Duchess Meghan ‘clearly believes she has hard evidence’ the Palace dictated to her

Britain's Meghan, Duchess of Sussex presents the Celebrating Excellence Award to Nathan Forster, a former soldier of the Army's Parachute Regiment, at the annual Endeavour Fund Awards at Draper’s Hall in London on February 7, 2019. - The Royal Foundation's Endeavour Fund Awards celebrate the achievements of wounded, injured and sick servicemen and women who have taken part in sporting and adventure challenges over the last year. Forster suffered serious injuries whilst serving with the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan. With Flying for Freedom Nathan discovered a passion and aptitude for flying and in only five years, he has gone from having no experience of flying, to flying 737’s for Thomas Cook.

The Daily Mail has a new story about the “toxic row” which erupted between the Duke and Duchess of Sussex and the petty Windsor clan over Archie’s birth certificate. The piece is by Emily Andrews, and at first I thought it was just going to be another royal reporter trying to gaslight the Sussexes about some sh-tty things that the Windsors did to them. It is that exercise in gaslighting, but I also think Andrews is trying to put all of the different stories in one place, and she’s trying to fact-check them as she goes along. There is some new information in this piece, and here are some highlights:

The “clerical error” excuse was discussed with the Sussexes? Buckingham Palace, meanwhile, suggested on Sunday — in comments clearly discussed in advance with the Sussexes — that a ‘clerical error’ had precipitated the need formally to change the birth certificate.

Was Samantha Cohen to blame? For Royal-watchers, this was interesting. Immediately after Archie’s birth on May 6, 2019 — itself shrouded in much secrecy, as many will remember — Royal aides followed the template set by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge for their children when it came to Archie’s birth certificate. In this, they were led by the Queen’s highly experienced former deputy private secretary, Samantha Cohen. Mrs Cohen, who worked for the Queen for more than 17 years before moving to Kensington Palace as a personal favour to the monarch to steer Harry and Meghan in the crucial first months of their royal lives together, knows the intricacies of royal protocol inside out. ‘None so capable as Sam,’ as one insider put it to me. Mrs Cohen is not someone given to making significant errors, clerical or otherwise. And nor, for that matter, are the team at Westminster Register Office, who are well-versed in recording royal births.

Which Palace? But if Harry and Meghan thought this would put a swift end to the matter, they were mistaken. Their thinly veiled criticism of ‘the Palace’ seems only to have escalated the situation. By ‘the Palace’ they presumably meant Buckingham Palace, to which their Kensington Palace-based staff then reported.

The Sussexes have evidence that they were dictated to? The Sussexes clearly believe they have hard evidence to support the suggestion that the Palace ‘dictated’ to them — although this remains confidential, as it would involve internal communications. Much of what we have seen unfold this week has its origins in Archie’s birth, which Harry became almost morbidly obsessed with keeping as secret as possible, even including where and when his son was born. Behind the scenes, matters were so fraught that more than one official — as I know from personal experience — was reduced to tears of frustration and despair.

Buckingham Palace doesn’t know what to do: At the moment, Buckingham Palace is clearly reluctant to be dragged into another public row with the Sussexes — not least when, as Meghan’s PR person rightly says, there’s a lot going on in the world. But sources have also made it clear they could not leave unchallenged the suggestion that the Sussexes were ‘dictated’ to. Many, in fact, have rather different recollections. In what was clearly designed to be the most tactful rejoinder possible, insiders gently insisted that no one ‘dictated’ anything. One source told the Mail that the use of the word ‘dictated’ was an ‘unfortunate’ choice that might, they politely continued, have been ‘lost in translation’ from the U.S. Perhaps, they suggested, there could have been a misunderstanding about what ‘royal protocol’ required in this situation. Which, in truth, was nothing. There is no special form of words needed, as birth records are a civil matter and royal babies have been recorded in various ways.

So, again, why was the birth certificate changed? The New York Post, seemingly guided by the Sussexes’ representatives, suggested yesterday that the changes were required by the Garter Principal King of Arms and Senior Herald, Thomas Woodcock, a member of the Royal Household and chief adviser to the Queen on ceremonial matters and heraldry. But when I spoke to the genial Mr Woodcock at the College of Arms yesterday, he was bemused by the suggestion. ‘This doesn’t ring a bell with me,’ he said. ‘I may have said some time that if you are the Duchess of Sussex then that is your name. “Rachel Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex” rather implies that you are a dowager, or widowed. That’s a bit old-fashioned. I haven’t had any part in it but am very happy to take the blame, if that is what’s required. It is undoubtedly my role to advise, and maybe I offered some thoughts in one context but they are being used in another. Whenever I am asked a question, I do try to answer it as honestly as possible. I just have no recollection particularly of being asked for any advice on how things should be entered on a birth certificate.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Interspersed in this Daily Mail story is some shady finger-pointing at the Sussexes for even making it a big deal and issuing the public denial, with Meghan saying specifically that the name change was “dictated by the Palace.” Which just means that the British papers are BIG MAD that Harry and Meghan outright deny their bullsh-t stories these days. The tabloids got so used to smearing H&M right and left and being protected by “never complain, never explain.” Besides, Meghan didn’t start this. The Sun decided to run that asinine story and Meghan f–king responded and then the Palace got their knickers in a twist about it.

I think it’s super-interesting that Emily Andrews brings up the idea that Meghan perhaps has a paper trail of evidence that she was “dictated” to. I also think the fact that Buckingham Palace can’t keep their stories straight is very telling. If they had a good excuse, they would have slapped the Sussexes down. Instead, we’ve got like four different versions of what really happened. Very shady.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle continue their visit to Africa

Britain's Prince Harry and Meghan visit South Africa

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid and WENN.

Related stories

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

211 Responses to “Duchess Meghan ‘clearly believes she has hard evidence’ the Palace dictated to her”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Eleonor says:

    Of course she has the receipt.

    • lemonylips says:

      I can’t wait for them to just drop it. I can’t see BP getting out of that mess. They are already so deep in a hole and they keep being keen on digging it.

      • Eleonor says:

        Same here.
        The thing that will never cease to amaze me is that BP and their courtries talk when they should just STFUP and remain silence when they should talk.
        How can they be so freaking stupid?

      • Levans says:

        I want the receipts dropped just like Kim did to Taylor lol

        But seriously, I think the Firm knows she has the paper trail and is trying to CYA. Even the backtracking from the heraldy guy…. he knows something is coming and “happy” to fall on the sword now.

        Best outcome: her name is added back to the birth certificate!

      • Ginger says:

        And their numerous rebuttals are not gaining any traction. Meghan’s statement is still getting attention.

      • Mara says:

        I don’t think they can, can they? Surely the same data protection rules that say the Daily Mail can’t share Megan’s letter without her consent also mean that Meghan and Harry can’t share staff communication without the consent of those staff (which is unlikely to be forthcoming if the communication is damming)

      • Saartjie says:

        @Mara – I doubt it. Not a lawyer, but I suspect you can use a communication to prove that a different public assertion is false. Would be interesting to hear from a lawyer.

      • Becks1 says:

        I dont think Harry and Meghan would leak any documents to the press but if the tabs keep this up there may be another lawsuit in the future where the documents would certainly be part of it.

        Although, we have seen – lawsuits after the fact get you monetary damages, but the actual damages are still done (i.e. the documents are still public.) Meghan’s lawsuit against the MoS cant undo the publishing of her father’s letter.

        (I dont think they will leak any documents or emails right now anyway bc it would impact their MoS case)

      • Wiglet Watcher says:

        I’m wondering if saying she must have evidence is some sort of bait. No matter what the truth is. No matter the evidence Meghan has. The BM will use it against her. Even her statement by the publicist is being picked apart because it got emotional and they can turn that into unhinged very easily.

        I thought their previous approach of no matter what they were behind the scenes the publicists would always be concise in their statements leaving the BM with nothing to latch onto and attack.

    • GrnieWnie says:

      Seriously! On the one hand, this seems kind of petty. As in, why bother respond to such a dumb story? On the other, I totally get why Meghan is responding. This is how these useless, dysfunctional British institutions work. They refuse to bend, yield, or change. They are sclerotic. They exist, you get in line, and that’s it. There’s no alternative. So this stupid story takes on larger significance because this useless institution (the monarchy/palace/whatever) is sitting there INSISTING on their version of events for a story-that-shouldn’t-be-a-story. While a much BETTER use of institutional power would be to shut down the story-that-shouldn’t-be-a-story, the institution simply will not. It will defend, deflect, and act to preserve itself as it has always done.

      I hate, hate, hate British institutions. I study institutions, I interact with British ones…it’s personal on so many levels for me so I can totally relate to Meghan’s position!! I think American expectations for institutions are entirely different. We expect them to be responsive and innovative. We expect self-correction. We expect functionality. We expect dynamism. If the institution exists in a rotting, sclerotic state, we expect it to die. Bye. The market doesn’t want you. Nobody needs you. DIE.

      Now imagine being Meghan, with that perspective, and encountering this British garbage. I feel for her!

      • Ann says:

        That’s a very good observation. I only spent one summer in the UK, in London when I was in college with a temporary work visa. I worked at a place called Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, just doing clerical stuff, and I was struck by how antiquated their equipment and procedures were. I was also struck while watching “Downton Abbey” at how the show constantly defended the class system in insidious (and sometimes rather obvious) ways. The writer always said it was about social change, but nothing ever changed….or if it did it reverted right back to where it had been. That’s why I gave up on the show.

      • GrnieWnie says:

        @Ann another good point of comparison: watch the Speech from the Throne (UK) vs. the State of the Union address (US). You’ll see such a difference in the pomp and circumstance. You walk away from the UK speech struck by the lack of change over time and the importance attached to these antiquated traditions that no longer carry any real significance beyond cultural memory. And you walk away from the American speech struck by the lack of pomp–by how functional it is. It strives to achieve something rather than display something.

        I feel like there is a LOT of room for reflection here. Ironically, cultural differences are often harder to grasp when we share a language as we tend to think the differences aren’t that great (since we can understand them). That was probably Meghan’s error: “oh, it won’t be so different!” Wrong, Meghan. You didn’t feel the full force of British sclerosis in Canada. There truly are some massive cultural differences between the UK/US.

      • Lorelei says:

        @GRNIEWNIE: I agree with many of your statements about institutions in general, but disagree that this was a “dumb” or “petty” story for Meghan to respond to. They’re constantly throwing crap at her, and most of it is petty, repetitive nonsense, but this was very different. It clearly hit a nerve. They erased her from her own child’s birth certificate and then had the audacity to say that she did it for her own gain, somehow.

        I think this was a worthy and important one for her to issue a rebuttal to — she’s shown them that there are certain lines that cannot be crossed and she won’t just silently take all of their crap anymore. Behind that statement, imo, you can just feel the anger she still has about the entire situation (and who can blame her).

        Also, re: the Woodcock guy’s statement— if what he’s saying is true, than doesn’t Kate also appear to be a widow due to the wording on her children’s birth certificates??

      • GrnieWnie says:

        @Lorelei you’re right, I wasn’t really thinking about it from her specific POV. As in, maybe that whole event really stung for her. It seemed to me that it was an issue of eye-rolling stupid protocols, then a story emerging on these protocols that frames Meghan as bad somehow, then Meghan not being allowed to respond to the story. But you’re right–the name change could’ve easily hit a nerve with her.

        Tbh I don’t really get it as Harry is allowed to use his given name. And ffs, why can’t these people ever update their stupid protocols? Nobody refers to a wife as Mrs. [Husband's name] anymore. These titles are so outdated. But the monarchy will defend them to death because that’s the system that empowers them. And the Queen still mentally resides in the 1950s, clearly.

      • Nyro says:

        Ann, I used to love Downtown Abbey. I never really understood the sort of unspoken rules of the British class system so I was just enjoying the soap opera-esque storylines and the gorgeous costumes and scenery. Viewing it years later, post-Meghan, it pisses me off to no end. It’s a nothing but propaganda and a love letter to the British establishment. I’m particularly disgusted by what th
        ey did to the character Branson, a proud Irish freedom fighter. I have no need to ever sit down and watch it again.

    • anotherlily says:

      She couldn’t release evidence directly to the press but it could be presented in court as evidence of discrimination under the Equality Act 2010. As a biracial woman Meghan fits one of the ‘protected characteristics’ of the Equality Act.

      Quoting from ‘Citizen’s Advice’: ” when you’re treated differently and worse than someone else for certain reasons the Equality Act says you’ve been treated less favourably.” ……… “Not all unfair treatment is unlawful discrimination under the Equality Act. It’s only unlawful discrimination if you’re treated differently because of a protected characteristic. It doesn’t matter if the person treating you differently didn’t mean to discriminate against you or if they didn’t know they were discriminating. If someone treats you differently because of a protected characteristic, it’s direct discrimination.”

      In this case the essential pieces of evidence are: the birth certificates of the three Cambridge children; Archie’s original birth certificate and amended birth certificate; birth certificates of other children born to a Prince of the United Kingdom, plus, any documents that explain why Archie’s birth certificate was changed.

      The reasons given to Meghan for removing her names would apply equally to the Duchess of Cambridge. Seniority couldn’t be argued in defence because Diana and Sarah Ferguson were treated exactly the same. The Palace would have to justify treating Meghan less favourably than Kate in the same circumstances.

      • Nic919 says:

        Diana was senior in rank when they simply placed HRH The Princess of Wales so Kate, who has a lesser rank than that, should not have her names there either.

      • @AnotherLily. Thanks for this. She’s a brave woman to stand up to these clowns.
        I think Meghan had to refute the carnival so-called experts because they tried to cast doubts about her legitimacy as the birth mother of Archie. And it strongly proves that she will fight them back where Archie is concerned. Gone are the days when she just stayed quiet and cried her heart out in silence in deference to the Queen and everything she stands for. She hit them and she hit them hard. And this won’t be the last time. BP and the RRota are in a scramble. Stop poking Mother Bear.

    • Where'sMyTiara says:

      The courtiers are clearly crapping themselves if we’re on lie number four after only two days.

      :smiles and offers everyone popcorn:

      Of course what’s unsaid in all these articles reacting to Meghan’s clapback, is that the courtiers and the Palaces/BRF are not just worried Meghan & Harry can bring the receipts; they’re worried Hazza & Megs will drop ALL the receipts, about EVERYTHING.

      It’s an approach these serial abusers aren’t used to: Meghan is very politely saying “Keep my and my child’s names out of your mouth, or so help me your dirty deeds will be the only thing talked about for the next five generations”. Yes. Very politely.

      Random aside: I’m still dying to know what the night nanny did and who put her up to it.

    • Ronaldinho says:

      Her statement said written documents, didn’t it?
      She clearly has receipts and she wanted that to be clear in the statement
      Someone, somewhere, is wishing they had made a telephone call and not sent an email

      • Where'sMyTiara says:

        You love to see it. :grins:

        Courtiers in all three palaces sweating like sinners in church? bwahahahaha…

  2. bub244 says:

    I agree, the fact that the Palace can’t keep their story straight is very suspicious. And if there is no convention, given that the birth certificate is a civil document, then what actually happened here? I’m confused by the Palace’s motives, both in initially changing the name and in only releasing this story now (beyond just being another way to make Meghan feel unwanted).

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      I suspect that the palace deliberately misled the Sussexes and got this guy to do their dirty work. They then forgot they left an electronic and or paper trail which the Sussexes kept. The best thing they can do is let this die because it looks like karma is unfolding.

      • anotherlily says:

        The best thing they can do is to apologise and do whatever is necessary to ensure Meghan’s names are recorded as in the original document.

    • Becks1 says:

      The palace cant keep their story straight which only tells me that what actually happened behind the scenes was way worse than “hey, the actual naming convention for royal birth certificates is this.”

      No American woman who identifies as a feminist is going to want her name erased from her child’s birth certificate*. Full stop. This was done against Meghan’s wishes and the fact that she went along with it in the end is another sign to me of how hard she was trying to “fit in” even if the wheels were already turning for both of them in terms of getting out. She really did every damn thing they asked of her, including this.

      *I’m saying American because Meghan is American and so I am so I can speak to that, I’m assuming though that the same is true for many women in the UK etc as well.

      • Brit says:

        And Lady Colin and the rest of these losers who fawn over this family are idiots because they’ll be the first to be thrown under the bus. I can’t believe that in 2021, people still think that royalty and proximity to royalty is somehow a must and that it will make them important.

      • Myra says:

        That she clapped back hard probably hints that she didn’t want the change in the first place and they forced it. Now, few years later and after trying to smear her once more, they admit there’s no right way to do, no protocol whatsoever. I would be so upset if I was Meghan. To erase my name on my child’s birth certificate, lie about it to smear me and then admit you didn’t have to do it in the first place.

      • Chaine says:

        Lady Colin Campbell looks ridiculous commenting on anyone else’s title given that she still calls herself “Lady Colin Campbell” despite having been divorced from Lord Colin Campbell for over four decades.

      • Bettyrose says:

        Becks1 – all this! I can’t imagine how hurtful it must have been to have her name, her identity beyond place in the RF, removed from her child’s birth certificate. But it seems like she tried so hard to go along with all of it, to hold herself back for a greater good, and not only wasn’t it enough for the RF, they’re using it against her? Like she had her feminist values repeatedly trampled on and then they accuse her of the worst feminist crime, pettiness against another woman? UGH!

      • Ann says:

        I agree with what someone said about this story a couple of days ago. The statement on the Archewell site “I am my mother’s son, and I am our son’s mother,” is quite likely a choice stemming from this very incident. “Diana was my mother too (William),” and “I am Archie’s mother, sorry if you can’t handle that, you racist jerks.”

    • Elizabeth says:

      Forcing Meghan and Harry to deal with constant petty BS is a form of trying to bully them out frankly. Why did this ever need to be any kind of deal? It’s nothing. Just another way to try to hurt them.

    • The Hench says:

      Talk about “hello foot, meet bullet”. The craziest thing about all of this nonsense is that this latest story makes it clear that there was NO NEED to change anything. That there is no protocol. That Meghan could have had her name down as ‘Rachel Meghan, The Yoga Practising, Dog Loving, American (and proud of it) Duchess of Sussex, eat my shorts’ if she had so wished.

      Just…what…again, I have no words for the stupidity of all this.

      • GuestwithCat says:

        @The Hench, darn you! You owe me a new smart phone screen protector. I was drinking coffee and choked when I read your post. 😂

        I would totally amend the birth certificate to read as such if I were Meghan. Oh the BRF better be so grateful you or I weren’t inhabiting Meghan’s life “Quantum Leap” style when this all went down. There is no way in hell I’d try to get along with that crap.

        Honestly I don’t believe for a moment Meghan went along at all on this. Her “clap back” is full of salt and vinegar and I think she dug in on it as well as a woman recovering in post partum possibly can. I think Harry fought like hell, too.

        Something happened. Neither one of them looked at all happy at Trooping. Harry looked constantly like he wanted to kill something. Cambridge stans thought they were having marital problems and hating on each other but clearly they weren’t and aren’t, so whatever they were reacting to was something external.

        Sweaty PedoFat and Ann were praised to the skies for practically shoving Meghan off to the sides on the balcony, away from where the Queen was going to sit her petty ass. It was not a happy looking time for the Sussexes and now we know partly why. I’m sure there was so much more we don’t know yet.

        We would not have known about this if Lady Creepy Cryptkeeper had not got a bug up her wrinkled butt to turn something so damning against the BRF into some convoluted plot by Meghan to snub a woman nobody in their right mind would waste time on, let alone summon up the energy to snub in such a bizarre way.

        This is really one of the loopiest contrivances against Meghan since the Avocadoes of Death. I suppose next they’ll be blaming Meghan for Jewish Space lasers attacking California so she could get her mansion at a steep discount.

      • booboocita says:

        “Duchess of Sussex, eat my shorts” made me spit coffee. Brava! Thanks for the morning belly laugh!

      • The Hench says:

        @GuestwithCat – my apologies for your screen – but, oho yes, I agree, Meghan was too kind to them. Although I am LOVING the “carnival of so-called experts” comment. More please. Perhaps “eat my shorts” will be in their next release. You, me and @booboochita can hope…:)

  3. Brit says:

    Yep. The British Papers and the family were expecting Harry and Meghan to continue to be quiet while Meghan was getting abused again because William and Kate are spoiled cowards who can’t handle well earned criticism and a little bad press. You can tell when Meghan’s spokesperson called out the Tabloids and those losers a carnival of “so called experts”, that hit them in the gut and they clearly haven’t recovered. Along with Harry winning his libel case, both of these stories got worldwide coverage and it only embarrassed them for the jokes they are. That family however needs to stop because they’re only making themselves look worse and with the Crown, Williams racism hypocrisy and the Cambridge’s Covid tour nonsense, Andrew etc, throwing Meghan under the bus because the media has them by the string is becoming more and more obvious. Meghan stopped the foolishness before it really took off and neither the papers and palace were expecting that.

    • February-Pisces says:

      I’m glad that she spoke out, and the sh*t storm that followed, because I’m hoping that they will now think twice the next time they think they can throw harry and Meghan under the bus. The funny thing is Kate’s ‘exhausted’ comment was dumb for like a day and people would have forgotten about it, they didn’t even need to throw harry and Meghan under the bus. If that’s how weak and vulnerable the Keens are then they are not mentally strong enough to hold the positions that they do.

      If the birth certificate change was simple protocol then why didn’t they just explain why she didn’t have her names on there. There must be a legit explanation if they actually have one, the truth is not hard to tell. They clearly are struggling to come up with an excuse. Just like the ‘Meghan made poor Kate cry’ story, it kept on changing everytime they didn’t get the desired effect.

  4. Chaine says:

    It’s fishy that a guy who can’t remember dictating anything nevertheless has so much to say about what he might theoretically have told someone about the proper naming of a duchess on a birth certificate.

    Also, I will never get enough of Archie eyeing that tray of cakes!

    • Saartjie says:

      Also, he was so willing to lie if it would be helpful, wasn’t he? Speaks to a culture of deception at the palace, IMO.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      He was saying that he might have told her the proper way to write her title at some point, but it wasn’t in the context of how to write it on the birth certificate. Which, is not really suspicious at all. Using Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex does technically imply that Harry is dead.

      • Saartjie says:

        He literally told the reporter “I haven’t had any part in it but am very happy to take the blame, if that is what’s required. ” So we will have to agree to disagree.

      • Sofia says:

        That’s not how titles in the UK work. If your husband was titled and he’s died, your title becomes “The Dowager *whatever your title is*”. You don’t start using your first name(s). You only use them in a divorce.

        There are some exceptions with the royals, but they often get “Princess” put in front of their name once they get royal permission. Example is Princess Alice, The Duchess of Gloucestershire.

        Edit to my comment: okay just checked and while you can use *first name*, *title* if you’re a widow, using dowager is also used especially as the whole first name then title is now used by wives of divorced peers.

      • CN says:

        @ Ainsley7, do you feel that the same applies for Kate? Since she has her name and title on her children’s birth certificates. Does that then imply that William is dead?

      • Nic919 says:

        I think the herald guy is suddenly less stringent about this naming convention because someone told or reminded him that Kate has the exact same issue with all three of her birth certificates. Any claim of breaching protocol would bring Kate in this as well.

        There is no way that a guy whose entire job is about this arcane stuff is not a stickler in normal circumstances.

      • Sofia says:

        Edit to my comment: okay just checked and while you can use *first name*, *title* if you’re a widow, using dowager is also used especially as the whole first name then title is now used by wives of divorced peers.

      • JanetDR says:

        @CN Perhaps his death is why he is so incandescent with rage?! 😂

    • RoyalBlue says:

      that Herald is one of the men in grey. despicable gaslighter.

      • ABritGuest says:

        Think I read this guy is also the one who was in charge of the title styling post Sussexit and the original suggestion for Meghan was initially that of a divorced woman until someone spotted it.

        I can see the courtiers doing sly insider ‘jokes’ & passive aggressive moves like that

    • Chaine, Saartjie, Ainsley7, and CN. —- Great comments! Loved the way CN pointed out that if the history guy was right about it denoting death of husband, then Kate’s name on her children’s birth certificates seem to indicate that William was dead for all 3 of the births of his children! The BS coming from the Palace and their carnival of so called experts just can’t stop with their convoluted excuses that make no sense when examined. The Palace seems to keep forgetting about the hard evidence of the Cambridge birth certificates as they keep trying to spin all of this as Meghan’s fault.

    • booboocita says:

      Love that photo of Archie. You know he’s thinking, “What a nice old man [Desmond Tutu]! When do we eat?”

  5. Oh_Hey says:

    I said this yesterday- H+M don’t speak anymore unless they’re pissed and they have enough receipts to call the lawyers if necessary. The RR and the BRF are going to spend 2021 learning not to poke the bear and I hope she gets at least one courtier publicly outed as a tabloid source.

  6. Frida_K says:

    “Behind the scenes, matters were so fraught that more than one official — as I know from personal experience — was reduced to tears of frustration and despair.”

    They are so determined to make everything all about them and set in what they view as being a good light for their cause. Meghan, who just gave birth in this context, is the one who maybe was reduced to tears by their narcissism and obduracy (and that would make sense). But oh, no, the Palace peeps are the VICTIMS here, the victims of EVIL MEG! She made them cry white women (and men) tears!

    Ugh, those people are exhausting. I’m so glad Meghan, Harry, and baby Archie left.

    • Amy Bee says:

      That person was brought to tears of frustration and despair because she/he couldn’t tell the press what was going on.

      • ABritGuest says:

        I mean they announced the birth would be private so if the press& palace couldn’t respect that, that’s on them. They should have held line there would be no comment until the baby was born to spare the tears. And as part of that they shouldn’t have agreed they would announce when she went into labour so the press didn’t have that expectation.

    • Over it says:

      Yes, this all about them . Maybe Harry was legitimately piss because he saw all the evil being done to his wife and newborn son. But no let’s feel sorry for the palaces of lackeys and william henchmen

    • equality says:

      I thought that was amusingly overdramatic. I am sure that royals have done all sorts of things secretly (like travel) that has been arranged by these courtiers but keeping Archie’s birth secret made them cry? And perhaps Harry was “obsessed” because of the threats made against him for being a “race traitor.”

      • MF1 says:

        Yeah, it’s actually kind of hilarious that this was the thing that reduced them to tears.

        Because for the rest of world, who really cares if Harry kept Archie’s time and place of birth a secret? It had absolutely no impact on the monarchy and on H+M’s PR and popularity. What a stupid thing to get upset about.

    • Ann says:

      That comment about Harry being “almost morbidly obsessed with keep the details of the birth secret” really angers me. How dare you suggest he’s being weirdly unreasonable because birth is a PRIVATE matter, and no one should be telling you where to give birth or with which doctor, or insisting that someone else gets to announce “It’s A Boy!”. It’s so freaking weird the way they handle these things.

    • MyOpinion says:

      @ Frida_K, yes. It’s the constant replay of how the BP and RR are the true victims in the actions and decisions of Harry and Meghan. They are constantly trying to control the narrative but we’re not expecting the statement from Harry and Meghan disputing the trash that the RR and BP put put. They are now going to see that this constant and unrelenting abuse that they place on Meghan, will, in some circumstances, will be responded to appropriately and with certainty. They became comfortable with creating an ongoing smear campaign with no accountability until now. Now Harry and Meghan are willing to publicly stand up for themselves and the they are reeling in this new revelation. Yet with their public statement about the BC change to erase Meghans name, they continue to smear her reaction by attacking her use of “dictated”.
      May they all burn disastrously with these new events.

    • Right, Freida-K. Not only has Meghan made Kate cry and cry and cry — it now seems, she has had a great many of the seasoned royal grey man in tears. Crying over a a supposed change that involved no protocol issues, etc. according to what they have said in last few days —- crying over a ‘clerical error’. What a ball breaker she is and I’ll bet she wasn’t even trying! 💃🏻

      The Sussex PR team is GOLD; respond concisely and quickly, get your facts straight, stay on point, chose the right words, do it only once and then shut up. The Palace should try copying them on this.

  7. Elizabeth Regina says:

    So far, Meghan has spoken once about this fiasco. The palace on the other hand have given us many many versions through numerous mouthpieces and sources. Meghan has concrete evidence. The RF are running scared. It’s not a good look for them.

  8. SarahCS says:

    Honestly the BRF and BM have a symbiotic and totally messed up relationship. The BM is here to make money, period. The BRF got into bed with them rather than actually staying at arms length and appreciating that most of the public honestly don’t care about them if we don’t hear about them and abolishing the monarchy is a small movement. The more we hear from them and see their nonsense the more people start to question what we’re paying for here.

    Also, “I haven’t had any part in it but am very happy to take the blame, if that is what’s required.”
    I was going to brush this off as a for goodness sake get me my tiny violin for this brave martyr but the more I think about it the more emblematic it becomes of their counter approach. Everyone is lying and saying whatever they think will get the heat onto the Sussexes, truth plays no part in it. Yikes.

    • Brit says:

      That Rota and Family are going to be at odds because Harry and Meghan were the money makers and that family are clearly using them as shields so they won’t be attacked in the press. The problem is that Harry and Meghan are free and will respond with the quickness and will litigate and deny stories. You can tell both the BM and Family are in desperation for them to return and I imagine it’s a lot of angry phone calls and blackmail behind the scenes. All I see these days are frustration and desperation with every story. Instead of humbling themselves and saying they went to far, they continue to attack and abuse but expect their obsession to acknowledge them.

      • Golly Gee says:

        “Besides, Meghan didn’t start this. The Sun decided to run that asinine story and Meghan f–king responded and then the Palace got their knickers in a twist about it.” I commented on the Machiavellian role of the tabs In one of yesterday’s threads.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. The tabloids are skilled at taking a grain of sand and then profiting when their victims are compelled to respond, turning it into a mountain.

    • Xantha says:

      I don’t get why the BRF ever got into bed with the BM this way. It would’ve benefitted both sides to keep the relationship at arms length from the start. BRF if accused of planting stories to tabloids could’ve credibly denied it and stated their primary use of the press is to promote charities and initiatives with exceptions being royal weddings and births. The BM can then get to say “Hey we’re not royal ass kissers. We’re just reporting on what we’re being told and trying to hold a powerful institution accountable.”

      Who came up with this collusion to begin with cause as of now, it’s serving no one.

      • Becks1 says:

        In its own way it still serves the royals – that’s why they go along with it. The royal reporters (and beyond) know a LOT of dirt on the royals, this symbiotic relationship keeps the dirt under wraps while the royals feed the press just enough to keep them happy. The problem right now is that there isnt “enough” to keep the press happy anymore so the dirt is going to be exposed sooner or later.

      • Xantha says:

        @Becks1

        I see your point but if the rota didn’t have a symbiotic relationship with the royals, they would be free to release whatever dirt they like, and wouldn’t be so dependent on the Sussexes, which would be a huge relief for them. As you mentioned the moneymaking Sussexes are gone which is hurting the rota financially. If they hadn’t put their shit stirring eggs all in one basket, perhaps they would be better off than they are now.

        The royals will have to put out many fires on the info but they could do what Meghan just did with this awful BC story: Bypass the tabloids and just put out a general statement that anyone can read without having to go to any one press because there’s no under the table relationship with the rota. It would be a pain in the ass for them, but it would be better than what’s going on now.

        Again I understand why they think it serves them to be so cozy with these “reporters” but when you make a deal with the devil, he always come to collect.

      • Becks1 says:

        Oh you’re absolutely correct, especially your last paragraph about the devil coming to collect, which is why the royals are in for a bumpy ride IMO.

  9. Saartjie says:

    ‘I may have said some time that if you are the Duchess of Sussex then that is your name. “Rachel Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex” rather implies that you are a dowager, or widowed. That’s a bit old-fashioned.”

    So many layers to that. The only reason a woman would use her own name is if she no longer has a male protector. Yeah, that attitude is more than a bit old fashioned!

    • Sofia says:

      And why wasn’t this explanation given to Kate then if that was the reason? Are they happy to imply that the Future Future Queen is a widow using their own rules and explanations?

      Also, titles wise, that’s inaccurate anyways. Widowed women are known as “The Dowager *whatever their title is*”. They don’t use their names anyways.

      • JT says:

        This is what bothers me, any all explanations are blown out of the water when Kate comes into the picture. Meghan’s BC was written in the same format as Kate’s which nobody cared enough to correct because “there is no protocol for it”. So why did they change Meg’s? All of a sudden the regal duchess is forgotten about when every other story would mention Kate “never puts a foot wrong.” It seems that she or William were wrong on the BC, ( I don’t blamed her for putting her actual name), and nobody corrected HER. Where is the explanation for that? Because without that reason they all just look racist.

    • Amy Bee says:

      This explanation doesn’t hold up when Kate has her name on all three of her children’s birth certificate.

  10. Lyn says:

    Of course Meghan has receipts. She probably has evidence for every conversation and correspondence with all of them. As the saying goes, her mother didn’t raise a fool.

    They will learn the hard way to stop using her as scapegoat for when they get bad press.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      I am sure the receipt is from the same said herald, who conveniently has amnesia.

      • Harper says:

        With Samantha Cohen either CC’d on the email or Cohen is in the chain as the one who asked Woodcock to make a ruling on it/back her up.

      • Jane's Wasted Talent says:

        Yes- I have a strong feeling the herald is falling on his sword for someone else, higher up.

    • Snuffles says:

      Meghan has a lifetime of dealing with those crazy ass Markles. Keeping the receipts is probably her default setting. Same with Harry. I bet you anything he has a vault of receipts on HIS crazy ass family after a lifetime of being used as a human shield.

      These idiots are clearly not used to being challenged and created the royal rota system so they never would be.

      • Brit says:

        You can tell Meghan not bowing and kissing the rotas behind have really hurt their feelings, lol. They didn’t break her and she walked away with her held high and ignored them. Meghan’s spokesperson calling them a carnival of so called experts embarrassed the hell out them. They are traumatized because nothing they’re doing is working and they honestly need to move on.

    • You know, I’m beginning to think that the longer this keeps up — wreathgate, birthcertificategate, etc —- the less fucks Harry and Meghan have to give about staying loyal to the Firm and the family. Surely, Harry believed (or hoped) the Firm/family would stop throwing them under the bus once they were no longer part of the royal circus. Over a year out, and still they are used as deflectors and now this BS involving Archie. I think with the statement the Sussexes just released and the exact wording ‘dictated’, ‘confirmed by documents’, the Sussexes are sending a clear message to the Palace that they are done with this bullshit and the Palace had better rethink their tactics. Someone above said, “Don’t poke the bear.” I think the Firm has poked a sleeping bear and that is far more dangerous.

  11. The Duchess says:

    It’s no surprise that H&M have kept their story straight since day one, whereas the three palaces, or three stooges as i like to call them (KP, BP & CH) have been all over the place with their vicious lies. I’m sure Meghan has all the receipts necessary to prove just how right she’s been about that rotten family. One minute it was a ‘clerical error’ now it’s all been ‘lost in translation’… give me a break! The House of Windsor is on a sharp decline and it shows.

  12. tee says:

    One of the biggest talking points deployed by royalist detractors of M&H is that they refused to listen to Palace advisors. Yet we have several examples now of situations in which M&H acted based on Palace guidance, and they were thrown under the bus for it. Literally no one believes that they don’t “dictate” important docs such as birth certificates, when they very clearly tried to dictate everything regarding M. Their gaslighting, condescension, and dishonestly know no bounds. Please let this story be the end of it.

  13. Izzy says:

    If we have learned nothing else about the Sussexes throughout their ordeal at the hands of this merry band of racist inbreds, we have certainly learned that Meghan doesn’t make a public statement of fact about either of their families without the evidence to back it up.

    The RF should have just sat there and ate their food. Nobody sent for those fools.

    • Brit says:

      Exactly. This was a sloppily, desperate “story” the family needed to give the tabloids for clicks and for the family to distract and honestly they made a bigger mess because It’s only making them look bad. Harry and Meghan leaving was the bravest and wisest decision they’ve could’ve ever made because these people are really crazy.

      • Izzy says:

        But they dragged Archie into it this time, and that is a HUGE mistake. Don’t drag their kid into this mess, Meghan and Harry are going to hit back hard.

  14. Sofia says:

    This whole thing is “Meghan made Kate cry” and tightsgate part 2. Different variations of the same story and nobody from the BRF able to keep their story straight.

  15. sara says:

    this is so ridiculous. had they just not responded to the sussex comment, it would have gone away in a day. they are the most hypocritical. they ALWAYS complain and explain. the only time they didn’t was when it came to meghan. they are constantly trying to excuse themselves or wiggle out of trouble or something. all they do is complain and explain.

  16. ABritGuest says:

    The Firm really need to take this L & shut up. This certificate story only became a thing because the tabloids tried to suggest the change was a snub to Kate making her a supposed victim of Meghan yet again. Meghan pushed back on the press BS that this change was a family snub& that should have been it. Now we’ve had a dozen different stories & that garter guy’s comment in the New York post (part of Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper groups & clearly not someone Sussexes would brief to given Harry’s recent call out) makes it clearer this was a palace requested change. Why do they keep digging in?

    Also interesting how Meghan’s possible paper trail for the birth certificate should be confidential but there are royal sources giving info to the Fail for Meghan’s trial?

    I thought the whole BC change was a non story but longer this drags on& more details come out I wonder if this reveal was sinister. Lady CC is an anti Meghan troll so I wonder if she was looking at the certificate to try push moonbump theories. Or maybe to push angle that Meghan is obsessed with titles.

    someone pointed out that the change to the certificate happened just before the Times ran that piece with the ‘degree wife’ quote from a senior royal. So maybe the certificate change wasn’t as innocent as I initially thought especially given the recent precedent with Kate.

    • Becks1 says:

      The fact that Andrews thinks that the Sussexes would go to the New York Post……

      • Kalana says:

        All the bad faith takes are so gross. Of course the Sussexes aren’t going to any Murdoch publication whether The Times or the New York Post.

    • Interesting, ABritGuest —- Maybe the Firm — with legal advice — thought the change of removing her name on birth certificate would create a strong legal argument for keeping Archie in England with Harry having full custody if they succeeded in getting him to divorce her. I mean —- given how archaic they are, if they hoped for a divorce, there is no way they would have wanted an heir to the throne and Harry’s son taken to USA to be raised. They would have wanted Harry’s son to stay with Harry. After all, a Prince does outrank a Duchess. And they did amend Harry’s title as well as remove Meghan’s name.

  17. JT says:

    If there is no protocol regarding the names on birth certificates why change Meghan’s in the first place? That’s what palaces sources have failed to answer. If you can put anything you want and it’s no big deal, why couldn’t the staff leave it as is? It’s clear H&M didn’t change it or asked for the BC to be changed. So who changed it? They are lying out of their asses that’s why. This would be a good time to just take the L and move on. Meghan wouldn’t mention documents if she couldn’t prove her version of the truth.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      and as we all know, there is protocol for the naming convention, it just was not applied for Waity, and they are now twisting themselves into pretzels just to try to wiggle their way out of this one.

    • Becks1 says:

      Exactly! If it didnt really matter what it said – maybe HRH The Duchess of Sussex is “more correct” than “Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex” – but if it doesnt really matter, and royal births have been listed “in a variety of ways” – then why was this one changed? Why was THIS ONE considered “wrong” and had to be “fixed”?

    • Size Does Matter says:

      Yes why would it have been changed unless someone/some group other than H&M decided it needed to be changed? They were busy trying to parent a brand-new newborn at the time, not lying awake in worry about the birth certificate.

      I wonder if they have any power over changing it again or if that decision is in someone else’s hands.

    • A says:

      I think it was changed in order to do what the original story said, which was, to present the change as a “snub” against Kate. I think the original intention behind the story, which almost certainly came from the palace, was to posit Meghan as a total, social climbing diva, who DEMANDED that her title be written correctly on her son’s birth certificate, unlike Kate, who quietly and cheerfully “endured” the incorrect title because she’s “just like everyone else” and “doesn’t care about these things, she’s just a middle class mummy who’s too exhausted to care.” I think the intention behind the story was to make Meghan look like a class obsessed, status conscious bitch, who was once again getting too “”"uppity”"” for her station, unlike the quiet and humble and white Duchess of Cambridge, who is just too down to earth to give a shit.

      The problem, I think, was that this story totally backfired on the people who tried to peddle it, because they don’t have a single solitary clue about what actually matters to people in our society today. Nobody gives a shit about titles, if they’re a commoner. They really thought everyone would see and understand the hint, but I think they vastly misjudged just how fucking out of touch these asshole courtiers really are, because what the rest of us common riff raff immediately zeroed in on was, holy shit, they removed the actual, given, names of the woman who birthed this child, who has an identity of her own outside of whatever courtesy title she gets from being married to her husband. The whole outrage totally flipped in terms of who the target was, and it became about how Meghan was erased, rather than about how Meghan is the real snob, because as it turns out, nobody outside of the 30 odd people who work for the RF actually care about the right or wrong title at all.

      I honestly wonder if the intention behind this was to restart the whole shitshow in the press about stripping Harry and Meghan of their titles. I’m just spitballing here, tbh, but I wonder if maybe, the intention was to paint Meghan as thinking too highly of herself, that she had the audacity to demand that she be referred to by the correct title on her child’s birth certificate, that how dare she do that, when her and Harry left the royal family and want to live a private life, blah blah blah. But like I said, it completely backfired because, again, nobody outside of this specific group of people give a single, solitary shit about any of it.

  18. Becks1 says:

    Huh. So what we have here is a variety of blame, right? The senior herald says he didnt have anything to do with it, but then in the same breath explains why “HRH The Duchess of Sussex” is correct but including her name would not have been. The aides were working under the control of Samantha Cohen, who would certainly know what was correct. And finally we have Harry being blamed for keeping the birth “as secret as possible” (like that’s a bad thing), when the press spent the past almost-two years blaming Meghan for that.

    It is interesting seeing the press dancing around the core issue – which is that Archie’s birth certificate was changed and the Cambridge birth certificates never were. And what, pray tell, was the “clerical error” that resulted in Meghan’s name being erased from the birth certificate? They are trying to act like there is no royal protocol around this, but they’ve spent YEARS screeching about the various royal protocols that Meghan was breaking day in and day out – but now we’re supposed to believe that the birth certificates are just done willy-nilly?!??

    This could all be ended very easily – what was the error, and why was it changed. It should not be a mystery.

    Ainsley7 yesterday had the most logical explanation, IMO – that William filled out his kids without checking with Buckingham Palace and since KP is relatively separate (although ultimately they all answer to BP), BP stayed out of it at the time, but since the Sussexes were directly under BP when Archie was born BP stepped in to “correct” the birth certificate. So William was wrong, but staff at BP didnt see it as their place to correct the issue (probably involving some fear of William’s temper) but BP did see it as their place to correct the Sussexes, since they were directly under BP.

    That doesnt make it better, and its still an issue that “correcting it” meant erasing Meghan’s name – but at least it would semi-explain the inconsistency.

    Instead, we get nonsense about the royal herald or whoever and the idea that the term “dictated” means something different in the UK than it does in the US.

    • JT says:

      This should be the explanation if true. It was actually William who fucked up for THREE different births and nobody corrected him because they didn’t care or most likely were too scared to tell him. His rages are pretty much a fact at this point so nobody wanted to go there and they left it. Since Harry is chill they corrected his in the proper format, (because there is a protocol for BCs), and they told him about it. But this would mean they would have to admit Cannot was wrong which everyone is too scared to do. Which is a problem. William is so verbally abusive they can’t even check him on protocol. So they allowed themselves to seemingly other Harry and Meghan to keep Keen1 calm.

      • A says:

        Why are we assuming that William fucked up, and that hs staffers are too afraid to correct him? What seems much more likely to me is that William is an uber snob, and so are his staffers. If they didn’t correct him, it’s not because they’re afraid of him, or even bc he (or Kate) is particularly invested in feminist ideas like hey, maybe a woman should keep her identity after marriage. It was probably because none of them gave a shit, were content to keep the certificate as it was, even though they knew it was too close to being incorrect, and left it that way as a snub against Kate in particular.

        Even if he wrote her name incorrectly by accident, the fact is, he should know how that would come across to the people in his circle. This shit matters to them. William knows that. He knows that titles, styles, order of precedence, who curtsies to who–all of these things matter, and they matter deeply to the people he surrounds himself with. And you can bet that this stuff matters deeply to someone like Kate, and particularly Carole, who has spent her whole life striving to break into the aristocracy and gain their acceptance. To have her child referred to in that way would be seen as something of a slap in the face to Carole and Kate. They would see it as yet another example of how the palace courtiers don’t think Kate is “one of them” even though she married the FFK. Because Kate would have wanted that shit changed, as soon as she got wind of it, bc she’d know too, what sort of message that sent to the people whose opinions matter the most to her and her mother.

    • Sofia says:

      As @JT said, it would start the conversation of “so how did William fuck up all 3 of his kids’ birth certificates?” And “why did no-one correct him then?” especially as there was a big hoopla around them – especially George’s. And if the reason is just “We’re all scared of William so nobody tells him he’s wrong”, then they can’t really say that out loud or publicly.

      • JT says:

        I’m betting this is what happened. No other version makes sense regarding H&M’s BCs when you throw in the “clerical errors” of all three Cambridge BCs.

      • Becks1 says:

        yes exactly. To me, the only two explanations that make sense are either:

        1) What I said below to Myra (that it wasnt really a big deal but they made Meghan change it because they could)

        OR

        2) it is a big deal but William’s temper means that no one corrects him, ever. (or maybe they tried to correct him and he told them to eff off?)

      • Sofia says:

        @Becks: I can see it both ways. It’s not a massive deal but it’s also something that should be done a certain way. William didn’t and since they are scared of him and also don’t consider it high up on the protocol list, they left it and that’s it.

        However when the Sussexes came around, they decided to get them to do it the old way and use protocol as an excuse to put them down.

      • Jaded says:

        I’d bet my last cracker Kannot had something to do with this, i.e. “No f*cking way I’m deleting my name from our children’s birth certificates” and Willnot agreed. Those two are clearly jealous and resentful of Meghan and Harry’s popularity so *boom*, Meghan’s name comes off the BC. Willnot has KP wrapped around his incandescent little finger, they won’t do sh*t if he doesn’t sanction it.

    • Myra says:

      This is what gets me. There was a protocol for sitting, stockings, hats, nail varnish, dress colour, door closing, walking with spouses, but none for recording names on official documents? If the clerical error was so significant to correct, how come they’ve never corrected it with the Cambridges, but suddenly they remember this old-fashioned rule with the Sussexes? I think this was just another attempt to put Meghan in her place and it backfired massively.

      • Becks1 says:

        Right? “no royal protocol” is the stupidest excuse of them all. You would think this is an example of why there WOULD be a royal protocol.

        My current theory – which will probably change in 5 minutes -is that the Cambridge and Sussex birth certificates WERE filled out “incorrectly,” but it wasnt really a huge deal, so they didnt correct the Cambridges because honestly who cares that much. But they saw an opportunity to put Meghan in her place, like you said, and made her fix it. And so the reason we arent getting a reasonable explanation for why Archie’s BC was changed but none of the Cambridge kids were is because, as it turns out, saying “we wanted to put the black duchess in her place” just doesnt really sound that great in 2021.

      • Myra says:

        I concur with your theory. Give them another day, I’m sure they’ll try to find another angle soon. The funny thing is that their excuses are not being picked up globally as the clap back was.

    • Nic919 says:

      That 100% makes sense as an explanation. Basically William fucked up and everyone was too scared of him to correct his mistake. George’s birth certificate was plastered all over the media so there is no way this herald did not see the incorrect name protocol. But of course no one dared correct William. (Or possibly he did contact someone and the KP staff were too chicken to make the change).

      So when Archie was born and he saw the birth certificate with the same issue this herald guy contacted Samantha Cohen, who was likely familiar with naming protocol and what happened with Diana etc and so she told Harry and Meghan that it should be changed. Since they were already being attacked for protocol breaches and other nonsense they listened to her and it was done.

      And this would have stayed as is until whoever told lady colon to do an FOI on the birth certificate then tried to turn this into a poor Kate story, when the reality is that the Cambridges were the ones who breached the protocol and now we have a hundred excuses skating around that because Meghan’s spokesperson was not going to pretend that this dumb name change was something they initiated.

      • windyriver says:

        This is a good summary and very likely sequence of events, given the positions of Samatha Cohen and this Senior Herald, who have now been brought into the conversation by Andrews.

        As always, William, He Who Must Not Be Named, is very likely the source of the problem, both at the beginning (not following the protocol for royal birth certificates, whether by mistake or on purpose) and very possibly at the end (if KP were the ones who tipped Colin Campbell off about the change to Archie’s birth certificate).

    • A says:

      This actually kind of explains WHY the original story was that the changes to Archie’s birth certificate was a “snub” against Kate in particular. Because Kate technically SHOULD have been referred to as HRH, the Duchess of Cambridge, on all of her children’s birth certificates, because that is her proper title, as the still-married wife of the Duke of Cambridge. That is what is technically correct, even if it is a bitter reminder of just how fucked up and backwards this whole establishment is in its treatment of women.

      But on George’s birth certificate, what’s written for Kate is “Catherine Elizabeth, HRH, the Duchess of Cambridge”. For William it’s “HRH Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, the Duke of Cambridge”. The way the title is written for Kate, it’s almost as if the title part of it, the HRH the Duchess of Cambridge portion, was tacked on as an afterthought, after someone realized their mistake in not referring to Kate by her proper title. And yes, the way it was written is too close to how divorced women are referred to, if their husbands have a title.

      So it’s easy to see what the attempted spin on the part of the press actually was. They saw the change made to Archie’s birth certificate, saw that the change reflected Meghan’s proper style as Duchess of Sussex, and jumped on it. The minutiae of this whole debacle makes it pretty obvious that this came from someone within the palace, because only someone on the palace stuff would give a shit or be this snobby and petty to know that Kate was being referred to improperly in order to be able to spin this as a snub in the first place. The idea of this being a snub is based on the fact that Meghan is trying to “assert” herself by using the proper title/style for herself, as the wife of a duke, while Kate was not.

      But the only people who would think this is a snub against Kate are snobs in the aristocracy, particularly the courtiers who work with the royal family. To every other normal human being on the planet, it’s the total and complete opposite. It’s seen as a snub against Meghan, an erasure of Meghan’s name, rather than as an assertion of her title, which is how the royal family would see it. It’s another example of just how backwards and fucked up and completely at odds the values of the royal family are right now, compared to the rest of Britain, or even the rest of the world. It’s bizarre to all of us normal folks, but it makes sense when you think about how this is the same fucking family, that is guided by the same staff members who think that things like “men and women are equal” and “equal rights for all” and “every citizen deserves to exert their democratic right to vote” are “controversial” topics that are too modern for the royal family to care about.

    • I agree Becks1. I also think we should wonder as well why Prince was added to Harry. See my comment above under number 16. Was the Firm — on legal advice — positioning the changes in the birth certificate to strengthen a case to retain custody for Harry if a divorce followed. (Obviously, doing this without Harry being aware this was an objective.).

  19. sara says:

    “was reduced to tears of frustration and despair”

    Reduced to tears because people wanted to keep the birth of their child private? Why are all these royals and royal adjacent people such weaklings and crybabies?

    • Brit says:

      You can tell this is a lie because the only people upset where the media. I really doubt the family cared. They’ll forever be salty over Archie and the lack of access to him as well.

      • JT says:

        William definitely cared about Archie’s birth plans. Several sources have stated as much and then Kate shaded Meghan in podcast about it. William also cared about Archie’s christening and why were they keeping the godparents private and didn’t include the arrival walk. Dude was over here advocating for the press over Archie. It’s funny that he doesn’t actually care about Archie as a person though; he only wants to use him for the press. Let’s face it, little Archie is the big ticket not the Cambridge kids.

    • Myra says:

      Honestly, they need to hire professional people. These people hate working, hate receiving emails, leak confidential work matters, leak private matters of their bosses, make fun of their bosses, gossip on their bosses, cannot handle more than one task at a time and now cry when their bosses are christening their own child?? Their bosses used to be known as lazy and now are known as racist. I wouldn’t hire any of them.

    • Harper says:

      “Behind the scenes, matters were so fraught that more than one official — as I know from personal experience — was reduced to tears of frustration and despair.” This reads to me as Andrews hinting that the Crying Official basically picked up the phone and called Andrews to whine about those bad Sussexes! Or, Andrews met the Crying Official after work for a cocktail and he/she was upset over Harry/Meghan’s refusal to use the palace’s ob/gyn or give birth in the Lindo Wing. As a result, Crying Official probably wasn’t getting his/her under-the-table bonus taken from the Lindo Wing marketing/pr budget because the hospital didn’t get the extra press from the Sussex birth like Crying Official had promised them.

  20. SH says:

    I love that the Palace isn’t actually denying the story it’s all just about how their delicate British sensibilities were offended by the word dictated. Somehow they can handle Will’s rage fits, but an American using direct language is too much for them to handle.

  21. Belli says:

    This is such a case study in leading language that if I were a teacher I’d use it in a lesson.

    Archie’s birth was “shrouded in secrecy” and Harry is “morbidly obsessed” with keeping it that way. They talk about the Sussexes “believing” they have receipts, whereas the royal sources are treated as though they’re speaking straight facts, no qualifiers there.

    The royals/courtiers are “reduced to tears of frustration and despair”, they “gently insisted”, and “politely continued”, “the genial Mr Woodcock” is “bemused”.

    What the article wants us to conclude: “Those good, kind royal officials being dragged into a row with the bad, hotheaded Sussexes through no fault of their own, isn’t it such a shame. Oh and by the way Archie’s birth was all secretive, please speculate on that.”

    It’s laughable.

    • Harper says:

      It would be laughable if this type of journalism (if one may call it that) wasn’t purposely shaping public opinion against Meghan and Harry. I hope Meghan and Harry continue to refute these fictional distractions that are rolled out every time Kate screws up so that the Palace (both Palaces) are so busy scrambling and pointing fingers that they combust. Meanwhile, Meghan and Harry issue one succinct retort and go on with their important work.

    • Kyliegirl says:

      This! I made the mistake of reading the article. The language was so leading. Any mention of the Palace the words were “gently” and “polite” while the any mention of H&M the language was aggressive. The tone of her article answered the question as to why a simple bc change could cause so much strife. The RR will never take responsibility for their actions in all of this. They are just asking innocent questions after all. They deserve each other.

    • molly says:

      “Harry became almost morbidly obsessed with keeping as secret as possible” still makes me furious. It’s his wife and newborn baby. He owes the public NOTHING.

    • Thank you Belli —- that was a fantastic comment. The specific use of leading language is why so much early historical accounts are also suspect. Look what the Tudors were able to perpetuate about Richard the III which has muddied the historical waters about what really happened pro or con to this day.

  22. Lemons says:

    Outside of this, let us remember that this was all instigated because Meghan supposedly snubbed Kate by changer her birth certificate a year ago.

    Since the RR’s no longer have real access to useful information, they should really get the jump on being more truthful in their critique. “Did the Royal family open themselves up to a racial discrimination lawsuit in changing Master Archie’s birth certificate without the Sussexes’ consent?” They would have 100x the clicks that they do now. All the haters and supporters would descend upon the article to comment.

    “Will the Palace apologize to Sussexes for alleged clerical error? Why the errors from Gold Standard courtiers and no corrections after error came to light?”

    “Will Willileaks and Waity Kate speak on if they will return to royal tradition for their children’s birth certificates? Why have they snubbed the Queen?!”

    Easy money and easy clickbait.

    • JT says:

      For real though. I don’t click DM stories, I only get them here, but I would totally click on those you just came up with. It has just enough scandal and shade in the title to get me to notice. Especially since the press never criticize the royals, that alone would get people interested. Everyone all around is bad at their jobs right now. And it’s not like the RF is giving the press anything notable anyway. Engagement on embiggening is always low. Might as well be truthful, even just a little bit.

    • Emile says:

      I wonder when this will happen, when the RR’s reporting will take the turn to criticising the royals.

      While the RRs and the Palace have successfully worked together on smearing the Sussexes, I believe their interests are fundamentally different and eventually we will get to a point when their relationship won’t be as smooth-sailing.

      While the Palace (the Keens in particular) wanted H&M gone, I don’t think this is what the RR’s (and the media more generally) wanted because they now have much less access to the Sussexes, both in terms of leaks as well as pictures and videos they would’ve gotten on the Sussexes’ engagements or via Insta.

      H&M have made it clear that they will be very selective in their media appearances, something that bodes well for them (because it avoids overexposure + makes every sighting an ‘event’) but not so much for the media who depend on a neverending stream of new content.

      When the ball does drop I wonder what they will start attacking first – will they go back to the “Duchess Doolittle” narrative? Talk about Williams’ rosebush trimming? Come after Charles and Camilla? Time will tell…

      • Nyro says:

        I think the breaking point will be when Meghan gives birth to the second child and the RR have no access whatsoever and no way to profit. No photos, no interviews, no info on how the birth went, etc. Nothing. When there’s a royal baby out there in California, a baby from the only royal couple that matters, and they get nothing, they’re going to completely lose it.

      • Lady D says:

        I think the RR’s will start with the York family, but won’t get far. They are just the prelude to the press going after the Middletons. Stories about James, Pippa’s f-i-law, Uncle Gary and then the mother. If they do do that, Kate will be next.

    • Belli says:

      You’re right, the difference between Kate’s and Meghan’s names WAS the story when this first broke. And now that difference is being carefully swept under the rug.

  23. Cee says:

    This makes no sense. If writing down RACHEN MEGHAN, HRH DUCHESS OF SUSSEX implies she is a widow or divorced, then why weren’t the Cambridge BC changed as it implies Kate has birthed 3 children as a widow????

    This is what happened, according to me (lol): William decided to include Kate’s name in their children’s BC. The Palace decided to overlook that mistake and allow Kate to be part of her children’s BC, as any woman with sense would want to. However, they decided Meghan was not deserving of the same exception. And that is the crux. William actually set a nice precedent, perhaps the only good precedent he will ever set, but everyone decided Harry and Meghan did not deserve it.

    • A says:

      “then why weren’t the Cambridge BC changed as it implies Kate has birthed 3 children as a widow????” Because that too, at the end of the day, is a snub from these snobbish courtiers, who don’t really care for Kate much because she is a commoner, born without a title, to a mother who grew up in a council house.

      This title shit really is weird and bizarre in some really stupid ways, particularly because of how damn archaic and fucked up it is when it comes to how women are addressed specifically. Women get their identities erased completely when they marry into nobility, even if their spouse doesn’t have a title. I remember reading somewhere about how the palace, when it addresses invitations to women, still addresses them to Mrs. Husband’s First Name Husband’s Last Name. So if you are the wife of Mr. John Smith, they will address the invitation to Mrs. John Smith, even if you haven’t even changed your last name.

      That’s the tradition under which these people are operating here when it comes to titles. Any woman who marries into the royal family, whether it’s Kate, Meghan, or Diana, is technically not Princess Kate/Meghan/Diana. If their husband is a prince of the realm, but does not receive any noble title such as Duke/Earl/Baron, their wives are technically to be addressed as Princess Husband’s First Name. That’s why Princess Michael is referred to as Princess Michael, rather than Princess Marie Christine. Prince Michael is not a duke or an earl or anything else. He is just Prince. So officially, his wife is referred to as Princess Michael.

      It’s also why Lady Colin Campbell is referred to as Lady Colin Campbell, even after her divorce. She married the younger son of the Duke of Argyll, who did not stand to inherit the title. He is merely Lord Colin Campbell, he held no other title, so she became Lady Colin Campbell. Margaret Thatcher is Baroness Thatcher, but she was not granted the title in her own right. Her husband had to be granted the title of Baron Thatcher, in order for to be addressed as Baroness, even though SHE was the Prime Minister, not him.

      So the fact that referring to a woman by her title, or rather, by her husband’s title which she gets from being married to him, is an act of erasure of their own identity, because that’s exactly what these people think. They think women, after being married, don’t get their own identity. They assume the identity of their husbands, whatever that might be. And this largely goes unchallenged because the fact is that what title a person has matters a great deal to these people, because of just how snobby they are. To refer to a woman by her maiden name, even after marriage, or to mess up the minute details of the correct style regarding her title, matters a lot, because for them, the title matters more than anything else. That’s how snobby they are, to the point where they’d hold on to such outdated gender norms in a modern society.

      All that to say, yes, Kate being referred to the way she was on the birth certificate was likely done on purpose, and it was not done to assert her identity or individuality as a person or as the mother of her children. It was done to put her in her place by the courtiers who care deeply about these things, who look down on her because of her background.

      • Ann says:

        Well, that doesn’t surprise me. Growing up my mother had a lot of cookbooks that had been her mothers, or that she had acquired when first married, that contained recipes contributed by different women. Usually books put out by a local Junior League, PTA, or charity chapter. I always found it so weird that the contributor would be called “Mrs. John Smith (nee Reynolds)”, for example…..never a mention of the first name. And formal correspondence was like that even up until the 1980s, probably later in some circles. But the fact that they the British Toffs are STILL doing it that way almost forty years later? Wow.

  24. Cecilia says:

    Meghan wouldn’t in a public statement say that it was dictated by the palace “ as documents of senior officials show” if she wasn’t sure of it or if she didn’t have those exact same documents in her possession. The royals should have left it at clerical error instead of allowing their staff to run to the press to put out 6 different version of 1 story.

    Also,
    “Behind the scenes, matters were so fraught that more than one official — as I know from personal experience — was reduced to tears of frustration and despair.”

    What exactly does she mean with that? Staff was upset because meghan and harry kept archies birth a private matter??? If so, how exactly is that the staff problem?

    Also notice how the fail hold more regard for the emotions of said staff but meghan is expected to put up and shut up? Maybe staff drove HER to tears or madness.

    • Lemons says:

      They were upset because this was an opportunity to receive a payday that would help pay for a new Tesla or a downpayment on a posh London apartment, but they would certainly lose their jobs for leaking as I’m sure H&M had things on a tight lock.

      Poor things. Couldn’t sell out their bosses.

    • Lizzie says:

      Dealing with Meghan reduces everyone to tears, I believe that is the message.

  25. samipup says:

    Perhaps they meant *dictated* in the literal sense. Someone said to someone else to “write these words”. I haven’t read the thread so I don’t know if if this is mentioned. That was what I thought was meant.

  26. Harper says:

    So Emily Andrews goes to KP and BP for statements, and one of those geniuses throws the highly experienced and capable Samantha Cohen under the bus. But Samantha Cohen isn’t going down without a fight, and she points the finger at the genial Mr. Woodcock, who gosh gollies his answer to look adorably absent-minded. Mr. Woodcock even volunteers to lay down in the middle of Picadilly Circus and let the big red double-decker bus run him down as a martyr so that the CEO of Exhaustion Inc. gets her deflection. I hope Kate at least sends Mr. Woodcock a chutney basket as a thank-you gift.

    • Jay says:

      The way Samantha Cohen is mentioned, with her many years of experience serving the Queen, is phrased so that it seems Meghan was accusing Cohen of incompetence, which is willfully ignoring what Meg actually said: The palace dictated the change. It was no error.

      And I felt like genial old fart was offering to fall on the sword “if necessary” as the sort of empty noble gesture that is designed to make the accuser look like an unreasonable monster. Sort of like apologies that begin with “If anyone was offended…” or my gran’s special variation: “Fine, just do what you want. I’m ALWAYS wrong. I’m only trying to help you.”

  27. BnLurkN4eva says:

    The British media is addicted to writing about Meghan because their readers are obsessed with reading about her and writing vile comments in response to whatever stories are written about her. No matter what H/M do to distance themselves from all of it, they can’t because the media will either repeat old stories, or dig up miscellaneous crap that shouldn’t be a story. Look at this story, that’s all that’s being discussed, Kate and William’s blunders are once again swept under the rug and they get to live their lives unbothered. M/H just has to continue as they are, ignore them, only respond to legitimate media when a rebuttal is necessary, which will result in their version of the story being the one that’s widely reported. As time marches on more and more people are getting it, why they left and just how dysfunctional that family and the BM are. It’s unfortunate that even leaving didn’t stop the abuse, but I have to believe that just being so far away makes this less annoying.

  28. Lizzie says:

    I’m starting to think the gold standard courtiers just harassed H&M at every opportunity. It doesn’t matter who told them how to fill in the bc, do it over for no good reason, just to harass. Probably just one of their tactics to make Meghan leave.

  29. Kalana says:

    The Palace and the Rota are bitter, abusive exes constantly searching for engagement. There’s no confusion there. Clearly the Sussexes are being harassed. Not a good look.

    The BRF controls the British media coverage so they won’t get called on it there but the question is will American media do the same? So far the BRF anger has stayed in the royal watcher bubble as in white women who love Kate’s hair and clothes and flat out don’t care about racism or whether the royals are decent people.

    I keep saying this but the Palace is trashy and grimy and racist and they’re leaning into it. It’s a weird branding choice. It’s like they’re in British Trump land of grossness and Be Best. There’s also the story about Murdoch’s new network and Brexit.

    I keep looking at this wondering if there will be a backlash and someone will call all this out?

    • Sofia says:

      Wrong place!

    • Jais says:

      This. @kalana The royal family really seems to be leaning the racism and white privilege, like it’s something cute, like it’s a badge to wear. They would never admit to it outright but it feels almost like a cutesy sly wink to all their like-minded fans that also despise and love to degrade Meghan. Like look what we did lol we got her name off the birth certificate, high five. Courtiers coming across as bros thinking they really did something. Like @kalana said it’s a weird branding choice to lean into racism. It is weird but also brazen in that they don’t seem to care at all because they can always just gaslight with so many confusing excuses until the next story comes along to distract. Do they feel there’s enough racists in Britain that they’re not really worried about that position? Obv, there are many in Britain who aren’t but it suggests the RF, or the courtiers, or the RR think there’s enough that they don’t mind that brand at all. I mean the brand choice would be laughable if it wasn’t so offensive.

      • Kalana says:

        “privilege, like it’s something cute, like it’s a badge to wear. They would never admit to it outright but it feels almost like a cutesy sly wink to all their like-minded fans that also despise and love to degrade Meghan. Like look what we did lol we got her name off the birth certificate, high five. Courtiers coming across as bros thinking they really did something.”

        Exactly and how long can this go on? Are we all going to be collectively gaslighted that all this never happened or have the BRF solidly and unrepentantly thrown their lot in with the Brexit xenophobic racist crowd? William just got dragged or ignored when he pretended to care about racism. The family can try to control the press but the truth is right there and the Sussexes are a reminder of it.

        The trashy glee behind denying laying a wreath for the Cenotaph was genuinely startling. War of the Wales level ugly. The birth certificate faux scandal has also led to sympathy for the Sussexes.

        They’re banking on the Tories and the right-wing media controlling the narrative for a long time but I think this is how backlash starts. Any attempt to bring this to the US will be a problem.

    • Nyro says:

      Did you see that tweet from that clown Palmolive yesterday? He basically came out and said the queen was hoping for a Trump win and Meghan ruined it by telling people to vote. Both exposing the queen as MAGA and also revealing Meghan to be the one with the real power and influence.

      • Kalana says:

        I saw it. It would have been much easier for them to work with Trump. That way both countries would have had the same isolationist right-wing bent, to say nothing of dealing with the Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein issue. It seems like things are moving ahead in Britain with a new Murdoch channel and Paul Dacre of the DM becoming head of OFCOM.

        There seems to be no viable leftwing opposition.

  30. Over it says:

    I thought woodcock said he didn’t give advice to them.? But didn’t he say before that that he said your name Is duchess of Sussex ? Rachel Meghan means you are a widow? I mean he can’t even lie straight for a f——-ing minute. These bastardized racist assholes

  31. Amy Bee says:

    Thankfully Meghan gave her statement when she did because it exposed the Palace and now they trying to clean up their mess. I’m sure she has documents to back what she said. If Kate was allowed to have her name on her children’s birth certificate then Meghan had that right as well and the Palace should not have intervened.

  32. Susan says:

    Okay bear with me: If I am the Queen of the United States and I give my son and daughter in law the title of Duke/Duchess of Virginia, they are essentially my underlings in my domain. So if they were to leave the US/Virginia and or relinquish their titles, they would no longer BE the D/D of VA and therefore, would that render the parentage on the birth certificate of their child as invalid, making me the technical owner of said child? Meaning, if I own the US and Virginia and the name on the birth cert is “Duchess of Virginia,” does the child become technically mine? This is the part that chills me to the bone.

    • Sofia says:

      Fortunately, that would never hold up in an International court if you tried to claim the child was yours simply though titles.

      If the BRF even attempt to try and take Archie away, they’ll face international condemnation and would be laughed out of any American or International court.

    • anotherlily says:

      Children have legal rights too,and their rights and best interests take priority in any legal dispute. The UK has strong and clear laws to protect children from being treated like property.

    • Susan says:

      Thank you for the replies and THANK GOD! This part terrified me. I just can’t fathom the justification for the weird title stuff. I watch too much intrigue TV I guess, I always go to the worst dramatic outcome LOL

    • Maria says:

      This is probably an unpopular opinion: if the BRF really wanted this child, no, they wouldn’t try to take him outright, others have said, they would face refusal and condemnation – BUT that level of wealth and political influence can spin things in ways you can’t imagine….so I wouldn’t trust that they wouldn’t try something else for the same result.
      But the thing is, they don’t want or care about Archie. For reasons we know. They want Harry to leave BOTH Meghan and Archie and to come back home to marry an English rose and have “real” English children.

  33. Elizabeth Kerri Mahon says:

    This whole thing reminds me of the 4 or 5 different versions of what happened before Meghan & Harry’s wedding where allegedly Meghan made Kate cry. They couldn’t get that story straight either.

    • equality says:

      It’s annoying. Meghan is close to tears ONCE in a video and gets slammed for being a “whinger” or a privileged person complaining. Kate cries apparently whenever Meghan looks her way and it’s justified?

  34. Amy Bee says:

    Meghan was exercising her right to reply to a very damaging story. Her enforced silence in the past gave the press license to unfairly attack her character and damage her reputation. If she wants to defend herself against malicious stories, she is free to do. As for the family missing out on seeing Archie, if they really cared about him they would have treated his parents better. No one should stay in toxic situations for the sake of family.

    • Over it says:

      Amen , you are 100 percent correct

    • Liz version 700 says:

      I honestly feel bad for the kids who are forced to STAY with this family. The Cambridge kids have an Incandescent with rage father and are already being groomed as the next generation of messed up heirs and spares. Archie was lucky his parents got him out of this mess.

  35. equality says:

    You seem to be giving credence to the tabloid stories. H&M have said they have no set plans for travelling or not travelling because of the pandemic. (I was replying to a comment that must have been removed.)

  36. Over it says:

    Why should Harry and Meghan continue to let racist liars slander them? And I have children and believe me if any of their family members talked shit about me or them especially to the press, there is no way on god green earth that my children will be spending anytime with them. Harry and Meghan with the exception of Doris, have been downright a disgrace to the word family, so no Archie is much better off without poisonous viruses in his life.

  37. February-Pisces says:

    This whole thing reminds me so much of Taylor swift and Kanye wests feud over the ‘famous’ lyric. Taylor got cocky, thought she could play the victim by creating faux rage, even saying during her Grammy acceptance speech the ‘no one was responsible for her fame’. Then when she got caught out, quickly changes her reasons and clings to any excuse she could find. The palaces faux rage over the word ‘dictated’ was like when Taylor tried to change her faux rage to the word ‘bitch’. Anyway William and Kate do remind me of 2017 Taylor, she thought she was untouchable, could literally throw anyone under the bus and somehow play the nice wholesome victim at the same time. She was very quickly put in her place and humbled and her career hasn’t really been the same. The Keens need to realise that throwing your weight around and thinking your untouchable will not end well for them. They didn’t need to throw Meghan under the bus for Kate’s dumb ‘exhausted’ comment. They could have just let it pass, but they chose to play dirty unnecessarily, and now it’s blowing up in their faces.

    • JT says:

      It’s exactly the same as the Taylor/Kanye incident but at least Taylor has the sense to pretend to be over it now, because that sh*t gets old. The Keens always play the victim in every scenario. They’re always playing the underdog even when they have an entire country’s media behind them 100%. But as we have seen it’s getting old already. If they put as much effort into their work as they do smearing and keening they’d be highly successful.

    • CC2 says:

      The full audio has been leaked, and Taylor was actually right (summary is that Taylor has maintained her issue was being called a bitch, leaked audio said she was nervous about him calling her a bitch, and later on Kanye asks if he could say ‘I made her famous’ and Taylor gave a non answer, telling him to write what he truly feels). A normal person in her shoes would take it to mean that Kanye deliberately did that. Especially when you take into account that Kanye and her had unpleasant moments that built up to that moment apparently

      Kim releases a few clips about it that implies Taylor was psyched about it when the conversation was definitely more mixed, and boom, Taylor even got traumatised and had to step down for a while, and in her documentary there’s even a really raw moment when she just…broke down about it.

      And of course, nothing can justify Kanye allowing his crowd to yell “**** Taylor” repeatedly and creating a naked wax statue of her lying in bed with him, especially given that she’s a victim of sexual assault.

      If anything Kim&Kanye are the Cambridges/Rf here imo. Passive aggressiveness until a woman who was trying to get their respect snaps, and then the narrative becomes about how mad and unbending she is and how the sweet couple was abused. Whatever receipts they show distorts the larger context of what’s going on.

      • Maria says:

        Kim/Kanye are awful, but Taylor was happy to go along with a lot of the racist tropes that propped her up against the “evil black man” after that incident.

      • Elizabeth says:

        Thank you CC2.

      • CC2 says:

        @Maria, how exactly? Kanye continued to bully her after she got “checked” by Kim, got a naked statue of her and displayed it for the public to see?

        We know he’s trash, and we didn’t need to see his MAGA phase for that to happen. Even after his conversion as a faithful man…we didn’t see an earnest apology.

        I don’t know what the racists were saying then although I’m sure they said awful things, but I certainly don’t think she played into that when she was actually a victim. She publicly forgave him the first time around, and slammed back for the second incident, and both are justified imo.

        Not to sound snarky, but this is a man who cozied up to Trump and endorsed that trash, as opposed to a woman who was definitely treated badly by K and made it sure that the public knew that.

      • Maria says:

        CC2 – if you were following this in 2009 you would have seen the insane amount of racist backlash that occurred as a result and Taylor encouraged it by emphasizing her white woman victimhood.
        And this was all FAR before Kanye was a MAGA lover and before the naked statue debacle.
        And Taylor has only very recently been speaking out against racism. She’s been more than happy to fetishize Black bodies, culturally appropriate, and tone police other Black women in the past.
        Kanye may be more problematic but that doesn’t absolve her.
        Anyway, this is a digression, but I felt the need to point out that nuance here, since in the case of Meghan she is an innocent victim and neither Taylor nor Kanye are.

  38. Merricat says:

    The continuing ineptitude coming from the Firm is hilarious and stunning. like that Simpsons gag with Sideshow Bob and the yard of rakes.

  39. Snuffles says:

    There are so many layers to this story.

    One aspect is that the BM and courtiers don’t know diddly squat about American sensibilities (or just non-royal ones) and are just shocked, SHOCKED I tell you! That their protocol excuse isn’t acceptable. Maybe in the UK people are used to it but anyone else would have a million more questions.

    In America, I don’t care what race of tax bracket you are in, taking a woman’s name off her child’s birth certificate is unfathomable. Then add in another layer of African American woman and the painful history or slavery and the white man owning not only them but their children (who were often sold off and taken away), people are getting TRIGGERED over the situation.

    This is the kind of stuff these courtiers and BM never had to think of and why they keep sticking their foot in it.

    • Lemons says:

      What they failed to realize is that they also did the same thing to Diana who clearly wanted to mother her children more than Charles wanted to father them. Diana was more liked in any case than the entirety of the royal family. So doing the same sh– to Meghan as was done to Diana was a big no-no. I would even extend this courtesy to Philip because I think it is ghastly to not put parents’ names on the certificate if all consent.

      Combine that with the fact that the mother should be on the birth certificate because she is the one who has literally birthed the baby. It’s bizarre that the mother would be essentially unknown when the baby has literally come out of her body. Modern society is not here for this archaic Bs.

    • Nyro says:

      These people are not ready for the 21st century and they’re not ready for their backward ways to be exposed to the public. And they aren’t ready for Black Americans, even though one of us married into their family. They are culturally illiterate and this is why they have no idea how and why people are so shocked and disgusted by this.

  40. Jay says:

    They are still SO salty about Meghan’s birth experience being “shrouded in secrecy”, and coupled with all of this mess about her name being removed from Archie’s birth certificate, I’m getting some strong wafts of birtherism here. They are also trying to taint any disclosures of “confidential internal documents” the Sussexes may have.

    This “genial” old codger courtier is doing some classic gaslighting – Well, I MAY have said something like that, and if I did, I would have been correct, but Meghan must have somehow misinterpreted my suggestions as some kind of order. Well *chuckle* I’m a nice guy, so I’ll make an offer to take the blame for HER mistake.

    But so…if having your own name on the certificate implies that one’s husband is dead (let’s not even get sidetracked with how effed up that is), where does that leave Kate?

    • A says:

      Dead or divorced. That’s what’s going unsaid here, let’s not forget. What’s really happening is that, regardless of the change or the style, the fact is, that the courtiers were trying to erase Meghan from the record, either by implying that she is not really Harry’s wife by using a title that is generally used for someone who is divorced, or by using the proper title, but one which just conveniently erases her entire name and identity in the process and just refers to her as the Duchess of Sussex. Either way, it can be read as a snub to Meghan, which is what makes all of this so particularly shitty. And yes, that old due is 100% being a shady little bitch, and he knows it, as does everyone in his circle who gives a shit about these things.

      As for where this leaves Kate, well, it’s exactly like I said. I’m fairly sure that Catherine Elizabeth, Duchess of Cambridge (or maybe the Duchess of Cambridge), is how her name was written in the certificate. And yes, that is too close to how divorced women are styled when they were formerly titled, but not anymore. It is a snub towards Kate, but it went without comment because Kate is under strict instructions to STFU and swallow any and every small indignity that’s directed towards her from these absolute assholes at every turn.

  41. My Two Cents says:

    Interesting, the DM had this story pretty prominently this morning and now it’s gone, They’ve moved on to two other articles about Harry and Meghan, but it looks like they’ve moved on already. It’s not even at the bottom anymore, so some people don’t want this to drag on after all.

    • Sofia says:

      It’s probably not getting the clicks they want. Or more likely, the death of Tom Moore (the 100 year old vet who raised 33million for the NHS by doing 100 laps in his garden) took over the news cycles yesterday so people (including the mail) have probably moved on

    • Shelley says:

      It’s still there, under the Meghan Markle tab.

  42. TheOriginalMia says:

    Adding Kate’s name to the kids’ birth certificates was a nice thing. Made her more than a birthing vessel. The big thing about George’s bc was the fact that Kate’s occupation was listed as Princess of the Realm. So, obviously listing her name wasn’t a big deal then, so why change it when it came to Archie? It was a slam against Meghan. A way to otherize her, put her in her place. While I doubt Petty Betty had anything directly to do with it, I’m damn sure William whispered in the courtiers’ ears that it wasn’t the thing to do, especially as Meghan was an American and Harry was the 2nd son. I think “the Palace” Meghan referenced wasn’t BP, but William/KP.

    • anotherlily says:

      Kate’s occupation is listed as ‘Princess of the United Kingdom’. This was also the case for Diana and for Sarah Ferguson and is also how Meghan is described. . It is the standard description of mother’s occupation. In each case the father’s occupation is ‘Prince of the United Kingdom’.

  43. Likeyoucare says:

    Those poor royals and court jester.
    First, kate cries, then the staffs also cry because of meghan.
    Maybe next week, the queen will cry too because she misses archie so much.
    There i help DM to write a story about meghan.

  44. Tiffany says:

    That photo of Meghan, Archie and Archbishop Tutu is one of my favorites.

  45. Sophie says:

    These palace people are exhausting! Can you imagine being this thin skinned? I would have lost my mind dealing with such passive aggressive pettiness. The whole situation is profoundly stupid. If you (kp/bp staff) are going through life worked up over the birth certificate of a toddler you don’t know, you need a hobby and a therapist.

  46. L4frimaire says:

    This whole story cycle is just irritating. Before this came out in the papers, no one was thinking about Archie’s birth certificate. No one. All of a sudden, a row erupts, because someone in some palace decided to randomly attack Meghan with a blatant lie about something she didn’t exactly consent to. I still want an explanation of why they wrote this story in the first place about a birth certificate from 2019, and why they framed it this way. I’m wondering if is this considered tampering with a public record. They were not expecting Meghan to come out swinging like that but sometimes, you can only poke the bear too many times. Remember, the royal family’s New Year greeting to the world was, not a positive message about reset or putting aside differences. No, they decided to let us all know that it was the Queen herself who decided to try to humiliate Harry over a wreath. Then on the last day of the year they decide to make up some story to attack Meghan, which revealed their attempt at erasure from her own child’s birth certificate. But hey, they were polite in their wording about it, right? Please let’s not hear anymore about this unless it involves attorneys, because that’s where it will go if the UK press keeps at this.

  47. A says:

    I have soooo much to say on this, but I don’t have time to get into all of what I want to say. I’m just really really intrigued by the fact that they spoke to the “Garter Principal King of Arms and Senior Herald” on this subject, because what he had to say on the whole thing is just so WILD but no one’s commenting on it?

    Initially, when I saw the story, I really did think something similar to what he states here, which is that writing Name Middle Name [comma] Duchess of [Title] IS the style used for widowed/dowager/DIVORCED duchesses in particular. These things seem small, but they matter a whole lot to these sort of people, who have too much money to care about real problems, and instead fret about things like where the comma goes in a made up title.

    But when I saw the change, I remember thinking the complete opposite of what everyone else was saying, which is that oh, they changed to reflect Meghan’s actual, proper title as Duchess, which is HRH, the Duchess of Sussex. So it didn’t really hit me at first that this was an erasure of her name or status as Archie’s mother, but rather that this was a correction of the record to reflect the reality, as opposed to what the shady courtiers WISH was the case.

    The courtiers wish Meghan was divorced, because then she would be Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, which is generally the style adopted by divorced women. Diana, after her divorce, became Diana, Princess of Wales, rather than HRH, the Princess of Wales. Fergie, too, became Sarah, Duchess of York, vs HRH, the Duchess of York. There was a lot of noise a couple decades ago, when the wife of the current Duke of Kent changed her style to Katherine, Duchess of Kent, even though she was very much not divorced from her husband, and was technically still HRH, the Duchess of Kent. It was taken as a sign that the marriage had ended and that they were starting to live separate lives from that point, without divorcing officially.

    But the thing is, all of this then begs the question as to just WHY the royal PR machine is bungling this shit up so poorly? ALL they need to do is issue an official line saying, “We changed the birth certificate to reflect the actual, proper way to refer to a Duchess who is still married, because the other way is incorrect. Meghan, in spite of the fact that she has chosen to not use her official titles any longer, is still technically HRH, the Duchess of Sussex, which is what the birth certificate was changed to reflect. The previous style implied something that is WRONG. We’re actually the good guys.”

    Like, this could have been such an easy PR dunk for them? And yet? They pull this shit? And trot out a shady ass authority on things like titles and arms to give a mealy mouthed defense of their stupid shit? Do these people understand that they are fumbling an easy fucking win here? And shooting their own enterprise in the foot in the process? Like???

    • Sofia says:

      The thing is, if the titles are so important, why is Kate listed as HRH Catherine Elizabeth, Duchess of Cambridge? Why did no-one correct it for THREE different births, especially as certificates were pretty public – especially George’s.

      That’s the question that a lot of people here are asking and why (as said by people above) explanations for it being title and protocol based fall apart once people ask why Kate is listed by name on her kids’ certificate

      • anotherlily says:

        Kate is listed as ‘Catherine Elizabeth HRH The Duchess of Cambridge’ in all three of her children’s birth certificates. The exact format used for Meghan. So everything supposedly incorrect about the format applies to Kate, all three times.

      • Sofia says:

        But they changed it for Meghan. They removed her names and made her HRH The Duchess of Sussex.

        That’s why what we’ve been talking about for the last 2 days or something. Thats why we are all here lol.

    • HK9 says:

      Why you ask? Because they are less than smart. The courtiers are committed to Queen, Country, Racism and ineptitude. They are a PR disaster, a dumpster fire of yes men. They do not have the ability to assess their actual position and proceed accordingly. Anyone with a lick of sense would have let this die. They cannot, because they are stupid.

    • lanne says:

      gold standard advisors indeed

    • GuestwithCat says:

      A, I get what you’re saying. I’m just aghast that the actual protocol regarding titles more or less erases a person and reduces them to their title, which actually takes place of their name. And worse for women, their conventions give primacy to their husband’s identity over their own. At least it looks that way to me here out in America, land of no titles and pick-your-own pronouns. We do as we please and are pleased when we do.

      I guess to an aristocrat, though, it’s not reducing a person to a title but elevating them to it. Well, good luck getting a black American feminist to feel that way. Since there was no legal requirement to have the BC completed according to any particular protocol, it should have been left as it was signed by Harry, the father of the child who presumably consulted the mother of the child as to her preference. The pomposity of the men in grey and their insistence to insert themselves into decisions they’re not wanted or needed for never ceases to amaze and exhaust me.

      God help these courtiers if they had to deal with my ornery self. Then the rags would have had legit stories to report about a bitchy American on a rampage in the palace. Instead, they got a lovely person like Meghan and had to fabricate issues about her.

      • A says:

        @GuestWithCat, I’m not denying Meghan’s feminist credentials in particular here at all, but I really don’t think she objected to the change. I think that Meghan, in her statement, most likely was objecting to the framing that the change was made as a “snub” towards Kate.

        I honestly think what happened was, someone on her staff or on the staff at BP, a perfectly well-meaning person probably, took a look at her documentation, saw that the style was incorrect on Archie’s birth certificate, looked into what the correct version was, got a second opinion from the shady old man who knows about this stuff, and informed Meghan, probably in writing in an e-mail. And she reviewed it, shrugged, wondered why things were so fucking weird over in Britain about these things, and signed off on the change and went on with her day, happy that someone caught the error and updated the paperwork adequately. If she had any issues or concerns, she probably inquired about them, received a response from the disingenuous, lying ass grey suits that yes, this is perfectly okay, go ahead and change it, and so she did. Hence the wording in her statement that this change was “dictated” by BP.

        I say this bc I don’t think most women go around their day thinking abt how all the institutions they run into are sexist? *I* know it’s sexist bc of what I know abt the British aristocracy, and so do a lot of other people. I think it’s very astute that people saw this as an attempt to erase Meghan’s identity from her son’s BC, even though I don’t think that’s wholly accurate, bc I think that observation is actually really astute and well observed.

        But what I think is most telling is just how out of touch the idiots working for the monarchy are in reality, that they really thought anyone would understand, let alone care about the fact that this change was a snub against Kate. No one except their inbred aristocratic pals who are holed up in their drafty country piles gives much of a shit abt the mechanics of how this can be construed as a snub against Kate. To everyone else in the modern world, with an awareness of what sexism and racism can look like, we see the ugly, sad truth, which is that this is an institution and a class system that, at its highest rungs, depends on some seriously awful, outdated notions regarding gender norms. The fact that the idiots who leaked this story never thought of that angle, again, says a lot about what their brains are really occupied with and how out of touch they are with the masses, in reality.

      • Feeshalori says:

        A, you’ve given a series of very cogent comments and I’ve really enjoyed reading them all.

    • S says:

      “ALL they need to do is issue an official line saying, “We changed the birth certificate to reflect the actual, proper way to refer to a Duchess who is still married, because the other way is incorrect. Meghan, in spite of the fact that she has chosen to not use her official titles any longer, is still technically HRH, the Duchess of Sussex, which is what the birth certificate was changed to reflect. The previous style implied something that is WRONG. We’re actually the good guys.””

      Because that would bring scrutiny to the Cambridge kids’ birth certificates and how Kate’s name isn’t written properly on them. That’s why Meghan’s response is a masterpiece: aside from the valid argument that only listing the mother’s titles in the certificate is dehumanizing and sexist, it also made people look up how Diana’s and Fergie’s names were written in their children’s birth certificates, to confirm whether Meghan was saying the truth about the palace dictating the correction.

      I’m sure they all realize by now that Meghan’s name is now written the same as Diana and Fergie, but surprise surprise, that means the Future Future Queen’s name is not written properly in her children’s birth certificates. And *gasp*, isn’t that a breach in an important royal protocol?

      Also: they can’t backtrack now and say, “Oh, Kate has the birth certificates corrected too in private! She’s the future future Queen of course she know that unlike Meghan!” when the whole damn story started from them trying to shame Meghan for “snubbing” Kate. So they themselves set up that the Cambridge kids’ birth certificates have not been changed.

      TL;DR the whole circus is to avoid admitting William and Kate don’t give a shit about protocols and everyone around them is too chicken shit to tell they did something wrong.

  48. Kyla says:

    Honestly, this is such low-level, low-importance nonsense and proof to me that the monarchy needs to come to an end. The fact that it’s people’s jobs to figure out the “title” of a newborn on a birth certificate, and then the fact that people spend hours and energy dissecting whether it was done within “royal protocol” is such utter nonsense to me. I love Harry and Meghan and feel they could have saved the monarchy, to the extent that it deserves to be saved anyway. Stories like this make me shake my head that in 2021 there is any value in the monarchy at all, other than keeping old farts employed to ensure that outdated, non-important traditions are weaponized to ensure a continued divide and illusion of titles.

  49. Lucylee says:

    I’m confused.
    Why should a birth certificate reflect changes in marital status after a birth has taken place?
    I was under the impression that purpose of the BC is to verify birth, list parents and the relationship at the time of birth.

  50. Jumpingthesnark says:

    The courtiers taking Megan’s name off the birth certificate was a nod and a wink by the BRF to the crazies who thought and still think she isn’t really Archies mother. And extremely racist to boot. No wonder Megan wants to shut this shit down.

    • Ann says:

      That whole “she’s not his mother” thing…..UGH. Yes, it’s a stupid and offensive conspiracy theory, but it also makes no sense. Before they were married, I saw it mentioned in several places that they were very open to adopting a child or children. So why on earth would she FAKE a pregnancy if she didn’t feel some absolute need to birth her own kids? Her children were going to be far back in the line of succession, almost certain never to inherit the throne, so whether or not they were Harry’s and her biological kids would make no difference. Not that they care about the throne anyway.

      Also, the fact that she suffered a miscarriage last summer suggests that she was able to get pregnant and she didn’t fake a pregnancy due to a fertility issue. Watch them say she faked the miscarriage too, I swear I would not put it past them.

  51. Janice Hill says:

    This is the stupidest fight yet. It must have been super ugly behind the scenes for Megan to have bothered responding to it. But I don’t think people like having their names changed. I would have been upset if my given name were taken off the birth certificate in favor of my husband’s. It’s like your identity being erased.

  52. SMS says:

    All the reporters and royal “experts” are ignoring the change in Harry’s name with the insertion of Prince. The misogyny and racism of the tabloid press, so intent on “blaming” Meghan Markle, explains why she is so over being part of the BRF. I can’t blame her at all.

  53. Jais says:

    A question I have and I’m not sure if it’s already been stated or I’m just confused about the technical details. Who physically changed the BC? Can only Meghan and Harry legally do that and so they were thus dictated by Samantha or that genial guy to physically change it themselves it by adding prince for him and erasing Rachel Meghan for her? Or did an aid or someone in the court office physically change it for them and then dictate why it was done, before or after the change?

  54. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    So is Andrew still “HRH” and being protected from the law by the royal family? Maybe the palace can comment on THAT?!

  55. Purpeller says:

    I actually made the point about the widow connotation in one of the other threads yesterday!

  56. MsIam says:

    This story is really stupid and the courtiers behind this are a bunch of screw ups. When the change in the BC took place Archie was barely a month old. Didn’t Omid in his book say they were having problems finding a competent nanny at first and were doing everything themselves? I think the last thing Meghan or Harry would have been concerned about then was filling out documents and “snubbing” Kate. I’m sure staff was handling this and probably told Meghan that the certificate was not filled out correctly and she was like “fine, whatever” even if she was upset about the name change. Also, I remember that when Archie was born it was a big deal in the press that Meghan’s occupation was listed as “Princess”. I bet seeing that in print pissed off a lot of folks in and outside of the palace. Maybe some of the same folks who enjoy trying to throw mud on the Sussexes.

  57. blunt talker says:

    I personally believe the royal males in this family must have some kind of hatred towards the female gender-They treat like them like the world was living in the Stone Age-Bust her over the head and drag her off for God knows what-God please continue keep a hand over the Sussex family-The evil from akin families is too real.

  58. mlouise says:

    as an FYI to the BR, if they want to remove the HRH, they may want to explain the world, aka, everyone outside UK, what it actually stands for and what it actually adds as value to the person who ‘has the privilege of having ‘it’’. Andrew has it and no one respects him. So what is the fuss in 2021 of this HRH again? It is missed on this side of the ocean- at least to me.