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

[Hallo girl]

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

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

Exactly their child their choice, I think we should be choosing our words more carefully

 

[Somebody]

In terms of the names chosen. Archie is somewhat unexpected but a fine choice imo. Not a fan of Harrison. Hopefully Archie himself won't mind too much that he got it as his middle name.

 

[Princess Larisa]

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.

How specific do you have to be on the birth certificate? Do you have to name the address or hospital? Or can they just write London or Windsor as place of birth?

 

[rob2008]

Archie gets the best of all possible worlds - (1) he enjoys a fashionable name of Archie in the upper class world of Eton-Chelsea-Royalty without the burden of royalty and then (2) later on when it is time, he inherits a duchy. This is different from Zara and Peter who will never inherit a title. Beatrice and Eugenie have the burden of being royal which cramps their style and limits what they can do to enjoy their lives. They should have followed Princess Margaret's example. David, Viscount Linley was on the margins and very much his own man in the upper class world and then he eventually inherited the earldom of Snowdon. The boy belongs to the state and has an important role in preserving the delicate constitutional balance by helping to unite the kingdom. HRH Prince Henry is ignoring this important duty. This all appears highly self-indulgent. They benefit so far from the fact that the public are thrilled with babies and Charles as an older generation figure is not exactly popular - so his sons' families get the attention that belongs to the heir.

 

[Somebody]

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.

I would indeed assume that he would privately be known by his first name. And they might have wanted to avoid the Dumbo association but if that is what they wanted to avoid, they probably should have told the queen about their concerns a year ago.

I do wonder whether this is Meghan not wanting a subsidiary title for her son (stressing his position as his father's heir) while her daughter would have (only) been a lady. Maybe she looks forward to all of them being princes and princesses? That would be even a more absurd development but given today's news even that might be in the realm of possibilities.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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?

I think you are going a bit too fast.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex only made known that their son is named Archie Harrison, no more, no less.

The LP creating his father Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel is in force. So Archie is the heir to these titles anyway. That the parents only mentioned the two names does not mean that he will never be known as Lord Archibald Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton.

 

[Susan999]

How specific do you have to be on the birth certificate? Do you have to name the address or hospital? Or can they just write London or Windsor as place of birth?

I believe nowadays you give the full address. I just looked up Prince George's birth certificate and it gives the hospital name.

 

[Mbruno]

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?

Archie will be a Duke if he survives his father. I believe only an act of Parliament could override the LPs that set the remainder of the dukedom as the heirs of Harry’s body male. There is nothing for Harry and Meghan to decide about in this matter.

 

[Osipi]

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.

Perhaps its not only Harry and Meghan making this decision. As I've come to learn, nothing happens in regards to the monarchy and the "Firm" without HM, The Queen's full blown stamp of approval on it.

We saw that the baby's name was not released until after The Queen and the DoE met their newest great grandchild. It was then the name was released to the public. That tells me the name has HM's stamp of approval along with the announcement that the child will be known as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor (which probably tickles Philip a nice shade of pink). Along with the name announcement, the issue of courtesy title and styling was announced. Again, not until after HM, The Queen gave the go ahead and backed Harry and Meghan 100% on this decision.

I do believe that it is all falling in line with changes that may be already happening now preparing for Charles' reign. How often have we mentioned the rumor that Charles wants "to slim down the monarchy"? This way there are no surprises and the slimming down has already begun according to plan. Much better than having it expected that the little guy would be Prince Archie the moment the Queen passes away and then getting blindsided with the announcement that "Nope... Archie is not going to be a prince. Sorry 'bout that folks!".

The monarchy itself is changing. Their incentives and their goals and their work encompasses the globe more and more as time passes. I seriously believe that if little Archie grows up to be anything like his parents, he won't *need* titles and styles to make a difference on the world stage. The days of a charity or organization having a "royal" ribbon cutter have passed and what we're seeing is more people that happen to have royal titles and styles getting down and getting dirty and participating and caring and making a difference through their own hard work and their ideas that bear fruit and grow into accomplishing amazing things.

If this is the aim of how Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is going to be raised, I'm all for it. As I've said before, he's one lucky little guy! ?

 

[Somebody]

I think you are going a bit too fast.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex only made known that their son is named Archie Harrison, no more, no less.

The LP creating his father Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel is in force. So Archie is the heir to these titles anyway. That the parents only mentioned the two names does not mean that he will never be Lord Archibald Mountbatten-Windor, Earl of Dumbarton.

I havdn't read the exact announcement yet (do you have a link?), so would be pleased if they just announced his name without specifically stating that they want him addressed as master instead of as Earl of Dumbarton. However, why does everyone seem to interpret it as if we are not to call him Earl of Dumbarton (even the title of this thread removed the 'earl of Dumbarton' bit)?

If he is the Earl of Dumbarton, why all this fuss? If they only temporarily want nobody to use this style but we are supposed to start calling him by this style at some unknown later point in life I am even more confused. When would he be worthy of that style?

 

[Serafina]

I think you are going a bit too fast.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex only made known that their son is named Archie Harrison, no more, no less.

The LP creating his father Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel is in force. So Archie is the heir to these titles anyway. That the parents only mentioned the two names does not mean that he will never be Lord Archibald Mountbatten-Windor, Earl of Dumbarton.

This is what I assumed. If at some point he finds himself in a situation where carrying the title would be appropriate, could he not assume the 'Earl Dumbarton' title if and whenever he chooses?

 

[jacqui24]

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.

But why couldn't he should he choose to? It's not like the Wessexes' HRH title where by the Queen's will, it was taken away. Nothing was taken away. It was just what he'll be known as. He'll still be the next Duke of Sussex when the time comes.

And btw, just to be clear. I'm entirely sympathetic to your point about the child and his rightful title. It's hard to convey non-aggressive tone over messages sometimes. I just want to make that clear.

 

[Blog Real]

I would never hit the name. ?
I do not even think the name bad, but there were better ones in my opinion.
Will not the baby have a title?

 

[Somebody]

I do believe that it is all falling in line with changes that may be already happening now preparing for Charles' reign. How often have we mentioned the rumor that Charles wants "to slim down the monarchy"? This way there are no surprises and the slimming down has already begun according to plan. Much better than having it expected that the little guy would be Prince Archie the moment the Queen passes away and then getting blindsided with the announcement that "Nope... Archie is not going to be a prince. Sorry 'bout that folks!".

Ok, so little Archie 'will be known as...' That sounds like the same wording as used for the Wessex children, so that would effectively mean he is stripped of his courtesy title. So, will his future son also not be allowed to use this style or will it be reintroduced when he inherits the dukedom (from being a random master)?

If they wanted to avoid us thinking that Archie would ever be a prince it would have been a really easy thing to state exactly that. Now people are still wondering whether he eventually will... (which I never thought likely but who knows).

And while the queen apparently consented to this strange wish of Harry and Meghan, I don't think she really thought it a great idea to dismiss the way the peerage system works in the UK. I cannot imagine the queen advocating for it.

 

[jacqui24]

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?

That's a bit harsh about snubbing all peers. This is a personal choice. As Lilyflo has mentioned, there are others who do not use the subsidiary title even if one day they'll be the peer.

We do have to keep in mind that we are talking about a child here. A child in a position where he'll not be a working member of the BRF. Frankly, I don't see how being called Earl of Dumbarton will affect his life other than perhaps the media will feel entitlement to him because of that title and who his parents are.

As it stands, he'll be the next Duke of Sussex. Nothing was taken from him. The subsidiary title is not his. It's his father's. If he decides that he wants to be called Earl of Dumbarton when he's old enough to make that decision, he can tell people to call him that. Although, I suspect even those with titles are often addressed just by loved ones by their name.

The Queen didn't issue anything to take away his right to HRH when Charles ascends. As it stands, he's entitled to it if he becomes child of a sovereign. Although, it'll be interesting how they handle the announcement then.

Ok, so little Archie 'will be known as...' That sounds like the same wording as used for the Wessex children, so that would effectively mean he is stripped of his courtesy title. So, will his future son also not be allowed to use this style or will it be reintroduced when he inherits the dukedom (from being a random master)?

If they wanted to avoid us thinking that Archie would ever be a prince it would have been a really easy thing to state exactly that. Now people are still wondering whether he eventually will... (which I never thought likely but who knows).

And while the queen apparently consented to this strange wish of Harry and Meghan, I don't think she really thought it a great idea to dismiss the way the peerage system works in the UK. I cannot imagine the queen advocating for it.

I don't believe the Queen issued a will like in the Wessex's case. You can't strip his title because he doesn't have a title. Earl of Dumbarton is Harry's title, not this baby's. He'll one day inherit it, but until then he's only allowed to be addressed as such rather than having it as his title.

 

[Elenath]

I havdn't read the exact announcement yet (do you have a link?), so would be pleased if they just announced his name without specifically stating that they want him addressed as master instead of as Earl of Dumbarton. However, why does everyone seem to interpret it as if we are not to call him Earl of Dumbarton (even the title of this thread removed the 'earl of Dumbarton' bit)?

If he is the Earl of Dumbarton, why all this fuss? If they only temporarily want nobody to use this style but we are supposed to start calling him by this style at some unknown later point in life I am even more confused. When would he be worthy of that style?

Because people are making a fuss where there is none. Harry and Meghan have every right to not use those titles in daily life, but that doesn’t mean the titles don’t exist. I’m not an expert in British peerage, but is there a chance he will start to use these titles when Charles becomes king? Or perhaps when Harry dies and Archie inherits. As for now, he’s just a child and he can live a perfectly happy life without using his titles.

 

[Hallo girl]

Why is everybody getting worked up about a title for a 3 days old baby. He is Archie, end of, or in Scotland Erchie.


They are far sighted, followed Annes route.

 

[carlota]

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

how very ironic - as if anyone will ever need a reminder of who this kid is the son of!

no need for attacking on other's opinions. you love it? then i am really glad for you. others don't? i suggest better to live with it.

 

[Somebody]

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.

And this! Announcing that you won't people to use the style and courtesy title he is entitled to after presenting him to the world in Windsor castle and sharing a picture of him with the queen and duke of Edinburgh...

(I don't remember seeing pictures of the queen and duke of Edinburgh's first meeting with the Cambridge children)

 

[rob2008]

They are not following Anne's example because her two children will never inherit a title. Archie is automatically Lord Archie and, by courtesy Earl of Dumbarton. One day he will be Duke of Sussex.

Edward is more honest. His son is known as Viscount Severn and he will one day inherit Edward's titles.

 

[Somebody]

Why is everybody getting worked up about a title for a 3 days old baby. He is Archie, end of, or in Scotland Erchie.


They are far sighted, followed Annes route.

Big difference: this boy is first in line to the dukedom of Sussex!

So, please don't pretend he is just an ordinary guy. He is not. Even prince Michael's children are styled as Lord and Lady and the heir's son's child is not?!

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I think you are going a bit too fast.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex only made known that their son is named Archie Harrison, no more, no less.

The LP creating his father Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel is in force. So Archie is the heir to these titles anyway. That the parents only mentioned the two names does not mean that he will never be known as Lord Archibald Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton.

This is what myself and others have been saying, however, we were ignored. Thank you for restating this. The announcements all said "At the time"

 

[Somebody]

Because people are making a fuss where there is none. Harry and Meghan have every right to not use those titles in daily life, but that doesn’t mean the titles don’t exist. I’m not an expert in British peerage, but is there a chance he will start to use these titles when Charles becomes king? Or perhaps when Harry dies and Archie inherits. As for now, he’s just a child and he can live a perfectly happy life without using his titles.

He could easily be known as Archie by his family and friends (so in daily life) while still formally being addressed as Earl of Dumbarton. It's Harry and Meghan creating the fuss.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

how very ironic - as if anyone will ever need a reminder of who this kid is the son of!

no need for attacking on other's opinions. you love it? then i am really glad for you. others don't? i suggest better to live with it.

I didn't attack you, and if you took the time to read the other posts, you would have seen where I said that I'm also trying to get used to the name. I was addressing your referral to the name as being "Hollywood" which it is not.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I wish the reporters would have asked how the dogs, Guy and the younger Lab are taking to the new little Sussex, Archie.

For now, hasn't it been clearly stated that the baby will be known as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor?

 

[jacqui24]

I think you are going a bit too fast.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex only made known that their son is named Archie Harrison, no more, no less.

The LP creating his father Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel is in force. So Archie is the heir to these titles anyway. That the parents only mentioned the two names does not mean that he will never be known as Lord Archibald Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but they don't have the power to strip him of anything, right? Like, he's still entitled to everything he's entitled to. But just be known, for now, by his name.

 

[Osipi]

Another little fact has blown through my caffeinated infused mind here. It could have gone the opposite way and reverted back to the time when Charles was a small boy. From birth through childhood into his adult dating life and beyond, everyone was required to call him "Sir". Even Diana did until they became engaged, I believe.

Camilla's son, Tom Parker-Bowles in an article stated that both he and Laura called Charles "Sir" but to them, it was more an affectionate term like "uncle" to them.

It'd be weird to have it known that "Sir needs his nappy changed" or "Sir skinned his knee" or "Sir flunked his math test again". Even stranger would be bringing back the old custom of having an archaic "whipping boy" as a stand in for punishment for little "Sir" when he messed up.

British history is fascinating but... the times they are a changin'

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Why is everybody getting worked up about a title for a 3 days old baby. He is Archie, end of, or in Scotland Erchie.


They are far sighted, followed Annes route.

Why act like this is something new or wrong? All of us are here because we have been worked up even before he was born.

OTH that is a really horrible name. If that was an attempt to have an American name they could have done much better. Archie is in no way Hollywood!!!
Hollywood parents name their kids dumb names like Blue.

 

[jacqui24]

how very ironic - as if anyone will ever need a reminder of who this kid is the son of!

no need for attacking on other's opinions. you love it? then i am really glad for you. others don't? i suggest better to live with it.

I don't think they are trying to remind people who this child is the son of. Just like if one names their daughter Abigail doesn't mean they are trying to remind people she's her father's joy. I think it's just a nice meaning.

Speaking of meanings, Archie apparently means brave and strong.

Why act like this is something new or wrong? All of us are here because we have been worked up even before he was born.

OTH that is a really horrible name. If that was an attempt to have an American name they could have done much better.

It's actually not an American thing. It's a UK think apparently. That name isn't so uncommon there compared to US, and apparently quite popular.

It was quite funny when a poster posted about the oddity of Harrison, and I thought the odd part was Archie whereas Harrison was not too common, but nothing surprising. She, as a Brit, didn't find Archie surprising as a name.

 

[Claricecolin]

I am starting to get confused here. Not long ago there were people saying the Sussex 's were minor royals and the #of HRH would be streamlined. Now there is upset in some quarters because Baby Archie is not at this time using a title? I don't get it...That Baby Archie shouldn't be presented at Windsor or with his great grandparents? I believe Princess Margaret once said something like my children are not royal their Aunt just happens to be Queen.

Royal or private citizen, this baby is still the great grandchild of a monarch and in due course grandson of a monarch