Duchess Meghan’s occupation is ‘princess of the UK’ on Archie’s birth certificate

Royal baby

I was waiting for this. In 2013, soon after the Duchess of Cambridge gave birth to Prince George, the papers got a copy of George’s birth certificate. There’s part of the certificate where someone – in this case, Prince William – has to fill out the occupations of the mother and father. William listed Kate’s occupation as “Princess of the United Kingdom.” I’ve been lowkey wondering if Harry would do the same when he filled out Baby Archie’s birth certificate, and I wondered if that was one of the many reasons why the royal reporters wanted to get their hands on the paperwork. Turns out…

As you can see, Private Archie was born at Portland Hospital, a fact which is still Meghan and Harry’s business and no one else’s, so stop accosting Meghan’s doctors at their homes. As for Harry and Meg’s occupations as Prince and Princess of the United Kingdom… it’s literally the same conversation we had with Will and Kate. Meghan is technically a princess because she could be styled Princess Harry of Wales, but she of course prefers to be styled as HRH Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. And some day, I too will list my occupation as “princess.” I should try that on my taxes next year. Self-employed gossip PRINCESS.

Royal baby

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.

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

135 Responses to “Duchess Meghan’s occupation is ‘princess of the UK’ on Archie’s birth certificate”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    I’m rolling my eyes at how Rebecca English’s priority is to prove that the Daily Mail was right.

    I’m not surprised at the Princess bit. I guess “working royal” is a bit more…awkward, lol.

    • MA says:

      Funny how Rebecca English also wrote an article that Meghan was having a home birth.

      The thing with the DM is that they have 10 different takes on the same situation so that they can point back to the story and say “We WeRe RiGhT!!!!”

    • BlueOrange says:

      People get all crazy about Kate and Meghan listing their occupation as ‘Princess’. I personally think it’s rather fanciful and self-flattering but so many people get creative when it comes to their occupation on their babies birth certificates. Nobody checks or asks for proof of any kind and you can make up your occupation if you really want to.

    • PrincessK says:

      The Daily Mail keeps going on about Meghan’s plans for a home birth being dashed. It was all speculation, l always believed her important baby would be born in hospital 🏥. The Sussexes and the Palace didn’t want the a press battalion camping outside any hospitals because the interest in this baby is much greater than the Cambridge babies.

  2. notasugarhere says:

    The title isn’t necessarily a preference here. They’re automatically referred to by their highest title unless they request otherwise. Camilla is the Princess of Wales because she’s married to the Prince of Wales. She chooses to go by Duchess of Cornwall, one of her husband’s lower titles.

  3. JaneDoesWork says:

    People were in an uproar when William did that, and I confess I still find it silly. I’m sure the royal press are besides themselves. I’m sure they’ll go on about how it was different for Kate to be labeled that because she’s a future Queen Consort and mother to a future King… but a Duchess wife of a Prince can be labeled a “Princess” on her kids birth certificate and it doesn’t really mean anything or make a difference so who cares?

    • 10KTurtle says:

      I’ll say the same thing I said last time: what else did people want her to list as her occupation?
      Also, why are the parents’ occupations necessary on a birth certificate? They both might change jobs tomorrow. Is it listed on US birth certificates? I’m too lazy to look for mine.

      • Tina says:

        When I got married, both my father’s occupation and my fiance’s father’s occupation had to be listed on the marriage certificate (not the mothers’). I think the forms have been the same for ages and no one has bothered to change them.

      • nic919 says:

        The forms for William and Harry did not have a space for occupation under the mother’s name, which shows that things have progressed in a way since the 80s. But I agree that occupation is irrelevant to the parentage of a baby,

    • kristen says:

      Good catch, Mumbles.

    • Deedee says:

      i was more upset at the time that Normal Bill didn’t list his occupation as part-time helicopter co-pilot anywhere on the earlier certificates.

  4. Cee says:

    They are princesses of the UK by marriage. They take their husbands’ highest title – that of Duke – in the female form.
    Diana was POW.
    Camilla is POW, but is known as DOC to avoid offence because of Diana. Camilla will be Queen Consort once Charles is King.
    Kate and Meghan are Duchesses. Kate will become POW and Queen Consort one day as William’s titles increase in rank.

  5. MrsBanjo says:

    What would be the alternative term? It’s not a typical occupation. I can’t think of what would make more sense in these situations.

  6. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Well my real name actually MEANS Princess so I am technically listed as Princess on my birth certificate!
    As for this I high-key LOVE that he did this. He knew it people would be salty about it – and he knew William did it for Kate. And he did it anyway. Because she technically IS a Princess and he wants people to know it. I truly adore how much Harry capes for and protects his wife.

    • AM says:

      Sarah Ferguson was HRH The Princess Andrew. When she was married.
      Sophie married to Prince Edward the Queen’s youngest son, is a Princess of the United Kingdom. HRH The Princess Edward. ( can’t remember where the THE goes, sorry)

      Kate is a Princess of the Untied Kingdom , HRH The Princess William

      Meghan is a Princess of the United Kingdom. HRH The Princess Henry (Harry)

      They become Princess of the United Kingdom when they marry, but in their husbands title, HRH The Princess William, HRH The Princess Andrew, HRH The Princess Edward , etc….

      Also Meghan is HRH…..why are some writing that she isn’t.
      She is styled as “Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex”,[121] and she is the first person to hold that tittle. Wikipedia

      .

      • TheOtherSam says:

        I believe the “The” prefix before the Prince/Princess title is reserved only for the children of a monarch. Hence “The Princess Anne”, “The Prince Andrew”, “HRH The Princess Edward” (for Sophie Wessex).

        William and Harry are just plain “HRH Prince XX of Wales” until Charles becomes King, then they get “The” before their title/name. If I’m wrong on this someone will correct me.

  7. MissyS. says:

    She is a princess by marriage just like Kate and Camilla. For example, look at Princess Michael of Kent. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Camilla is legally the current Princess of Wales, but she doesn’t use the title because the Diana sugars would all have massive tantrums.

  8. Lindsnowork says:

    Why does this birth certificate look so different than the Cambridge kids ones?

    • Tina says:

      We recently changed to birth certificates with typed individual details (don’t get me started on the dated bureaucracy in this country). If you look at Louis’ birth certificate, it is in the same format as this.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Also forms for George and CC were filled in by hand, same basic info. The one for Louis was typed like this one.

    • Jennifer says:

      George & Charlottes were handwritten, as was the norm until recently. Louis’ was typed just like this, with the addition that William signed his name in ink rather than here Harry is printed as it’s a copy not a photo of the original as Sussexes didn’t release it like Cambridges did. Press Association bought a legal copy.

      • Casey20 says:

        The Sussex’s didn’t release the BC? British Press is CRAZY…

      • Eyeroll says:

        How can the press Buy a copy of someone else’s birth certificate? And it’s legal? Can a random citizen do this? Is it a British royal family thing? All their private business is open for the press and public?

      • Jessica says:

        Birth certificates are public in the UK.

      • Tina says:

        All birth certificates are public information in the UK and anyone can get them. Internet crazies have requested (and received) people’s birth certificates before, notably Benedict Cumberbatch’s baby.

      • Casey20 says:

        It doesn’t negate the fact that the British Media is rabid in its coverage of Meghan. One thing is certain, she will become more popular in the states because of Princess of the United Kingdom on BC! Americans love the Princess title perhaps more than the Queen title!

      • Meganbot2000 says:

        No one releases birth certificates here, they are all public info.

      • notasugarhere says:

        W&K did release them. Harry and Meghan didn’t, meaning if you want a copy, you have to order and pay for it. It follows with their stated plan of keeping the birth private. They’re following the laws, but they’re not going to release a birth certificate for their private citizen child.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “All birth certificates are public information in the UK and anyone can get them”

        It varies state to state in the USA but the state where I was born will issue a “copy” of a birth certificate to anyone (for a fee) but only the actual individual, a parent or guardian can obtain (for a fee) an “original or duplicate” birth certificate signed in ink by the Clerk of Courts and imprinted with the Clerk of Courts official seal.

  9. sassafras says:

    I thought it was adorable when William did it but also slightly cheeky but come ON – this IS who they are. This is what they were born into. Own it, I say.

  10. Casey20 says:

    Just LOL…..let the hating commence…..Love that Harry and Meghan continues to make fools of the British Media!!! Congratulations to Meghan and Harry for doing it their way!!! The British Media was WRONG once again!!

  11. Ellie says:

    It was a huge issue when George’s certificate was released because Kate was listed as Princess of the United Kingdom under occupation. Don’t know why, since she was/is married to William and historically/traditionally it was for royal women to take the occupation of their husband. Kate is a Princess (no peerage, it’s just ‘Princess William’) but is only required to use the peerage title of Duchess. Meghan’s will obviously be the same, so why such an issue for either of them? 🤷🏻‍♀️

  12. greta says:

    Why was it so important for these royal reporters to get their hands on the birth certificate and publish the details? All of the relevant facts were already made known – birth date, sex, name, weight,…. How important was it know the actual hospital she went to? Is this info that important? Who is the target audience?

    • Cee says:

      Because they want to hound her medical staff to run more “Meghan is a Diva! She demanded meteorite stones for the birth!” stories. They will twist everything into a negative story.

      • Britt says:

        This. I’m positive the doctors and nurses won’t speak either. The press is going to continue their predictability.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Also, the surrogate, fake baby bump and Harry is not the father crap has not subsided on some of the crazier blog and posting sites: Read Daily Fail and Blind Gossip.

      • Casey20 says:

        They need a reason to continue the harassment of this woman and her newborn. Racist Brits will never let this go (disclaimer: Racist Brits..not every Brit in the world)

    • Lisa says:

      So they can hound hospital staff and generate moreeghan is a diva stories.

    • HP says:

      There was interest in the Cambridge kids birth certificates, too. Mostly about the “princess” thing. Here, I think that some of the reporters were frankly embarrassed to be wrong- they reported a home birth, initially. So there were conflicting media reports, and then the PR staff would not say where Archie was born. On the one hand, not our business, on the other hand, it would be made public with the birth certificate so it seemed a bit silly to not just tell reporters the information. Of course, the reporters in the UK generally haven’t earned the right to any favors from H&M.

      • Jessica says:

        Doesn’t matter if it’s public info. Archie is a private citizen so they don’t have to release anything. They got the information by paying for it. I wouldn’t give them anything for free either.

    • greta says:

      Understand the tabloids desire to hound people, etc. etc. but is there actually a public interest in these unnecessary tidbits of information? I can understand some people are keen on legitimate updates on the royals and their activities, photos, etc. but this is over the top and I can’t see regular people chomping at the bit to know who delivered the baby and where, etc.

    • Tourmaline says:

      It is gross but royal reporters would love to get in on some private obstetrical details.

      With Kate’s births, there were plenty of reports from Katie Nicholls and her ilk afterwards with special details such as Kate did not need an epidural and was so happy to have a ‘natural’ birth. All stuff to burnish Kate’s image as a total woman who can birth like a champ and skip out in heels and a blowout a few hours later.

    • PrincessK says:

      The next thing is for them to dissect the hair, colouring and facial characteristics of this innocent child. The Cambridge kids were never subjected to whether William is the true father, or undue emphasis on the fact that the heir to the throne looks more like the Middleton’s.

  13. Abby says:

    LOL I love this. Can’t imagine listing that as my occupation!

    I wish they would go by Princess Kate and Princess Meghan. I know that’s not how the rules work. But still

    🙂

  14. Sharon Lea says:

    Gayle’s interview should not raise eyebrows since William and Harry have sat down for interviews with American Matt Lauer years past. Once was to promote Concert for Diana. NBC was usually favored, remember Pippa’s tryout as a Today host? It’s nice another network is getting a chance.

  15. Jess says:

    Unfortunately, Archie has birthers already. How sad the times we live in.

  16. kerwood says:

    Well, now that the constitutional crisis of Archie’s birth certificate has been avoided, can the British press turn to less important issues like….Brexit?

    • Casey20 says:

      I doubt it….They will start bullying a newborn

    • Leena says:

      @ Casey please get your facts right if you are going to criticise. It was not the BBC it was someone employed by them as a presenter (not a reporter Tina) who did it on his private twitter page, so not the BBC’s doing at all – they promptly, and rightly, sacked him.

      • JustSayin' says:

        Not before praising him.

        The “beeeeb” is no better.

      • kerwood says:

        Oh, well that makes all the difference in the world.

      • Tina says:

        Well it does actually. There’s a big difference between the state broadcaster promulgating a racist image on any of its own platforms (TV, web etc) and one of their then-presenters (sorry Leena, was trying to translate for the US audience) posting the image on his private account of a third party website that has nothing to do with the BBC.

      • Jessica says:

        @Tina

        It does have to do with the BBC because they promptly fired him. They can’t absolve themselves; he’s worked with them for 30 years.

      • Tina says:

        @Jessica: Danny Baker has been sacked from the BBC on at least 3 separate occasions. The point is that Casey, who knows very well what she’s doing, said “BBC had [Archie] depicted as a monkey.” BBC did not sanction it, did not broadcast it, did not editorialise it. They fired the bloke.

    • lucy2 says:

      Seriously. I’m all for fun diversions and stories and stuff (I’m here, after all!) but the amount of crazed attention this kind of stuff gets from the media is ridiculous.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      IMHO, the UK public does not want to read about BREXIT because the BREXIT outcome will effect them. The UK public (like the USA public) want to dwell on mindless things like a birth certificate and Kim K.’s butt because it does not effect them one bit. Mindless diversion has got to be the main reason for circulation numbers of The Daily Fail, The Dim and People.

      • Tina says:

        Believe me, the Mail, Sun etc cover Brexit just like the broadsheets do. We’re in a temporary lull while we wait for May to set a departure date, but the European elections are next week and it will be everywhere again.

      • duchess of hazard says:

        @BayTampaBay – nah, Brexit is covered over here in the broadsheets. The political shenanigans are better than GOT . The tabloids can hate more than one thing, and they will always have a hate on for the EU.

      • Casey20 says:

        I believe there is truth to what you speak. I don’t really care about Kim and her fami!y because they all share a brain, but I post her about Meghan because of Trump!!! I would normally fo!low US politics but I can’t stand hearing the name Trump….So Meghan it is! I’m sure the same is true for some Brits concerning Brexit.

  17. BeanieBean says:

    According to the form, she’s not HRH Meghan, the DoS. She’s Meghan, HRH the DoS. Somehow, this distinction is important.

    • 10KTurtle says:

      Yes, in a nutshell, the title of Duchess of Sussex is HRH, not Meghan herself (or any other married-in, although there’s some fascinating stuff online about the exception made for Diana to be “Princess Diana” in her own right after her divorce if you want to jump down that rabbit hole!). Only the “blood” royals have HRH before their given name.

      • Tina says:

        Diana was never “Princess Diana” officially, even after the divorce. She was Diana, Princess of Wales without the HRH.

      • olive says:

        no, she was never “princess diana” in her own right – that is only for blood princesses like anne, or beatrice and eugenie. here’s the history of her titles from wikipedia:

        1 July 1961 – 9 June 1975: The Honourable Diana Frances Spencer
        9 June 1975 – 29 July 1981: Lady Diana Frances Spencer
        29 July 1981 – 28 August 1996: Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales
        28 August 1996 – 31 August 1997: Diana, Princess of Wales

      • 10KTurtle says:

        I think I meant that she is the only person in the UK titled “Princess” who is neither born royal nor married to a royal. My quotation marks throw it off, but it’s still fun down in the rabbit hole!

    • kristen says:

      I’m curious about this. Where is LAK when we need her?!

      • Tina says:

        It’s the same with Kate. You are only Princess [first name] if you were born a princess, like Charlotte, Beatrice or Eugenie. If you marry a prince, you are known as Princess [husband’s first name] like Princess Michael of Kent. Both Kate and Meghan are princesses, but they are Princess William and Princess Henry respectively.

        They are HRH The Duchess of Cambridge/Sussex because their husbands were given those titles and are peers in their own right. Prince Michael of Kent, for example, does not have a peerage in his own right. He is a Prince under the letters patent of 1917 as he is a grandchild of the Sovereign (George V). Charles, however, is a peer in his own right as HRH The Prince of Wales. Camilla is technically HRH The Princess of Wales, but she is not Princess Camilla.

        Because dukedoms generally are not inheritable by daughters (even now) there are almost never Duchess [first name]s.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Tina, “Because dukedoms generally are not inheritable by daughters (even now)”

        Sad but true. As a feminist, I want this wrong righted immediately.

  18. Hannah Kaye says:

    I think the reason for listing Meghan and Kate as Princesses on the birth certificates is more about the list of occupations available to registrars being so limited, they just chose the closest thing to Duchess. It’s not very exciting but knowing the UK Government’s bureaucracy, this is more likely 😂😂

    • Gail says:

      Exactly, this is a lot of uproar about nothing. “Princess” is simply their job description.

  19. Beech says:

    Someday there’ll be a study of sm conspiracy theories, but broken down into different components and in this case, MM pregnancy of. I recall mentions of a surrogate during Kate’s first pregnancy. MM has a surrogate, then a school of, yes, she is pregnant but padding herself to appear larger so so when she appeared after the birth, she’d look sooo slim, but then there was a surrogate and the reason her face appeared so full at the presentation of the royal babe was that for some time she had been taking doses of some med that would would puff the face for a post pregnancy look. And that is sm conspiracy MM pregnancy canon. There’s probably the Berlin canon, French deconstruction canon . . .

    • olive says:

      they claim women use a surrogate because they are vain and don’t want to gain weight, then turn around and claim the same women are also taking drugs to make their faces look chubbier and more pregnant. they can’t even keep their conspiracies straight.

    • MA says:

      There was a conspiracy that Archie is a doll (because he wasn’t moving during the photocall because he was….asleep) and that he’s not a newborn (because his feet are big, and apparently there’s a way to distinguish “newborn” feet and “week old baby” feet).

  20. Trillian says:

    Why do you even need to list the parents’ occupation on the birth certificate?

  21. Wow2 says:

    I didn’t know Harry’s real name is Henry…..

    • duchess of hazard says:

      @Wow – yeah, Harry has always been seen as a diminutive of Henry over here. And I knew a Poppy who was actually called Charlotte on her birth certificate. Us Brits love our diminutives.

      • Wow2 says:

        @duchess of hazard – very interesting, thanks for explaining. I just thought to myself, huh I read about him all the time since I was young and never knew.

        I guess you learn something new everyday

    • Tourmaline says:

      I had also forgotten that Meghan’s first name is Rachel.

  22. anp says:

    Question is not Princess considered a Title.

  23. Jaded says:

    What are they supposed to put? “Former actress and part-time philanthropist now married to a Prince of the United Kingdom so she has to be referred to as Princess of the United Kingdom”?

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Well at least Meghan has a former occupation.

      • duchess of hazard says:

        @BayTampaBay – a hit, a palpable hit. *side eyes Kate.* I don’t think they would have been able to put down “Waity Kaity” as an occupation, tbh.

  24. Franke says:

    Oh, there’s definitely a crazy surfeit of Meghan love here but I accept it because elsewhere internet wise there is a surfeit of hate and outright anger. So I figure it’s a move toward balancing it all out.

    No surprises on the birth certificate to me. I figured there had been a quick, discreet hospital birth and woo hoo for them. I haven’t seen famous people fool the press so soundly since JFK Jrs wedding. And she is a Princess of the UK. That’s her job and that’s how she should be described.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Franke, I do not think there is a surfeit of Meghan love or a surfeit of Cathy hate on this blog as much as there is a majority of people (80%+) that see all sides of the issues facing each woman.

  25. Jen says:

    I think it sounds stupid just like it did for Late, but I also don’t have a better solution, so….

  26. Amelie says:

    Is there a typo in Meghan’s name on the birth certificate? Shouldn’t it say Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex Rachel Meghan and not Rachel Meghan Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Sussex? Shouldn’t her royal title precede her given names? I can’t remember what Kate’s looked like on her children’s certificates but I’m pretty sure Duchess of Cambridge preceded Catherine. (EDIT: I looked at George, Charlotte’s, and Louis’s birth certificates and it’s the same for Kate actually, her name is given as Catherine Elizabeth Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge). I guess if you aren’t royal born your title comes after your given names as they were acquired at marriage.

    Well this isn’t exactly a surprise, she’s not an actress anymore, she’s a royal figure now. If Kate gets Princess, so does Meghan.

  27. Snap Happy says:

    What was on Harry and Will’s birth certificate for Diana? It sounds like it’s just protocol.

  28. Casey20 says:

    The irony of the BC is that the Racist British Media re!eased it to prove Meghan had a hospital birth instead the focus is on the fact that she is a Princess of the United Kingdom!!!! Also Meghan never said she wanted a home birth, they did…..crazy Racist Brits ( disclaimer: just the Racist Brits are crazy not every single Brit in the world)

  29. Lowrider says:

    Occupation: leeches

    These people do not have “careers”.

  30. The Original Mia says:

    I was one of those that thought Princess of the UK as occupation was silly. Still do. Meghan had a job, but seeing as she’s no longer a working actress like Sophie Winkleman, then I guess it is Princess of the UK.

  31. Mego says:

    I guess it gives reporters and gossipers (yeah pot kettle I know) something to talk about but I would have been quite fine not knowing these details about their life.

  32. A says:

    Out of curiosity, what could they put instead of Princess of the United Kingdom in the occupation section though?

    None of them hold proper jobs as we’d define them. But if people don’t like that they’re putting this down as the occupation, what would they put down instead?

  33. ChiaMom says:

    Choke all the way on the clutched pearls haters Meghan’s a PRINCESS OF THE UK #NeedSomeWaterToWashDownYourSalt

  34. Catherine Page says:

    People seem to keep pointing out how “differently” M and K are treated. Well… yes? One of them is a Bey approved Biracial Black role model who shows us how to stay classy in the face of blatant racism, classism, and sexism. The other is “keen” to start doing more work soon, she swears!

    They are different women with different personalities and accomplishments, so yes, they are treated differently. To demand otherwise smacks of the same flawed logic as “reverse racism.” Context matters.

    • Green Desert says:

      Yassss Catherine!!! Well said. I’m so sick of the both sides-ism comments when it comes to these two.

    • kerwood says:

      Very well said indeed.

      If supporters of Normal Bill and Keen Katie want the same treatment, let their favourites go through the same kind of hell Megan, Harry and Archie are going through. Let’s see what happens when George, Charlotte and Louis get compared to animals.

  35. Dorky says:

    Here’s what I think: Meghan and Harry had a baby via surrogate, and she has been wearing a moon bump for months and months. The “baby” in this appearance is a doll. And I believe Meghan actually did get pregnant unexpectedly about 3 months ago. Nothing wrong with surrogate, bummer they felt the need to fake it.