How DID a trivial change to Archie’s birth certificate cause a toxic row?
- Changes to Archie’s birth certificate been picked up across the globe this week
- Duchess of Sussex’s Christian names, Rachel Meghan, had disappeared
- The certificate had been changed three weeks after registered in May 2019
- Trivial alteration said to have laid bare the fractious relationship between the Sussexes, with their advisers in a California mansion and the Royal Family
Tucked away in a Sunday newspaper, it was a story just a few paragraphs long that told how the Duchess of Sussex’s Christian names — Rachel Meghan — had mysteriously disappeared from her son Archie’s birth certificate some three weeks after it was registered in May 2019.
This left only Meghan’s title, ‘Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex’, on the document. A small difference, surely?
But the rumblings, accusations and counter-accusations that followed this revelation are unprecedented.
Carefully worded volleys about whose decision it was to make the amendment, and why, have been ping-ponging across the Atlantic in recent days.
So what exactly happened?
The Duchess of Sussex’s Christian names, Rachel Meghan, had mysteriously disappeared from her son Archie’s birth certificate some three weeks after it was registered in May 2019. Pictured: Meghan and Harry show Archie for the first time
This left only Meghan’s title, ‘Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex’, on the document. A small difference, surely?
Last weekend, the Sun on Sunday revealed that Meghan’s Christian names had been ‘secretly erased’ from Archie’s birth certificate. It went on to quote royal observers who, rather absurdly, suggested the change had been a deliberate move to distance the Sussexes from the Cambridges, amid rumours of a rift between the royal couples.
The birth certificates of Prince George and his siblings feature their mother Kate’s first and second names as well as her title, the Duchess of Cambridge.
Following the report, Meghan issued a furiously worded statement through her U.S. PR advisers insisting that the removal of her Christian names had been ‘dictated by the Palace, as confirmed by documents from senior Palace officials’.
It went on: ‘This was not requested by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex nor by The Duke of Sussex. To see this UK tabloid and their carnival of so-called “experts” choose to deceptively whip this into a calculated family “snub” and suggest that she would oddly want to be nameless on her child’s birth certificate, or any other legal document, would be laughable were it not offensive.
‘There’s a lot going on in the world; let’s focus on that rather than creating clickbait.’
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.
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.
The Sun on Sunday revealed that Meghan’s Christian names had been ‘secretly erased’ from Archie’s birth certificate
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.
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 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.
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.
Meghan issued a furiously worded statement through her U.S. PR advisers insisting that the removal of her Christian names had been ‘dictated by the Palace. Pictured: Harry and Meghan take Archie along to meet Archbishop Desmond Tutu and his daughter, Thandeka Tutu-Gxashe in Cape Town in 2019
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.
Instead, it was suggested — clearly after consultation with the Sussexes’ office — that the changes were made by staff to bring Archie’s birth certificate ‘in line with other private documents’ such as Meghan’s passport.
A source told the Mail: ‘The certificate was changed by the former office of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. It was changed to ensure consistency of the name and title of the Duchess with other private documents.’
Which prompts two questions: why wasn’t the birth certificate completed in that way in the first place, and who requested the subsequent decision for the wording to be changed?
A rather inconsequential story has ended up being picked over worldwide, thanks to a tailwind from across the pond, and in doing so, it has laid bare the worryingly fractious relationship between the Sussexes, with their advisers in a California mansion, and the Royal Family. Pictured: Meghan with Archie in a video shared on his first birthday
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.’
His sense of bemusement is echoed by the Palace.
‘There is no set protocol with these things,’ one source told me. ‘The birth certificate is a civic document, so there are options on how it is filled out.
‘The language used — suggesting it was “the Palace” who “dictated” [the wording] is somewhat unfortunate. The decision to issue a statement and the wording of it poses more questions than it answers, unfortunately.’
Indeed.
So an intriguing but, in the scheme of things, rather inconsequential story has ended up being picked over worldwide, thanks to a tailwind from across the pond.
In doing so, it has laid bare the worryingly fractious relationship between the Sussexes, ensconced with their advisers in a California mansion, and the Royal Family.
Source: Read Full Article
