Talk:Prince Archie of Sussex

Aggregation of headings regarding the use of Prince/Princess

He’s now technically Prince Archie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since he’s now Prince Archie the article should be edited to reflect this. 2603:6080:DC01:780E:2C06:452E:2650:3988 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you and I second your motion. As the son of a son of the current Monarch, Archie is "HRH" (i.e., "His Royal Highness") and Prince under the last revision of the rules, which I believe took place in 2012 (more than three years before Harry and Meghan even met, so there is absolutely no way the current rules could have anything to do with Harry and Meghan).2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Unless his parents have the legal power to renounce their CHILD'S Styles and Titles, Archie is right now and always will be "Prince" and "HRH" unless he himself can resign those Styles at a more adult age. Even if the present King revises the rules that were last revised in 2012, there is a principle in things like Heraldry and Honors that an honor cannot be withdrawn except by misconduct of the person who holds it. As long as the 2012 rules were in effect at the moment of Elizabeth II's death, Archie was "HRH" and "Prince" at that instant, and the present King has no power to diminish Archie's rank, except by Archie's own bad conduct or renunciation. Even if the present King restricts FUTURE "HRH"/Prince(ss) to a narrower range of Royal descendants, no person who is CURRENTLY an HRH or Prince(ss) can be deprived of that Style, except by their own misconduct, by a revision of the rules. For instance: the Duke of Gloucester is "HRH" and "Prince" because his father was son of a Monarch (George V). George V is no longer Monarch, but those who have the Styles "HRH" and "Prince(ss)" from their relationship to George V cannot, as long as they don't commit serious crimes, be deprived of their "HRH" or "Prince(ss)" simply because the man died through no fault of their own. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth's mother was always "Her Majesty" until she died, because as the wife of a Monarch she was "Her Majesty". The fact that her husband died was no fault of the Queen Mother, and so she remained "Her Majesty" until her own death despite no longer being a spouse of a Monarch.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The suggestion that it was EVER the case that Archie's Styles and Titles were ever determined by his racial composition is vicious defamation. As long as he was not a child of a son of the current Monarch, and was also not a child of the Heir Apparent of the Heir Apparent, the rules (of 2012, before his parents met) stated that he was not "HRH" nor Prince. The idea that any British Monarch of the 20th or 21st century would promulgate a set of rules that contains the phrase "unless such person has some black ancestry" is preposterous. AND, if any British Monarch before Elizabeth II HAD promulgated such a set of rules, she'd have CHANGED those rules. This whole lie about Archie being denied Styles and/or Titles based on his race should be met with, in all quarters where it is voiced, the contempt it rightfully deserves. It's all based not even on something Meghan said, but on how Oprah Winfrey's staff EDITED two different topics Meghan addressed to make us THINK she said something that she did not say.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Lady Louise Windsor is technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth in the male line), however her parents chose to style her as the child of an earl. Would it be best to wait for Harry & Meghan to confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.212.21 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I do beleive it would be best to wait for a response from the Duke and Duchess. Upon her 18th birthday, Lady Louise was able to gain the title of princess if she so chose, so it is enitrely possible that at some point Archie and Lilibet may become Prince and Princess even if their parents decline. EmilySarah99 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's silly to clarify that "he's not obligated to call himself a prince". What are they gonna do? Put him in jail for not calling himself a prince? Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The law is clear

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is absolutely clear what the rules of titles are at this time. This child is HRH Prince Archie of Sussex.

His and his sisters titles should be added. If HM decides to issue a letters patent to remove the titles then the pages can be updated then.

Opinions on if he will or won't do such a thing are just that, opinion, it is fact that it has not yet been done. 173.212.65.254 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be clear that he’s legally entitled to the title “prince”, even if he’s not obligated to use it. This isn’t controversial and it’s unclear to me why these changes (supported by credible references) keep on being reverted. Gillespk (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It has not been reverted. Titles and succession explains that he is a prince, he is listed under the category Princes of the United Kingdom and the UK Princes template includes him. He is legally a prince but there has not been any official sources updating him and Lilibet's titles. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. cookie monster 755 20:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found these two articles: CNN – Harry and Meghan's children become Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet; and The Guardian – Harry and Meghan’s children become Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. The articles do not include comment from the Palace and are based largely on the 1917 Letters Patent. However, both are from reliable sources. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, these articles from CBS News; the Independent; and The Telegraph. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoi you are more then free to do a bold move. cookie monster 755 20:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought about doing so but noticed that several similar edits were recently reverted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoi I have requested the pages be moved accordingly. cookie monster 755 20:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I kept getting edit conflicted when I was trying to respond to the discussion below so I am adding what I wanted to say here: Reliable sources support the statement that the children are entitled to the use of "Prince/Princess" under the existing Letters Patent, but they don't say that they are using those titles. Accordingly, I don't think this merits moving the article titles themselves per Wikipedia's article naming conventions. (Lady Louise Windsor is similarly entitled to the title "princess", but because she doesn't use the title, so her article title uses her WP:COMMONNAME.)

If reliable sources begin referring to them as "Prince Archie" or "Princess Lilibet", then I think this can be revisited, but I don't see a trend of that yet--the sources simply state that they are "entitled" to the use of prince/princess (or, alternatively, that they are technically a prince/princess under the existing Letters Patent).

For additional clarity: I fully support discussing these issues in the Titles section because multiple, high quality, reliable sources are discussing them, but I do not support moving the article titles. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add your comments here, please. There needs to be a central section for discussion. cookie monster 755 21:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Never mind it is all in one section now. Thanks. cookie monster 755 21:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closing as it is premature. Please see discussion below. cookie monster 755 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Archie Mountbatten-Windsor → Prince Archie of Sussex
• Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor → Princess Lilibet of Sussex

– Under the 1917 letters patent Archie and Lilibet are now Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex, respectively. Sources here describe them as such: CNN, The New York Timmes, CBS News, NBC Los Angeles, ABC7 News, The Guardian and others. (also please remember this is not a vote; this is a discussion.) cookie monster 755 20:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hold, bearing in mind discussion about this supposed titles (below) DBD 20:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Supposed "legal" titles

Yes, there was a 1917 Letters Patent, and this has been widely-reported. However, (and we have discussed this very matter at length at Talk:James, Viscount Severn and Talk:Lady Louise Windsor) it is speculative (at best) to say that the children "legally have a title" when it is not used. It is not surprising that even usually-reliable American news outlets have got carried away, but they show little understanding of the British system. The Sovereign (now Charles III) is the fount of honour. By his agreement with the children's parents, they do not use titles. Any titles they may theoretically have had cannot, therefore, be used (because the King, fount of honour, doesn't wish it). So it's nonsense to say they "have" them. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Therefore I propose: these articles should not move, and should not make too much of these reports in the prose. DBD 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DBD Should I close the move discussion as premature? cookie monster 755 20:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

CookieMonster755 Please. DBD 20:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DBD it has been closed. The discussion needs to take place here. cookie monster 755 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

CookieMonster755 Much obliged. Wish me luck. DBD 20:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

cookie monster 755 21:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Both American and British reliable sources describe them as having the prince/princess title, there are many sources displaying this. It's all well and good for one wikipedia editor to assert otherwise, but Wikipedia should following the reporting of reliable sources (including reliable British newspapers of the Independent, Guardian, and Telegraph). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, according to the 1917 Letters Patent Archie is a Prince and Lilibet a Princess. But, as with the Wessexes' children, their parents may not wish them to be known as such. Things have moved fairly quickly and the parents themselves have probably yet to make a decision. I think Wikipedia should wait until they do. Opera hat (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not the parents' wishes that matter, it's the Sovereign's, and two it's the known will of both the late and the current Sovereign that they not be prince/ss... So they aren't. Letters Patent aren't the only way for the Monarch to make their will known. DBD 21:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Archie & Lilibet are 'now' a British prince & princess. Whether or not they'll use those ranks? Up to their parents. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But how are 'use' and 'are' different? If they 'are' but don't 'use', surely the being is hypothetical? DBD 21:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They are enititled to use those styles, but are not reqiuired to. EmilySarah99 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

References

(conflict) Unfortunately there are media sources regurgitating each other and they quite often rely on Wikipedia for verification, which creates a circularity problem for us. The King has not made known any change in his grandchildren's styles, so as best we can tell officially, nothing has changed. In this case, primary source is king (geddit?). We ought to err on the side of caution and even-handedly report that certain sources claim this, but it is not verified. That way we avoid perpetuating either way. This is a difficult time characterised by a great deal of action without much thought in order to maintain interest and media engagement. We are an encyclopaedia not media; we can afford to take the long, slow, moderate view. DBD 21:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Louise & James (the king's niece & nephew) are a British princess & prince. Yet, the don't use their rank. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Or... they are Viscount/Lady because the late Queen said so and the new King has not yet said otherwise. The will of the Sovereign, however expressed, is authoritative in the matter of titles and styles, especially royal ones. DBD 21:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Edward & Sophie, didn't want their children to be a princess & prince. But, they were entitled to be. Anyways, if the king bestows the title "Duke of Edinburgh" on Edward? Then Archie will 'one day' inherit that title. On a side note, assuming the king will predecease his brother Andrew? Then Louis will likely be the next "Duke of York". GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, GoodDay. What does entitled mean? 1917 LP expressed the Sovereign's will; and then in 1999 (IIRC) the Sovereign expressed a change in her will: that the Wessex children not be prince/ss. Same for the Sussex children, but more recent. DBD 21:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They are not viscount and lady becuause the late Queen "said so" (press releases are not letters patent). They are prince and princess because the 1917 Letters Patent say so. The Earl and Countess of Wessex just chose not to use their childrens' princely titles. The title of viscount is actually Edward's secondary title after earl; James gets to use it as a courtesy (which is common for the eldest sons of peers who have multiple titles). And lady is just the way of referring to all daughters of peers. Sophie is on record stating she would let Louise decide on or after her 18th birthday whether she wants to start using her title of princess or not. So far, Louise hasn't started to use it.

The Sussex children are not comparable. They're a generation farther away from the monarch than the Wessex children are. And that matters when it comes to the 1917 Letters Patent. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Sussex children are comparable. The Wessex children were the grandchildren of a Monarch, and so are the Sussex children. With both of their fathers being younger sons of a monarch. EmilySarah99 (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5) I don't think we can simply ignore the secondary reliable sources. My suggestion is to edit the Titles section in one of the following ways: 1) change the words might have become a prince to became entitled to the use of the title "prince"; 2) state that Multiple sources state that Archie and Lilibet became entitled to the use of prince/princess upon the accession of Charles III; or 3) copy the sentence from James, Viscount Severn that says Letters patent issued in 1917, and still in force, assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all children of a monarch's sons (which is supported by several of the sources noted in the discussions above), and then note the prior statements released at the time of the childrens' birth indicating that they wouldn't use titles. (I also think we should note the statements from the Oprah interview where the Sussexes indicated that they thought Archie would become a prince upon his father's accession but they were told this wouldn't happen...but that's a different discussion altogether.). I don't think we need to change the article title, the lead, or the infobox unless reliable sources actively begin calling them "Prince" or "Princess." Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Let’s be very clear here. It doesn’t matter whether his mother wants him to be known as a prince or not. The second the Queen died, he automatically became a Prince of the United Kingdom. In the same way that Camilla was formally the Princess of Wales, even if she chose not to use the title, he is now HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. 86.25.204.48 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This involves their first cousins-once-removed, too. Maybe, this should be brought up at a more appropriate page, concerning this general topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Telegraph I first found this when she died. Unless Charles does a letters patent they are legally Prince and Princess with the use of HRH. Lady Meg (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Letters Patent are definitive. Archie is legally a prince by operation of law, until such a time that the law is changed. He is legally a prince/HRH by virtue of his relation to the Sovereign, but he (or his parents) may choose not to use that title. This is all supported by a multitude of credible primary and secondary sources, and it shouldn’t be the least bit controversial to note this information on his Wikipedia page (without the changes being reverted). However, until such a time as it is confirmed that he will henceforth be known by a different name than Master Archie, I agree that the page should not be moved to Prince Archie. Gillespk (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a succinct and well written thought. Thank you. This has been my understanding from the beginning when Archie was born. 66.171.19.106 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Gillespk—keep the article as is but mention that he is indeed a Prince and entitled to HRH. There seems to be only one person against this who is actively changing other pages to reflect their own personal views. Mountbatten Windsor was already changed by this person arguing that they aren’t Prince and Princess. Lady Meg (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction Mountbatten-Windsor. Lady Meg (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that they "have" them but that the strong expectation is that they don't "use" them. I don't think it's quite correct to say they can't use them, except in the sense that if they decided to (on maturity, or even less likely, if their parents starting using them on their behalf) there'd be a Mexican standoff there the king, having established in a quasi-private agreement that they won't be used, would be put in the position of formally removing them (or else grinning and bearing it, or family-summitting to try to get a fresh agreement, or whatever that ep of the royal soap opera might eventuate as). So the articles should certainly not be titled according to these "legal" arguments, nor should it wikivoice state them as facts. If there's a notable amount of RS discussion of such matters, then it can be included and attributed on that basis. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anymore. There's been so much activity since September 8, 2022? That's it's going to take a little while for the dust to settle. I'm content if we go with prince & princess, or if we don't. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Gillespk. This situation has unfolded drastically and until we get more information, leave the base names as is. The article should state that they are legally (or might be) HRH prince and princess as that is what reliable sources say. cookie monster 755 06:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as they're male-line grandchildren of the monarch? ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer the prose be phrased as agnostic as possible. We are inevitably part of the news cycle and risk making something so merely by including it (because we have sources, which themselves used us!). I propose something like: Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, all else being equal, Mountbatten-Windsor would have become styled as His/Her Royal Highness Prince/ss Archie/Lilibet of Sussex from their grandfather's accession.{Prince/ss source(s)} However, before his/her birth, his/her parents (with the agreement of the then-Queen and now-King) decided instead that he/she would be styled as Master Archie/Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with their wish that he/she grow up as a private citizen.{'Multiple sources'}

This way, we talk only about styles rather than entitlement or hypothetical titles; only what is the case, not what may or may not be. (And we contain reference to prince/ssliness to this paragraph alone.) What say we? DBD 07:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording of that could do with some work, but it's essentially on the right lines. I've two main issues with it: firstly, the first couple of sentences if presented like this in wikivoice sound a little like they're making an editorial line of argument. Better to attribute such logic to secondary sources -- and many of them are willing to, good luck finding a soberly worded one! -- doing so, rather than risk any appearance of leaning OR-ish. Secondly, it's rather unclear if the decision on styles was led by the parents (as this implies), the palace, is a mutual agreement, or indeed a sulky standoff. (Sounds a little like the parents were holding out for "Prince" or Duke or Earl of someplace they deemed nicer-sounding, and the palace were more inclined to say "be happy and use what you've got, and we're making no concrete promises about not 'slimming down' the HRH rules in future." But the sources implying this are rather gossipier than we'd like, so maybe an "by agreement between" or "after discussions between" would be safer (because vaguer). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

it should read:

Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, Mountbatten-Windsor has been entitled to use the style and title of His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex from the date of his grandfather's accession.{Prince source(s)} However, despite retaining this title since King Charles III ascension, before his birth, his parents announced that, he would use the style Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with their wish that he grow up as a private citizen.{'Multiple sources'}. 194.75.14.53 (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Its very simple. There is really no need for "newspapers report", "other sources say", questions or debate about this etc. Archie and Lilibets page should read the same as James and Louise Mountbatten-Windsors.

It should be clear on the page that, by current patent, Archie and Lilibet are 1. Entitled to HRH. 2. Hold the title Prince and Princess since accession. 3. That their parents are simply choosing to not use those titles as they wish to raise them private citizens, but that the titles have not been revoked.

Letters patent stand as law - Archie and Lillibet Mountbatten Windsor became HRH Prince and Princess upon the death of Elizabeth II/Ascension of Charles III. Their parents decision to use the style of Master/Miss does not revoke these titles; it simply means that, despite retention of the title, they're not used (as Camilla didn't use Princess of Wales). Additionally, Archie is still able to use his courtesy titles.

Thus, the full text, in alignment with current UK Law (letters patent), and rules of peerage, should read as:

As heir apparent to his father's Dukedom of Sussex, Earldom of Dumbarton, and Barony of Kilkeel, Mountbatten-Windsor is entitled to use Prince Harry's senior subsidiary title Earl of Dumbarton as a courtesy from birth.

Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, Mountbatten-Windsor has been entitled to use the style and title of His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex from the date of his grandfather's accession.{Prince source(s)} However, despite retaining this title since King Charles III ascension, before his birth, his parents announced that, he would use the style Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with their wish that he grow up as a private citizen.{'Multiple sources'}.'' JBDoubleu22 (talk) 20:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source for titles

This site should be the official source for titles https://www.royal.uk/succession. They have now updated and changed the titles for William (Prince of Wales) and his children (Prince/Princess of Wales) but nothing for Archie and Lilibet's titles. Unfriendnow (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And here's our official policy on using official sources: WP:PRIMARY. (Short version, we don't.) We have perfectly satisfactory secondary sources, which is how and why we establish notability and neutrality. It's probably fine to add this in addition, or as an 'external link', but it should never be the source when at all avoidable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why a newspaper speculating about whether or not the Sussex children are now prince and princess is more reliable than the official Royal Family website which makes clear they're not. This seems a little like blindly following rules when it makes little sense to do so. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of nonsense here. WP:PRIMARY does not say we don't use official sources. And the official Royal Family website does not make clear they are not prince or princess. The Duke of Sussex and Earl of Wessex are unquestionably princes even though the titles used on the page don't use the term "prince" for them. Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the titles of prince aren't on the page for Harry and Edward is because the title Duke and Earl are higher than Prince. Unfriendnow (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

By no means the case. King > prince > duke > marquis > earl > viscount > baron > knight > pleb. It's because those are their "substantive" titles (the (and not just 'a') nabob "of" somewhere), as opposed to their "courtesy" ones. They also tend to be used in practice, partly to avoid a kerfluffle about "Princess Kate", "Princess Megs" and "Princess Soph" (tabloid pref) and "Princess William", "Princess Henry" and "Princess Edward" (royalist-cruft pref, being their "official" styles according to "royal tradition" for princesses by marriage). So it's somewhat natural to follow suit with the hubbies ("Duke and Duchess pitch up grandly somewhere" (maths checks out) as opposed to "Prince Wossisname and the Duchess of Wheresoever" (doubletake)). Plus of course "Harry" has specifically agreed he'll not be (further mis)using his "prince" title or "HRH" style, and is slumming as a lowly, lowly duke. (But drew the line at dropping to "earl" -- or maybe just at being "Dumbarton".) The bold Archibald's are both courtesy titles, and thus far it appears that he does use either, thus it can't possibly be his WP:COMMONNAME). Rlendog, as a rule of thumb it's unhelpful to take things like "lot of nonsense", not least other due to remarkable lack of specificity. Here's exactly what the policy says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." (emph. added.) Hence my disagree with the proposition that the "official" site should not be the source we use. Fahrenheit666, the reason we don't use primary sources is that that can be self-serving. In some cases blatantly ("your favorite president!"), in some cases very subtly. And arguably that latter's the case here, as the The Firm wishes to present things as cut-and-dried, where as there's a degree of grubby backroom wheeling and dealing going on here, according to (decently sourced) reports.

However, there's no actual material dispute here. His name is clearly as currently titled: by common name, by reliable secondary sources, by primary sources, and according to BLP consideration -- they all agree. In addition we have reliable secondary sources that he's first, legally HRH Prince A., and second, not presently using this style. (And in common law, your name is to a large degree the name you use, and you can also have more than one name, much as bureaucracies would like to pin you down to just one normally.) Lead section should clearly just describe him by first names names and surnames, it would be clearly undue to complicate that at that point. It may be justifiable to discuss the matter of the letters patent, his courtesy subsidiary title, and the surrounding discussions over them if there's a consensus that it's of due weight to do so, as appropriately attributed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The 2012 Letters Patent

This article ignores the 2012 Letters Patent, signed by the Queen, which confine the title of prince or princess to the children of the Heir Apparent. Harry is not Heir Apparent. His children do not automatically receive prince or princess. Neither will Charlotte or Louis’ children. Please correct this. 2601:987:200:BF10:3C71:B549:8FCB:E3BD (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The 2012 Letters Patent, which applies only to the "children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales," does not apply here because it did not overrule or replace the 1917 Letters Patent (it only supplemented it). With Elizabeth II's death, Archie and Lilibet are now grandchildren of the reigning monarch and are thus covered by the 1917 Letters Patent, as a number of sources have pointed out. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing speculative sources for Royal Highness and Prince style

News outlets like ABC and CBC is speculating their titles without official sources. We need more reliable sources. For example ABC said that:

For example Archie, 3, could assume the title of HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. His younger sister, Lili, 1, could become HRH Princess Lili of Sussex.

This is speculation. We need to remove those sources. Justi7 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to remove such sources as the only sources left are from CNN, Manchestereveningnews... which clearly stated the style of 'His Royal Highness, Prince Archie of Sussex' regardless of whether he chooses to use the style he legally holds. CBS, ABC, TheGuardian further confirms that Archie indeed became a Prince and legally holds the style Royal Highness in accordance with the 1917 Letters Patent which is a legal document and states that grandchildren of a monarch shall 'at all times' hold the style of Prince/Princess and Royal Highness. It's also only natural that he be styled that way as he is a Prince from Sussex and holds the style of Royal Highness. Stop ignoring reliable sources (not speculative sources) that you don't like and revert version that has been agreed upon. Minhle20002013 (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Manchestereveningnews wrote “Archie and Lilibet entitled to be Prince and Princess” which doesn’t confirm the name. The Guardian also said “entitled” with again no offical name. CBC news stated “They have not said whether the children will use their new royal titles.” and again no offical name. CNN sources wrote a name but without a offical source. Reliable news outlets needed have that.Justi7 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to summarize what the reliable sources say. If multiple reliable sources are reporting something, we cannot just ignore it because we disagree with what the reporting is. If sources conflict with each other or there is concern that the sources got the answer wrong, we can simply attribute the statements (e.g., Multiple sources have reported that...). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources reports different things as you can see and we cannot pick one up. Justi7 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The sources I've seen are pretty consistent: that the two children are eligible (or entitled, depending on the source) to use the title "prince" and style "Royal Highness" under the 1917 Letters Patent. I don't particularly like the language in the article now (I would prefer language that says they're entitled or eligible to use those titles, not language that says they are a "prince" or "princess", e.g., Under Letters Patent issued in 1917, Mountbatten-Windsor became eligible [or entitled] to use the title "prince" and style "royal highness" upon the accession of Charles III, as the child of a son of the monarch.[citation][citation][citation] [insert existing language that explains why the Palace/the Sussexes say they children are not using titles]), but I don't think the language currently in the article is plainly wrong.

On a related note, the Washington Post had a fairly detailed article the other day summarizing the situation. The Independent also had an article that summed up the situation. The Independent, along with The Guardian source already in the article, are two reliable British-based sources. Similarly, the articles from the Washington Post and the New York Times piece described elsewhere on this talk page represent two of what are arguably the most reliable U.S.-based newspapers. Again, I don't think we should be ignoring the weight of these high quality sources. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

They are not consistent. Some says they are entitled, some says they could be, some says they are not going to be since they are living in USA. They are just interpreting. They don’t actually write official confirmation. We cannot verify their interpretation. Justi7 (talk) 12:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

-Manchertereveningnews wrote and confirmed the legal, technical title:

-Manchertereveningnews wrote and confirmed the legal, technical title:

"In 2021, it was suggested Charles – in a bid to limit the number of key royals – intended, when he became king, to prevent Archie becoming a prince. To do so, he will have to issue a Letters Patent amending Archie’s right to be a prince. Until that potentially happens, Archie remains a prince, whether his parents choose to use the title or not.

If it does not happen, Archie continues to technically be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. Meanwhile, if the title is used, Lilibet will be able to use the title HRH Princess Lili of Sussex. Like Archie, Charles would have to issue a Letters Patent to remove this. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s titles will not change."

-CNN also wrote and confirmed the name:

"Following the death of the Queen, Harry and Meghan's children have become His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex and Her Royal Highness Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

The change is a result of conventions created over a century ago. Under rules set out by George V in 1917, the grandchildren of the monarch automatically receive royal titles."

Both articles refer to the 1917 letters patent which wrote "…the grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms." Minhle20002013 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This is called speculation, they are not reporting a fact. Justi7 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Aoi, Wikipedia's job is to summarize what the reliable sources say. If multiple reliable sources are reporting something, we cannot just ignore it because we disagree with what the reporting is. If sources conflict with each other or there is concern that the sources got the answer wrong, we can simply attribute the statements (e.g., Multiple sources have reported that...). You cannot just ignore it simply becausee they are 'not reporting fact' in your personal view. Minhle20002013 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

News outlets wrote different things or the things they cannot verify. Even your example show words like “technically”. And how CNN confirmed? And from where? You can add “some media speculated” If you want but their name or style not confirmed. Justi7 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As has already been explained, CNN and Manchestereveningnews confirmed through 1917 Letters Patent which is a legal document and the law of the land which states: "…the grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms." Minhle20002013 (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No they are interpreting letters patent. No other credible source wrote the name. Justi7 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There are already two reliable sources. Minhle20002013 (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not really a question of how reliable the sources are, but what those reliable sources are doing; which is speculating. They make that clear that this is what they are doing, so it's no secret. They are speculating. Wikipedia, however, doesn't speculate, although it might report on speculation. What it doesn't do is report it as fact, or join in with the speculation. I don't think this speculation is so authoratative as needing reported in this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:30, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

It is speculation, but it's reliably sourced speculation. As long as we make clear a) that it is speculation, b) who it is that's speculating, and c) on what basis the speculation is (the letters patent, which is a pretty strong basis), it's clearly not giving it due weight not to include it. Frankly the only notable things about these individuals are firstly that they exist, therefore according to the Iron Law of royalcruft we'll have an article regardless, and secondly that there's endless squabbling about what their style and titles should be. We should give more attention to the information about their inferred legal entitlements to them, and less to WP:CRYSTALBALLing about the likelihood of them ever being used. Time will more effectively tell on that. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I am a former professor of law, and have written extensively on constitutional matters, including royal questions. The position is clear. Lilibet and Archie are both princess/prince and Royal Highness. Whether they use the styles and titles or not is irrelevant. The King has not changed the 1917 letters patent - that of 2012 is not material. Ncox001 (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed language

Can interested people look at language below, which proposes language for the "Title, styles and succession" section? Per Escape Orbit's comment above (as well as one of my previous comments), I attributed the statement to "multiple news outlets" instead of writing in Wikipedia's voice. I also added a second statement summarizing two reliable sources that say it's unclear whether the Archie and Lilibet will actually use those titles.

I also reordered the text chronologically, so we're reporting what happened upon Archie's birth before any statements about whether or not he is a prince.

Mountbatten-Windsor is sixth in the line of succession to the British throne.

As heir apparent to his father's dukedom of Sussex, earldom of Dumbarton, and barony of Kilkeel, Mountbatten-Windsor would customarily be entitled to use Prince Harry's senior subsidiary title Earl of Dumbarton as a courtesy from birth. However, the media reported that the Duke and Duchess decided instead that he would be styled as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with their wish that he grow up as a private citizen.

Following the accession of Charles III, multiple news outlets reported that Mountbatten-Windsor had become eligible or entitled to use the title "prince" and style "royal highness" as the child of a son of the monarch, pursuant to letters patent issued by King George V in 1917. However, other sources reported that it was unclear whether he would use that title, noting that not all members of the royal family who are eligible for a title choose to use one and that his parents' desire to maintain privacy for their children.

References

I'm not wedded to this language, though I still believe it would be WP:UNDUE not to address the reliable sources that have picked up on the "prince" issue since Charles became king. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

As I note above, I do not believe that newspaper speculation is authoritative or so notable that this article should mention it. Particularly when the matter will become clear and factual in due course. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 11:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you, Escape. However, it would be politically helpful to fall in behind something like Aoi's suggestion. We may well come back 'round to this in a few months or years, but until then we can agree on something moderate and thereby stabilise the page. DBD 14:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think this is neutral as possible. Can we do Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor article as well? Justi7 (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Apparently there is speculation (https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/a41228661/prince-harry-meghan-markle-children-prince-princess-not-hrh/) that Archie and Lilibet will be prince and princess but not hold (or use) Royal Highness. Charles III won't be making any announcements until after September 26. cookie monster 755 19:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Handle it in whatever way ya'll see fit. I'm guessing it's gonna be a little while (after Elizabeth II's funeral) before we'll know for sure what Archie & Lilibet's status will be. So far, it appears that Louise & James are not going to adopt the "prince" & "princess" titles. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Why "so far"? The status of those others you mention wasn't changed by Liz's death, unlike this subject, so I don't see any comparability or relevance. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

According to this source the Sussex kids will be prince/ss but not HRH. cookie monster 755 01:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I honestly wonder how many of you are just ignoring the letters patent of George V from 1917 which states: “that the children of any Sovereign of these Realms and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour”— by that he is entitled to the title HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. Why is this not noted in his titles section? He is HRH by law upon the accession of his grandfather. Nothing has been amended by him and until that time it needs to be stated in this article that he is in fact HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. That he holds those titles right now should be included. Lady Meg (talk) 23:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Here’s a link to a photo of the letters patent from 1917 which hasn’t been amended by Charles (yet?). Letters Patent 1917 Lady Meg (talk) 23:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a primary source, so it suffers from the same drawback as the "official" palace source stating just the opposite, as it lists his style and notable lack of any "titular dignity". We give strong priority to reliable secondary sources, which are much more nuanced on this. And which we currently reflect in the "Title, styles and succession" section, except that it omits mention of the "HRH" angle, and IMO should not. But nor should we state in wikivoice 'he's an HRH, them's fax". Currently we have "Mountbatten-Windsor legally became a prince upon the accession of his grandfather". ("Accede" us very much the word-of-the-fortnight on Wikipedia.) I suggest it be "Mountbatten-Windsor legally became a prince and entitled to the style 'HRH' when his grandfather became king", or something on those lines. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The issue is greater than it being a primary source. What is being done here is original synthesis. i.e. combining sources to reach a conclusion not in either. In Wikipedia, something from 1917 simply cannot be used as a source to determine something will happened in 2022, no matter how inevitable or certain we may think it is. Only a reliable source can do this, and Wikipedia can then report it. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

They're related issues, but I was addressing the specific point about this source being 'ignored'. We indeed have a ton of secondary sources addressing exactly this point, just with more nuance than's being suggested here. And they all include mention of the "HRH" point as well as "prince", hence my suggestion that wording to cover that be added. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Since the vast majority of people seem to OK with the changes, I've added it into the article (with some minor changes--I combined links to the multiple sources into a single ref tag to make it look less cluttered, and I left in the sentence currently in the article that describes how the royal family's official website styles Mountbatten-Windsor on its succession page).

I looked to see if there were new sources about the topic. Beyond the garbage from blacklisted sources, I found this source, in addition to this source that CookieMonster755 noted above. Both say a statement is possible after 26 September, so all this discussion may be moot soon. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

First male-line royal grandchildren not to use titles?

May we at least acknowledge, that they are not the first male-line grandchildren of a monarch (post-1917), to not be using "Prince or Princess" & "HRH"? I believe, neither of their first cousins-once-removed, James or Louise, are using "Prince or Princess" & "HRH". GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. The 1917 Letters Patent says: It is declared by the Letters Patent that the...children of the sons of [the] Sovereign shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour[.] There is nothing in there about "first male-line." Instead, the Letters Patent says that the style HRH and title prince/princess is given to "the children of the sons of the Sovereign." As Archie and Lilibet are children of a son (Harry) of the sovereign (Charles), they would fall under the Letters Patent and could use those title of Prince and style of HRH pursuant to those letters. This is in line with what The Guardian, NYT, etc. have reported. (I'm not saying that they are using those titles or that they should use those titles.

James and Louise also fall within this group as children of a son (Edward) of a sovereign (Elizabeth), but, as described in their respective articles, their parents decided they would not use those titles/styles. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this intended to be a followup to the above subsection? In which case presumably it should be a subsubsection, or y'know, just a comment. Or a new (top)topic, in which case placing at the end would make sense. And please change the header to something at least marginally descriptive. What edit is being proposed here, and what source is being introduced in support of it? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted it pointed out, if it hasn't been already. That Archie & Lilibet aren't the first. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I see someone changed it to not reflect that they have the HRH titles as well. Why is my source being ignored as it is the official source which states they are entitled to HRH and Prince/Princess? Lady Meg (talk) 23:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

On the "official source", please see the discussion at #Proposed_language (where this comment (and reply) should really be, if you'd like move them). We strongly prefer secondary sources. On your wording though, I have no idea! Looks fine to me. It's supported by all the existing sources we already have for that that sentence. Maybe there's a wrinkle between "right to use" and "entitlement to the style", on the basis that he may no have the "right to use" if there's a backdoor agreement not to use it. But it's hard to say, as you were reverted by another editor admonishing you for not discussing it... while making no attempt to discuss it here themself. That's Wikipedia! 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see someone reverted my edit even though I’ve been discussing this on the talk page. I put something on their talk page. I also saw that someone had come by and deleted the language which states he’s HRH—since no one responded I put it back in the article. Now someone has completely changed the section to reflect HRH and Prince. I thanked them. Lady Meg (talk) 04:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a Result, then. Looking at the current text, as far as I can see it covers all the desired bases: it mentions the both the title and the style, and the letters patent, but sources and attributes that via reliable secondary sources and their reading of the LP. Straightforward enough as that is, it'd be OR if we did it, and would fail to establish notability. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

This really isn't accurate. It's full of misinformation

Meghan incorrectly implied that security is always directly linked to title. This is not strictly true. Archie was entitled to protection even when not a Prince or HRH for as long as his parents were working royals residing in the UK. Archie was covered by royal protection officers whilst in South Africa with his parents when they were om tour as working royals. This would have remained the case whether he was made a Prince or not. The Sussex family only lost their security when they resigned as senior working royals. 82.30.177.12 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And the inaccuracy in the article is...? This seems to be entirely a complaint about what MM said. This is the talk page for the article, not a forum for discussing the subject of it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Please change, "expressed concern" to "speculated". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.161.143 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

HRH

Why is it not noted that he’s entitled to HRH now? Under protocols established by King George V in 1917, the children and grandchildren of a sovereign have the automatic right to the title HRH and prince or princess. Lady Meg (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We cannot decide If they have a right or not. We cannot predict future. We just reports what already happened/happens Justi7 (talk) 04:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lady Meg: This is being discussed above. Please take a look at the section above titled #Supposed "legal" titles and its subsequent subsections and provide your input there. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would put my input in but all the discussion get closed before I can even discuss anything.

But they already became HRH Prince/Princess under letter patent by George V in 1917. It’s a written law. Charles hasn’t changed anything yet. Lady Meg (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lady Meg: Please take a look at #Supposed "legal" titles. The discussion is not closed. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I just did and put my two cents in for whatever it’s worth. Lady Meg (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Lady Meg: : As previously stated in the article's edit history, try reaching consensus on Talk before making edits to the main article when matters are still under discussion. Otherwise, please do not post your separate comments or opinions to my own user talk page, as such could be seen as being inflammatory rather than provocative. For example: "We’ve BEEN talking on the TALK page for Archie. I have put my input in those discussions asking for people to keep the HRH. Are you part of the discussion or just removing things? Lady Meg (talk) 04:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)" If there is anything more that you feel a need to say, then please do so here in open discussion among a number of well-experienced editors. Sampajanna (talk) 12:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I struggle to see how this is in any way a constructive or helpful comment. WP:BRD doesn't mean "I'll revert, but you have to discuss". Or that "experienced" editors get different privileges in such respects. While I perhaps share your inflammation at the SHOUTING BOLD to a degree, LM's message seems otherwise entirely called-for in the circumstances. But on the substance of the edits, it seems we have now a consensus -- that we mention these in the terms the given secondary sources -- so all should now be entirely well. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Titles and Styles

I’m writing further on this, as the titles and styles section has been edited in a way that deliberately provides ambiguity, stating “multiple news outlets reported AMW had become eligible for (princely status)”, going on to say “however other sources reported….”

The Fact is that letters patent of 1917 state that the grandchildren of a male son of a monarch hold the rank of HRH and Prince and Princess. It doesn’t require them to use that title, but it is theirs either way to use as they wish. The use of “multiple news outlets” as source of the fact is misleading and unnecessary, adding confusion to what should is a straightforward issue.

This entry should be standardised along with that of Lady Louise Windsors, Viscount James Severn, et al, and directly refer to the fact of letters patent, and official statements/usage from the BRF/Buckingham Palace/Duke and Duchess of Sussex 51.6.78.8 (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that he is still called Archie Mountbatten-Windsor on the Royal Family website. We also note that Prince Harry refused to allow his son to use one of his subsidiary titles. Dbainsford (talk) 10:16, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor Is legally a Prince of United Kingdom as per the 1917 letters patent he became a Prince upon the Accession of Charles III unless there’s any change to rules he is legally a Prince however at present he isn’t styled as a Prince. https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/issue/30428/page/13086 King4852 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor at present can be referred to as The Earl of Dumbarton as a courtesy title but does not currently do so. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/titles-included-in-passports/titles-accessible#bookmark11 Assuming Archie Mountbatten-Windsor outlives his father and they are no changes to the letter patents issued by Queen Elizabeth II Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will legally and Automatically become the Duke of Sussex on the Death of his father. https://www.royal.uk/prince-harry-and-ms-meghan-markle-announcement-titles King4852 (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Prince needs to be added in front of Archie’s first name is currently According to a 1917 law from King George V -- also known as the George V Convention or 1917 Letters Patent -- the children of a Sovereign and the children of a Sovereign's sons are entitled to HRH style titles and the distinction of a Prince or Princess prefix to their name. The king has not changed the over 100 year old leather patent from 1917 so technically Dr. Kay who keeps editing and removing Prince is wrong per UK law. Only if King Charles decides to issue a new patent and remove prints from arches in birth entitlement, only then should Prince be dropped Billet1684 (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Discussing what UK law says, unless it is saying it specifically about Archie, is original synthesis and not relevant. I also don't think the UK law suggests that anyone or anything can be forced to call Archie Prince. So Wikipedia can call Archie whatever it likes. What Wikipedia likes is reliable sources and self identification. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)