is not compromised by any inherited titles. Archie has American and British citizenship. He is currently 7th in line to the throne. He will eventually inherit the title Duke of Sussex.

      Meghan’s titles derive from her marriage. Her passport will reflect her married status.

      • Sofia says:

        I did not say that Meghan’s titles were invalid or the documents were.

        I was just saying that I don’t think Meghan can put the title “Duchess of Sussex” in her passports like UK citizens with titles can. And lots of royals will use a surname instead of their titles.

        For example the ex Greek royals use “Greece” as a surname. Similarly I suggested Meghan may have put “Sussex” as a surname but that’s not the same as using “Duchess of Sussex”

      • BABSORIG says:

        @Anotherlily, people are just saying the US doesn’t include titles on passports because the US doesn’t hold them significant of anything. No one is saying no titles can be used in the US.

      • anotherlily says:

        I think this answers it ….. “Although the Constitution prohibits the U.S. government from granting titles of nobility, it doesn’t prohibit citizens from accepting titles from foreign governments. An amendment that would force citizens who accept foreign titles to renounce their U.S. citizenship was proposed, but never ratified” This will include titles acquired through marriage.

        Meghan’s status and name changed by marriage. Her passport would be updated to reflect the changes. Her new name is correctly stated in the original birth certificate. She is Rachel Meghan, HRH The Duchess of Sussex. Her maiden name is noted in the appropriate section. This is the same format used for the Cambridge birth certificates. There was no need for any of this to be altered.

        The ‘minor clerical error’ excuse coming from BP probably refers to the word ‘Prince’ which was missed from Harry’s name.

        ISTM that someone noticed this minor error and took advantage of an opportunity to remove Meghan’s Christian names in the (totally unnecessary) amendment.

        ‘The Palace’ is now freeking out and hunting around for excuses because the circumstances appear to fit the legal criteria for racial discrimination.

      • Babsorig says:

        @Anoherlily, I’m confused as to why you bring up the US constitution and titles etc. No one said Meghan is required or was forced to renounce her titles. What we all are saying is that even with the change in her names upon marriage to prince Harry (say for example she became Rachel Meghan HRH The Duchess of Sussex), that name change would not be reflected in the same form on her passport to read first name: Rachel, middle name: Meghan, Last name: HRH The Duchess of Sussex. She might have changed her passport but maybe it changed to read Rachel Meghan Mountbatten-Windsor, just like her son’s last name. Therefore the explanations that BP is chugging out that the changes were “matching her name up to her official documents, eg her passport” are just crazy.

    • LRob says:

      I think her us passport would have been updated after marriage to her new legal name, e.g., meghan, hrh the duchess of sussex. someone bungled the job of correcting her name on the bc, either deliberately or accidentally. BUT what the Palace ignores is that the stupid 2 yr old action was dug up by the Sun to malign the duchess. An honorable statement by the Palace should have included condemnation of the tabloid for their bad faith reporting.

  2. SarahCS says:

    Sure Jan.

    It is fun watching them run around in circles contradicting themselves though with a whole lot of ‘who me?’ thrown in. It’s tightsgate, tiaragate and all the rest all over again.

    • Ginger says:

      It’s very much tightsgate and tiaragate. The fact that they keep changing their story is proof it was them all along. Meghan wouldn’t release her statement if she didn’t have proof.

  3. Merricat says:

    Meghan’s treatment by the RF has forever changed the way I see them, particularly the Cambridges. Their behavior has been so cruel and so unnecessary.

    • Angel says:

      Same. They are nothing but bunch of evil people. I can’t not believe some people still want to be a part of that family and institution. The fact that they have the audacity to bully her like that after her miscarriage and everything they did to her. smh.

      • cherriepie84 says:

        Aaaaaand these sh*tty people still won’t leave her alone…haven’t they gotten their ten pounds of flesh already?!!

      • Lilly (with the double-L) says:

        The best they could hope for, with the pandemic and all the peek behind the curtains, is deference from old skool Brits and some neutrality from others. But, they keep messing that up and I agree, all I see is centuries old ingrained racism, entitlement and evil. I don’t use that word lightly, they have all the energy to oppress and generate shock that they are questioned at all. The devastating effects of their attitudes and beliefs is seemingly never considered. They really give racists something to hold onto, when they could do so little to bring positive change.

  4. Levans says:

    Whether it was Kensington Palace or Buckingham Palace, those petty,racist a*holes knew exactly what they were doing. Buckingham was kept in the loop so their implicit approval to dehumanize and harass Meghan was given.

  5. Eleonor says:

    This mess has BP and their courtries footprints all over.
    End of it.

    • tee says:

      I don’t understand how the RF just let’s their staff run rampant planting and “sourcing” stories in the tabloids, particularly against those they work(ed) for. Meg called the royal “experts” a carnival, but the Firm is the circus.

    • Myra says:

      My memory of 2019 may be fuzzy given that it was a decade ago, but IIRC, they made a big fuss informing everyone that the Sussexes’ office falls under BP. Now, they want to act as if Harry and Meghan had a separate court? In any case, if they are so confident that they are telling the truth, why not put their names behind their statements? Why snitch anonymously?

  6. Becks1 says:

    LOL, Sykes can be so salty sometimes. Of course Meghan is still bitter at Buckingham Palace and how she was deprived of her “voice, agency, and autonomy” – I dont think she lets that bitterness rule her life, but I do think at times we see it pop out. And who can blame her? The more that comes out, the more I’m impressed she hasnt gone into full-on “burn it down” mode and done a tell-all interview with Oprah. I know I know, she’s too classy for that, but damn sometimes I wish she would, lol.

    The fact that the palaces cannot get their story straight here tells me that something nefarious was going on. Its not as simple as “matching her name up to her official documents,” because again, we look to Kate – what is her name on official documents? She definitely DID change her passport, considering George was born more than 2 years after their marriage. and I’m sure everything else was changed as fast as possible.

    And that’s really the big tell here – how Kate’s listed on her kids birth certificates. Her name was allowed to remain, Meghan’s was not, and there’s really no way for the palace to get around that. The only logical response would be “it seems the Cambridge birth certificates are filled out incorrectly and corrections will be made immediately.”

    (note that I’m saying “logical” meaning as far as royal rules go – I dont think its logical at all that the mother’s name isnt listed, but if that’s the standard for royal birth certificates, and Kate is the outlier, then its worth asking why.)

    • Snuffles says:

      Someone needs to tell Sykes that ANY mother from any country, titled or untitled, rich or poor would be “salty” if THEIR NAME WAS REMOVED from their child’s birth certificate!

      These idiots keep digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole.

    • windyriver says:

      So, if they’re saying some clerical error was responsible for the change to Archie’s birth certificate, BP says they’re baffled and didn’t force her to do it, can the Sussexes apply to have it changed back? Especially since there’s no mention of correcting the Cambridge children’s certificates?

    • Amy Bee says:

      It’s very obvious that being told that she had to take her names off her son’s birth certificate was very upsetting and hurtful to her. So who could blame her for strong statement?

    • Sofia says:

      And Meghan wasn’t even particularly bitchy towards the palace. She held her snipes for the rota who she’s not even big fan of anyways. The difference is that she gave a statement through her spokesperson instead of having lawyers sue.

      It wouldn’t be hard to give out a statement like “The Duke and Duchess of Sussex correctly filed their child’s certificate by removing The Duchess’ name. This was to keep the certificates in line with previous certificates of the past such as the children of The Duke of Edinburgh, Diana, Princess of Wales and Sarah, Duchess of York. It’s tradition and protocol to use the blood royal’s name on the certificates. As for the Duchess of Cambridge, the Duke and Duchess requested before Prince George’s birth to use The Duchess’s names instead of just her title. After talks with The Prince of Wales and other staffers, it was decided they could do the change. However, after even more substantial talks with Her Majesty and The Duke of Edinburgh, it was decided it would be best to keep to the old way. However, The Prince of Wales had promised the Duke and Duchess and didn’t want to disappoint them so it was decided they could keep The Duchess’s name for Prince George and any future siblings. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex took their cues from the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, unaware that further talks had happened, hence the error. We notified them and it was fixed”

      But they don’t have a single working braincell over there.

      • Becks1 says:

        That would be a very good statement and would explain this away in a logical fashion, so of course they will never say anything like that.

        But I also dont think that’s what happened – I dont think William asked, I think William just filled it out how he wanted, and no one wanted to correct him, so when Harry just followed his lead, he got pushback and was told to fix it. And they cant really spin that because it boils down to “William made a mistake and no one made him fix it but we made Harry fix it because that’s how this family rolls.”

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Sofia: If the story was true Meghan would have said something similar to what you wrote.

      • Belli says:

        And if they wanted to take that route, the time to release that statement would have been before Meghan had to come out and defend herself.

        Instead they let her get abuse in the papers for it and only piped up when she’d denied the first story.

      • Sofia says:

        @Amy Meghan didn’t say what did or didn’t happen. All it said was that this was a palace mandated change. There was no further explanation from her spokesperson beyond that. The reasons for the changes are coming from the palace.

        And it doesn’t even have to happen the way I said it or for it to be true at all. But like Becks said, it would be the logical way to explain it

      • Sofia says:

        @Becks: like I said, this doesn’t need to be something that actually happened (the palace isn’t exactly above lying to make certain people look good), I’m just saying that this would have been a good way to handle it. It explains the changes being made, why they weren’t made in the first place, makes Charles look like a good dad for listening to his son and doesn’t make William a brat who doesn’t listen to anybody.

      • Becks1 says:

        @sofia ah I see what you’re saying. And you’re right, this would cover all their bases and make it look like it was just a genuine mistake, no one to blame, nothing to see here. But they just cant do that for whatever reason.

      • Golly Gee says:

        You just gave BP a perfect updated explanation which they will have published in the Sun. You should charge them freelancer $ for it when it gets printed.

      • Sofia says:

        @Golly Gee: Ha! Unfortunately or maybe fortunately, the palace isn’t smart enough to think about trying to explain it in a logical way. They’d rather just make the whole thing Meghan’s fault.

    • Nic919 says:

      They can’t explain why they required Meghan’s name to be removed but never bothered to do this to Kate because there is no valid reason to treat them differently outside of being racist jerks.

      • Harper says:

        But Will/Kate/Carole want the two families treated differently. Remember, this was at the height of the jealousy coming from House Cambridge. This was not long after Will told a reporter who asked if he was excited about the birth of his nephew that “he already had a nephew” and Kate mumbled something about babies in springtime. So we don’t have to look far to figure out who would want there to be a significant difference in how royal wives/mothers are credited and treated.

      • Becks1 says:

        My gut feeling is that this was driven by the courtiers and/or the family itself, but I can see some merit to it being driven by the Cambridges and Middletons more so than BP et al, because it would explain the difference between the royal birth certificates and serve as another way to remind Meghan of “her place” in relation to Kate.

        It would also explain the timing of the leak, because why would BP release this to protect Kate? They dont care that much if Kate said something stupid and got slammed for it. But Carole Middleton would care and she would know about this in the above scenario.

      • windyriver says:

        @Harper, @Becks1 – I mentioned this yesterday, that Carole and Kate in particular might have been involved in what appears to be a deviation from protocol about how the Cambridge births were recorded. Whether Will was involved/cared or not initially, if there was any push back by BP at the time, it’s easy to imagine Will saying “Hell no, we’re not changing anything”, and no one wanting to cross him. By directing Harry and Meghan follow what was the original established protocol, it emphasizes a difference in status of the wife and children in the line of direct heirs.

        What’s interesting is, the Sussex statement wasn’t about the fact that they were directed to change Archie’s birth certificate – the gist was that changing the birth certificate was NOT intended as a family ‘snub’, and specifically blamed the tabloids, not the family, for stirring up trouble. And yet, for this issue to suddenly appear now, this had to have been leaked by someone in the RF orbit. No one was smart enough to think ahead, that a leak, based on an underlying lie (that Meghan wanted the original BC to be changed) wouldn’t be found out. And the RF finds themselves in an even bigger hornet’s nest, entirely of their own making.

      • Harper says:

        Who was said to be incandescent about the private way Meghan went about delivering the 7th in line to the throne? Who may have been highly annoyed that Meghan didn’t blowout her hair, wiggle into a dress, slap on the biggest sanitary napkin available, stick her feet into some pumps and stand on the hospital steps smiling and waving within hours after delivering Archie like she did? Who would have been looking for a way to pull rank on H&M 19 days after Archie’s birth? Will & Kate.

        I think taking Meghan’s name off was Will forcing some type of royal birth tradition on his wayward brother and upstart wife. Just think of when this story/ammo was released–when there was an urgent need for a Protect Kate deflection. This all points to House Cambridge and Kensington Palace. Remember, the Sussex response didn’t say Buckingham Palace or Kensington Palace. Just “the Palace.” Harry saw his family’s future under Will & Kate and knew he needed to bolt. This is the “if you knew what I knew” stuff.

    • (TheOG) Jan90067 says:

      Does anyone know how the rest of Old Brenda’s kids have their names on the BCs? For ex, Pedo and Fergie… how are they listed on B&E’s bcs? What about Anne? Is she listed as HRH Princess Royal? Or as Anne Phillips? What about Charles? Was he listed as Charles, HRH Prince of Wales or HRH Duke of Cornwall? Or is this just to wipe out Meghan?

      • Becks1 says:

        So based on comments from yesterday – Diana and Fergie are listed by titles only. Philip is listed by title only, but Elizabeth is listed by name – so its HRH The Duke of Edinburgh and HRH Princess Elizabeth the Duchess of Edinburgh. So that part of it – listing the royal by name, the married-in by title only, seems consistent. It seems wrong, IMO, but consistent.

        (I dont think Anne was Princess royal at that point and didnt have a title besides Princess Anne, so not sure what is listed on her kids – probably HRH Princess Anne? But Mark Phillips didnt have a title so I bet he’s listed by name.)

        The one that seems inconsistent (and again we can argue about what’s “right,” but for now lets just talk about consistency) is Kate’s name on her kids birth certificates.

      • Nic919 says:

        I have seen on Twitter copies of birth certificates that confirm Diana is listed only as HRH the Princess of Wales and Fergie, HRH the duchess of york.

        I don’t know if Anne was Princess Royal when Peter and Zara were born so she is either HRH The Princess Anne or HRH The Princess Royal.

      • twoz says:

        Becks, Nic919 – Anne wasn’t The Princess Royal until 1987.
        A quick google hasn’t turned up birth certificates for either of her children, but on her marriage certificate she was Anne Elizabeth Alice Louise Mountbatten-Windsor.

    • Ann says:

      I know, he says that like it is surprising or she doesn’t have a right to want her “agency and autonomy.” How dare she! Sorry, but that doesn’t make her sound unsympathetic, if that is what he intended. Quite the opposite.

  7. Muffintop says:

    Gahhhhhh. Can’t they leave the woman alone? What more do they want? When will they be satisfied? Will they be satisfied with nothing short of the same outcome that befell Princess Diana?

    • MeToforever says:

      Yes. This is what they want and no one can convince me otherwise.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Meghan is Harry’s wife. Harry the spare. It matters very little that he left the fold. They’ll still treat him (and his wife) the same as if he’d stay because that is a necessary role to prop up the heir. It’s a terrible system and idk why anyone would marry a heir and provide a spare. The child would be born as a sacrificial lamb.

      Harry and Meghan can now control their lives, press and son’s future, but they will never stop being hounded by the BM working with the BRF because a spare to attack is needed for their system to function.

  8. Amy Bee says:

    Bear in mind, that Harry and Meghan, at the time of Archie’s birth was not under KP, they were under BP. Sara Latham was already in place and working for them. She was the one that the media attacked when they didn’t get the email that Meghan was in labour. Another thing is about the passport. The story says:

    ” This name is now believed to be on her passport and all official documents, as officially required by the Garter King of Arms and Senior Herald in England.”

    Meghan has an American passport, I don’t think the Heraldry office has any jurisdiction over what can be put on an US passport. Plus some people were saying that according to US law, an American citizen can’t have titles on official documents which would include a passport.

    What happened to never complain, never explain? The more BP talks about this issue, the more guilty they look. I believe BP told Meghan say can’t have her name in Archie’s birth certificate and she was told that she had to change it. Kate has her name on all of her children’s birth certificates so why did BP insist that Meghan take her name off?

    • Lemons says:

      I know that many people here harp on immigration issues, but I believe Meghan would be travelling with a diplomatic passport issued by the UK as a member of the royal family. She may still use her American passport and may not even use her diplomatic passport now, but it is likely she would have received one for her travels on behalf of the Crown once she and Harry were married. In this case, she may have her title on the diplomatic passport which would make sense.

      • Amy Bee says:

        A person has to be a citizen to have a diplomatic passport. Meghan would not have had a British diplomatic passport because she’s still a US citizen.

      • Lemons says:

        Aww that’s true, though I wonder if this would be the case as she would just need to include a diplomatic visa in her American passport. In this case, the Visa, being issued by the UK, would likely contain her titles.
        This would seem the likely case…

    • And now Sara Latham works for the Queen. So, how far into all this Sussex bashing is Latham? She’s smart and politically savvy, so you’d think BP PR would have improved under her, but it seems to keep getting worse.

  9. Bros says:

    It seems odd staffers even have access to birth certificates independently of the parents at all. Why would any changes need to be made to it 29 days later in the first place. It’s not a document (at least in the US) that others even have access to, aside from the parents who go home with it from hospital. Im so confused as to how they got their grubby hands on it in the first place.

    • MyOpinion says:

      @ Bros, that’s an excellent point which gives credence to the “was dictated by BP” which was acting on behalf of KP, aka Betty in her Castles of Petty.

  10. C-Shell says:

    This is deftly handled.

    The Sun: This is the cockamamie story we’re going to publish about Archie’s birth certificate. Any comment?
    Sussexes: What did we tell you? We are not engaging with you cretins.
    Sun: Haha. Here it is, you silly snubbing Sussexes.
    Sussex spokesperson to legitimate outlets: The Sun lies again. “The Palace” directed the change.
    The (Buck) Palace: It was a clerical error, or if that one doesn’t fly, it was KP staff who did this, even though the Sussexes were running their comms out of BP. 🤷‍♀️

    They are really so bad at this.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      It is really amazing how bad they are at this – but I think one problem is that the BRF now have three competing courts who spend a lot of time to undermine each other.

      • C-Shell says:

        Clearly. KP needs to deflect from their Exhausted CEO and Incandescent anti-football-racism statesman, so they leak the birth certificate story to the Sun with the coy question, “do you suppose Mean Megain did this to snub Kate The Great? Hmmm?” The Sussex response points the truth needle directly at BP, so BP wades in with their trickle of ridiculous excuses, trying to turn the needle back to KP. I’m guessing CH is sitting there sipping their tea while this one plays out.

      • Becks1 says:

        I do think we are seeing a “war of the courts” and I think its only going to get worse over the next few years if charles doesnt bring KP under his control.

      • Golly Gee says:

        @Becks: and the tabloids are the ones pulling the strings. They print a shady story — which may have a small kernel of truth – and which vaguely points the finger at one palace or another. Then they wait for the slappy-cuffs to begin between the palaces and print what comes out. Meghan stories which are worth the most and a rare commodity these days so they dug this one up. My guess is that they knew she wasn’t the one who made the change but they played it that way in order to get the most response and thus an ongoing story.

  11. ABritGuest says:

    Sussexes said they aren’t communicating with the tabloids except through lawyers so I assume the Scum approached their comms team hence no response. And trust the Firm to double down and make an odd story worse.

    First it was palace radio silence on the story until Meghan’s statement, then vague response about a clerical error, now blame Meghan’s staff & that she wanted change to match her presumably US passport? But she was under BP by Archie’s birth & Meghan’s statement refers to senior palace officials re the amendment. She did a lot of travel after marriage & would be surprised if her US passport just has her foreign title so this doesn’t really add up. Also now apparently the Fail claims it was her LA team. Damn the firm and royal press are going out sad

  12. Maliksmama says:

    Wow!? What kinda psycho family is this!? Isn’t Elizabeth the head!? Whatever happens, good or bad, the buck stops with her. Right!? So why didn’t BP just stick with the “clerical error” excuse and hop on correcting the birth certificate? So this mess could go away? Why create more drama?

  13. tee says:

    This is so stupid, but I am pleased that first once outlets are running with Meghan’s correction instead of the tabloid narrative. I didn’t read the piece, but Sykes needs to stfu because Meg has every reason to resent the British press and the royal institution. She’s been nothing but civil this entire time, yet they won’t leave her alone. The gaslighting feels like deliberate provocation at this point.

  14. Alexandria says:

    I did not even bother to read what they put out because it’s just gonna be garbage.


  15. SexyK says:

    I believe the change on the birth certificate was put in place by BP but the recent leak was done by KP. So, they are both guilty of this even becoming an issue and are now pointing fingers at each other.

    The UK tabloids are already upset that the Sussexes won’t deal with them anymore but Meghan’s chef kiss statement has sent the tabloids and royals reeling. While the tabloids are happy Meghan responded (indirectly), I know the palaces are getting nervous. The BRF better call off their wolves cause Harry & Meghan are growing tired of their shenanigans.

    • SarahCS says:

      I was thinking about this yesterday, it’s fine line between being able to speak for themselves and correct stories that are being pushed about them BUT it feeds the beast. On reflection I think the beast will always find things to write about them so why not push back as it continues to expose how awful the BRF are without having to go scorched earth/tell all.

      • Brit says:

        I would agree but Harry and Meghan sticking up for themselves and actually calling out the lies has been good. At the end of the day, they were attacked for something that they had no control over and that isn’t fair and it’s tiring to be blamed, maligned and abused because a sick tabloid media is obsessed with controlling you and a family who want to use their own as scapegoats. All I see now is a media and family desperate to hang to the Sussexes for various reasons. The media want those clicks and control back and the family don’t want their skeletons revealed. If anything, with the Crown, people calling out William, the Military blackmail and wreath fiasco and now this birth certificate nonsense has only made the family look worse. If anything the Family and media need to move on because this is only making it worse for them.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think what we are seeing is that they will push back against a few common themes – the military, money/security (as in, “no the US is not paying for our security”, nothing detailed) and anything relating to Archie.

        Also, a lot of times what people may refer to as “pushing back” is just someone (who is not on the banned list) contacting the Sussex team for a statement and getting one. That’s pretty par for the course in the PR world.

      • Lionel says:

        Yes, and they are being consistent by refusing to dignify the Sun (etc) with a direct response. They’re reinforcing the message that the British tabs have no credible sources when it comes to news about their immediate family, and establishing that their own press releases are the one consistent source of true information — verifiable with receipts if need be. It’s smart messaging for the long game I suspect they’re playing.

  16. equality says:

    If her name was officially “Meghan, HRH Duchess of Sussex”, why wasn’t “Meghan” on the certificate? In a real “firm” individual offices would not be doing major revisions to paperwork or anything big without the mother company approving. They make themselves look ridiculous trying to act as if they are some sort of company (supposedly lead by the Queen) and not just petty factions within a family.

  17. RoyalBlue says:

    Well looks like they got what they wanted. Plant some useless gossip and let it take over the newsfeeds. They loved the fact that Meghan responded, so they got that too. Now to use her words against her.

    The monarch cannot hide behind courtiers and blame clerks and nameless, faceless people so the buck stops with her. If she is not held accountable for their transgressions then it’s a dictatorship.

  18. Harper says:

    The Firm is trying to tell us that in the first month of their first child’s life, Harry & Meghan’s to-do list included updating son’s newly-inked birth certificate to remove his mom’s name so it can match her passport. Try again, royal court jesters. As Meghan herself said, it would be laughable if it weren’t so offensive.

  19. L84Tea says:

    Wow, BP really got thrown for a loop when Meghan responded and called their asses out, didn’t they?

    • JT says:

      It’s clear that the palace didn’t think she respond, which is why they felt comfortable leaking this news and not saying anything until they felt the heat. What is funny is her statement only called out the papers for getting the story wrong and yet the RF are taking it personally. So personally they’ve given 3 different versions. Looks like somebody is feeling attacked.

  20. VIV says:

    KP or BP, their staff or not, wouldn’t they still all be part of the Palace organization? The denial is confusing even if it’s just different departments of the same group.

  21. Brailler says:

    Why is nobody mentioning that a change was made to Harry’s name as well? They added “Prince” to his title, which was not there originally. Why all of the focus on Meghan? The whole reason any of the changes were made in the first place probably had something to do with wanting to update *Harry’s* title. Why has all the coverage and commentary left that detail out?

    • Duch says:

      yes I’ve been trying to see if I could concoct the least bad story from the Palace angle, and it’s pretty sketchy:

      It’s really important to add prince, their focus was there, and the change to the other line was an error no one caught on the Palace side. (but surely Meghan did, and I assume double-checked their intentions to change her line in addition.) So it’s a sketchy theory – a lot of missed communication, and power plays (why should anyone but the parents care what’s on the birth certificate?)

      and why is adding prince such a big deal anyway?

      it’s pretty confounding and has so many angles – this story has legs and will be with us for a couple cycles.

      • Becks1 says:

        I wonder if, at the time, they got some questions about Harry not being listed as “prince” – granted this was 6 months before they announced they were stepping down, but I wonder if some people noticed the lack of “prince” and were asking – is Harry going to remove himself from the line of succession? Are Harry and Meghan planning on leaving the royal family? etc and at the time, that wasnt something on the Firm’s radar at all (although I think it was on H&M’s) so they added Prince to it to shut down the rumors.

        But thats the only thing that kind of sort of makes sense to me, if we’re trying to find a reasonable explanation.

      • Susan says:

        I agree, I am confused by the WHYs behind this. Another thought: could this be related to M and H’s decision to NOT give Archie a title? Like maybe someone thought, if this child doesn’t have a title, we need to reiterate on his birth certificate the pedigree of his parents? I know nothing about this stuff, I am not a fan of the BP bs, I just don’t understand how/why it was acceptable to do this without *some* kind of justification, however weak sauce the explanation might be.

      • Amy Too says:

        And it might even make sense to say that BP asked Harry and Meghan to have “Prince” added, they agreed to that and told their staff to do it, then after they had agreed to that, BP added an additional request directly to the staff to remove Meghan’s name since they were making changes anyways and they wanted to make this BC follow protocol, and the staff just added that change as well, and kept BP updated throughout, but no one ever told the Sussexes that they would be changing anything besides “Prince.” It makes both stories technically correct, but BP’s statement while “technically correct” is still shady and manipulative and leaving out important details.

  22. Cecilia says:

    BP basically confirmed that THEY were the ones that dictates the change when they said the initial version of the birth certificate was a clerical error. If it was because meghan herself wanted it, they had the receipts to back that claim up, they would have said so in the first place.

    Royalist keep saying that the family isn’t the same as the institution but i beg to differ. The family members, especially the queen, has a veto over every thing their staff do. The queen obviously felt obligated to surpress randy andy rumours and was successful to quite some period of time. She COULD lift a finger for Meghan and tell the media handlers to lay it off. She actively chooses not to. That in my mind makes her the female equivalent of Satan.

  23. Hmmyeah says:

    When BP say it was changed by staff at their former office of KP maybe thats them saying William was behind this? As they mention former staff and I thought they used to share staff with Will and Kate? Maybe this was Will throwing his weight around to make them feel lesser which seems mean and dumb but kind of typical.

    • Harper says:

      Exactly. Look for the motive. Who has the motive to do this? I think it’s the Will/Kate/Carole camp, looking for ways to differentiate between the two royal families. Kate will be the future Queen, and she will have her name on the birth certificate. Meghan is a lesser royal; she needs to fall in line.

      Or, maybe Kate’s lawyers advised her that in her marriage deal with William (that comes up for review after ten years), she should make sure her name was on the birth certificate to better protect her rights when they divide up custody. The royals all agreed to this but Will knows it’s a concession he made to Kate to keep his future options open, so Will made sure that Harry & Meghan don’t get the same privilege.

      • Lionel says:

        I actually don’t think the name on the BC matters at all, nor that anybody involved particularly cared one way or another at the time. It was likely some arcane error that an overeager young staffer saw and corrected without intended malice. I DO think the tabs needed something, anything, to smear Meghan with this week, and they’re simply running out of material. Focusing on the possible reasons for the change misses the bigger point, which is that it’s even considered a story in the first place by high-powered tabloid editors.

    • Cecilia says:

      Exept that would be buckingham palace lying because right before archies birth meghan and harry got their own household. However, that household had to answer to BP. They also had their office there i think.

  24. Nikki* says:

    Reading the Palace’s statement is like reading Marilyn Manson’s. Abusers.

  25. aquarius64 says:

    BP just threw KP under the double decker bus. Winter is coming for the BRF.

  26. HeatherC says:

    I’m confused by the matching passport thing. If Meghan never became a British citizen (and she didn’t) would she have a British passport?

    • Nic919 says:

      No. She can’t. Not even those trying to pretend she would have a diplomatic one. Outside of the queen, they all have passports based on where they are citizens. The UK ones permit a space for a title, which is the last name. And apparently even there the given names are included. So the courtier “source” is just spinning nonsense.

  27. C-Shell says:

    Since the evidence seems strong that KP leaked this story to the Sun, I’m willing to believe that a “former staffer” at KP, did in fact, effect the changes to the birth certificate (at a senior royal’s direction), colluding with BP (we know there was no shortage of anti-M/H courtiers at BP) — oh, excuse me, “keeping them in the loop.” I can definitely see a motive for Willileaks and The CEO wanting to make sure that Archie’s BC was lesser than the Cambridge kids, and tasking their staff to make it happen. Otherwise, I’m not sure how KP would have the inside scoop on the BC change when the Sussexes were running things out of BP at the time.

    The Sussex response absolutely surprised BP, and probably pleased the occupants at KP, until BP clumsily tried to throw KP to the wolves.

  28. RoyalBlue says:

    they are trying to get her to show us her passport. anything to remove any form of privacy from her life. the entitlement these people feel they have over a black woman’s body is unbelievable.

  29. Over it says:

    See before I even finished reading the palace rebuttal I was shouting to my self wait one f—-ing moment, that shit makes no sense. You change should have been to match her passport which would have had her name Meghan at least . You damm well know that your assholes willfully removes the black woman name off her own damm child birth certificate. He is black too you know . One drop is all it takes . Come again another f—-ing day with this racist bullshit

  30. Lemons says:

    Sometimes, I wish Meghan would just lay the cards on the table. “We didn’t want this. Here are the emails and correspondence to prove it. Please leave us alone and speak to BP and KP on the matter. Btw, Betty, change the birth certificate back since it’s a “clerical error.”

    I would just love for more of these to-the-point rebuttals that leave the courtiers to fight amongst themselves. They really thought they were going to scapegoat her while she was minding her own business. Don’t let them take one inch, Meghan.

    • MyOpinion says:

      @ Lemons, wouldn’t that be fabulous!!! Oh the finger pointing, the excuses, the compounding of lie after lie and the final direct assessment that is all came down to PWT and his delusional incandescent rage and jealousy over his little brother of becoming the man that has everything that he doesn’t!! Harry has a gorgeous, brilliant wife who doesn’t sit by and pretend to work, she does the work behind the scenes, then makes an enormous splash into the world that causes adulation and applause. On top of that, Harry is seen as the people’s Prince with his charisma, military accomplishments and the ability to bring people together with such little effort as he has the ability to open his arms to helping others while keeping the focus on those that he supports and genuinely wants to help. Harry and Meghan are selfless in their actions and it shows. They are very humble and make an effort to be relatable and offer kindness, support and compassionate to those who need it the most. This is what makes PWT enraged, and he sees no other alternative than to tear them down instead of taking a lead in changing himself and his useless Keen CEO.

  31. Over it says:

    As for Tom at the daily beast, he can just go sit down and shut the f up . Why would she answer anything from British royal reporting trash that’s out to destroy her every chance they get? Also she was definately under bp when Archie was born because bp wanted to keep an eye on them and what
    They were up to . So nice try bp bitches

  32. Lizzie says:

    What better way to divert attention from all the dragging of the Dolittles?

  33. Cinnamon HB says:

    If you check the amended birth certificate you can see that a correction was made to Harrys details, as well as the change to Meghan’s entry.

    Harry’s entry was amended from His Royal Highness Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex to His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David Duke of Sussex.

    Meghan’s entry was amended from Rachel Meghan, Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex.

    This should have read Her Royal Highness Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex.

    It’s all to do with protocol and how the titles are meant to be stated. It just looks like when the amendments were made someone missed out the Meghan part of the Duchesses correct title.

    Obviously it has evolved into a whole other issue now

    • Becks1 says:

      no, the HRH Duchess part is correct. It has to do with how the HRH attaches. I read a thing about it about a year ago that made sense but I think now I get it wrong a lot in my head, lol. but HRH Meghan the Duchess of Sussex is never correct, its always HRH The Duchess of Sussex is correct (well now they no longer go by HRH but still). In the event a divorce, she would be Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Meghan is not the HRH, her HRH derives from her marriage to Harry. Harry is HRH regardless of his marriage, thats why HRH Prince Harry is correct (although I think technically HRH The Duke of Sussex is better? that’s the part that confuses me.)

      • Cinnamon HB says:

        It’s all very confusing lol

      • Becks1 says:

        It is, and I thought previously that HRH Prince Harry Duke of Sussex was correct but someone on here corrected me and said no, he would always just be Duke of Sussex?

        but at any rate, I just checked Louis’ birth certificate (I did a google image search for Charles’s lol and Louis’ popped up) and its HRH Prince William etc etc Duke of Cambridge and Catherine Elizabeth HRH the duchess of cambridge.

        So we are just circling back to the same old question over and over again here – why was Kate’s name left on, but Meghan’s removed?? Any other answer about Meghan’s name being removed makes zero sense in light of Kate’s name being on there.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Someone told me that it was: The HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, HRH Duchess of Sussex, However, I could be wrong.

        But I do know that only “born” royals get a “The” before their names as in The Princess Royal.

      • Sofia says:

        @Bay the only royals who get “The” in front of their Princely titles are sons and daughters of the monarchs such as The Prince Edward. Everyone else gets “The” in front of their titles such as “The Countess of Snowdon” but they don’t get it in front of their princely titles.

        So Harry is not “HRH The Prince Henry” just yet. His Prince title right now is “HRH Prince Henry of Wales”. When Charles becomes King, he’ll get the “The” in front of Prince.

        Meghan’s full sets of titles are “HRH The Duchess of Sussex, Countess of Dumbarton, Lady Kilkeel and Princess Henry of Wales”

      • Nic919 says:

        None of the married in women officially have a first name when you are using titles. Princess Diana was never a correct usage but just became popular. The women who marry in are only ever the female version of their husband’s title.

        Kate is HRH the duchess of Cambridge, et al, Princess William of wales
        Meghan is HRH the duchess of Sussex, et al, Princess Henry of wales.

        The only time married in women get a first name is as Queen consort.

        Adding a first name ahead of the title is only for divorced women. Diana, Princess of wales was because of the divorce.

        So Kate’s name is wrong for all the birth certificates using the naming protocol for titles. Now it is silly that women don’t use their first names but this is a system where women are mainly married to become broodmares and continue the line so feminism and agency hasn’t been a thing.

  34. Chelsea says:

    The palace can keep trying to spin this all they want but no one outside of staunch royalista believes them. People already had not great opinions about them but i think season 4 of The Crown sealed it because there has been a MAJOR shift in how i see people talking about Meghan’s relationship with The Firm in the last few months and this story has made even worse because it has verified their belief that The Firm is cold,cruel, and loves to destroy young women who don’t fall in line the way they want them to. If they were smart they’d run away from this story and leave it be but we all know they’re not and their feelings are probably hurt by how much heat the Sussexes’ repe put on their statement so you know they’re going to drag this stupid story along forever making up new nonsensical excuses evey day.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “The palace can keep trying to spin this all they want but no one outside of staunch royalist believes them.”

      No one outside the small group of “Royal Watchers” even care about this matter one iota.

  35. Justjj says:

    This whole thing. I’m so glad they got away from this toxic mess. How could you live life this way? Honestly. I absolutely couldn’t do it.

  36. Rare0217 says:

    Why is the Palace so interested in clarifying things now, but it was radio silence before when M was under attack before? Do they not realize that this adds more evidence to the claim that their hands are not clean?

    • MaryContrary says:

      Right? Why not just let her statement be it? Even if they disagreed with it internally-it just makes them look beyond petty and ridiculous to keep releasing statements.

  37. The Sun was waiting for comment? Are they dense ? Meghan and Harry was more than clear in their statement about the British media sent to the editors of the Sun, Daily Mail, Mirror and Express saying that they would not respond to any inquiries from journalists working for these outlets. Instead there will be a policy of “zero engagement” with them. Understand?

    BP and KP are caught lying. They didn’t expect Meghan will give a public push back. She will fight as long as it’s her son is concerned. Now all these carnival experts and carnival courtiers are in panic mode. They are so frantic that they are like a circus— chaotic and crazy .

  38. Catherine says:

    First, KP is not independent. KP is funded by Charles. And ultimately everyone to some degree falls under BP because of the money that comes out of the sovereign grant. When Harry and Meghan separated from KP it was reported that they wanted a completely independent household but were told that wasn’t possible. No working royal has a completely independent household. Charles is pretty close because he has so much power at this point but even he has to inform BP. I do think that William acts independently in his collusion with the media. So much of the abuse Meghan has taken seems to trace back to him. Second, a parents’ passport does not have to match a child’s passport. Most women around the world don’t change their last name so most children are traveling with a passport that doesn’t match names with their parent. Harry and Meghan listed Archie as Mountbatten-Windsor so the notion that she changed it to match is ridiculous because the no name title only format still doesn’t match. Third, whatever kind of passport Meghan has it would have a name on it. I’m sure Harry’s passport has his name and title on it. No way Charles has been traveling around the world with a passport that just says Prince of Wales. Plus, the tabloids have already changed this story. First they she was simply listed by title on her passport now they’re saying she’s listed Meghan then title. Either way it still doesn’t fit with the they were trying to match things of story. Fourth, the absence of Prince has no legal bearing on the document so that is no excuse for changing. In they’re attempt to spin they have admitted that there is no specific rule for format. Lastly, the thing that has been overlooked is Harry filled out the original birth certificate. Harry has done everything he possibly could to put Meghan on equal footing with him. He refers to as not just his wife but his teammate. He made a point to include her in most of his engagements and even when she isn’t included mentions her. He as much as possible forgoes the you must walk behind you must speak after nonsense that goes on by tradition in that family. I think he filled the certificate out with thought. Dropping the prince so that they’re names would be formatted exactly the same. So that she would have equal status with him on their son’s birth certificate.

    • Amy Too says:

      You make a good point: if there is no protocol then why did they need to change it even to add “Prince,” let alone erase Meghan? If BP wants to yell “We didn’t dictate a change. Why would we? There’s no protocol about this! They can do whatever they want!” Then why was it changed and why was BP “kept in the loop” every step of the way if this was NOT a palace protocol type of situation and was really just a personal, private concern of the Sussexes? I think the answer that would have made the most sense and would have made BP look the best, while at the same time not attempting to throw H and M under the bus, would have been “we asked them to change it so that it would follow the royal birth certificate protocol and match the BCs of the children of the Queen, the children of the POW, the children of the Duke of York, the children of etc etc etc.” This is what most of us were theorizing in the comments and on social media yesterday anyways, so this excuse would have been readily accepted. And then the conversation could be more about “should this protocol be reconsidered because it’s archaic and erases the non-blood-royal?” BP could act like they would have liked to have just let Meghan and Harry keep it as they had it but they HAD TO follow the protocol. Unfortunately this would swing the conversation back to Will and Kate and their kids’ BCs, so while it would have made the most sense and would have gone over best PR-wise, they didn’t even consider it. And why on earth is protecting Will and Kate being prioritized over protecting BP, the Queen, her courtiers, and the royal institution as a whole? BP is throwing themselves under the bus to protect the Cambridge kids’ BCs? Why!?

      So now they’ve taken the number one valid excuse away by claiming “why would you think there’s protocol!? There is no protocol! You can put whatever you want on the BC!” Then WHY WAS IT CHANGED? “Oh Meghan’s name being taken off was a clerical error when we were just trying to correct Prince Harry’s name by adding ‘Prince,’” is a suspicious but somewhat acceptable answer. But again, if there is no protocol, why did they need to go back in and add Prince?

      And if there is no protocol, why was BP kept updated every step of the way on how the BC was being updated?

      And I absolutely agree with you that Harry filled that BC out intentionally so that Archie’s parents would both equally be represented and to show that his “Prince” title is not as important to him as his “Duke of Sussex” title because he shares his Sussex title with his wife and his marriage and partnership with the Duchess of Sussex is something he prioritizes over his “Prince” title. Especially on their baby’s BC. The baby is an expression of their marriage and partnership. Archie is their shared son to him and not “Prince 7th in line to the BRF throne.”

      • Nic919 says:

        Of all the things we know about Harry, giving a shit about naming protocol is not one of them. So that blows up the pretence that Harry suddenly wanted to add Prince to the birth certificate and remove Meghan’s given names.

  39. L4frimaire says:

    When this article first came out, no one in the Royal households was goin* to address it. They planned on just letting it out there and have these stories about Meghan snubbing Kate sit there. How can you snub someone with a birth certificate? How? Now that she spoke up to correct it, no one can explain why it was made other than to blame staffers here or there. These people really are clowns and aren’t capable of doing anything other than cutting ribbons and wearing hats. They really aren’t. SMDH.

  40. Jay says:

    My best guess is that the leaker’s original intention was to make Meghan look like some kind of diva or social climber by just having the title on the birth certificate. They either didn’t know or didn’t care that Kate is actually the outlier, as several commentators noted yesterday! Obviously, things went downhill from there.

    What puzzles me most is the insistence on the “snubbing ” angle towards Kate. If you were team Cambridge and you wanted to leak this gossip, wouldn’t it be a more interesting story to have Kate and William be the modern, “woke” royals that set a precedent for Meghan and Harry in filling out a birth certificate? Like, that Meghan copied the way Kate wrote her name (I’ll bet they would love to be able to say that), or that William is quietly some sort of feminist crusader for not dehumanizing his wife. It’s absolutely incredible how committed they are to the “Kate the snubbed” grievance narrative.

  41. Steph says:

    I can only imagine what the stress of child birth does to scramble the brain for a bit, but this is Meghan. Are we really to believe she didn’t have the forethought to want to match the BC with her legal documents (that she changed a year prior) before the birth? You know, when she and Harry were choosing his name?

  42. blunt talker says:

    Just a another piecce of info-When Archie was born Harry and Meghan did not want a title for him-they refused a title for him-Then a few weeks later in June 2019-this change was made on the birth certificate-Seems like payback for not accepting a title for Archie when both parents had declined title for their child. Meghan and Harry have shown when it comes to Archie a backhand will come out. If this is an error then correct it immediately.