The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #841  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:31 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
Diana imposed an informal style on the royal way of life and her sons follow her in that.
But why is it such a problem that a child who will not be a working royal doesn't carry titles? And where is the limit? Is it just peerage address or HRH too? Because the Queen drew back the formality on the Wessex children as well, so it doesn't seem to only be Diana that drew back on the formality.

I think it's fair for royals to have a public side and a private side. They have a duty and they'll perform it, but when it comes to their children who are private individuals, they are allowed to make decisions as simply parents.
__________________

  #842  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 3,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ista View Post
Love the photo, but I am not an admirer of the name. I'm sure I'll get used to it, but, no, not a fan. Perhaps they should have taken couple more days to move out of the A's in the baby name book.
They look lovely. All of them. Charming family. Hideous name. When some guessed Alvin, I though ugh. Now, I am a fan of Alvin. Cannot know what they are thinking about.
__________________

  #843  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:47 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
What Royal Central was trying to say , I think, is that there used to be legally 3 classes of people in the UK Parliament: the Sovereign, the Lords ( some of whom are not peers, like the bishops), and the Commons. Strictly speaking, that is no longer the case, because hereditary peers for example can now stand for election to a seat in the Commons ( if they are not already a member of the Lords) without of course becoming “ commoners” or ceasing to be peers in the process.

In any case, with or without the House of Lords Act 1999, the distinction between Sovereign, Lords and Commons in Parliament is a different matter from the distinction between royalty, nobility and everybody else as social classes , ranks or precedences. A Prince is obviously not a commoner in rank or precedence no matter how much Royal Central might want to shock its readers into believing that using an incorrect reference to a separate issue.

I also disagree that Prince of the United Kingdom is not a legal dignity as, since the 19th century at least, it has been granted by Letters Patent, not unlike a peerage. In other European countries, it may be conferred by royal decree ( countersigned by ministers) or sometimes even by the constitution itself, which underlines the existence of the title in law.
  #844  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:57 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
But why is it such a problem that a child who will not be a working royal doesn't carry titles? And where is the limit? Is it just peerage address or HRH too? Because the Queen drew back the formality on the Wessex children as well, so it doesn't seem to only be Diana that drew back on the formality.

I think it's fair for royals to have a public side and a private side. They have a duty and they'll perform it, but when it comes to their children who are private individuals, they are allowed to make decisions as simply parents.
Actually, we don't know if Archie will be a working royal or not at this point. It just depends on whether or not he gets the HRH Prince honorific or uses a title and goes to work for the "Firm". We only have to look at Beatrice and Eugenie as blood Princesses of the UK to see that these two women are very involved in their own "work" without being working members of the "Firm". Perhaps the whole idea is that those that work hard for causes and incentives that they believe in aren't seen so much as "duty" and "required" anymore? I think this is a lesson that Harry has really learned in the past 5 years. The incentives that he's backed and even founded (such as Invictus Games and Sentebale) came from his own personal inspiration rather than being a royal and cutting ribbon on a "duty".

I do think that privacy has a a factor in all of this but I don't think its the have all and be all of the decisions made. Perhaps the idea is to forge ahead and follow a path that is dear to their hearts and make a difference and with a "royal" title or style, the expectations are is what they hope to eliminate.

Every parent has the wish that their child will forge their own path and find and be who they really are. I sincerely believe in the saying that "the job of a parent is to become unnecessary to the child". Its why I believe that every new parent should watch the movie "Dead Poet's Society". I see Harry and Meghan as being parents that instinctively know this.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #845  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:11 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 6,627
In the thread Gender, names, and godparent guessing for Harry and Meghan's first child I had inquired: What if the baby has only two names?
I was correct!
  #846  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:22 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
In the thread Gender, names, and godparent guessing for Harry and Meghan's first child I had inquired: What if the baby has only two names?
I was correct!
Ding Ding Ding. We have a winner! Then again, there's a double barreled last name too.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #847  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:23 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 714
I love Master Archie's name -

  #848  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:24 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osipi View Post
Actually, we don't know if Archie will be a working royal or not at this point. It just depends on whether or not he gets the HRH Prince honorific or uses a title and goes to work for the "Firm". We only have to look at Beatrice and Eugenie as blood Princesses of the UK to see that these two women are very involved in their own "work" without being working members of the "Firm". Perhaps the whole idea is that those that work hard for causes and incentives that they believe in aren't seen so much as "duty" and "required" anymore? I think this is a lesson that Harry has really learned in the past 5 years. The incentives that he's backed and even founded (such as Invictus Games and Sentebale) came from his own personal inspiration rather than being a royal and cutting ribbon on a "duty".

I do think that privacy has a a factor in all of this but I don't think its the have all and be all of the decisions made. Perhaps the idea is to forge ahead and follow a path that is dear to their hearts and make a difference and with a "royal" title or style, the expectations are is what they hope to eliminate.

Every parent has the wish that their child will forge their own path and find and be who they really are. I sincerely believe in the saying that "the job of a parent is to become unnecessary to the child". Its why I believe that every new parent should watch the movie "Dead Poet's Society". I see Harry and Meghan as being parents that instinctively know this.
When I say working royal, I mean those funded by the monarchy and thus have a duty to perform.

Other than that, I absolutely agree with you. Another poster mentioned about them taking away something their child is entitled to. I actually see it an them giving their child every opportunity to be who they want to be without expectation of the title.
  #849  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:33 PM
lea's Avatar
lea lea is offline
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 287
My guess is that both Harry and Meghan grew tired of explaining throughout their lives why they weren’t called Henry and Rachel and decided to give their child the first name that they were going to call him. I quite like Archie.

And as someone else said somewhere previously in this monstrous thread, it brings to mind Archie Goodwin, for me.
  #850  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:35 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
I must say a bit disappointed to say the least in the name. Of all the great royal and family names, I thought they would have picked something. I was hoping something unexpected from the three but not like this. And if they went for an unique name, I expected at least a few family names in the middle.

Archie is actually kind of cute. But I hate names that sound like nicknames. Its cute for a kid but as an adult? My Uncle named his son Jimmy (not James or even Jim like him) but Jimmy. Cute for a little boy, not so much for when he is an adult. I guess he can just shorten it to Jim.

Harrison is not just a surname. Its been a common first name for decades. It literally means son of Harry, so at least that makes sense.

I am surprised he is not at least Lord Archie, not simply Master. He is the son of a duke, he should at least be Lord.

He is still his father's heir to the duchy. I assume they likely want him to have a choice. When he gets older, if he wants to use his dad's courtesy title, or if he choses to remain Master Mountbatten-Windsor in his work life until he becomes Duke.


The photo was amazing. I love that they released one with both Doria, and the Queen and Philip. You can see the sheer joy and love in the faces of both the great-grandparents and proud Grandma. Its a shame Charles was away in Germany, it would be lovely to see something similar with Grandpa.

I loved seeing the video as well. Both Meghan and Harry were glowing and happy. What I could see of Archie he is a cutie, love his nose.
  #851  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:39 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
When I say working royal, I mean those funded by the monarchy and thus have a duty to perform.

Other than that, I absolutely agree with you. Another poster mentioned about them taking away something their child is entitled to. I actually see it an them giving their child every opportunity to be who they want to be without expectation of the title.
They may not work for the "Firm" and do official ribbon cutting and "duties" and get recompense from the Sovereign Grant but they'll be provided for. In this respect, all the ducks are in a row. They're covered personally.

It falls into place now with the Sussex office moved to BP. At least until Archie is "of age" and on his own, he's covered financially. Charles still is responsible for Harry and Meghan and family from his own expenses (save the working part which is covered separately) from his personal gain from the Duchy of Cornwall until he becomes King. Once King, Harry and Meghan and family are covered from his income from the Duchy of Lancaster.

I imagine that the Queen has already set up trust funds for all her grandchildren and great grandchildren much like the Queen Mum did. That's an area we'll never know the details of. They'll never want for a Big Mac except for being recognized going to get one.

OH... anther thought on the name Archie. I was George's age when my mom and dad told me we were adopting my brother. Mom wanted to name him Joel. I told her his name is Dan. My mother did name him Dan Joseph and would get in a fiery rage at the nuns that insisted his name was Daniel. So, I do think George had a finger in the pie naming him "Archie".
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #852  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:40 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
I am disappointed about missing Charles in the photos too. He has the best expressions, especially when he’s tickled pink about something.
  #853  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:44 PM
Countessmeout's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: alberta, Canada
Posts: 12,817
I agree, Charles definitely has the best facial expressions in photos

Well I guess for anyone who wanted a Spencer name, one of Diana's ancestors was Archibald Campbell, 9th earl of Argyll.
  #854  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:46 PM
LadyCatharine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Northeast Ohio, United States
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
They look lovely. All of them. Charming family. Hideous name. When some guessed Alvin, I though ugh. Now, I am a fan of Alvin. Cannot know what they are thinking about.
I agree with that name!
Never is a million years did I ever think of that name.
Oh well, not my kid!
  #855  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:49 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I am disappointed about missing Charles in the photos too. He has the best expressions, especially when he’s tickled pink about something.
But don't you know dear of dad is setting the example for his son? I can imagine that Harry's heart isn't going to be totally into kicking off the Invictus Games 2020 in the Hague. He'd rather be home and sitting and watching his son sleep.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #856  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:51 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Athens, United States
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
The name sounds like the son of a 'hipster' north London hedge fund manager...
Agreed!
  #857  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:56 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
What Royal Central was trying to say , I think, is that there used to be legally 3 classes of people in the UK Parliament: the Sovereign, the Lords ( some of whom are not peers, like the bishops), and the Commons. Strictly speaking, that is no longer the case, because hereditary peers for example can now stand for election to a seat in the Commons ( if they are not already a member of the Lords) without of course becoming “ commoners” or ceasing to be peers in the process.

In any case, with or without the House of Lords Act 1999, the distinction between Sovereign, Lords and Commons in Parliament is a different matter from the distinction between royalty, nobility and everybody else as social classes , ranks or precedences. A Prince is obviously not a commoner in rank or precedence no matter how much Royal Central might want to shock its readers into believing that using an incorrect reference to a separate issue.

I also disagree that Prince of the United Kingdom is not a legal dignity as, since the 19th century at least, it has been granted by Letters Patent, not unlike a peerage. In other European countries, it may be conferred by royal decree ( countersigned by ministers) or sometimes even by the constitution itself, which underlines the existence of the title in law.

Royal expert Marlene Koenig disagrees. Before he became a peer (Duke of Sussex) Harry was legally a commoner.


Royal Musings: Yes, Prince Harry is a commoner, according to Common Law.
  #858  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:03 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
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.
Sorry, I now realize how it came across different than I intended it to be: It's Harry and Meghan pretending on the one hand that he is just an ordinary guy (insisting that he will be known as master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor) while he clearly is not (as evidenced among other things by him being presented to the media in Windsor Castle).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
Because he’s not the Earl of Dumbarton, Harry is. Archie will have to wait for his turn.
Tradition dictates that the heir of a peer is addressed by the subsidiary title of his father (and the heir of the heir by the next subsidiary title if available). So, had it not be announced that he would be known as master Archie..., he would have been addressed as (Archie,) Earl of Dumbarton.
  #859  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:07 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,367
It has been suggested in Peerage News (another discussion group) that Harry might use his Scottish title (Earl of Dumbarton) while in Scotland, just as Charles uses the title Duke of Rothesay and William Earl of Strathearn. In that case it would cause confusion if Master Archie also used that title. Not sure I agree this is the reason but thought I'd share...

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...ws/GcgFFn9Srho
  #860  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:10 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,880
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
Royal expert Marlene Koenig disagrees. Before he became a peer (as Duke of Sussex) Harry was legally a commoner.


Royal Musings: Yes, Prince Harry is a commoner, according to Common Law.
Because Marlene is using the same argument used by Royal Central, ie , that all persons who are not the Sovereign or someone eligible to seat in the House of Lords are “commoners” in the UK. I have already explained why I disagree with that argument so I am not going to repeat myself.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Windsor/Mountbatten-Windsor: Name of Royal House and Surname HRH Kimetha British Royals 298 04-06-2021 10:39 PM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 3: October 2005-March 2007 Elspeth Current Events Archive 195 06-07-2007 08:24 AM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 2: May 2004-October 2005 USCtrojan Current Events Archive 220 10-10-2005 10:51 PM
Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor News and Pictures 1: November 2003-May 2004 montecarlo Current Events Archive 157 05-29-2004 01:38 PM




Popular Tags
abu dhabi american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism british british royal family british royals brownbitcoinqueen carolin china chinese commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dresses duke of sussex family tree general news thread george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie king edward vii line of succession list of rulers luxembourg maxima meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels prince constantijn prince dimitri princess alexia (2005 -) princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen maxima queen victoria random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding serbian royal family spain sussex swedish queen taiwan tradition unfinished portrait united states of america wedding gown welsh wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:42 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×