All of us royal-watchers here in America were half-way worried that TMZ would be the outlet to break the news about the Duchess of Sussex giving birth, right? The British media had their knives out and they were ready to pounce on the Sussexes if the news of Lilibet Diana’s birth was broken by TMZ. But, in the end, Harry and Meghan got complete privacy for the birth, they got to go home and rest for more than a full day and then they released the news on their own terms. And so the British media was left with egg on their faces in retrospect, because they made complete asses out of themselves back in 2019 when Archie was born.
So, Harry and Meghan got to announce Lilibet Diana’s birth on their terms, only to spend the next week combating an absolutely unhinged campaign (in the British media) against their newborn daughter’s name. Thankfully, TMZ is here to let us know that they’re still around and they got their hands on Lilibet’s birth certificate, which is a public record and anyone has access to. TMZ was just the first outlet to seek it out. TMZ learned that Harry put his HRH and his ducal title on Lili’s birth certificate. Meanwhile, Meghan just used her full maiden name.
Following the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s second child, Lilibet Diana, on 4 June, the baby girl’s birth certificate has just come to light. The official document reveals that while Meghan chose not to use her Duchess title on the form, her husband, Prince Harry, did utilise his HRH styling – despite no longer officially using it since the couple left their royal roles.
Obtained by American tabloid news site TMZ, the document was issued in Santa Barbara County in the State of California, where the Duke and Duchess reside with their two young children. As well as listing the details of the birth, such as the location (Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital) and time of day (11.40am), it includes a section for the names of the respective parents. While the Duchess is listed simply as ‘Rachel Meghan Markle’ (her full birth name), Harry is styled as ‘The Duke of Sussex His Royal Highness’.
I guess we’re going to have another conversation about legal names! Prince Harry’s legal name is currently His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David, the Duke of Sussex. I’m actually a little bit surprised that Harry didn’t simply put “Prince Henry” or something like that. But I’m sure he did whatever he did in accordance with his legal documentation here in America. And I’m so glad that at least one of Meghan’s children has a birth certificate with her mother’s name on it. We learned that one month after Archie’s birth, someone in Buckingham Palace went and changed Archie’s birth certificate to remove Meghan’s name and only leave her title. Meghan was like “not this time.”
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.
By the way, you’re supposed to use your maiden name in the birth certificate, that’s what full birth name is. She didn’t choose not to use her titles. What a freaking nonstory.
i think we all know by now that anything – literally anything – harry and meghan do will be turned into some kind of ‘exclusive’.
the thirst is real.
It really shouldn’t be a thing, not sure why it’s being picked up everywhere… 6 royal stories in one day on this site too, sheesh
I was just going to comment the same thing. I’d think any reputable news outlet would research what another country’s birth certificates require before they go and make asses of themselves in print. But we are talking about the British media where apparently anything goes and accuracy isn’t required.
It LITERALLY asks for the Mother’s Last Birth Name on Lili’s certificate.
@Aphra – My point exactly: it asks for “mother’s birth name” in some jurisdictions. There is *no need* to play their game by using the “maiden name.” We don’t ask men to list the name by which they were called before they had sex, do we?
Pretty sure all mothers in the US use their full maiden name on their children’s birth certificates.
I never knew that. My mom never changed her name, so her “maiden” AKA her real and legal name is on my birth certificate. But like my mom, Meghan has a professional reputation associated with her birth name, so I totally respect that she used it on her child’s birth certificate. It’s possible that’s just how it’s done, so there was no question of doing it otherwise, but clearly there was some element of choice. Harry doesn’t have a name that conforms to American legal standards, so presumably he made a choice about how the birth certificate would present him. He could have been Henry David Thomas (??) Mounbatten-Windsor.
Henry Charles Albert David M-W.
They do. Most modern US birth certificates (post 1911) require a woman to use her full maiden name.
I’m genealogist, you’re correct. Virtually all birth certificates post 1911 require women to put down their maiden name.
Hello, my fellow Genie! I’m an amateur Genealogist and this didn’t raise a red flag for me either so I was surprised how much commentary it was getting. That said, I know records are public but it still shocked me that this baby’s BC is out there for the world to see.
Don’t american birth certificates always have the mothers maiden name on them? Anybody want to clarify?
I can’t clarify based on first hand knowledge, but if you look at the pic of the birth certificate it specifies for the mother to use her birth last name.
My kids’ ask for “mother’s name prior to first marriage” so my maiden name is on them (TX.) I see a lot of official documents for work, and most of the birth certificates I’ve seen that are issued in the US ask for mom’s maiden name.
My three kids’ birth certificates do.
It’s going to be state specific. My children’s BCs have both (I just looked lol.) It asks for “full legal name” and then “full legal name prior to first marriage”. So I guess it never specifically asked for my birth name, if I had changed my name at some point prior to marriage (like if I had decided to legally change my first or last name for some reason.)
Yes. I was married when Kiddo was born, and my maiden name is on his birth certificate
Yep they do. It used to say “Mothers name before first married” but now I guess it just says birth name.
That’s what I have on my children’s birth certificates, but TMZ is notorious for being shit stirrers, so this might be another case of that.
I’m more impressed with Meghan giving everyone on the Salty Isle the middle finger. Basically telling them she is so done with them, her children are done with them, she and her babies want no part of them. Meghan’s the OG
Yes. My maiden name is on my kids’ birth certificates
My child’s birth certificate has my full birth name on it. That’s what was requested on the forms I filled out at the hospital.
My child has legally changed their name and their original birth certificate was amended to reflect their chosen name. I have no idea what that will mean if they have a baby and are asked for their “maiden name” for the birth certificate.
I’m assuming they would just put whatever name is on their (amended) birth certificate, since that is the legal document now.
Yes, both my kids’ birth certificates have my full maiden name on them.
There are 58 questions listed which must be answered before issuing a birth certificate, and obviously California has a character limit as it eliminated a lot of what most would consider Harry’s legal name. LOL. California may end up reissuing that cause it doesn’t really state Harry’s name which is what it is used for. That’s the more interesting part of the birth certificate, especially since we aren’t allowed to have titles in the US. Since the parents don’t fill this out usually the hospital does, I’m guessing they just typed in what was given to them. One of the questions is mother’s maiden name, or birth name, or name before first marriage it depends on which state you are in and when you are born on how it is listed. I’ll let you all guess on which states use which moniker. What’s listed on the certificate of the 58 questions has some flexibility state by state, but generally the mother’s birth name is on it.
Honestly, these are non stories as I bet this is the case with what happened in the UK too. Also, you know they can change her name in the US up to 12 months after birth without any official court proceedings, at least in my state. I’d guess California is similar. I’m curious all the Lilibet haters haven’t jumped on that bandwagon. Since we are all gossiping about something as silly as how they do birth certificates, I’m hoping they change it to just Lili. I just don’t like Lilibet, but not my child. Still wait for it when the British press realizes they can change it easily, oh go grab your pearls for all the drama to come.
yeah I’m thinking the state may revise it because the title has no meaning here, it’s just words like “Puff Daddy”.
I had to fill out a form that they used to create the birth certificate. They gave it to me when I checked in and they said we could do it then or wait until after the birth. We were sure about the sex and name so I just filled it out right away.
My hospital doesn’t fill out that paperwork, the parents do. I filled out the paperwork for my two children.
My kids both have my maiden name on the papers. It’s a way to trace the mother because she can always drop the married name legally. Your maiden name is your maiden name.
@Seraphina – It’s not mine.
Ask me my birth name – sure.
Ask me my name before marriage – I don’t love it, but I see the need for it. The problem is that the province/state/country isn’t asking the question to which they want the answer, because women and men change their names for reasons other than marriage and divorce. They should ask “List all previous legal names.”
Ask me my maiden name – Nope, not prepared to answer, because I won’t validate the notion that the government has a right to know when/whether I first had sex, and what name I used before that time, nor will I perpetuate the idea that women shouldn’t/didn’t have sex before marriage.
Here in Canada, we see “maiden name” listed less and less frequently. Most forms now state “List all previous surnames” or “List all previous legal names”. Works for everyone – women, men, the never-married, the many-married and those who have changed genders.
Yes it is the mothers maiden name that is required.
Mine and my sister both have my mother’s married name, with a spot for her maiden name.
My married name and my birth name are on my children’s birth certificates (there are two different lines for the names) but it seems that for California they just ask for the mother’s birth name for her last name, so of course its Markle.
I do think its funny how Harry put “The Duke of Sussex” for his first name though. The CA birth certificates were not really made for titles lol.
My married name is not on my children’s, my mother’s married name is not listed on mine, and my husband’s mother’s married name is not listed on his. Just did a bunch of passport work. Which fyi anyone doing that the US passport office is slow as dirt now. Be prepared. That has Md., -covered for the year 2000+, Va covered for 70’s and NY covered for 60’s. It changes periodically what is is listed, I do know that.
Such a crazy non-story. I’m still laughing at Harry’s name though. Anyone who has done anything with these type of forms in the US can see exactly what happened. It’s kind of funny.
Thanks for the info re: passports. We are going to visit family for Christmas and will need passports for the little ones. Better get cracking.
Right, like I said above, it’s going to be state-specific. I can only tell you what is on my children’s birth certificates, and my married name is on there.
And I’m in MD.
I did a passport for my son over spring break and it wasn’t too bad and didn’t take too long. Thankfully it was the last passport we needed to do in person since he now has a 10 year passport that can be renewed by mail.
My Mom’s maiden name is listed on my birth certificate, but in the box with the mailing address, it was sent to her under her married name (I was born in NYC in the late 1960s), so both names appear on the document.
We have an appointment to get my 17 year old a new passport next week. Their last 5 year passport is about to expire and as soon as the border reopens, we want to visit a few colleges in Canada. Kiddo wants out of the US for a few years. I’m hoping the turn-around time is not too horrific.
@letitbe, it is a crazy non story. Like you, on my birth certificate, my husband’s, my daughter’s..it asks for mother’s maiden name. We all have the original Certificate of Birth the hospitals give out too -which look similar to a graduating from something certificate. I believe our state now requires us to have our SS# card and birth certificate to obtain/renew driver’s license. It might have something to do with Homeland Security stuff and if you ever plan to fly.
It’s silly that tmz even took the time to get a copy of something and that anyone is reporting on it.
LOL at the poor municipal clerk, trying to figure out how to enter Harry’s info into the system.
I don’t think this is the official birth certificate. I think this is the one you get from the hospital. I clicked on the link to be nosey and it says “For informational Purposes Only”. So somebody at that hospital probably took a picture and sold it to TMZ.
Birth and other vital records are public in the US – so TMZ or anyone else can get a copy. It probably has that watermark so people can’t try to pass it off as the original, however.
Your official birth certificate has a seal and can be used as official identification. You get a “souvenir” copy from the hospital. The official copy has a seal.
It varies state by state. In California, birth records are public records (although only authorized individuals can get certified copies), but in Texas, for example, birth records are not public until they are 75 years or older. Each state will have its own rules.
It says its a “certified copy of vital records” and that it is a “true and exact reproduction of the document officially registered.” So someone at TMZ just got a copy from the vital records office. My boys’ BCs says the same – that it is a “true and correct copy of the official record on file.”
(just to be clear I had to register my youngest for his soccer club so i needed his BC to do it so I have a picture of it on my phone LOL. I dont have all these details memorized haha.)
The hospital sends a copy of this information to the vital records office in the city or county you were born. Then the records office records the birth. You then order copies of the certificate from the records office and they have a seal on them or stamp whichever your records office uses. That’s why this one says not to be used for identification across the front. This is the copy you get from the hospital after the baby is born.
@MsIAm – I never got a copy from the hospital after my babies were born. I had to go directly to the vital records office to get it.
Again, this was issued June 23 and it says its a certified copy from vital records. My guess is the “not used for identification” may be because it was sent electronically to TMZ or bc TMZ indicated they were a media outlet and this is SOP for that.
@ MsIam – this is the state issued certified copy of the birth certificate, not the one the hospital gives you. Since a 3rd party (media outlet) requested a copy and published for the world to see, that is most likely why the watermarks (VOID, Not to establish identity) are on it.
—————————————————-
That being said, they each now have a child’s birth certificate where only their title, not their name, is listed. (Duchess of Sussex on Archie’s and Duke of Sussex on Lili’s.) But I’m pretty sure they’ll have to amend this one and put Harry’s first name, at least, on there even if he keeps the Duke of Sussex on it. And as the parent’s can they not amend Archie’s birth certificate and add Meghan’s name back on to it?
@ lucky charm, Meghan can apply for an American birth certificate for Archie.
Isn’t that illegal?
It is questionable with identity theft and privacy laws regarding children.. the fact it was used for profit may be what makes it illegal.
If someone sold TMZ something that violated HIPPA laws, then yes. But birth certificates are public in the US so all they had to do was request it from the vital records office. Totally legal.
I’m trying to remember when I ordered a certified copy of my BC (from in NY state) a few years ago, I had to include a copy of a valid driver’s license with my current address on it. Or if the BC request wasn’t for me, I had to include custody documents for the person whose BC I requested.
If I was requesting a BC for genealogical purposes, it would only be released after 75 years from it being on file, and only with proof of death RE the person on the BC.
CA apparently has rules around who can receive a certified BC (parent, guardian, etc) but ‘All others may only request a certified informational copy. Informational copies will be marked “INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY.” ‘ according to SB County’s website.
California mom here. This looks legit. The informational watermark would be all media outlets and others could access – it’s an identity theft thing… you can’t just get official (sealed and stamped) copies of birth or death certificates.
@stripe that is not necessarily true each state has different laws regarding who can get that info. They would have to request it under the freedom of information act and it would be public knowledge that it was done so. I can not just go get my neighbors children’s birth certificates.
Right from the county website:
Birth Records
California Health and Safety Code Section 103526 permits only authorized persons to receive certified authorized copies of birth records. All others may only request a certified informational copy. Informational copies will be marked “INFORMATIONAL, NOT A VALID DOCUMENT TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY.“
Without an official raised seal it is not valid and easily altered.
Re: whether maiden-names-only are required, I think it goes state by state. Some states require the mother’s birth name and some states will want the mother’s current legal name, which could be her married name (or both).
Like every mother I know including myself that gave birth in the USA even though I was married.. standard practice. (My mothers full maiden name is even on my birth certificate she was married also so this is nothing new)
It is such a nonstory..
also I know from family experience that a American born overseas is issued an official birth certificate in the USA so I am sure that Archie has a birth certificate from the USA also. (So they have two official birth certificate one from each country).
Birth certificates not only vary by state, but they also have changed over the years. When I had my RealID made, the clerk was showing others the interesting (to her and her colleagues) birth certificate from another state and decade which I produced as proof of ID.
Daily Mail says Meghan eschews title. Apparently having the mother’s maiden name is just normal procedure. But I’m sure Meghan is happy that her name is on Lili’s birth certificate.
Just a few months ago they were demanding she lose her title.
I’m surprised you all remember what you were asked for on your kids’ birth certificates. I don’t, at all, and we filled out the last one just four years ago. But then I kept my birth name so I didn’t have to write two different names.
Yah, salty island is going to make a big deal about this, but it isn’t a big deal. It asks for your maiden name, or rather “birth name”
Wondering if they chose to insert (a version of) Harry’s title to preserve history, that baby Lili Dia is in fact a true heir in line to the British throne, no matter the likely expected upcoming shenanigans of the husband of the keen lynchpin.
This is an interesting point too. As in no matter what happens down the road, she is the daughter of a royal British prince.
@swirlmamad, agreed.
when the name lilibet was first announced peter hunt opined that it was a smart strategic move by the sussexes as they were maintaining their stake in the windsor dynasty.
i’ve thought about it more and i agree. they may not be working royals anymore – and windsor clownery aside – h&m (and their children) are still very much part of the family. archie was born in london; and long after the queen is gone, little lilibet will be the queen’s only intimately-named great-grandchild. so, even if in the future the BRF (*cough* william *cough*) do try to refuse them titles and privileges, those children will always be part of the dynasty.
By all means this was a very strategic move by them. They are not fools. It’s also very symbolic. And I give them kudos for being strategic in what they do for themselves and their family.
Why do they act like the name the woman was born with must be forever erased from history? In most government forms if you have changed your name once married, they are going to want to know the one you were born with.
Many women don’t even change their name once married so they need to stop acting like this is a weird thing.
Agree with all you said @nic919. My family used to ask why I was so adamant about using my maiden name, after I was married, as my middle name. It’s my birthright, my maiden name. I can always divorce and remarry and change last names, but that name I was BORN with is my name. I do not understand why this is a difficult concept to digest.
My MIL uses her maiden name as her middle name and she’s in her 70’s. My SIL never legally changed her name so she just hyphenated because she’s lazy. I ditched my maiden name because it’s super long and hard to pronounce and spell. I also didn’t want to be tied to my birth family. Ladies just do whatever you want.
I still don’t understand something with Archie’s birth certificate, how does a staff member have the authority to change a legal document?
This British monarchy will find its way out after the death of the Queen. All eyes of the commonwealth are trained on Meghan and how she’s being treated by these horrible grifters. They will revolt against the monarchy and leave for a republic. Sooner, rather than later, the UK will just be an inconsequential speck of an island in the world map. Kate and William will wailing in tears of regret.
eh, I don’t believe anything was going to save the CW from separating one by one as soon as TQ kicks the bucket — I think the majority have been hanging on somewhat, in name only, out of respect for the old bird, she is a figurehead at most.
UK birth certificates include the mother’s maiden name. The birth certificates for the Cambridge children include their mother’s maiden surname as well as her Christian names. Palace officials dictated the removal of ‘Rachel Meghan’ ,apparently to match her travel documents. However, the original certificate dated 17 May 2019 is still Archie’s legal document. The alteration four days later which inserted the word ‘Prince’ in the father’s name and removed the mother’s names does not erase the original document. For Lili’s birth certificate Harry again left out ‘Prince’ and also omitted all his Christian names. So it may be that this is what is needed to match his travel documents.
He’s probably gotten a driver’s license by now. Do you think it’s issued to the Duke of Sussex?
Except Meghan probably still had American passport and the American passport probably would’ve said “Rachel Meghan Markle” not “The Duchess of Sussex”. At best (since “The Duchess of Sussex” is part of her legal name) it would be Meghan The Duchess of Sussex.
The Palace had Meghan’s name erased so they could get rid of her and Harry’s new white wife would be seen as Archie’s legal mother, since she would be the new “The Duchess of Sussex”.
I think Harry and Meghan opted for both their birth names. For Meghan it is to clearly to identify herself as Lili’s mother and get her identity back. The title is to show her American; Meghan is not royal or noble by birth. CA may only require the mother’s maiden name. For Harry, he put his HRH and full name to show Lili is the daughter of a Prince of the United Kingdom and a royal duke and to be recognized as such. Lilibet is on the BC as her legal name and no amount of teeth gnashing from the BM will change that.
You can’t “opt” for anything. California requires that the mother’s maiden name be on the birth certificate. And Harry would have to use his legal name, which is not Harry Mountbatten-Windsor (he has no last name) – what is on the birth certificate is likely whatever matches his visa/green card/license or whatever US identification documents he has. You can’t just pick and choose what names you use.
the US doesn’t recognize titles – in this case I think his title is actually his name? The last name thing is just weird for me because Willy and Kate go by Cambridge and so I thought that M&H last name is actually Sussex. If Harry doesn’t have a legal last name, what does Meghan use on documents?
We need Nota
My birth certificate has my father’s full name and my mother’s full maiden name. I need to let Mom know she was setting Renegade Royal trends from Alabama way back in 1980. She’ll be tickled pink.
Geez what a non-story, but I’m sure we all can guess how the RR will turn this into 15 different outrages. I just wanted to add to this thread that the VAST majority of birth records are meant to include the mother’s maiden name, specifically, and that’s because historically, birth records are a huge source of genealogical information. If birth records in the UK don’t include the mother’s maiden name that honestly shocks me. I know for a fact that baptismal records (which WERE the “birth record” not so many centuries ago) in the UK did because I have seen my own ancestors’ records.
My kids have California birth certificates. My name lists my maiden name. The name slot for the mother is the same. It make sense Meghan listed her full birth name. There is no slot for married titles since birth certificates don’t list marital status. I’m actually surprised they didn’t list Harry’s name as HRH Prince Henry or something. These are the tabloids trying to once again stoke outrage using people’s ignorance. It’s just a form and they filled it out as required.
In California, where the baby was born, the mother is required to put her maiden name on the birth certificate. Source, I’m from here and me and all my siblings have our mother’s maiden name on our birth certificates. My grandmother was born in California in the 1920s and her mother’s maiden name in on her birth certificate too. This is a non-story and TMZ trying to stir up some petty drama.
My maiden name is on kids birth certificates, 55 yrs ago when I was born my Mothers maiden name was on my birth certificate. We were both married and your husband’s name is listed separately. It’s not that deep… wow….
Woman fills out form… world gasps
How can putting just royal titles on an identity document be legal? I mean, his highness and duke of whatever is not very specific. I’m sure there have been dukes of that place in the past and will be dukes of that in the future. Too vague. I’d like my father’s actual name of my birth certificate, not some title many people have had. I do realize that names can also be not that unique but still. Title is just so impersonal.
While this story persists, the Queen has spoken and informed Prince Charles that Sussexes children will be Prince and Princess as long as she lives. There will be no legal nor formal amendment to the law. He claims to have no desire to go against her wishes since he wants Camilla to be Queen Consort.
The Queen also loved the fact that Lili is sharing her name. She has been described as being delighted.
The children should be left out of this whatever situation.
Well Wisher, I agree that the children should be left out of all of this, but the tabloid media will never let that happen. I think that is one area that the royal family needs to draw a line, but I doubt it will happen. Archie, and now Lilibet, will be used in a negative way to embiggen the Cambridge kids–just wait.
TQ’s statement after Lilibet Diana was born was quite clear. I couldn’t figure out why the BM were so determined to (in essence) call TQ a liar!
A birth certificate is a permanent legal document. Prince Harry has rightly used his royal titles . Meghan if she chooses to could have listed her title following the Royal tradition.
I believe Kensington Palace errs in removing Prince Harry HRH title in the Princess Diana exhibition. The Queen’s intention is for the Sussexes not to use their HRH titles in their commercial dealings. This does not mean Prince Harry cannot be listed by his titles in Princess Diana exhibition.
It is up to the Queen to decide whether Harry title should be used in the exhibition and it is not for Kensington Palace to decide.