Talk:Prince Archie of Sussex

Really?

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

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

The phrase 'working class' did leap out to me upon reading it. Meghan attended a couple of elite private schools, interned at an American Embassy and her father was a DOP and lighting director with an extensive list of work. Whilst her situation is a long way from being a Royal, it's hardly 'working class' in the way we consider it usually. Mark49s (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The article does not mention Meghan Markle's upbringing. A middle-class person such as Meghan Markle can have working-class ancestry. The source speaks of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's ancestry. The New York Times, cited here, describes him as being "descended on his mother’s side from a bellhop in a Cleveland hotel, a laundry worker in Chattanooga, and a bartender in an Atlanta saloon." That is American working class. Surtsicna (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

In the US, there is no identifiable working class. There's a middle class which contains both rich and poor people. You can't tell from a person's accent or clothes if they're in higher or lower classes. So yes, this language is DEMEANING and OFFENSIVE and RACIST (OP, it's not "technically accurate" in any way). Being black, not being a royal, or not being rich doesn't make someone "working class." Also, Meghan Markle doesn't identify as black, and I highly doubt the child will be "multiracial." As Elizabeth Warren has shown, simply having certain genes does not give someone a racial identity (if you really want to go there, I'll point out that DNA tests have shown Harry has Indian ancestry). Race is an identity, and any method for basing race on genes is pseudoscience. So in real life, people like Michelle Wolf are not black simply because they don't identify that way. With that said, I hope none of you try to cite the "one drop rule." This page needs to be fixed, and this kind of discriminating, narrow-minded worldview does not belong on Wikipedia. 188.239.0.177 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Your contribution does not make any sense. I have travelled widely throughout the United States (I have probably visited more States in the Union than you have) and there are indeed distinct classes both upper, middle, and lower. The nature or characteristics of class in the US may be different compared to other countries, but it is there for all to see. I also do not agree with your assertion that 'racism' is intended in the article, either implied or intended. The article states facts, nothing else. Any insinuation of 'racism' is being conceptualised in your brain, and not the article. And you could at least register with wiki and sign in and contribute in the normal way, rather than displaying your IP address for all to see. Ds1994 (talk) 16:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL about possible future title

The article includes the following sentence

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

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

It's actually not crystal because the rules are already set down. His parents could opt to not use the styles but would have no power to decide that he doesn't have them at all. See the Wessex children for an example in practice. Timrollpickering (Talk)

If the titles weren't used (by him, his parents, the royal family and reliable sources, presumably) and his parents had decided that his name is Archie Mountbatten-Windsor without any titles, it would be a form of original research and POV to claim that he "really" held the titles anyway, based on some Wikipedia editor's interpretation of a 100-year old primary source. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, he wouldn't hold the titles if they weren't used. --Tataral (talk) 21:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You managed to misunderstand the very thing you complain about. Whether his father wishes it or not, should his grandfather become king then he is entitled to the title of prince and style of royal highness and it won't be his father's decision. That decision was made decades ago, a century ago. Anything deviating from that expectation requires new letters patent. That is all that quote is saying and it is saying that because he is a grandson of the heir apparent but was not born a prince, which is different from all of his more immediate cousins. That quote explains the most likely if this then that scenario. The crystalballing would be to today expect new letters patent in three or twelve years from now for Archie to keep him not a prince. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I've not misunderstood anything. We cannot automatically assume that a 100-year old decision will apply in his case, that is textbook WP:CRYSTAL as well as WP:OR. The British royal family isn't bound by earlier decisions and can (and do) make new ones any time, as seen when it turned out that all the commentators who had declared him to be "earl of Dumbarton" based merely on some tradition were wrong, or when they have made other untraditional choices (e.g. regarding the status of the Mountbatten name). --Tataral (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You still miss it. You confuse Daddy Harry's decision of today for what Grandpa Charles' possible future decision on breaking from the normal will be in six months or ten years from now. That is crystalballing on the River Thames. The earl is a subsidiary title and Daddy Harry executed his prerogative to not extend that courtesy. The refusing of title of prince and style of royal highness for Archie is not within Daddy Harry's prerogative and likely never will be, unless his father, brother, nephews, and niece all die without any heirs and he remains alive. That is some crystalballing! That would also render Archie the likely Prince Of Wales, assuming he survived what killed most the rest of the family. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Our role is not to speculate on a "possible future decision" of Charles, who might not even become king. We don't know what will happen if Charles becomes king until an announcement is made. We'll just have to wait for that announcement (if such a situation even becomes a reality). It is very likely(!) that Charles, if he even becomes king, will make a decision on this matter that takes the wishes of "Daddy Harry" into account. --Tataral (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It is more than likely that the current Prince of Wales will become King. Why is anyone suggesting otherwise?Ds1994 (talk) 21:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

If his mother lives to the same age as her own mother, Charles will be nearly 80 years old at that time. We can't predict the future, including whether he becomes king. And even if he becomes king, we can't predict which decisions he will make on the titles of his grandchildren. --Tataral (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thankfully it doesn't matter because we can wait and see, and there is no need for us to say anything about the matter for now. That's kind of the point of WP:CRYSTAL. The article certainly doesn't need that line of speculation.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Obviously we cannot predict the future. A new Letters Patent can create (or remove on a formal basis) any style of royal address. However, please remember that the choice remains not to make use of such styles of address. As pointed out, such speculation isn't necessary anyway.Ds1994 (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Tataral, you see it but do not recognise it for what it is. The expectation that Grandpa Charles will issue letters patent to revoke or refuse the title of prince for Archie is the crystalballing. Predicting Her Majesty's death is also crystalballing. You are saying the most likely scenario is deviation from the established pattern in one whilst considering the possibility of repeated longevity for daughter emulating mother. The quote explains the established pattern's application to this situation. That deviation is Daddy Harry's demonstrated preference, but not necessarily Grandpa Charles' preference. And even if it is also Grandpa Charles' preference, until Grandpa Charles issues those letters patent keeping Archie not a prince it is crystalballing to say anything else is the most reasonable result, so long as Grandpa Charles remains alive and the heir apparent. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No, my statements above are not based on any expectation of "letters patent", but on whether reliable sources actually support the claim that he is a prince. They may do so in the future, but we don't know that now. Your reading/interpretation of 100-year old "letters patent" is classic original research. Predicting that Charles will become king is crystallballing. Predicting that the royal family will decide, at that time, that Mountbatten-Windsor will become a prince and/or royal highness (because someone else was granted these titles and styles a century/decades ago), is crystallballing. Right now we don't know at all, but today's events that baffled letters-patent aficionados in the UK who had already proudly declared him the "earl of Dumbarton", and his father's clearly expressed sentiment that he doesn't want him to have a title at all, is a reminder that we shouldn't predict the future. --Tataral (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no claim that Archie is a prince in that quote which upsets you. That quote is a statement of the circumstance in which Archie would be entitled to the title and style. That circumstance is what is already set out in letters patent. Saying that the heir apparent being likely to be king is crystalballing is a tad absurd; that is what an heir apparent is by it's very definition. Saying that letters patent are likely to be issued to prevent a grandson of the king from being a prince is crystalballing. Everyone who said the earl courtesy title was a sure thing was using a broken crystalball. There is nothing which says courtesy titles are obligatory or mandatory. It is a courtesy that is so common that Daddy Harry fooled thousands of people who failed to recognise the meaning of the word courtesy. A courtesy use of a title or it's refusal is not the same thing as letters patent and expecting there to some day be superseding letters patent that change the rules from what they are today. Expecting a continuation tomorrow of what is today's normal is not crystalballing. Expecting a change tomorrow from what is today the established is crystalballing. Denial of a courtesy title is not the same thing as possibly in the future refusing a title held in it's own right and granted by someone else. The latter could happen but until it does happen saying it is likely is crystalballing the issue. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia editors shouldn't apply (interprete) regulations about titles from 1917 to biographies of living people, because it is original research. In addition, these regulations about titles, names and styles of members of the royal family in the UK are frequently changed (more or less every generation there is some novelty), so we can't predict the future based on such a 100-year old document. The earl of Dumbarton issue illustrated this well. He was never the earl of Dumbarton, yet several editors here proclaimed him to be so, until his father stated that he wasn't. The same could easily happen with any princely title in the future, so we shouldn't add anything about that until reliable sources demonstrate him to be a prince. Certainly we shouldn't automatically give him any extra titles merely because his grandfather gets a new title. --Tataral (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I am perplexed by your obsession with the age of the letters patent, and the fact that during earlier contributions you several times referred to "letters patent" with speech marks that appear to convey derision. Letters patent are a form of primary legislation, and they remain valid until new law overwrites or amends them. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't engage in interpretation of letters patent on Wikipedia, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and yes, the fact that this document is a century old is an additional reason to be careful with interpretations that apply to a person born in 2019. If he is indeed a prince, there will be reliable sources that support the claim. --Tataral (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

You are engaging in interpretation of letters patent on wikipedia, per most of your comments in this section and this section's creation on the talk page itself. Your interpretation seems to be increasing age = increasing irrelevance. There is more than the 1917 letters patent applicable but whatever. Seems noone here but you is even putting forth the notion of "if he is a prince" today. I thought the matter presented in the quote you object to has some value because it explains what circumstance must happen for him to become a prince some day. That might just be the most interesting thing there ever is about him. There aren't many guys in the British royal family who aren't born a prince but who die a prince. He's three days old and I am writing of his death. Classy me! I need to find a sword to fall upon now, or at least pull out of a stone. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm not "engaging in interpretation of letters patent", I didn't bring up letters patent here and I don't care about letters patent in any way. All this talk about letters parent is an in-universe perspective (within the UK and people who are overly interested in letters patent there) that I, as a Wikipedia editor from Belgium, am not interested in. I only care about reliable sources. If he were to become a prince in the future, there would be reliable sources covering it, probably following an official statement to that effect. It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to interpret letters patent (that don't even mention him) and to give him titles such as earl or prince on that basis. --Tataral (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You did bring up letters patent. That "[20]" in the quote you copied here and deleted from the article is a link to the gazetting of the 1917 letters patent on titles and styles for descendants of the monarch. The "[18]" is a link to a BBC History Magazine article specifically on Archie which right after acknowledging his birth goes into how those letters patent from December of 1917 apply to him this week. It is not original research or synthesis by whomever added it to wikipedia. You didn't like it so you removed it despite it's specific appropriateness and reliableness and on the talk page are defending the removal by all sorts of fallacy. "and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes". If you want King George V to have called out Archie by name 101 1/2 years before he was born so that he could be specifically named rather than merely described by ancestry then you are requiring King George V to have been doing some serious crystalballing. If you want to directly and specifically call The Gazette from London an unreliable source I promise you you will incite fury. It is primary but hardly unreliable. If you don't understand and have no interest in letters patent then you really should not have come near this. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 03:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It is clear that you don't understand the concept of original research and why we avoid original research in Wikipedia. You, or any other Wikipedia editor, using a 100-year old primary source to give a person born in 2019 a title such as prince is original research. What is unreliable is not the primary source in itself, but the interpretation/analysis and original research by Wikipedia editors. If the source doesn't mention Archie Mountbatten-Windsor and predates his birth with a century, it can never be a reliable source for a claim that he is a prince. Not now, and not in the future. Wikipedia will need to wait for someone else to interpret letters patent from 1917, or indeed to make a different decision, as we saw in the "earl" case. If he were to truly become a prince, there would quite certainly be coverage of that in reliable sources and no need to rely on Wikipedia editors' original interpretation of primary sources. --Tataral (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

O yeah, I have disagreement with the issues with original research, but that is not the concern here. The reference you removed that is not the 1917 gazetting of the letters patent is the relevant reference from the reliable source which you just want to dismiss entirely. But let's set that aside a moment. The 1917 letters patent are referenced to support the claim Archie is NOT a prince. You clearly and repeatedly demonstrate you do not understand that. Letters patent are a form of law; the absence of over-riding newer letters patent or parliamentary legislation does not itself negate old letters patent. Charlotte and Louis got the HRH and prince(ss) via new and partially over-riding letters patent but those letters patent did not demise the letters patent from 1917. Archie is one of "the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line". That means Daddy Harry is defying the letters patent of his great-great-grandfather by use of the title Master for Archie, but that is not really the issue being discussed here. That is why there is the edit warring in the article regarding The Right Honourable. As for the reference from BBC History Magazine, that is exactly what you are saying there needs to be before anything can be appropriately added to the article about title and style. And yet that is what you complain about and removed. It is a reliable reference of contemporary publication stating that Archie, by name, is not entitled to the HRH and prince until such time as Grandpa Charles becomes king. Together they are the contemporary secondary source and the original primary source. They are exactly what you repeatedly declare you want. But they are exactly what upset you and which you removed from the article and here are defending the removal of. Hence, I say you are sorely confused. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 05:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

ADDENDUM -- I took a look at the article history and it does not matter what source states that Archie is not entitled to be a prince until/unless Grandpa Charles becomes king, you remove it and call it original research, synthesis, and point of view editing. Dude! That is point of view editing in and of itself on your part, not to mention original censorship too. From what you have removed, it has become clear to me that multiple current secondary sources from publications of varying general reliability assessments exist for Archie not being entitled to be a prince until his grandfather is king. All this time I thought you simply didn't understand it and were so very confused. I was wrong. You understand it and you don't like it. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 06:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

No, I removed a low quality addition, sourced to a low quality tabloid source, that stated that "he will become a prince" as an absolute certainty (egregious crystalballing) and that "Prince Charles is [will become] King" as an absolute certainty, added by the editor discussed here just hours after he returned from his block. --Tataral (talk) 08:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Saying "I don't care about letters patent" when they are part of UK legal instruments and a primary/secondary source in almost all matters relating to UK titles is the problem. LPs just like acts of parliament don't 'timeout' they stay in force until changed. Arbitrarily deciding you can ignore them when they aren't new enough for you borders on POV Garlicplanting (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Info box question

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

There is a consensus that parents should be listed by the name/highest title they hold in their own right. For example, the father of Princess Estelle, Duchess of Östergötland, is listed as Daniel Westling rather than Prince Daniel, Duke of Västergötland. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Then why is Ivanka Trump’s mother listed as Ivana Trump and not her birth name? WWGB (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose because neither of the two is royal. This seems to stem from a genealogical practice. Donald Trump's wives, for example, are listed by their premarital names. Surtsicna (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

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

I would like to see evidence of that "consensus", to have the child appear to be a bastard. WWGB (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The whole purpose of those parameters is to provide genealogical information. That information is not provided for the mother if she is subsumed into her husband's identity and treated only as an appendage. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

And WWGB the child doesn't appear to be anything of the sort, despite your offensive language. People's names say nothing about whether they are married or not and it's totally irrelevant anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose one could also argue that the mother is still very often, if not most commonly, referred to as Meghan Markle, to the effect that this is still her common name. With that in mind, it is very useful to mention her former/common name somewhere in the article, and the genealogical parameter of the infobox is naturally the best place for this. Whether a woman is married or not can no longer be deduced from her name anyway; we're not in the 1950s. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Clarity means nothing? If questioned, someone else had the same question, clearly there is a lack of clarity to the derived consensus, this is wikipedia not a genealogy website. I would also like you to provide a link to this consensus. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Listing the subject's mother as Meghan Markle does not lead to any clarity problems. Everyone who has ever heard of her recognizes that name. This has been discussed all over the place. See Talk:Prince_Louis_of_Cambridge#Mother's_name and Talk:Prince_Harry,_Duke_of_Sussex/Archive_5#Mother's_name for some recent examples. Surtsicna (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

In this particular context relating to ancestry it is standard practice to list the mother by her birth name. Listing her as some appendage to her husband ("Duchess of Sussex" is much like "Mrs John Smith") doesn't convey any relevant information about her in this context. Additionally, she is far better known as Meghan Markle than Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, and had a notable career in her own right under that name. --Tataral (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

So I take it there is no exact consensus, you started doing this naming convention in the info box a while back and just stuck with it. The manual of style (MoS) for info boxes of royals doesn't seem that consistent to me for this element. It's obviously confusing for some readers otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it in three separate conversations. Govvy (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

His name is Archie M-W, leave it there

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

I think it is encyclopedically relevant to note that the subject's parents decided that he would not use a title despite being entitled to one by a centuries-old custom and despite the widespread expectations that a title would be used. It hints at how the subject will likely be raised, and this hint can probably be further elaborated. Surtsicna (talk) 17:52, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Not really. It's just speculation and tittle tattle. The only reason people are considering including this is because there's virtually nothing else to say about the lad. He's only three days old and hasn't yet achieved his life's calling as a ballroom dancer, plumber or scientist.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

That too. If only someone had thought about not having an article about a newborn at all. Oh well. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

At the time of the AfD many people probably expected him to get a title. Most people aren't that familiar with how British royal titles work, so many people perhaps even assumed that he was a prince. Since there isn't much to say about him, and since it turned out that he will have a far less public role than some people assumed, with no special role or title, a far better solution would be to cover him in a different article, along with any potential future siblings. Title-wise he is less of a public figure than Prince Michael of Kent's children (who are notable primarily for their own activities). --Tataral (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

And if only the closer had allowed the discussion to last seven days as is normal. Instead, the discussion was snow-closed before the subject even got a name, let alone a title. Preposterous, but I can't be bothered to appeal it. I'll just try to keep the article as sane as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna that it does say something about the way the royal family views his public role that he didn't get any titles, so it should be noted in the article, but the current discussion of the potential titles he could have been entitled to, or not been entitled to (such as the princely title), is maybe a little too long at this point. --Tataral (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The lengthy discussion on this topic is probably due to the fact (and as mentioned before) that many people, particularly foreigners such as Americans, are unfamiliar with the complexities surrounding princely and peerage titles (including courtesy titles) as used in the United Kingdom. It is entirely appropriate to discuss the possibility of the use of a courtesy title as the eldest son of a Duke in the peerage of the United Kingdom. It is equally important to discuss why his parents have decided he should not at this time be designated the use of a courtesy title. The more needless discussion surrounding any potential use of a princely title when the child becomes the male line grandson of the Sovereign is, I agree, pointless. But at the end of the day this child is seventh in line to the Throne, and as such takes precedence over such individuals as HRH The Duke of York and other members of the Royal family who have princely titles. Whatever happens, he will most likely be in the future the 2nd Duke of Sussex of the second creation, and he will be successively the grandson, the nephew, and then first cousin of the King. It is in this framework that any discussion of courtesy titles, or their lack of use, is entirely appropriate.Ds1994 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

He does not take precedence over the Duke of York. He does not even take precedence over Lord St Andrews. Succession is one thing and precedence another. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I should have re-read that and changed accordingly. And I'm sure the Duke of York would agree with you....Ds1994 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

If Charles becomes king, all else being equal, he is basically the equivalent of Prince Michael of Kent. But: the royal family seems less inclined to grant princely titles (or even titles) to junior members of the royal family in this day and age, and there is more uncertainty regarding future titles, especially in light of the statements of his father. So while he might inherit a peerage in about 60 years from now, it is already clear that he won't have the same public role that Prince Michael of Kent has had with his princely title (held since his birth) and all. --Tataral (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Birth name

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

Quite so. If middle names were in scope for that parameter then it would be used on a majority of BLP's, since most people have one and most article titles omit it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2019 (UTC)