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

[wyevale]

^Several people have remarked to me, that Archie Harrison sounds like a Publican.. and I cannot but agree...

 

[Curryong]

I'm sure many publicans would be delighted. Do many of these in your neck of the woods use their middle names always, and have the surname Mountbatten-Windsor?

 

[wyevale]

^ These individuals were merely remarking on the 'commonness' of the name [as printed in the newspapers] , who didn't print the boys Surname.

It was evident from the positioning of the 'story' [and the length of the reports] on Breakfast time TV programmes that the choices made are less than terribly popular, in the UK..

 

[Countessmeout]

The future Lord Femroy (he's currently 11) is named Archie. Relative of Harry's...and there's at least one more current relative named Archie.


LaRae

Saw with the Cambridges they don't mind using names used in far extended family. William used the name of his first cousins. Archie (future lord Femroy) his father is the maternal cousin of Diana.

If we look at the tree we could say we lucked out in Archie. We could have ended up with names like Algernon.

No Baron Kilkeel. That will be for Archie's son.

See:

HRH Prince Edward, 2nd Duke of Kent, 2nd Earl of St Andrews, 2nd Baron Downpatrick
George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews
Edward Windsor, Lord Downpatrick

So a future Baron Kilkeel is the same scheme:

HRH Prince Henry, 1st Duke of Sussex, 1st Earl of Dumbarton, 1st Baron Kilkeel
Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton
[Name] Mountbatten-Windsor, Lord Kilkeel

Yes no history lesson needed here We all know that is traditional. but considering this kid is simply Master, tradition goes out the window. It is simply that the son of a duke is permitted to use One of his subsidiary titles as a courtesy. Traditionally its his most senior one secondary title. Once again, tradition has gone out the window.

 

[Pranter]

^ These individuals were merely remarking on the 'commonness' of the name [as printed in the newspapers] , who didn't print the boys Surname.

It was evident from the positioning of the 'story' [and the length of the reports] on Breakfast time TV programmes that the choices made are less than terribly popular, in the UK..

I think that may depend on the class level ...I have friends in the U.K. that would be more middle class I'd guess...and Archie seems to be quite accepted there...but then Harry is much favored over some of the other royals or so they tell me. He is considered one of them.


LaRae

 

[Zaira]

I can almost guarantee that if they named him Archer, people would have complained about that being too american or common toon. Archie sounds more royal to be anyway tbh. Certainly more British. I've met several Archies my age in the UK.

I love Harrison and can see him going by that as he ages too.

^ These individuals were merely remarking on the 'commonness' of the name [as printed in the newspapers] , who didn't print the boys Surname.

It was evident from the positioning of the 'story' [and the length of the reports] on Breakfast time TV programmes that the choices made are less than terribly popular, in the UK..

Well given that this story dominated the news the past three days including all day yesterday (I had BBC and Sky news in the background in my office), not surprised if the morning reports were more recaps.

Archie is polarizing in that some seem to love it and some really hate it. But folks also really hated George and Louis (I am not the biggest fan of Georgia but love Louis as a name myself).

Maybe his name is "common" but its his name and with any name its what you do in life that is the distinction.

 

[Rudolph]

At least he avoided Archie Dumbarton. That would be a cross to bear in life

 

[muriel]

Archie sounds more royal to be anyway tbh. Certainly more British. I've met several Archies my age in the UK.

Perhaps to an American audience, but certainly not to a British one. ?

Anyways, it was for H&M to choose, and so they have.

 

[Gawin]

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.

Yes, you are right. Based on social rank, which is how these distinctions are usually made, royals aren't commoners. But from an English common law point of view they are, at least technically.

To give an example: The Queen can, at any point, strip Harry's HRH. Yes, under the terms of George V's LP (1917) he is an HRH. But the Queen can revoke, alter, or amend the decisions of her predecessors regarding royal styles and titles, as she did with the Cambridge children. Why? Because an HRH has no special legal status in the UK. Social status, yes, definitely, but not legal.

But she can't strip Harry of his peerage title (Sussex) or alter the rules of succession, even though she issued the LP creating the title. Why not? Because as a peer Harry enjoys a special legal status and only Parliament can alter or remove it. Of course by now the "privilege of peerage" is largely meaningless (from my point of view) but the legal distinction remains (at least for now), just as Queen Elizabeth remains Sovereign despite the fact that her powers are largely symbolic & diminished compared to those of her predecessors.

Another example: When the Queen & Prince Philip decided that Edward should one day become Duke of Edinburgh it was necessary to consult with Charles. Why? Because Charles is the legal heir and will automatically inherit the title when Philip dies. The Queen doesn't have the legal authority to issue a new LP redirecting the succession to Edward, only Parliament does. And Charles can only re-grant it to Edward once he becomes King and the title merges with the Crown.

Again, these are legal distinctions only, not social, which is what we generally look at (as you pointed out).

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

^Several people have remarked to me, that Archie Harrison sounds like a Publican.. and I cannot but agree...

Does that mean common?
As a commoner the name sounds like something you would name a hamster. Ive thankfully never met an Archie in my 30+ common years.There's a reason Cary Grant changed his name. ?

 

[Abbigail]

I'm begining to suspect it's more "we will do things our way" than "we'll keep the child completely private". I bet we'll get pictures from Christening, that in a year or two (maybe two) we'll see little Archie on the balcony during Trooping the colour and I wouldn't exclude the posibility we'll get birthday pictures too.

Agreed. Although I never thought they would keep the child completely private. That almost seems impossible given their royal status and the level of interest in this baby. I would even go a step further and say there's a good chance we'll see Archie at some of the big events like the Invictus Games. That was Harry's "first baby." It would be no surprise at all if he wanted his child to share in that experience.

 

[Frelinghighness]

Is it possible that either or both of the names are in memory of someone? Fallen comrade or friend? William was named after a favored cousin

 

[Abbigail]

I can almost guarantee that if they named him Archer, people would have complained about that being too american or common toon. Archie sounds more royal to be anyway tbh. Certainly more British. I've met several Archies my age in the UK.

I love Harrison and can see him going by that as he ages too.

Harrison is a great name. I didn't think of it as an option before but naming his child Harrison seems like such a Harry thing to do. I could see Archie going by that as well.

 

[Zaira]

Agreed. Although I never thought they would keep the child completely private. That almost seems impossible given their royal status and the level of interest in this baby. I would even go a step further and say there's a good chance we'll see Archie at some of the big events like the Invictus Games. That was Harry's "first baby." It would be no surprise at all if he wanted his child to share in that experience.

I am fairly certain we will see him at IG, maybe occasionally at more informal things on tours (even if he isn't actively taking part in tours the way the cambs do), at big family events like Trooping, and at things like polo.

I kind of imagine it will be balance between how much we see the Cambridge Children compared to how Philips or Wessexes do things, perhaps? We actually see the Philips/Wessexes and Tindals a great deal more than their more "royal" cousins. It is rare for a week to go by that we don't have candids of those kids at events and such.

 

[Lilyflo]

I have to admit that I'm not fond of shortened names used as actual names. Archie is cute & I like it but I was pleased it wasn't a final choice for one of my grandchildren. I really dislike Harrison but then I dislike most surnames used as forenames (unless they're established forenames in their own right or a maternal line surname used after the forenames).

I don't like the names of some the Queen's other great-grandchildren eg Savannah, Isla, Mia & Lena either. I thought they might grow on me but they haven't - I think I'm quite traditional about names.

 

[Erin9]

I can almost guarantee that if they named him Archer, people would have complained about that being too american or common toon. Archie sounds more royal to be anyway tbh. Certainly more British. I've met several Archies my age in the UK.

I love Harrison and can see him going by that as he ages too.

I’m sure there are people named Archer in the US, but I’ve never heard of one. Doesn’t sound like an overly American name to me.

Archie, from what I’m gathering, is a common name in the UK. So, apparently they chose a relatively “in” name.

 

[Zaira]

very cute!
https://metro.co.uk/video/winnie-pooh-celebrates-royal-baby-archie-1921796/?ito=vjs-link

And so the ridiculous begins. Good on the BBC. I was shocked when I saw that tweet.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

 

[jacqui24]

And so the ridiculous begins. Good on the BBC. I was shocked when I saw that tweet.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

I saw that. It was offensive. The "apology" that followed was even MORE offensive if it's possible. I'm glad BBC took swift action. I couldn't see that picture was racist because my brain is not diseased? Seriously?

 

[Ista]

I'm very glad the BBC took such swift action, it was the right and only thing to do. No sympathy for Danny Baker, he must have been living under rock to have been unaware of how that was going to come across.

 

[muriel]

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.

It was a lovely picture indeed.

The Queen and her team know a good picture when they see one. They know that a picture like that will go a million miles in PR terms, and will do a lot for appearing accessible, inclusive and more like "the rest of us". They have never released a picture of the Queen when she has met her other 7 great grand children. So well done to the Queen's team. And Sussex team: Please learn from the Boss!

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

And so the ridiculous begins. Good on the BBC. I was shocked when I saw that tweet.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

I don't think it was funny and using monkeys in relationship to black people is a sore spot for us. BUT I am sick of people having their lives ruined even after they apologize.

 

[ACO]

So a few of the correspondents wrote “exclusives” today saying Archie will become HRH once Charles is king. I still don’t see them wanting it but thought it was interesting that they apparently confirmed that the Sussexes didn’t take the step the Wessexes did with their kids.

Also a very cute story on the potential origin of Archie

https://twitter.com/x/status/1126486529063440385

 

[Rudolph]

They're just using the 1917 LP as the basis. As it stands today he will become an HRH but I'm willing to wager anything that we'll never see a prince Archie

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

And so the ridiculous begins. Good on the BBC. I was shocked when I saw that tweet.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-48212693

What did Baker even think? Surely he knew that it was quiet offensive tweet. Fortunately BBC understand fire him. That was so idiotic and offensive tweet that it can't be joke with any way.

 

[jacqui24]

It was a lovely picture indeed.

The Queen and her team know a good picture when they see one. They know that a picture like that will go a million miles in PR terms, and will do a lot for appearing accessible, inclusive and more like "the rest of us". They have never released a picture of the Queen when she has met her other 7 great grand children. So well done to the Queen's team. And Sussex team: Please learn from the Boss!

Uh, the Sussexes posted it on IG first I believe. Granted, I don't think they would've posted it without the Queen's permission, but I don't know if I'd say this is the Queen or her team's idea.

I don't think it was funny and using monkeys in relationship to black people is a sore spot for us. BUT I am sick of people having their lives ruined even after they apologize.

He didn't truly apologize. "Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased". Didn't see it as racist because his mind isn't diseased? What? See screen caps below.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1126224755785383936

 

[Zaira]

I don't think it was funny and using monkeys in relationship to black people is a sore spot for us. BUT I am sick of people having their lives ruined even after they apologize.

Personally IMO he didn't apologize. He basically did the whole "I guess some people dont understand my humor so sorry about that" and then doubled down even more.

It begs credulity that anyone today, and especially someone known for his wit as Mr Baker, did not know exactly what that sort of imagery implies. SO his rather half-hearted apology didnt cut it and it was right that he was let go. Your words have consequences even on social media.

 

[Denville]

Why would you pity him? Peter and Zara seem to doing just fine without titles. Or do you pity them just as much?

THe point is that Archie si the son of a Prince and Royal duke and traditionally has the right to use his fathers second title. Peter and Zara are the children of a plain Mister...

 

[Ista]

Personally IMO he didn't apologize. He basically did the whole "I guess some people dont understand my humor so sorry about that" and then doubled down even more.

It begs credulity that anyone today, and especially someone known for his wit as Mr Baker, did not know exactly what that sort of imagery implies. SO his rather half-hearted apology didnt cut it and it was right that he was let go. Your words have consequences even on social media.

Agreed, but there actually are people who don't understand how horrendous the tweet was. It's the "But I was just joking" crew, who no matter how it's explained to them, truly think it's a big fuss over nothing. Not much you can do with that except the action the BBC took.

 

[jacqui24]

THe point is that Archie si the son of a Prince and Royal duke and traditionally has the right to use his fathers second title. Peter and Zara are the children of a plain Mister...

I mean, he's technically also entitled to HRH after Charles becomes King. I don't see most griping about that if he doesn't, as most of us expect, get HRH. I think this is just a shock to people, maybe they'll feel differently when the shock wears off.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Saw with the Cambridges they don't mind using names used in far extended family. William used the name of his first cousins. Archie (future lord Femroy) his father is the maternal cousin of Diana.

If we look at the tree we could say we lucked out in Archie. We could have ended up with names like Algernon.




Yes no history lesson needed here We all know that is traditional. but considering this kid is simply Master, tradition goes out the window. It is simply that the son of a duke is permitted to use One of his subsidiary titles as a courtesy. Traditionally its his most senior one secondary title. Once again, tradition has gone out the window.

I don't think tradition has gone out of the window. The Prince was simply Harry. A more common name is hardly imagineable. Yet he is His Royal Highness Prince Henry, The Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel. Despite his "call me Harry" - attitude. He has a crest, a banner, has Orders. He presented his "just Archie" in one of the most magnificent galleries of Europe. In everything the young boy is special but the parents stress he is just Archie. That is all