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

[ladongas]

Originally Posted by Bassoonist

I know, darn it , LOL. Why didn't they just ask me? I could have helped them select a name that would please everyone. But, noooooooooo, they went off on their own and see what happened. Sigh...maybe with the next one. Otherwise we might get a Jughead or Veronica.

Actually, “Reggie” might have been more appropriate. I think Archie is just right for a spunky, mischievous little boy- hope he turns out that way.

[HereditaryPrincess]

I was in Marks and Spencers today and they have unofficial biscuit tins for Archie's birth (I reckon they were made before we knew his name because they only call him "the Sussex baby") so it seems that other stores are following Disney's example!

[SLV]

Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria

Tomorrow will be Meghan's first Mother's Day (U.S.). I do wonder if SussexRoyal will post something for Meghan and Doria (to include Diana and the Queen).

P.S. I understand the U.K. Mothering Sunday was last month and since the DDoS represent the U.K. and the BRF, they may have no obligation to acknowledge U.S. Mother's Day, however I do think that it would be a great public gesture towards her own mother.

It's not just the US that celebrates Mothers Day tomorrow. But as the UK does not, I think the chances are small. Though not impossible.

[JuliannaVictoria]

Originally Posted by SLV

It's not just the US that celebrates Mothers Day tomorrow. But as the UK does not, I think the chances are small. Though not impossible.

I know that it's not just Mother's Days in the U.S., as I have lived in different parts of Europe and the Americas for several years. I was referring to it being American Mother's Day (As Meghan is American) and wondering if they'll pay homage to her and her mother on SussexRoyal.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by wbenson

It's peerages that can't be taken except by an act of Parliament. There is no such entitlement attached to being a prince. For example, the 2nd Duke of Connaught was born His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught in 1914, but had that taken away in 1917 when the current letters patent narrowed the rules.

No one is saying that he cant be denied the title, including Wyevale

They are saying it would take a new LP being issued. Just like it required the LP issued by George V to strip Alistair of his. The point people are making, unless Charles acts to stop it, Archie automatically will be HRH Prince Archie.

I know, darn it , LOL. Why didn't they just ask me? I could have helped them select a name that would please everyone. But, noooooooooo, they went off on their own and see what happened. Sigh...maybe with the next one. Otherwise we might get a Jughead or Veronica.

I would love to know what name you would choose which would universally be loved

I have yet to see a royal name that every person loved. Doesn't happen.

You are never going to please everyone. Best please yourself and those whose opinions you care about.

This way he'll always be known by his name - Master Archie then Prince Archie, as opposed to Lord Dumbarton then Prince Archie.

He would have used his first name either way. Look at James. He isn't referred to as Lord Severn (though he could be), he is called James, Viscount Severn. Archie would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

No one is saying that he cant be denied the title, including Wyevale

wbenson was responding to Wyevale's comment: "It will take an act of Parliament to [legally] deprive this individual of his princely status.." [post #1055]

wbenson correctly pointed out that only peerage titles can be taken by Parliament.

They are saying it would take a new LP being issued. Just like it required the LP issued by George V to strip Alistair of his.

Yes, that's exactly what wbenson said.

He would have used his first name either way. Look at James. He isn't referred to as Lord Severn (though he could be), he is called James, Viscount Severn. Archie would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.

No, you're wrong. Officially he's known as Viscount Severn not James Viscount Severn. Just as Charles is The Prince of Wales (not Charles Prince of Wales), William is The Duke of Cambridge, Harry is The Duke of Sussex, etc.

See the Royal Family's website:
https://www.royal.uk/succession

[Countessmeout]

I didn't realize that James was elevated to a peerage on his own. My mistake

You cant compare James to Charles, William or Harry. He doesn't hold a peerage. They are The Duke of Cambridge, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex. And even then their full title is HRH Prince Charles, The prince of Wales..... Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex. Simply they are referred to by their peerage.

Yes Charles is referred to as simply The Prince of Wales. But his full title is HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales...….

William is HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge

Harry is HRH Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex


Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. It's not like his name would not be used until he became a prince. Just like William is still called Prince William and not always Duke of Cambridge.

How they are commonly addressed even in the CC is not the same as what their actual name/title is.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

I didn't realize that James was elevated to a peerage on his own. My mistake

You cant compare James to Charles, William or Harry. He doesn't hold a peerage. They are The Duke of Cambridge, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex. And even then their full title is HRH Prince Charles, The prince of Wales..... Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex. Simply they are referred to by their peerage.

Yes Charles is referred to as simply The Prince of Wales. But his full title is HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales...….

William is HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge

Harry is HRH Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex


Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. It's not like his name would not be used until he became a prince. Just like William is still called Prince William and not always Duke of Cambridge.

How they are commonly addressed even in the CC is not the same as what their actual name/title is.

No, you are wrong and the Royal Family website is correct.

If Viscount Severn had been elevated to a peerage he would be referred to as "The Viscount Severn" not "Viscount Severn," as he is called on the Royal Family website. The absence of the definite article indicates it is not a substantive title.

If Archie were to use his courtesy title his correct style would be Lord Dumbarton or (more formally) Earl of Dumbarton (but not The Earl of Dumbarton).

Members of the BRF are addressed by their correct (but not full) titles or styles in the CC for brevity.

Yes, the Duke of Cambridge is often called Prince William by the press and public but that is technically incorrect. By deciding to forego the use of their son's courtesy title, Harry and Meghan are ensuring that his given name will always be used when addressing him, either correctly or incorrectly, formally or informally.

[American Observer7]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

I didn't realize that James was elevated to a peerage on his own. My mistake

You cant compare James to Charles, William or Harry. He doesn't hold a peerage. They are The Duke of Cambridge, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex. And even then their full title is HRH Prince Charles, The prince of Wales..... Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex. Simply they are referred to by their peerage.

Yes Charles is referred to as simply The Prince of Wales. But his full title is HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales...….

William is HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge

Harry is HRH Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex


Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. It's not like his name would not be used until he became a prince. Just like William is still called Prince William and not always Duke of Cambridge.

How they are commonly addressed even in the CC is not the same as what their actual name/title is.

Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.


The only reason Archie is NOT is his parents said no to any title. The Queen
was going to grant Archie a princely title, therefore, if he parents had said yes, he would have been HRH Prince Archie de Sussex.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by American Observer7

Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.


The only reason Archie is NOT is his parents said no to any title. The Queen
was going to grant Archie a princely title, therefore, if he parents had said yes, he would have been HRH Prince Archie de Sussex.

I'm curious - is it a fact that the Queen wanted to give Archie the HRH, as she did to the Cambridge children, rather than wait until Charles is King when George V's LP kicks in? I've not heard that before but maybe I missed it.

[LauraS3514]

Originally Posted by Gawin

I'm curious - is it a fact that the Queen wanted to give Archie the HRH, as she did to the Cambridge children, rather than wait until Charles is King when George V's LP kicks in? I've not heard that before but maybe I missed it.

No, absolutely NOTHING was announced re Archie and any potential title until the announcement that he would not use a courtesy title. That's it. We have no idea what went on behind the scenes, but nothing of any kind before that.

[Rudolph]

From Hannah Furness:

"Harry and Meghan will not release Archie's birth certificate to ensure baby's privacy"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...ficate-ensure/

[Iluvbertie]

All this means is that they aren't going to take an image and put it out.

The birth certificate, by law, is a matter of public record and anyone can access it and make it public if that is what they want. There is no privacy around birth certificates. If a reporter wants to make it public they will.

[CyrilVladisla]

The baby's middle name, Harrison, originated in the Middle Ages as a patronymic.

[duchessrachel]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

All this means is that they aren't going to take an image and put it out.

The birth certificate, by law, is a matter of public record and anyone can access it and make it public if that is what they want. There is no privacy around birth certificates. If a reporter wants to make it public they will.

Exactly. While I respect Harry and Meghan's desire to make Archie's life as private as possible, I am afraid a step like this is only going to backfire. It is going to cause the press to harass them and Archie even more in order to get information that there is, honestly, no need not to release since it is public anyway.

[Sterling3763]

Like others, I’m not a fan of the decision by Harry to accept a peerage with remainders for descendants in 2018, the in 2019 to break with custom and deny his heir a curiosity title.

An idea just occurred to me, though.

Robert Jobson and Victoria Murphy have reported that H&M are open to Archie becoming a HRH per the 1917 letters patent. At first blush, that seems at odds with the decision to deny Archie the title of “lord” or “Earl of Dumbarton.”

But maybe H&M, who are certainly PR-conscious, would like their entire family’s branding to be “of Sussex.” They could be hoping to avoid the child from being branded or solidified in the public as “Archie, Earl of Dumbarton/Archie Dumbarton,” when in less than a decade he’ll instead be “Prince Archie of Sussex.”

[Iluvbertie]

What I don't understand is why they would bother with this. The only information that isn't already a matter of public record is where the birth took place. All the rest of the information - name of child, name of parents, where the parents were born, occupations of the parents, date of birth and home of family are already a matter of public record so why do they see a need to not tell the world where the birth took place.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

What I don't understand is why they would bother with this. The only information that isn't already a matter of public record is where the birth took place. All the rest of the information - name of child, name of parents, where the parents were born, occupations of the parents, date of birth and home of family are already a matter of public record so why do they see a need to not tell the world where the birth took place.

None of us knows for sure, but there were discussion about them wanting to keep it quiet so they can potentially use the same place again if there is another baby in the future. That and to keep the media from harassing the medical team as they will use that as a way to figure out who works there and have admitting privileges there.

[Ista]

I think the likelihood of the birth certificate being kept secret long enough for Meghan to pop out another baby and use the same hospital is vanishingly small, so like Iluvbertie, I don't see the point of this coyness about the birth certificate. It seem like a very odd and irrelevant thing to get hung up about when it's all public anyway.

[JessRulz]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

...
The birth certificate, by law, is a matter of public record and anyone can access it and make it public if that is what they want. There is no privacy around birth certificates. If a reporter wants to make it public they will.

If anyone thinks the press isn't going to publish a copy of Archie's birth certificate as soon as they can get their hands on it (42 days after birth is the registration maximum in the UK), there's a bridge in London I'd like to sell them.