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

[Ista]

Its puzzling to me that folks somehow are lambasting Harry and Meghan for deciding to turn down a courtesy title (for now! the lad could always take it up himself should he want or it could change when Charles becomes king) and complaining that Harry and Meghan want it both ways.

Is this not exactly what the Princess Royal and the Wessexes have done? Yes, they are public individuals with public roles, taking public money. But they are all raising their children as private citizens. Should they to give it all up and go off?

Who is lambasting them?

 

[tommy100]

I'm not entirely surprised by Archie, I'm a primary school teacher and there are more and more Archie's around. Personally, as few others have said, I'm not a massive fan or nicknames as given names as everybody still tends to try and find a shorter version of it, lots of our Archie's are "Arch" and that I really am not a fan off.

Interesting that they are quite noticeably not using the courtesy title available. Given Archie and any other brothers and sisters would be entitled to HRH Prince/Princess when Charles becomes King it seems very unlikely they will use such titles now IMO. I was sure they wouldn't get any titles from HM at the moment but thought they would use the Earl of Dumbarnton title instead as a sort of middle ground.

 

[Princess B]

Totally unexpected name. I’m a little disappointed (not that I have any right to).
It doesn’t sound royal.

 

[Mirabel]

Of all the names they could have chosen, that's what they picked?

(Well, their child, their choice, but I think it's horrible.)

 

[wyevale]

The strongest of my feelings are for the poor child, not because of those names, but because he has been deprived of his rightful titles at birth and so has no say as to whether to use them when older.
If he had been given what is rightfully his, he could have chosen not to use them. This way he gets no choice. To say that as an American citizen as well as British he should not have a title is hardly a reason given the Astors, etc. The current Earl of Wharncliffe is an American citizen living in Maine.

 

[loonytick]

The strongest of my feelings are for the poor child, not because of those names, but because he has been deprived of his rightful titles at birth and so has no say as to whether to use them when older.
If he had been given what is rightfully his, he could have chosen not to use them. This way he gets no choice. To say that as an American citizen as well as British he should not have a title is hardly a reason given the Astors, etc. The current Earl of Wharncliffe is an American citizen living in Maine.

He doesn't actually have the right to any titles yet, just the right to essentially borrow one of his dad's. The choice not to style him as an Earl from birth doesn't mean he won't inherit the Duke of Sussex title upon his father's death. It doesn't necessarily mean he won't make use of the courtesy title when he reaches adulthood, either.

 

[Elenath]

The strongest of my feelings are for the poor child, not because of those names, but because he has been deprived of his rightful titles at birth and so has no say as to whether to use them when older.
If he had been given what is rightfully his, he could have chosen not to use them. This way he gets no choice. To say that as an American citizen as well as British he should not have a title is hardly a reason given the Astors, etc. The current Earl of Wharncliffe is an American citizen living in Maine.

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

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a significant number of posts have been - and will continue to be - edited (or deleted altogether) where the content is inappropriate, off-topic or adds nothing constructive to the general discussion.

 

[evolvingdoors]

Someone more keen eyed than myself on such thing, pointed out to me that if your mix it up, Archie is an anagram for Rachel (replacing the L with an I, and in some fonts a small “L” looks like a capital I).

So they have essentially called this child: Rachel and Harry’s son.



In a level headed level: the name is silly no matter how you look at it.
Poor kid, I mean he already has enough things that will screw him up, now being saddled with such a silly name?!
Victor, for example, would have been a nice decent modern, can be nicknamed, name and would have honored a much loved late monarch.
I feel like they wanted a name with a specific meaning so they went on Babynames.com and selected the first name that came up, not thinking how this will impact their baby life as he grows up. I really hope the kid changes his name when he reaches 18.
My sister was saddled with a female version of one of our G-grandfathers as a first name- no one called her by that name.. ever!, she legally shortened it the second she was able to. Granted though, in countries with Latin based languages that name is actually very common and sounds so much better than in our native language.
Still, I keep waiting for Ashton Kutcher to pop out the side door and yell “punked”(or whatever he used).

 

[Nico]

Its puzzling to me that folks somehow are lambasting Harry and Meghan for deciding to turn down a courtesy title (for now! the lad could always take it up himself should he want or it could change when Charles becomes king) and complaining that Harry and Meghan want it both ways.

Is this not exactly what the Princess Royal and the Wessexes have done? Yes, they are public individuals with public roles, taking public money. But they are all raising their children as private citizens. Should they to give it all up and go off?

The hyprocrisy and at times irrational dislike of everything this couple does is so over the top sometimes. Some of the posts today seem like they belong more on another royal board then the normally reasoned comments most folks post here, even in disagreement.

Except that for Anne and the Wessexes the case was closed from the beginning. No title. period.
Here we have more a Camilla style "there's indeed a title but we have chosen not to use it" or "we are taking an option just in case he wants to use it when grown up". Again it's perfectly understandable for personnal reasons, but by definition this child will not be a private citizen.
So just say it.
Here we have the somewhat disturbing feeling that the Sussexes just don't know how to handle, if not compromise, their royal status with their desire of a private life (and i don"t think they are very much helped by the Palace for that matter).
So Archie will be a private citizen in disguise from now. Until outing hismelf as a Royal in a few years ?
And what to say about this grand presentation in the ûber royal St George Hall at Windsor ? All very nice but in total contradiction with the "call him Archie" moto.
All of this is weirdly handled. Really.

 

[Princess Bobbi]

I love the fact that Harry and Megan chose a name that is nontraditional, but makes sense to them. I also think that by calling him Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, for now, instead of Earl of Dumbarton, they are following the Wessex's example for not using and HRH Prince Archie, when Charles becomes king. Perhaps at that time, Archie will start using the Earl of Dumbarton designation.

 

[princess phineas]

this is going to be a strong little boy though. looked up the astrological chart for Archie. Taurus, like great grammy, gemini moon, and taurus rising. YEP...charming, and into learning and change.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

Someone more keen eyed than myself on such thing, pointed out to me that if your mix it up, Archie is an anagram for Rachel (replacing the L with an I, and in some fonts a small “L” looks like a capital I).

So they have essentially called this child: Rachel and Harry’s son.



In a level headed level: the name is silly no matter how you look at it.
Poor kid, I mean he already has enough things that will screw him up, now being saddled with such a silly name?!
Victor, for example, would have been a nice decent modern, can be nicknamed, name and would have honored a much loved late monarch.
I feel like they wanted a name with a specific meaning so they went on Babynames.com and selected the first name that came up, not thinking how this will impact their baby life as he grows up. I really hope the kid changes his name when he reaches 18.
My sister was saddled with a female version of one of our G-grandfathers as a first name- no one called her by that name.. ever!, she legally shortened it the second she was able to. Granted though, in countries with Latin based languages that name is actually very common and sounds so much better than in our native language.
Still, I keep waiting for Ashton Kutcher to pop out the side door and yell “punked”(or whatever he used).

Prey tell, what are these things that will already "screw" him up that you are referring to?

I agree, that the name will take some getting used to, however, it's not the end of the world.

 

[DebbieAnn]

I am generally a reader of this forum & have commented a handful of times.

While "Archie" would not be my first choice for a boy's name, that is really none of my concern.

From what I understand Queen Elizabeth does have input for names? She & Prince Phillip met their great-grandson today & his name was released at the time. She must have given approval.

The level of animosity toward the baby's name & his parents' choice to name him is rather astounding. If they do not want titles for him, that too is their choice.

Just my input.?

 

[Serafina]

The strongest of my feelings are for the poor child, not because of those names, but because he has been deprived of his rightful titles at birth and so has no say as to whether to use them when older.
If he had been given what is rightfully his, he could have chosen not to use them. This way he gets no choice. To say that as an American citizen as well as British he should not have a title is hardly a reason given the Astors, etc. The current Earl of Wharncliffe is an American citizen living in Maine.

Won't he become the Duke Of Sussex at some point in any case when he inherits the title from his father?

The kid is going to get a title whether he wants one or not

 

[ThistleDoNicely]

I'm very surprised they used the name Archie but I love it! It's a very popular name here in Scotland - it was in 17th place in 2018. I know Americans don't really use diminutives as given names but here in the UK it's very common. I know tons of little Archies, and there are loads of kids where I live named Alfie, Charlie, Evie, Millie, etc. I'm not so keen on Harrison but I understand why they used it - it means "son of Harry." Awww.

And the Queen looked so happy in the family photo. I'm delighted for them all.

 

[loonytick]

Except that for Anne and the Wessexes the case was closed from the beginning. No title. period.
Here we have more a Camilla style "there's indeed a title but we have chosen not to use it" or "we are taking an option just in case he wants to use it when grown up". Again it's perfectly understandable for personnal reasons, but by definition this child will not be a private citizen.

Actually, technically, he is. He's not royal. He's the son of royals, but he has no HRH and may never. That makes him a private citizen, albeit a quite famous one who shares a household with people who aren't.

 

[irish_royalist]

I personally think Archie is a lovely choice, and certainly preferable to some of the suggestions from posters here, who are lambasting it. Of note, he is NOT and will NEVER be Archibald - his name is Archie. It's a popular name in the UK and Ireland at the moment, and one he will share with many of his countrymen, assuming the family stay here.

To be honest I haven't read through all the posts here - but has anyone related Harrison to "harry's son"?

 

[carlota]

odd choice of a name indeed. archie is quite a cute name, but as a nickname rather than as a name (archibald would be quite royal indeed). but harrison? is that even used these days as a first name? if they gave him that second name because he is the 'son of harry' then that is a really bad pun in my opinion, and a bit tacky. it sounds like the name a celeb would give their kid rather than a royal name in my opinion.

regarding the titles, i suspected a lack of titles would be the case.

 

[Susan999]

Does anyone think that the birth certificate image will be shared, or is that tradition reserved for children of the heir?

I doubt it will be shared by the royal couple, but in the UK anyone's birth certificate is obtainable by anyone. That's why it's odd that they won't reveal the birth location, because the press are going to find out from the birth certificate anyway.

 

[mathmannix]

I love the fact that Harry and Megan chose a name that is nontraditional, but makes sense to them. I also think that by calling him Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, for now, instead of Earl of Dumbarton, they are following the Wessex's example for not using and HRH Prince Archie, when Charles becomes king. Perhaps at that time, Archie will start using the Earl of Dumbarton designation.

But the Wessex's children are still "Viscount Severn" and "The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor", so they're actually doing it one step lower. My question is, no matter what the parents decide today or tomorrow, won't Archie automatically become a Prince when the Prince of Wales becomes King, as the male-line grandson of the sovereign? Unless there are new letters patent issued to limit Prince/Princess even further (which would currently strip the Duke of York's daughters of "Princess" as they are in the same boat...)

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

odd choice of a name indeed. archie is quite a cute name, but as a nickname rather than as a name (archibald would be quite royal indeed). but harrison? is that even used these days as a first name? if they gave him that second name because he is he is the 'son of harry' then that is a really bad pun in my opinion, and a bit tacky. it sounds like the name a celeb would give their kid rather than a royal name in my opinion.

regarding the titles, i suspected a lack of titles would be the case.

I didn't know "Hollywood" was around in the 17th century as this where Harrison (the Son of Henry) comes from.

But the Wessex's children are still "Viscount Severn" and "The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor", so they're actually doing it one step lower. My question is, no matter what the parents decide today or tomorrow, won't Archie automatically become a Prince when the Prince of Wales becomes King, as the male-line grandson of the sovereign? Unless there are new letters patent issued...

Yes, this is what some here are glossing over. He will eventually get the HRH Prince title when Charles is King. Many of the RR are stating this. Unless at the time Charles is King and H&M decide not to, but I strongly believe that Charles will want all of his grandchildren to carry the title.

Also, some on the board are using selective amnesia as the announcements coming out of the palace to the RRs is that they have chosen to just go by Archie at this present time, which means in the future, he can use his titles.

 

[Nico]

Actually, technically, he is. He's not royal. He's the son of royals, but he has no HRH and may never. That makes him a private citizen, albeit a quite famous one who shares a household with people who aren't.

Well a "private citizen" with a (not used) title and potential HRH in a few years !
I'm afraid the Sussexes are expecting an unreachable level of privacy for their child...

 

[Serafina]

In Britain giving surnames as given names is seen as very American, though it is catching on. I was much more surprised by Harrison than I was by Archie, but it seems that for the Americans on here it is the opposite.

Surnames as given names is also (traditionally) Scottish, and some were/are so common to the point where where people maybe don't make the surname connection any more. There are loads of them - Craig, Bruce, Blair, Cameron, Stuart, Scott, Campbell...and Archibald

 

[Somebody]

I love the fact that Harry and Megan chose a name that is nontraditional, but makes sense to them. I also think that by calling him Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, for now, instead of Earl of Dumbarton, they are following the Wessex's example for not using and HRH Prince Archie, when Charles becomes king. Perhaps at that time, Archie will start using the Earl of Dumbarton designation.

They are not following the Wessex's example. James is known as viscount Severn and apparently Harry and Meghan decided that their son should not use his father's subsidiary title. In doing so they are going completely against the tradition within the British peerage that eldest sons of a peer use their father's subsidiairy title. So, they essentially snubbed all British peers and their sons who do use the subsidiary title.

And, will he go from being titleless to becoming a (royal) duke at some point in his life or did they also already decide that Archie should never be a duke?

All of this is completely unnessary imo. It would have been fine to just announce that their intention was to keep him styled as the son of a duke instead of him becoming a HRH. And at least consistent with the treatment of the Wessex kids. By creating this precedent the expectation for next generations will be to no longer style anyone but the monarch's and heir's (heir's) children.

Was it the queen who announced the stylelessness of the baby? If so, is any other action necessary or will he still become a royal highness when Charles ascends the throne.

And why did Harry except a peerage for himself but deprived his children of it?

 

[Zaira]

Harrison and Archie are both very traditional names in my book and nothing at all Hollywood.

But I suspect they could have named him Philip and people would claim it wasnt royal and too hollywood...

 

[Rudolph]

Why would Harry and Meghan want their son to go from Master Archie to HRH Prince Archie?

The couple don't even want to use a courtesy title. Why would they want him to be royal.

 

[ladongas]

Well, it will certainly be years until anyone addresses him, or even refers to him, as Earl of Dumbarton.

Oh, no, the Earl of Dumbarton needs his nappy changed!

Oh, no, the Earl of Dumbarton has fallen down and skinned his knee!

I don’t have it in me to criticize or second guess...brand...new...parents on their decisions.

 

[wyevale]

AMEN -'Somebody'.. well said !

 

[Serafina]

I'm very surprised they used the name Archie but I love it! It's a very popular name here in Scotland - it was in 17th place in 2018. I know Americans don't really use diminutives as given names but here in the UK it's very common. I know tons of little Archies, and there are loads of kids where I live named Alfie, Charlie, Evie, Millie, etc. I'm not so keen on Harrison but I understand why they used it - it means "son of Harry." Awww.

And the Queen looked so happy in the family photo. I'm delighted for them all.

Ah, I wondered where it ranked! Because of tradition. Thank you ?