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

[ReeceT21]

I’m not being critical of Harry and Meghan’s choices or making a fuss over it, but I do think it’s fair to have a discussion on Archie’s title. Even if he is a three day old baby.

I’d be really surprised if Harry and Meghan’s children become Prince/Princess when Charles becomes king. I expect a new LP to be issued. I just don’t see the point in calling him Archie “to give him the best chance a normal life” if he’ll become Prince Archie before his tenth birthday.

I think I personally just find the lack of clarity about it odd. I don’t really see the point of not using Earl of Dumbarton from birth. Of course he’ll just be Archie to the family, but letting him publicly be known as Earl seems fine. The Gloucester and Kent families still use subsidiary titles and Lord/Lady and it hasn’t greatly effected their lives. I don’t think being Lady Louise or Viscount Severn has effected the Wessex children any. Archie is always going to be famous and scrutinized. But because he’s Harry and Meghan’s child, Diana’s grandson. Having him be regular Master Archie in the court circular won’t change that.

Of course the fact that everyone is happy and healthy is paramount. But titles and styles interest me and I find this decision curious.

Edit: I get the point of “why” does he need the subsidiary title. He doesn’t. It doesn’t change anything. I just wonder “why not?”

 

[duchessrachel]

The HRH will come the moment Charles ascends to the throne. HRH Prince Archie. For right now, he’s just Archie.

Would Harry and Meghan have the right to turn that down? If so, I hope they don't, but then I am not them. They have to do what they think is best

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I wonder if we'll ever find out if the comics character 'Archie Andrews' is little Archie Harrison's name inspiration.

https://slate.com/culture/2017/01/the-cws-riverdale-based-on-the-archie-comics-reviewed.html


The name Archie apparently means 'genuine, precious,' whereas the 'bald' in Archibald actually means 'bold' or 'brave.'

Since Harrison means 'Harry's son,' it follows that Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is and will be a 'brave, bold' young man who is 'genuinely Harry's son.' ?

IOW, Archie of Sussex will surely display many of Prince Harry's outgoing and genuine, down-to-earth traits, along with exhibiting his own very unique personality.


I totally agree with the sentiment that if the Sussexes didn't wish for Archie to be called Earl of Dumbarton, why not use the 'Lord' title? I suppose we can always expect the Sussexes to do things their own way. I wonder if it's mainly Prince Harry who is against using titles for Archie, at least at this stage, and likely forever?

 

[kyle]

I did not think of the title Lord. That would be appropriate.

 

[Rena M.]

Anne’s children don't have titles and are free to work, earn money, don't have problems finding spouses, don't have to dress up in costumes straight out of ''Father Brown'' etc. Harry just wants a better life for his son. That's all and a common name like Archie is perfect to blend in.
Archie Harrison - genuine, bold and valuable son of Harry.
I like it

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Frankly, not being British , I am more annoyed by their use of the media than by the baby's name and title (or lack thereof).

Harry and Meghan didn't want to do the Lindo Wing steps photo, which is perfectly fine. No mother who just gave birth should be forced to do that if she doesn't want to and feels OK with it.

However, they replaced the comparatively spontaneous (and democractic) steps photo with a highly staged (and controlled) media presentation of the baby using a historic hall of Windsor Castle as backdrop and including pictures of the Queen and the DoE. The fact that happened in the Queen's home and that the Queen agreed to pose for pictures indicates she approves it, but still that degree of pomp and circumstance is odd for a collateral line of the Royal Family.

I don't want to sound mean and rain on the couple's parade (after all, they must be rightfully thrilled with baby Archie), but I am honestly starting to believe that "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets".

Oh my. I think you are being rather harsh with these comments. Especially on such a happy, exciting and celebratory occasion as this.

I wish the Sussexes well, and I will be donating to a few of their charities in honor of Master Archie.

 

[Zaira]

Frankly, not being British , I am more annoyed by their use of the media than by the baby's name and title (or lack thereof).


Harry and Meghan didn't want to do the Lindo Wing steps photo, which is perfectly fine. No mother who just gave birth should be forced to do that if she doesn't want to and feels OK with it.



However, they replaced the comparatively spontaneous (and democractic) steps photo with a highly staged (and controlled) media presentation of the baby using a historic hall of Windsor Castle as backdrop and including pictures of the Queen and the DoE. The fact that happened in the Queen's home and that the Queen agreed to pose for pictures indicates she approves it, but still that degree of pomp and circumstance is odd for a collateral line of the Royal Family.



I don't want to sound mean and rain on the couple's parade (after all, they must be rightfully thrilled with baby Archie), but I am honestly starting to believe that "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets".

Again, with this sole focus on Meghan when we have no indication it was her demands.

In fact, Harry has been the one front and center throughout this. Surprisingly so actually.

As it is, I think these two are a team of equals and made decisions together about what is best, what is expected and what the compromise is, in consultation with the Queen, Charles and their staff.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Again, with this sole focus on Meghan when we have no indication it was her demands.

In fact, Harry has been the one front and center throughout this.

I think this is very true regarding titles. Plus, for sure we all know how much Prince Harry is determined to protect his family's privacy.

In her previous life, while Meghan was always discreet and classy, she often shared pictures of her dogs along with lovely, instructive details about her life that were focused on celebrating the joys of living and caring about others.

To not see even a peep of anything about Guy or the new labrador dog, it seems to me that Meghan is adhering to Harry's wishes, because she realizes this royal fishbowl world has been a heavy burden for him, and that he doesn't want his children to necessarily have to feel burdened.

So the Sussexes will obviously try to make their offspring's lives as normal as possible, which doesn't mean they don't or won't live luxuriously well. Still, M&H are both driven by giving back to others, which passion will surely be somewhat transferred to their children by example.

 

[ACO]

They don't want titles. It is what it is. I respect their decision about their child. I don't see them accepting HRH but I won't say it as fact because things can change but that is likely what will happen.

 

[Duchessblack]

Again, with this sole focus on Meghan when we have no indication it was her demands.

In fact, Harry has been the one front and center throughout this.

I am seeing that is the way on this board. Everything done be this couple is wrong and it is always "hollywood" Meghan leading him down the wrong path. Good to know.

 

[Zaira]

Lovely little bit with PA Reporter Alan who led both interviews (Harry's Monday and the family photocall today). Low key, but highly respected journalist from what RRs are saying on twitter.

Also of interest to me, the Sussexes are 2/2 for having journalists of color lead their big family moments (engagement and now family photocall).

https://twitter.com/x/status/1126222033094873088

 

[wyevale]

They don't want titles.

So why can't they be honest and consistent -renounce their titles, become plain mr/mrs and waltz off somewhere abroad for the life of privacy they so clearly desire...?

 

[Leopoldine]

I love the name. Archie is short and informal enough so that the tabloids can't shorten it or take it down a peg. I was thinking of William being dubbed "Wills" and Andrew being called "Andy".

Perhaps a title will come later in life, depending on the number of working royals needed to support the monarch.

 

[ACO]

So why can't they be honest and consistent -renounce their titles, become plain mr/mrs and waltz off somewhere abroad for the life of privacy they so clearly desire...?

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.

 

[jacqui24]

So why can't they be honest and consistent -renounce their titles, become plain mr/mrs and waltz off somewhere abroad for the life of privacy they so clearly desire...?

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.

 

[rob2008]

Agreed - Harry is following the Diana way with less formality. However, the family is also part of the state. It looks like they want a new relationship with the people where they control their public role far more strongly than before. They are making a mistake if they think they can choose to take their son out of the public sphere as part of the state as our national family. If they wanted their family to abdicate from a public status they shouldnt have accepted the dukedom of Sussex. If they really want to be private citizens and not have titles, they have the choice of renouncing all titles, royal status etc.

 

[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.

 

[VictoriaB]

So why can't they be honest and consistent -renounce their titles, become plain mr/mrs and waltz off somewhere abroad for the life of privacy they so clearly desire...?

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.

 

[Ista]

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.

I think it's more an issue of confusion. Archie has a (courtesy) title, whether it is used for him or not, and he will be an HRH at the death of the Queen, whether it is used or not. All of this is true since no LP's have been issued to change that. Hence, the confusion. There's a discrepancy that is putting everything up in the air, and what it means and what the Sussexes intend by it is all open to interpretation. Whenever there is ambiguity it opens the door to conjecture. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

 

[Osipi]

So why can't they be honest and consistent -renounce their titles, become plain mr/mrs and waltz off somewhere abroad for the life of privacy they so clearly desire...?

Why can't a child that has dual citizenship with parents that are going to be representatives of a Commonwealth of Nations grow up as a global citizen and embrace everything he is and decide for himself, when the time comes, just how he's going to face the world he's living in.

Frankly, the way things are going, titles and styles of this child is really just a small part of who he is going to grow up to be. Of course its part and parcel of his heritage and I don't doubt for a minute he will be aware of every nook and cranny of just who he is and be more involved in a global world than his parents or his grandparents or great grandparents were before him.

I'm glad the kid is going to just be a kid for a very long time. We saw the difference it made with both William and Harry in being allowed to follow their own paths and their inclinations and have seen the results that have come about from that.

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?

 

[jacqui24]

I think it's more an issue of confusion. Archie has a (courtesy) title, whether it is used for him or not, and he will be an HRH at the death of the Queen, whether it is used or not. All of this is true since no LP's have been issued to change that. Hence, the confusion. There's a discrepancy that is putting everything up in the air, and what it means and what the Sussexes intend by it is all open to interpretation. Whenever there is ambiguity it opens the door to conjecture. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

But is there confusion? I do think it's clear they are going with Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. He is entitled to the title, and we all know what it is, but he's not being known as that.

On a different note. If little Archie grows up and decides, you know what, I want to be known as Earl of Dumbarton before I'm Duke of Sussex, I believe the Sussexes would be supportive of his choice.

 

[ACO]

I think it's more an issue of confusion. Archie has a (courtesy) title, whether it is used for him or not, and he will be an HRH at the death of the Queen, whether it is used or not. All of this is true since no LP's have been issued to change that. Hence, the confusion. There's a discrepancy that is putting everything up in the air, and what it means and what the Sussexes intend by it is all open to interpretation. Whenever there is ambiguity it opens the door to conjecture. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.

I mean I guess. I don't get saying they need to renounce their titles because they don't want their baby to be HRH when he will likely never be a working royal. It just seems extreme to me but to each their own.

 

[Rudolph]

If I'm not mistaken ITV said the decision on titles was made between The Queen, Harry, Charles and William.

If I got that right it probably means the decision on Archie's style has been made into the next reign.

 

[Zaira]

Papers are running with the powerful, lovely and historic image of the Queen, Philip, Harry/Meghan/Doria and little Archie.

I've seen lots of comments from British folks online (and in my personal life) about how meaningful the pic is. People saying they see their families reflected for the first time at the national level/in the BRF.

Really, its been a moving day.

 

[ReeceT21]

I don’t really think the comparisons to Anne and her children are totally correct either. At the end of the day, Peter Phillips was born and will die without a title. The same cannot be said of Archie. He will be Duke of Sussex one day, if not Prince. The comparisons to Margaret are more fair and her children were known as Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah at birth. And I don’t buy that it inherently affords you more privacy. “Lady” Sarah Chatto leads a more private life than “Mrs.” Zara Tindall.

I’m not arguing as some above that Harry and Meghan should renounce all titles. Obviously they’re still working royals. But if they really want Archie to go without a title they could have not accepted a dukedom that forces him to have one one day. Or maybe the Queen could have stated at their wedding that the Sussex dukedom was non-inheritable and one-off for Harry.

 

[Ista]

But is there confusion? I do think it's clear they are going with Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. He is entitled to the title, and we all know what it is, but he's not being known as that.

Well, clearly there is, as we've seen by the pages of discussion about it. If there had been an announcement that he was going to be known as Archie Harrison etc, but would assume the courtesy title at a later point, there would have been more clarity. As it is now, there are lots of questions. As we see.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

? At this point, I doubt the Sussexes ever plan to give their son Archie either a courtesy nobility title, nor a royal title. But we shall see. Perhaps his parents want Archie to make the decision on his own, when he's reached a certain age. ?

They have no say in that. As eldest son and heir of the 1st Duke of Sussex, the baby IS Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton, future 2nd Duke of Sussex.

The point is that Harry and Meghan can not say "we do not want a title for Archie". They have no authority about that and the titles bestowed are not Harry's. They as much Archie's future titles as they are Harry's present titles, as the Letters Patent goes way beyond the current holder of these peerages.

Of course, Harry and Meghan can say: just call him Archie. But this private preference does not wipe out thay their son is the Heir to three peerages and is by convention and jurisdiction what he is.

 

[poppy7]

Name surprised me. Lack of title did not. I think it is right that only the future children of the monarch should be a prince or princess. Actually I think only a child of a monarch should be and titLes upgraded as. A grandchild, but whose parent will be monarch, a lord or lady and then upgraded when parent becomes monarch. The rest can just not have them. If they won't work for the monarchy, then why would they. A lot has changed in the past ten years.

 

[ACO]

If I'm not mistaken ITV said the decision on titles was made between The Queen, Harry, Charles and William.

If I got that right it probably means the decision on Archie's style has been made into the next reign.

I haven't heard that but I did see Chris Ship and other royal correspondents clarify that no decision on his future HRH status has been discussed. So basically nothing has occurred to prevent him from having it once Charles is king. It is not like the Wessexes in that case though they might make it official when that times comes.

 

[ReeceT21]

I mean I guess. I don't get saying they need to renounce their titles because they don't want their baby to be HRH when he will likely never be a working royal. It just seems extreme to me but to each their own.

I think very few people here are advocating for Archie to be an HRH or a Prince. That is the title most people were against him having, for his own sake. Most of us are wondering about a subsidiary title, something used by not only the royal family but almost every Dukedom, Marquisette and Earldom in Britain.

There’s a big gap between being HRH Prince Archie and Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.