Birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor: May 6, 2019

[Chloep]

Yikes.... I was not expecting this type of reaction here.

I was just out with my parents when the name was announced and everyone loved it. Albeit the people at the restaurant were a bit older, but still.
Archie is most definitely NOT a modern or crazy name. Or American. It's a typical British Aristo name, in the spirit of Alfie, Arthur, Albert, etc.

My grandfather was an Archibald - Archie for short, and my father also has several Archie / Archibald friends.
I fail to see how it is supposed to be any less British than Louis, for example? And using a diminutive form for principal name is really that outrages considering it comes from the man who has never lived a single day in his life as Henry?

ETA: Also, Archibald is actually a name used on Phillip's side. So definitely not completely out of left field.

ETA: Now that I see @Susan999 mentioning it - could this be down to cultural perception? Is it maybe weird because the US only has the comic book character as a popular reference and no established history of the name use? Hence why it sounds cooky to them? It's definitely one of the newly popular 'old' names in Britain. I assume that's not the case in the US.

[Moonmaiden23]

Well, I don't care for the baby name but the looks on everyones' faces in the Royal photo are priceless, especially the Queen.

She looked positively and genuinely thrilled, I have never seen her grinning quite like that!

[Serafina]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Well, interesting facts. I'm still surprised at how many people now give what used to be considered nicknames as official names. Especially seeing how much Archie outranks Archibald. Maybe by the time this baby is a grown man, it won't feel so much like a child's name because there'll be so many grown Archies around.

I think so too!

I think the trend, currently, is to eschew the longer names. Maybe the logic is exactly that - that nobody will call them the long form anyway, so why not?

I'm a traditionalist, but I understand the thinking!

('Alfred' was less popular than 'Archibald', but only just - 27 vs 34 - but it is Scotland, so that doesn't entirely surprise me. And there were fewer 'Alfies' also)

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Well, I don't care for the baby name but the looks on everyones' faces in the Royal photo are priceless, especially the Queen.

She looked positively and genuinely thrilled, I have never seen her grinning quite like that!

The photos they shared were really lovely. One for the albums

[Dman]

Originally Posted by Fem

Not necessarily. They might choose (as they did now) not to use it. I don't see a reason Prince Charles would refuse his son and his wife the choice when it comes to their child titile.

Very most likely they will accept the automatic change in Archie’s status upon succession.

The name Archie is growing on me. I’m just imagining Edith Bunker doing her ditzy run towards Archie Bunker in All In The Family, but I’m getting used to the baby’s name. It’ll all sound even better once he’s an HRH.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by sndral

Mmm, mighty suspicious am I the only one who suspects Prince Phillip knew exactly when & where the couple would be before the photo/video shoot and just ‘happened’ to be in the vicinity to get a peek at his newest ggrandchild?

.

Lol I could see him doing just that.

I love the picture of HM, Prince Philip, and the Sussex family. Lovely, heartwarming. Very personal. Everything about this birth has had a warmer, more personal feel to it than what we usually see. In some ways, they’re actually being more public about this obviously more private baby imo.

[loonytick]

Originally Posted by Susan999

In Britain giving surnames as given names is seen as very American, though it is catching on. I was much more surprised by Harrison than I was by Archie, but it seems that for the Americans on here it is the opposite.

That it strikes you as primarily surname is strange to me. That's how normal a name it is in my neck of the woods.

[Erin9]

Originally Posted by Susan999

In Britain giving surnames as given names is seen as very American, though it is catching on. I was much more surprised by Harrison than I was by Archie, but it seems that for the Americans on here it is the opposite.

I’d agree from my POV as an American.

Archie is growing on me, now that I’ve gotten past the shock. It is cute. Harrison was less surprising to me as a name.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Susan999

In Britain giving surnames as given names is seen as very American, though it is catching on. I was much more surprised by Harrison than I was by Archie, but it seems that for the Americans on here it is the opposite.

Its started to be done here too, names like Jackson or Harrison. and the giving of abbreviations as full names is becoming more common.

[MaiaMia_53]

I wonder if there's anything more behind this choice of name? Did Meghan enjoy reading the Archie comics when she was growing up? The Archie character had red hair, so I suspect that little Archie of Sussex also has red hair. It seems to me that there are faint red strands of hair around the edges of the white wool cap little Archie was wearing. The Cambridge male babies did not wear caps leaving the hospital. Princess Charlotte was wearing a white drawstring cap when she debuted on the steps of the Lindo Wing.

I'm so happy for Meghan & Harry. This is such an exciting time for the Sussexes, the royal family, and royal watchers.

[Zaira]

Its puzzling to me that folks somehow are lambasting Harry and Meghan for deciding to turn down a courtesy title (for now! the lad could always take it up himself should he want or it could change when Charles becomes king) and complaining that Harry and Meghan want it both ways.

Is this not exactly what the Princess Royal and the Wessexes have done? Yes, they are public individuals with public roles, taking public money. But they are all raising their children as private citizens. Should they to give it all up and go off?

[Ista]

Originally Posted by Zaira

Its puzzling to me that folks somehow are lambasting Harry and Meghan for deciding to turn down a courtesy title (for now! the lad could always take it up himself should he want or it could change when Charles becomes king) and complaining that Harry and Meghan want it both ways.

Is this not exactly what the Princess Royal and the Wessexes have done? Yes, they are public individuals with public roles, taking public money. But they are all raising their children as private citizens. Should they to give it all up and go off?

Who is lambasting them?

[tommy100]

I'm not entirely surprised by Archie, I'm a primary school teacher and there are more and more Archie's around. Personally, as few others have said, I'm not a massive fan or nicknames as given names as everybody still tends to try and find a shorter version of it, lots of our Archie's are "Arch" and that I really am not a fan off.

Interesting that they are quite noticeably not using the courtesy title available. Given Archie and any other brothers and sisters would be entitled to HRH Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King it seems very unlikely they will use such titles now IMO. I was sure they wouldn't get any titles from HM at the moment but thought they would use the Earl of Dumbarnton title instead as a sort of middle ground.

[Princess B]

Totally unexpected name. I’m a little disappointed (not that I have any right to).
It doesn’t sound royal.

[Mirabel]

Of all the names they could have chosen, that's what they picked?

(Well, their child, their choice, but I think it's horrible.)

[wyevale]

The strongest of my feelings are for the poor child, not because of those names, but because he has been deprived of his rightful titles at birth and so has no say as to whether to use them when older.
If he had been given what is rightfully his, he could have chosen not to use them. This way he gets no choice. To say that as an American citizen as well as British he should not have a title is hardly a reason given the Astors, etc. The current Earl of Wharncliffe is an American citizen living in Maine.

[loonytick]

Originally Posted by wyevale

The strongest of my feelings are for the poor child, not because of those names, but because he has been deprived of his rightful titles at birth and so has no say as to whether to use them when older.
If he had been given what is rightfully his, he could have chosen not to use them. This way he gets no choice. To say that as an American citizen as well as British he should not have a title is hardly a reason given the Astors, etc. The current Earl of Wharncliffe is an American citizen living in Maine.

He doesn't actually have the right to any titles yet, just the right to essentially borrow one of his dad's. The choice not to style him as an Earl from birth doesn't mean he won't inherit the Duke of Sussex title upon his father's death. It doesn't necessarily mean he won't make use of the courtesy title when he reaches adulthood, either.

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by wyevale

The strongest of my feelings are for the poor child, not because of those names, but because he has been deprived of his rightful titles at birth and so has no say as to whether to use them when older.
If he had been given what is rightfully his, he could have chosen not to use them. This way he gets no choice. To say that as an American citizen as well as British he should not have a title is hardly a reason given the Astors, etc. The current Earl of Wharncliffe is an American citizen living in Maine.

Why would you pity him? Peter and Zara seem to doing just fine without titles. Or do you pity them just as much?

[Jacknch]

Please note that a significant number of posts have been - and will continue to be - edited (or deleted altogether) where the content is inappropriate, off-topic or adds nothing constructive to the general discussion.

[evolvingdoors]

Someone more keen eyed than myself on such thing, pointed out to me that if your mix it up, Archie is an anagram for Rachel (replacing the L with an I, and in some fonts a small “L” looks like a capital I).

So they have essentially called this child: Rachel and Harry’s son.



In a level headed level: the name is silly no matter how you look at it.
Poor kid, I mean he already has enough things that will screw him up, now being saddled with such a silly name?!
Victor, for example, would have been a nice decent modern, can be nicknamed, name and would have honored a much loved late monarch.
I feel like they wanted a name with a specific meaning so they went on Babynames.com and selected the first name that came up, not thinking how this will impact their baby life as he grows up. I really hope the kid changes his name when he reaches 18.
My sister was saddled with a female version of one of our G-grandfathers as a first name- no one called her by that name.. ever!, she legally shortened it the second she was able to. Granted though, in countries with Latin based languages that name is actually very common and sounds so much better than in our native language.
Still, I keep waiting for Ashton Kutcher to pop out the side door and yell “punked”(or whatever he used).

[Nico]

Originally Posted by Zaira

Its puzzling to me that folks somehow are lambasting Harry and Meghan for deciding to turn down a courtesy title (for now! the lad could always take it up himself should he want or it could change when Charles becomes king) and complaining that Harry and Meghan want it both ways.

Is this not exactly what the Princess Royal and the Wessexes have done? Yes, they are public individuals with public roles, taking public money. But they are all raising their children as private citizens. Should they to give it all up and go off?

The hyprocrisy and at times irrational dislike of everything this couple does is so over the top sometimes. Some of the posts today seem like they belong more on another royal board then the normally reasoned comments most folks post here, even in disagreement.

Except that for Anne and the Wessexes the case was closed from the beginning. No title. period.
Here we have more a Camilla style "there's indeed a title but we have chosen not to use it" or "we are taking an option just in case he wants to use it when grown up". Again it's perfectly understandable for personnal reasons, but by definition this child will not be a private citizen.
So just say it.
Here we have the somewhat disturbing feeling that the Sussexes just don't know how to handle, if not compromise, their royal status with their desire of a private life (and i don"t think they are very much helped by the Palace for that matter).
So Archie will be a private citizen in disguise from now. Until outing hismelf as a Royal in a few years ?
And what to say about this grand presentation in the ûber royal St George Hall at Windsor ? All very nice but in total contradiction with the "call him Archie" moto.
All of this is weirdly handled. Really.