Yes, it is. I was just depicting the worst case scenario because it seems that many of those that might be most upset by Archie not becoming a prince would be the ones that would not want Camilla to be queen.
Yes, they are. Although I could see why they would wait on the announcement about Camilla until she truly is queen; it would be helpful to 'in general' arrange the title issue of grandchildren of monarchs - based on the adaptation of the rules regarding the succession to the throne with Charlotte('s future children) being ahead of Louis(' future children).
If that 'summit' that some media wrote about is indeed upcoming, this might be one of the things to discuss as part of the discussion on the future of the royal family.
Camilla's title when she becomes the wife of the sovereign is an issue for Charles to decide when he is king. I don't see it as a matter that concerns the present Queen and it is a decision that Charles has no authority to make now.
On the other hand, if the present Queen issued LPs tomorrow to restrict princely titles to children of the heir only, as opposed to" children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom", there is a question on whether that would also affect Beatrice, Eugenie, James, Louise, Richard (Gloucester), Edward (Kent), Michael, and Alexandra, in addition to people who, like Archie and his future sister, would become children of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom only in the next reign or other future reigns.
I suppose the new LPs, following the formula that was used in 1917 for the "grandchildren of sons of a sovereign of the United Kingdom", would create a new style for grandchildren of a sovereign in male line; most likely, they would be also styled as children of a duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom (even if their father were not a duke himself) and, in that scenario, to make the style gender neutral, the same could apply to grandchildren of a sovereign in maternal line other than children of the heir , i.e. they would all be Lord/Lady [Forename] [Surname] (similar to how, in Spain, children of Infantes/Infantas are now styled Excellency like Grandees of Spain).
Would it be necessary, however, to mention explicitly in the new LPs that the new rule would not apply to grandchildren of sons of George V and Elizabeth II, who would keep their titles and styles under the terms of the LPs of 1917?
The decision will be made when the circumstance presents itself, and if the natural order of things take place - Charles, William and George becoming monarchs, it will likely be 100+ years after the Mountbatten-Windsor decision. If I was to place a bet, the royal house name will remain Windsor, and when a surname is called for for the children, grandchildren, etc. of the union of a future female monarch, it will be X-Windsor.
Keeping the Royal House's dynastic name for the successors of a female monarch was not the tradition in England or Great Britain or the United Kingdom, where dynasties were named based on the patrilineal family name.
Queen Elizabeth I and Queen Anne didn't have surviving issue, but in both cases, the name of the dynasty changed when the next King ascended (respectively from Tudor to Stuart, and from Stuart to Hanover). Queen Victoria's situation mirrors the present Queen's and under her successor, Edward VII, the Royal House was named the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha after his father, rather than his mother.
Queen Elizabeth II decided that the Royal House would continue to be called the "House and Family of Windsor" although her descendants who do not bear the title of prince/princes and the style of Royal Highness would have the family name Mountbatten-Windsor. It remains to be seen if Charles, as the first monarch of the new dynasty (based on the patrilineal naming custom) will keep the name House of Windsor, or change it to House of Mountbatten-Windsor or, less likely, House of Mountbatten.