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

[Rudolph]

Originally Posted by muriel

That is correct, he did have a very brief chat, from some distance. It was not like the brief Q&A the Duke and Duchess of Sussex had with the Press.

Actually William and Catherine were very close to the press. In fact the microphones were only inches away. Good perspective from this pic

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D55PwDaW...pg&name=medium

[Fem]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Actually William and Catherine were very close to the press. In fact the microphones were only inches away. Good perspective from this pic

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D55PwDaW...pg&name=medium

Good Lord. I honestly admire that woman so much.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by wyevale

NOTHING would surprise...

There are surnames that derive from a female name.. such as Ellison, from Elizabeth, or Margetson from Margaret.. or Ibbitson from Isabel. However I would have thougth that they would honour Diana by using her second name.. and adding Francis into the names and honour Meghan by using an American name that wasn't "Harrys's son"...

[evolvingdoors]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

If any of the contributors on this site have children how would you feel if there was a bombardment of posts on a website discussing the rights and wrongs of the name. It is their business nobody else's . let it go.

Depending on the situation. If I were a private person: myself or even a. Actress I would say I owe the public nothing.
But as a state representative, part of a family whose entire duty is to be a symbol for the people of the country, who lives off tax payer money and gets to live a very privileged (even ostentatious) life style because of it I would completely understand the people need to know things about my life, they pay for it.

George Clooney, many years ago, made that distinction between different types of public personas, when the press was intruding on his life he said that unlike a politician who is funded by tax payer money and therefore the public has a right to know all about them, he is an actor a completely private person with a job that puts him in the public eye, but he is not a public figure; This is why I was amazed at his recent remarks, and that he of all people can’t see how the royal family and politicians are similar to one another in this aspect.

[JuliannaVictoria]

https://www.theenglishgarden.co.uk/n...chie-harrison/

"Chrysanthemums Direct has unveiled a new variety called ‘Archie Harrision’ to celebrate the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s first child.

The new variety was selected ahead of the Prince’s arrival for its lemon yellow flowers, ensuring the plant would be fitting for a Prince or Princess."

If I must say so, they do make a beautiful, cherry bulb.

[Ista]

Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria

https://www.theenglishgarden.co.uk/n...chie-harrison/

"Chrysanthemums Direct has unveiled a new variety called ‘Archie Harrision’ to celebrate the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s first child.

The new variety was selected ahead of the Prince’s arrival for its lemon yellow flowers, ensuring the plant would be fitting for a Prince or Princess."

If I must say so, they do make a beautiful, cherry bulb.

Oh, a lovely variety! I always love seeing the flowers that are named after royals, although some of them tend not to end up being all that reliable, especially the roses.

[Curbside]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Actually William and Catherine were very close to the press. In fact the microphones were only inches away. Good perspective from this pic



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D55PwDaW...pg&name=medium

Yeah I would not be down for that. There are tons of press there. They look like they are on bleachers.

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

Depending on the situation. If I were a private person: myself or even a. Actress I would say I owe the public nothing.
But as a state representative, part of a family whose entire duty is to be a symbol for the people of the country, who lives off tax payer money and gets to live a very privileged (even ostentatious) life style because of it I would completely understand the people need to know things about my life, they pay for it.

George Clooney, many years ago, made that distinction between different types of public personas, when the press was intruding on his life he said that unlike a politician who is funded by tax payer money and therefore the public has a right to know all about them, he is an actor a completely private person with a job that puts him in the public eye, but he is not a public figure; This is why I was amazed at his recent remarks, and that he of all people can’t see how the royal family and politicians are similar to one another in this aspect.

Actually I disagree with you. Politicians and royalty might be paid with public money, but they are not and never will be public property. That would amount to slavery. There are certain things the public needs to know because it has to do with that persons public duties (like Trump and his taxes), but someones private life is still private. I don’t care who public personas sleep with or don’t sleep with for instance as long as it doesn’t interfere with their public functions. However, if that person has a private life that might make him/her liable for blackmail (for instance) things would change.

[Frelinghighness]

There was a tremendous upheaval when the Swedish Crown couple named their heir Estelle, it was actually a much more disliked name, from the pages and pages of comments and reasons, than Archie.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Frelinghighness

There was a tremendous upheaval when the Swedish Crown couple named their heir Estelle, it was actually a much more disliked name, from the pages and pages of comments and reasons, than Archie.

I tink it is quite a nice name, much nicer than Archie and Harrison..

[Andr19]

„Already facial hair“, that is pretty weird, because baby do have facial hair when still in the bump, it is a certain sign of development and usually disappears the closer the birth is. When being born too early the facial hair is very strong still.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Because they are working royals. That doesn’t mean their child, who is not a working or Royal at all at this point, should not be any kid.

And btw, Harrison, while meaning son of Harry, is quite commonly used. Even by people who father is not or is not known as Harry.

I don't think I heard of Harrison before but just checked the most popular baby names in the UK and it's on the rise: number 32 in 2018 (with Archie on nr 15 as already posted by someone else).

A few days later I still don't like the name Harrison but maybe it takes more time to get used to it; at least glad they didn't pick it as his first name. Archie sounds better.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by evolvingdoors

Depending on the situation. If I were a private person: myself or even a. Actress I would say I owe the public nothing.
But as a state representative, part of a family whose entire duty is to be a symbol for the people of the country, who lives off tax payer money and gets to live a very privileged (even ostentatious) life style because of it I would completely understand the people need to know things about my life, they pay for it.

George Clooney, many years ago, made that distinction between different types of public personas, when the press was intruding on his life he said that unlike a politician who is funded by tax payer money and therefore the public has a right to know all about them, he is an actor a completely private person with a job that puts him in the public eye, but he is not a public figure; This is why I was amazed at his recent remarks, and that he of all people can’t see how the royal family and politicians are similar to one another in this aspect.

I don't think Geroge Clooney has ever advocated for a person's entire life to be turned inside out. There are some things that are in the public interest when it's a politician. For example, what kind of business holdings do they, or their family, have and does that cause and concern for conflict of interest. Or if they have any medical conditions that would affect their judgement. But no, that doesn't mean we have the right to know details of where their children are born or things that like that that serves no public interest other than just people being nosy.

They are public figures, not public property. As for the public paying for it. I think the last numbers I saw, the BRF costs about 68 pences per person. That's a lot to ask for for 68 pences.

Originally Posted by Somebody

I don't think I heard of Harrison before but just checked the most popular baby names in the UK and it's on the rise: number 32 in 2018 (with Archie on nr 15 as already posted by someone else).

A few days later I still don't like the name Harrison but maybe it takes more time to get used to it; at least glad they didn't pick it as his first name. Archie sounds better.

I had the exact opposite reaction. I was ok with Harrison. Not something I had thought about naming any children I may have, but it's a normal name. But Archie shocked me. I think if you go back to my first post about the name, I said I needed a minute for Archie.

But it's growing on me. And I think it's an adorable name for a baby and a small child. But I'm more thinking it'll be weird when he's a full grown man and he has a name of a child. But it looks like he'll have plenty of company by that point.

[Andr19]

To give a new view on this whole story about comments &news releases, to me it looks pretty weird to say Meghan did not want the pressure of the „Lindo&press“ on the one hand but to believe she would want a whole nation and more people being informed the moment she went into labour takin the time aso.... the so-called delay of information makes much more sense and if so, is one of the very few details about this whole „circus“ doing everything different than W&K I could really understand.

[carlota]

i actually think the private birth was a good move also. i cannot imagine the pressure kate must have felt to have all those crowds waiting outside as she was trying to give birth, particularly to her firstborn. it was much better for meghan to tell the press she was in labour almost when she was home again. even if she did plan a home birth and this was the reason the 'birth was private', i think it worked very well. it also happened that she went into labour in the evening of the day leading to a bank holiday hence no traffic at all, so quite a fortunate situation all together as there would have been no one on the streets so no traffic (although i am sure they'd have gotten a helicopter to transfer her if need be) and little people out to tip the press.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I don't think I heard of Harrison before but just checked the most popular baby names in the UK and it's on the rise: number 32 in 2018 (with Archie on nr 15 as already posted by someone else).

A few days later I still don't like the name Harrison but maybe it takes more time to get used to it; at least glad they didn't pick it as his first name. Archie sounds better.

I'm having trouble getting used to the name too. It would be much easier if they'd at least combined an untraditional name with a traditional one - maybe Archie Charles or Alexander Harrison. But two untraditional names? Just too much for my very traditional brain.

[HereditaryPrincess]

Originally Posted by Elenath

As a (self-proclaimed) feminist I really don't see why this is a problem. Seems like people are trying to find problems where there are none.

The name isn't feminist enough (not sure what the criteria are), she gave up her career to move abroad which isn't feminist, she took her husbands last name (again not feminist). Did I miss anything? And there I was thinking feminism is about giving women a choice and chances… How silly of me.

Totally agree with this - from one self-proclaimed feminist to another! You don't have to choose a name with strong feminist connotations such as Emmeline or Germaine when it comes to naming children. What matters the most is that Harry and Meghan both like Harrison equally enough to choose it as Archie's middle name.

[wyevale]

Just too much for my very traditional brain.

Likewise, but this child is in the [royal] scheme of things unimportant.. won't play any major part in British Public life at all, or [even if he does] not for decades.. so I/we don't have to like it.. as the *fans* keep saying its solely the parents that matter...

[Frelinghighness]

You may be right. Megan is a very lucky lady in so many respects, most recently having this baby at an advanced age for a first time mother with none of the many risks occurring. But all of that luck is more than wiped out with the horrifying paternal family of hers. I am glad she is so supported in the brf

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by PtahHotep

It appears that fans of the couple have "detected" something that may explain their choice of Archie as the first name-----apparently Archie is a "close acronym" of Rachel. Hmmmmmm.
...

As @Mbruno points out, 'Rachel' is not an acronym of 'Archie,' although it is quite close to being an anagram of 'Archie,' except for the 'l' in Rachel and the 'i' in Archie. I'm not sure that Meghan and Harry thought about it to this extent, but perhaps they did. Quite clever if they kind of noticed that. It could be first that they just liked the sound of the name, and then from further investigation noticed the similar letters to Meghan's first name. But that doesn't have to be the case.

Did someone already post the story about the little Kiwi boy H&M met who said his name is 'Archie,' and Harry said how he liked that name?

Someone mentioned earlier that Meghan had a cat named Archie. I never knew she had a cat. Perhaps it was when she was growing up in L.A.?

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Archie is not acronym of Rachel. And Meghan doesn’t use the name Rachel, not even in her wedding vows.

Meghan’s fans will just have to accept that a self-proclaimed feminist agreed to name her child “ the. Son of Harry” as in some old patriarchal Viking society. They also chose a Germanic first name ( Archibald , or Archie). Very Northern European and with little connection to Meghan’s background, which is somewhat disappointing.

Meghan's full name was definitely mentioned during the wedding ceremony, although specifically during the vows she was called 'Meghan' only.

FYI: Meghan's father is Dutch-German and English-Irish; Meghan's mother has some European ancestry as well as African-American and Native American in her background.

I'm really not sure what particular names are supposed to denote Meghan's background, since her background is quite varied and includes a substantial European heritage.

I bet it's not too hard to find a number of African-Americans named 'Archie,' and/or 'Harrison.'

And btw, it might surprise you to discover that many of the early, ancient Vikings were dark-skinned mariners who originally hailed from the African continent.

Originally Posted by Elenath

As a (self-proclaimed) feminist I really don't see why this is a problem. Seems like people are trying to find problems where there are none.

The name isn't feminist enough (not sure what the criteria are), she gave up her career to move abroad which isn't feminist, she took her husbands last name (again not feminist). Did I miss anything? And there I was thinking feminism is about giving women a choice and chances… How silly of me.

Exactly, and thank you! Meghan herself said in an interview with Larry King in 2016 before she ever met Prince Harry: "It's possible to be feminine and a feminist -- to embrace both."

I think that's an indication Meghan isn't at all conflicted about adhering to certain traditions, while also being herself and doing things her own way. She seems to be someone who faces the world as it is, and tries her best to remain true to herself and her own ideals, while also being flexible and willing to learn, to grow and to take on challenges.

With the Sussexes, I think we can continue to expect surprises, and perhaps seeming contradictions, that at bottom aren't contradictory at all.