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

[poppy7]

I don't think he will ever be Duke of Sussex either. He won't be royal, I think the LPS would have to be there to cover the fact that in a tragic accident that wiped out his cousins he could be next on the list and be upgraded. I like the fact he isn't titled, I think it's in keeping with a modern Britain. And makes a mockery of all those insane aristocratic titles still hanging around. Time they went or people stopped using themy except for work.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

But we aren't talking about HRH. And again, I don't see why anyone who have strong objections either way on HRH. As long as they don't have to fund him, why does it matter? Like I said, if anyone feels so strongly about it, they should just encourage the Queen to issue a new LP. It'll solve the problem for good.

As it stands, it brings up the question if a monarch can at will take away someone's HRH status if they haven't reached it yet? If not, and she certainly hasn't commented either way, do we really think the first order of business for Charles the minute his mother passes will be to take away his grandchild's HRH status? Because by LP, he has it the minute Charles becomes King.

The Queen took away James’ and Louise’s HRHs before they were born, didn’t she ? If that is the case, it can be done before the fact. But I believe it is a decision that will be left for Charles to make and probably announced at the time of his accession.

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

do we really think the first order of business for Charles the minute his mother passes will be to take away his grandchild's HRH status? Because by LP, he has it the minute Charles becomes King.

At this rate Charles' first order of business on becoming King is to deal with his family's titles - stripping Camilla of her rightful title of Queen and creating her Princess Consort, creating William Prince of Wales and stripping young Archie of his HRH (LOL).

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The Queen took away James’ and Louise’s HRHs before they were born, didn’t she ? If that is the case, it can be done before the fact. But I believe it is a decision that will be left for Charles to make and probably announced at the time of his accession.

But they would have it under her reign. This baby isn't going to have it under her reign, but the next reign.

Originally Posted by poppy7

I don't think he will ever be Duke of Sussex either. He won't be royal, I think the LPS would have to be there to cover the fact that in a tragic accident that wiped out his cousins he could be next on the list and be upgraded. I like the fact he isn't titled, I think it's in keeping with a modern Britain. And makes a mockery of all those insane aristocratic titles still hanging around. Time they went or people stopped using themy except for work.

He will be the Duke of Sussex after his father passes. It'll take an act of Parliament to change that.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by VictoriaB

At this rate Charles' first order of business on becoming King is to deal with his family's titles - stripping Camilla of her rightful title of Queen and creating her Princess Consort, creating William Prince of Wales and stripping young Archie of his HRH (LOL).

In fact , in monarchies like Japan and Thailand, the definition of royal titles and styles for members of the monarch’s family is one of the first orders of business prior to an accession. In the UK, that is not the case because rules are already in place. However, if you want to change them, as Charles apparently does, then yes, it becomes a priority.

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by poppy7

I don't think he will ever be Duke of Sussex either. He won't be royal, I think the LPS would have to be there to cover the fact that in a tragic accident that wiped out his cousins he could be next on the list and be upgraded. I like the fact he isn't titled, I think it's in keeping with a modern Britain. And makes a mockery of all those insane aristocratic titles still hanging around. Time they went or people stopped using themy except for work.

I am afraid to disagree. The Letter of Patent that created Harry Duke of Sussex are clear
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743
Crown Office
Publication date:
19 July 2018, 12:04
Edition:
The London Gazette
Notice ID:
3071743
Notice code:
1108
Crown Office
In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.

Archie is the rightful heir of his father's titles, and he will be in due time The 2nd Duke of Sussex, 2nd Earl of Dumbarton, 2nd Baron Kilkeel, in its second creation

[HighGoalHighDreams]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

They have no say in that. As eldest son and heir of the 1st Duke of Sussex, the baby IS Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton, future 2nd Duke of Sussex.

The point is that Harry and Meghan can not say "we do not want a title for Archie". They have no authority about that and the titles bestowed are not Harry's. They as much Archie's future titles as they are Harry's present titles, as the Letters Patent goes way beyond the current holder of these peerages.

Of course, Harry and Meghan can say: just call him Archie. But this private preference does not wipe out thay their son is the Heir to three peerages and is by convention and jurisdiction what he is.

Quite so.

The confusion is arising from whether The Queen has made her will known in this matter, and the reality is, we do not know because we were not told. It was not made clear this morning whether this announcement was to let the public know that The Queen has made her will known in the matter of Archie's titles, as the fount of honors, or was simply an announcement informing us of a preference held by Meghan and Harry, as above ("please, just call him Archie for now!").

For years, many held very firmly to the belief that James and Louise were HRH Prince and Princess. People believed Edward and Sophie were simply letting the public know "we don't want the children known as/ addressed this way," but that this did not remove the titles from the children (as indeed, it would not have). People said that James and Louise could turn 18 and begin to use the titles if they wished.

It was only some time later that a forum member asked this question to the palace and they clarified: No, that announcement was not telling you Edward and Sophie's preferences, it was our way of telling the public that The Queen had made her will known.

But we don't know if what has been stated today is Meghan and Harry's preferences (not binding, Archie still legally holds these titles/ styles) or the will of The Queen (legally binding as much as a new LP).

[Osipi]

Which when you really look at it, explains just why Charles Spencer is the 9th Earl Spencer.

Peerages and royal titles are totally different beasts. Actually, a Prince or a Princess is actually a commoner.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

In fact , in monarchies like Japan and Thailand, the definition of royal titles and styles for members of the monarch’s family is one of the first orders of business prior to an accession. In the UK, that is not the case because rules are already in place. However, if you want to change them, as Charles apparently does, then yes, it becomes a priority.

See, this is my frustration with this. If rules are in place, it's for clarity purposes. So everyone can know what will happen. If same type of exceptions keep happening, and rules no longer apply, why not just change it? The Queen can simply issue an LP to limit the HRH status to monarch's children, and children of the monarch's heir and so on. She could've even limit it to start with Charles' grandchildren, so essentially the only one that will apply to is Archie, and none of her cousins or York princesses.

[VictoriaB]

Originally Posted by ReeceT21

I don’t really think the comparisons to Anne and her children are totally correct either. At the end of the day, Peter Phillips was born and will die without a title. The same cannot be said of Archie. He will be Duke of Sussex one day, if not Prince. The comparisons to Margaret are more fair and her children were known as Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah at birth. And I don’t buy that it inherently affords you more privacy. “Lady” Sarah Chatto leads a more private life than “Mrs.” Zara Tindall.

I’m not arguing as some above that Harry and Meghan should renounce all titles. Obviously they’re still working royals. But if they really want Archie to go without a title they could have not accepted a dukedom that forces him to have one one day. Or maybe the Queen could have stated at their wedding that the Sussex dukedom was non-inheritable and one-off for Harry.

My comment though was responding to a post that seemed to ask why, if the Sussex's do not want their child to be known as Earl Dumbarton, they don't just renounce their own titles and live a private life. I was intending to point out that the titles (or lack of them) for the children or even choosing a private life for their children, does not prevent the parent continuing to represent the monarchy as Princess Anne does and Princess Margaret did.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Which when you really look at it, explains just why Charles Spencer is the 9th Earl Spencer.

Peerages and royal titles are totally different beasts. Actually, a Prince or a Princess is actually a commoner.

No , princes are royalty. They outrank the nobility ( peers in the UK) and commoners. Some senior princes in the Uk of course are peers too and even took their seats in the House of Lords when they were legally entitled to do so.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by HighGoalHighDreams

Quite so.

The confusion is arising from whether The Queen has made her will known in this matter, and the reality is, we do not know because we were not told. It was not made clear this morning whether this announcement was to let the public know that The Queen has made her will known in the matter of Archie's titles, as the fount of honors, or was simply an announcement informing us of a preference held by Meghan and Harry, as above ("please, just call him Archie for now!").

For years, many held very firmly to the belief that James and Louise were HRH Prince and Princess. People believed Edward and Sophie were simply letting the public know "we don't want the children known as/ addressed this way," but that this did not remove the titles from the children (as indeed, it would not have). People said that James and Louise could turn 18 and begin to use the titles if they wished.

It was only some time later that a forum member asked this question to the palace and they clarified: No, that announcement was not telling you Edward and Sophie's preferences, it was our way of telling the public that The Queen had made her will known.

But we don't know if what has been stated today is Meghan and Harry's preferences (not binding, Archie still legally holds these titles/ styles) or the will of The Queen (legally binding as much as a new LP).

But I don't think a Queen's wish is necessary here. It's not Archie's title where as the HRH would be the Wessex children's status in their own right. And I don't believe the Queen can just take away someone's peerage today either once it is issued.

[ReeceT21]

Originally Posted by VictoriaB

My comment though was responding to a post that seemed to ask why, if the Sussex's do not want their child to be known as Earl Dumbarton, they don't just renounce their own titles and live a private life. I was intending to point out that the titles (or lack of them) for the children or even choosing a private life for their children, does not prevent the parent continuing to represent the monarchy as Princess Anne does and Princess Margaret did.

I agree with all of that. :) I wasn’t responding to any specific comment, really. More so a lot of comments all over the internet today.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by rob2008

Agreed - Harry is following the Diana way with less formality. However, the family is also part of the state. It looks like they want a new relationship with the people where they control their public role far more strongly than before. They are making a mistake if they think they can choose to take their son out of the public sphere as part of the state as our national family. If they wanted their family to abdicate from a public status they shouldnt have accepted the dukedom of Sussex. If they really want to be private citizens and not have titles, they have the choice of renouncing all titles, royal status etc.

Except Diana was Lady Diana Spencer when she married and became the Princess of Wales. Neither is particularly informal.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

No , princes are royalty. They outrank the nobility ( peers in the UK) and commoners. Some senior princes in the Uk of course are peers too and even took their seats in the House of Lords when they were legally entitled to do so.

BAZINGA! Try again.

Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner? – Royal Central

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by zembra

I notice little baby boy has full pouty lips.

I wonder if thats the african american genes coming through. So cute!.

Of course. It's very obvious that Harry has rather thin lips. Plus, male babies more often tend to resemble their mothers. For example, I think Prince George looks quite a bit like the Middleton side of the family, with dark brown eyes, the facial features of his Grandpa Middleton, along with the fair Spencer coloring re his hair. I think George likely has a bit of personality characteristics that are similar to Diana in some ways, but he looks more Middleton, as does Prince Louis, while Princess Charlotte seems to take a lot after the Windsor side.

Archie Harrison also clearly has olive-toned skin like his mother. I think he probably has red hair like his father. But red hair also runs in the Markle family. We'll soon find out if Archie will have curly or wavy hair, which I think is a distinct possibility since the gene for curly hair is dominant (and Meghan's hair is naturally curly).

[rominet09]

I love that name… I so wish we could have seen his hair ! I pray for red hair !

[rob2008]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

Except Diana was Lady Diana Spencer when she married and became the Princess of Wales. Neither is particularly informal.

Diana imposed an informal style on the royal way of life and her sons follow her in that.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Archie Harrison also clearly has olive-toned skin like his mother. I think he probably has red hair like his father. But red hair also runs in the Markle family. We'll soon find out if Archie will have curly or wavy hair, which I think is a distinct possibility since the gene for curly hair is dominant (and Meghan's hair is naturally curly.

I will look forward to Sussexes' Christmas card in the future as I think that'll be mostly the only time we see little Archie. I saw a baby with brown hair with red hue one time (mom has firey red hair, and dad has brown hair), and it was the most beautiful hair color under the sun. I hope we see it. This is the only time I will be pissed if the Sussexes want to send out black and white photos, when I want to see their son's hair color.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

No , princes are royalty. They outrank the nobility ( peers in the UK) and commoners. Some senior princes in the Uk of course are peers too and even took their seats in the House of Lords when they were legally entitled to do so.

Princes are royalty but they are still commoners if they are not also peers of the realm. Those that had a seat in the pre-1999 House of Lords did so not because they were princes but because they were Peers of the Realm.

Britain has three broad categories of people:

1. the monarch - HM The Queen

2. Peers of the Realm - those with substantive titles - Edinburgh, Cornwall, Cambridge, Sussex, York, Wessex, Gloucester and Kent

3. Commoners - everyone else including HRHs who are not Peers of the Realm - Camilla, Catherine, George, Charlotte, Louis, Meghan, Archie, Beatrice, Eugenie, Sophie, Louise, James, Anne, Birgitte, Katherine, Michael, Marie-Christine and Alexandra (and every other Tom, Dick and Harry as the old saying is).

I always love it when people say that Catherine made such a big jump on her wedding day - from commoner to commoner. William went from commoner to Peer of the Realm on his wedding day. He was the one who made the jump in class not Catherine. (Yes I do know she went from commoner to royal but she remained a commoner).

A commoner can stand for election or vote in an election for the House of Commons. A Peer of the Realm can't. That is what actually determines their category - not any title they may hold.

I remember when Princess Anne was asked, in the early 1970s, whether she intended on voting in a general election in the UK as she was old enough, and eligible, to do so. She replied along the lines that 'it wasn't the done thing for her as the daughter of the monarch to do so'.

Queen Victoria asked Lord Pam why she should create her younger sons Duke and he told her 'so they don't stand for election to the House of Commons and lose' and that as 'commoners, alberit royal ones, they could do so'.

It was a major reason for creating Edward VIII as Duke of Windsor - to stop him as HRH The Prince Edward - from creating his own political party and/or standing for election to the House of Commons. As a Duke he couldn't do so but as a commoner - a mere Prince of the Realm - he could.