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

[HereditaryPrincess]

Well, I think we can all safely say that almost none of us guessed Archie (I think someone might have suggested Archibald a while back, but not Archie). The combination is very modern and a mixture of British/American which reflects the Sussexes themselves. Nicknames as first names is a common phenomena here in the UK and has been for a while now (one of my relatives, who was born in the 1930s, is called Jeanie and just Jeanie, so this "trend" has been going on for quite a long time) and Harrison reflects the popularity of surnames as first names in the US. I was somewhat expecting them to choose a more out-of-the-box name, and Archie right now reminds me of our reaction when we first heard Princess Estelle of Sweden's name. I didn't like Estelle at first and couldn't imagine a queen with the name, but since we've gotten to know her adorable personality I've grown to love the name and can't imagine her with another.


Someone suggested that Meghan named her baby after the character Archie Andrews from the Archie Comics, especially after it's been reported that whilst she was on Suits she watched the also Netflix original Riverdale, which is based off the comics.

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.

Totally agree with this. As much as I like the Sussexes, I do think the way they handled the situation is pretty weird. Meghan should realise (and I'm not singling her out, just highlighting her because she wasn't a royal before marrying Harry) that fame and publicity is all part of the royal package. Princess Anne's grandchildren went about it the right way, but that's probably because they're used to having a lowkey "royal" lifestyle. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Archie had a public christening after all this.

 

[Elenath]

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.

Because he’s not the Earl of Dumbarton, Harry is. Archie will have to wait for his turn.

 

[Zaira]

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)

But where is the fuss? The fuss is being created by others, not by them. They gave the public a look in and folks will see it, say "how lovely" and move on. Windsor is their home. The original plan was for it to be an outdoor shoot but that was shoot thanks to the weather. The great hall has a special place for them as it was the location of their reception for the wedding.

And i personally thought it was very special they shared a pic of the great grandparents and Doria. Something that likely would not have happened without the blessing of the Queen and Prince Philip.

The "fuss" over the title is others putting their own preferences on these two and feelings about what is or is not "the thing that is done." They said that at this time their child will simply be "archie etc" and that is that.

Sometimes, again, I think royal watchers are more royal than the royals themselves. And yes include myself in that observation.

 

[jacqui24]

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.

Or Sir's in a time out.

 

[Hallo girl]

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?!

Why are you arguing with me, where did I say he was an ordinary guy. He is a three day old baby, why is everybody getting so worked up about things. It is nobody's business except the parents. It is all quite laughable when you think of the comments on these forums over the last few days with regards the press/media thinking they owned the sussex baby.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

The first royal woman to give birth in a hospital was in 1970 when The Duchess of Kent delivered Lord Nicholas Windsor. The Duchess of Gloucester's son, Alexander Earl of Ulster, was born prematurely in 1974, also in hospital. The 1977 babies were Peter Phillips and Lady Davina Windsor, now Lewis. Tragically, The Duchess of Kent also delivered a stillborn son in 1977.

Thank you for that detailed information, expanding on and correcting my earlier post. BTW, sadly it was reported in March that Lady Davina Windsor Lewis divorced her Maori husband, Gary Lewis, last year.

 

[kathia_sophia]

If Harry and Meghan want their son to be a private citizen, then that means that we won't see this child on trooping?

 

[wyevale]

Thanks for the clarity, but it [seems to me] VERY hard to go against the expressed will of ones parents [at any age], and especially so when their decision was so [gratuitously] public..
The renowned 'hate-filled' British press will have a field day when 'Mister Archie' chooses to 'elevate himself' - "Mister's NOT good enough" -"Too grand for plain Mr" etc, etc.

Really it puzzles me that any parent would decide to restrict their child's options in any way..
No doubt they think its 'in his best interest', I simply think they are attempting to 'make him ordinary' , when that can NEVER be.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Because he’s not the Earl of Dumbarton, Harry is. Archie will have to wait for his turn.

? At this point, I doubt the Sussexes ever plan to give their son Archie either a courtesy nobility title, nor a royal title. But we shall see. Perhaps his parents want Archie to make the decision on his own, when he's reached a certain age. ?

 

[Mbruno]

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)

I believe some posters have a valid point that a courtesy title does not technically belong to the person who uses it. Archie is not the Earl of Dumbarton; Harry is. A peer's heir may use a courtesy title, but that is not mandatory and, in legal documents, a courtesy title is normally implied, but not stated directly. For example, a courtesy title holder may be referred to as "[name] [family name], commonly called [courtesy title]". I wish we could find James Mountbatten-Windsor's birth certificate for example to see if Viscount Severn is used explicitly or not.


Having said that, it is odd that Harry and Meghan chose to call their son, a male-line great-grandson of a reigning Queen, grandson of a future King , and a future Duke, "Master Archie". Not using the courtesy title is already an eccentricity, but not using the prefix "Lord", which is universally accorded to sons of Dukes, is even stranger and at odds with British tradition.



I really don't understand what they want to accomplish with that kind of decision. If the goal is to slim down the Royal Family, they should just have made a statement that Archie will never be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex, which they didn't do (so he might still be). Turning their backs on long-held conventions of styling relatives of peers accomplishes nothing and may antagonize lots of people. It's bad PR in my opinion.


BTW, I had not thought about that before, but, after reading another poster's message on this forum, I now agree that Harry should start using his title of Earl of Dumbarton while in Scotland.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Thanks for the clarity, but it [seems to me] VERY hard to go against the expressed will of ones parents [at any age], and especially so when their decision was so [gratuitously] public..
The renowned 'hate-filled' British press will have a field day when 'Mister Archie' chooses to 'elevate himself' - "Mister's NOT good enough" -"Too grand for plain Mr" etc, etc.

Really it puzzles me that any parent would decide to restrict their child's options in any way..
No doubt they think its 'in his best interest', I simply think they are attempting to 'make him ordinary' , when that can NEVER be.

Right. Most likely, little Archie of Sussex will always be known the world over as 'Archie.' Just as his father Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, will always be known the world over as 'Harry.' ?

Harry has indicated many times how he didn't like being called a prince. As he got older and settled down with his stint in the military and his sojourns in Botswana, Harry began to realize that being a prince of England, enabled him to do good deeds for other people. That directed him and helped give his life more of a sense of purpose and focus.

BTW, it's Master Archie, not Mister.

I tend to agree @Mbruno that it's way out of strict tradition for the Sussexes to forego Earl of XXX, and not even to use Lord. But perhaps Harry envied his cousins, Zara and Peter Phillips, when he was growing up, because they were not burdened by any titles. Harry and Meghan are always surprising us with their choices.

Even without the courtesy title, or the expected nobility title, or even the 'HRH Prince' title which also is not assured, Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor will most assuredly bear the weight of prestige and scrutiny over the course of his life.

 

[jacqui24]

? At this point, I doubt the Sussexes ever plan to give their son Archie either a courtesy nobility title, nor a royal title. But we shall see. Perhaps his parents want Archie to make the decision on his own, when he's reached a certain age. ?

Elenath's point was that one day the baby will inherit Earl of Dumbarton along with Duke of Sussex and Baron Kilkeel titles as his own. Today, while he can be known as Earl of Dumbarton, he's not The Earl of Dumbarton as it is NOT his title. It's his father's. Sussexes can't give or take away a title as that is up to the monarch. And Queen Elizabeth has said male heirs of the body.

 

[Susan D]

I'm stunned at the names; I don't know why he's not Prince Arthur or Prince Charles or even Prince Geoffrey or Prince Frederick.

 

[Tarlita]

Tis early morning here and I have spent the last hour reading several pages of posts.
I was shocked to see the name chosen was Archie! As my first thought was to associate it with the Archie comics from many years ago.
But it has grown on me. In German it means brave and Harrison as son of Harry suits. I am surprised they didn't chose one more middle name.
I wonder if Harry and Meghan have been speaking to his cousin Zara about the pro's and cons of living within the Royal family without having a title.

 

[jacqui24]

Thanks for the clarity Jacqui24, but it [seems to me] VERY hard to go against the expressed will of ones parents [at any age], and especially so when their decision was so [gratuitously] public..
The renowned 'hate-filled' British press will have a field day when 'Mister Archie' chooses to 'elevate himself' - "Mister's NOT good enough" -"Too grand for plain Mr" etc, etc.

Really it puzzles me that any parent would decide to restrict their child's options in any way..
No doubt they think its 'in his best interest', I simply think they are attempting to 'make him ordinary' , when that can NEVER be.

I'm trying to think, but I don't know how anything changes because he's not known as Earl of Dumbarton today. He's not loosing any opportunities. And let face it, this baby is going to grow up previleged. Just like Harry's cousins did, no matter if they are HRHs, Lady/Lord, or Mr/Ms. He's not being denied anything in order to succeed or happy in life. Perhaps ordinary person is the wrong word, but private person maybe?

I know there has been some complaints regarding them possibly restricting some access to the birth, but I honestly don't think they do it to spite the press or the people. I think they recognize they have a public role and there is public interest, but ultimately it's their child that comes first. So it's not about anything against anyone, but protecting their son.

As for going against one's parent. Plenty of kids make an art form out of it. Starting when they learn to say no.

 

[kyle]

The way I see it...

Archie can not be a prince because he is not the grandchild of the monarch. If Charles passes before the Queen, he will never be a prince.

I personally do not like the name Dumbarton and am happy he is not using it.

I would not be surprised if he becomes Prince Archie, if Charles is King, and at the death of his father, the Duke of Sussex.

Right now he is a tiny baby. If he was my child, I would be happy that his name for the time being is simply Master Archie Harrison Mountbatton-Windsor.

These are opinions and I do not wish to argue.

 

[Osipi]

aHa!!! This just in from a report I read on one of my news feeds. Harry and Meghan *did* honor his late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales in a very sneaky way that won't be picked up by a lot of people.

"The moniker is also a tribute to the 34-year-old duke’s late mother, Princess Diana, as one of her ancestors was Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll, from Scotland."

Take from it what you will. I usually don't buy into royal stories from my news feeds here in the States.

https://www.aol.com/article/lifesty...iker-is-a-tribute-to-princess-diana/23723328/

 

[Blog Real]

For this decision of the Dukes of Sussex is strange. Even because Archie will never be a private citizen. This reminds me of what Princess Anne did to her children, Peter and Zara, when she did not want to give them a title. But Harry and Meghan are dukes, so if they accepted a dukedom, their son should have, for example, the title of earl. I still have not figured out what the Dukes of Sussex's decision was.

 

[Mbruno]

Frankly, not being British , I am more annoyed by their use of the media than by the baby's name and title (or lack thereof).


Harry and Meghan didn't want to do the Lindo Wing steps photo, which is perfectly fine. No mother who just gave birth should be forced to do that if she doesn't want to and feels OK with it.



However, they replaced the comparatively spontaneous (and democractic) steps photo with a highly staged (and controlled) media presentation of the baby using a historic hall of Windsor Castle as backdrop and including pictures of the Queen and the DoE. The fact that happened in the Queen's home and that the Queen agreed to pose for pictures indicates she approves it, but still that degree of pomp and circumstance is odd for a collateral line of the Royal Family.



I don't want to sound mean and rain on the couple's parade (after all, they must be rightfully thrilled with baby Archie), but I am honestly starting to believe that "what Meghan wants, Meghan gets".

 

[Elenath]

For this decision of the Dukes of Sussex is strange. Even because Archie will never be a private citizen. This reminds me of what Princess Anne did to her children, Peter and Zara, when she did not want to give them a title. But Harry and Meghan are dukes, so if they accepted a dukedom, their son should have, for example, the title of earl. I still have not figured out what the Dukes of Sussex's decision was.

He will have all titles in the future, but he will have to wait his turn. In the meantime he uses no courtesy titles and when the queen dies and Charles becomes king, he will be prince Archie. Which in my very honest opinion, sounds a bit silly. But anyhow, not my baby, not my choice. And it could be much worse.

 

[Duchessblack]

But where is the fuss? The fuss is being created by others, not by them. They gave the public a look in and folks will see it, say "how lovely" and move on. Windsor is their home. The original plan was for it to be an outdoor shoot but that was shoot thanks to the weather. The great hall has a special place for them as it was the location of their reception for the wedding.

And i personally thought it was very special they shared a pic of the great grandparents and Doria. Something that likely would not have happened without the blessing of the Queen and Prince Philip.

The "fuss" over the title is others putting their own preferences on these two and feelings about what is or is not "the thing that is done." They said that at this time their child will simply be "archie etc" and that is that.

Sometimes, again, I think royal watchers are more royal than the royals themselves. And yes include myself in that observation.

Thank you for this. I am a brand new poster. I came on to share in the excitement of a new baby in the royal family. Imo, it doesn't matter if he has a title of HRH or whatever, he is still a member of the royal family. Reading these post, I have to say I am a little shocked at the harshness of some towards Meghan and to a lesser extent Harry. Thought it would be a little different here.

I find it interesting that people are using the word deprived in reference to the son of a prince. He will not be referred to as an Earl...yes, poor child.

 

[wyevale]

^ It really is wholly inconsistent to insist this is 'plain Archie' [so NO fuss], but have him introduced with a background of [arguably] the very grandest backdrop Windsor Castle affords !

But [increasingly] this couple seem a 'mass of contradictions'...

 

[Iluvbertie]

Since not styling him Lord iappears to be a violation of the LPs of 1917, shouldn’t a statement be made that it is the Queen’s will that he be known as “Master” ?

There doesn't need to be an official statement making known the Queen's Will.

By just doing it the Queen's Will has been made known so no Lord or Earl of Dumbarton it seems.

How they make the Queen's Will known is up to the Queen.

 

[Hallo girl]

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.

Annes husband refused a title, which would have allowed her children to have titles.It has always been believed that this was a joint decision not just his. They recognised that further down the line their children would be quite removed from the throne.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He will have all titles in the future, but he will have to wait his turn. In the meantime he uses no courtesy titles and when the queen dies and Charles becomes king, he will be prince Archie. Which in my very honest opinion, sounds a bit silly. But anyhow, not my baby, not my choice. And it could be much worse.

I am not sure he will ever be a Prince.

He is already not using the titles he is entitled to under the 1917 Letters Patent - that of Lord as the child who isn't entitled to HRH but is the child of a Prince. That would suggest that they may go the whole way and say no to the all his entitlements under the 1917 LPs and move up to being a Prince when his grandfather becomes King.

This is further signs of the making the royal family smaller with only the children of the heir apparent having HRH - and that I suspect will be formalised going forward.

 

[jacqui24]

^ It really is wholly inconsistent to insist this is 'plain Archie' [so NO fuss], but have him introduced with a background of [arguably] the very grandest backdrop Windsor Castle affords !

But [increasingly] this couple seem a 'mass of contradictions'...

If it helps. It wasn't supposed to be St. George's Hall. It was supposed to be outside, but it rained.

I am not sure he will ever be a Prince.

He is already not using the titles he is entitled to under the 1917 Letters Patent - that of Lord as the child who isn't entitled to HRH but is the child of a Prince. That would suggest that they may go the whole way and say no to the all his entitlements under the 1917 LPs and move up to being a Prince when his grandfather becomes King.

This is further signs of the making the royal family smaller with only the children of the heir apparent having HRH - and that I suspect will be formalised going forward.

I don't know if it'll be formalized. I think this is a personal choice of the couple and obviously their family supported it. I do think it perhaps surprised QEII and Prince Charles that little Archie would go by Master rather than Lord as he is (still) entitled to. So I don't know if they would want to deny the younger Cambridge children's children that one day. However, it does set a precedent as another option for future generations.

 

[Osipi]

If it helps. It wasn't supposed to be St. George's Hall. It was supposed to be outside, but it rained.

Yeps... and the proof's in the pudding. The picture of the Queen at the Windsor Horse Show earlier in the day should have a caption under it stating "Dedication". Rain or shine, she wasn't going to miss it. I'm glad Harry and Meghan opted for indoors with the little guy.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think he will ever be titled. I think the Dukedom will revert back to the Crown on Harry's death. I also think that giving him no title at all is a bit drastic. Even the children of all the Queen's HRH cousins are Lords and Ladies and I'm sure he could have still lived his own life with that sort of title.

For him to not be the Duke of Sussex in time will take legislation as the title was created with the remainder 'heirs male of the body'. Even then the title won't revert to the Crown while there are legitimate male heirs e.g. the Dukes of Cumberland and Albany titles which were stripped from their holders over a century ago but still aren't available for regrant in the UK as there are male claimants.

He may not use the title but it will be his regardless.

 

[Duchessblack]

No, he is not "plain Archie", he is the great-grandson and probably one day will be the grandson of the monarch. He will reap the benefits of that. I do not see how that is erased by not having Lord in front of his name?

I'm just a silly american I suppose.

 

[jacqui24]

No, he is not "plain Archie", he is the great-grandson and probably one day will be the grandson of the monarch. He will reap the benefits of that. I do not see how that is erased by not having Lord in front of his name?

I'm just a silly american I suppose.

That's my question about his parents "restricting" him.

And btw, I know some of have mentioned up thread that the Sussexes are being contradicting as opposed to the Tindalls and Philips. Reality is, they aren't in the same situation. Tindalls and Philips are private individuals themselves, Harry and Meghan aren't. So they aren't following the Tindalls and Philips, but more Princess Anne. She also allowed some access to her children in terms of being shown after they are born, but they remained private citizens.