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 Yseult-Ivain (talk | contribs) at 15:25, 30 May 2019 (→Title: Is young Archie M.-W., or is he not a member of the BRF?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Referring to him as Mountbatten-Windsor

I have changed the prose of the article to use his given name, Archie, rather than referring to him as Mountbatten-Windsor but it was reverted a couple of times so bringing it her for discussion. This matches the guidance in MOS:SURNAME, which carves out an exception to the usual rule for royals, as well as the article at Lady Louise Windsor, Which routinely refers to her as Louise. It just seems really odd to call him Mountbatten-Windsor and I can't find any other source anywhere that does that. We shouldn't be making stuff up. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This child is not royal so the exception does not apply. He has a perfectly good surname that we can and probably should use. Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We could just avoid using first name/surname and just use he/him pronouns in the article? MesmeilleursSay Hey! 23:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I still think just Archie is better, but as a compromise spelling out the name in full could work. Calling him "Mountbatten-Windsor" is still making up our own style though: for most issues the MOS typically doesn't apply if no reliable sources whatsoever use that form.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:SURNAME applies, so we use it. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), but I need to study it in detail. When I read this article it just doesn't sound right to refer to a child by its surname only. I agree with MOS:SURNAME 100% for adults, and have fixed some articles to adhere to it, but when applied to a child it is very jarring to read. I think we need to keep the discussion going on this one. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Other kids with articles and surnames are referred to by that surname, for example Omran Daqneesh and Jeremy Maguire. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are also examples of the alternative; Ashley_Cabrera. I must admit, it was difficult to find examples of non-royal, young people with their own article; most are princes and the like. We have a particular issue here in that the person in question is very young and it just doesn't look right to refer to such people by their surname. He is styled as 'Master', so maybe this should be used in conjunction with the surname? There are just two cases in the article, as it stands, where this is an issue. Silas Stoat (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, and thank you Silas Stoat you've hit the nail on the head. Since you and I find it jarring, I'm quite sure readers will too and there must be some compromise available to us even if it's just a WP:IAR type of thing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and no problem. I've made a bold edit (anyone not happy then please revert it), reworking the text to expand the lead slightly, thereby removing one instance of the surname usage. For the other, I've added the Christian name to the surname. Silas Stoat (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The bold edit has been reverted. Okay, no problem with that, but what really irritates me about some users is how they revert, or make substantial changes, that are currently being discussed, but they don't partake in the current line of discussion themselves. Silas Stoat (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted it, and I already made my reasons clear above, so nothing else to add. WWGB (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The perfect attitude for reaching a consensus. Wikipedia really is a shit place for collaborative editing. Silas Stoat (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to him twice as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Mountbatten-Windsor would really not hurt anyone. It's a reasonable compromise. Surtsicna (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, you said "anyone not happy then please revert it" so I accepted your invitation. Besides, there is nothing to consense. WP:SURNAME always trumps WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was a reasonable compromise and thank you to Surtsicna for proposing it. The consensus above seems to favour that compromise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To confirm my support for this proposal. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title

Both as a son of a duke and a male line great grandson other than son of the eldest son of the prince of wales of a british sovereign(by letters patent 1917 and 2012) he should be styled as a Lord. As eldest son of a duke he can use subsidiary of his father. Chamika1990 (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but we are not here to discuss his parents' choices. Unless you meant to suggest that we somehow improve the article, this should be hatted. Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This ground has been treaded over and over again for no reason. If he was meant to be, he would be. But he isn't. James, Viscount Severn "should be" titled His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex, but that didn't happen either, did it? The reason why Archie is not styled as a Lord is clearly explained in the article. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 16:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Not disagreeing, at all, just hoping to clarify as to style) His Royal Highness Viscount Severn. (I could be wrong.)Yseult-Ivain (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Earl Wessex’ children, it is as per a 1999 decision of the Sovereign [1] released in a statement to the press / media accordingly. A bit different. Circourt (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was different because James was (and still is) entitled to HRH and Prince styles, not just title and style of the eldest son of a duke. Also, Edward and Sophie have also not actively tried to have their children live as private citizens like Harry and Meghan are doing now. Lady Louise and James still take part in royal functions and are considered officially part of the Royal family; Archie is not. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before there is no definition of member of the RF so stop POV'ing. You cannot say Archie is not a member Garlicplanting (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to others we can't say he is either. So what do we do? He either is or isn't. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I've said it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would not anyone who has their own page on the official website of the British Royal Family, be considered a member of the British Royal Family? Official website of the British Royal Family Yseult-Ivain (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what "should have" happened, there is no need for this speculation or talk of "entitlement". Adding "Lord" to the article is incorrect because although he is the son of a duke, he is the eldest son of a duke, which means he would have taken one of Harry's subsidiary titles if they were going to let him have use of any titles. He wouldn't have been titled Lord at all, unless he was a younger son. But they haven't announced their intention to give him titles, ergo there is no reason for this speculation. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not even sure that the children of the Wessexes could - in the absence of any new decision[1], made by the Sovereign, still be entitled to the HRH style? (or would the wording of the press relsease have been « shall not » instead of « should not »?) But it’s not the page to discuss that (by the way, is Lord X in the case of a second - or third, or fourth - son of a (non royal) duke a courtesy title/form of address? Just wondering - as a side note for my knowledge) — Apologies to all for any inconvenience created here... 37.168.149.75 (talk)
It's no inconvenience. Yes, typically, the heir-apparent to a non-royal dukedom (the eldest son) will hold his father's highest-ranking subsidiary title as a courtesy title. In this case it would have been Earl of Dumbarton as it is Prince Harry's highest-ranking subsidiary title, after Duke of Sussex and ahead of Baron Kilkeel. An example of this could be in the case of the Duke of Montrose. His eldest son, James, holds his father's subisidiary title Marquess of Montrose as a courtesy title. His second son, Ronald, is styled as Lord Ronald Graham. All younger sons of a Duke have the courtesy prefix of "Lord" attached to their names. If Harry and Meghan have any more boys, they would have been known as Lord Name Mountbatten-Windsor (if they were titled). However, as Harry and Meghan have decided they want their children to be untitled, this does not apply to any children they have, now or in the future. Unless of course they change their minds and ask for the monarch's intervention. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 00:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ « The Queen has also decided (...) that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl » (statement released at 12 noon on 19th June, 1999) – that statement looks similar (to me) to Letters Patent depriving the said children-to-be from the style they would have otherwise been entitled to under the Letters Patent of 1917

Member of the Royal Family?

I an attempt to avoid an edit war, can we please discuss Archie's status re: being a member of the RF? Some say yes, others say no, and it just seems to be going back and forth. Unfortunately, there is not an official definition as to what constitutes a member of the Royal Family, which makes this a little harder to decide upon. I feel like just saying he's a 'relative' is inadequate, as he's more than just that and there are many people worldwide who could claim that moniker. Anybody have thoughts? MesmeilleursSay Hey! 21:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I would say that he is a member, because his mother's article states that she is a member. Of course, it would be useful to see the comments of other Wikipedians, particularly more experienced ones. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The royal family are a peculiar bunch, with lots of precise definitions and traditions. Without any doubt Archie is described as a royal baby, with royal parents, complete with a placard placed in the courtyard at Buck House and all the associated excitement. However the royal family is something a bit different. As far as I'm concerned, unless or until he gets listed at https://www.royal.uk/royal-family alongside George, Charlotte and Louis, he probably hasn't quite made full membership. Member of a royal family yes, but not the royal family. Sorry I don't have any alternate wording for dealing with these technicalities, but alternate wording is probably the way forward. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the contested section for now so we can discuss. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you count, there don't seem to be too many users in favour of saying he's a relative. I guess in the absence of reliable sources, depending on the definition, it could be debatable whether or not he's a member, so we should probably use more precision than has been used - ie different words or phrases. I would just say, as a native English speaker and person in the UK, that introducing him only as a relative of the royal family is just bizarre. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought too, zzuuzz. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the royal family indicates Archie is not a member then he is not. WWGB (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That section of the site does not appear to have been updated recently; neither Harry or Meghan's pages make mention of Archie and Lady Gabriella Kingston's info has not changed either. So I'm not sure whether we can take this as confirmation or not. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 04:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thats imo intended more as PR - a 'things prominent royals have been doing section' its certainly not an official list of members of the family. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well as the official webpage of the royal family, I'd give it some weight, and also some time to get updated though I won't hold my breath. It does contains the three very small royal children, including 1-year old Louis, who have done nothing at all interesting in their own right apart from being members of the royal family. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Best thy don't rush to update as they accidentally published that Archie was 'first child of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge' on his birth ;-) The Court Circular its more measured and makes it much clearer on who they are considering members!~ Garlicplanting (talk)
We cannot say that he is a member of the royal family and a private citizen unless we can cite the official website. The royal family are inherently public figures, or at least have been so far. It is best to define him simply as the son of Harry and Meghan. Surtsicna (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well both those things can of course be true. I'd suggest for example The DofY's daughters B&E are both. We are I think in danger of confusing/conflating several things here. Being members of the House of Windsor, RF and working Royals/private citizens. There is not and never has been an official list or definition of the RF. However The Court Circular has always been taken as the traditional 'Royal Family'. The royals are mentioned together in a paragraph(s); non-royals apart. The only issue is that even there unless you look to see every person who is mentioned (you can use the search) its still not exhaustive. It often mentions many members of the family and then says 'and other Members of the Royal Family ' eg
...The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, The Countess of Wessex, accompanied by the Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy, Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence and other Members of the Royal Family drove to Horse Guards Parade and witnessed The Queen's Birthday Parade.
The trouble we will have with this is that he won't be mentioned on the CC until he is older but it does as zzuuzz mentioned seem likly to make wiki look a bit daft to not have him as a member of the RF.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, one cannot be both a public figure and a private citizen unless you twist the definitions of these terms so much that they become meaningless. We do not have to say that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is not a member of the royal family. We do not have to say that he is either. It is incredibly easy to define him as the great-grandson of Queen Elizabeth II if need be. Does Wikipedia already look daft by not mentioning Lord Snowdon as a member of the royal family? Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've slightly changed the terms here. My point was Member of the RF & Private Citizen are not incompatible. You replied with public -v- private. That is certainly incompatible. Fwiw the E/C of S *are* listed with other members of the RF in the CC.
5 March 2019
Buckingham Palace
The Queen gave a Reception at Buckingham Palace this morning to mark the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Investiture of The Prince of Wales.
The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, The Princess Royal, The Earl and Countess of Snowdon and the Lady Sarah and Mr. Daniel Chatto were present. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the royal family are inherently public figures. Surtsicna (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how far that goes. Working Royals obviously but not obviously much further. While Andrew/Edwards children gets some coverage they are ,outwith the odd public Royal event they attend, private figures.Garlicplanting (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the choice is between « member of the RF » or « extended member of the RF » - until he becomes a Sovereign’s grandchild (an extended member like Lady Gabriella Kingston, but not a relative of the RF as are the children of Lord Frederick Windsor, for instance) - depending on the interpretation of the 1917 LPs and knowing that the Royal House includes distant descendants – see the Treaty between Great Britain and Sweden for the Marriage of Lady Louise Mountbatten with His Royal Highness Prince Gustaf Adolf, Crown Prince of Sweden (Stockholm, October 27, 1923): His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, on the one part, and His Majesty the King of Sweden on the other part, already connected by ties of friendship and relationship, having judged it proper that an alliance should again be contracted between their respective Royal Houses by a marriage, agreed to on both sides, between: The Lady Louise Mountbatten, daughter of Admiral of the Fleet, the Marquess of Milford Haven and Princess Victoria of Hesse, granddaughter of Her Royal Highness Princess Alice of Great Britain and Ireland, and great-grand-daughter of Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India Circourt (talk)

Portland Hospital in Infobox

To avoid an edit war, let's please have a discussion on whether or not listing the building in which he was born in his infobox. Per the template documentation for Template:Infobox person, all that is needed in the field birth_place is "city, administrative region and country" of birth. It also says to "omit unnecessary or redundant details".

I would say to not include Portland Hospital in the infobox as it is non-essential information which can be found elsewhere in the article. Most articles that use Infobox person do not include the person's residence/building where they were born unless it is a historically important or notable building, such as a royal residence. "London, United Kingdom" is sufficient information for a summary of the article, which is the purpose of an infobox. Also, one should not cite articles of other members of the Royal Family as their articles typically use Infobox royalty which has different conventions. I believe we should follow the documentation of whatever infobox we are using.

It also appears a majority of Wikipedians are in favour of not including the Hospital in the infobox. I'd like to reach a consensus here. I've also removed the contested section until a consensus is reached. Please discuss. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 18:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, keep it to just "London, United Kingdom" per the template documentation (and do not link London per MOS:OVERLINK). -- DeFacto (talk). 19:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, DeFacto. I've changed the info to reflect your suggestion in line with MOS:OVERLINK. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 19:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. No need for "Portland Hospital"  — Amakuru (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for the hospital name in the info box. It has no particular significance to the birth and best left to the article content. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Archie_of_Sussex&oldid=899514085"