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

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by 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

I doubt that would be the reasoning. Some royals like Andrew always use their senior title. If it really was a concern, and Harry didn't want confusion, Archie could be Lord Archie or he could be Baron Kilkeel.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Sorry, I now realize how it come 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).

It’s no different when Princess Anne’s children were shown to the press after they were born. I think we all know as grandchild of a monarch/future monarch, they are privileged. But this doesn’t mean they can’t be private citizens.

[Spyro]

The names surprised me a little. I was pretty sure they wouldn’t choose traditional royal names, as they haven’t really been very traditional royal so far. I am not even sure what I think about this. In one way, I think I would had preferred a more traditional royal way. But in another way, I am also kinda glad they went their own way and picked something different.

I am not even sure why the names surprised me. It’s not the first time royals decided to give their babies unexpected names.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by 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.

Yes, you are right, the name Archibald definitely has ancestral ties with the BRF. James I/VI's great-grandfather was Archibald Douglas 6th Earl of Angus (stepfather of James V and maternal grandfather of Henry Lord Darnley).

Archibald's sister Janet married John Lyon 6th Lord Glamis and James V - who despised his stepfather - wreaked his revenge on the Douglas clan by ordering Janet's execution on the [false] accusation of witchcraft. She was burned at the stake while her young son was forced to watch.

Janet, of course, was the ancestor of Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by ACO

Why do they have to do that? They know their role and doing their job but their child will not be a working royal. I find this fascinating seeing people suddenly wanting this baby to have a title when most spent the better part of the year saying it would be better for their child to NOT have it. Now that it has happened it is suddenly an issue? Color me confused.

Please share the many posts where people argued for the subsidiary title not being used...
I don't remember anyone arguing for that. Many people (myself included) argued for any children remaining styled as children of a duke (consistent with Edward's children) and not to be elevated to HRH when Charles ascends the throne (or even earlier as some wished). Harry and Meghan decided to go in the opposite direction by denying him the use of his father's subsidiary title (that Harry a year ago happily accepted for himself and his wife but now denies his son).

Originally Posted by ladongas

Like his American citizenship, the title(s) that Archie has inherited can’t be stripped of him by his parents. Presumably, when he’s 18 or 21 he can decide for himself if he wants to be Lord (or Lady) Dumbarton or Prince (or Princess) Archie, or just plain Mr. M-W.

The doors in the future can’t be effectively closed in the present, but his parents can certainly decide how he is to be addressed and referred to for the time being.

Formally you are right; in practice it's not as easy. Their choices today create an expectation for him to pretend that he is just an ordinary guy and that it would be presumptuous if he would ever decide that he would prefer to be known differently.

The only thing that they cannot change is that one day (in normal circumstances) he suddenly will become a (royal) duke upon his father's passing.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Out of curiosity, do you think every parent that does not give their children titles as babies should give up their own titles? How about Princess Anne? Her children will never have titles. Should she just say I'm done with this Princess thing and waltz off somewhere abroad? They are working royals, but their child is not and unlikely to be in the future. What's the big deal? Harry as a child of a future monarch, is in a different position than his son. Who can, and should, have much more freedom than he did.

Yes, and Anne's situation is completely different as titles are passed on in male-line. So, Mark and Anne were very consistent in their decision: no title for Mark and therefore no titles for Peter and Zara.

Harry and Meghan are inconsistent: please give us a ducal, earl and baron title; in turn we will make it known that our children should NOT be addressed as children of a duke.

Originally Posted by VictoriaB

Because they work for the monarchy and, it would appear, intend to continue working for the monarchy as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. I'm interpreting it that Archie will not carry out official duties on behalf of the monarch - in the same way Princess Anne carries out official duties but her untitled children do not. In the same way that Princess Margaret carried out official duties and her non-royal children did/do not.

So, why didn't he follow her example? Which is have their children styled according to their father's rank. As you just showed that goes perfectly with not carrying out royal duties.

Margaret's husband received a title, specifically so her children would not be mere ordinary citizens but would be known as Lords and Ladies (with the eldest son known by his father's subsidiary title).

Originally Posted by Osipi

Harry and Meghan, the Queen and Charles and most likely other members of the family totally embrace the decisions that have been made. Why can't we?

How do you know that they 'totally embrace the decisions'? They could also gruntedly accept the reality that Harry has very inconsistent wishes and requests and that the couple is headstrong about it, so they give in?!

[O-H Anglophile]

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. Archie is in no way Hollywood!!!
Hollywood parents name their kids dumb names like Blue.

Even a British Archie changed his name to Cary in Hollywood, and became very famous.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by 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.

That makes sense indeed!

My brother did the same thing as he has a hard time explaining the name he has used from birth when people find out what his real names are; while my sister continued the tradition of giving their children a different formal name than the name used in daily life.

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

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.

That would still be a bit uncommon but would at least acknowledge that he is a son (albeit it would suggest a younger one) of a peer. In that way , he would be on equal footing (until he becomes the duke) with any siblings he may have. I could see that being important to Meghan and Harry.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

It’s no different when Princess Anne’s children were shown to the press after they were born. I think we all know as grandchild of a monarch/future monarch, they are privileged. But this doesn’t mean they can’t be private citizens.

The press captured Anne leaving the hospital; that's different from organizing a limited photocall within (the grounds of) Windsor Castle.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

It’s no different when Princess Anne’s children were shown to the press after they were born. I think we all know as grandchild of a monarch/future monarch, they are privileged. But this doesn’t mean they can’t be private citizens.

It's a bit different--Anne is the Queen's only daughter, Harry is one of her 4 grandsons. A photo of the Queen with her daughter and grandchild would quite usual.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

They both look at the issue from a purely legal point of view, not rank or precedence so it's really a very technical distinction. *Technically* anyone in the UK who isn't the Sovereign or a Peer is a commoner. While the "privilege of peerage" has diminished and is (as far as I can tell) practically meaningless it still exists:

See "Privilege of Peerage"
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...15.htm#note530

Yes, the title of Prince(ess) can be granted by LP (just as Peerage titles are) but the recipient of the princely title doesn't gain any special *legal* rights (however diminished & meaningless they may be).

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

I doubt that would be the reasoning. Some royals like Andrew always use their senior title. If it really was a concern, and Harry didn't want confusion, Archie could be Lord Archie or he could be Baron Kilkeel.

Yes, I think you're probably right. I suspect it has more to do with Harry & Meghan's wishes than anything else. Frankly, I wonder how much say the couple had when the Queen created Harry a Duke with succession limited to the "heirs male of his body lawfully begotten." They may have just silently gone along with tradition.

[CyrilVladisla]

Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor already has an article on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie...batten-Windsor

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Yes, and Anne's situation is completely different as titles are passed on in male-line. So, Mark and Anne were very consistent in their decision: no title for Mark and therefore no titles for Peter and Zara.

Harry and Meghan are inconsistent: please give us a ducal, earl and baron title; in turn we will make it known that our children should NOT be addressed as children of a duke.

I suppose it's possible they really didn't want a ducal or any title and simply went along with the Queen's wishes.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

It's a bit different--Anne is the Queen's only daughter, Harry is one of her 4 grandsons. A photo of the Queen with her daughter and grandchild would quite usual.

I was talking about the concept of presenting the baby.

Originally Posted by Somebody

The press captured Anne leaving the hospital; that's different from organizing a limited photocall within (the grounds of) Windsor Castle.

That was as close to a photocall as it gets with babies those days. And certainly, we have photos from their christenings as well. That doesn’t negate they are private citizens.

I guess I just don’t see the big deal about a baby not using a courtesy title. He’ll one day be The Duke of Sussex, but it likely won’t be years down the line when he’s already an adult. And really, I don’t know how much a difference it’ll be as he’ll have to carve out a career of his own anyways.

[Frelinghighness]

Princess Anne accepted the additional titel of princess royal which many poster did not know. She did not reject titles for herself, just her children.
As far as Harry’s children, he is a royal duke and his children will be styled lords and ladies. Also, do not kill the goose that laid the golden egg, no matter if your mother was Diana, whom I adored

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Gawin

They both look at the issue from a purely legal point of view, not rank or precedence so it's really a very technical distinction. *Technically* anyone in the UK who isn't the Sovereign or a Peer is a commoner. While the "privilege of peerage" has diminished and is (as far as I can tell) practically meaningless it still exists:

See "Privilege of Peerage"
https://publications.parliament.uk/p...15.htm#note530

Yes, the title of Prince(ess) can be granted by LP (just as Peerage titles are) but the recipient of the princely title doesn't gain any special *legal* rights (however diminished & meaningless they may be).

Well, the Oxford dictionaries disagree and define a commoner as anyone “ who is not from a royal or noble family”. For the Cambridge dictionary, a commoner is simply someone “ who is not of high social rank”.

Saying that a commoner is someone who can take a seat in the House of Commons is a completely arbitrary definition, not least because, as I said, hereditary peers can now be members of the House of Commons too. Conversely, there are non-peers like the bishops who are members of the House of Lords and cannot sit in the Commons.

The OP’s pseudo-technicality confuses classes of membership in the UK Parliament ( Sovereign, Lords and Commons) with social ranks, which is what royalty, nobility and commoners are by definition.

[Curryong]

And on the front page of all UK papers today is...baby Archie!

https://mobile.twitter.com/chrisship...7Ctwgr%5Etweet

[PtahHotep]

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 totally disagree.
Alvin............seriously?????????

He would get tormented for the rest of his life with chipmunk jokes and people singing to his face "Christmas, Christmas, don't be late" and other such songs.

Alvin and the Chipmunks (I'm sure) is shown in the US.

So.

That would be a bad choice.

Originally Posted by helenw

Archie was born on George Clooney’s birthday, and my husband just pointed out that the character Clooney played in Three Kings was Archie.

Just a thought. 😉

He also played a character named Archie Gates in an action movie in 1997 with Nicole Kidman.

Whoa.

Weird.

[Kaatje]

I am partial to the name Arthur, it was my grandfather’s and is my son’s name, but I assumed they wouldn’t use it due to it being the name of Pippa’s son. I know there is no relation, but it’s still a close tie. That being said, I adore the name Archie! The photograph with the Queen and the DoE is fabulous. The great-grandparents look absolutely besotted.

[Osipi]

Actually, the keyword for *any* title or style that Archie could use is defined by the word "courtesy". As in *allowed*. Harry and Meghan, the Queen and Charles have all agree to *not* allow that courtesy. Simple.

Mom and Dad prefer Master. The Queen approves Master. Charles approves Master. We'll have to wait until Archie himself approves or not. Simple.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Well, the Oxford dictionaries disagree and define a commoner as anyone “ who is not from a royal or noble family”. For the Cambridge dictionary, a commoner is simply someone “ who is not of high social rank”.

Saying that a commoner is someone who can take a seat in the House of Commons is a completely arbitrary definition, not least because, as I said, hereditary peers can now be members of the House of Commons too. Conversely, there are non-peers like the bishops who are members of the House of Lords and cannot sit in the Commons.

The OP’s pseudo-technicality confuses classes of membership in the UK Parliament ( Sovereign, Lords and Commons) with social ranks, which is what royalty, nobility and commoners are by definition.

The Bishops are Lords thought - the Lords Spiritual.

The House of Lords is the House of the Lords Spiritual and the Lords Temporal.

You are assuming that I don't know what I am talking about - I do. I come from a noble family and grew up with this as a day to day understanding of the terminology - not from a dictionary but from the family and their teachings of the terms.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor already has an article on Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie...batten-Windsor

He had his own page since the day he was born, the title just changed when his name was given. Same with all royal babies.

Well, the Oxford dictionaries disagree and define a commoner as anyone “ who is not from a royal or noble family”. For the Cambridge dictionary, a commoner is simply someone “ who is not of high social rank”.

Saying that a commoner is someone who can take a seat in the House of Commons is a completely arbitrary definition, not least because, as I said, hereditary peers can now be members of the House of Commons too. Conversely, there are non-peers like the bishops who are members of the House of Lords and cannot sit in the Commons.

The OP’s pseudo-technicality confuses classes of membership in the UK Parliament ( Sovereign, Lords and Commons) with social ranks, which is what royalty, nobility and commoners are by definition.

The dictionary is a 'technical' definition that applies to any country.

Different countries have different concepts.

In the UK there are three levels of society

1. Sovereign
2. peers
3. commoners


So any member of the royal family who doesn't hold a peerage in their own right, is by definition in the UK, a commoner. Harry and William were commoners until the day they were married.

'Royals' are not their own rank. They fall within one of the other ranks.