Gender, names, and godparent guessing for Harry and Meghan's first child


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Guess the sex of Harry and Meghan's first baby!

  • Boy

    Votes: 55 29.1%
  • Girl

    Votes: 105 55.6%
  • Twins - Boy/Boy

    Votes: 3 1.6%
  • Twins - Boy/Girl

    Votes: 19 10.1%
  • Twins - Girl/Girl

    Votes: 7 3.7%

  • Total voters
    189
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because Harry, just like William, will become the son of the Monarch when Charles takes the throne, I see no sense in not doing the same for Harry's children.
It's possible that Harry's children won't have the HRH title even after Charles becomes king - maybe they're planning to go the Edward and Sophie route.
 
Harry going by Wales: Because his dad was Prince of Wales. Kids usually take their father's last name. Charles has no surname, neither do his sons. So they used his designation as a surname. As now William's kids use his designation as a last name. The only member of the queen's family who have a surname are male line descendents who have no HRH. Right now that is Louise and James. Baby Sussex will be included.


Both British princes(ses) and British peers technically have legal surnames but do not use them, except as part of any legal documents in which they desire to use a surname (for example, as stated on the official website of the monarchy , Princess Anne used the name Mountbatten-Windsor in her marriage registry). They are not required to use a surname in British legal documents.

Since royals and peers generally do not use their legal surnames, per convention they use the territorial designations in their titles as pseudo-surnames, if they desire to be known with a surname outside of legal documents. Princess Eugenie of York is known in her art career as Eugenie York, though her legal surname is probably Brooksbank. The queen's nephew the Earl of Snowdon is known in his career as David Snowdon, though his legal surname is Armstrong-Jones.

Precedent would suggest that if the Sussex child is styled Earl of Dumbarton, he will be known as "xxxx Dumbarton" at school. However, since he is not yet a peer legally (the Earldom of Dumbarton legally belongs to his father) and is not yet a prince, his legal documents will need a surname, which will be Mountbatten-Windsor.
 
Last edited:
And there is no garantee that Charles will become king. It is most likely to happen but if his mother would outlive him, Harry's child would only be the great grandchild of a king so not entitled to the style and title of royal highness and prince(ss). So, I see little reason to hurry things up. The opposite (of this child never being a royal highness) seems a realistic option as well to make it clear from the onset that he/she will not work for the firm.
 
And there is no garantee that Charles will become king. It is most likely to happen but if his mother would outlive him, Harry's child would only be the great grandchild of a king so not entitled to the style and title of royal highness and prince(ss). So, I see little reason to hurry things up. The opposite (of this child never being a royal highness) seems a realistic option as well to make it clear from the onset that he/she will not work for the firm.

Yes, you are correct. I personally feel that Charles already knows exactly how and who he wants in his firm and in what position. You know he has met with the Queen and they have both gone over each idea and problem solved to their satisfaction already. Absurd not to think so, especially at the Queen's age. She is not the type to let important manners in the Firm unfinished or not looked into in depth. Charles also will want a calm transition to his reign with each member knowing exactly where to stand and what is expected of them. He is the type that must be confident that each member will do exactly what is correct and follow strict rules of his firm. I also feel that his firm will be quite small with other royals still helping out in the fields that they enjoy. I was told that Camilla and Sophie get along really well and that Charles appreciates all her work that she accomplishes in a very quiet and understated way. Don't know, but maybe she and Edward will be called on more in Charles reign but not considered a proper member of the firm [money, etc.]. This could help him greatly until George, Charlotte and Louis are of the age to step up a bit and help granddad. Harry has said many times he doesn't really enjoy being "royal" and would never want to be king, so then he and his family could do their bit the way they enjoy and be able to make money [which firm members can't] and enjoy their lives as they plan. All would be much happier then in the long run. JMHO. Actually sincerely hope that your faithful Queen is still around when she is 100+ as I feel she has done a brilliant job in such a changing world and family.
 
It's all a more than a little confusing for the kids. When George was born her own longevity meant a direct heir would have no HRH so she issued letters patent to remedy the situation. So George knows who he is and that is "Prince" George and at school his surname is Cambridge and for sense and continuity, HM did the same for Charlotte and Louis.

Because Harry, just like William, will become the son of the Monarch when Charles takes the throne, I see no sense in not doing the same for Harry's children.

In 1917 when George V issued LP limiting the HRH titles, they were for
children of the Sovereign
male line grandchildren of the Sovereign
eldest son of the eldest son of the POW.
Under this, Lady Louise and Lord Severn (children of Prince Edward are entitled to be HRH. THE REASON THEY ARE NOT IS BY PARENTAL CHOICE. The world has changed a lot since 1917.

Before the birth of Prince George, succession to the throne was changed by Parliament to the eldest CHILD (son or daughter) of the heir (DOC) of the heir (POW) If Prince George had been a girl and Princess Charlotte a boy, you would have had the strange matter of the direct heir not having a title. while her younger brother would have. To correct thus HM passed LP to give all of Prince William's children Royal titles. (Remember it is very rare for a living monarch to have so many direct heirs. It has only happened twice with QV and QE.)

If POW succeeds HM as expected the Sussex children will automatically have the HRH titles as male line grandchildren. If for some reason HM outlives the POW, the Sussex children will only have ducal titles UNLESS either HM or the new King William decided to issue new and once off LP.

Sometimes this has been done in the aristocracy. The old Duke/Earl dies after being predeceased by his son. His grandchildren, siblings of his grandson the new Duke/Earl are granted a courtesy title. I hope this clarifies the matter somewhat. Of course none of this matters if Harry and Meagan make a decision not to have HRH for their children.
 
Well at this point in time the international news is amazing and with the addition of the US, the child or children will need every bit of insulation and security that Harry had and that Meghan won't quite understand.

As the Cambridge children grow they may take the pressure off H & M's child(ren) and allow the the anonymity the Sussexes hope for theirs.
 
I am going out on a limb and will say no titles for the Sussex children. I wouldn't even be surprised if they were simply "Alice Mountbatten-Windsor" or "Alexander Mountbatten-Windsor".

I just read a press item talking about how the Sussexes did not use Prince and Princess when sending birthday wishes to George and Charlotte. This leads me to believe that titles are not important to them. Ergo they will not seek them for their children.
 
I just read a press item talking about how the Sussexes did not use Prince and Princess when sending birthday wishes to George and Charlotte. This leads me to believe that titles are not important to them. Ergo they will not seek them for their children.

I would be more likely to put it all down to a lack of formality between family members than to suggest that their titles aren't important to them. Their titles and styles are a necessity in the line of work they're in but among family members, they're just family. It remains to be seen just how Harry and Meghan will handle their child(ren)'s titles and styles going into the future and I sincerely think that we won't know anything now until Charles becomes King and hopefully that's a long, long way off.

We've seen a report where George wondered "why is Uncle Harry being so quiet?". We know that the Cambridge children call HM, The Queen "Gan-Gan". This is what families do.
 
I think it will be a girl. I definitely see them going with a traditional first name such as Victoria, with Diana and Doria as second and third … perhaps, Elizabeth as a fourth name.
 
Yes, you are correct. I personally feel that Charles already knows exactly how and who he wants in his firm and in what position.

Yes Charles has expressed a wish for a more pared down working family but when you look at the current working royals you only have W&C, H&M, E&S who are under 60 years of age. The Princess Royal, Prince Andrew, the Gloucesters & Prince & Princess Michael are all close to or over 70 & the Kents & Princess Alexandra are in their 80's with the Dchs of Kent retired from public life.
In the years to come the younger members will have to step up to fill the gaps.
 
I would be more likely to put it all down to a lack of formality between family members than to suggest that their titles aren't important to them. Their titles and styles are a necessity in the line of work they're in but among family members, they're just family. It remains to be seen just how Harry and Meghan will handle their child(ren)'s titles and styles going into the future and I sincerely think that we won't know anything now until Charles becomes King and hopefully that's a long, long way off.

We've seen a report where George wondered "why is Uncle Harry being so quiet?". We know that the Cambridge children call HM, The Queen "Gan-Gan". This is what families do.
I think that's just it- I don't think it is a lack of formality. Surely William and Catherine don't call their eldest son "Prince George ". He is just "George" to them.

I think Harry & Meghan's omission of titles is signified here.
 
I still bet it will be a boy. In the names I bet on Albert, Philip or Alexander.
 
Yes Charles has expressed a wish for a more pared down working family but when you look at the current working royals you only have W&C, H&M, E&S who are under 60 years of age. The Princess Royal, Prince Andrew, the Gloucesters & Prince & Princess Michael are all close to or over 70 & the Kents & Princess Alexandra are in their 80's with the Dchs of Kent retired from public life.
In the years to come the younger members will have to step up to fill the gaps.

Poor Andrew. He just turned 59 in february but is already considered to no longer qualify as under 60 and is even perceived as being close to 70 :D
 
Last edited:
Poor Andrew. He just turned 59 in february but is already considered to no longer qualify as under 60 and is even perceived as being close to 70 :D

Well, like I said, I believe Charles already has a strict plan and maybe it will be to eliminate every little appearance of a "firm" royal. Andrew's daughters are not firm royals or on the payroll but they do a very nice job for the organizations they favor. What I mean is that not every school or business opening will need a royal attending. Other countries do not and they survive nicely. Many organization would rather have a "star" athletic or entertainer showing up at their venue. I am sure Charles ideas will be put in place and might even start soon under the eye of the Queen. I personally will enjoy seeing a bit of change. JMO
 
Well, like I said, I believe Charles already has a strict plan and maybe it will be to eliminate every little appearance of a "firm" royal. Andrew's daughters are not firm royals or on the payroll but they do a very nice job for the organizations they favor. What I mean is that not every school or business opening will need a royal attending. Other countries do not and they survive nicely. Many organization would rather have a "star" athletic or entertainer showing up at their venue. I am sure Charles ideas will be put in place and might even start soon under the eye of the Queen. I personally will enjoy seeing a bit of change. JMO

It'll be interesting to see how this play out. While royal patronages and such don't mean much to me as an American, I've heard from marketing executive that have worked in UK that just having the royal endorsement in UK means a lot from a marketing perspective. So I don't know if what you are saying there is entirely true in UK.
 
Well, like I said, I believe Charles already has a strict plan and maybe it will be to eliminate every little appearance of a "firm" royal. Andrew's daughters are not firm royals or on the payroll but they do a very nice job for the organizations they favor. What I mean is that not every school or business opening will need a royal attending. Other countries do not and they survive nicely. Many organization would rather have a "star" athletic or entertainer showing up at their venue. I am sure Charles ideas will be put in place and might even start soon under the eye of the Queen. I personally will enjoy seeing a bit of change. JMO
Well, I don't think you understand the importance the royal patronage has for the organisations all around UK. I am sure that Charles, seeing as he has more than 400 of them, understand how it works and will act accordingly.

Also, not every school or business opening needs or gets a royal attending right now, it's just a select number. It's not about being a "star" or a celebrity or your picture being on the front of a newspaper twice a week. I'm sure the organisations that have Princess Anne as their patron are very happy with having her.
 
Peter for a name or Peter Phillips as a godparent.
 
Still saying a girl, no royals as Godparents, her friends will have a major part
 
George Windsor, The Earl of St. Andrews could be a godfather.
 
May the fourth has come and gone so I guess there will be no ...
Dorian Arthur Richard Thomas - Darth
Lauchlan Uri Kenneth Edmund - Luke
or
Loyce Elizabeth Ivy Amalia - Princess Leia
Rosemary Rachel Kate - R2-KT

May 5th - Midwives Day, St George feast Day ...
Peter Frederick George Henry
Majella Georgiana
 
Last edited:
May the fourth has come and gone so I guess there will be no ...
Dorian Arthur Richard Thomas - Darth
Lauchlan Uri Kenneth Edmund - Luke
or
Loyce Elizabeth Ivy Amalia - Princess Leia
Rosemary Rachel Kate - R2-KT

May 5th - Midwives Day, St George feast Day ...
Peter Frederick George Henry
Majella Georgiana

I think you meant Rosemary Rachel Doria Diana

:lol:
 
You guys all need to cut your coffee intake! Any stranger wandering in here will think you've almost the plot . . . in the nicest possible way of course.[emoji12]

R2D2: That train has left the station. All for want of a baby.[emoji64]
 
I can potentially see Rose being used, but not Rosemary. Rosemary is definitely an elderly woman name these days. :lol: I would love it if they named the baby Rose, and called her Rosie. :wub:
 
I can potentially see Rose being used, but not Rosemary. Rosemary is definitely an elderly woman name these days. :lol: I would love it if they named the baby Rose, and called her Rosie. :wub:
I'm not fan of nicknames, but I do love Rosie from the name Rose. Very beautiful.
 
I can potentially see Rose being used, but not Rosemary. Rosemary is definitely an elderly woman name these days. :lol: I would love it if they named the baby Rose, and called her Rosie. :wub:

I think more the fact that Rosemary is the middle name of Camilla, might eliminate it more then it being 'old lady' :lol:

Now if they did choose to honor Camilla, they could pull a Harry and say 'her name is Rosemary but she will be known as Rosie'.

I can just see people having total meltdowns around the world, and the media having a field day, if Diana's granddaughter was named for Camilla 🤣
 
I think more the fact that Rosemary is the middle name of Camilla, might eliminate it more then it being 'old lady' :lol:

Now if they did choose to honor Camilla, they could pull a Harry and say 'her name is Rosemary but she will be known as Rosie'.

I can just see people having total meltdowns around the world, and the media having a field day, if Diana's granddaughter was named for Camilla 🤣

Then they could use that as a middle name. Cause Rosemary is jus eh. No offense to Camilla.
 
What is an ugly name or not is a personal choice. Many names suggested here, I would find old fashioned/old woman like.

But again I don't see them honoring Camilla even as a middle name. With all the others they could honor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom