Birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor: May 6, 2019 - Page 39

MaiaMia_53 · #**761** 05-08-2019, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Right. Most likely, little Archie of Sussex will always be known the world over as 'Archie.' Just as his father Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, will always be known the world over as 'Harry.'

Harry has indicated many times how he didn't like being called a prince. As he got older and settled down with his stint in the military and his sojourns in Botswana, Harry began to realize that being a prince of England, enabled him to do good deeds for other people. That directed him and helped give his life more of a sense of purpose and focus.

BTW, it's Master Archie, not Mister.

I tend to agree @MBruno that it's way out of strict tradition for the Sussexes to forego Earl of XXX, and not even to use Lord. But perhaps Harry envied his cousins, Zara and Peter Phillips, when he was growing up, because they were not burdened by any titles. Harry and Meghan are always surprising us with their choices.

Even without the courtesy title, or the expected nobility title, or even the 'HRH Prince' title which also is not assured, Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor will most assuredly bear the weight of prestige and scrutiny over the course of his life.

jacqui24 · #**762** 05-08-2019, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

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.

Elenath's point was that one day the baby will inherit Earl of Dumbarton along with Duke of Sussex and Baron Kilkeel titles as his own. Today, while he can be known as Earl of Dumbarton, he's not The Earl of Dumbarton as it is NOT his title. It's his father's. Sussexes can't give or take away a title as that is up to the monarch. And Queen Elizabeth has said male heirs of the body.

Susan D · #**763** 05-08-2019, 04:52 PM

I'm stunned at the names; I don't know why he's not Prince Arthur or Prince Charles or even Prince Geoffrey or Prince Frederick.

Tarlita · #**764** 05-08-2019, 04:54 PM

Tis early morning here and I have spent the last hour reading several pages of posts.
I was shocked to see the name chosen was Archie! As my first thought was to associate it with the Archie comics from many years ago.
But it has grown on me. In German it means brave and Harrison as son of Harry suits. I am surprised they didn't chose one more middle name.
I wonder if Harry and Meghan have been speaking to his cousin Zara about the pro's and cons of living within the Royal family without having a title.

jacqui24 · #**765** 05-08-2019, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale

Thanks for the clarity Jacqui24, 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.

I'm trying to think, but I don't know how anything changes because he's not known as Earl of Dumbarton today. He's not loosing any opportunities. And let face it, this baby is going to grow up previleged. Just like Harry's cousins did, no matter if they are HRHs, Lady/Lord, or Mr/Ms. He's not being denied anything in order to succeed or happy in life. Perhaps ordinary person is the wrong word, but private person maybe?

I know there has been some complaints regarding them possibly restricting some access to the birth, but I honestly don't think they do it to spite the press or the people. I think they recognize they have a public role and there is public interest, but ultimately it's their child that comes first. So it's not about anything against anyone, but protecting their son.

As for going against one's parent. Plenty of kids make an art form out of it.

Starting when they learn to say no.

kyle · #**766** 05-08-2019, 04:56 PM

The way I see it...

Archie can not be a prince because he is not the grandchild of the monarch. If Charles passes before the Queen, he will never be a prince.

I personally do not like the name Dumbarton and am happy he is not using it.

I would not be surprised if he becomes Prince Archie, if Charles is King, and at the death of his father, the Duke of Sussex.

Right now he is a tiny baby. If he was my child, I would be happy that his name for the time being is simply Master Archie Harrison Mountbatton-Windsor.

These are opinions and I do not wish to argue.

Osipi · #**767** 05-08-2019, 04:57 PM

aHa!!! This just in from a report I read on one of my news feeds. Harry and Meghan *did* honor his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales in a very sneaky way that won't be picked up by a lot of people.

"The moniker is also a tribute to the 34-year-old duke’s late mother, Princess Diana, as one of her ancestors was Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll, from Scotland."

Take from it what you will. I usually don't buy into royal stories from my news feeds here in the States.

https://www.aol.com/article/lifestyl...iana/23723328/

Blog Real · #**768** 05-08-2019, 04:58 PM

For this decision of the Dukes of Sussex is strange. Even because Archie will never be a private citizen. This reminds me of what Princess Anne did to her children, Peter and Zara, when she did not want to give them a title. But Harry and Meghan are dukes, so if they accepted a dukedom, their son should have, for example, the title of earl. I still have not figured out what the Dukes of Sussex's decision was.

Mbruno · #**769** 05-08-2019, 05:01 PM

Frankly, not being British , I am more annoyed by their use of the media than by the baby's name and title (or lack thereof).

Harry and Meghan didn't want to do the Lindo Wing steps photo, which is perfectly fine. No mother who just gave birth should be forced to do that if she doesn't want to and feels OK with it.

However, they replaced the comparatively spontaneous (and democractic) steps photo with a highly staged (and controlled) media presentation of the baby using a historic hall of Windsor Castle as backdrop and including pictures of the Queen and the DoE. The fact that happened in the Queen's home and that the Queen agreed to pose for pictures indicates she approves it, but still that degree of pomp and circumstance is odd for a collateral line of the Royal Family.

I don't want to sound mean and rain on the couple's parade (after all, they must be rightfully thrilled with baby Archie), but I am honestly starting to believe that "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets".

Elenath · #**770** 05-08-2019, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blog Real

For this decision of the Dukes of Sussex is strange. Even because Archie will never be a private citizen. This reminds me of what Princess Anne did to her children, Peter and Zara, when she did not want to give them a title. But Harry and Meghan are dukes, so if they accepted a dukedom, their son should have, for example, the title of earl. I still have not figured out what the Dukes of Sussex's decision was.

He will have all titles in the future, but he will have to wait his turn. In the meantime he uses no courtesy titles and when the queen dies and Charles becomes king, he will be prince Archie. Which in my very honest opinion, sounds a bit silly. But anyhow, not my baby, not my choice. And it could be much worse.

Duchessblack · #**771** 05-08-2019, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zaira

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.

Thank you for this. I am a brand new poster. I came on to share in the excitement of a new baby in the royal family. Imo, it doesn't matter if he has a title of HRH or whatever, he is still a member of the royal family. Reading these post, I have to say I am a little shocked at the harshness of some towards Meghan and to a lesser extent Harry. Thought it would be a little different here.

I find it interesting that people are using the word deprived in reference to the son of a prince. He will not be referred to as an Earl...yes, poor child.

wyevale · #**772** 05-08-2019, 05:07 PM

^ It really is wholly inconsistent to insist this is 'plain Archie' [so NO fuss], but have him introduced with a background of [arguably] the very grandest backdrop Windsor Castle affords !

But [increasingly] this couple seem a 'mass of contradictions'...

Iluvbertie · #**773** 05-08-2019, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Since not styling him Lord iappears to be a violation of the LPs of 1917, shouldn’t a statement be made that it is the Queen’s will that he be known as “Master” ?

There doesn't need to be an official statement making known the Queen's Will.

By just doing it the Queen's Will has been made known so no Lord or Earl of Dumbarton it seems.

How they make the Queen's Will known is up to the Queen.

Hallo girl · #**774** 05-08-2019, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rob2008

They are not following Anne's example because her two children will never inherit a title. Archie is automatically Lord Archie and, by courtesy Earl of Dumbarton. One day he will be Duke of Sussex.

Edward is more honest. His son is known as Viscount Severn and he will one day inherit Edward's titles.

Annes husband refused a title, which would have allowed her children to have titles.It has always been believed that this was a joint decision not just his. They recognised that further down the line their children would be quite removed from the throne.

Iluvbertie · #**775** 05-08-2019, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elenath

He will have all titles in the future, but he will have to wait his turn. In the meantime he uses no courtesy titles and when the queen dies and Charles becomes king, he will be prince Archie. Which in my very honest opinion, sounds a bit silly. But anyhow, not my baby, not my choice. And it could be much worse.

I am not sure he will ever be a Prince.

He is already not using the titles he is entitled to under the 1917 Letters Patent - that of Lord as the child who isn't entitled to HRH but is the child of a Prince. That would suggest that they may go the whole way and say no to the all his entitlements under the 1917 LPs and move up to being a Prince when his grandfather becomes King.

This is further signs of the making the royal family smaller with only the children of the heir apparent having HRH - and that I suspect will be formalised going forward.

jacqui24 · #**776** 05-08-2019, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wyevale

^ It really is wholly inconsistent to insist this is 'plain Archie' [so NO fuss], but have him introduced with a background of [arguably] the very grandest backdrop Windsor Castle affords !

But [increasingly] this couple seem a 'mass of contradictions'...

If it helps. It wasn't supposed to be St. George's Hall. It was supposed to be outside, but it rained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I am not sure he will ever be a Prince.

He is already not using the titles he is entitled to under the 1917 Letters Patent - that of Lord as the child who isn't entitled to HRH but is the child of a Prince. That would suggest that they may go the whole way and say no to the all his entitlements under the 1917 LPs and move up to being a Prince when his grandfather becomes King.

This is further signs of the making the royal family smaller with only the children of the heir apparent having HRH - and that I suspect will be formalised going forward.

I don't know if it'll be formalized. I think this is a personal choice of the couple and obviously their family supported it. I do think it perhaps surprised QEII and Prince Charles that little Archie would go by Master rather than Lord as he is (still) entitled to. So I don't know if they would want to deny the younger Cambridge children's children that one day. However, it does set a precedent as another option for future generations.

Osipi · #**777** 05-08-2019, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacqui24

If it helps. It wasn't supposed to be St. George's Hall. It was supposed to be outside, but it rained.

Yeps... and the proof's in the pudding. The picture of the Queen at the Windsor Horse Show earlier in the day should have a caption under it stating "Dedication". Rain or shine, she wasn't going to miss it. I'm glad Harry and Meghan opted for indoors with the little guy.

Iluvbertie · #**778** 05-08-2019, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophie25

I don't think he will ever be titled. I think the Dukedom will revert back to the Crown on Harry's death. I also think that giving him no title at all is a bit drastic. Even the children of all the Queen's HRH cousins are Lords and Ladies and I'm sure he could have still lived his own life with that sort of title.

For him to not be the Duke of Sussex in time will take legislation as the title was created with the remainder 'heirs male of the body'. Even then the title won't revert to the Crown while there are legitimate male heirs e.g. the Dukes of Cumberland and Albany titles which were stripped from their holders over a century ago but still aren't available for regrant in the UK as there are male claimants.

He may not use the title but it will be his regardless.

Duchessblack · #**779** 05-08-2019, 05:22 PM

No, he is not "plain Archie", he is the great-grandson and probably one day will be the grandson of the monarch. He will reap the benefits of that. I do not see how that is erased by not having Lord in front of his name?

I'm just a silly american I suppose.

jacqui24 · #**780** 05-08-2019, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duchessblack

No, he is not "plain Archie", he is the great-grandson and probably one day will be the grandson of the monarch. He will reap the benefits of that. I do not see how that is erased by not having Lord in front of his name?

I'm just a silly american I suppose.

That's my question about his parents "restricting" him.

And btw, I know some of have mentioned up thread that the Sussexes are being contradicting as opposed to the Tindalls and Philips. Reality is, they aren't in the same situation. Tindalls and Philips are private individuals themselves, Harry and Meghan aren't. So they aren't following the Tindalls and Philips, but more Princess Anne. She also allowed some access to her children in terms of being shown after they are born, but they remained private citizens.