Here’s a theory about why Archie Mountbatten-Windsor doesn’t have a title

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, pose with their newborn son

As I said already this week, it bugs me that Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor doesn’t have a title. I feel like it’s something that will come back to haunt the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in time, if it was even their choice. I mean, we all believe that Harry and Meghan made the choice themselves that Archie will not be a prince or lord, but what if the choice was made for them? What if the Queen said “actually, no, your child will not have a title”? What if Prince William – who has reportedly been throwing tantrums about all things Sussex for months now – ran to his grandmother and made the argument that HIS children are the only ones who should be titled? I feel like those are just some of the stories that the British tabloids will begin to peddle in the coming months, and I want to the first one to say it: the fact that the first mixed-race great-grandchild of the Queen of England doesn’t have a title looks HORRIBLE. And I’m not 100% sure it was up to Meghan and Harry like everybody’s assuming.

For now, though, the royal reporters are running with the official story that Harry and Meghan purposefully chose to avoid getting Archie a title, and that they’re signaling that they want a “normal life” for Archie:

There will, for the time being, be no “HRH” (His Royal Highness) and no honorary title attached to his name, even though Archie is entitled to use the Earl of Dumbarton, one of his father’s subsidiary titles. Says a palace aide, “While there are courtesy titles that Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex could apply to their son, they have chosen not to give him ‘courtesy titles’ at this time.”

While this little boy, the new seventh in line to the throne and heir to the Dukedom of Sussex is, by his very birthright extraordinary, his parents want him to grow up experiencing an ordinary childhood and with the freedom to be a private citizen. Their decision that Archie should simply be known as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor hints strongly at the future the couple plan for their son.

“The fact that they have chosen not to use a title suggests they want this baby to have a relatively ordinary life,” says royal historian Professor Kate Williams. “When Archie is older he will likely have to go out and get a job. He will be a minor royal and will have to be prepared for a life of work. If the Commonwealth becomes a smaller entity, there will be less work for the royals overseas.”

Sources close to Harry also believe the decision not to give Archie a title is because he wants to shield his son from the spotlight. Having grown up in the media limelight and experienced many of its downsides, Harry understandably wants to protect his family. It is, sources say, one of the reasons he and Meghan moved to the sanctuary that is Windsor. However, despite his lack of title and the fact that there is very little chance he will ever be king, there’s no denying the cultural importance of the Sussex’s first born. “He is the Queen’s first biracial grandchild,” notes Professor Williams. “This is a historically important baby. He affects a multicultural bridge.”

[From Vanity Fair]

It’s the “he will be a minor royal” argument that bugs me – choose how important the Sussexes are and stick with it, and yes, I’m including Meghan and Harry sticking with their branding too. They’re enormously popular and exciting and Harry’s marriage to Meghan has brought a new era to the royal family: an era of inclusion, an era of diversity, an era of wokeness. The Sussexes themselves have tons of ideas about what their future roles will be and how best to use their global popularity. All the while, their son is merely an untitled “minor royal,” huh? I’m telling you, there’s something afoot here and I suspect it’s about embiggening the Cambridges and their children.

Of course, there are tons of people saying that once Charles becomes king, Archie will absolutely become an HRH and probably a prince too:

The new royal Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor will automatically become a prince, but only when his grandfather Prince Charles becomes King. Archie was born on Monday and revealed to the world yesterday by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who have chosen not to give their son a courtesy title. However, a royal decree made over 100 years ago by the Queen’s grandfather George V in 1917, means that Archie will automatically gain HRH status, as will all grandchildren on the direct male line of the sovereign.

Charles’ desire for a slimmed-down monarchy is well documented, and he could issue new letters patent to overturn the George V convention that guarantees his grandchildren royal titles. However, a senior source told the Evening Standard that it’s been agreed with Harry and Meghan that Archie will automatically become a prince.

‘The Sussexes have chosen not to give their children courtesy titles at this time, on the change of reign the George V convention would apply,’ the source said. Only the Queen could overturn the decree that would make Archie a prince before then, with new letters patent – which she did for the children of William and Kate.

[From The Daily Mail]

I wonder… yeah, a theory is starting to form in my head. Something about William throwing a tantrum and the courtiers running to the Queen and some kind of compromise being worked out: to appease the Mad King-To-Be William, Harry’s children will remain untitled during the Queen’s reign, and then William agrees to not fight Archie getting an HRH and prince status once Charles is king and William is Prince of Wales. That’s my theory. William literally wanted to exile his brother to the African continent – why would it be such a stretch to think that William is a big reason why his nephew is title-free?

Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, pose with their newborn son

Photos courtesy of Backgrid.

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

315 Responses to “Here’s a theory about why Archie Mountbatten-Windsor doesn’t have a title”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Seraphina says:

    If Wills has anything to do with it, you can bet there will be a “leak” and it will get out.

    And what if this is a ploy, knowing full well how important it is to include The Sussex kids and bestow titles, that this was done so that Charles would give the titles and make himself look even better to the people when he is King. How knows. Just a theory.

    What ever the reason, the child should have a title (more than Master) and hopefully will when his grandfather is King

    Plus, Master is not the greatest title to give a child who is of mixed race. In the US south, it is tone death to political correctness.

    • The Dot says:

      But for your theory to make sense—giving him a title when Charles is king to make Charles look better—we’d have to pretend the 1917 Letters Patent didn’t exist or that Charles somehow time traveled and convinced ol’ George to make these rules.

      • snappyfish says:

        @The Dot…good point! Maybe Charles used Simon & Mr. Peabody and the way back machine. It’s pretty simple, when Charles becomes king the Duke & Duchess of Sussex can decide if they wish their child a title (like Anne did) if they want since Archie will be the grandchild of the reigning Monarch he will be styled HRH Archie of Sussex.

        So much ado about nothing

      • Ronaldinhio says:

        The Dot
        That is the only sense being written about the above post

    • Megan says:

      This reminds me of GoT theories. The fact is, Archie will never be a working royal, so why create the future awkwardness of applying for a job with an HRH?

      Also, Harry shares William’s obsession with having a “normal life,” as if anything about their lives is remotely normal.

      • Original Jens says:

        I agree – With Charles slimming down the monarchy, Harry and Meghan will be important working royals but Archie will not be. He occupies the same space as Zara and Phillip, as Edward and Sophie’s kids. He’s already going to be treated differently as the “mixed race one”, I think this is truly Harry and Megs idea. As someone who is the first mixed race and one of the only in their family, honestly, I would hate to feel like I’m getting special treatment BECAUSE of that. It “others” him. And he will automatically be a HRH when Charles is along, and he’ll be old enough one day to decide to use it or not.

        Could Will be a Mad King wanna be? Totally, he’s got the rep for being a brat. But I’m giving M and H the benefit of the doubt here.

      • Wigletwatcher says:

        Megan
        You can’t claim with certainty archie will not be a working royal. At this rate it’s incredibly likely he will. So far the trends William and Kate use to boost images are to throw dirt on the spare or his wife… or hang in close proximity for that good press. Since Sussex popularity is only growing I’d bet it’s the latter. And Archuie will be beloved. And still! That’s just the William side.
        Charles seems to adore Megan and understands that couple is a pr powerhouse. He will keep them working royals. And… there’s a major workload the cambridge’s and their children will very likely avoid. Who will handle that?

      • Megan says:

        Unless William rolls back Charles’ efforts to slim down the monarchy, I can say with certainty that Archie won’t be a working royal.

      • Himmiefan says:

        As Harry gets further and further from the throne, not having a title means Archie avoids being in that awkward no-man’s land that Beatrice and Eugenie are in. It’s best to either be a fully working royal or fully not like Zara and Peter Phillips.

      • K says:

        Yeah he won’t be a working royal unless William decides to undue the slimming of the family- which considering how much people mention the cost of the family now I can’t see him doing.

        So no Archie won’t be a working royal- and honestly he is a minor royal but guess what Charlotte and Louis will be too just like Harry is starting to now. I don’t get why people get so upset about this? It isn’t an insult its the weird way this family is structured.

      • tealily says:

        Yeah, we have to think generationally here… the nephew/cousin of the king is a much more minor royal role than the son/brother (looking ahead to Charles and William, obviously).

      • Salvation says:

        @Megan, no one can tell with absolute certainty what the future holds. Charles himself could change the trimming down once he ascends the throne, William could once he realizes the enormity of the work involved to keep this monarchy going. Charles expressed his desire to trim down working royals years ago. At the time, his sons were just kids who had not shown what they can/want or can’t/wont do as working royals, his mother was (and still is) the monarch with tons of support from the extended family picking up the slack etc. Now Charles has 2 men who are not willingly working as hard as expected, and he might be, as we speak, reconsidering that “trimming down”. Archie might well be a working royal for all we know. I think what Hazza and Meg’s are doing at this point is testing the waters. They’re still new at this, they just want to get a feel of things at this point. They will make decisions dependent on what they feel will benefit their child but also leave enough wiggle room in case Archie wants to change his status in future. And I think these new parents will want Thiers kid to get the dual citizenship, just in case. If he turns out he doesn’t want it, then he can always renounce it. At this point, people are just over assuming what the future holds, nobody knows.

      • Selena says:

        Princess Anne requested that her children not have titles and none were given. The Queen leaves it up to the parents. No conspiracy, just minor royals wanting their kids to grow up as normally as possible.

      • PrincessK says:

        Charles plan to ‘slim’ down the monarchy could mean slimming it down to create more room for his own direct descendants. The Queen had four kids, Charles only had two, and l see no reason why Archie and his future siblings should not be fully in the picture. The Queen’s cousins with HRH seem to be part time working royals, and it’s not problematic, they feel gaps.

        If Archie has a sense of philanthropic duty like his parents, l can definitely see him in the public eye. Let’s hope George is not jealous.

    • Seraphina says:

      Just a what if. Very far fetched I agree. But tone deaf if little Archie doesn’t get a title.

    • duchess of hazard says:

      @Seraphina we use ‘Master’ or ‘Miss’ over here for children until they turn 16, iirc.

      • Katherine says:

        Exactly. Master isn’t a title in the royal sense. It’s old fashioned etiquette. My mother in law used to send birthday cards to my boys addressing them as Master. I think old fashioned thinking was just addressing them on a piece of mail as first name last name is a bit informal, but “Mister” sounds too old.

        I also don’t get the impression staff will call him this to his face. I think it has to do with how he’s referenced/addressed on paper.

      • NessaBee says:

        And Miss is short for Misstress?

      • Olenna says:

        The use of master and miss is not a foreign concept in the US. Its just outmoded, so I understand the confusion wrt Archie. I still use the terms when addressing and mailing cards to child relatives in my family because that’s how I was taught.

    • Salvation says:

      People this kid will not be referred to as master in the US southern states so the tone deaf doesn’t apply here. This kid is a prince or is born in the British Royal family, c’mon y’all.

      • Himmiefan says:

        I’m in the South, and I’ve heard of little boys as being addressed as “master,” but it is a dated form and will probably die out one day.

      • Casey20 says:

        What south are you from because NO ONE GOES BY MASTER in the South, USA

      • Betsy says:

        @ Casey20 It is still a proper, if no longer in vogue, way to refer to little boys, usually on envelopes. Just because you are unfamiliar with the etiquette doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

      • Amy Knight says:

        Master is used the same way in the South as it is everywhere else as an address for boys under 18. Separate from “master” associated with ownership of slaves.

    • Tina says:

      Master isn’t a title, it’s just a form of address. It’s the equivalent of Miss. (I was a bit annoyed that Doria wasn’t called Ms in the initial announcement, but I note that they corrected that in the subsequent announcement).

    • Ainsley7 says:

      The Queen only decides the HRH titles. Archie is entitled to use Lord or Earl Dumbarton. The only people who can change that are Harry and Meghan. No one else has a say in the courtesy titles associated with Harry’s Dukedom.

    • LT says:

      No no no – as others have said, “master” isn’t a title. My asian sons are called “Master” on their frequent flier airline accounts (my daughter is “miss”) because they are under 18. It has nothing to do with race or titles, it’s just correct. You don’t call a baby girl “Ms” either.

    • Lua says:

      Unless it is by choice… We’ve seen the craziness around Megan and Diana, it’s very possible it’s true that Harry doesn’t want the heartache of watching his wife and mother go through the circus and now his child. Maybe he really does want a normal life for him. Plus, his wife is American, maybe she doesn’t want her kiddo exposed to the crap she’s been exposed to, and they’re hoping this will shield him

      • PrincessK says:

        Lord Archie, the Earl of Dumbarton, future HRH, can NEVER EVER have a normal private life, unless he chooses leave the U.K. and lead an obscure lifestyle. In their hearts his parents know this.

        I don’t see how not having HRH will improve Archie’s life. He is a born royal.

        With or without titles Archie is going to be as or probably more the centre of attention as the Cambridge children. Buckingham Palace admitted that interest in
        his birth was more than all the Cambridge children combined, hence the reason why so much was hidden from the public about the circumstances of his birth. If the public had been told that Meghan was going to use the Lindo Wing, or even The Portland, chaotic scenes would have occurred with the world’s press and public waiting for days outside.

        The eventual presentation of the news of his birth and then presentation of Archie himself was high drama, and much more newsworthy than Prince George’s birth. This child is very special and he will for a very long time take centre stage as a royal, and his protective parents know this.

  2. lana86 says:

    Omg they are sooo cute!!! Bless them!!!

  3. The Dot says:

    It all seems very reasonable to me. They want him to have a normal childhood while he can. I’m all for it.

    And he *is* a minor royal. That’s not a slight to him and it says nothing about his current/future popularity. When he and the Cambridge children grow up, he will be what Beatrice and Eugenie are now. When the Cambridge kids start having their own children, he will be pushed further down the line like Andrew.

    • escondista says:

      THIS! I think Harry, especially, wants his child to have as normal a life as possible with his parentage. Think about it, Harry’s mother died from being hounded by press and he and Wills had no privacy or normalcy for the better parts of their childhood.
      I bet we was thinking, “I just want my happy little boy to enjoy his privileged life.”

      • Ali says:

        Agree 100% that no title isn’t a slight but a choice for his future.

        I personally think they hope he can grow up and decide his life path and career vs having it chosen for him.

      • Amy Knight says:

        I think that Archie will not have a chance at a private life. The more they try to keep him away from public view, the more the public and press will be driven to pursue information. My opinion is that they will be wise to share photos and information about him periodically to feed the curiosity. Let’s face it, this child is not a “minor” royal. His parents are hugely popular. They need that popularity to do their work. And, Archie is the first mixed race royal child (documented). There is no chance he will be able to grow up “normally.”

      • PrincessK says:

        @ Amy Knight, l totally agree.

      • notasugarhere says:

        He would be pursued anyway, so it is better that his parents take control of the narrative and access as they have. Harry and Meghan are not required to let it be a tabloid free-for-all. They get to choose to raise him out of the public eye and to only release the info they see fit. This child will not be a working royal, so they get to model their choices after how Edward and Sophie raised their children out of the public eye.

    • LT says:

      I agree – and I think it’s a bit disrespectful to Megan and Harry to bemoan his lack of title. They understand the benefits and drawbacks of giving their son a title. Perhaps they are thinking more about the welfare of their child than they are thinking about the optics? They are parents first and foremost – and I trust their judgement.

      • Befrazzled says:

        In total agreement – LT, you said this so much more eloquently than I could have. First and foremost, as Archie’s parents any decisions Harry and Meghan make will be what they believe to be in his best interest, optics be damned.

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        I agree. And Harry knows better than anyone what a title does and doesn’t mean and what it will require. I originally thought that they should have given the baby a title but I’m going to respect and trust Meghan and Harry’s choice for their baby. I think if it was in fact their choice they have very specific reasons for it.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Yes. It is disrespectful to discount their deliberate and bold decision and create a narrative where they and their baby are always at the mercy of someone else’s machinations.

        William can be a petulant tool at times but constantly casting him as some Darth Vader style villain who is out to get Meghan, Harry and now their baby is getting into some Alex Jones Info Wars type crazy time.

      • Mariposa says:

        Well said. I think Harry and Meghan are extremely capable of thinking for themselves and know that any children they have will be minor royals. Harry is getting a lot of attention now, but in 15 years, when William’s children grow up, all that attention will start to pivot to them. Archie will be 15 then and will never be exposed like Harry was. (And, good thing too…lucky him!!)

        When I was growing up, Diana and Fergie had just come on the scene, and all the focus was on them and their relationships with Charles and Andrew. As soon as Harry and William started to grow up, the attention pivoted away from Andrew’s family and back to Charles’.

    • KA says:

      Agree. Just look at their cousins. Beatrice and Eugenie have had such a harder time being minor royals but titled, as compared with Zara and Peter. If I were Harry, just looking at that alone would make me prefer the path of Zara and Peter.

      I completely get ramifications of not giving a title to the first biracial baby in the family- but that is also a HUGE burden to place on a small baby. To, from day one, expect them to be the Royal Representative for an entire population on the planet. Meghan went into the situation by choice. Archie didn’t make that choice (at least not yet).

      • Valiantly Varnished says:

        KA – that is a REALLY good point and I dont think people really consider that. He is a child and should not be given that burden right from the womb.

      • Himmiefan says:

        KA – exactly!

      • Valerie says:

        Also, if he’s not titled the press have no right to “demand” pics and updates. I’d bet that fact was a big part of it.

      • Cas says:

        I agree. As a parent they have to think about the long term for their child not just the “optics”. Beatrice and Eugenie have had a tough time with their titles while Zara and Peter have thrived without any.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Can’t forget though that in my humble opinion Beatrice and Eugenie have crazy parents. Yes the girls turned out quite well compared to how it could have gone, but Andrew and Fergie are both deeply odd people and oligarch-cuddling grifters at heart.

        Part of the tension of what their royal roles should be has always been down to the fact their parents love and crave status and money beyond what they have, and are willing to be hella shady to get it. Fergie is determined to stay close to the royal scene- hell, she has been divorced from Andrew since the 1990s but is still bunking In his house. I’m sure they love their daughters but they also use them as tools for their own egos and want them to be as high profile as princesses as they can be.

      • Moose says:

        @Tourmaline, I absolutely agree with you.

      • Mariposa says:

        “Oligarch-cuddlng grifters”!! Comment of the day! Yes, they both seem to be very hungry for fame and it is amazing the girls seem so sensible.

      • PrincessK says:

        The comparison between Beatrice and Eugenie and Peter and Zara does not prove anything. All four are supposed to have jobs, and are not working royals. The York sisters just get picked on. What perks do the York’s get that the other two don’t, apart from being called HRH? The Queen treats them all equally.

    • tamimi says:

      I agree with you. His parents know what’s good for him. He is a “minor” royal but is also likely to be a “major” celebrity. It is what it is.

      • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

        He IS a “minor royal”, seventh in line now, but remember: TQ was ALSO seventh in line, and she became Queen. Poo, Poo, Poo on *anything* happening to the first 6 in line, but it *can* happen. He is STILL “royal”, titled or not (at this point), and he will have all the benefits of that.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        When was QEII seventh in line to the throne?

      • Tina says:

        When she was born in 1926, ahead of her were definitely the following: Edward VIII and George VI. After that possibly the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Connaught, but why would they have been ahead of her and not become monarch? And there’s still one more.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        At the Queens birth in 1926: Edward VIII…..George VI……QEII……Margaret Rose…..Henry, Duke of Gloucester (no children until 1941)…….George, Duke of Kent

      • Casey says:

        She wasn’t 7th. Ever. Her cousin did not have a higher claim to the throne than she did. The MOMENT her father became king, she was heir presumptive. When she was born and while her grandfather was alive and King she was third, behind her uncle, and then her father. never 7th.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Basically repeating what Casey said but, no, they weren’t ahead in line of succession to Elizabeth. These were the younger brothers. The line of succession after George V was Edward VIII, George VI and Elizabeth who became heiress presumptive with Margaret after her when George ascended the throne. If George had a boy, then he would have succeeded and not Elizabeth. If George had no children, then the throne would have gone sideways to the next oldest brother.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Who was HRH Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, whose eldest son, HRH Prince William (b.1941), died in a plane crash and whose second son, HRH Prince Richard (b.1944), is now the current Duke of Gloucester.

      • Feeshalori says:

        He was the third brother to Edward and George.

      • Susan says:

        I agree with the others above disputing this notion that the Queen was ever 7th in line to the throne. She was never 7th in line. That’s just fanciful revisionist history to somehow boost the standing of Archie.

        Elizabeth was born while her grandfather was king. Her father was the second born son of the king. The first born son of the king was her uncle “David”, eventually known as King Edward VIII and who later abdicated leaving no issue. So at her birth, Elizabeth was THIRD in line to the throne, behind her uncle David and her father Bertie (later George VI). This is Prince George’s position right now, third. The only difference is that Prince George can’t be bumped any lower than third given that he is the first son of a first son. It’s only up for him. Where as the Queen might have been bumped further down the line of succession had her uncle married and had children before abdication, or even if her own parents had more children and they were boys (given the rules of male primogeniture). Neither of those events happened though and Elizabeth never had a future born cousin or brother leap frog her in the line of succession.

        Archie’s situation is much more minor in the line of succession. He is already number 7 and that’s the best he can do until someone dies. But the likelihood that later born royals will leapfrog Archie is much stronger than in Elizabeth’s case. Archie gets booted down the line not only for any more Cambridge children, but also for every Cambridge grandchild born to George, Charlotte, Louis, and so on. The likelihood that all of those people will remain childless is pretty slim and Archie would need that to happen AND outlive the youngest Louis.

        This is all to say, yes he is a “minor royal”.

    • Ib says:

      Princess Margaret’s children don’t do any public/royal duties, do they? Children of the sibling of the monarch. I believe pss Margaret’s son just got tipped to lead the Prince of Wales foundation trust (or whatever it’s called, and frankly shameful William or harry didn’t take it on…) but before that was Margaret’s son doing anything for the royal family?
      Also ITA about the sour taste in my mouth of the word “Master” preceding this kids name. If “master” got expunged from the English language I would be happy tbh. I wish that the kid just had Lord in front of his name like Edward and Sophie’s kids.

      • Megan says:

        Since Charles started a trust in William and Harry’s names, I don’t think there was an expectation either would take it on.

    • launicaangelina says:

      I agree with this take. IMO, Harry and Meghan made this decision. The Princes grew up in the public eye and when Meghan came along, Harry loved the semblance of normalcy Meghan brought to his life. I sincerely believe he wants his children to have a shot at that. Just think of every cringeworthy thing the boys grew up hearing about their parents – intimate things – like Charles wanting to be tampon. Of course, their mother’s tragic death with stay with them all their lives. This is really Harry’s chance to give his son a chance to experience something somewhat different than what he did.

      • Amy Knight says:

        Sorry, but no chance will this kid have a normal life. Normal is not visiting family in palaces, never having to worry about how you are going to pay a bill or seeing your mother and father in the press every day. Harry saying he wants his kid to have a normal life really pisses me off. I am pro-Harry, but his fixation with “normalcy” is snobbery at its highest!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Amy Knight, You make an excellent point which I must say I totally agree with regarding the snobbery.

      • Moneypenny says:

        @amy knight they want him to have a normal rich person’s life like their friends. Not a normal middle class life.

      • FluffyPrincess says:

        @Amy Knight — Exactly! You said what I wanted to say, especially this:
        “I am pro-Harry, but his fixation with “normalcy” is snobbery at its highest!”

        Little Archie will NEVER have to worry about his well being as far being afford a place to live, food on his table, medical care for whatever he might need, the ability to afford a first-rate education from childhood through university. If he decides to work at some type of “normal” job, he can quit if he doesn’t like it or is bored, because again, living expenses is something that he will never have to worry about –ever.

        They really need to can it with this whole “normal” life. Archie was born into the Royal Family, his life will never be normal.

      • Melinda says:

        This child was never expected to get an hrh. I doubt he ever will. HM decides, not harry and meghan.

    • SarSte says:

      I also genuinely agree with the view that they want him to have a normal childhood. One of the things that has always irked me about Harry is how much he fetishises having a “normal” life… but I don’t think it’s an act with him (his other brother is another story IMO). I feel certain that he consulted with his aunt, his untitled cousins, and made a genuine decision based on their perspectives and his own childhood. I would not be surprised if the little bay-bay remains untitled even once Charles is King. I think it was the right choice.

      Also, all this title conversation amongst royals always just makes me laugh… Like as if y’all don’t have ENOUGH privilege with or with out (although I do recognise the significance of a title for Archie, I actually think it probably matters more to people in America than it does to the average non-racist person in the UK. But you better BELIEVE that the British media would have jumped all over the chance to run the headline DIVA MEGHAN SCREAMS AT THE QUEEN WHILE DEMANDING TITLE FOR TOT).

  4. Honeybadger says:

    Ann chose not to give her children titles. It’s not unheard of.

    • The Dot says:

      Anne did NOT choose to forgo titles for her children. They were NEVER going to be prince/Princess because those titles do not pass through the female line in the British monarchy. If Anne’s husband hadn’t refused an earldom, they’d be Lord/Lady. At best, Peter may have had a courtesy title.

      • Monicack says:

        Dot
        Absolutely not true. The Queen discussed this at great length with Anne and both she and Phil were completely supportive of her decision.

      • Guest says:

        Thank you. Royal dish, who btw, is allowed to talk about the Sussex family agian, kept saying Ann did it right. She didnt do anything.

      • The Dot says:

        Guest

        Thank you!!! People who keep saying Anne kept her children from being princes or princesses really don’t know their Royal history. If you wanna talk about doing it right, let’s look to Edward and Sophie and their kids. They chose to forgo the titles even though Louise and James have them by right/law.

      • olive says:

        you could say Anne did something by refusing a title for her husband (i imagine that would’ve been a joint decision for them as a couple or even a decision she made before even meeting him), which meant no titles for her kids.

    • TheOriginalMia says:

      Anne didn’t choose. Her kids weren’t entitled to a title because their father refused a dukedom. If Charlotte has children, the same thing will happen to hers unless the Letters Patent granting her HRH status is extended to her descendants.

      • Lauren says:

        The Queen offered to give Anne’s first husband a title, which would have given Anne’s children titles. Anne and her first husband declined because they didn’t want their children to have titles. That was entirely their choice – Peter and Zara absolutely could have had titles.

      • The Dot says:

        Lauren

        Anne’s husband refused an earldom. If he had accepted, Zara would have been addressed Lady Zara and Peter would have been addressed Lord Peter (assuming the earldom came with no subsidiary titles). Zara would not have a title in her own right and neither would Peter—he would have been an HEIR to an earldom only.

      • Susan says:

        Now that the royal succession rules have been changed to eliminate male primogeniture (so if Charlotte had been born before George, she would be Queen instead), does that change the rule going forward that grandchildren through the female line don’t get HRH status? It would seem to have to change, otherwise you could have an absurd situation where Louis’ kids get HRH titles and Charlotte’s don’t and yet Louis sits below Charlotte in the line of succession. The “female line” distinction only works for the generations born before the rules changed in 2013.

    • Eliza says:

      Technically yes Anne and her husband did. Her husband was offered a title or dukedom (i forgot) which the kids could then use as a title. He turned it down. So the kids were not titled. They did have a choice.

      • Tourmaline says:

        Exactly.
        Princess Margaret’s then husbamd Tony Armstrong-Jones was named Earl Snowdon in 1961 because Margaret was about to have their first baby and they wanted the baby to have a title. So that son David was titled Viscount Linley and later their daughter was Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (now Chatto).

        Princess Anne and Mark Phillips could have gone the same route in the 1970s but clearly they OPTED not to.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Does anyone know if George VI issued letters patent to make Charles & Anne HRHs at the time of their birth because they were NOT grandchildren in the male line of the sovereign.

      QEII was only the heir Assumptive because she was not male. If her George Vi had fathered a third child which was male (he could have done this in his 50s as men have and continue to do; see Marquess of Cholmondeley) QEII would have been displaced in the line of succession by a younger male brother.

      Therefore it seems to me, QEIIs children, like Princess Margaret’s and Princess Anne’s children, were not entitled to HRH under the 1917 Letters Patent issued by George V.

      • Kylie says:

        George VI issued letters patent for Elizabeth’s children. Charles and Anne were both born a Prince and Princess of Edinburgh.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Kylie, Thank you for your research.

      • AryasMum says:

        QEII’s mother was only five years younger than her father. If her father was in his fifties, her mother was nearly there. Almost impossible for another child to have been born.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @AryasMum, Not if the Queen Mother died and George VI had remarried. What I was trying to say was that QEII was next inline for the throne…i.e. Heir Assumptive. If a male child would have been born, the male child would have been the direct heir…i.e. Heir Presumptive….meaning no one could supersede him.

        With the change in the succession laws for the British Crown, this is no longer an issue.

      • Tina says:

        As unlikely as it is, one is deemed to be able to father children until a year after one’s death. And it is always considered possible that your wife might die and you might marry again, no matter your respective ages.

  5. LNG says:

    If Meghan and Harry wanted him to have a title and William was refusing HRH (which is ridiculous, but let’s go with it) then why wouldn’t they be using the courtesy title that Archie is entitled to regardless of what William or anyone else thinks? And Charles would clearly have a greater say in all of this than William would.

    Working royals with minor royal children is how it works for literally every one of Charles’ siblings. This is not something new designed to insult Meghan and Harry. Based on what we’ve seen of Harry over all the years he has been in the public eye it seems pretty clear to me that he thinks being an HRH is a burden (one that he has been willing to take on) and it is not even remotely surprising that he would want a different life (or at the very least the option of a different life) for his own son.

    • Jen says:

      I could see Harry being petulant enough to be like “if we don’t get the title we want, we’re not using a different title.” He’s no Will on the petulance train, but he is still an overly entitled young man all the same.

      I really don’t know what to think – I doubt we will ever really know either so it will all remain speculation.

      Though it is an interesting thought that this might be the real reason for the rift between the brothers.

      • tempest prognosticator says:

        Yep. Both Will and Harry have a staggering sense of entitlement – and, I get it, they were *royally* raised. Harry might have less entitlement issues than Will, but frankly, that’s not saying much.

      • minx says:

        They are both act quite entitled, yes.

  6. Georgiamay says:

    What role does Charles have to play in this? This is his grandchild afterall. Or is Charles now completely useless & irrelevant? The Queen decides who gets titles so blame her & Charles.

    • Kittycat says:

      For once I can say there is no big drama behind the scenes.

      Harry and Meghan turned down giving Archie a courtesy title. Once Charles becomes King Archie will become a Prince but that will be years down the line. Long live the Queen!

  7. Rapunzel says:

    The optics of this suck, but… I get them wanting normalcy for Archie.

    Is Wills behind it? Eh, I think this stuff was probs decided when Prince George was born.

    But tin foil hat theory? I do think Wills/Harry had a falling out cause Wills said something racist leaning about the baby when Meg got pregnant. I don’t believe there was any feud till then.

    • Harla says:

      Interesting theory Rapunzel. I’m not buying the current theory that the big “rift’” was due to William’s supposed talk with Harry before the engagement, the one where William felt that the relationship was moving to fast and that Meghan was still an unknown quantity. Imho, the feud started sometime later, definitely before Christmas of last year and probably around the time of the Sussex’s wildly successful tour and baby announcement.

    • tamimi says:

      “I do think Wills/Harry had a falling out cause Wills said something racist leaning about the baby when Meg got pregnant.”

      Apropos of what? I dislike him as much as the next Celebitchy reader (i.e. a lot. He’s useless and lazy and jealous of M&H) but to make such a detailed theory is treading on fan-fiction territory. It may be, it may not, but there not really any evidence of what you’ve accused him of at the moment so it seems pretty below the belt.

      • Rapunzel says:

        Tamimi- I did say tin foil hat theory, meaning it’s far fetched. What evidence do I have? Well, any rift was post baby announcement. That seems clear as nothing was said prior nor did anything seem amiss. And to me, there’s just about only one thing that would cause me to have a rift with my sibling during a joyous time like having a first baby: if my sibling said something negative about baby. Add in that the royals have always been out of touch on race issues, and it just makes sense.

    • MsIam says:

      That is my theory too, Rapunzel so I guess we can share that tin foil hat, lol! But I read that the area that Will and Kate live in with the other Turnips is know to be extremely conservative (allegedly) and racist (allegedly) and that Will leans towards conservative, nearly right wing philosophies (allegedly). So it would not surprise me if Will said something. Maybe not even intentionally insensitive to give him the benefit of the doubt, but i do believe that water seeks it’s own level so maybe he made some type of joke? Plus Prince Phillip is said to be less progressive on matters of race (allegedly) and has made some really obtuse comments in the past. As Will has too, for that matter. So there, that is my two-cents on this.

    • Brandy Alexander says:

      That doesn’t make sense to me. He was supportive at the time of the wedding, then what? Didn’t think they would have babies and started making cracks once she became pregnant. I don’t buy it.

  8. Tomatoejane says:

    Agree, Kite. Also, little Archie is an American citizen, until he decides not to be, and Americans don’t do titles. Our ancestors went to war to get rid of titles. It makes perfect sense that the decision was Meghan’s and Harry’s, whatever their reasons may be. I’m getting very tired of all the prattle around the dynamics of the British Royal Family. Leave it alone, please.

    • RoyalBlue says:

      Yes. It’s not that difficult for me to grasp this as being Harry and Meghan’s choice. Title schmitle who cares. This is 100% not about optics but what is best for Archie. It’s almost to me like actors who keep their kids out of acting until they are adults. It’s to protect them from the early exposure to drugs, casting couch etc. Simply put, they are protecting Archie until he is old enough to make his own decisions.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        Only problem is, Archie having a title or not won’t make the slightest difference to the levels of press/public interest. How many headlines has he generated worldwide already? He’s even already started getting his fair share of attacks and criticism as well as praise and approval just by virtue of who he is and what he represents.

        The only real way to shield him would be for Meghan and Harry to retreat from public life completely and go live /hide away somewhere remote. Other than that, they need to be realistic about what going to happen and manage it wisely.

    • Kendra says:

      American War of Independence was not about titles.

      Anyway Archie will have British citizenship and grow up in Britain. Maybe get US citizenship (it’s not automatic if you don’t want it) but he will probably not be that attached US that weather he has title or not has anything to do with that.

      • Tina says:

        It’s automatic, Archie is a US citizen at birth by operation of law. He doesn’t have to apply to have it recognised, and can renounce it when he is 18, but he can’t enter the US on a UK passport.

  9. Lunde says:

    It seems fine to me. Meghan and Harry have been pretty vocal about wanting to give Archie a normal life so it would be strange and inconsistent if they asked the Queen to make a special exception for Archie to be a Prince. Prince Edward and Princess Anne chose this route for their kids and it has made no difference to Lady Louise’s and Zara’s et als status in the Royal family.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Just for clarification: IIRC Captain Mark Phillips was offered an Earldom on his marriage to Anne just like Anthony Armstrong-Jones on his marriage to Margaret. Mark Phillips turned down the title and/or Princess Anne told him to turn down the title. If Phillips had accepted the title, Peter and Zara would be Lord & Lady but not HRHs due to Anne being female.

      MHO: If Anne did not want her children to be titled that’s fine (I really understand) but I cannot believe that in the 20 & 21st century there is still discrimination against females in the BRF via the 1917 Letters Patent. Sweden got rid of all this anti-feminist discrimination in the 1980s.

      • lanne says:

        It’s actually worse for the aristocracy. There are situations where a titled peer (with estate) only has daughters, and the estate must be passed down to some random cousin (a total stranger). It wasn’t just a Downton Abbey story.

      • Elvie says:

        The Queen eliminated the anti-feminist discrimination with Letters Patent in 2012 before Prince George was born. Princess Charlotte does not lose her position in the line of succession to Prince Louis. She also made it so that all of William’s children would be HRH when technically only George, as the heir, qualified under the Letters Patent of 1917, until Charles became King.

        They did nothing for the children of the Spare to the Prince of Wales, so we still refer to 1917 for Archie. And they’re not retroactive, so they applied to Anne’s children.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      @Elvie, with regards to “The Queen eliminated the anti-feminist discrimination with Letters Patent in 2012″, she eliminated some of it.

      If George dies, Charlotte can be the monarch but she cannot be the Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall, cannot administer the Duchy of Cornwall and will NOT receive its revenues. The Royal Style HRH cannot pass through Princess Charlotte to her descendants. As it stands today Charlotte will NOT be given a gift of Dukedom in her own right when she marries.

      Both Princess Victoria and Princess Madeline of Sweden were given Dukedoms in their own right when they married and their husbands had the choice of adopting their Style & Title. Daniel, husband of Victoria adopted full Style & Title of his royal wife. Chris, husband of Madeline, did not adopt any Style & Title of his royal wife, chose to remain a commoner, kept his USA-British duel citizenship and continued to work in the private sector.

  10. Cup says:

    Ehhh. Not buying this theory. I think the theory that Harry idealized the Zara & Peter life growing up & wanted it for his children is much more aligned with what we know about Harry. He wants to protect his kids from the nonsense as much as possible, while still having an extremely privileged & posh life.

    • AryasMum says:

      Zara and Peter really got a great deal. They have all of the perks of having a royal granny, and absolutely none of the responsibility. They live freely off the royal purse via their mother.

  11. Mimi says:

    Harry abhors the press and he’s been very consistent about wishing for more normalcy during his childhood. It makes total sense that he would not want to expose his son to that kind of pressure & scrutiny, especially when he’s had to witness the media’s total obsession with his wife. There’s probably a lot to blame on William but not this.

  12. sunny says:

    I wonder if there is something else going on here? I could totally see the wanting him to have a normal life thing is true except the optics of not having the first(openly) mixed-race member of the royal family have a title is terrible and we know Meghan Markle gets optics.

    Also this child has not even been around a week and already has been subjected to racism. I mean, that BBC reporter story is so gross(as was that one CNN headline). I can’t help but think that a title would offer their child a bit more protection from the scrutiny and racist British press.

    • (TheOG)@Jan90067 says:

      I can’t believe the BBC didn’t catch that before it went out! Or that Baker lacked sufficient brain cells to realize what posting that signified. Glad BBC took swift action an fired his a$$ (rather than “suspend during investigation”). But yeah, literally 3-4 days old, and it’s already started. Makes me sick.

    • Moose says:

      What was the CNN headline?

  13. Guest says:

    I really hope that isnt the case. Because if that is, God help England, William is going to be a horrible king. And God help the cambridge kids because they will have to get a better work ethic then their father and mother because they wont be able to hide behind archie.

    • tamimi says:

      God help England? The King/Queen is barely on anyone’s daily radar unless you’re a royal family watcher. Perhaps it should be more “God help WIlliam” because maybe the royal watchers will get as nonplussed by him as others are about the royals generally. The royals are pretty much ceremonial.

    • AryasMum says:

      Can we hold off on criticizing the Cambridge children until their adults? Right now they’re small children who most likely adore their new baby cousin. Imagining them as lazy adults taking advantage of little baby Archie is . . . strange.

    • Kendra says:

      I feel William will do away with Charle’s attempts at streamlining the royal family if he can since he would like help at “work” form Hardy’s family rather than being against of his kids having titles. But this kind of depends how many of Charles’s siblings are alive when William becomes king, how many kids Harry will have where they live and if William and Kate have more kids.

  14. Josie says:

    For Archie not to be styled Earl of Dumbarton requires Harry and Meghan actively to do something, to change something. Neither one of them is going to agree to that, to a break with the traditions and rules of titles, just to keep William happy!

    Harry has known for ages that his children wouldn’t be HRH until Charles was king. I have believed since 2013, when the Queen issued letters patent for the Cambridge kids, that he actively gave his permission for the 1917 rules to stand. If he hadn’t, the Queen could have included any of his children in the rules change at that time. I think Harry wanted his kids not to have the HRH, at least not right away, and I think he and Meghan chose Archie’s status, too.

    The Queen clearly approves of the Sussexes — indeed she seems to have a sweet spot for Harry, because this is twice now that she’s done something especially intimate for him on social media (the first was the mic drop post about the Invictus Games). There’s simply no way that she would have asked Harry and Meghan to forego a title for their son, and there’s absolutely no way that Harry and Meghan would have agreed, if they didn’t want it.

    The Sussexes seem very adept at using their image to advance the causes that matter to them. They know very well that Archie is special by virtue of his dual citizenship and race. They don’t seem to mind the optics of Master Archie and I think we should respect that.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      This exactly. Archie will be titled automatically HRH once Charles is King, though they may go the Edward and Sophie route of not using the styling. He also will inherit Harry’s dukedom and there’s nothing Harry and Meghan can do to change that. Not having a title in the meantime saves him from having to be stuck in a working limbo and stuck with the same restrictions and scrutiny as Beatrice and Eugenie.

  15. Becks1 says:

    I do think this was mostly (if not entirely) Harry and Meghan’s decision. I have always said that I thought they would begin as they mean to go on; meaning, if they wanted him to be HRH Prince Archie when Charles became king, the queen would have made that happen now. She’s not dumb, she knows she’s not going to live forever, maybe 5 or 10 years at best, so why not just start off that way. But had she said “nope, I already made one change, not making another” then I think they would have at least gone with Lord Archie, Earl of Dumbarton (or whatever courtesy title he is entitled to.)

    The fact that they made it clear it is “Master Archie” tells me that they don’t want him to have a title, and while he may be Prince Archie down the road, they likely are going to choose to forego that.

    Now like Kaiser said – was that the best choice overall? time will tell. I think it will be. But we will have to wait and see.

    I do completely get the frustration over “minor royal.” Of course, in terms of the line of succession, he is minor. And he’s not going to be a working royal. But RRs really need to make up their mind. Either the Sussexes are minor royals or they aren’t. Right now it feels like the term “minor royal” is only tossed out to try to put Meghan and her child in their place.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Anne would be a minor Royal is she had not worked her ass off for the last 50 years. She is considers a major Royal (to me maybe THE Major Royal) because she does her Royal job the way it is supposed to be done.

      If Master Archie wants to be a Major Royal all he has to do is work for it and be good at his work. As Earl Spencer s said about Diana, “You do not have to have a title to work the magic”. If Master Archie wants nothing to do with Royal Family Circus then nothing will be expected of him because he was raised without a title. Either you have what it takes to be a working royal and the label of “Major” will follow or you do not have what it takes and should fade into the background of a private life.

      Master Archie will have this choice.

      • Becks1 says:

        Well, I see your general point about how Archie will have some say over how he is perceived publicly, but its also not as simple as you are making it out to be.

        Because the actual issue is working royal vs nonworking royal, and how your lifestyle is funded. It doesn’t matter how charismatic Archie is or how hard a worker he ends up being. That’s been part of the issue with Beatrice and Eugenie – not just what kind of work they do, but how they are funded. It’s pretty clear that Archie is not going to be a “working royal,” no matter if he has what it takes or not.

  16. Kylie says:

    I don’t think William had anything to do with it. The Queen is a stickler for tradition. She probably expected Harry and Meghan to style their children as the children of a Duke for the remainder of her reign and for some reason Harry and Meghan chose not to. If it was a “normal” thing, I call bs because Lady Sarah Chatto is one of the most down to earth people in the family and having a courtesy title didn’t get in the way of that at all.

    • Kittycat says:

      Archie will garner more interest than Lady Sarah.

      • Kylie says:

        I’m not arguing that. The point is that this was clearly Harry and Meghan’s decision. Both the 1917 letters patent and the letters patent for Harry’s dukedom outline what Archie should have been styled as. Harry and Meghan decided to do their own thing, which might backfire on them. Not styling him as “Earl of Dumbarton” or even “Lord” will not alter the interest in him.

      • Kittycat says:

        I dont understand what ‘backfire’ will there be?

        There will be a Prince Archie unless Willam becomes King if Charles dies. Until then its Master Archie.

  17. lanne says:

    Respectfully disagree, Kaiser. While it’s certainly fun to speculate and gossip (that’s why we’re all here, right?), I don’t believe Workshy Will has anything to gain by stifling little Archie. In fact, if your theory is correct, then why wouldn’t the Sussexes at least give Archie a courtesy title? I still say that they decline the HRH once Archie becomes eligible, if only to keep Will from having any say over their son and his future. The only way they allow the child to be an HRH once the Queen dies would be to get some guarantees as to how Archie will fit into the family. (Maybe a new LP to issue guidelines on what HRH means in a streamlined monarchy). I said yesterday that making the kid an HRH would be to prepare him to live a life that will no longer exist by the time Archie grows up. The Sussexes see the writing on the wall. The boy will have an extremely high profile based on their own popularity. Why tie him to a monarchy where he will have no defined role, and he’ll be at the mercy of his uncle? Being an HRH doesn’t give him any benefits–not Royal Protection (Andy pays for the York women’s security), not free housing. But it will have a lot of constraints.

    • windyriver says:

      That they named him Archie Harrison instead of Archibald Philip Charles Harrison or the like tells me “normal bloke” is what they want for him, at least as a child (to whatever extent that’s possible). Plus they’ve declined even the courtesy title.

      Don’t see how making him HRH now would “protect” him in any way – in my mind, this would just be another source of debate and discussion for the tabloids. He’s just going to be a minor royal, so should he blah blah blah. This way, after all the RR have done to put Meghan down, are they seriously going to put more focus on how her child should have gotten a title now? I doubt it.

      Plus H&M avoid tangling with William and his ego, and, I assume, the egos of courtiers in the various palaces. William’s the heir, his minor children get the titles now, done. What happens in the future (i.e., when Charles is king) remains to be seen, but at the moment, one less thing to be concerned about while they’re learning to be parents and enjoying their new son.

      To me, the optic that mattered right now is the picture of Doria with the Queen, when Harry and Meghan introduced her great grandchild.

      @lanne – question for you – have seen the various things you’ve written elsewhere, re: the constraints of being an HRH. Are there actually guidelines and requirements that come with that title, in terms of responsibilities and behavior? Are the constraints you talk about formal, or informal? Didn’t find anything on the subject with some quick research…

  18. Sitka says:

    Or how about the fact that maybe, just maybe, his parents chose what they believe is best for him? His mother has been dragged since she met his father so maybe they wanted a private life for him?

  19. Kim says:

    This post is full of a lot of speculations. I’m pretty sure the Queen isn’t dominated by William’s demands.
    When Charles is king, unless he changes the rules laid out in the 1917 proclamation, Archie has every right to the HRH and Prince titles.

    Even if Charles passes before the Queen, Archie will inherit the Duke of Sussex title one day.

    Will also add that Princess Margaret’s marriage to photographer Antony Armstrong Jones was also “Exciting” and they were very much in the limelight, similar to Henry and Meghan. But today we hardly ever hear about their children Sarah and David. They appear at the larger family events but that’s about it. They have also been able to carve out professional careers – painted, furniture designer/builder.

    In a couple of decades the attention will be focused on George, Charlotte, and Louis (and any other children William and Catherine have). Archie and any other children Harry and Meghan have will likely have lives similar to Sarah and David.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      You never know as Archie may inherit the magic of Grandmother Diana & Grandmother Doria making him a force to be reckoned with if he CHOOSES to do Royal work. You do not need an HRH to weave the magic the public wants to see. Many HRHs simply are not cut out for the work due to the nature of their personalities which is really not their fault because training can only due so much if you do not have the inborn talent required for the job.

      • Ainsley7 says:

        He can’t choose to be a working Royal unless the Monarch allows it. If he wants to be a philanthropist then so be it, but he can’t just decide to work for the family. Otherwise Beatrice would have gone ahead with her plans to work for the family. She grew up believing that she would and was very disappointed when she was told otherwise.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Ainsley, per your comment “unless the Monarch allows it.”

        I have no doubt that if Archie turns out to be as hard as worker as Anne, Princess Royal and has the magic of his grandmothers, whoever is Monarch will allow to work as Royal, if he chooses to do so, and give him an allowance from the sovereign grant.

        What I am trying to say is that we are talking about what will be going on 25 years down the road with BRF. When QEII was born, no one ever dreamed she would be sitting on the throne. No one knows and no one can predict. I believe Megs & Harry wanted to raise Archie with no Royal expectations so he would have more choices in life.

      • Kim says:

        The key part of this “the monarch’s discretion” – Beatrice and Eugenie are not working royals (despite being granddaughters of the monarch and also despite their HRH + Princess status). I believe they do have some patronages and do some charity work.
        I think this is probably the future role of Archie, whether or not he becomes an HRH/prince in the later on.
        The future of the monarchy will be George, Charlotte, and Louis.
        Archie’s fate will be similar to the fate of Charlotte and Louis’s children if George marries and has heirs.

    • Kendra says:

      Margaret’s husband also died pretty recently and nobody mentioned it. Archie doesn’t need to be important if his parent and he do not wish to be. But I think that Harry is a male maybe makes him feel a bit more tied to royalty since he has the Sussex title at least to pass on. And unlike what this post suggests I think workshy Will might like HRH title for Archie so he could help with minor royal engagements and long trips so his family doesn’t need to do quite as much.

      • A says:

        Honestly, making any predictions as to what role Harry’s children will have in the RF at this time is really difficult. We simply don’t know what shape the RF will be in by the time William ascends to the throne. These things change based on the generation. The Queen got her various first cousins on board because it was just her, Philip, the Queen Mother and Margaret. Charles has four siblings. William only has Harry, since it’s doubtful the York girls or the Wessex kids will really step up by the time he becomes king.

        I think that H&M will raise their kids such that they’ll always be willing to step up if it comes down to it, but also give them enough options in life to pursue other things if they don’t have to.

      • Susan says:

        But Prince Andrew is also a male so I don’t understand your argument that things will be different for Harry simply because he is male and therefore more “royal” in your mind. I fully expect Harry to follow in the steps of Prince Andrew. Which is to say, pushed to the side once the next generation of direct heirs has the chance to grow up.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Andrew hasn’t been pushed aside. He does twice as many engagements a year as William and Kate. So do Edward and Sophie, who also have not been pushed aside.

  20. Jessica says:

    I actually think William has nothing to do with it and this isn’t something to get worked up about. Harry made this choice I believe.

  21. Jen says:

    For starters, if Eugenie and Beatrice- especially Beatrice- have titles then Archie (still ugh) should too. Is it possible that a title was withheld because they gave him a nickname as his official name? Prince Archie??

    • Jessica says:

      Ummm no. Are you serious???

    • Becks1 says:

      Well, yes but not. Eugenie and Beatrice were entitled to be HRH Princesses under the letters patent, because they are grandchildren in the male line of the monarch or whatever the wording is.

      • NessaBee says:

        Eug and Bea are HRHs because their father, Andrew, is a royal duke (York) and prince of the blood, who was also higher in the line of succession at the time of their births than he is now that William’s had his kids.

        Edward and Sophie’s kids are lady/and viscount because Edward refused the dukedom of Cambridge and requested the Earldom of Wessex instead. Anne’s kids have no title because Anne’s husband refused a dukedom upon their wedding and any other title (Earldom, for instance) as well, so Zara and Peter were Master/Miss as kids and are now regular grownups.

        Two generations down from a royal duke you get an automatic HRH, and after than you’re just a ‘regular’ duke (male line only for the mo.) or Lady if you’re a girl. (Duchesses by marriage only.) Harry and Meg accepted a royal dukedom but have opted not to have titles for Master Archie. I can’t imagine why but they must have their reasons. In the meantime I will happily accept the HRH and all can address me as HRH Princess Vanessa of South Brooklyn. :D

      • BayTampaBay says:

        HRH Princess Vanessa of South Brooklyn,
        Is your country house open in the summer to the paying public?
        How much $$$ do I donate to your favorite charity for an invitation to formal tea?

        LOL! LOL!

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nessa – yes? That’s what we’ve been discussing in this whole post.

    • MrsBanjo says:

      For starters, your continuing to say “ugh” to a baby’s name is rude and childish.

      Secondly, no. His not having a title has zero to do with his name, ffs. It’s because he’s the great-grandchild of the monarch and not directly in line for the throne. He is entitled to the Sussex dukedom on Harry’s death. He could use Harry’s secondary Earl title as a courtesy but H&M opted not to do that. He is also entitled to an HRH once Charles becomes King, as he will then be a grandchild of the monarch. However, H&M can choose not to style him as such even though he’ll maintain the title, like Edward and Sophie’s children. They are HRH but their parents opted not to use the styling.

  22. TheOriginalMia says:

    I’m not sure I buy William meddling in this. Do I fully believe he’s behind the smear campaign and using Meghan as a shield for his infidelity? Yep! Do I think there’s been a plot to embiggen the Kate at Meghan’s expense? Yep! Do I think it would have been great for the first mixed raced greatgrandchild of the Queen to have HRH status? Yes. Do I think it matters now that he’s here? No. Archie will be protected and shielded by his parents and his grandfather. His life will be like his little cousins. The Cambridge kids will he highlighted and scrutinized forever. And someday when Archie is older, he’ll be HRH Duke of Sussex. But for now, he’s just Archie.

  23. Jesus says:

    I do believe Harry chose to not give his child a title. It sounds like something he would do. And honestly, it will be way better for Archie in the future…Think of the freedom he would get. And come on, Mountbatten Windsor is almost a title in itself.
    And tbh I dont think Archie not having a title looks that bad in the racial optics? Tbh the only time it was mentioned was in this site. But who knows, I dont really keep up with thr british royals. Theyre so boring lol. Basically, I believe it was the parents decision, and Im okay with it.
    Also as shitty as William can be, trying to isolate you very grown up brother and soster in law is one thing. Aiming a child is another. The Queen is pretty shitty if she complies wih such a tantrum. She does seem a bit more rational than this to me. But who knows I guess. All this people are bizarre.

  24. Kentuckygirl says:

    People seem to be confused about the use of the term master here. Master simply refers to a boy who is too young to be called Mr.. It has nothing to do with the royal family and is simply a way to address a little boy. When our kids get mail from their grandparents, and even from Disney World, it is addressed to “Master” Smith.

    • Jessica says:

      Yes a lot of people don’t know that. A lot of people don’t know a lot of cultural things like that because it isn’t emphasized to learn about it.

    • Cerys says:

      Exactly. Master is the correct form of address for a boy.
      The idea that Archie has no royal title because of William is an interesting one but I’m not entirely convinced. Royal titles are at the discretion of the Queen and after her, will be at the discretion of Charles. Archie could be the Earl of Dumbarton automatically if his parents wished.

    • Lady D says:

      I knew about master because my grandmother was a huge fan of English authors and now I am too. What I didn’t know about was the use of the word garden. Every book I read as a kid mentioned someone’s front or back garden. I used to think you were a nation of master gardeners. I was about 30 when I realized that when the British said garden, they meant yard or lawn. I felt dumb.

      • MsIam says:

        Me too, Lady D, lol!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I was the same way! I use to think; why would the English grow tomatoes in the front yard or why would you have a rose garden in your front yard. LOL! LOL!

  25. Becks1 says:

    I will add, that I think part of the confusion surrounding this is because the Cambridges are all HRH Prince/ss. I get why that change was made, but I think for people who didn’t realize there was a change, they just don’t get why Archie isn’t a prince but Louis is.

    • Digital Unicorn says:

      I don’t think HRH and titles are automatic, I think its only automatic to children of the Monarch and heir and then its at the Monarch’s discretion. Neither of Annes or Edwards children have HRH and the Wessex children are Lord and Lady. Andrew’s daughter’s are HRH and Princess’s cause Andrew wanted that and as he is TQs fave what he wants he gets.

      Archie will either get his father’s title or one of his own when Chuck takes the throne if thats what they want.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes but you are not who I was talking about ;-) I’ve seen so much outcry over him not being a prince, because “William’s kids are.” the average person, who doesn’t follow the royals really beyond headlines, is confused. Most of us here are pretty up to date with the current rules.

      • Nic919 says:

        Edward’s kids are HRH through the Letters Patent. They actively chose not to use the Prince / Princess titles for their children but only the style of naming the children of an Earl. So Harry basically has done the same thing and I don’t understand why there are all these theories since this has been done before.

      • Digital Unicorn says:

        @Nic919 – ah thanks for that, I didn’t realise what the Wessex’s had done. The Sussex’s have a brand that they are setting up, much in the same way the RF is a brand.

        @Becks1 – Ah, no worries. :)

      • TheOtherSam says:

        HRH goes to the children of the monarch and grandchildren in the male line, per current rules (LP of 1917). Andrew may be the Queen’s fave but that had nothing to do with his daughters being HRH Princesses. It was automatic at their birth per the rules, he didn’t have to do anything.

        The Wessex kids are a special case: the Queen announced at the time of Sophie and Edward’s marriage that their children would be -styled- as children of a non-Royal Earl, eg. “Lady Louise Windsor”. Both Sophie and Edward were said to have agreed with this and possibly requested it. But: both Louise and James are legally still Princess and Prince of the UK by rank.

        This is confusing no doubt, but until the 1917 LP is overturned/replaced all grandchildren in the mail line are legally HRH. Little Archie will ‘move up’ to grandchild of the monarch when the Queen dies, and become – unless there is a decision or statement otherwise – HRH Prince Archie of Sussex.

  26. Mumbles says:

    This child will never have a “normal” life, his father has been a well-liked “celebrity” since a child, his mother is a beautiful former actor who has her own cachet, his late paternal grandmother was the most famous and beloved woman of her time, and his granfather will be king of England. Charles’s desire for a smaller royal family is more geared toward Andrew et al, not his own line. He might be considered “minor” years from now when Uncle Bill takes over and he’s just a nephew to the king, but that’s (hopefully) way down the road.

    And when Grandpa becomes king of England, he becomes the grandchild of a monarch through the male line and with that, comes privileges and, I think, titles. So it could be his parents are just waiting for that, rather than use some courtesy title now. Best of both worlds, PR-wise.

    My limited understanding is that these decisions are governed by Letters Patent and all sorts of traditions and rules so I don’t feel anyone’s on good footing reading too much into these things. Unless they’re well-versed in those rules.

  27. Purplehazeforever says:

    Prince Harry gave his child his grandfather’s last name Mountbatten-Windsor. I think that might have something to do with the child not having any titles? I might be wrong but when Prince Phillip married Queen Elizabeth he gave up his Greek & Danish titles, did he not? He became a naturalized British citizen & none of his titles or name pass to his children & his children would carry the name Windsor, after Queen Elizabeth but descendants could choose Mountbatten- Windsor but not have a title. I think that is the reason. Prince Harry simply chose to honor his grandfather.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, Sophie and Edward’s kids, have titles AND Mountbatten-Windsor as a last name.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        Omid Scobie stated this is what the Sussexes wanted, no title. And great-grandchildren don’t automatically get issued titles unless the Queen issues papers.

      • notasugarhere says:

        That may be, but pointing out the inaccuracy that they could not both have titles and have Mountbatten-Windsor as a last name.

  28. Anastasia says:

    I believe this was Harry and Meghan’s decision. I don’t think William had anything to do with it.

    And I think it was a good decision. He’s not going to grow up normally like WE think of normal, but he will get to grow up and live a life a bit apart from all of the royal trappings, demands, and pressures. Good for them, and good for him.

  29. Mego says:

    I think they would have gotten a lot of backlash if they opted to give their child a title. We would have endless articles about uppity Meghan, who doesn’t know her place, insisting on a title for her child. She should have been like Anne etc.

    That said I expect there will be a DM article a la Kay or Nicholl, about how the Queen and Meghan had a row because Meghan was insisting on a title for her child and the Queen had to put her in her place. This will occur after a successful Sussex event or after the Cambridges need a scapegoat.

    • Mego says:

      There I wrote the article for them so they can just copy and paste it into the Daily Mail when needed.

      Duchess Meghan DENIED Title For Her Child

      By Kay Nicholl Senior Royal Correspondent

      On May 5 Meghan Markle presented her son Archie in a carefully orchestrated photo shoot at Windsor Castle yet his name was not given in the brief interview of the couple. A few hours later a photograph of the baby being introduced to the Queen was released and the unexpected name Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was made known to the world. Early reports were that Harry and Meghan refused a title however palace sources now say that a title was not offered sending Meghan Markle into a rage. She met with the Queen and demanded that her child be titled prince like the Cambridge children and the Queen had to explain “that this simply wasn’t done” for great-grandchildren of the Monarch who weren’t children of the heirs to the throne. Meghan was told that the Princess Royal refused titles for her children in hopes of them living as normal a life as possible and pointed out that Meghan and Harry’s children would be minor and not working royals. Sources claim that Meghan was furious and is hoping that once Prince Charles becomes king her children will receive titles. Meghan was reminded that although she and Harry enjoy global popularity, it is William and Kate who will one day be King and Queen and their children who will carry on the legacy of the British Monarchy.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Mego, you are a much superior writer than any hack working for the Daily Fail. No mis-spelled words and perfect punctuation, I am impressed! The Fail need you! LOL! LOL!

      • Becks1 says:

        I honestly couldn’t figure out if this was a legit article or not, LOL.

        You did forget the part where someone “pulled her aside” to correct her. They are always pulling her aside!

      • Mego says:

        Thanks for the compliment BayTampaBay – putting the degree to good use.

        I confess Becks1 that it was almost too easy to write this. I put the word “title” in place of “tiara” and was good to go. But your feedback is duly noted lol!

      • Agenbiter says:

        Excellent – this needs to go viral to steal their thunder!

  30. Busyann says:

    Eh, I can see it both ways, that maybe this was Harry and Meghan’s choice, but quite possibly Camp Cambridge had somwthing to do with this. This may be soff topic but someone posted a side by side comparison of Will and Kate walking on the beach in Wales just after they married, versus their side by side walk in wales just a few days ago. The difference is striking. I say all of that to point out that I kind of feel like a lot of what is happening within Camp Cambridge is to control the optics and their position. I dont think all is well in that marriage but Will is the future King and Kate is the future queen consort (I refuse to call her the future Queen) so I think so much that we are seeing with them is to protect those future roles…and that most definetly could translate to Baby Archie not getting his title right now. Honestly, I worry about what happens to the Sussexes when William becomes King. I’m really worried about that.

  31. Enn says:

    Harry has never been shy about how uncomfortable he was growing up in the spotlight of the royal circus. I think this is something he decided long ago, that he wanted his children to be as normal (as relative as that is in the situation) as possible.

    I really think it goes no deeper than “this is what Harry and Meghan wanted.”

  32. S says:

    They’re his parents and should do whatever they want, but the idea that the 7th in line for the throne, and the son of two of the most popular members of the British Royal Family will have anything even remotely resembling a “normal” childhood are rather laughable. Title or no, he’ll obviously grow up with immense privilege and wealth, plus all the scrutiny that comes with being the grandson/nephew of the eventual King(s). Not to mention little Archie’s day in, day out life will be nothing but seeing his parents be full-time “working” royals. It’s all he’ll grow up knowing, no matter how he’s personally styled or what eventual role he assumes (or does not). A few letters or a title before his name aren’t going to mitigate or change any of that.

    I, too, would have liked to see the first (acknowledged) mixed-race member of the modern British Royal Family get a title at birth in line with generations of tradition, and as a big middle finger to all the racist trolling his mother his endured from the UK media. I don’t think that’s why little Archie didn’t (too terrible to even contemplate and can’t imagine anyone on the inside would stand for that being the reason, particularly his folks), but there is still just enough of a whiff of that, that the trolls could see it as a dog whistle to them, and run with that theory.

  33. AprilMay says:

    But Archie does have a title-Earl of Dumbarton. As Harrys eldest son he can use this title. Referring to him as Earl of Dumbarton isn’t wrong. Harry and Meghan have simply chosen for him not to be publicly known as this but he can use it.
    When Charles becomes King he WILL be Prince Archie. The same way James and Louise are. All grandchildren through the male line (which is why Princess Anne’s children aren’t) are legally Prince and Princess’. But again his parents might decide for him not to be known as such as the Wessexes did.
    When he’s 18 he can decide for himself and may choose to be known as either. When Harry passes he will be the Duke of Sussex, Earl of Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. and it’ll pass onto his eldest son and on and on as long as there is a male heir (or the law changes)
    And Archie will unlikely ever be a working royal. If the stories of Charles slimming down the monarchy are true, it’ll be him and Camilla, his sons and their wives and the Cambridge children when they’re old enough. Archie will have to go off for himself and find a proper job. Not sticking him with a title gives him the freedom from the whinging the York girls get about being Princess’ and the belief that this means they’re tax payer funded.
    As for Will having a say in this- he does not make the law or issue latter patents (the latter he can when King). Peerage law means that Archie has the right to Harry’s lower title and will inherit them all when Harry dies. He couldn’t stop them from having him publically called Earl of Dumbarton if they wanted to. The current Letter Patents mean that as a grandchild of the King through the male line Archie will become Prince Archie the instant the Queen dies and Charles is King.

  34. Flying fish says:

    I agree that the optics of not giving the child looks bad, regardless of who made the decision. However, if William has anything to do with the decision then he not only is lazy but jealous of H,M&A’s popularity that he will never have.

  35. Cherie says:

    i think they just wanted him to have some agency. Obviously there will be a list of titles in the coming years that he will have access to or not, makes sense to give him as much normalcy as possible and assess the lay of the land when he gets older.

    Also, who really believes William has the power over the press, Charles and TQ that is ascribed him here? Hell, maybe he should be King (sarcasm).

  36. violet says:

    When they say he is a minor royal, it’s because they’re thinking about what the family will look like when Archie’s generation are adults. At *least* three Cambridge adults (and we know Kate is dying for a fourth) and their children. George is the future king and Charlotte will always be in the spotlight due to being the Princess Royal. If she is stylish and attractive, she will attract even more attention. Louis or any future sons might take the “lovable rascal” role that Harry fills right now. What is left over for Archie who will not even be a working royal?

    An illustrative example of Archie’s future position is Lady Sarah Chatto. She is the daughter of Princess Margaret, who, like Harry, was enormously popular during her lifetime. But that popularity did not extend to her children and few people know or care about them.

    • A says:

      The reason Princess Margaret’s children did not take on any official royal responsibilities or a role has nothing to do with their lack of popularity. It’s because they’re the grandchildren of a former monarch in the female line, so they’re technically not royal anyway, since the title and the HRH style only passes down through the male line descendants and only up to the grandchildren of the current monarch.

      Archie is both a male line descendent, and if Charles inherits the throne, he’ll be the grandchild of a monarch in the future. That means that he’ll be given the title of Prince with the style of HRH at some point in the future. As for his particular role in the RF, don’t forget, Harry has Sentebale and the Invictus Games. Archie will probably take on those responsibilities in the future to keep them going.

  37. NotThatMo says:

    No, this is Harry (and Meghan) wanting a “normal” life for their child. It wouldn’t surprise me if Harry is seeing how living independently and having a job while being an HRH Princess has fucked up his cousins Beatrice and Eugenie’s lives in a way that his non-titled royal cousins haven’t had to face. He’ll still be the son of a Prince and fantastically wealthy, but he’ll have more options for choosing his path in life, including one in America, should he want it.

    Just a reminder that the climate collapse is coming, and things will be dire before Archie reaches adulthood, so this commentary will be looked back on with the same sort of headshaking we do when looking at photos from the Edwardian era, that they didn’t know WWI & WWII were coming.

  38. Mlle. Poirot says:

    Question: Is Duke of Sussex a hereditary title? I.e., in many years when Harry dies, does Archie automatically become the 2nd Duke of Sussex (or whatever)? If so, I think it’s a much less big deal than some are making it out to be. Archie WILL have a title, just not yet.

    • JB says:

      I am pretty sure no. There is an excellent and active Twitter user – Marlene – she answers all these questions (she is a royal historian) and I think she has said no. I could be wrong but that is what I recall.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Marlene is a self-important twit who thinks she is personal friends with certain royals. She is not the be all and end all of royal knowledge.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        notasugarhere, Hang out the AP Forum do you now? LOL! LOL!

      • Tina says:

        Oh, is she the one who thinks the Queen has “custody” of the minor children due to some no longer relevant law from the 18th century? How ridiculous.

      • A says:

        @JB, I don’t know who this Marlene person on Twitter is, but she’s wrong. The Duke of Sussex is a hereditary title. Archie will inherit and become the 2nd Duke of Sussex when Harry passes.

        “In accordance with the direction of HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Letters Patent have passed the Great Seal of the Realm, dated the 16th July 2018 granting unto Her Majesty’s Grandson, His Royal Highness Prince Henry Charles Albert David of Wales, K.C.V.O., and the heirs male of his body lawfully begotten the dignities of Baron Kilkeel, Earl of Dumbarton, and Duke of Sussex.”

        Source: http://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3071743

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Yes! Archie will be the second Duke of Sussex and there is nothing anyone can do about it as Harry holds the title Duke of Sussex in his own right by gift of the sovereign not by heredity right as a son of Charles, Prince of Wales or King Charles III.

    • Sam says:

      Archie is in line to inherit the Duke of Sussex title and no one can take that away from him.He also has Harrys 2nd title,he just isnt going to be addressed by that

      Yeah its not as big of a deal as some are making it out to be

      • Feeshalori says:

        Archie will become HRH the Duke of Sussex which is an inheritable title, but I believe the HRH status will no longer be in use with any prospective son who inherits his title. The HRH status will be lost the further away from the direct line it becomes.

      • TheOtherSam says:

        The Sussex dukedom is a “Royal” dukedom when the son and grandson of the monarch hold it (ie. Harry, then Archie in due course). It ceases to be a “royal” dukedom when the next non-royal generation inherits.

        To illustrate, the Gloucester dukedom is currently still a royal dukedom, held by HRH Prince Richard, grandson of King George V. When he dies his son Alexander becomes Duke, but he has no HRH – that dukedom becomes “non-royal” as a traditional, regular hereditary peerage.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Yes, I did a little research and currently Alexander Windsor is the Earl of Ulster, holding the courtesy title to his father Richard’s dukedom, and will eventually inherit it as a traditional peerage. It’s the same situation with the current Duke of Kent, Prince Edward, and his son, George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews, inheriting the title under the same circumstances.

  39. Fiona says:

    “It’s William’s fault” 😂

  40. Simon the Bird says:

    Yeah. This is maybe what the “feud” is about.
    William sticking his nose in and arguing against Harry’s kid having a title.

  41. aaa says:

    I don’t get these William tantrum theories. I think that William is a strong personality but I am not sure about him constantly throwing tantrums to get his way. Nevertheless, it’s one thing for William to want things a certain way and then throw a tantrum to get his way, it’s quite another for the Queen and Charles to give in to William.

  42. K says:

    Ok while it would be fun to put on a tinfoil hat and imagine William as this evil mastermind racist genius. I am going to live in reality and assume this was completely Meghan and Harry’s choice.

    First of all Harry (like William) have spent their entire adult life whining and complaining about the terribleness of being HRH. This is something that truly drives me crazy about them as they could give it up but they like the perks to much. So I truly feel like they should STFU about the “pressure.”

    With that being said lets look at this from the baby’s perspective HE IS A MINOR ROYAL. Which lets be real once George grows up and has kids- Charlotte and Louis will be minor royals as well just like Harry is moving to that now and like Andrew is now. So it makes sense to not burden him with a freaking title. Especially when even without the title he will have all the perks of this life and always will without any obligation.

    I get the idea of optics but I think this is honestly the best parenting decision because it gives this little boy more opportunities in life that his cousins don’t have. He can still be a major force in the royal family IF HE WANTS TO but he doesn’t have too he can go be an accountant if he wants. I also think people aren’t thinking of the other opportunities- Archie is british and a member of the royal family but he is also American and if he wants he can up and move to LA, he can run for mayor, congress or even President all of which he could not do if he had an HRH title. He could also follow in his mother’s footsteps and be an actor. By not giving him the titles they opened up the world to him.

    Archie is not like W&K’s kids, he is not the child of the heir to the throne, so why not give him more opportunities to have any kind of life he wants?

    I guess I just don’t understand why people would want to set this little boy up for a life like the York girls have when he could have endless opportunities.

    • Anastasia says:

      Fantastic points!

    • Tourmaline says:

      Well said.
      As a parent I would put my judgment as to what is in the best interest of my child miles ahead of so-called optics. Especially when the people you are trying to make a point with using the optics could give a flying fig about you or your child’s well being. I commend M and H for going their own way with this.

  43. perplexed says:

    The baby IS a minor royal. That’s the war the system works. George IS the future King. No one needs to embiggen him. He’s in direct line to the throne. The kid’s place in the system is what it is. To try and deny that seems….mental to me.

    I also think of Meghan and Harry’s baby as more white than biracial. Is it wrong to say that? Meghan is biracial, but the baby is 3/4 white. The girl who playa Spencer on Pretty Little Liars is 1/4 black, and I think of her as white, in part because of how she herself seems to not allude to any other identity than what she looks like. I assume this will be the same for Harry and Meghan’s kid. He’ll likely look white and hang around other white people in the same elite wealthy category as him which is not likely to be THAT inclusive.

    • KatV says:

      Yeah, I wondered about that too. What are the rules for that anyway? Eg here in Denmark, we have 2 princes of mixed race (chinese descent through their mother) and there’s never been this huge racism thing as we’ve seen with Meghan.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I know many Danish nationals living in the USA as Florida is attractive to them. In my experience, the Danish people are highly evolved forward thinkers, with excellent educations and progressive view of the world for the good of the world.

  44. JB says:

    Excellent theory. I also see M & H as much more able to see the long game – I feel like Invictus shows Harry’s ability to see that. So if the deal is when Charles is King Polo Baby becomes a prince that makes sense. By the way, my 11 year old, when I told her the name said “Prince Archie? That, that that sounds like a boy who picks his nose!”

  45. Mindy_dopple says:

    Weirdly and much like everyone here. I have some theories. The top one is that they truly believe the monarch will not be there when their child is an adult and are hoping this non title will make it an easy transition when they occurs. Yes the name still carries certain connotations but really, do we think the people/public will want to carry on supporting these BARELY working royals and their children. Think of all the money that could be spent elsewhere. Megan and Harry are working big picture ideas, if the monarch is dissolved? How does that work anyways? Then they have connections to huge charities and organizations and leverage their popularity for their careers. Their children will grow up with the same nepotism connections and boom. They’re just like any other well off family. The Cambridge’s however, I don’t know how well they would do once the monarch is dissolved (if that’s the right word). I really can’t believe the public still have royals. There is no difference between them and you. They are just people.

  46. amanda says:

    I think that’s quite a stretch there Kaiser. Believe me, i think Will is a narcissistic douche who only thinks of himself and his family’s rep but i doubt he cares about what his nephew is titled when he’s just an infant. Hes already secured in the fact that he will be king and he has his heirs, i doubt he’s worried about what his son is called. This has more to do with what Harry and Meghan want for their son and future children at the time of the Queens reign. The Queen doesnt need to.issue a new LP for titles for the Sussex kids when she’s currently on her way out, i mean she’s 93. Unlikely she’ll see the day Archie graduates so while the kid is still a ‘normal’ untitled kid now, H&M want to give him the most normal life as possible even though thats naive and unlikely bc he’ll be a very wealthy, very privileged and protected boy in a family with 1000 years of tradition and a King as a grandfather.

    I do think though that they declined any courtesy titles now because 1. they’ve accepted the fact that he will be a Prince anyway when Charles is king . 2. They’re planning on giving him the title Earl of Dumbarton when he is way older, maybe on his wedding day and obviously when Harry dies he will be the Duke of Sussex along with his wife as.the Duchess.

    And going back to this idea that Charles wants a streamlined monarchy. that is also really naive on his part. Currently the Queen has her children, Charles sons and their wives and the Queen’s cousins working for the crown. The Queen’s cousins and her children are well into their 50s-80s. They’re aged, and the prospective King will be crowned in his 70s and then he will cut his brothers and sister off so it will just be him, Camilla, the Cambridges and Harry and Meghan? that’s 9 royals (thats assuming Kate stopped having kids after Louis which i doubt) and 1000+ charities that need their support..i doubt they can cover all of tht.

    Suppose they cut the number of charities they support in HALF well.what would that mean? less public appearances and how would that look.to.the public if their monarchy aint working ?

    Thats why i think they want Archie and any future children to seemingly have a normal life now so that when Charles becomes king and eventually dies, they can help out with Royal duties

    • notasugarhere says:

      The royals do around 3200 engagements a year total. If they all worked as many engagements as Charles and Anne? That’s 500-600 engagements a year per royal. Completely doable with 6 royals. Harry and Meghan’s kids will not be working royals.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Nota, you need to place more emphasis on one word in that post. IF they all worked like Charles and Anne. Given William and Kate’s numbers (and Harry’s too, lets be honest), I’m not sure that will ever happen. It doesn’t mean I think Archie will be a working royal, it means I think the public appearances are going to be what gets “Slimmed down.”

      • notasugarhere says:

        True, the word “if” needs to be in flashing neon.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      IMHO, Charles will NEVER cut out Anne, The Princess Royal. I am willing to bet the Princess Royal becomes his principal adviser when he ascends the throne. Charles & Anne get on well. He respects her very level head and intelligence. I have read this in many books on the Royals.

      • AryasMum says:

        Anne made sure all the wives will be curtsying to her until eternity. She would not less herself be cut out.

      • TheOtherSam says:

        ITA @TBT, about Anne. Also @AryasMum lol – so true.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The Princess Royal is one smart cookie. She is my favorite Royal second only to QEII. She has worked for and deserved every accolade she has received. If I were lucky enough to be received by Anne, The Princess Royal in her home, I would give her a curtsy.

      • Tina says:

        If any of the wives did even 3/4 of the work that Anne does, I suspect she wouldn’t insist on it. And only Sophie even approaches half the work Anne does.

      • notasugarhere says:

        It isn’t a question of how much they work in Anne’s case. Anne got pissy about the attention Diana and Fergie received, which is why she was awarded the Princess Royal title in the late 80s. Anne revels in her entitlement, including her kids living rent-free in her SJP and taxpayer-secured property. They’re just more quiet about it so most people don’t know or let it slide.

      • A says:

        If Charles doesn’t cut Anne out of his slimmed down monarchy, then I’ll be very interested to know how he’ll justify cutting Andrew and Edward out. Andrew deserves to be put out based on his behaviour alone, but if Charles singles him out, that’ll bring up uncomfortable questions about what he did with Jeffrey Epstein. If he keeps Anne, but cuts off Andrew and Edward, I can see Edward protesting. Iirc, Edward has been promised the title of Duke of Edinburgh when Philip passes, and he’ll be taking on the Duke of Edinburgh awards after.

        I think that if the plans for slimming down the monarchy are still on, then the only way to do it is to “encourage” all three of them to go into retirement so that Charles’s immediate family can take center stage. And I cannot see that happening quietly at all.

    • TheOtherSam says:

      Mostly agree @amanda. William is a prat, but he’d have no hand in deciding whether Archie is HRH or not. The current situation under the 1917 LP took care of that decision, the Queen simply kept the status quo. I really don’t believe she found it necessary to ‘elevate’ him at this time, when he’ll be HRH Prince Archie soon enough, in a few years. I believe it was her decision based on pragmatic reasons, which is in keeping with her character.

    • A says:

      This is a really good rundown, and I think it’s probably true as well. It could just be that Harry and Meghan know their children will be HRH at some point in the future. I think they’re leaving the door open to making that decision at a later time. Even if they decide not to accept the HRH and the prince/princess title for their kids, I think it’s totally likely that they will “upgrade” in their own way by maybe bestowing a courtesy title on Archie at that point, and then letting people know that they can be addressed as the children of a duke, which they were entitled to all along anyway. That way, they’re still keeping the door open in letting Archie + the RF decide how involved they want him to be.

      The only child of Harry and Meghan’s I can see having any sort of role in the future with the RF is Archie. I think his siblings will make their own way, but he’ll always stay involved in some capacity. The extent of that capacity remains to be seen.

    • Harla says:

      I don’t think that Charles will cut off his brothers or sister but will allow natural attrition to take place. As I see it, Charles might not assume the throne for maybe another 10 years and by that time his brothers and sister might well be wanting to retire or cut back the work they do, so there wouldn’t really be any need to hasten that along.

  47. aquarius64 says:

    A theory I have is having Archie titleless for now is less likely the Markles would want to get their hooks in him. They’re silent now that the Sussexes did not name the baby after any Markles and there is no title now. If Archie was named for a Markle imagine the noise if he was titleless too.

  48. notasugarhere says:

    Harry and Meghan are important to the monarchy work-wise, and will be 1/3 of the working royals for the next 30 years. Their children will not be. It is a separation of their work roles from their private life.

    • Susan says:

      George is already 5 though. Harry and Megan won’t be 1/3 of the working royals for the next 30 years. The next generation of Cambridges will assume that role. In fact, the younger children of the Queen have already been cut out of public duties while she still reigns since Charles’ children reached adulthood. So if Charles continues that tradition (and he seems in favor of even more streamlining), then he should be cutting out his younger son too as soon as George is ready to go. So Harry himself can look forward to a retirement from official duties.

      • notasugarhere says:

        W&K are mid-to-late thirties and still haven’t started working like they should. Their kids aren’t going to start working until they’re mid-thirties either. Andrew, Edward, Anne have not been cut out of royal duties, LOL. Anne does more engagements than Charles some years, and Andrew, Edward, and Sophie all outwork W&K. They all set their own schedules, Charles doesn’t control them.

  49. Vanessa says:

    At the day Harry and Meghan choose what is best for Archie future I do believe that queen would gave little Archie a title if that what Megan and Harry wanted. I do believe that if Meghan and Harry had Archie titled their would be count less articles talking about how much of a minor royal archie is they would constantly pitted him against the Cambridge kids. Archie is three days in the world and he has been met with racist meme I hope that the palace steps in with a firm hand put a fully stop to the nonsense before it reach point of no return . The way the royals reporters and some people in the British media have acted towards Meghan with their racist comments I was hoping that the palace wouldn’t have allowed any of that foolishness against Archie .

  50. Julieta says:

    He is a minor royal. That’s just a fact. Unless some horrific disaster strikes the Cambridge’s, Archie is always going to be a minor royal.

    The Sussex’s will have a significant role for the next couple of decades, but by the time their children are grown there’ll be at least 3 Cambridge children picking up the working royal mantle. That’s more than enough. Even if they wanted Archie and any other children they might have to be working royals, at absolute best they’d just just be putting them in the same awkward position Eugenie and Beatrice are in. Realistically I don’t think the public would tolerate that excess anyway, not anymore.

    Back in the day Andrew and Edward and Anne were very popular too. Andrew especially was on the same level as Harry for quite a long time. That popularity fades fast as soon as there’s grown-up children of the heir on the scene. The Sussex’s are wildly popular now, but when the Cambridge kids start dating and partying and getting married and having babies, they’ll fade right into the background. Their children will be able to be like Zara and Peter, and that’s a good thing for them.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Harry and Meghan are building a global brand, so their future on the global stage is ensured. They’ll not fade from the spotlight. Plus we’d all be shocked if lazy W&K managed to raise any children with a work ethic.

    • Agenbiter says:

      Maybe Andrew’s character had something to do with his popularity fading?

    • Lady D says:

      Again, it doesn’t have to be a “horrific disaster.” William can simply quit the job. He doesn’t have to die or lose his family to not be king.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        There are just as many people out there on other blogs who do NOT want Charles to be King. Charles will be king if he out lives his mother. William will be king if he out lives his father. No one will abdicate. This is the way the system works.

      • lanne says:

        But the CHILDREN would have to die/step aside if Archie were to be king. If Will quits, the burden goes to George, not Harry.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Most people out there disliking Charles are obsessed Diana fans. Aside from the few who care about the spider memos? There aren’t big calls to skip Charles for lazy William and people aren’t after Camilla’s blood. They’re over it. He has been the most effective Prince of Wales in history.

    • Casey20 says:

      Andrew and Harry are apples and oranges. The Brits for some reason don’t want to see or acknowledge the impact the Sussex’s have had on the world and the RF. It’s sad because they are missing out on a something g that could be positive for their country…… They are stuck on this minor Royal BS. Without Meghan and Harry the world would NOT CARE about the BRF!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Casey, Some Brits do see and acknowledge the Sussexes. Last week on NPR’s “Money Report” two professors (Economics & Geo-politics) from some famous university in England talked for 30 minutes about how important brand Sussex was as a UK global ambassador for the Commonwealth and how so much more important the Commonwealth will become in relationship to the UK if BREXIT actually happens.

    • A says:

      Whether or not Archie sticks around to work for the RF in an official capacity highly depends on who’s alive and who isn’t by the time he’s grown up enough to take part in these things.

      When the Queen first ascended the throne, all she had for immediate family was Margaret, her husband, and the Queen Mother. Of her father’s various siblings, only one of them was still around and in good enough shape to do any work on behalf of the RF (Prince Henry). A smattering of first cousins (Princess Alexandra, the Duke of Gloucester’s older brother and then the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent) had to take on some of the responsibilities as well. Some of them are still doing this.

      The circumstances changed by Charles’ generation. He has three siblings who could work, plus several members of the older generation who were still working, so there was really an excess of people and not enough roles to go around. This is why Beatrice and Eugenie were sort of the odd ones out. Edward and Sophie read the writing on the wall and made a smart decision about how to raise their kids.

      It remains to be seen if Archie will take on the responsibilities of a full time royal. A lot depends on how that role is redefined going forward. Fwiw, I think it’s really doubtful that he will sit out such responsibilities entirely. The Invictus Games is Harry’s other child. I can totally see Archie and his siblings taking that on and continuing it as a family legacy. And I think Archie (not his siblings) will at least have a role similar to that of Princess Alexandra, or that of Prince Michael of Kent, in that he’ll still have a visible role as part of the RF, but not a full time one.

  51. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    I think this was solely the decision of Harry and Meghan. They want Archie to have as normal a life as possible and not fall into the black hole where Beatrice and Eugenie landed. It’s smart and I don’t blame them for it.

  52. KellySunshine says:

    This is probably a dumb question, but does anyone know if Beatrice will inherit the her dad’s title once Andrew has passed away? So will she be HRH Princess Beatrice, the Duchess of York, or does the York title revert back to the crown because there is no male heir?

    • Feeshalori says:

      No, unless they change the laws of primogeniture for females to inherit their father’s titles, Beatrice can’t inherit the DOY title. It’ll revert back to the Crown, I believe. Case in point, Lady Mary Crowley in Downton Abbey, who couldn’t inherit her dad’s earldom even though she was the elder daughter.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Unless Andrew remarries and fathers a male child, the York Dukedom will revert to the crown on his death and my bet it is given to William’s second son, Prince Louis upon his marriage.

      • Feeshalori says:

        This is true about Andrew possibly having a son by another marriage, but I honestly didn’t even think of Andrew remarrying anyone other than Fergie lol, and I think she’s past childbirth. So I’m sure as well when the title reverts to the Crown, Louis will be the recipient. The second son always get the DOY title when it’s available.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, I concur that I feel like we will see Louis as Duke of York in the future, unless Andrew is not dead when Louis gets married (which is entirely possible.)

      • Feeshalori says:

        And with his parents’ long-lived genes, anything IS possible that Andrew will be around a long time!

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Feeshalori, Well Sarah could pass away first before Andrew and as one fellow poster commented, “a man can father a child up to a year after his death”! LOL! LOL!

  53. B says:

    An article in the DM said Archie will automatically become a prince, get the royal title, when Charles takes the throne.

    It said a 1917 royal decree made by George V limits the number of Grand Royal titles.

    I have absolutely zero clue if this is true, especially coming from them, so who knows?

    • Feeshalori says:

      Archie will be entitled to prince as a grandchild of the monarch through the male line the same way that James and Louise have their Prince/Princess title through Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex. It’s just a question of whether it will be used. But most likely, as in the Wessex children’s case, it won’t be.

    • Mary says:

      That is assuming that Charles becomes King (as opposed to Queen E outliving him).

      • Feeshalori says:

        Of course, Charles ascending the throne is what this whole situation is based on. Otherwise, Archie remains the son of a duke with whatever courtesy title is given to him, if any.

  54. kerwood says:

    I think that Harry and Megan chose not to accept a title for their child. I have no doubt that William and Kate are happy about it, so everybody wins.

    Having a title won’t protect this child. We’ve already seen that. He’s going to be the ‘special’ one no matter what and as he grows, he’ll have a spotlight hanging over him. Not having a title will at least give him a shot at a normal life,

  55. Marjorie says:

    I know someone who is the same level of descent from Queen Victoria that Charles is, and who had four titled grandparents including a king of an eastern European country. So he does actually have a title of prince, but no castles or horses and carriages or crown jewels. All of that went away in various revolutions. I won’t be around when Archie is 40 years old, but I bet it won’t matter then whether he is called Prince or not.

  56. Casey20 says:

    Kaise, you hit the mark. There is clearly hate coming out of KP. There is a huge fear that Harry and Meghan will continue to overshadow the future King and his English rose. Now cue Archie…. Will this child overshadow future King George. I’m thinking the gloves are off with the brothers. The problem with William is that he doesn’t have an original thought, he’s c!ueless. Can someone name one thing William has done of significance. Harry has Invictus and Senetebale……..what does William have?????

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Rose who??? LOL! LOL!

      NEVER FORGET!

    • Shirley says:

      The throne

      • Casey20 says:

        If it’s there for him to have…..the idiot doesn’t u understand what Charles and the Queen knows, the throne isn’t a guaranteed

      • BayTampaBay says:

        Well the Queen Mum understood this and drilled it into the heads of QEII & Charles. I guess Diana drilled it into Harry’s head too! Maybe William does not care and just wants to take the money and run?

  57. Lucia says:

    It’s not always about optics, it isn’t always about competition for attention, and it isn’t always a conspiracy to tear down those who someone may or may not see as lesser. Sometimes, it’s about doing what you think is right. I personally think Harry and Meghan made the right call and drew a line in the sand that this is how they will protect their child from the vipers in the media. It doesn’t mean he won’t be exposed but they won’t allow him to be bullied or harassed by the media thinking they are entitled access to him.

    Harry has discussed many times that he wished to be a more normal boy growing up. I personally hope that someday, Harry and Meghan exit the royal family and I think not giving Master Archie a title is a sign of that being a very real possibility. They would have a combined wealth of roughly $45 million and I think they would be okay compared to other family members. I think – I hope – Harry’s days in the royal family are numbered. I think for him, it’s been an albatross around his neck at times and if the choice came down to protecting his family or remaining in the royal family, he’d choose the former without hesitation.

    • A says:

      If they wanted to protect their children from media attention, they could have taken the route that Edward and Sophie did, and just rejected the royal titles for their children and kept them styled as the children of an duke. That’s a perfectly acceptable compromise, if you ask me, and it wouldn’t put a shadow on any efforts to protect him from the glare of the media. In the one in a million chance that Harry decides to leave the RF (which I think is unlikely), that won’t change the fact that Archie and any other children Harry might have are the children of a duke. They’re entitled to be referred to as such, and that has nothing to do with the monarchy and just everything to do with the functions of the aristocracy.

  58. RoseMary says:

    Some research might be needed. Sussex is not a hereditary title. It won’t be passed on, again, unless laws are changed.

    • Lanne says:

      It is hereditary. Archie is hier-apparent. It will cease being a royal title if Archie has children (assuming Archie becomes HRH At Ascension of King Charles

    • A says:

      I don’t know where this idea that Sussex is not a hereditary title got passed around. It absolutely is. ALL titles issued by the Queen to members of the royal family are hereditary and can be passed down. Case in point, the Earl of Snowden, the Duke of York (although he has no male children to pass it down to), the Earl of Wessex, the Duke of Cambridge…the list goes on.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Duke of Edinburgh is an exception. Charles doesn’t inherit it, nor does Edward. It goes back to the crown and Charles gets to decide whether or not to award it to Edward.

  59. Shannon says:

    Oh my good Lord. Wasn’t this pretty much the narrative during the entire pregnancy? That they wanted him to have a relatively “normal” childhood? He even has a pretty casual name, not your usual stodgy “royal” name. Knowing he’ll be a prince eventually, I can totally see Meghan and Harry willingly forgoing a title for him for now. The kid’s first name is a nickname, ffs, which I personally like but it doesn’t scream, “Please give our kid a title!”

  60. missdaisy says:

    Does not having a formal royal title mean he is not entitled to income from the royal coffers? Do Anne’s grandchildren & Beatrice & Eugenie receive funds or do they have to work?

    • notasugarhere says:

      A title has nothing to do with funding. If he was a working royal, his work would be funded out of the Sovereign Grant. If Charles turned around tomorrow and decided to make Zara a working royal? She still wouldn’t have a title, but her work would be funded out of the Sovereign Grant.

      • missdaisy says:

        Thank you – I thought that the lack of title would mean that he would NOT be a working royal and consequently not entitled to funds.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      The only people who get/got money directly (the Old Civil List) are Queen Mum (before she died), Margaret (before she died), QEII and Prince Phillip. QEII also gets the “Sovereign Grant” to fund the BRF. QEII allocates this money at her personal discretion, grace & favor. I have not spoken with QEII directly on this matter but from what I have read (See A.N. Wilson books) the following people get money from QEII via the “Sovereign Grant”: Duke of Kent, Duke of Gloucester, Princess Alexander, Princess Anne and Duke of York.

      The Duchy of Cornwall finances: Charles, Camilla, Duke of Cambridge and Duke of Sussex.

      If QEII calls me with an update I will keep you posted.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Only Charles and Camilla are supposed to be funded out of The Duchy of Cornwall. Moving Harry and Meghan to SG funding is what should happen. Ditto W&K moving to SG funding but that won’t happen.

    • Kiza says:

      They do not receive funds. Any of them. Charles cut the York girls off the list. So Harry’s kids won’t either.

  61. A says:

    I don’t fully buy this theory. William has no say as to whether or not Harry’s children would be able to use the style of HRH and the title of Prince/Princess. We know that great-grandchildren of the monarch, in the male line, can’t use those that title and that style anyway, unless there are letters patent issued otherwise. Harry would know this as well. I think that the Queen going out of her way to allow Charlotte and Louis to use the title Prince/Princess with the HRH is what’s really out of the norm.

    William also has no say over whether or not Archie can use a courtesy title. That is entirely up to Harry and Meghan. It’s their family and their titles, and they get to decide on this. Same with whether or not the names of their children can be preceded by Lord/Lady. It’s not up to William or the Queen to dictate on these matters because they feet like it. That would be like William or the Queen trying to dictate to the Marquess of Cholmondeley on how his children are to be addressed.

    I hate to keep banging on about this again and again, but I honestly think it’s really bad form to not even allow Archie to be addressed as the son of a duke. This has nothing to do with royalty. There are plenty of dukes and other titled aristocrats who are not royal in the UK, whose children use these prefixes with no issue. Maybe they’re aware that he’ll become an HRH when Charles ascends the throne, and are waiting until then to make a proper decision about it. But even so, this kid technically outranks every other child of a titled peer in the country, but won’t even be addressed as such? Come on.

    • Kiza says:

      There is a difference between Nobilty and Royalty. Noble titles are passed down through the male line and come with huge castles and land. These were given by royalty back in the day when Royalty had to wage wars and muster soldiers to defend the realm.

      Royal titles are very limited and meaningless. Archie can have a title, that’s the reason the Queen gave him 3….So if Harry doesn’t give him one of his it’s on him.

      Don’t believe this column, William has no say in anything to do with the Sussex’s only the queen, rules, and tradition. Archie is a minor royal, he can take one of his father’s lesser titles but that’s his father’s choice. Prince Edward, the son of a monarch, is Earl of Wessex. You expect the son of the second son of the Prince of Wales to be a Prince? Prince Charles had a fit when Beatrice and Eugenie were given the title princess.

    • A says:

      I know that William has no say in whether or not Harry’s son is allowed to use a courtesy title? Like, that’s exactly what I said, William doesn’t make that decision, neither does the Queen, Meghan and Harry do. And I’m a fair bit critical of the two of them for refusing the most basic courtesy title for their child. All children of dukes/marquesses/earls are, at minimum, entitled to the prefix Lord/Lady before their name. Archie technically could have been styled as Lord Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, per the rules of the aristocracy, even if Harry decided not to grant him one of his courtesy titles. If you look at any other child of a sitting duke/marquess/earl in the UK right now, most of them are referred to as Lord/Lady so and so. The fact that Archie, who is born into the royal family, doesn’t even get that bare minimum designation is super fcking weird to me, and as much as I respect H&M for their choices, I’m still side-eyeing them regardless.

      I don’t understand what you mean by Prince Charles had a fit when Beatrice and Eugenie were given the title of princess. That’s not really his decision. Legally, since Beatrice and Eugenie are both the granddaughters of the current monarch through the male line, they are automatically entitled to the title Princess and the style HRH. Charles has no say in the matter, in the exact same way that William has no say in the matter of what titles Harry’s son does or does not get.

  62. Kiza says:

    All your theories are good fiction but Archie is not entitled to an HRH or title because he is not a child of the monarch or grandchild in the male line. But please keep posting because all your fan girl posts for Meghan and Harry and how William and Kate have nothing better to do then plot against them is hilarious. Really laugh out loud funny

    • Mary says:

      George, Charlotte and Louis weren’t entitled to HRHs either but the Letters issued by the Queen before their births took care of that.

      What is being discussed here, in part, is the optics of, thus far, all male-line descendants of the Queen being Princes or Princesses except Archie.

      • Purplehazeforever says:

        Great-grandchildren are not issued HRH titles upon birth. The Queen has to issue letters like she did for George, Charlotte & Louis. She only did that because they are Prince William’s children & he will one day be the king. Now once Charles takes the throne he can bestowed a title on Archie, as he’d be a grandchild of the king.

      • TheOtherSam says:

        @Mary: George was entitled to HRH as William’s eldest. The exception was made for Charlotte and Louis, who are his younger siblings from same parents, living in the same household. And even if the LP for the Cambridges wasn’t issued, they would have been “elevated” to HRH when the Queen died, just as Archie will be.

        And not “all” male-line descendants of the Queen are HRH: James Viscount Severn is styled as son of a non-royal Earl, and he’s her grandson. It’s not the established tradition for great-children of the monarch (male-line) to be Prince/Princess, unless their grandparent becomes King/Queen. Archie will get there soon due to the Queen’s elderly age.

    • Mary says:

      @the other Sam: James is a Prince, he is just “styled” as a Viscount. Meaning that while in all actuality he is a Prince his parents merely prefer that he is not referred to as a Prince. Thus, all male-line descendants of the Queen are, in actuality, Princes or Princesses EXCEPT Archie.

      One reason for the great-grandchildren not normally being princes/or princesses, the “established tradition,” is that there have probably been few monarchs with great-grandchildren.

  63. Mary says:

    I totally agree both with 1) the very bad optics when the first bi-racial senior born royal family member does not have a title and 2) it being nice if Harry and Meghan’s kids could have a more “normal” upbringing than the Cambridge kids.

    Thus, I was hoping that the Queen, by Letters Patent, would make all of H & M’s children Princes/Princesses but that H & M, like the Wessexes, would choose to have them styled (called or referred to) as Master/Miss or Lord/Lady, all equally (or not title used at all). Lady Louise is a Princess but just having her styled as a Lady has made all the difference in how she is treated and viewed by the public and the Press (to her advantage, in comparison to the York girls).

    I think it will come out eventually whether or not the Queen even offered the Sussexes the option of Archie being an HRH (and whether or not William had any say in the matter).

    • Melinda says:

      7th in line is not a senior royal.

      • Nic919 says:

        Andrew is further down the succession behind Archie but he is not a junior royal or a minor royal. Same with Edward and Anne. People are inventing these terms like minor royal and senior royal because they want to diminish Harry’s kids as much as possible but the reality is that Harry and his kids will be senior royals and important for at least two generations. The only minor royals at this point are the Queen’s cousins. Not her kids, grandkids or great grandkids. Working royals is another concept altogether and everyone is getting confused with it.

    • intheknow says:

      I am very tired of the bad optics rationale about this. This isn’t bad optics. His parents made a choice and they are also following the rules. Archie should not be given a title just because he is bi-racial. This is making me nuts. This is not affirmative action.

      Look, I am an engineer. I am a black woman. And you know what sucks?? When I am hired for a job in senior positions and people think and firmly believe I got the job because I am a black woman. It’s a horrible feeling. My point is, if Archie gets a title it should be because it is the right thing to do and the right law/and or tradition. He gets to be a Duke (or not, his choice) when his father passes on. He can choose or his parents will choose if he becomes a Prince when Charles is King. For now, let the kid be a kid. Trust the love of his parents (who know far more than we do of what is going on behind the scenes both good and bad).

      Harry told the world he would essentially die for Archie…you can feel the love for his son vibrating off him. You can feel it from Meghan. I trust that they considered ALL the options..all the pros and cons and made the right decision for their child and for their peace of mind.

      Let’s not try to make this kid into some kind of symbol before he’s had a chance to choose whether or not he wants to be a symbol. He will grow up and make his choices and what ever they will be, wether we accept them or not, we will have to respect it. Maybe Archie will want to be a private citizen. Maybe he will want to follow in his parents footstep and ‘serve’ humanity. What ever it is..let him choose. And while he cannot choose for himself, his parents have chosen for him.
      Imagine the pressure of him growing up with being a symbol and not having had a choice about it…this is what I believe Harry is trying to avoid for Archie.

      We all need to stop projecting our fears and wants on the child and let him be.

      And I am usually in sync with Kaiser…but not on this issue. We are giving Wild Bill far too much power and attention. Harry has grown a back bone with Meghan by his side, I don’t see him allowing William to kick him around anymore. And given that William needs to be fighting to keep his Rose bush hidden, I’d like to think he’d be careful not to piss off Harry and Meghan at the moment. I think William is realizing that Meghan and Harry are prepared to push back and have been pushing back and not accepting his bullshit. THIS is something I believe Harry and Meghan would push back on if Wild Bill tried to get in there way.

  64. hildegarde says:

    I don’t see why William would care. Anyway, this seems to be the expected and desired outcome. A lot of the conversation throughout Meghan’s pregnancy was about how she and Harry shouldn’t give Archie a title for myriad reasons ranging from how he won’t (not my words) be a working royal, or how it could be a way to protect him or give him a normal life. And the people speculating this were praising them for it.
    Anyway, he’ll likely inherit the dukedom one day, and he’s still entitled to the Earl of Dumbarton, so he may go by these titles when he’s older. Harry is probably aware of how the York princesses talked about their titles, and he’s talked himself about how odd it is to be the second son in the royal family so he’s well equipped to raise a kid who isn’t an immediate heir but is as close to it as you can be. All of this is probably compounded by the fact that Archie is born at a time when the palace is preparing for the queen’s passing and there’s really no telling how the royal family will be structured down the road. The logic is pretty sound, and it makes sense for them to have chosen this.

  65. celialarson12 says:

    I believe one of the reasons Harry and Meghan chose no title for baby Archie was for some sort of hands off to the press. They are working royals but their child is a private citizen. I am looking forward to the christening . What will the press write when the christening is attended by the samme crowd as seen at the the baby shower. I believe Archie having no title gives them a certain amount freedom in how they raise him, without the press asking why they are hiding him away. After all Harry and Meghan can if they wish start having him adressed as Earl Archie.

  66. oddly says:

    No matter what seems to be the popularity situation at the moment, in truth Archie will in the normal course of events be a minor Royal.

    Eventually Archie will be known as the nephew of the King so he will hold exactly the same position that David Armstrong Jones held , who you may ask? Princess Margarets son, no one ever did, nor would they now consider him a senior royal even though he was the only bloodline nephew of the Queen. He was simply a minor member of the Royal family . However he was known by his fathers lesser title Viscount Linley, his mother insisted on it.

    Keep in mind that HRH and Prince are basically just courtesy titles in the UK, Archie already has a title he will come into eventually, a real title that carries special privilege and legal authority in the UK ,in fact he has four titles waiting for him in the future.

    It is entirely Harry’s choice not to call him by the Earl of Dumbarton title (with input from Meghan of course) , neither the Queen nor William have a say say in it .

    I tend to think in this it’s Harry who had the most say as he knows what a burden the title can be and he has seen how much better and normal life is for his cousins without titles than it has been for his cousins with titles. I do think Harry secretly (perhaps not so secretly on many occasions) wished that he hadn’t been saddled with the title. It very much restricted what he could do in life and he is giving his son the chance to avoid that burden for as long as possible, because Archie will become HRH automatically when Charles becomes King.

    • kerwood says:

      Archie will be a ‘minor’ celebrity but he’ll also be a MAJOR fixture in the royal family and a MAJOR celebrity.

      David Armstrong Jones was never interesting because his parents weren’t that interesting either. All Princess Margaret was good for was spending money and drinking cocktails. His father was good at taking pictures.

      Archie’s parents are superstars. like it or not. People who wouldn’t be able to name a single member of the royal family, know who Harry and Megan are.

      As Britain’s population gets browner, Archie will be someone that many Britons will look to and identify with. The fact that he’s not only multi-racial AND American will make him ‘exotic’. If Great Britain wants to hang on to the Commonwealth, they’re going to need the non-white members of the royal family to step forward and show that the royal family isn’t an antiquated institution that nobody can relate to.

      It won’t matter whether or not Archie EVER gets a title. He’s going to be one of most well-known and popular members of the royal family.

      • oddly says:

        You are confusing popularity and celebrity with the workings of the Royal Family, I have no doubt that Archie will be a Major Celebrity , but he is and will be a Minor Royal all his life (as opposed to a Senior Royal) ,unless some catastrophic event wipes out all the Cambridges.

        Archie is at the moment a greatgrandson’s of the monarch , not in the presumptive line. He will probably around a decade from now, become the grandson of the Monarch once again not in the presumptive line and eventually the nephew of the Monarch, all considered minor family positions as opposed to a Senior Royal. That unfortunate lot will fall to the Cambridge children eventually.

        Archie WILL get at least four titles, no if or but about it, they are automatically his. Probably HRH (Prince) first , when Charles becomes King, then eventually Duke of Sussex, Earl Dumbarton and Baron Kilkeel. he may choose to be known as Earl Dumbarton long before Harry passes on.

        BTW….the Senior Royals are
        The Queen
        The Duke of Edinburgh
        The Prince of Wales
        The Duke of Kent
        The Duke of Gloucester
        The Duke of York
        The Earl of Essex
        The Princess Royal (Anne)
        The Duke of Cambridge
        the Duke of Sussex
        ……..in that order.

        Note that the Wives are not considered to be Senior Royals but do hold a special place next to their husbands as they are regarded as proxy’s for their husbands when their husband is not present.

        Under aged children are not considered to be Senior Royals.

      • notasugarhere says:

        oddly, you don’t appear to understand the Line of Succession. Harry is senior to everyone except Queen, Charles, and William. There is no Earl of Essex in the royal family. Did you mean Earl of Wessex?

  67. My3cents says:

    You mean Joffrey threw a tantrum?

  68. Susan says:

    Technically there is a small chance that Archie may never get the HRH title. In the unlikely event that something tragic happens and Charles passes away before the Queen does or becomes incapacitated and abdicates before being crowned, then William will become King immediately after the Queen. Archie will then only have been a great grandchild of a monarch and a nephew of a monarch. Neither of which on their own merit the HRH title. So it’s all or nothing on Charles being King.

  69. Ramy says:

    just click on the boys here for love him

  70. love says:

    I don’t see why William would care. Anyway, this seems to be the expected and desired outcome. A lot of the conversation throughout Meghan’s pregnancy was about how she and Harry shouldn’t give Archie a title for myriad reasons ranging from how he won’t (not my words) be a working royal, or how it could be a way to protect him or give him a normal life. And the people speculating this were praising them for it.

  71. xo says:

    Titles are overrated. That’s my takeaway.

  72. Montrealaise says:

    On a (somewhat) related matter – remember how Thomas Markle (and Samantha) complained to the press that he wanted so badly to be a grandfather to Meghan’s baby and how mean it was of her to deny him that? Well, his first wife (mother to Samantha and Thomas Jr.) has given an interview to a British tabloid, and she says he has five other grandchildren (Samantha’s three kids and Thomas Jr.’s two) whom he NEVER sees – he hasn’t even met two of them! That just confirms our suspicions that the only reason he wants to meet the baby is because little Archie is his ticket to access to the royal family.

    • celialarson12 says:

      Maybe Thomas snr. should do the right thing, use some of his tabloid dollars and seek mental health help for Samantha. That woman is clearly not all there mentally.

    • Rina says:

      Tetchy Thomas and Screechy Samantha are insufferable! Their incessant attacks on Meghan is despicable.

  73. magnolia says:

    I believe it was Harry’s and Meghan’s decision and it was the best one they could make. Their son will get the perks of Royalty and few of the hardships. This is a gift they have given him. Perhaps he will wish to be HRH when Charles accedes. Or not. All the crazy theories are really out there. I don’t think anyone in the family is out to get the other. For what purpose? They all have different roles and have to work for the greater good. Most of the jobs are incredibly boring and there’s loads of work for everyone.

  74. Greta G says:

    This world is full of racism. I think that Archie needs a title. I think to deny him the title of Prince, ASAP, will allow racists like princes Michael of Kent to expect to be bowed and scraped to. I believe that racists will enjoy
    humiliating him.