The Sussexes didn’t choose the name ‘Archie’ because of any royal history

Royal baby

Are you still shook about the name Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor? I am. We were all so wrong with our baby name guesses. We were also wrong – okay, I was wrong – about the title situation. I thought that at the end of the day, Harry and Meghan would insist that their Polo Baby would have a prince/princess title or at least a Lord/Lady title. It seems… odd, shady and notable that Prince George, Prince Louis and Princess Charlotte’s first cousin on their father’s side of the family is untitled. I still say the optics of it are bad – the first mixed race child in the house of Windsor and everyone involved makes a point of NOT giving him a title? It could just be that Harry and Meghan insisted on their son remaining title-less. But that seems like a bad call on their part, if true. And just bad optics all around, as I said.

As for the actual name… well, royalists have bee digging, and they haven’t come up with much as far “so-and-so grandfather’s beloved second cousin was named Archie.” Harrison might be a more obvious one though:

Meghan Markle and Prince Harry revealed Wednesday the unique name they chose for their newborn son: Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The name was somewhat surprising, as British oddsmakers’ top picks for potential names included more traditional monikers, like Arthur, James, Philip and Albert. In fact, bookies revealed just 60 bets were placed on Archie at 100/1, amounting to exactly $130.

Archie, of course, is a shortened version of the name Archibald, meaning genuine and bold or brave. Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll of Scotland was also an ancestor of Princess Diana’s. Using the nickname as a first name gives it a more casual, American vibe — while the baby’s middle name, Harrison, originated in the Middle Ages as a patronymic meaning “son of Henry” or “son of Harry.”

[From People]

I can’t imagine naming a baby Archibald, but I also can’t imagine giving this poor Polo Baby an actual NICKNAME as his real legal name. I wish Harrison had been the first name, because that’s really growing on me. I kind of wish they had just gone with Henry though, instead of Son of Harry. Oh, and remember this story from January? Prince George introduced himself to a stranger as “Archie.” No one knows if that was just a random coincidence or what.

Oh, and in the baby photocall, Meghan wore a trench dress (because she loves anything trench, like Kate and her buttons) by Grace Wales Bonner, and she wore a delicate Jennifer Meyer necklace with three small turquoise drops. People Magazine did a huge write-up about how turquoise is, as a stone, a “master healer” and that’s why Meghan wore it. I think she probably just wore it because she gave birth to a boy and “blue is for boys.”

Royal baby

Royal baby

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

209 Responses to “The Sussexes didn’t choose the name ‘Archie’ because of any royal history”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Becks1 says:

    I wonder if they specifically picked Harrison as “son of Harry” or if it was just a way to acknowledge Harry without using Henry (like, the whole “son of” wasn’t a specific factor.)

    Like I said yesterday, I have come around to Archie. Archie Mountbatten-Windsor sounds pretty posh, lol.

    I was surprised at the complete lack of a title too. But it must have been Meghan and harry’s choice, or else they could have used Lord Archie, right? he was entitled to that.

    • Erinn says:

      I am appreciating the Archie more than the Harrison, honestly. It’s too on the nose. I guess it helps that Harry is really Henry, but still. I LIKE the name Henry.

      • Kendra says:

        English isn’t my first language so I can’t really judge but Harrison sounds only a last name to me and it’s odd to me to give last name sounding names as given names. But this is kind of cute if it’s a reference to Harry. It would be terrible as first name however

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        I love Harrison (I’m a bit biased, as it’s my adored older nephew’s middle name). I would’ve preferred it for the first name, too. But, obviously, not our call 😊.

        When Charles ascends the throne, Archie automatically becomes an HRH, unless his parents decline that, too… so who knows. Still, optics….and he might get a lot of teasing as he grows up in that set of toffs. Hope not! Hope this little fella,is brought up well grounded, knowing his OWN self worth is more important than a “word/title”.

        Happy life, Little Guy! (And LOVING the daddy gifts!)

      • susiecue says:

        I agree, but then when I say “Archie Henry”….it definitely doesn’t flow.

      • Anitas says:

        I agree about Harrison being too on the nose. I know some cultures use the patronymic system, but when the reason is not cultural I just find it quite tacky, almost as naming your kid after yourself.

    • The Dot says:

      People who are up in arms about Archie not being a prince haven’t read the 1917 Letters Patent, which explains *exactly* why Harry’s kids aren’t entitled to prince/princess (yet). At best he would have been Earl of Dumbarton by courtesy and not in his own right. Either way, I think Harry and Meghan are firmly saying, “This is not your royal baby. He will not be a working royal. He will grow up as normal as possible.” I mean, they’re even forgoing “Lord Archie” in favor of Master, so I really think they’re trying to avoid a Beatrice/Eugenie situation down the road.

      • Becks1 says:

        I’m going to assume that a great deal of people haven’t read the Letters Patent of 1917 ;-)

        Like I said, I thought he would at least get Lord Archie. But, I can see why they are just choosing to forego all titles.

      • The Dot says:

        Well, maybe not but even reading a few summarized sentences would have told anyone interested months ago what titles would be available to this child. I like that his parents are eschewing even Earl of Dumbarton and Lord. Harry has said before that being royal is a really tough gig, and I guess he’s trying to spare his kid. I can get behind that.

      • Kittycat says:

        Archie is not going to be a working royal.

        So a title isnt going to help him in life.

      • tamimi says:

        “…Harry has said before that being royal is a really tough gig…”

        And I imagine being a minor Royal, or even “the spare”, can be an even tougher gig relatively (I’m obviously not saying they have it war-zone neurosurgeon tough, just in comparison to others in their very specific milieu). It must be like being in a queasy limbo where it’s not quite this and not quite that. Any attempt to spare the child any of this feeling is a good thing.

      • Splinter says:

        To my foreign ears Master Archie still doesn’t sound like your regular average boy. “Perhaps Master Archie would like some tea?” Yes, totally normal.

      • Vizia says:

        Anne’s kids weren’t given titles either.

      • Wilady says:

        What was the “Beatrice/Eugenie situation”?

      • Algernon says:

        I have read the Letters Patent of 1917. :) I still thought they would go with the HRH just to avoid any possible perception that the first biracial child in the BRF is being treated in any way differently. It makes sense that H&M would want to skip a title, especially as their kids likely won’t be working royals, I just thought they would be overruled, due to the optics.

        @ Wilady

        Beatrice and Eugenie are HRHs who seemed shell-shocked to be informed they would not be working royals (especially Bea, Eugenie seems to have moved on just fine). It seems like, from now on, the HRH will be used to denote who is a working royal vs. who is not.

      • LNG says:

        Beatrice and Eugenie were entitled to HRH automatically as the grandchildren of the monarch through the male line. Just like Archie will be entitled to it when Charles ascends to the throne. Anne’s kids weren’t entitled to it because they weren’t through the male line.

      • ShazBot says:

        Edwards kids are also entitled, but Edward and Sophie opted for Lord/Lady instead of HRH because they knew it would be easier on their kids. Andrew has projected his own issues/jealousies onto his daughters.

      • noway says:

        Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but Archie could maybe never be offered the prince title, not just because his parents don’t take it for him. If Charles dies before the Queen, William would become King then when she dies. It’s a possibility as Charles is 70 now you never know. So maybe Harry and Meghan just decide working royal wasn’t in Archie’s future so no title at all.

      • birdonce says:

        “Master” is just the young version of “Mister”, the equivalent of “Miss”.

      • Feeshalori says:

        @noway, I tend to agree with you about Archie possibly not being offered the prince title. I feel Prince Archie doesn’t have that certain ring, you know? But like Louise and James, he may be legally entitled to ask for the HRH when he comes of age if he’s so inclined and if Charles is on the throne. But he will inherit his dad’s Duke of Sussex title, hopefully way in the future, unless he declines it.

      • Mary says:

        @Algernon, I don’t think that Eugenie has moved on nicely regarding her not being a working royal now or in the future. Indeed, for the last two years she has upped the number of public appearances and patronages. I think she is playing the long-game and has it figured that when William is King, she will be a working royal (because William and Kate will want to share the burden with as many people as possible (as long as they are people that do not upstage them!)).

      • A says:

        @Feeshalori, Archie cannot decline the Duke of Sussex title. He can only relinquish it, and he has to do that within a year of inheriting the title. There have only ever been two peers who have ever relinquished their title in modern British history, and they only did that because they wanted to become members of parliament, which they would not have been allowed to do if they had retained their title. The optics of doing so would be something else if Archie tried to do it.

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      I can’t seem to bring myself to like “Archie” other than as a nickname. It’s a darling nickname, but I agree with Kaiser on this–it just doesn’t feel like a name fitting a royal baby, espeially the first royal baby born to a woman of color–I thought they would feel the history here and give this child a name with more historical presence. They could still have called him Archie as a nick.

      And for me, the other issue is that however Prince George came to tell that woman, “I’m called Archie,” the point is that whether he was saying that he calls himself Archie or that the family in the privacy of their home call him Archie, it just feels like one more stresser between the Sussexes and the Cambridges. I imagine someone will now have to tell little Prince George that he can no longer call himself Archie (or worse, if they too have referred to him that way) that they can no longer call him Archie.

      • Caty says:

        “I thought they would feel the history here and give this child a name with more historical presence. They could still have”

        Or maybe they really don’t care about that crap?

      • Bohemian Angel says:

        The Cambridges have no right to be upset that the Sussexes named their baby Archie. Charles Spencer, William’s uncle has children called Louis and Charlotte Diana, so it didn’t stop them from using the same names.
        And we don’t even know for sure if Archie was George’s nickname, as others have said he could have heard a discussion about it and started calling himself that, if indeed that origninal story in the papers is even true.

      • Kristen820 says:

        Maybe “Archie” was suggested BY his oldest cousin? My nephew (quite a bit older than George) is still, years later, so proud to have named my cat!

        It’s a reach. But a possibility nonetheless.

      • Resi says:

        I wonder if maybe he just overheard someone talking about baby names.

      • spirit says:

        I think they chose the names specifically because they don’t sound royal. It would be in keeping with forgoing the use of the title and their wish for him to live as normal a life as possible. And also, it puts a bit of distance between their son and his prince/princess cousins, so hopefully he’ll be subjected to less comparison. Don’t know if it will work though, LOL.

      • M.A.F. says:

        Frankly, it could go either way. Either they heard him say the named & liked it or the kid heard them talk about it and liked it so he started to call himself that. Either way, the best play is tell it as if Prince George had an hand it. It would make for great press and a nice family story that keeps being told.

      • shirurusu says:

        Totally agree with you on the name, and if he eventually gets a prince title, I guess it will be “Prince Archie” which I think is even worse! It’s their baby though and he’s so cute! Just not my kind of name!

      • LNG says:

        I really don’t think that using the same name as an Uncle’s child is quite the same as using the name of a brother’s child. Presumably Harry and Will’s kids will be together all the time. Will and Uncle Charles’ kids aren’t likely to see each other that often. That said, I have a first cousin who have his kid the exact same name as mine (first and middle) and it did irritate me for awhile.

        But I don’t think Archie is really a nickname used for George. It might be something he calls himself (my dad called himself Tom for years when he was a kid. His name is nowhere near Tom, not even close) or he’s been taught not to identify himself as George when in public for security reasons, but I think if it was something they really called him all the time it would have slipped out before now by his parents or another member of the family. If it truly was a commonly used nickname I highly highly doubt that Harry and Meghan would have used it for their baby.

        If George suggested the name or overheard them talking about it and liked then this suggests a close relationship between the two families and I honestly hope that its true. I’d love it if all the stories about a feud between the brothers turned out to be false.

      • Original Jenns says:

        Or maybe little George heard them mention the Archie name, liked it, and took it FROM them? Why would they change a name they want for their child because a little cousin likes to use it for a minute to play pretend?

        Are you really saying, poor George, he can’t play “Archie” anymore, he must feel traumatized?

      • Olenna says:

        Are people really trying to make the George as Archie rumor an issue? One woman claimed he said it, but it has never been confirmed by his parents or another adult close to him. So, we don’t even know if it’s true. Also, if Archie was his personal security ID/alias, I’m sure the Sussexes would have been notified before naming their son.

      • Candykat says:

        My son went through a phase where he insisted his name was “Bob.” It’s not his name, there was no particular connection, he just liked it. So much that he insisted his teachers at school call him “Bob” for awhile. If my brother had a baby and named him “Bob” or “Robert” I wouldn’t even think twice. (My son, however, would probably be delighted.) I just can’t see how it’s that big a deal.

      • Anastasia says:

        Maybe that’s exactly why they did it. Archie doesn’t have ANY royal history to it. He can be his own person, not saddled with someone else’s biography.

      • Tourmaline says:

        That Prince George story is kind of naff.
        Who knows what that lady who talked to the Sun really heard.

        One thing I didn’t realize is that Camilla has a grandson named Louis too -her daughter’s twin sons are called Gus and Louis. And she has another grandson whose given name is Freddy Parker-Bowles.

    • Mumbles says:

      My understanding is that if they chose to, Archie’s parents could have introduced him to the world using one of Harry’s courtesy titles. That’s what I read in the Guardian yesterday. The fact that they did not suggests to me that they just want Archie to be Archie at this point.
      As an American who has little understanding of these rules, I’m uncomfortable making any broad declarations about “optics.”

    • Lex says:

      Archie is a cute name and is a popular name in Aus which is maybe why I don’t find it weird? It’s a proper name and not a nickname these days. Id be concerned for someone actually named Archibald!

    • Bella DuPont says:

      It would have been nice for the first American “blood Prince” to also have the title formally. 🙁

      • Surly Gale says:

        @Bella duPont~ maybe that’s why they are avoiding it? Maybe they don’t want the current American president to lay claim in some bizarre way? And isn’t he a half-blood Prince or do they care? Maybe if there’s a drop of royal blood they are “blood” Prince/esses?

    • MD says:

      Somebody on Twitter pointed out that Archie is a sort of anagram of Meghan’s real first name Rachel. And with Harrison representing ‘Son of Harry/Henry’, they are basically making a statement.
      I think it is pretty unique and impactful to add/honor mothers name. When was the last time that happened? At best they would add a name from Mother’s side (maternal Grandfather, uncle etc.). But to go straight for the Mother’s name, now that is BOLD – one of the meanings of name Archie.
      I think Harry and Meghan know what they are doing!

    • PrincessK says:

      I have a sneaking suspicion that the baby has red hair, and someone said, that is Harry’s son…Harrison. Let’s see.

      Very glad the parents were not allowing the photographers to look too closely to the baby.

  2. Loretta says:

    I’m in love with the pics. Archie is such a cutie!

    • Léna says:

      Not being mean or anything – but we can’t even see him in the pics above?

      • Nestea says:

        We don’t usually get pics of the other royal kids from above either. I wouldn’t want a camera that close to my newborn’s face either.

  3. Fiona says:

    The only reason the child doesn’t have a title is because Harry and Meghan didn’t want the child to have a title. The simplicity of the name they chose reflects this fact, IMO.

    • Ronaldinhio says:

      He’ll immediately become a prince when the queen dies. They will wait for that

      • The Dot says:

        Forgoing Earl of Dumbarton doesn’t support your theory that they’ll just wait for Charles to become King to get a title. If they wanted him to have one, he’d have one now (not prince, but Earl/Lord). We will have to watch this space, but I suspect they may request he remain styled as Master Archie, similar to the Wessex kids.

      • sid says:

        Dot, even the Wessex kids are styled as Lady and Lord plus young James is referred to by his father’s viscount title. By asking that Archie be styled as Master, Harry and Meghan took it a step further than even Edward and Sophie did. I guess they are hoping that their children will be able to live like Zara and Peter and are perhaps trying to wait it out in hopes that when the Cambridge kids become adults the spotlight will center on them.

      • TheHeat says:

        It’s true that he’ll become prince when Charles becomes king, but he will be allowed to choose whether he’ll use the title or not.
        And I agree @sid, I think they’re likely hoping that their child(ren) will be able to live more private lives like Zara & Peter.

      • Monicack says:

        Archie can not be Earl of anything until his father passes away. Archie would be a viscount.

      • Algernon says:

        He’ll become a prince, but they don’t have to use the HRH. Prince Edward’s kids are technically HRHs, but they don’t use it. We’ll see if H&M start using it for Archie once Charles is king, but it doesn’t seem likely since they’re not even using “Lord” or “Earl of Dumbarton” for him.

        @ Monicack

        Since Harry is Duke of Sussex, his heir would use the next highest title in the line as his courtesy title, which is Earl of Dumbarton.

      • Tourmaline says:

        @sid, agree with what you said. They are clearly hoping to go the Zara/Peter Phillips route not the Wessex route.

        @Algernon agree that this indicates they will decline use of higher titles for Archie in the future. If they don’t even want him to be a Lord/Earl now I don’t think they will be calling him a Duke/Prince later as senior relatives die out. It seems that they have a conviction that Archie be title-free.

    • PrincessK says:

      The Zara/ Peter route……they enjoy all of the royal privileges but none of the responsibilities.

  4. NewKay says:

    Maybe they just liked the name. Maybe they were joking around and every time they said Archie the baby kicked. Who cares. They like it obviously. And the mostly likely explanation for Prince George, is that they told William and Kate, perhaps George overhears and went around saying Archie Archie. Like my daughter does when I talk about colleagues.
    Re: the title- I understand the optics, but as a Blck women, I like the fact that this kid will be just wealthy without all the stress. I also like the fact that the lack of a title means that Archie’s cousin, will have no power over him once he comes to the throne.

    • Lucy2 says:

      I figured that too- George got “Archie” from them.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      “I like the fact that this kid will be just wealthy without all the stress.”

      But this is the issue though. Archie will most likely suffer almost as much attention (if not even more), as his cousins, titled or not. The press aren’t going to stop searching for stories, successes, scandals etc about Archie simply because he’s not titled.

      It feels to me like he will most certainly experience all the stress of being a royal but may end up having far fewer of the benefits.

      Having said that, the most important thing is that the parents are happy with their choice (even if I’m not). 🙁

      • Original Jenns says:

        I think with all the pressure he’ll have to deal with, they took the titles and “working royal” worries off the table. He will not have fewer benefits – he will still inherit, he will still be a part of family gatherings and probably some major royal events. I think the name and the lack of titles is stressing that this child will not have to be THE FIRST BLACK/BIRACIAL ROYAL WITH A MILLION IMAGES TO LIVE UP TO, you know? People are already going to expect things from him, simply because of his race, which is gross. I believe Meghan and Harry are trying to lessen the pressure on him to be all things.

    • Jessica says:

      My sentiments exactly. His parents are Meghan and Harry – very relaxed sounding names. It would be awkward if he’d been named something more historical and formal, even if they mostly used a nickname.

      And why shouldn’t they approach raising their child the way they want to? They are not setting precedent here. Princess Anne, daughter of the queen, chose to raise her children without titles. I don’t see how this is any different. Is it b/c Harry is a male heir? Why are we looking at him any differently than we’d look at Princess Anne?

      These 2 know what the hell they are doing. The name spoke to them. It’s unique but not crazy. Let’s all get on board with this!

  5. Becks1 says:

    And yeah Meghan is fast becoming to trenches what Kate is to buttons, lol. But I like that she picked a British designer, who is also biracial.

  6. Melly says:

    The name has grown on me. Archie is a cute name and when he gets older he can always choose to go by Harrison. I agree that Harrison might have made a better first name, but it’s not my baby so it doesn’t really matter. They’re an adorable little family and I wish them all the best.

    • Mira says:

      After the initial shock it has gown on me too. And I read somewhere that Archie has been a somewhat popular first name in the UK lately. By the time Master Archie is all grown up, there will be lots of other grown up Archies running around, so the name will probably not feel all that peculiar anymore.

      • Melly says:

        Exactly. And if Archie really hates his name when he’s older he can go by his middle name, royals have gone by one of their middle names before so it wouldn’t even be weird.

    • lingli says:

      Archie has definitely grown in popularity in the UK in the past few years – I know of at least two under-8s with that name. It’s also always been popular in Scotland (although in fairness it was a bit of an old man’s name for a long time – but then so were George, Alfie and the like, and they’re super-popular now).

    • Tourmaline says:

      If he is too hamstrung by the nickname-iness of Archie he can always go by Arch E.

    • PrincessK says:

      Archibald has Scottish connotations, and could be a not the fact that this kid will be Earl of Dumbarton, a Scottish title.

  7. Sassy says:

    Lack of title is way for them to say look he’s a private citizen so don’t expect baby updates on his birthdays or holidays in the future.

    • Kittycat says:

      I think they will post images of Archie.

    • Original T.C. says:

      @Sassy
      I agree. I think they are attempting to give their son the option of living his life in the future as a private citizen or becoming a royal if he chooses. Harry didn’t have that choice so I can see that being super important to him. I like it and I hated the name Archie at first but it’s quickly grown on me!

  8. hrh says:

    It’s their baby I suppose. For me it just feels like they are trying way too hard to disassociate themselves with the royal family. Apart from the perks they like of course.

    • Melly says:

      Disassociating themselves from the royal family by being 2 full time working royal. Their plan is foolproof!

    • The Dot says:

      I think they’re working royals, and they’re both okay with being working royals, but they are firmly saying their son will not be. He’s not a public commodity so hands off. That kinda thing.

    • Marjiscott says:

      I totally agree with you! It’s funny, we were all thinking “Keen Katie” was the try-hard Stepford wife one. Now we are having a sweet little baby with such a uninfortunate moniker. I can only hope in a few years, he turns to his Mom or Dad and says “WHY did you do this to me?”

    • Marjiscott says:

      I totally agree with you! It’s funny, we were all thinking “Keen Katie” was the try-hard Stepford wife one. Now we are having a sweet little baby with such a uninfortunate moniker. I can only hope in a few years, he turns to his Mom or Dad and says “WHY did you do this to me?”

  9. PlayItAgain says:

    I like his name. I think it’s cute. And, at least they didn’t name him after a fruit or a car.

    • Melly says:

      Are you trying to say Pear Honda Mountbatten-Windsor wouldn’t be a good name??

      • LaraK says:

        Pear is a girls name!
        More like Mango Dodge Mountbatten Windsor
        Or Orange Jeep Mountbatten Windsor

        Seriously though Pear Honda is awesome :)

      • Melly says:

        I didn’t know Pear, a fruit, was feminine by definition! ;)
        How about Avocado Chystler Mountbatten Windsor? Meghan did singlehandedly cause a famine because she eats avocado sometimes and she’s so hollywood blah blah blah

      • Frida_K says:

        No, @Melly. That would be Avocado Prius Mountbatten Windsor for Hollywood Megs!

      • Surly Gale says:

        Y’all are rocking it!! Thanks for the laughs!!

      • Melly says:

        Ladies, let’s take it there: Avocado Tesla Mountbatten Windsor

    • TheHeat says:

      I also like the name. It’s classic and charming, imo.

  10. Eliza says:

    The closest I’ve seen guessed is they wanted both names:

    RACHEL is almost an anagram for ARCHIE (if l and uppercase i are exchanged)

    Harri-son

  11. whatever2 says:

    Still don’t like the name. I think I will call him Baby Sussex until he is about 30 lol.

  12. Ainsley7 says:

    The title pretty much has to be Harry and Meghan’s decision since he’s not even using the courtesy titles he’s entitled to as the son of a Duke. Even James Wessex uses Viscount Severn. I’m honestly surprised they aren’t using Earl Dumbarton. Maybe they had concerns about teasing due to the Dumb in Dumbarton or something?

  13. MattyLove says:

    No one I have talked to likes the name Archie. Personally, I love it! I think it is so cute!

    • Eliza says:

      I dislike it because it’s cute. What 35 year old man wants a cute name. I think that’s why Archibald, Arthur, Archer would have been better given names with Archie as the nickname. But not my kid and theres a lot worse names out there. I’m sure everyone hates my daughters name (named after her grandmother and it’s definitely not English), so I can’t talk – but I gave her a “cute” English nickname she goes by that, and it can be matured as she ages so she’s not stuck with the cute.

      • tamimi says:

        There will be lots of 35 year old men called Archie when this particular Archie is 35. The name is already very popular for newborns in the UK – it’s been in the top 20 for a while before yesterday and I imagine it will become more popular now. It probably won’t read as cute when he gets to that age as his generation will have matured with that name commonplace for their peers. It’ll be the equivalent of Jason, Chris or Matthew to today’s 35 year old Brits.

      • Lauren says:

        What 35 year old man wants a cute name like Harry?

      • LNG says:

        Exactly tamimi – It’s harder to picture an adult named Archie* for the same reason it’s hard to picture a baby named Sharon or Nancy. Names go in cycles.

        *Honestly I don’t see Archie as a cute or juvenile name though. I don’t know any adult named Archibald who doesn’t go by Archie all the time.

      • Tourmaline says:

        It’s a generational thing I think. I’m Gen X and struggle with that “But it’s a NICKNAME!” thing but the tides have turned and even as an adult barrister or whatever the hell little Archie ends up doing as an adult, I don’t think his name will stick out like a sore thumb.

        I was looking at Camilla’s grandchildren’s names because I remembered she had a grandson called Louis. Among her other grandchildren are a boy named Freddy and a girl named Lola. I would daresay in an earlier generation of Parker-Bowles calling your kids Freddy (not Frederick, etc.) and Lola would not be done. I hear Lola and instantly think of the showgirl in the song Copacabana. But I’m sure there are many little Freddys and Lolas in the UK.

    • launicaangelina says:

      I love the name! My son has an uncommon name too. Also, maybe because I’m Mexican-American, I can get behind cutesey names. We dish out all kinds of nicknames for people in my family/circle (in Spanish and English) – Kiki, Chuey, Micho, Chale, Lucha, Jelly, Pops, and I could go on.

    • Anastasia says:

      I like it. And they aren’t exactly sitting around waiting on people’s approval, anyway.

  14. mycomment says:

    maybe they’re fans of cary grant and recognize a brit who became successful in the u.s.

  15. Flying fish says:

    I still don’t like it. It was Meghan and Harry choice not to give him title but I agree with Kaiser, the optics on this does not look good.

  16. Uppenyrcraut says:

    OMG! – so obsessed with the mixed race thing, the culture of Britain is different from the States, less emphasis on everything being about skin colour. It has been noted many times that the royal family will be slimmed down, Harry and William regard their titles as a burden so I see it as completely in character to say no for his children. They have looked at the non titled cousins and have seen how much more private their lives are. Of course the children of the heir have to have titles, but that’s it.

    • NewKay says:

      @uppenyrkraut- ask a person of colour if there is less emphasis on skin colour in Britain. Lol.

      • james says:

        I’m an American and a person of color living in the UK and I agree that there is less emphasis on skin color in the UK. I actually find it kinda strange.

      • Ader says:

        My cousin lives in the UK and says its exactly the same as the U.S.: racist.

        Gah! It is SO frustrating when people, Black (internalized racism) or White, downplay racism. At this point, it’s just like downplaying climate change. And both will continue to get worse the more people bury their heads and make excuses.

        Curiously, James, are you Black? You say “person of color,” but does that mean Black or something else?

      • Rosalee says:

        Four years ago the beloved and I traveled to the U.K. for a vacation. We were walking to the train station in Windsor and we passed a group of kids in school uniforms, as we walked by the group one of them called me the n-word. I was stunned. The beloved one marched up to find the adult in charge, he said we must have misheard..We know what we heard.

    • gingersnaps says:

      I agree with all that you have written.

    • Caty says:

      “the culture of Britain is different from the States, less emphasis on everything being about skin colour.”

      LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO omg do you actually believe that? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. Wow. Ok, wow, the Brits really are delusional about race issues. Class issues in Britain are already well-known, but ask any South Asian if in the UK if there’s “less emphasis on skin color” and get back to us. It’s just not out in the open and no one outrights talks about it.

    • notasugarhere says:

      BBC reporter sacked for his “joke” tweet about Harry, Meghan, and a baby chimp.

      Tell us again about the lack of racism in the UK.

    • Iknow says:

      I find that when people say that America is more obsessed with race than the UK, I often want to bash my head in. I ask these people, where exactly did America learn its ways? Every where that was colonized by Great Britain and European nations, have long lasting racial ramifications that will never be eradicated. Yes, America’s racism has been violent and brutal, but history has proven that she learned it from her mama. Let’s not forget HOW slaves got from Africa to everywhere else.

  17. Kittycat says:

    I really get why people wait to see their child before naming them.

    Once I saw a picture of the baby my first thought was red and I already was thinking an ‘a’ name.

  18. Vv says:

    To me the Harrison feels like they were trying to say – he is not “Diana’s grandchild” or “QE’s great grandchild” or the future king’s cousin. He is part of his own legacy – he is Harry’s son, he is Harry’s legacy, the first of his name, the first of his line.
    They freed him from all the history of his family so he wouldn’t be weighed down by it since they’ve seen what those expectations can do. Harry felt it most of all.
    I love it, the first and second names and the fact they didn’t give him a title, just like Anne did with her children and I think they are the better for it.

    • Becks1 says:

      It makes me think that Harry has always been vaguely jealous of Zara and Peter – not in a mean way, but they have had so much more freedom in their lives, and I think this makes it clear that harry sees that and that all his comments about not wanting to be royal or whatever have been serious.

      This child will still be the grandson of a king, the nephew of a king, cousin to a king, and will still be very wealthy and privileged. But his life was always going to be different than the Cambridge kids, and it seems to me that Harry and Meghan are making sure of that.

      • Bunny says:

        I like this explanation so much!

        Archie is 7th in line now, and will likely be much further down before it is all over. W&K may have more children; George Charlotte, and Louis will marry and have children. The chance that Archie will ever be king is slim to none.

        Instead of him being a “working royal”, perhaps his parents would rather see him go to college, get a job, have a career.

        We all have hopes and dreams for our children. Hoping that they go out and make their mark on the world on their own merit is a good dream to have.

        Meghan is known as a hard worker – perhaps she can’t envision her child having everything handed to him as a result of his title.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Title or no title, Harry’s kids were never going to be working royals. The slimdown plan is main line only are working royals. This generation that means William and Harry. Next generation it means only W&K’s kids.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        Bunny, most people forget that TQ was 7th in line to the throne, too, and yet, here she is, still on the throne for 66 yrs! While what would have to happen in order for this to occur is horrific, it could happen.

      • Ader says:

        The Queen was born 3rd in line to the throne and shot up when her uncle abdicated. Remember, he never had children. So, QE’s father was second in line, and she was third.

    • NewKay says:

      @vv- I like your interpretation. It’s quite beautiful and I hope it’s true.

    • Cerys says:

      I completely agree with you. I think Harry and Meghan want their child to have a very different upbringing to Harry’s. Anne and Edward’s children seem to have the best deal – part of the royal family but able to live as private citizens so I’m not surprised if Harry is a bit envious. Beatrice and Eugenie would probably be better off if they hadn’t been saddled with “princess”.
      Archie is a popular name for boys at the moment in the UK. It is usually short for Archibald not Archer but has become a name in it’s own right.
      Re George – possibly the person who heard him say his name was Archie may have misheard and in fact he said his name was Georgie??? Young children aren’t always clear speakers,

  19. Alexandria says:

    Not gonna lie. Archie is not one of my favourites in the comic series so I’m gonna keep thinking he’s a bumbling clumsy teenager who keeps ruining Mr Lodge’s property. Harrison is cool cos of the play on words.

    But it’s not about me. So I wish the family well and I hope he grows up to be hardworking, humble and kind.

    I still don’t think it’s bad optics not to have a title (I’m not white). Maybe Harry knows how it’s like and does not want it. I say trust the parents. Sometimes mental health and a bit of freedom is better than trying to live up to optics.

  20. Lenn says:

    Why on earth is it a bad call for him not to have a title? Please explain to me how this is bad.

  21. aquarius64 says:

    Archie will get a title
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Mountbatten-Windsor

    He will become Duke of Sussex one day and the rest of the titles. The queen did letters patent in July 2018

    I’m just glad the baby was not named after a Markle.

  22. gingersnaps says:

    The name has grown on me. I really love it. The middle name is fitting as well, Harrison, son of Henry/Harry. My partner’s middle name is Peter in honour of his dad’s first name, we thought of giving our son Matthew for his middle name but we chose to honour his older brother, Andrew instead who died after just a few days old.

  23. BayTampaBay says:

    Melissa, I agree with you. The optics on this looks bad and IMHO just does not add up. The Daily Fail will have field day with this one.

    • Anastasia says:

      Optics, optics, optics. Does it occur to people that they are real people with lives? When it comes to my kids, optics would be a last-place consideration. My first considerations would always be what’s best for my child.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Anastasia, Agree with you 100% but neither you or I (to my knowledge) are members of the BRF. We are talking optics for the BRF in the UK not optics for “the real world motel” in Tampa, Florida, USA.

      • Original Jenns says:

        Yup! Optics be darned if it means my child will have less to contend with while they grows up. In fact, I think these optics mean Harry and Meghan see that their son (and any future children) will not be a working royal, and are making that path easier for him.

      • Anastasia says:

        “We are talking about optics for the BRF in the UK…”

        Again, perhaps they don’t give as much regard to “optics” as they do to their child.

        And if that’s the case, then GOOD FOR THEM.

      • Olenna says:

        Disclaimer: I despise the word “optics”.
        I remember when “optics” was thrown around here on CB all the time when referring to W and K. And, guess what? Using it had as much impact as I always thought it would: Zilch. In fact, it appears to only have mattered to those who closely follow the royals and/or have a personal grudge against one or more of them. The average Joe and Jane Public couldn’t care less. When the royals screw up or don’t work enough by some people’s standards, it’s all soon forgotten and life goes on. Unfortunately, Meghan will always have “optics” issues because she is a divorced, biracial commoner and former actor whom the British tabloid media despises. No matter what she (not Harry) named or titled her child, she will be the one criticized. No matter how she chooses to rear her child, she will be criticized. So, second-guessing her decisions about her child and decrying the “optics” only serves to point out the obvious–that she will never do anything right in some people’s opinions.

  24. Casey20 says:

    Meghan doesn’t randomly do anything. I have a feeling that there was research, debate and careful consideration for the name as well as the title. Meghan has had the chance to see the good bad and ugly of being royal. Maybe it isn’t as good as it looks.

    • Fiona says:

      I think this was decided by Harry – no title for Harry’s kids – even before there was a child, even before there was a Meghan in Harry’s life.

      • Carmen says:

        Seeing how much Harry always hated living as a royal when he was coming up, I think you’re right.

    • Casey20 says:

      Good point. Harry was overlooked and thrown under the bus for William by the press and Royal Family, so that’s a fair point

  25. Sam says:

    The simplest explanation is that they liked the name.I personally think both names they chose are cute.If Archie doesnt like the name later on,he can choose Harrison,both are fine.

  26. Mrs. Smith says:

    Yea, I’m coming around on the name, too. I also liked Lainey’s take on it yesterday. I think he will grow into his name and we’ll come to love it when we see adorable kid pics of him around the holidays or birthdays. Same thing happened to me with Louis–didn’t love the name at first, but seeing that baby grin did me in.

  27. Sam says:

    Ok, I have been lurking for a while and never posted, but I need to share this with like-minded people.

    I got myself blocked by a royal reporter on Twitter! I had the audacity to call out Russell Myers’ unprofessionalism when responding to tweets. He is such an angry asshat on twitter, all while supposedly representing his employer.

    Honestly, I was quite shocked at Archie Harrison, but it is growing on me. After I learned how common Archie is in the UK I understood it more and I think it flows really well and sounds posh to my American ears.

    • Mae says:

      Russell Myers is an idiot. I used to listen to the podcast Pod save the Queen and whenever he’s on there he sounds incompetent. Some of the reporters are just unbelievable. I can’t believe they still haven’t been fired yet. Richard Palmer, Jobson, and Camilla Tominey are the worst of the bunch. Complete unprofessionals.

  28. TheOriginalMia says:

    Still love Archie. And I’m beginning to understand why he doesn’t have a title. The media think they own Meghan because of hers. They have been relentless and cruel and nitpicky in their coverage of her. There wouldn’t have been a moratorium while Archie grew up. No, they would have scrutinized everything that little boy did and compared it to his titled cousins. This way Archie & his siblings can grow up as private, wealthy citizens, free from the burdens of their titles.

    • Dee Kay says:

      This. Plus Archie and his siblings won’t have to take orders or direction from anyone in the Royal Family side of things when it comes to their daily schedules or who they’re dating or marrying or what they’re doing for a living. As long as they don’t embarrass the Firm, they can do as they please, which I think must have been Harry’s foremost priority.

  29. Seraphina says:

    I was really liking Arthur for the baby :(

    Archie. Master Archie. I guess it does sound posh. I wonder if Harry got ticked that Wills and Kate gave away the name Archie to George accidentally and PG let it slip.

    I agree that this naming convention sends a clear signal that he will not be a working royal. He will be so far down the line where I don’t think it will really matter.

    • Caty says:

      Arthur is a dumb, old-fashioned name.

      • tempest prognosticator says:

        Charming, Caty.

      • PleaseAndThankYou says:

        I agree with @caty. Other people have different opinions and don’t need to voice them in a way that makes you personally happy. Deal with it.

      • Original Jenns says:

        You don’t need to make people happy, but being rude to strangers for no reason just tells me you’re miserable and I’m sorry for you. PleaseAndThankYou is a very surprising screen name for you.

      • Jaded says:

        My godfather’s name was Arthur and he was a lovely man, a WWII vet who spent time incarcerated by the Germans, and took his godfathering duties seriously. So I have a soft spot for the name. It’s not dumb or old-fashioned, it’s historical and sweet.

    • Seraphina says:

      To Caty and P&TY, we are talking about a baby born into the English monarchy. The name Arthur is rich in history, so it would be fitting for the baby to have a name steeped rich in English history. That would have been traditional. To each their own.

      And DUMB is hardly a word one should use to describe a name that was used and still is in use. While you are entitled to your opinion, big people words would be of great use to you. Your use of adjectives shows the lack of depth not only in your lexicon, but also cultural and historical knowledge as well.

  30. Purplehazeforever says:

    The name is a highly personal choice of the parents & no one else. Archie is uniquely his & unlike anyone else in the royal family. I’m also positive it was both the choice of Duke & Duchess of Sussex to not have a title bestowed on their son as they want to raise him outside of it. After the year they have had, I doubt they care about the optics or the opinions of anyone. If the Queen & Prince Charles approved & clearly they do, than they are doing what they want.

    • Adella says:

      But isn’t Archie also the ‘nickname’ that Prince George goes by? It was a few months ago that there was story about how he told someone that was his name. Not sure if this also adds to the conflict issues between Harry and William.

  31. Chef Grace says:

    I like Archie. Can’t wait to see how this wee one grows into it.
    And Master Archie! That made me 😃

  32. Peg says:

    I’m glad that Archie will have his own indentity, let the adventures of AHM-W begin.
    Oh the Media is having a hissy fit, when someone tell you they want a private birth believe, what more can they do to Meghan?
    She is feeding Archie Avocada, peppermint tea and he is doing baby yoga.

  33. lee says:

    There might be another angle on why no title – only direct decendents of the queen can take the surname Mountbatten (Prince Phillip’s surname) as long as they don’t have a title. When Queen Elizabeth declared that her kids would not have her husband’s name and would take the surname Windsor (for House of Windsor) and Phillip was upset (“I am an amoeba”) she declared that their untitled direct descendents could have the surname Mountbatten. there are a few muddled stories of others in the RF with the surname Mountbatten, but it looks like Archie might be the only really prominent one to have it. It seems like this might be a nice thing Harry wanted to do for his grandfather if he really didn’t care about the title.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think Louise and James are both technically M-W, but I see your overall point. Making a point of saying his name is Mountbatten-Windsor can be a way to honor Philip without using his first name.

    • Smalltowngirl says:

      He could still have been Lord Archie and had Mountbatten-Windsor as a last name. Louise and James are both Mountbatten-Windsor and are also Lady and Lord. Mountbatten-Windsor is for non-HRH descendants, not for non-titles ones.

  34. LORENA says:

    Maybe they don’t want him to have a title until he is a prince? I mean honestly Earl of Dumbarton doesn’t sound so great

  35. Guest says:

    I don’t think it’s that bad. We’ve heard worse and get ready because you know there are going to be a lot kids named archie coming up.

    As for the title, I get both sides. He will still get a title eventually. And in the mean time the royal reporters cant expect him to be a working royal. Win win for him. The cambridges better hope their kids dont get their work ethic because they can’t hide behind archie.

  36. Valiantly Varnished says:

    Harry’s real name is Henry. They would never have named him Henry Jr.

  37. Melissa says:

    I agree with Fiona. Harry decided the title piece years ago before Meghan was in the picture. He spent his 20s hating his life, and when he came around to the idea of being a working royal he decided that he would do it, but his kids would have Zara and Peter’s life instead of his, Bea’s, and Eug’s. That’s why the Letter Patent from before George’s birth don’t make provision for his kids. They all discussed and decided on this back then.

    • lanne says:

      Exactly. I said this on the other page: you have to weigh the “prince” optics against the “restrictions on the kid’s life” reality. I choose the reality every time, and that’s what M and H have apparently decided to do as well. And I think the optics are not such a big deal when you remember that Archie WILL BE a Prince (whether he is called HRH or not) once Charles is King, and WILL BE Duke of Sussex even if Charles predeceases his mother. I think Archie would have it a lot worse if he’s an HRH with nothing to do in the time of the Cambridges. Can you imagine all the “welfare Prince” slurs? (shoot, he’ll probably have those anyway)! The optics have been won by the sheer fact of Archie’s existence. He is the descendent of slaves and the descendent of royalty. He’s the living embodiment of what a modern day royal family can be, and this way, he can be the author of his own life instead of having his life prescribed for him. Really, would ANY of us choose the HRH for our own children under these same circumstances, under the HRH rules as they stand? Would any of us, if given the choice, prefer to live Princess Beatrice’s life over Zara Tindall’s life?

  38. Lisa says:

    As far as I know the child will be able to choose a title when they themselves come of age. Right now they are not going to saddle him with one and I think that is a wise decision.

  39. Chlo says:

    Just here to say I love the name Archie!

  40. Snap Happy says:

    I know this is a STRETCH, but I guessed Astrid. Yes, I got the sex wrong and the only similarity to Archie is that it is unexpected and starts with an, “A” but I’m gonna give a myself a little pat. The Prince George/Archie thing is curious. It would be really cute if he spilled the beans. Such a kid thing to do.

  41. RoyalBlue says:

    Love this couple and the path they have chosen.

    - Love the names Archie Harrison
    - Love him having no title – he will inherit Harry’s. Monarchy concept is dying anyway. It’s only a matter of time before it goes the way of Italy, Greece Germany etc.
    - Love them desiring a more private life for him. This is how they protect him.
    - love the whole privacy surrounding the birth at the time.
    - love how they support their causes
    - love that Doria is there to support before they choose a nanny.

    Meghan looks like she retained water. With my first that happened to me. I was very sick and gained 15 lbs the whole pregnancy and after I had my son my feet were swollen my face was swollen. I didn’t recognized myself. My doctor said it was just hormones.

    • JanetDR says:

      I think she looks like a young girl in these recent photos! I’m sure you’re right about water retention/hormones, but she still looks lovely!

  42. DML says:

    They are essentially allowing himself to have the choice when he gets older. That is what any parent wants for their child. For now he is just Archie, a child who will not have any pressure on him as to what he is to become. I like it and I think it is smart as it was obviously a hard road for Harry.

  43. Anastasia says:

    I think it was smart of them to refuse a royal title. He’ll be able to live a more normal life (well, as normal as a kid can live being called “Master Archie” by staff) than a titled royal, and he won’t be seen as Royal Family property.

    • Olenna says:

      ITA. Maybe people second-guessing his parents’ decision should try harder to see it from their perspective, especially considering Harry’s childhood and the abuse Meghan has been subjected to the last 3 years. Archie will not be a working royal and his parents aren’t obligated to appease the Americans or give the British media and some citizens another royal to claim ownership over, body and soul.

  44. Ali says:

    Master is just the written designation you use for a minor male until you switch to Mister as an adult barring some other formal title. Like Miss for girls.

    I love Archie as a proper name on its own. Just like I love Jack as a proper name on its own.

    He’s going to grow up to be a professional polo player. Archie is perfect lol.

    • Anitas says:

      True about Master, my young son gets letters about his hospital appointments etc addressed to Master [his name], and we’re definitely not posh.

  45. AprilMay says:

    Archie does have a title. He is legally Earl of Dumbarton as he is Harry’s son. Harry and Meghan simply decided that he wouldn’t go by it. When Charles becomes King he WILL legally be Prince Archie. But with them deciding not to have him use the earl title I doubt he will ever use it. He won’t ever be a working royal and having a title would just give the media more to attack him with, like the York girls constantly get for not doing full time royal work but having the Princess titles. And when the day comes and Harry passes he will become the Duke of Sussex.

    • A says:

      The Wessex kids don’t have the title of Prince/Princess, but they are at least styled as the children of an earl, which they are. Archie isn’t even styled as such, even though he’s the child of a duke. They could have accepted that and he could have been referred to as Lord Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, just like the countless other non-royal children of hereditary peers who are referred to as such, who are private citizens, who don’t get attacked by the press. By choosing not to do that, they’re rejecting the convention within the aristocracy as well.

  46. Case says:

    I really think the name Archie is adorable. A bit old-fashioned but also a bit trendy right now, very lovely. I’d have no problem with the name Archibald for a child (I love that name — it’s Cary Grant’s real name!), but Archie has a nice ring to it and is casual and fun, much like his parents. They were never going to go along the more formal lines of George or Louis, lol. It’s just not them. And they probably figure since Harry is still going as his “nickname” as an adult, Archie won’t be an issue for a grown man, either.

  47. KellyRyan says:

    Perfect name for a man who enters the creative arts. Although I’m not fond of the name per se, it would normalize his status. As to Harrison, the name has a history on both sides of the pond. We had a President Harrison in the US. My paternal genealogy arrived from England in the Great Migration, 1632, (Plummer Family Migration). And, who knows if the monarchy will survive the next few generations.

  48. Mom says:

    Archie can also be short for Archimedes

  49. Gigi La Moore says:

    He will be a prince when Charles is king. It’s not an optics issue, it’s simply how it is.

  50. Jodie says:

    Archie is a very popular name in Scotland. Just because you personally don’t like it doesn’t mean it is a bad name. It is not a nickname. My cousin is called Archie and it suits him to a tee. It is a fantastic name and I am happy Meghan and Harry have gone for something less traditional.

    • jen says:

      Thanks for your sane response, I’m surprised by the slamming going on here. laineygossip has a wonderful take on the name and no title.

    • Tourmaline says:

      Thanks, I hadn’t realized it was so popular in the UK. I bet it will be become popular in the US soon too!
      I think it is a cute name.

  51. HeyThere! says:

    I’m shocked in the best way, I love his name.

  52. Berlin George says:

    Am I the only one that loves Celebitchy and does not care about this whole thing one tiny bit? When I see all the comments under each post on the royals I get so confused. Someone explain the fascination to me, please. I just do not get it.

  53. Natters5 says:

    I wish they had named him Archibald and just given him the nickname of Archie like Harry is really Henry and just goes by Harry. As soon as Prince Charles is king Archie gets to be a HRM Prince and supposedly it was agreed on with Harry and Meghan because Prince Charles is trying to slim down the titles. Anyhow, cute baby, I can’t wait to see more pictures of him growing up.

  54. Puggle says:

    Archie just makes me think of Archie Bunker…

    • Tourmaline says:

      I always loved Archie comic books so I have a more pleasant association to the name…

  55. elviechina says:

    Archie isn’t the first mixed race child in the house of Windsor – see Lady Davina’s family.

  56. felebel says:

    Archibald Leach was Cary Grant’s real name – he was wise to come up with another stage name. Archie is the common nickname for Archibald. I think there is something odd about using nicknames as real names . My son-in-law is Steve – not Stephen or Steven – I have always thought it strange – but then his parents were highly dysfunctional and immensely odd.

  57. Kim says:

    Not a fan, it’s just too informal. He will one day be Duke of Sussex.
    Archie, Duke of Sussex just doesn’t sound right.

  58. gia says:

    Could you please be more pragmatic and help that baby to get a cool nickname derived from “Archiebald”!!!
    Yep, he is one poor baby being named Archiebald. Just imagine all the “Baldy” jokes at school. Like “Baldy Walesly” for Wales or “Achy Walesky”.

    - Archie
    - Arky
    - Arks
    - Rchie / Ritchie

    - Or just name him Cary because Cary Grants real first name was Archibald.

  59. kerwood says:

    I have to admit that I wanted the first biracial baby born to the British Royal family (that we know about anyway!) to get every title under the sun and have a few more made up just for him! I thought it would help to shut up the racists and it would make me feel good too.

    But wee Archie is only 3 days old and already someone has called him a monkey. There isn’t a title on earth that’s going to protect that child from that kind of sickness. So I’m going to trust his parents, especially his father, to know what’s best for their son. Maybe not being Prince Archie will spare him from having to march behind his deceased parent’s coffin (God forbid) to appease the mob. Maybe he’ll get to lead some semblance of a normal life.

    Titles will come in time. But what’s most important is that Archie is happy and healthy and grows up in a home full of love.

  60. Katebush says:

    My best friends daughter just had a baby called Archer, Archie for short. I like Archie as a name it’s very cute but I don’t think it suits a royal.

  61. TBE says:

    It’d be awesome if they named their next kid Jughead. I can imagine their diehard supporters trying to put a positive spin on it; “it’s not what I expected but I like it’ 😅

    • Guest says:

      Yeah I dont think they named him after a comic strip, but you tried. Gold star for you 💫

    • Lost in Cognitive Dissonance says:

      @TBE: lol

    • A says:

      I mean, Jughead’s real name is Forsythe Pendleton Jones III, which if you ask me, is just much more unbelievably, obnoxiously posher than Archie Harrison. I’m pretty sure there are at least a few aristocrats with a name in the same league as Forsythe Pendleton. He’d actually fit right in with that crowd.

  62. A says:

    I like his name. And while it’s clear that they’re making something of a statement wrt the lack of a title at this time, I still don’t know if I fully agree with that. It’s one thing to decline the HRH and the title of prince. It’s another thing entirely to not even be addressed as the son of a duke. Archie will inherit the dukedom of Sussex someday, regardless of whether he chooses to become a working member of the royal family. There are plenty of children of hereditary peers, who are not royal, who are just private citizens, who are still officially referred to as Lord/Lady X. That is essentially the norm in this situation, so the fact that they rejected even *that*? That’s just odd to me. Maybe I’m just going too far with this, but this reads to me as a very egalitarian, very American rejection of the very notion of the aristocracy itself, which, okay then. Ya’ll do you, I suppose.

  63. Jessica says:

    They just like the name. A boy in Australia or New Zealand with the name was told by Harry he liked it.

  64. OK magazine made a statement today that they named him after Meghan’s cat because he was strong and tough and long lived. I’m still lmao after 14 hours.

  65. A says:

    It’s not even that. There are non-royal aristocrats out there, who are the sons of dukes/earls/marquesses, who have a title purely because they’re the next in line to inherit the title. And then you have a kid who actually is royal, who will at least remain an aristocrat even if he chooses not to work for the RF full time, who won’t even at minimum be addressed as the child of a duke, which he is. It’s bonkers.