- Joined
- Aug 21, 2017
- Messages
- 11,354
- City
- BC
- Country
- Canada
This doesn't quite add up given that consistency was already broken with the Wessex children. And it's just odd to use them as the standard now when Harry and Edward are not comparable. Edward was in a much different position at the time it was decided his children would not be styled as HRH. If a comparison must be made then it should be between Harry and Andrew. Both second sons with one already having daughters with HRH titles. That's stronger than what you're arguing imo.
I agree that the consistency was broken with the Wessex children. The only way for that to make sense is if from now on ALL non-heir grandchildren are styled as children of a duke instead of as HRH.
For both Edward's and Harry's children the expectation (imo) is that they will NOT be full-time representatives of the Firm, so, if the new insight is that those not working for the firm (i.e., anyone not belonging to the direct family of the monarch or heir(s)) shouldn't be royal highness that should apply to all. In hindsight Beatrice and Eugenie probably shouldn't have been royal either but that was not yet the thinking in the 80's, while it was the new line of the thought by the 90's it seems.
So, if Harry's children are to be elevated (if they return to the former line of thought that all male-line grandchildren should be HRH), that principle should be applied to Louise, James and Archie. Not only to Archie.
I was talking about the peerage; not the monarchy. If the most recent and extremely prominent peer decides that the use of styles related to the peerage are to be avoided that could be one of the many small steps that eventually will lead to bringing down the system.Really?!!! The monarchy survived the loss of its political power, the madness of King George, the American Revolution, George IV & Queen Caroline, World War I, Edward VIII & Mrs. Simpson, World War II, the Charles & Diana fiasco followed by the Andrew & Sarah fiasco, Charles's marriage to Camilla (the infamous "other woman") but Harry & Meghan's decision not to call their son by a courtesy title might create a scandal that will be a small step in bringing the system down??????????
The LPs are clear about how Archie should have been styled: that's why H&M made an announcement because they want to deviate from that practice.Considering that Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is the Queen's first great-grandchild in the male line who is not also the child of a future King, there really isn't any *consistency* to compare this to.
Because we are entitled to our own opinion (and I don't think permission equals support; she might inwardly be really miffed but still allow it because she it's her grandson who asked her - and it seems she has a sweet spot for her grandchildren).I can't believe the hysteria over not using a *courtesy* title! This decision wouldn't have been made without the Queen's permission. If she's willing to go along with it why can't we?
You're right, I was forgetting about second+ sons.
Still, there's been a lot of chatter about the Mountbatten-Windsor name being one that barely gets used to this point. It must feel nice to Philip to see one of his grandkids proudly presented to the world with it front and center.
He has had a granddaughter using his surname for 16 years. It's not that his great-grandson Archie is the first to use it (nor is he the first to pass it on: that's his grandson James).
Indeed very inconsistent... (one of many)Robert Jobson in the Evening Standard appears to be quoting the same "royal source/senior source", but implies he has been given confirmation that the Prince title will be used.
Archie Harrison's title: Meghan Markle and Prince Harry's baby WILL become a Prince - once Charles is King | London Evening Standard
New Royal baby, Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, will become a Prince with his parents’ blessing once his grandfather Prince Charles is King, the Evening Standard has learned.
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have agreed that their son will also be given the title “His Royal Highness” which is his right as the grandson of a reigning monarch through the male line.
“The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, however, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,” a senior source told the Evening Standard.
[…]
Buckingham Palace has said on the matter of titles, “While there are courtesy titles that Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex could apply to their son, they have chosen not to give him a “courtesy title” at this time. So he will be known as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.”
However, if the reports you mentioned were true, the future King wanting royal titles to be denied to the children of the present Queen's younger sons really would be inconsistent with wanting royal titles for the children of his own younger son, considering that Prince Harry's children will be in exactly the same position during their grandfather's reign as the position Prince Andrew's and Prince Edward's children are in during their grandmother's reign.
The official website calls Archie "Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor" in the same list where James is mentioned as Viscount Severn. Seeing this and the use of the formal titles Master/Mr/Miss/Mrs in the list, along with the announcement "The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time", the intention seems to be that, for the time being, Archie will not be mentioned as Earl of Dumbarton even in formal announcements.
However, if they truly want him to become a prince, the main reason for not calling him Earl of Dumbarton might be that they just really dislike the 'Dumbarton'-part. Although I still don't understand that they don't even let him be Lord Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.
Last edited by a moderator: