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

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by rob2008

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.

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by Ista

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.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Osipi

BAZINGA! Try again.

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

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.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

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.

[CyrilVladisla]

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!

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

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.

[Fijiro]

I love Master Archie's name -

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Osipi

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.

[lea]

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.

[Countessmeout]

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.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

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".

[jacqui24]

I am disappointed about missing Charles in the photos too. He has the best expressions, especially when he’s tickled pink about something.

[Countessmeout]

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.

[LadyCatharine]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

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!

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

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.

[DaphneHarridge]

Originally Posted by wyevale

The name sounds like the son of a 'hipster' north London hedge fund manager...

Agreed!

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

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).

Originally Posted by Elenath

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.

[Gawin]

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

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gawin

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.