Jump to content

Talk:Prince Archie of Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Deliriousandlost (talk | contribs) at 05:05, 10 May 2019 (→‎WP:CRYSTAL about possible future title: who said it's good to be king?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Earl of Dumbarton?

As he is not covered by the patents for princely titles, should he be styled by his father's subsidiary peerage? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be logical, but maybe we should wait until that is confirmed by some reliable source before adding the courtesy title to the article. --Editor FIN (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although as you say it may be best to wait, the correct form of address will be Earl of Dumbarton for the first born son. Other sons and daughters will be addressed as 'Lord' and 'Lady' prefixed to their given names. The only way this could change would be for the Sovereign to issue a Letters Patent granting Princely status to any issue of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.Ds1994 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he should be titled Earl of Dumbarton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.128.62 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. Prince George did not take the title that Prince William uses in Scotland (i.e. Earl of Strathearn). OliWatson (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's because he has a higher title (of prince), so doesn't use a courtesy title. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DrKay is correct Princes don't use courtesy titles. I don't mind waiting but this isn't really a controversial edit to put the title in now. This is no different that the Earl of St Andrews or Earl of Ulster Garlicplanting (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would be usual... but Harry uses that title in Scotland, so best wait for announcements. DBD 14:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a source https://www.clydebankpost.co.uk/news/17621407.new-earl-of-dumbarton-is-born-as-meghan-markle-gives-birth/
They've made a reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. We should wait for the name and style announcement from the Palace. DBD 14:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be that the first son will be styled the Earl of Dumbarton, with the caveat that Prince Harry may be given another Earldom with a Scottish name place for his use in Scotland. There is a precedent for this, but for other reasons, with the Earl of Wessex, who was also recently created Earl of Forfar for use in that country.Ds1994 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a clash between two different conventions and the announcements haven't yet given an answer. One convention is that the additional titles granted to princes in recent year are for use by the princes themselves, at least in Scotland, whereas previous Royal Dukes have generally used the same title everywhere with very localised exceptions (e.g. Prince Andrew only seems to use "Earl of Inverness" in Inverness-shire and "Baron Killyleagh" in Killyleagh, but "Duke of York" in the rest of Scotland and Northern Ireland). Edward's recent new extra Earldom is probably for similar use as his parents' longevity means he hasn't yet been made Duke of Edinburgh.
Complicating all this is that a quick search of the Court Circular suggests that neither Harry nor Meghan have actually undertaken any engagements in Scotland since their wedding, which means that they haven't yet had the option to use "Dumbarton" or not in place of "Sussex" north of the border.
The other convention is that whereas princes don't use courtesy peerages, non-prince eldest sons use one of their father's title as a courtesy title, even if their father is a prince (e.g. the Earl of Ulster, son of Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or the Earl of St Andrews, son of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent).
So "Earl of Dumbarton" means Harry when in Scotland under one convention and his newborn son under the other and nothing official has actually told the world yet. The only other case doesn't reveal anything as I don't think anyone ever intended "Viscount Severn" to be used for anything other than the heir apparent to the Earl of Wessex (and as the Severn Valley was at times part of the kingdom of Wessex even a local distinction is of limited use) but I'm not so sure what use was intended for "Earl of Dumbarton", and the official announcement just describes the baby as "a son" or Doria Ragland's "first grandchild". Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, your contribution does raise some interesting questions. I was not aware, for instance, that Prince Andrew only used his Earldom in the same Scottish county of that name. Logic would suggest the title would be used throughout Scotland? The logic being of course that other members of the Royal Family use their Scottish 'named' titles in Scotland (Duke and Duchess of Rothesay, Earl and Countess of Strathearn etc). If the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is not given princely status then a solution must be found for the courtesy title in question, as clearly the Duke of Sussex and his eldest son cannot use the title of Earl of Dumbarton at the same time! As suggested before time will tell...Ds1994 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the shift is recent and probably linked to Scottish devolution, plus there were signs in the late 1990s that republicanism was strongest in Scotland (there was a big TV and phone in poll in about 1997 where Scotland had the only republican majority), hence a desire to strengthen the Scottish brand of the Royal Family, which also may be why steps have been taken to ensure the title Duke of Edinburgh will be reused so quickly. Andrew received his titles in 1986 when there was less concern about this and so by the time the concern came up Brand Andrew (you can just hear the Palace traditionalists screaming at the concept) was too well established as "Duke of York" to start changing. I also suspect that in practice Diana was better known in Scotland as "Princess of Wales" than "Duchess of Rothesay" (whatever the Court Circular used), hence Camilla uses the latter style in Scotland without comment whereas she's deliberately avoided "Princess of Wales" and used "Duchess of Cornwall" elsewhere.
By contrast the indication is that that the Royal Family hasn't been trying to carve out a distinctive Northern Irish brand, with the main titles generally used in Northern Ireland outside the towns in question. The dynamics and concerns there are very different from Scotland. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly the change really only dates from Prince William - his creation was the first time BP announced a prince would be known as E of S in Scotland a pattern followed with Harry. Some bright spark clearly decided to mirror the PoW and use a Scottish title. I doubt anyone in BP PR even thought it through. It would never matter for the DoC (as his children are HRH). Even retrospectively using it on older creations like Andrew doesn't mater as he has no son. Edward has just been given a new Scottish Earldom to fill in the gap for him. Harry is the first occasion the problem caused by lack of planning can't be avoided. I daresay if someone had asked Garter this would have all been avoided! Garlicplanting (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The correct form for a subsidiary title is Earl Dumbarton. The Earl of Dumbarton is, and remains, Prince Harry. Compare with his two cousins, Viscount Severn the son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex; and Viscount Linley, son of the Earl of Snowdon. Jaxsonjo (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. of is never removed in such titles. Its the that's traditionally removed in courtesy titles. You misunderstand the differences in the way these titles are created. Apart from a few very rare and ancient scottish viscountcies neither they nor baronies are created with an 'of'. Viscount Severn is Viscount Severn because that is the title. Just as Harry is Baron Kilkeel not Baron of Kilkeel. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why "child" rather than "son"?

At least until he's able to talk, when there is always that chance (though statistically miniscule) that he'll object to his gender identity, can't the boy be known as their son? Just askin', not sayin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the title that was used for a previous version of this article, written before the child was born. In a few days, when his name and title are announced, the article will be renamed anyway. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now the article has been moved back to Son, for some reason. I don't remember this happening last year (Third Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge moved directly to Prince Louis of Cambridge), though it did for George and Charlotte. Personally I don't view it as necessary to move Child to Son/Daughter, as the new title would inevitably be changed again after just a few days once the baby's name is announced. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not much reason for vagueness that I can see. Looks fine now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an Official British Royal Family Member

According to the Royal Warrant of 1917, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not qualify for membership into the British Royal Family. Queen Elizabeth II made an exception to the rule by Letters Patent on December 31, 2012 for ONLY The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's children. This child is not a Royal Family Member or a British Prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.71.102 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is 7th in line to the Throne, so you can be assured he is a member of the Royal Family. The absence of the designation "HRH" does not infer that the person concerned is not a member of the Royal Family. Please also note there is no such thing as a 'British prince'. The correct term is 'Prince of the United Kingdom'.Ds1994 (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think the edits from others stand with references. Thank you. 24.97.71.102 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The British royal family has no official definition and the term, as used by the press, often refers to relatives of the monarch who do not retain royal status (such as Lord Downpatrick, Zara Tindall, Lady Sarah Chatto, and Earl of St Andrews). A male-line great-grandchild of the monarch, although in this case of noble status and not royal status, is still a member of the royal House of Windsor and a member of the Mountbatten-Windsor family. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The contributor who cannot even be bothered to sign in correctly and just reveals their IP address should be ignored.Ds1994 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Earl Mountbatten of Burma was once gravely upset when his position in the Court circular one week had him on a separate line from the rest of the RF. It was a one off but he was very much considered part even though his relationship was far more distant than any we are discussing here. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Re: American citizenship The child will not automatically receive the American citizenship as stated. The parents have the possibility to apply for one at the consulate. There is not automatism. See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998727/Prince-Harrys-Meghan-Markles-Baby-Sussex-dual-U-S-British-citizenship.html 2A02:8388:180B:A980:89F6:52C3:436B:A9F8 (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  (with a better reference, given that the Daily Mail is a deprecated source). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The baby is a US Citizen Period. The statement about dual citizenship is incorrect. The baby is a US citizen by function of US law. US Citizenship passes automatically from parent to a child born abroad if the parent meets certain requirements. In this case it’s the parent has lived at least 5 years of their life with 2 years after the age of 14. There’s a lot of misconception about this with lots of media articles saying the child is eligible but not automatically a citizen. This is completely incorrect. The child is automatically a US citizen regardless of whether the birth is registered with the embassy. See link from https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3 8/5/2019 9:12 AEST

I'm not sure why you are saying that 'dual citizenship' is incorrect? Since Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born in the United Kingdom with a father who has British citizenship, the baby is automatically and by legal right a British Citizen. So if you are correct with regard to his American citizenship, then the said Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor has dual nationality of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America (in alphabetic order).Ds1994 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article prior to the time that comment was written stated that the baby was a British citizen and had the option of being an American citizen too, if his parents went through the process at the American embassy. That is where the incorrectness is/was. Almost all the planet's media were claiming that American citizenship was optional. If the duchess had renounced her American citizenship and opted for formal statelessness at this time surely we'd all have heard about it, so that probably didn't happen before the baby was born. Thus, the baby was born the son of an American woman capable of passing on American citizenship, which happens automatically. The media grossly confused being an American citizen with having the documentation to prove one is an American citizen. Getting the documentation is optional but the citizenship is automatic. All the media understood that when it was about Ted Cruz being a natural born citizen of America born in Canada to an American mother. Though the circumstance is remarkably similar and matches on all the key points of American law, the media took the opposite stance with Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, resulting in a plentiful supply of reliable sources asserting he isn't automatically a natural born American citizen. In the past day or so some better research has been done and the wiki article no longer cites slothful erroneous sources that generally are reliable. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making that clear! So in effect Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor has dual citizenship, being that he is automatically entitled to British citizenship and American citizenship. One other point of interest that has been mentioned several times in the BBC and ITV networks in the UK, is that Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, since possessing American citizenship, would be eligible to stand for election as President of the United States? If this is correct, there is the technical possibility of a future President of the United States who may also hold a peerage title of the United Kingdom as the 2nd Duke of Sussex of the second creation? Ds1994 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi that is correct my comment about dual citizenship was before the correction. This is not a well understood law. Should there be a sentence in the article briefly explaining why the citizen is a dual national? Also yes as a result of having US citizenship from birth he is entitled to run for US president but I don’t think it’s important to state in the article. Another more important matter is US citizenship makes him liable for US taxes.

WP:HAMMER

Is it me, or does this article currently fail WP:HAMMER? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HAMMER refers to any future subject for which a name is not yet known and no verifiable information from reliable sources yet exists (my emphasis).Rosbif73 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth

@Surtsicna: OK. Instead of edit warring we have to talk about the issue. It's true that whatever the sources say would be some sort of speculation, but I would like to point out that the birth place of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is not clear either, and both of those possible locations have been included in the infobox of her article. Keivan.fTalk 23:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see, but the difference is that Elizabeth is known to have been born in one of those two places. The place of birth of this baby is completely unknown, Windsor and London being mere speculations. We don't have a reliable source saying that he was definitely born either in Windsor or in London. Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a reliable source stating that the subject was born in England or in the United Kingdom. He almost certainly was, but we do not have a reliable source. I also think it is silly to list a whole country as the place of birth. I am not sure if it's a common practice, but it's ridiculously uninformative. Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact that he was born in the UK. It's just not clear where in the UK he was born. And yes, when you don't have the specific birth place, you can list the country instead. Keivan.fTalk 01:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But who reports this fact? Surtsicna (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

House of Windsor

I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

I do not know how this can be interpreted to mean that this child, who is not the child of Elizabeth II or a prince or Royal Highness, belongs to the "House and Family of Windsor". We are not supposed to interpret primary sources, but given this clear wording and the reputable sources saying the subject's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, I think we need a very strong source (perhaps even official) if we are to list his house as "Windsor". Otherwise we might be better off saying nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Then we should go with Mountbatten-Windsor. Keivan.fTalk 23:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When, in any other royal or noble house, has a child not been a part of the family of their father unless specifically stated otherwise? I believe it goes without saying that this child is a member of the House of Windsor. Is there a law limiting membership? I doubt it. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The proclamation of Elizabeth II, cited above, seems to limit it quite clearly. I don't think anything should go without saying. In case of doubt, it's better to say nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are overeading into that. The intent in that document was to make clear non HRHs would have that surname. Not to say that they are not members of the H of Windsor. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but who says that? Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Willthacheerleader18 references you are a member of your fathers house. We need something much more concrete to suggest that they are excluding descendants. I suspect that clumsy wording was designed to head off any suggestions of the royal house changing names that caused a stir in the 50s. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"You are a member of your father's house" + "Harry is a member of the House of Windsor" = "the child is a member of the House of Windsor" is original research by synthesis. In other words, it is not an acceptable conclusion. In the absence of an official source that includes him into the House of Windsor, we should neither say that he is nor that he is not a member. Surtsicna (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That you are a member of your father's house is the standard format in both royal and noble families (at least in salic forms) for a thousand years. Its not controversial. If anyone is pushing wiki boundaries on OR you are by deciding they are not a member of the house without anything officially saying so. If the 1960 Declaration wanted to say 'House and Family of Mountbatten Windsor' rather than just a slightly different surname it could easily have done so. Indeed the logical end point of the argument you are making is that no-one is part of the H of W except for the Q and her Children. ie not William or Harry. The neutral position is simple to not assume any change; they are part of the HoW until told otherwise. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be pushing Wiki boundaries on OR if I wanted the article to state that the child is not a member of the House of Windsor. I want the article to state nothing about the child's house because nothing has been officially said about it while contradictory information exists. Your argument about a thousand-year-old tradition applying to someone born two days ago is the epitome of WP:SYNTH. Surtsicna (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First biracial child in the monarchy

I don't know that it's accurate to say that the child is the first biracial child in the monarchy. Both of Lady Davina Lewis's children are part Maori. smash (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Mariah Carey. Her mother is pure Irish and her father was biracial. Meghan is biracial (white/black), while Harry is pure British. Quadroon is not a term I'm fond of, but maybe we could look here for some guidance? The baby is 1/4 black, 3/4 white like Julian Thicke (Robin and Paula's son).

The term 'biracial' isn't correct anyway. Meghan Duchess of Sussex may clearly be described as biracial, but this epithet cannot be applied to any children, simply because the arithmetic is against it. The correct term would presumably be multiracial.Ds1994 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anymore, but Danthirlby keeps adding copyright violation image to the article. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charities

I have added a paragraph which has been deleted with edit summary "This reads like an ad. Wikipedia is not supposed to advertise any charities. It is also not biographical information. All things considered, this is not a helpful addition.": here to discuss.

Is this an appropriate addition? It is similar to the information at Wedding_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle#Charitable_donations.

The parents requested that anyone wishing to send gifts for their baby should support one of four charities: Baby2Baby, Little Village, Lunchbox Fund and WellChild.[1]

I have created an article for Little Village (charity), and WellChild already exists. PamD 12:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it reads like an advertisement of the charities. I don't think that's appropriate. I am also concerned about the biographical relevance here. Someone else asked that others donate to charity. I realize that the child himself is yet to do anything notable, but I don't think we should clutter the article with information about other people's actions in the mean time. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it's a description of how his parents asked people to celebrate his birth, and relevant here. PamD 16:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Baby2Baby now created, and a redirect from Lunchbox Fund to the existing article. PamD 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not supposed to ask people to celebrate a birth. The wording is not encyclopedic, and if this is notable at all, it belongs in the article about the parents. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Duke and Duchess of Sussex's Baby: Gifts and charitable donations". The Royal Household. April 2019. Retrieved 8 May 2019.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

The title of the page should be Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton Dachgr01 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there is no current need to change the title of the page as it has not been confirmed if Archie will be taking the title of Earl of Dumbarton or not. Secondly, there is no need to use the full name in the page title. If it is confirmed he will take the title, the page title should then be changed to "Archie, Earl of Dumbarton" or "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton". Mesmeilleurs (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: What Mesmeilleurs said. aboideautalk 15:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Remove 'Earl' references - Any reference to Earl is almost certainly irrelevant now the name has been revealed - by giving it an official surname it will not likely be titled at all. 78.150.116.14 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This is speculation. There cannot be any definitive edits until this is announced properly by official sources. James, Viscount Severn has the same official surname, Mountbatten-Windsor, but still possesses his father's subsidiary title, so I don't agree with your reasoning. Mesmeilleurs (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done actually. There are no further references to the Earl title other than a cited source saying he could have been one but the parents decided not to. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if anything has been decided though? The use of the title Earl of Dumbarton by the eldest son is just by 'courtesy'. They may or may not decide to use it at any given time. You cannot assume at this stage that the courtesy title will not be used.Ds1994 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

I know that Meghan's maternal family has lived working class lives, but doesn't this seem a tad demeaning and insensitive? Especially when you consider that Doria has a Master's Degree in Social Work, lived a solidly middle class life and is the only closely-related relative with sanity and dignity, it seems a tad wrong to play up the poverty in her mother's side. It is technically accurate, but there is nothing wrong with being working class and it reads to play up the baby's paternal nobility and look down on his maternal "more humble" side. Thomas Markle also has distant ancestors of nobility, if it matters?

I think it's a good thing because it shows the wide range of backgrounds the child has in his heritage. We can't change the stories of Meghan's ancestors, and it might seem worse when put beside the British royal family. But I think its something they can be proud of. We can't go into intricate detail on all of his ancestors' lives in his article. I don't think it's looking down; it is what it is. Mesmeilleurs (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase 'working class' did leap out to me upon reading it. Meghan attended a couple of elite private schools, interned at an American Embassy and her father was a DOP and lighting director with an extensive list of work. Whilst her situation is a long way from being a Royal, it's hardly 'working class' in the way we consider it usually. Mark49s (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not mention Meghan Markle's upbringing. A middle-class person such as Meghan Markle can have working-class ancestry. The source speaks of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's ancestry. The New York Times, cited here, describes him as being "descended on his mother’s side from a bellhop in a Cleveland hotel, a laundry worker in Chattanooga, and a bartender in an Atlanta saloon." That is American working class. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uncle, not Brother

In the "Title and succession" section, it says he is preceded in the line of succession by "his father (the Prince of Wales), his brother (the Duke of Cambridge), and his brother's three children." The subject of the sentence is Archie so it seems odd to refer to Prince William as "his brother". It would be clearer to say, "his father (the Prince of Wales), his uncle (the Duke of Cambridge), and his uncle's three children."170.20.11.20 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the sentence is the Duke of Sussex. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

We need to start deciding what redirects to keep and which ones to zap now before they get too entrenched. Remember a redirect doesn't have to be accurate and indeed inaccurate names/titles that people could be reasonably searching for are desirable.

  • Prince Archie of Sussex
  • Prince Archibald of Sussex
    • He's not currently a prince and will only become so if/when his grandfather ascends the throne or if another monarch issues letters patent making him so. But it's likely people will assume he already is and search for him as such, including under a more formal name.

Thoughts? Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last four definitely need to be deleted. We had similar redirects created for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's children, but they were all deleted after their names were announced. And, since he's not a prince by law, Prince Archie/Archibald of Sussex needs to be deleted as well, in my opinion. Keivan.fTalk 17:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Law is irrelevant to what terms a person might look for or link to. Already Archie was added to List of living British princes and princesses [1] and it was the existence of the redirect that meant it was spotted and soon corrected. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Keivan.f that the last four should go. All the rest seem plausible. Surtsicna (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Master Archie

Master is the term used for the heir of a Scottish peerage. So is it thought as "Master of Dumbarton", heir to the Earl of Dumbarton that Harry is? --Mimich (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I think it just means "Master" as in the younger form of "Mister". I think it just means young man. Mesmeilleurs (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the subsidiary title for the Earldom of Dumbarton in its first creation was Lord Ettrick, which is not currently being used. Mesmeilleurs (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems strange that he is "Master" and not, at the very least, "Lord". Are there any other sons of British dukes who are not styled as Lord ___ ? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I really think it should be Lord.24.97.71.102 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does the title Master belong infront of or behind the name? The article has it placed in the front, and sources have certainly referred to the baby as Master Archie (such as the BBC's report), but looking at the article for Master, it seems Master comes after the name followed by the peerage to which one is the heir. So is he possibly Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Master of Dumbarton or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Master of Sussex? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the duke's peerages are Scottish peerages. They are all in the peerage of the United Kingdom. So, there is no applicable "Master of ..". DrKay (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Earl of Dumbarton is a Scottish title. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I know where Dumbarton is. Read what I said. DrKay (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware that the recreation of the title was in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, as no new titles are made in the Peerage of Scotland. However, that does not remove the fact that it is a Scottish title. As Master is a Scottish title for an heir, and that is what the BBC is reporting the Royal Family has announced Mountbatten-Windsor will be styled with, I am simply speculating how it will be used. Master ____ is not a formal title, but is a proper form of address for someone holding the title of Master of ___. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any boy can be called Master (form of address). It's nothing to do with a Scottish peerage. We don't use Mr, Ms, Mrs, Miss or Master on wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally ridiculous affected pronouncement from the Duke of Sussex, one can only wonder what absurd influence he is under. As the son of a duke, the child is Lord Archie, and unless his parents wish to surrender their titles (most unlikely) the choice of surrendering poor Archie’s title is not theirs to make. The use of the Dunbarton secondary title is within his father’s gift. However, as that secondary title was given by the Sovereign for the use of Harry’s heir, the withholding of it seems to be little more than an affectation. Giano (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he is not a lord or anything of the kind:

Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is not an earl or a lord, but will be known simply as Archie, with Master as a prefix when required.
— [2]

instead he will simply be Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.
— BBC

--Tataral (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may be confusing this Wikipedia talk page with a message board. Discussing parental choices and questioning the parents' right to decide how their child will be called does not help improve this article. Let's please bear in mind what talk pages are for. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DrKay's comment above that the term "Master" is being used for Archie as an honorific for a boy, with the meaning explained in Master (form of address), not as Master (Peerage of Scotland). -- Blairall (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL about possible future title

The article includes the following sentence

Should his paternal grandfather become king, he would then be entitled to the style of Royal Highness and the titular dignity Prince as a male-line grandchild of the sovereign : "His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex".[18][20]

This kind of speculation is textbook WP:CRYSTAL. The fact that his parents decided that he will not even be a lord or an earl, although he would traditionally be referred to as such as the son of a duke, shows the danger of predicting the future. Given this sentiment of his parents, based on the rationale that his father would have liked to not be a prince and that he wants his son to have a more normal and private childhood, it is by no means certain that he will become a prince or royal highness if his grandfather even becomes king (which is not certain either). Since his parents have expressly made it clear that they don't want him to be a prince or even hold any title at all now, that doesn't seem very likely to change in the next few years when he will still be a young child, and they may very well decide that he will not be a prince or royal highness. --Tataral (talk) 19:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually not crystal because the rules are already set down. His parents could opt to not use the styles but would have no power to decide that he doesn't have them at all. See the Wessex children for an example in practice. Timrollpickering (Talk)
If the titles weren't used (by him, his parents, the royal family and reliable sources, presumably) and his parents had decided that his name is Archie Mountbatten-Windsor without any titles, it would be a form of original research and POV to claim that he "really" held the titles anyway, based on some Wikipedia editor's interpretation of a 100-year old primary source. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, he wouldn't hold the titles if they weren't used. --Tataral (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You managed to misunderstand the very thing you complain about. Whether his father wishes it or not, should his grandfather become king then he is entitled to the title of prince and style of royal highness and it won't be his father's decision. That decision was made decades ago, a century ago. Anything deviating from that expectation requires new letters patent. That is all that quote is saying and it is saying that because he is a grandson of the heir apparent but was not born a prince, which is different from all of his more immediate cousins. That quote explains the most likely if this then that scenario. The crystalballing would be to today expect new letters patent in three or twelve years from now for Archie to keep him not a prince. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've not misunderstood anything. We cannot automatically assume that a 100-year old decision will apply in his case, that is textbook WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:OR. The British royal family isn't bound by earlier decisions and can (and do) make new ones any time, as seen when it turned out that all the commentators who had declared him to be "earl of Dumbarton" based merely on some tradition were wrong, or when they have made other untraditional choices (e.g. regarding the status of the Mountbatten name). --Tataral (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You still miss it. You confuse Daddy Harry's decision of today for what Grandpa Charles' possible future decision on breaking from the normal will be in six months or ten years from now. That is crystalballing on the River Thames. The earl is a subsidiary title and Daddy Harry executed his prerogative to not extend that courtesy. The refusing of title of prince and style of royal highness for Archie is not within Daddy Harry's prerogative and likely never will be, unless his father, brother, nephews, and niece all die without any heirs and he remains alive. That is some crystalballing! That would also render Archie the likely Prince Of Wales, assuming he survived what killed most the rest of the family. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Our role is not to speculate on a "possible future decision" of Charles, who might not even become king. We don't know what will happen if Charles becomes king until an announcement is made. We'll just have to wait for that announcement (if such a situation even becomes a reality). It is very likely(!) that Charles, if he even becomes king, will make a decision on this matter that takes the wishes of "Daddy Harry" into account. --Tataral (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is more than likely that the current Prince of Wales will become King. Why is anyone suggesting otherwise?Ds1994 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If his mother lives to the same age as her own mother, Charles will be nearly 80 years old at that time. We can't predict the future, including whether he becomes king. And even if he becomes king, we can't predict which decisions he will make on the titles of his grandchildren. --Tataral (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Thankfully it doesn't matter because we can wait and see, and there is no need for us to say anything about the matter for now. That's kind of the point of WP:CRYSTAL. The article certainly doesn't need that line of speculation.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously we cannot predict the future. A new Letters Patent can create (or remove on a formal basis) any style of royal address. However, please remember that the choice remains not to make use of such styles of address. As pointed out, such speculation isn't necessary anyway.Ds1994 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tataral, you see it but do not recognise it for what it is. The expectation that Grandpa Charles will issue letters patent to revoke or refuse the title of prince for Archie is the crystalballing. Predicting Her Majesty's death is also crystalballing. You are saying the most likely scenario is deviation from the established pattern in one whilst considering the possibility of repeated longevity for daughter emulating mother. The quote explains the established pattern's application to this situation. That deviation is Daddy Harry's demonstrated preference, but not necessarily Grandpa Charles' preference. And even if it is also Grandpa Charles' preference, until Grandpa Charles issues those letters patent keeping Archie not a prince it is crystalballing to say anything else is the most reasonable result, so long as Grandpa Charles remains alive and the heir apparent. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, my statements above are not based on any expectation of "letters patent", but on whether reliable sources actually support the claim that he is a prince. They may do so in the future, but we don't know that now. Your reading/interpretation of 100-year old "letters patent" is classic original research. Predicting that Charles will become king is crystallballing. Predicting that the royal family will decide, at that time, that Mountbatten-Windsor will become a prince and/or royal highness (because someone else was granted these titles and styles a century/decades ago), is crystallballing. Right now we don't know at all, but today's events that baffled letters-patent aficionados in the UK who had already proudly declared him the "earl of Dumbarton", and his father's clearly expressed sentiment that he doesn't want him to have a title at all, is a reminder that we shouldn't predict the future. --Tataral (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no claim that Archie is a prince in that quote which upsets you. That quote is a statement of the circumstance in which Archie would be entitled to the title and style. That circumstance is what is already set out in letters patent. Saying that the heir apparent being likely to be king is crystalballing is a tad absurd; that is what an heir apparent is by it's very definition. Saying that letters patent are likely to be issued to prevent a grandson of the king from being a prince is crystalballing. Everyone who said the earl courtesy title was a sure thing was using a broken crystalball. There is nothing which says courtesy titles are obligatory or mandatory. It is a courtesy that is so common that Daddy Harry fooled thousands of people who failed to recognise the meaning of the word courtesy. A courtesy use of a title or it's refusal is not the same thing as letters patent and expecting there to some day be superseding letters patent that change the rules from what they are today. Expecting a continuation tomorrow of what is today's normal is not crystalballing. Expecting a change tomorrow from what is today the established is crystalballing. Denial of a courtesy title is not the same thing as possibly in the future refusing a title held in it's own right and granted by someone else. The latter could happen but until it does happen saying it is likely is crystalballing the issue. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 22:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That Archie would not be a prince or have the style of royal highness at birth was known in advance, according to the regulations set out in 1917. Those can of course be amended, as was done for the Cambridge children, but no amendment had been made in this case and therefore a prince he is not. Nothing takes us by surprise here. That he would become a prince upon Charles's accession was a logical deduction from the rules - in much the same way that Princess Anne of Edinburgh became The Princess Anne upon Elizabeth's.

Of course, we don't know that Charles would ascend the throne. There might be an anti-monarchist revolution, he might be assassinated, he might convert to Catholicism. We do not, however, expect any of these things. We also do not expect The Queen to live forever. That she will at some point die, that her heir apparent will become king, and that his grandsons will from then on be grandsons of the king is the default assumption under which we work, and remains so until there is some explicit cause (such as a change in the law) to think otherwise.

That a peer's first son is styled by said peer's highest subsidiary title is a very well-established custom, and we have examples of its use by the not-quite-royal children of royal dukes (such as Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster, George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews and, in the past, Alastair Windsor, Earl of MacDuff). That an heir apparent uses the courtesy title from the moment they occupy the position is also fairly uncontroversial - for instance, on the death of Antony Armstrong-Jones, 1st Earl of Snowdon we immediately moved David Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley to David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon and Charles Armstrong-Jones (previously The Honourable]] to Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. It was therefore entirely reasonable to believe that Archie would be styled Earl of Dumbarton. Not to do so is the break from custom, for which there was no prior indication given.

To illustrate this point, see [the first version] of the page for the 2015 general election. It assumes that the election would take place no later than 10 June 2015, based on application of the Septennial Act 1715 and the Parliament Act 1911. The rules would later be changed by the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011 to fix polling day on 7 May 2015, and so the page had to be changed, but at the time the assumption was perfectly valid. It also mentioned that there were proposals (which ultimately were not carried through) to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600, but as these were not actually made law the page continued to assume that the constituencies would remain the same as in 2010.

To look at the [the current page] for the next election, we see a prediction that it takes place in 2022, and that the seats will be the same (although it again mentions that there could be changes). It also shows all the current party leaders in place, despite some already having said that they will stand down in the current parliament. Of course, there are many things which could happen - there could be a snap election next month, or the parliament could be extended another ten years - but without being explicitly told those things, it is entirely proper to apply the laws as they currently stand. The same is true for elections in other countries, obviously. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia editors shouldn't apply (interprete) regulations about titles from 1917 to biographies of living people, because it is original research. In addition, these regulations about titles, names and styles of members of the royal family in the UK are frequently changed (more or less every generation there is some novelty), so we can't predict the future based on such a 100-year old document. The earl of Dumbarton issue illustrated this well. He was never the earl of Dumbarton, yet several editors here proclaimed him to be so, until his father stated that he wasn't. The same could easily happen with any princely title in the future, so we shouldn't add anything about that until reliable sources demonstrate him to be a prince. Certainly we shouldn't automatically give him any extra titles merely because his grandfather gets a new title. --Tataral (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am perplexed by your obsession with the age of the letters patent, and the fact that during earlier contributions you several times referred to "letters patent" with speech marks that appear to convey derision. Letters patent are a form of primary legislation, and they remain valid until new law overwrites or amends them. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We don't engage in interpretation of letters patent on Wikipedia, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and yes, the fact that this document is a century old is an additional reason to be careful with interpretations that apply to a person born in 2019. If he is indeed a prince, there will be reliable sources that support the claim. --Tataral (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in interpretation of letters patent on wikipedia, per most of your comments in this section and this section's creation on the talk page itself. Your interpretation seems to be increasing age = increasing irrelevance. There is more than the 1917 letters patent applicable but whatever. Seems noone here but you is even putting forth the notion of "if he is a prince" today. I thought the matter presented in the quote you object to has some value because it explains what circumstance must happen for him to become a prince some day. That might just be the most interesting thing there ever is about him. There aren't many guys in the British royal family who aren't born a prince but who die a prince. He's three days old and I am writing of his death. Classy me! I need to find a sword to fall upon now, or at least pull out of a stone. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 23:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not "engaging in interpretation of letters patent", I didn't bring up letters patent here and I don't care about letters patent in any way. All this talk about letters parent is an in-universe perspective (within the UK and people who are overly interested in letters patent there) that I, as a Wikipedia editor from Belgium, am not interested in. I only care about reliable sources. If he were to become a prince in the future, there would be reliable sources covering it, probably following an official statement to that effect. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to interpret letters patent (that don't even mention him) and to give him titles such as earl or prince on that basis. --Tataral (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You did bring up letters patent. That "[20]" in the quote you copied here and deleted from the article is a link to the gazetting of the 1917 letters patent on titles and styles for descendants of the monarch. The "[18]" is a link to a BBC History Magazine article specifically on Archie which right after acknowledging his birth goes into how those letters patent from December of 1917 apply to him this week. It is not original research or synthesis by whomever added it to wikipedia. You didn't like it so you removed it despite it's specific appropriateness and reliableness and on the talk page are defending the removal by all sorts of fallacy. "and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes". If you want King George V to have called out Archie by name 101 1/2 years before he was born so that he could be specifically named rather than merely described by ancestry then you are requiring King George V to have been doing some serious crystalballing. If you want to directly and specifically call The Gazette from London an unreliable source I promise you you will incite fury. It is primary but hardly unreliable. If you don't understand and have no interest in letters patent then you really should not have come near this. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 03:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear that you don't understand the concept of original research and why we avoid original research in Wikipedia. You, or any other Wikipedia editor, using a 100-year old primary source to give a person born in 2019 a title such as prince is original research. What is unreliable is not the primary source in itself, but the interpretation/analysis and original research by Wikipedia editors. If the source doesn't mention Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and predates his birth with a century, it can never be a reliable source for a claim that he is a prince. Not now, and not in the future. Wikipedia will need to wait for someone else to interpret letters patent from 1917, or indeed to make a different decision, as we saw in the "earl" case. If he were to truly become a prince, there would quite certainly be coverage of that in reliable sources and no need to rely on Wikipedia editors' original interpretation of primary sources. --Tataral (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
O yeah, I have disagreement with the issues with original research, but that is not the concern here. The reference you removed that is not the 1917 gazetting of the letters patent is the relevant reference from the reliable source which you just want to dismiss entirely. But let's set that aside a moment. The 1917 letters patent are referenced to support the claim Archie is NOT a prince. You clearly and repeatedly demonstrate you do not understand that. Letters patent are a form of law; the absence of over-riding newer letters patent or parliamentary legislation does not itself negate old letters patent. Charlotte and Louis got the HRH and prince(ss) via new and partially over-riding letters patent but those letters patent did not demise the letters patent from 1917. Archie is one of "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line". That means Daddy Harry is defying the letters patent of his great-great-grandfather by use of the title Master for Archie, but that is not really the issue being discussed here. That is why there is the edit warring in the article regarding The Right Honourable. As for the reference from BBC History Magazine, that is exactly what you are saying there needs to be before anything can be appropriately added to the article about title and style. And yet that is what you complain about and removed. It is a reliable reference of contemporary publication stating that Archie, by name, is not entitled to the HRH and prince until such time as Grandpa Charles becomes king. Together they are the contemporary secondary source and the original primary source. They are exactly what you repeatedly declare you want. But they are exactly what upset you and which you removed from the article and here are defending the removal of. Hence, I say you are sorely confused. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 05:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Info box question

It says Meghan Markle in the info box and not Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. It sounds like the kid was born out of wedlock there when he wasn't, so just wanted to clarify if that's the correct format it should be? Govvy (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a consensus that parents should be listed by the name/highest title they hold in their own right. For example, the father of Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland, is listed as Daniel Westling rather than Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is Ivanka Trump’s mother listed as Ivana Trump and not her birth name? WWGB (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose because neither of the two is royal. This seems to stem from a genealogical practice. Donald Trump's wives, for example, are listed by their premarital names. Surtsicna (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy and hundreds more of us have questioned this, but we all have to give up. The consensus in question, unfortunately, is used everywhere, even where it is quite obvious that is causes more confusion than clarity, at least to those who have not been active in creating that consensus. To me, it's unbelievable to clearly name a mother as if she gave birth to someone extramaritally, when in fact she was married and had a new name. In this regard, Wikipedia is just like a genealogy blog, not an encyclopaedia. You have to take a course in Wikipedia idiosyncracies to even begin to understand why one parent correctly is named so as to show that she was not married to the other, sometimes, sort of, if so, maybe, and why another parent, royalty that is, over which we seem to have special powers to name them as we please as per consensus no matter what, is named ... uy! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see evidence of that "consensus", to have the child appear to be a bastard. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The whole purpose of those parameters is to provide genealogical information. That information is not provided for the mother if she is subsumed into her husband's identity and treated only as an appendage. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And WWGB the child doesn't appear to be anything of the sort, despite your offensive language. People's names say nothing about whether they are married or not and it's totally irrelevant anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one could also argue that the mother is still very often, if not most commonly, referred to as Meghan Markle, to the effect that this is still her common name. With that in mind, it is very useful to mention her former/common name somewhere in the article, and the genealogical parameter of the infobox is naturally the best place for this. Whether a woman is married or not can no longer be deduced from her name anyway; we're not in the 1950s. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity means nothing? If questioned, someone else had the same question, clearly there is a lack of clarity to the derived consensus, this is wikipedia not a genealogy website. I would also like you to provide a link to this consensus. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Listing the subject's mother as Meghan Markle does not lead to any clarity problems. Everyone who has ever heard of her recognizes that name. This has been discussed all over the place. See Talk:Prince_Louis_of_Cambridge#Mother's_name and Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex/Archive_5#Mother's_name for some recent examples. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular context relating to ancestry it is standard practice to list the mother by her birth name. Listing her as some appendage to her husband ("Duchess of Sussex" is much like "Mrs John Smith") doesn't convey any relevant information about her in this context. Additionally, she is far better known as Meghan Markle than Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and had a notable career in her own right under that name. --Tataral (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

His name is Archie M-W, leave it there

His name is Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and no more needs to be said. Hypotheticals about what his title would be or could be or what he would be "entitled" to are irrelevant at this point. We don't do that for other people. We don't write for Prince Charles "When or if he becomes king he will be entitled to the status of Majesty, etc." It's ridiculous. I think you people carry your absurdity a bit far and you show your snobbery by your dissatisfaction with his name simply because it's not aristocratic or royal enough.--Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is encyclopedically relevant to note that the subject's parents decided that he would not use a title despite being entitled to one by a centuries-old custom and despite the widespread expectations that a title would be used. It hints at how the subject will likely be raised, and this hint can probably be further elaborated. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. It's just speculation and tittle tattle. The only reason people are considering including this is because there's virtually nothing else to say about the lad. He's only three days old and hasn't yet achieved his life's calling as a ballroom dancer, plumber or scientist.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That too. If only someone had thought about not having an article about a newborn at all. Oh well. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of the AfD many people probably expected him to get a title. Most people aren't that familiar with how British royal titles work, so many people perhaps even assumed that he was a prince. Since there isn't much to say about him, and since it turned out that he will have a far less public role than some people assumed, with no special role or title, a far better solution would be to cover him in a different article, along with any potential future siblings. Title-wise he is less of a public figure than Prince Michael of Kent's children (who are notable primarily for their own activities). --Tataral (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if only the closer had allowed the discussion to last seven days as is normal. Instead, the discussion was snow-closed before the subject even got a name, let alone a title. Preposterous, but I can't be bothered to appeal it. I'll just try to keep the article as sane as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Surtsicna that it does say something about the way the royal family views his public role that he didn't get any titles, so it should be noted in the article, but the current discussion of the potential titles he could have been entitled to, or not been entitled to (such as the princely title), is maybe a little too long at this point. --Tataral (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy discussion on this topic is probably due to the fact (and as mentioned before) that many people, particularly foreigners such as Americans, are unfamiliar with the complexities surrounding princely and peerage titles (including courtesy titles) as used in the United Kingdom. It is entirely appropriate to discuss the possibility of the use of a courtesy title as the eldest son of a Duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom. It is equally important to discuss why his parents have decided he should not at this time be designated the use of a courtesy title. The more needless discussion surrounding any potential use of a princely title when the child becomes the male line grandson of the Sovereign is, I agree, pointless. But at the end of the day this child is seventh in line to the Throne, and as such takes precedence over such individuals as HRH The Duke of York and other members of the Royal family who have princely titles. Whatever happens, he will most likely be in the future the 2nd Duke of Sussex of the second creation, and he will be successively the grandson, the nephew, and then first cousin of the King. It is in this framework that any discussion of courtesy titles, or their lack of use, is entirely appropriate.Ds1994 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He does not take precedence over the Duke of York. He does not even take precedence over Lord St Andrews. Succession is one thing and precedence another. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. I should have re-read that and changed accordingly. And I'm sure the Duke of York would agree with you....Ds1994 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If Charles becomes king, all else being equal, he is basically the equivalent of Prince Michael of Kent. But: the royal family seems less inclined to grant princely titles (or even titles) to junior members of the royal family in this day and age, and there is more uncertainty regarding future titles, especially in light of the statements of his father. So while he might inherit a peerage in about 60 years from now, it is already clear that he won't have the same public role that Prince Michael of Kent has had with his princely title (held since his birth) and all. --Tataral (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birth name

The birth name parameter in Template:Infobox person is for when the birth name is different from the current name, meaning there's been a change in either the given name or the surname or both. The purpose of the parameter is to show changes in name, not to repeat the current name. This was previously discussed at Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 30#Birth name parameter. DrKay (talk) 18:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. If middle names were in scope for that parameter then it would be used on a majority of BLP's, since most people have one and most article titles omit it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Archie_of_Sussex&oldid=896390964"