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

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

Why is everybody getting worked up about a title for a 3 days old baby. He is Archie, end of, or in Scotland Erchie.


They are far sighted, followed Annes route.

Big difference: this boy is first in line to the dukedom of Sussex!

So, please don't pretend he is just an ordinary guy. He is not. Even prince Michael's children are styled as Lord and Lady and the heir's son's child is not?!

[JuliannaVictoria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I think you are going a bit too fast.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex only made known that their son is named Archie Harrison, no more, no less.

The LP creating his father Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel is in force. So Archie is the heir to these titles anyway. That the parents only mentioned the two names does not mean that he will never be known as Lord Archibald Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton.

This is what myself and others have been saying, however, we were ignored. Thank you for restating this. The announcements all said "At the time"

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Elenath

Because people are making a fuss where there is none. Harry and Meghan have every right to not use those titles in daily life, but that doesn’t mean the titles don’t exist. I’m not an expert in British peerage, but is there a chance he will start to use these titles when Charles becomes king? Or perhaps when Harry dies and Archie inherits. As for now, he’s just a child and he can live a perfectly happy life without using his titles.

He could easily be known as Archie by his family and friends (so in daily life) while still formally being addressed as Earl of Dumbarton. It's Harry and Meghan creating the fuss.

[JuliannaVictoria]

Originally Posted by carlota

how very ironic - as if anyone will ever need a reminder of who this kid is the son of!

no need for attacking on other's opinions. you love it? then i am really glad for you. others don't? i suggest better to live with it.

I didn't attack you, and if you took the time to read the other posts, you would have seen where I said that I'm also trying to get used to the name. I was addressing your referral to the name as being "Hollywood" which it is not.

[MaiaMia_53]

I wish the reporters would have asked how the dogs, Guy and the younger Lab are taking to the new little Sussex, Archie.

For now, hasn't it been clearly stated that the baby will be known as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor?

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I think you are going a bit too fast.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex only made known that their son is named Archie Harrison, no more, no less.

The LP creating his father Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel is in force. So Archie is the heir to these titles anyway. That the parents only mentioned the two names does not mean that he will never be known as Lord Archibald Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't have the power to strip him of anything, right? Like, he's still entitled to everything he's entitled to. But just be known, for now, by his name.

[Osipi]

Another little fact has blown through my caffeinated infused mind here. It could have gone the opposite way and reverted back to the time when Charles was a small boy. From birth through childhood into his adult dating life and beyond, everyone was required to call him "Sir". Even Diana did until they became engaged, I believe.

Camilla's son, Tom Parker-Bowles in an article stated that both he and Laura called Charles "Sir" but to them, it was more an affectionate term like "uncle" to them.

It'd be weird to have it known that "Sir needs his nappy changed" or "Sir skinned his knee" or "Sir flunked his math test again". Even stranger would be bringing back the old custom of having an archaic "whipping boy" as a stand in for punishment for little "Sir" when he messed up.

British history is fascinating but... the times they are a changin'

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

Why is everybody getting worked up about a title for a 3 days old baby. He is Archie, end of, or in Scotland Erchie.


They are far sighted, followed Annes route.

Why act like this is something new or wrong? All of us are here because we have been worked up even before he was born.

OTH that is a really horrible name. If that was an attempt to have an American name they could have done much better. Archie is in no way Hollywood!!!
Hollywood parents name their kids dumb names like Blue.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by carlota

how very ironic - as if anyone will ever need a reminder of who this kid is the son of!

no need for attacking on other's opinions. you love it? then i am really glad for you. others don't? i suggest better to live with it.

I don't think they are trying to remind people who this child is the son of. Just like if one names their daughter Abigail doesn't mean they are trying to remind people she's her father's joy. I think it's just a nice meaning.

Speaking of meanings, Archie apparently means brave and strong.

Originally Posted by XeniaCasaraghi

Why act like this is something new or wrong? All of us are here because we have been worked up even before he was born.

OTH that is a really horrible name. If that was an attempt to have an American name they could have done much better.

It's actually not an American thing. It's a UK think apparently. That name isn't so uncommon there compared to US, and apparently quite popular.

It was quite funny when a poster posted about the oddity of Harrison, and I thought the odd part was Archie whereas Harrison was not too common, but nothing surprising. She, as a Brit, didn't find Archie surprising as a name.

[Claricecolin]

I am starting to get confused here. Not long ago there were people saying the Sussex 's were minor royals and the #of HRH would be streamlined. Now there is upset in some quarters because Baby Archie is not at this time using a title? I don't get it...That Baby Archie shouldn't be presented at Windsor or with his great grandparents? I believe Princess Margaret once said something like my children are not royal their Aunt just happens to be Queen.

Royal or private citizen, this baby is still the great grandchild of a monarch and in due course grandson of a monarch

[HereditaryPrincess]

Well, I think we can all safely say that almost none of us guessed Archie (I think someone might have suggested Archibald a while back, but not Archie). The combination is very modern and a mixture of British/American which reflects the Sussexes themselves. Nicknames as first names is a common phenomena here in the UK and has been for a while now (one of my relatives, who was born in the 1930s, is called Jeanie and just Jeanie, so this "trend" has been going on for quite a long time) and Harrison reflects the popularity of surnames as first names in the US. I was somewhat expecting them to choose a more out-of-the-box name, and Archie right now reminds me of our reaction when we first heard Princess Estelle of Sweden's name. I didn't like Estelle at first and couldn't imagine a queen with the name, but since we've gotten to know her adorable personality I've grown to love the name and can't imagine her with another.


Someone suggested that Meghan named her baby after the character Archie Andrews from the Archie Comics, especially after it's been reported that whilst she was on Suits she watched the also Netflix original Riverdale, which is based off the comics.

Originally Posted by Nico

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.

Totally agree with this. As much as I like the Sussexes, I do think the way they handled the situation is pretty weird. Meghan should realise (and I'm not singling her out, just highlighting her because she wasn't a royal before marrying Harry) that fame and publicity is all part of the royal package. Princess Anne's grandchildren went about it the right way, but that's probably because they're used to having a lowkey "royal" lifestyle. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Archie had a public christening after all this.

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by Somebody

He could easily be known as Archie by his family and friends (so in daily life) while still formally being addressed as Earl of Dumbarton. It's Harry and Meghan creating the fuss.

Because he’s not the Earl of Dumbarton, Harry is. Archie will have to wait for his turn.

[Zaira]

Originally Posted by Somebody

And this! Announcing that you won't people to use the style and courtesy title he is entitled to after presenting him to the world in Windsor castle and sharing a picture of him with the queen and duke of Edinburgh...

(I don't remember seeing pictures of the queen and duke of Edinburgh's first meeting with the Cambridge children)

But where is the fuss? The fuss is being created by others, not by them. They gave the public a look in and folks will see it, say "how lovely" and move on. Windsor is their home. The original plan was for it to be an outdoor shoot but that was shoot thanks to the weather. The great hall has a special place for them as it was the location of their reception for the wedding.

And i personally thought it was very special they shared a pic of the great grandparents and Doria. Something that likely would not have happened without the blessing of the Queen and Prince Philip.

The "fuss" over the title is others putting their own preferences on these two and feelings about what is or is not "the thing that is done." They said that at this time their child will simply be "archie etc" and that is that.

Sometimes, again, I think royal watchers are more royal than the royals themselves. And yes include myself in that observation.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Osipi

It'd be weird to have it known that "Sir needs his nappy changed" or "Sir skinned his knee" or "Sir flunked his math test again". Even stranger would be bringing back the old custom of having an archaic "whipping boy" as a stand in for punishment for little "Sir" when he messed up.

Or Sir's in a time out.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Big difference: this boy is first in line to the dukedom of Sussex!

So, please don't pretend he is just an ordinary guy. He is not. Even prince Michael's children are styled as Lord and Lady and the heir's son's child is not?!

Why are you arguing with me, where did I say he was an ordinary guy. He is a three day old baby, why is everybody getting so worked up about things. It is nobody's business except the parents. It is all quite laughable when you think of the comments on these forums over the last few days with regards the press/media thinking they owned the sussex baby.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by LauraS3514

The first royal woman to give birth in a hospital was in 1970 when The Duchess of Kent delivered Lord Nicholas Windsor. The Duchess of Gloucester's son, Alexander Earl of Ulster, was born prematurely in 1974, also in hospital. The 1977 babies were Peter Phillips and Lady Davina Windsor, now Lewis. Tragically, The Duchess of Kent also delivered a stillborn son in 1977.

Thank you for that detailed information, expanding on and correcting my earlier post. BTW, sadly it was reported in March that Lady Davina Windsor Lewis divorced her Maori husband, Gary Lewis, last year.

[kathia_sophia]

If Harry and Meghan want their son to be a private citizen, then that means that we won't see this child on trooping?

[wyevale]

Thanks for the clarity, but it [seems to me] VERY hard to go against the expressed will of ones parents [at any age], and especially so when their decision was so [gratuitously] public..
The renowned 'hate-filled' British press will have a field day when 'Mister Archie' chooses to 'elevate himself' - "Mister's NOT good enough" -"Too grand for plain Mr" etc, etc.

Really it puzzles me that any parent would decide to restrict their child's options in any way..
No doubt they think its 'in his best interest', I simply think they are attempting to 'make him ordinary' , when that can NEVER be.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Elenath

Because he’s not the Earl of Dumbarton, Harry is. Archie will have to wait for his turn.

At this point, I doubt the Sussexes ever plan to give their son Archie either a courtesy nobility title, nor a royal title. But we shall see. Perhaps his parents want Archie to make the decision on his own, when he's reached a certain age.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Somebody

And this! Announcing that you won't people to use the style and courtesy title he is entitled to after presenting him to the world in Windsor castle and sharing a picture of him with the queen and duke of Edinburgh...

(I don't remember seeing pictures of the queen and duke of Edinburgh's first meeting with the Cambridge children)

I believe some posters have a valid point that a courtesy title does not technically belong to the person who uses it. Archie is not the Earl of Dumbarton; Harry is. A peer's heir may use a courtesy title, but that is not mandatory and, in legal documents, a courtesy title is normally implied, but not stated directly. For example, a courtesy title holder may be referred to as "[name] [family name], commonly called [courtesy title]". I wish we could find James Mountbatten-Windsor's birth certificate for example to see if Viscount Severn is used explicitly or not.


Having said that, it is odd that Harry and Meghan chose to call their son, a male-line great-grandson of a reigning Queen, grandson of a future King , and a future Duke, "Master Archie". Not using the courtesy title is already an eccentricity, but not using the prefix "Lord", which is universally accorded to sons of Dukes, is even stranger and at odds with British tradition.



I really don't understand what they want to accomplish with that kind of decision. If the goal is to slim down the Royal Family, they should just have made a statement that Archie will never be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, which they didn't do (so he might still be). Turning their backs on long-held conventions of styling relatives of peers accomplishes nothing and may antagonize lots of people. It's bad PR in my opinion.


BTW, I had not thought about that before, but, after reading another poster's message on this forum, I now agree that Harry should start using his title of Earl of Dumbarton while in Scotland.