Harry & Meghan #54 H&M to fall off their perch. More money needed, what won't they 'merch

[Fredsnail]

I've been thinking about the birth certificate changes.

I think BP told them to amend it to put "Prince" on for Harry, and she thought "well if he can have his title I'm going to have mine on too" so changed her name on it.

No idea if it's true but makes more sense than some of the theories

 

[Cinnamon.girl]

I am wondering whether the RF have inserted the word ‘Prince’ and removed MM’s first names in preparation for the removal of their titles? So that they can get rid of the HRH and the Duke / Duchess titles and then he simply becomes Prince Harry and she reverts back to Rachel Meghan Markle. Could this be a possibility?

There will be a good reason for it and you could be right in what you say. Whatever follows from this it will be to H&M's detriment and that's why she's spitting feathers.

You can ‘look inside’ and read the first few pages on Amazon - has anyone read them?

I had a read and spotted some errors already, even on the first page of the first chapter! She says her gran and grandad met in August 1941 and got married in March 1941. Eh? How?! When talking about Thomas Markle, she says he has an ‘upturned nose’ twice in the same short paragraph! I am not impressed with her style of writing at all and the errors I have spotted from the first page onwards makes it seem very careless and sloppy.

Not sure if I want to buy it on this first look as I think it will really irritate me. My first impression is of someone who is not a very competent writer chucking a book together to make a quick buck. A ghost writer may have been a better idea. I really hope I am wrong and later pages really do reveal all the secrets we have been dying to know about. I hope my first impressions based on this quick snippet are proved to be untrue and it turns out to be a cracking read.

I feel a bit deflated now
Grump!

How disappointing. It's not difficult to get prose and diction right if you pay a proof-reader. She's only got one shot at it and I hope she manages to debunk some of minge's lies. Interesting that Sarah Latham "fact-checked" Finding Freedom including presumably her highness relieving herself in the undergrowth. Maybe Sarah could hustle over to Sam and check a few facts for her as well.

 

[NotDumbNotBlonde]

Morning Tattlers. Thanks for your kind wishes. I couldn't sleep so I'm up at stupid o'clock and was thinking again about Freda's reference to Desperate Dan. I got to Googling him and found there's a statue of him in Dundee, where the publishers of the Dandy comic - where Dan featured - were located.

The statue shows Dan complete with underbite and huge belly, which looks remarkably like Smegs and her moon bump in full barge mode.
View attachment 412963

For non-UK Tattlers who might not have heard of Desperate Dan, here are a few pictures of him and his favourite meal, cow pie (complete with horns and tail!).
View attachment 412961
Plus a description of him from Wiki:
Desperate Dan is a wild west character in the now-defunct British comic magazine The Dandy, and became its mascot. He made his appearance in the first issue which was dated 4 December 1937. He is apparently the world's strongest man, able to lift a cow with one hand. The pillow of his (reinforced) bed is filled with building rubble and his beard is so tough he shaves with a blowtorch.

Isn't she vegetarian though? So it can't be her "Roasting a chicken" notwithstanding

 

[Cinnamon.girl]

Both those scenarios fit my thinking on it.
I suspect that in their secret squirrel mode back then they opted to register him themselves and buggered something up. Then someone among the palace fixit fairies pointed it out to Brenda and it was rectified to Brenda's preferences ... hence smeggy getting her knickers in a twist with that statement. Yanno "bleeping old witch won't even let us control resistering our kid! Sticking her nose in"

OR ... (Dons tin foil hat)

Maybe the palace is future proofing themselves in case there really was a surrogacy or 'something unusual' re the construction of archiedoll.

Whatever the truth, it will be to H $M's detriment and that's why they're spitting feathers. They're up against past masters at this game and BP will outfox them at every turn. Whatever they turn their hand to, H $M bugger it up. They can't even reproduce without making a circus out of it.

 

[Minky Billups]

Whatever the truth, it will be to H $M's detriment and that's why they're spitting feathers. They're up against past masters at this game and BP will outfox them at every turn. Whatever they turn their hand to, H $M bugger it up. They can't even reproduce without making a circus out of it.

Talking of a circus, Meggy is the bearded woman (I didn’t start that rumour btw), Hazza is a contortionist bending over backwards, and Archie does a great disappearing act!

 

[Cinnamon.girl]

She has no class? I am quickly realising why the RF don't bother engaging with the gutter press, it is literally beneath them: like trolls on the internet...ignore them and they have no power over you. She is so wired and insecure. Why is she continuously picking fights with the RF?! It's absolutely bizarre. I was so excited for an intelligent, driven, glam woman to join the RF; and I thought it was cool she was biracial!

she is always talking about empowering women...what she has done is had her way through life paid for by her father, who she denied and dropped. She married her first husband and wanted him to help her break into Hollywood. She married Harry, didn't get the good press she wanted and so slipped off, using the fame and fortune to live in a nine bedroom mansion. She left for privacy but writes about her miscarriages on the front page of the Times. Anything she doesn't like, she snaps or sues. Yet talks about kindness and inclusivity. She wants a greener world but flies private and lives in huge houses. A baby shower had to be a penthouse. Her babymoon had to beluxury. Everything is about the luxury lifestyle and the manicured speeches that use repeated stolen quotes and cliched terms. No actual ideas or plans like improving female education by providing school meals so they don't have to be married off purely to feed the family, or addressing myths surrounding FGM, or how to reduce abandoned animals by providing neutering etc, or how to improve kindness by erasing inequality (with you remaining in your mansion obv Meghan). Who writes a grim letter to their father and does it in calligraphy!!!! That is so staged it is beyond parody.
She is bizarre and scary and weird and out of touch, she doesn't empower women, she demand them, she has shown continuous cruelty to people who can no longer serve her and neither Harry nor Archie are likely to manage that as Infinitum. This whole Meghan show is about to self implode. She is deranged. How can anyone admire this women?


* she demeans them
Ad infinitum

Agree 100%. The bandwagons they leap on are always woke. As you say there are so many real-life causes they could have promoted without getting political. Elephant and rhino-poaching is beyond words, they never spoke up against young girls being groomed because they weren't the "right sort" but if it's a POC there they are, in your face squawking about inequality. Sir Tom Moore is in hospital but hey won't wish this national treasure well because....??

 

[Allflightscancelled]

Whatever the truth, it will be to H $M's detriment and that's why they're spitting feathers. They're up against past masters at this game and BP will outfox them at every turn. Whatever they turn their hand to, H $M bugger it up. They can't even reproduce without making a circus out of it.

Spot on. The palace will outfox them because it's their game, they invented it. Hazno couldn't understand the rules so he needs Mummy MeAgain to explain them to him, and she didn't bother to read them.

 

[bubbadabut]

Regarding the summary judgement, if Warby rules a trial should go ahead, is his decision final or does Smeggy have the ability to appeal and drag things out further still? I have found evidence of a summary judgement being granted and then appealed, but can the claimant appeal if the judge decides the matter can only be decided by going to trial?

This woman is a Christian apparently. These people have completely lost their minds over this situation.

I noticed that too. I generally find that anyone who feels the need to state their religion in their Twitter bio is a fundamentalist nut and completely

 

[Baguette]

Good question - Megz team have appealed everything so far, haven't they?

Hazza's statement due at 10.30 so presumably they'll blitz it out to all their friendly outlets like Newsweek.

I'm pretty convinced that the secret second amended birth certificate relates to surrogacy shenanigans and that's why the Harkles are so rattled..

 

[NotDumbNotBlonde]

Good question - Megz team have appealed everything so far, haven't they?

Hazza's statement due at 10.30 so presumably they'll blitz it out to all their friendly outlets like Newsweek.

I'm pretty convinced that the secret second amended birth certificate relates to surrogacy shenanigans and that's why the Harkles are so rattled..

Why is Hazza making a statement? I can't keep up!

 

[Silbee]

The Telegraph put this up last night at 9.00pm. This is starting to look like a groundswell. What are we missing here?

Meghan Markle attacks tabloids after speculation over birth certificate
Duchess claims Palace forced her to change name on son's document as she criticises 'so-called experts'

ByRobert Mendick, CHIEF REPORTER31 January 2021 • 9:00pm

Meghan Markle (right) says changing of her name on Archie's birth certificate (left) was 'dictated' by Buckingham Palace

The Duchess of Sussex said on Sunday the changing of her name on her child’s birth certificate was "dictated" by Buckingham Palace as she launched another tirade against tabloid newspapers.

It emerged on Sunday that the Duchess’s given first names "Rachel Meghan" were removed from son Archie’s birth certificate in June 2019, a month after he was born.

The Duchess said it was "offensive" to suggest she had wanted to be "nameless" on her own child’s birth certificate.

On the original certificate, registered on May 17 2019, the Duchess gave her name as "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex".
But 19 days later on June 5, the Royal couple submitted alterations to both their names.

The Duchess's name was "corrected" to merely read "Her Royal Highness Duchess of Sussex".

Prince Harry’s name was also changed to insert the word "Prince" which had been left out of the original.
The alteration prompted speculation over why the birth certificate was altered.


That in turn led to the Duchess, who now lives in California with Prince Harry and their son, issuing an astonishing attack on tabloids "and their carnival of so-called experts".

She said the change was forced on the couple by Buckingham Palace officials.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex with their baby son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor CREDIT: Dominic Lipinski/PA
A spokeswoman for the Duchess said: "The change of name on public documents in 2019 was dictated by The Palace, as confirmed by documents from senior Palace officials. This was not requested by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex nor by The Duke of Sussex.

"To see this UK tabloid and their carnival of so-called 'experts' chose to deceptively whip this into a calculated family 'snub' and suggest that she would oddly want to be nameless on her child’s birth certificate, or any other legal document, would be laughable were it not offensive.

"There’s a lot going on in the world - let’s focus on that rather than creating clickbait."
It remains unclear why the certificate was altered.

The Duchess of Cambridge gives her name as "Catherine Elizabeth her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" on her children’s birth certificates.

In contrast, Diana, Princess of Wales, simply gave her name as "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales" on Prince William’s birth certificate.
On Sunday, Buckingham Palace sources suggested that a "clerical error and nothing more than that" was to blame for the alteration to Archie’s certificate.

The Telegraph understands that the Duchess of Sussex altered all her official documents - including her US passport - following her marriage.
In some cases she remains "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" such as on the Archewell audio podcast following a deal signed with Spotify.
Adding to the complexity, although still entitled to call herself Her Royal Highness, part of the agreement after so-called Megxit when the couple left to the US, they agreed not to actually use the HRH titles.

Lady Colin Campbell, a Royal author who spotted the amendment, had told the Sun on Sunday newspaper: "It is extraordinary and raises all kinds of questions about what the Sussexes were thinking."

Michael Rhodes, editor of Peerage News blog and an authority on Royal naming convention, told The Telegraph that Royal birth certificates had varied over the years with regards to the "title and style of the mother’s name".

Mr Rhodes said: "It's not set in stone. However, I fail to see why Archie's certificate required any alterations. No status is changed because of it.

"Meghan became HRH The Duchess of Sussex upon marriage and remains so. The inclusion of maternal christian names however is required for non royal birth certs."

Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, said: "As far as I know this is unprecedented. But why it has been done is a bit of a mystery."
Christopher Wilson, a Royal historian and author, said he too was baffled. "It is a peculiar thing to do," he said.

The official erasure of "Rachel" and "Markle" comes at a time when she is caught up in a legal battle with a tabloid newspaper involving her estranged father Thomas Markle.

The Duchess is suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing extracts of a letter to her father following her wedding which he failed to attend. Mr Markle will testify as a witness for the Mail on Sunday.

The Duchess was born "Rachel Meghan Markle" in California - the name that was read out when she married Prince Harry at a ceremony at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle broadcast around the globe.

It is thought she ditched Rachel after embarking on her acting career as Meghan Markle.
The birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor has not been without controversy.

The couple refused to say at first where the child was born.

It was claimed the Duchess had hoped for a home birth but the child was delivered at the Portland Hospital, a private hospital in central London.

 

[Milliemoo99]

Here is the error re dates on the first page. How could her grandparents have first met in Aug 1941 and then marry in March 1941? Also look at the two different date formats. One is August 8th, 1941 and the other is March,13, 1941. Very, very sloppy indeed. How did this woman get a degree with this standard of writing?

View attachment 412762

I know its a bit of a glaring error, but my guess would be they met on August 8th 1940, and then married the following March 1941!
Personally I would recommend including a few more paragraphs!

But to be fair to Samantha, its written in the same style as those Genealogical booklet records you get at historic houses, where they retell the story of the family, or of their paintings. Every single detail is mentioned!

 

[Scotch Mist]

Ugh the horrible sugars are slating William for making a statement denouncing racism in football.

It doesnt matter what he says he will always be wrong, so instead of being glad he's against racism its all about the royal family being racist towards poor little Smeggy.

One of them goes on about Smeggys family but seems to have overlooked the fact that Smeggy doesn't care about any of her black relatives except her mother she's shown zero interest in her black cousins.

Petty Harry And The Travalyst Farce

What is worse than a Sussex word salad speech? A padded Sussex PowerPoint presentation, that was dressed up as a report. I only wish that it was a corny joke, but alas, it is real life that has bee…

harrymarkle.wordpress.com

Harry Markle blog on the Travelyst statement:

'After nearly two and a half years, what exactly has Travalyst achieved? What it does is give Harry some much needed PR, and keeps his name in the news. Well, he does try, and apparently he has pushed for statement to be read out next week regarding the apology the Mail on Sunday made in reference to his claim that an article defamed and harmed his reputation with the military. Petty as they come it seems. The media outlet printed a correction (even though it didn’t technically defame him) and made a donation to Invictus, but Harry shows his lack of character with zero integrity by wasting money and the time of the courts in seeking the statement to be read out in the High Court. No one is proud of him at all.'

 

[Baguette]

Why is Hazza making a statement? I can't keep up!

It's his response to the Mail's claim that he didn't reply to Lord Dannat's letter and had not been in touch with the Royal Marines since Megxit.

(Mail have already printed a clarification/apology and paid a donation to Invictus even though they were right on the facts as far as we can tell)

When Harry gave a speech to Fast Company two weeks ago, he attacked the 'Murdoch press' and spoke out in favour of censorship. I think that the UK press collectively are done with keeping his secrets after that. A lot of Harry stories have been spiked over the years out of respect to the RF. I get the feeling they are going to be printing a few now. Harry has spoken about a 'duty to the truth' so he should be fine with it

 

[Scotch Mist]

I just found this delicious comment:

'Markle wanted to be Diana 2.0; she has in fact become Fergie 2.0"

How true, married to the spare and an embarrassment

 

[mylifeisasillymoviefail]

Mike Tindall: ‘Being a royal? There are positives and negatives’

Mike Tindall looms into view for our Zoom meeting, a gigantic figure on a small screen, wearing a tight white T-shirt with BALD written on it. He’s holed up at

www.thetimes.co.uk

It would be interesting if anyone can read this. Not as much seniority as mm was given but still coming in as an outsider.

 

[Palpatine]

Ugh the horrible sugars are slating William for making a statement denouncing racism in football.

It doesnt matter what he says he will always be wrong, so instead of being glad he's against racism its all about the royal family being racist towards poor little Smeggy.

One of them goes on about Smeggys family but seems to have overlooked the fact that Smeggy doesn't care about any of her black relatives except her mother she's shown zero interest in her black cousins.

Petty Harry And The Travalyst Farce

What is worse than a Sussex word salad speech? A padded Sussex PowerPoint presentation, that was dressed up as a report. I only wish that it was a corny joke, but alas, it is real life that has bee…

harrymarkle.wordpress.com

Harry Markle blog on the Travelyst statement:

'After nearly two and a half years, what exactly has Travalyst achieved? What it does is give Harry some much needed PR, and keeps his name in the news. Well, he does try, and apparently he has pushed for statement to be read out next week regarding the apology the Mail on Sunday made in reference to his claim that an article defamed and harmed his reputation with the military. Petty as they come it seems. The media outlet printed a correction (even though it didn’t technically defame him) and made a donation to Invictus, but Harry shows his lack of character with zero integrity by wasting money and the time of the courts in seeking the statement to be read out in the High Court. No one is proud of him at all.'

I genuinely didn’t know she had any cousins! Then I googled and the results threw up that Hazza & the bleep are actually distant cousins! Then I threw up laughing!

 

[Minky Billups]

The Telegraph put this up last night at 9.00pm. This is starting to look like a groundswell. What are we missing here?

Meghan Markle attacks tabloids after speculation over birth certificate
Duchess claims Palace forced her to change name on son's document as she criticises 'so-called experts'

ByRobert Mendick, CHIEF REPORTER31 January 2021 • 9:00pm

Meghan Markle (right) says changing of her name on Archie's birth certificate (left) was 'dictated' by Buckingham Palace

The Duchess of Sussex said on Sunday the changing of her name on her child’s birth certificate was "dictated" by Buckingham Palace as she launched another tirade against tabloid newspapers.

It emerged on Sunday that the Duchess’s given first names "Rachel Meghan" were removed from son Archie’s birth certificate in June 2019, a month after he was born.

The Duchess said it was "offensive" to suggest she had wanted to be "nameless" on her own child’s birth certificate.

On the original certificate, registered on May 17 2019, the Duchess gave her name as "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex".
But 19 days later on June 5, the Royal couple submitted alterations to both their names.

The Duchess's name was "corrected" to merely read "Her Royal Highness Duchess of Sussex".

Prince Harry’s name was also changed to insert the word "Prince" which had been left out of the original.
The alteration prompted speculation over why the birth certificate was altered.


That in turn led to the Duchess, who now lives in California with Prince Harry and their son, issuing an astonishing attack on tabloids "and their carnival of so-called experts".

She said the change was forced on the couple by Buckingham Palace officials.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex with their baby son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor CREDIT: Dominic Lipinski/PA
A spokeswoman for the Duchess said: "The change of name on public documents in 2019 was dictated by The Palace, as confirmed by documents from senior Palace officials. This was not requested by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex nor by The Duke of Sussex.

"To see this UK tabloid and their carnival of so-called 'experts' chose to deceptively whip this into a calculated family 'snub' and suggest that she would oddly want to be nameless on her child’s birth certificate, or any other legal document, would be laughable were it not offensive.

"There’s a lot going on in the world - let’s focus on that rather than creating clickbait."
It remains unclear why the certificate was altered.

The Duchess of Cambridge gives her name as "Catherine Elizabeth her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" on her children’s birth certificates.

In contrast, Diana, Princess of Wales, simply gave her name as "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales" on Prince William’s birth certificate.
On Sunday, Buckingham Palace sources suggested that a "clerical error and nothing more than that" was to blame for the alteration to Archie’s certificate.

The Telegraph understands that the Duchess of Sussex altered all her official documents - including her US passport - following her marriage.
In some cases she remains "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" such as on the Archewell audio podcast following a deal signed with Spotify.
Adding to the complexity, although still entitled to call herself Her Royal Highness, part of the agreement after so-called Megxit when the couple left to the US, they agreed not to actually use the HRH titles.

Lady Colin Campbell, a Royal author who spotted the amendment, had told the Sun on Sunday newspaper: "It is extraordinary and raises all kinds of questions about what the Sussexes were thinking."

Michael Rhodes, editor of Peerage News blog and an authority on Royal naming convention, told The Telegraph that Royal birth certificates had varied over the years with regards to the "title and style of the mother’s name".

Mr Rhodes said: "It's not set in stone. However, I fail to see why Archie's certificate required any alterations. No status is changed because of it.

"Meghan became HRH The Duchess of Sussex upon marriage and remains so. The inclusion of maternal christian names however is required for non royal birth certs."

Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, said: "As far as I know this is unprecedented. But why it has been done is a bit of a mystery."
Christopher Wilson, a Royal historian and author, said he too was baffled. "It is a peculiar thing to do," he said.

The official erasure of "Rachel" and "Markle" comes at a time when she is caught up in a legal battle with a tabloid newspaper involving her estranged father Thomas Markle.

The Duchess is suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing extracts of a letter to her father following her wedding which he failed to attend. Mr Markle will testify as a witness for the Mail on Sunday.

The Duchess was born "Rachel Meghan Markle" in California - the name that was read out when she married Prince Harry at a ceremony at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle broadcast around the globe.

It is thought she ditched Rachel after embarking on her acting career as Meghan Markle.
The birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor has not been without controversy.

The couple refused to say at first where the child was born.

It was claimed the Duchess had hoped for a home birth but the child was delivered at the Portland Hospital, a private hospital in central London.

I LOVE this bit... "There’s a lot going on in the world - let’s focus on that rather than creating clickbait."

That’s a bit rich considering how insular they were when they were flaunting themselves to the point of being obnoxious last year, jumping on every hip cause making sure they weren’t forgotten. The constant stream of PR puff pieces for “clickbait”, self indulgent op-eds and launching attacks on people left right and centre via that tacky book... all during the height of a worldwide pandemic.
She’s spat her dummy out again, just like the childish spoilt woman she is.

 

[Baguette]

From Chris Ship



Harry's team have had a pop at the Mail in court so presumably he'll feel better now.

ETA Write up in the Evening Standard

Prince Harry settles Royal Marines legal claim against Mail on Sunday

The Duke of Sussex has accepted an apology and “substantial damages” from the publishers of the Mail on Sunday after he was accused of snubbing the Royal Marines when stepping down as a senior royal.

www.standard.co.uk

 

[kev1974]

The Telegraph put this up last night at 9.00pm. This is starting to look like a groundswell. What are we missing here?

Meghan Markle attacks tabloids after speculation over birth certificate
Duchess claims Palace forced her to change name on son's document as she criticises 'so-called experts'

ByRobert Mendick, CHIEF REPORTER31 January 2021 • 9:00pm

Meghan Markle (right) says changing of her name on Archie's birth certificate (left) was 'dictated' by Buckingham Palace

The Duchess of Sussex said on Sunday the changing of her name on her child’s birth certificate was "dictated" by Buckingham Palace as she launched another tirade against tabloid newspapers.

It emerged on Sunday that the Duchess’s given first names "Rachel Meghan" were removed from son Archie’s birth certificate in June 2019, a month after he was born.

The Duchess said it was "offensive" to suggest she had wanted to be "nameless" on her own child’s birth certificate.

On the original certificate, registered on May 17 2019, the Duchess gave her name as "Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex".
But 19 days later on June 5, the Royal couple submitted alterations to both their names.

The Duchess's name was "corrected" to merely read "Her Royal Highness Duchess of Sussex".

Prince Harry’s name was also changed to insert the word "Prince" which had been left out of the original.
The alteration prompted speculation over why the birth certificate was altered.


That in turn led to the Duchess, who now lives in California with Prince Harry and their son, issuing an astonishing attack on tabloids "and their carnival of so-called experts".

She said the change was forced on the couple by Buckingham Palace officials.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex with their baby son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor CREDIT: Dominic Lipinski/PA
A spokeswoman for the Duchess said: "The change of name on public documents in 2019 was dictated by The Palace, as confirmed by documents from senior Palace officials. This was not requested by Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex nor by The Duke of Sussex.

"To see this UK tabloid and their carnival of so-called 'experts' chose to deceptively whip this into a calculated family 'snub' and suggest that she would oddly want to be nameless on her child’s birth certificate, or any other legal document, would be laughable were it not offensive.

"There’s a lot going on in the world - let’s focus on that rather than creating clickbait."
It remains unclear why the certificate was altered.

The Duchess of Cambridge gives her name as "Catherine Elizabeth her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge" on her children’s birth certificates.

In contrast, Diana, Princess of Wales, simply gave her name as "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales" on Prince William’s birth certificate.
On Sunday, Buckingham Palace sources suggested that a "clerical error and nothing more than that" was to blame for the alteration to Archie’s certificate.

The Telegraph understands that the Duchess of Sussex altered all her official documents - including her US passport - following her marriage.
In some cases she remains "Meghan, The Duchess of Sussex" such as on the Archewell audio podcast following a deal signed with Spotify.
Adding to the complexity, although still entitled to call herself Her Royal Highness, part of the agreement after so-called Megxit when the couple left to the US, they agreed not to actually use the HRH titles.

Lady Colin Campbell, a Royal author who spotted the amendment, had told the Sun on Sunday newspaper: "It is extraordinary and raises all kinds of questions about what the Sussexes were thinking."

Michael Rhodes, editor of Peerage News blog and an authority on Royal naming convention, told The Telegraph that Royal birth certificates had varied over the years with regards to the "title and style of the mother’s name".

Mr Rhodes said: "It's not set in stone. However, I fail to see why Archie's certificate required any alterations. No status is changed because of it.

"Meghan became HRH The Duchess of Sussex upon marriage and remains so. The inclusion of maternal christian names however is required for non royal birth certs."

Ingrid Seward, editor-in-chief of Majesty magazine, said: "As far as I know this is unprecedented. But why it has been done is a bit of a mystery."
Christopher Wilson, a Royal historian and author, said he too was baffled. "It is a peculiar thing to do," he said.

The official erasure of "Rachel" and "Markle" comes at a time when she is caught up in a legal battle with a tabloid newspaper involving her estranged father Thomas Markle.

The Duchess is suing the Mail on Sunday for publishing extracts of a letter to her father following her wedding which he failed to attend. Mr Markle will testify as a witness for the Mail on Sunday.

The Duchess was born "Rachel Meghan Markle" in California - the name that was read out when she married Prince Harry at a ceremony at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle broadcast around the globe.

It is thought she ditched Rachel after embarking on her acting career as Meghan Markle.
The birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor has not been without controversy.

The couple refused to say at first where the child was born.

It was claimed the Duchess had hoped for a home birth but the child was delivered at the Portland Hospital, a private hospital in central London.

So if the dementor of montecito has spoken to the Telegraph and other media to say "wasn't me, it was the palace wot dunnit", then she could have taken five seconds to finish the sentence and explain why it was changed. She must surely know why it was changed or why the palace told them to change it.

But no it suits her agenda of casting the palace in a bad light to let the confusion reign.

I favour the simple explanation that BP said it must be corrected to insert the missing Prince into Haznoballs' entry, and she decided to take the opportunity to glam up her entry and remove her first names.