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

[Lilyflo]

No I've never heard of Charles being known as Master Charles. I don't remember his birth, but AFAICR he was always known as Prince Charles

His title from birth until the Queen's accession was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

 

[wyevale]

unless there is an action taken.. he will automatically go to HRH Prince

It will take an act of Parliament to [legally] deprive this individual of his princely status..

I hardly think the public will be pleased to see the legislature waste its time on fripperies of this sort...

 

[Denville]

It will take an act of Parliament to [legally] deprive this individual of his princely status..

I hardly think the public will be pleased to see the legislature waste its time on fripperies of this sort...

I think it could be done by Letters Patent to state that the children of the Duke and Duchess would not be HRH and would go on being styled - whatever....

His title from birth until the Queen's accession was HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh.

Certianly that was my impression from all I have read. I don't think that in the 1940s or 50s, he would be known in the media or generally as Master Charles...

 

[Jacknch]

Please note that a number of off-topic posts have been deleted. This is not a platform for discussing the Markles, family relationships or comparing the way the Sussex's do things against the way the Cambridges do things. Lets stay on topic and not drift into conversations inappropriate to the thread.

 

[Osipi]

I think its all a case of Occum's Razor. The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed. This is how I see things surrounding Archie's birth and ensuing events.

Perhaps its as simple as Harry and Meghan deciding to name their child something that is unique to the child himself rather than debate whom to name the child after. This indicates to me that they'll raise him with no expectations of what they presume his roles in life should be. Archie is different from his cousins and Aunt Kate and Uncle Will is that those children *will* have expectations on them because of being in the main line of succession.

The pictures at Windsor Castle we see are probably just a few of many a photographer took while he was there. The great grandparents weren't receiving a person of importance as in someone presenting their credentials to the Queen but were in "family" mode meeting their new great grandchild. Just looking at all the faces lets us know just what a happy event Archie's birth is for them. Nothing more, nothing less and no intent on a subliminal message being sent although I'll admit to the Queen having a 1000 watt light bulb smile this time of year because of the Windsor Horse Show.

For now, Archie is "Master Archie". What happens in the future as far as the HRH honorific along with Prince isn't clear. Along the same lines of we don't actually know if Camilla will be "Queen Consort". The options are open ended and will be addressed hopefully not for many more years.

Harry, Meghan and Archie make for a close, cozy family of three and one thing that really made me smile is the change here reading "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family". I'll leave the looking for deeper meaning into any of all this to others.

I wonder if Archie has pulled a "gotcha" on his Daddy yet? That's when Daddy removes a dirty diaper and as he reaches for a wipe or a clean diaper, Archie aims and fires and "gets" Daddy.

 

[Denville]

As for Charles, I imagine that if H and Megan don't want their son to have his royal title, he wont insist on it. why should he? If they've changed their minds by then, and DO want him to be a Royal, he will automatically become one

 

[Gawin]

You and we all here knows it. But what about the neighbors in the US????

Why wouldn't those of us in the U.S know he's Harry's son?

Personally I would find it really odd for them to go from no title (inc a courtesy title he is already technically got) to becoming a HRH Prince once Charles becomes King, but that is just IMO.

This way he'll always be known by his name - Master Archie then Prince Archie, as opposed to Lord Dumbarton then Prince Archie.

 

[wbenson]

It will take an act of Parliament to [legally] deprive this individual of his princely status..

It's peerages that can't be taken except by an act of Parliament. There is no such entitlement attached to being a prince. For example, the 2nd Duke of Connaught was born His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught in 1914, but had that taken away in 1917 when the current letters patent narrowed the rules.

 

[Bassoonist]

Apparently George told a woman he met casually that his name was Archie!
So the press is having fun with the idea that H & M copied the name from their tiny nephew!

Although today the DM claims Meghan named her baby after her cat. So who knows?

As for Harrison, I can only think of the kid on the TV series Dexter. His name was Harrison.

I'm with you- I don't like the name at all.
But then, they didn't consult me!

I know, darn it , LOL. Why didn't they just ask me? I could have helped them select a name that would please everyone. But, noooooooooo, they went off on their own and see what happened. Sigh...maybe with the next one. Otherwise we might get a Jughead or Veronica.

edit: Actually, now that I think about it, Veronica is a pretty name, and unusual in the US right now. I do hope the Sussex's have another child. They seem soooooo happy right now.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

Tomorrow will be Meghan's first Mother's Day (U.S.). I do wonder if SussexRoyal will post something for Meghan and Doria (to include Diana and the Queen).

P.S. I understand the U.K. Mothering Sunday was last month and since the DDoS represent the U.K. and the BRF, they may have no obligation to acknowledge U.S. Mother's Day, however I do think that it would be a great public gesture towards her own mother.

 

[ladongas]

I know, darn it , LOL. Why didn't they just ask me? I could have helped them select a name that would please everyone. But, noooooooooo, they went off on their own and see what happened. Sigh...maybe with the next one. Otherwise we might get a Jughead or Veronica.

Actually, “Reggie” might have been more appropriate. I think Archie is just right for a spunky, mischievous little boy- hope he turns out that way.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

I was in Marks and Spencers today and they have unofficial biscuit tins for Archie's birth (I reckon they were made before we knew his name because they only call him "the Sussex baby") so it seems that other stores are following Disney's example!

 

[SLV]

Tomorrow will be Meghan's first Mother's Day (U.S.). I do wonder if SussexRoyal will post something for Meghan and Doria (to include Diana and the Queen).

P.S. I understand the U.K. Mothering Sunday was last month and since the DDoS represent the U.K. and the BRF, they may have no obligation to acknowledge U.S. Mother's Day, however I do think that it would be a great public gesture towards her own mother.

It's not just the US that celebrates Mothers Day tomorrow. But as the UK does not, I think the chances are small. Though not impossible.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

It's not just the US that celebrates Mothers Day tomorrow. But as the UK does not, I think the chances are small. Though not impossible.

I know that it's not just Mother's Days in the U.S., as I have lived in different parts of Europe and the Americas for several years. I was referring to it being American Mother's Day (As Meghan is American) and wondering if they'll pay homage to her and her mother on SussexRoyal.

 

[Countessmeout]

It's peerages that can't be taken except by an act of Parliament. There is no such entitlement attached to being a prince. For example, the 2nd Duke of Connaught was born His Highness Prince Alastair of Connaught in 1914, but had that taken away in 1917 when the current letters patent narrowed the rules.

No one is saying that he cant be denied the title, including Wyevale

They are saying it would take a new LP being issued. Just like it required the LP issued by George V to strip Alistair of his. The point people are making, unless Charles acts to stop it, Archie automatically will be HRH Prince Archie.

I know, darn it , LOL. Why didn't they just ask me? I could have helped them select a name that would please everyone. But, noooooooooo, they went off on their own and see what happened. Sigh...maybe with the next one. Otherwise we might get a Jughead or Veronica.

I would love to know what name you would choose which would universally be loved

I have yet to see a royal name that every person loved. Doesn't happen.

You are never going to please everyone. Best please yourself and those whose opinions you care about.

This way he'll always be known by his name - Master Archie then Prince Archie, as opposed to Lord Dumbarton then Prince Archie.

He would have used his first name either way. Look at James. He isn't referred to as Lord Severn (though he could be), he is called James, Viscount Severn. Archie would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.

 

[Gawin]

No one is saying that he cant be denied the title, including Wyevale

wbenson was responding to Wyevale's comment: "It will take an act of Parliament to [legally] deprive this individual of his princely status.." [post #1055]

wbenson correctly pointed out that only peerage titles can be taken by Parliament.

They are saying it would take a new LP being issued. Just like it required the LP issued by George V to strip Alistair of his.

Yes, that's exactly what wbenson said.

He would have used his first name either way. Look at James. He isn't referred to as Lord Severn (though he could be), he is called James, Viscount Severn. Archie would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.

No, you're wrong. Officially he's known as Viscount Severn not James Viscount Severn. Just as Charles is The Prince of Wales (not Charles Prince of Wales), William is The Duke of Cambridge, Harry is The Duke of Sussex, etc.

See the Royal Family's website:
https://www.royal.uk/succession

 

[Countessmeout]

I didn't realize that James was elevated to a peerage on his own. My mistake

You cant compare James to Charles, William or Harry. He doesn't hold a peerage. They are The Duke of Cambridge, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex. And even then their full title is HRH Prince Charles, The prince of Wales..... Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex. Simply they are referred to by their peerage.

Yes Charles is referred to as simply The Prince of Wales. But his full title is HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales...….

William is HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge

Harry is HRH Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex


Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. It's not like his name would not be used until he became a prince. Just like William is still called Prince William and not always Duke of Cambridge.

How they are commonly addressed even in the CC is not the same as what their actual name/title is.

 

[Gawin]

I didn't realize that James was elevated to a peerage on his own. My mistake

You cant compare James to Charles, William or Harry. He doesn't hold a peerage. They are The Duke of Cambridge, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex. And even then their full title is HRH Prince Charles, The prince of Wales..... Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex. Simply they are referred to by their peerage.

Yes Charles is referred to as simply The Prince of Wales. But his full title is HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales...….

William is HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge

Harry is HRH Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex


Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. It's not like his name would not be used until he became a prince. Just like William is still called Prince William and not always Duke of Cambridge.

How they are commonly addressed even in the CC is not the same as what their actual name/title is.

No, you are wrong and the Royal Family website is correct.

If Viscount Severn had been elevated to a peerage he would be referred to as "The Viscount Severn" not "Viscount Severn," as he is called on the Royal Family website. The absence of the definite article indicates it is not a substantive title.

If Archie were to use his courtesy title his correct style would be Lord Dumbarton or (more formally) Earl of Dumbarton (but not The Earl of Dumbarton).

Members of the BRF are addressed by their correct (but not full) titles or styles in the CC for brevity.

Yes, the Duke of Cambridge is often called Prince William by the press and public but that is technically incorrect. By deciding to forego the use of their son's courtesy title, Harry and Meghan are ensuring that his given name will always be used when addressing him, either correctly or incorrectly, formally or informally.

 

[American Observer7]

I didn't realize that James was elevated to a peerage on his own. My mistake

You cant compare James to Charles, William or Harry. He doesn't hold a peerage. They are The Duke of Cambridge, The Prince of Wales, The Duke of Sussex. And even then their full title is HRH Prince Charles, The prince of Wales..... Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex. Simply they are referred to by their peerage.

Yes Charles is referred to as simply The Prince of Wales. But his full title is HRH Prince Charles, The Prince of Wales...….

William is HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge

Harry is HRH Prince Harry, The Duke of Sussex


Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton. It's not like his name would not be used until he became a prince. Just like William is still called Prince William and not always Duke of Cambridge.

How they are commonly addressed even in the CC is not the same as what their actual name/title is.

Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.


The only reason Archie is NOT is his parents said no to any title. The Queen
was going to grant Archie a princely title, therefore, if he parents had said yes, he would have been HRH Prince Archie de Sussex.

 

[Gawin]

Archie is not if he had a courtesy title, some nameless Earl. He would be Archie, Earl of Dumbarton.


The only reason Archie is NOT is his parents said no to any title. The Queen
was going to grant Archie a princely title, therefore, if he parents had said yes, he would have been HRH Prince Archie de Sussex.

I'm curious - is it a fact that the Queen wanted to give Archie the HRH, as she did to the Cambridge children, rather than wait until Charles is King when George V's LP kicks in? I've not heard that before but maybe I missed it.

 

[LauraS3514]

I'm curious - is it a fact that the Queen wanted to give Archie the HRH, as she did to the Cambridge children, rather than wait until Charles is King when George V's LP kicks in? I've not heard that before but maybe I missed it.

No, absolutely NOTHING was announced re Archie and any potential title until the announcement that he would not use a courtesy title. That's it. We have no idea what went on behind the scenes, but nothing of any kind before that.

 

[Rudolph]

From Hannah Furness:

"Harry and Meghan will not release Archie's birth certificate to ensure baby's privacy"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...not-release-archies-birth-certificate-ensure/

 

[Iluvbertie]

All this means is that they aren't going to take an image and put it out.

The birth certificate, by law, is a matter of public record and anyone can access it and make it public if that is what they want. There is no privacy around birth certificates. If a reporter wants to make it public they will.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

The baby's middle name, Harrison, originated in the Middle Ages as a patronymic.

 

[duchessrachel]

All this means is that they aren't going to take an image and put it out.

The birth certificate, by law, is a matter of public record and anyone can access it and make it public if that is what they want. There is no privacy around birth certificates. If a reporter wants to make it public they will.

Exactly. While I respect Harry and Meghan's desire to make Archie's life as private as possible, I am afraid a step like this is only going to backfire. It is going to cause the press to harass them and Archie even more in order to get information that there is, honestly, no need not to release since it is public anyway.

 

[Sterling3763]

Like others, I’m not a fan of the decision by Harry to accept a peerage with remainders for descendants in 2018, the in 2019 to break with custom and deny his heir a curiosity title.

An idea just occurred to me, though.

Robert Jobson and Victoria Murphy have reported that H&M are open to Archie becoming a HRH per the 1917 letters patent. At first blush, that seems at odds with the decision to deny Archie the title of “lord” or “Earl of Dumbarton.”

But maybe H&M, who are certainly PR-conscious, would like their entire family’s branding to be “of Sussex.” They could be hoping to avoid the child from being branded or solidified in the public as “Archie, Earl of Dumbarton/Archie Dumbarton,” when in less than a decade he’ll instead be “Prince Archie of Sussex.”

 

[Iluvbertie]

What I don't understand is why they would bother with this. The only information that isn't already a matter of public record is where the birth took place. All the rest of the information - name of child, name of parents, where the parents were born, occupations of the parents, date of birth and home of family are already a matter of public record so why do they see a need to not tell the world where the birth took place.

 

[jacqui24]

What I don't understand is why they would bother with this. The only information that isn't already a matter of public record is where the birth took place. All the rest of the information - name of child, name of parents, where the parents were born, occupations of the parents, date of birth and home of family are already a matter of public record so why do they see a need to not tell the world where the birth took place.

None of us knows for sure, but there were discussion about them wanting to keep it quiet so they can potentially use the same place again if there is another baby in the future. That and to keep the media from harassing the medical team as they will use that as a way to figure out who works there and have admitting privileges there.

 

[Ista]

I think the likelihood of the birth certificate being kept secret long enough for Meghan to pop out another baby and use the same hospital is vanishingly small, so like Iluvbertie, I don't see the point of this coyness about the birth certificate. It seem like a very odd and irrelevant thing to get hung up about when it's all public anyway.

 

[JessRulz]

...
The birth certificate, by law, is a matter of public record and anyone can access it and make it public if that is what they want. There is no privacy around birth certificates. If a reporter wants to make it public they will.

If anyone thinks the press isn't going to publish a copy of Archie's birth certificate as soon as they can get their hands on it (42 days after birth is the registration maximum in the UK), there's a bridge in London I'd like to sell them.