Talk:Prince Archie of Sussex

Member of the Royal Family?

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

In my opinion, I would say that he is a member, because his mother's article states that she is a member. Of course, it would be useful to see the comments of other Wikipedians, particularly more experienced ones. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The royal family are a peculiar bunch, with lots of precise definitions and traditions. Without any doubt Archie is described as a royal baby, with royal parents, complete with a placard placed in the courtyard at Buck House and all the associated excitement. However the royal family is something a bit different. As far as I'm concerned, unless or until he gets listed at https://www.royal.uk/royal-family alongside George, Charlotte and Louis, he probably hasn't quite made full membership. Member of a royal family yes, but not the royal family. Sorry I don't have any alternate wording for dealing with these technicalities, but alternate wording is probably the way forward. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the contested section for now so we can discuss. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 22:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If you count, there don't seem to be too many users in favour of saying he's a relative. I guess in the absence of reliable sources, depending on the definition, it could be debatable whether or not he's a member, so we should probably use more precision than has been used - ie different words or phrases. I would just say, as a native English speaker and person in the UK, that introducing him only as a relative of the royal family is just bizarre. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

That's what I thought too, zzuuzz. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 22:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If the royal family indicates Archie is not a member then he is not. WWGB (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

That section of the site does not appear to have been updated recently; neither Harry or Meghan's pages make mention of Archie and Lady Gabriella Kingston's info has not changed either. So I'm not sure whether we can take this as confirmation or not. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 04:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Thats imo intended more as PR - a 'things prominent royals have been doing section' its certainly not an official list of members of the family. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well as the official webpage of the royal family, I'd give it some weight, and also some time to get updated though I won't hold my breath. It does contains the three very small royal children, including 1-year old Louis, who have done nothing at all interesting in their own right apart from being members of the royal family. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Best thy don't rush to update as they accidentally published that Archie was 'first child of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge' on his birth ;-) The Court Circular its more measured and makes it much clearer on who they are considering members!~ Garlicplanting (talk)

We cannot say that he is a member of the royal family and a private citizen unless we can cite the official website. The royal family are inherently public figures, or at least have been so far. It is best to define him simply as the son of Harry and Meghan. Surtsicna (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Well both those things can of course be true. I'd suggest for example The DofY's daughters B&E are both. We are I think in danger of confusing/conflating several things here. Being members of the House of Windsor, RF and working Royals/private citizens. There is not and never has been an official list or definition of the RF. However The Court Circular has always been taken as the traditional 'Royal Family'. The royals are mentioned together in a paragraph(s); non-royals apart. The only issue is that even there unless you look to see every person who is mentioned (you can use the search) its still not exhaustive. It often mentions many members of the family and then says 'and other Members of the Royal Family ' eg

...The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Princess Beatrice of York and Princess Eugenie of York, The Countess of Wessex, accompanied by the Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy, Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence and other Members of the Royal Family drove to Horse Guards Parade and witnessed The Queen's Birthday Parade.

The trouble we will have with this is that he won't be mentioned on the CC until he is older but it does as zzuuzz mentioned seem likly to make wiki look a bit daft to not have him as a member of the RF.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

No, one cannot be both a public figure and a private citizen unless you twist the definitions of these terms so much that they become meaningless. We do not have to say that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is not a member of the royal family. We do not have to say that he is either. It is incredibly easy to define him as the great-grandson of Queen Elizabeth II if need be. Does Wikipedia already look daft by not mentioning Lord Snowdon as a member of the royal family? Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

You've slightly changed the terms here. My point was Member of the RF & Private Citizen are not incompatible. You replied with public -v- private. That is certainly incompatible. Fwiw the E/C of S *are* listed with other members of the RF in the CC.

5 March 2019

Buckingham Palace

The Queen gave a Reception at Buckingham Palace this morning to mark the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Investiture of The Prince of Wales.

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, The Princess Royal, The Earl and Countess of Snowdon and the Lady Sarah and Mr. Daniel Chatto were present. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

My point is that the royal family are inherently public figures. Surtsicna (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Not sure how far that goes. Working Royals obviously but not obviously much further. While Andrew/Edwards children gets some coverage they are ,outwith the odd public Royal event they attend, private figures.Garlicplanting (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

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

The strange thing about the wording there is that Lady Louise Mountbatten might have been a member of the RF but was certainly not a member of the House of Windsor as implied by the wording above! Alice had married into a foreign R house (Hesse) and her daughter had married into a branch of the same. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why so much energy is being expended on defining his familial status, given he is just a few months old. As time passes, official information may come forth. Right now, we know he is the son of a prince of the United Kingdom. Is it important to define anything else at this point? He has (hopefully) a long life ahead of him during which we can debate his role/status and argue over his parents' choices for him.ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

We may also need to see if he passes the "Balcony" test, not scientific but an appearance on the Balcony will indicate he is considered part of the extended royal family by the other members and particular the Queen. MilborneOne (talk) 16:18, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Charities

@Surtsicna: The inclusion or otherwise of a sentence saying that his parents asked well-wishers to donate to charities instead of giving gifts has been added and removed several times. It was discussed at Talk:Archie_Mountbatten-Windsor/Archive_1#Charities around 8 May. Only two editors participated: I who had added the content and Surtsicna who removed it. I have today replaced the content and Surtsicna has again removed it. I am now asking for a Wikipedia:Third opinion on this issue. PamD 08:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Just to add: it seems to me that the presence of this sentence in the section on his birth is similar to a paragraph such as Wedding_of_Prince_Charles_and_Lady_Diana_Spencer#Gifts: descriptive of the celebration of a life event of public interest. PamD 08:37, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

That is not biographical information. It is not something Archie Mountbatten-Windsor has done. It concerns his parents. Furthermore, it is a standard request. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have done the same when their children were born. There is even a guidance at the official website. This standard request is not mentioned in the articles about the subject's cousins and should not be mentioned here either. Surtsicna (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but if I had to make a decision I'd probably include the fact about them asking gifts to be donated, but say that it is to "baby-related charities" or similar, rather than explicitly naming them all (which is arguably somewhat WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMOTIONal). Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Not convinced that it is particularly noteworthy, it is not that unusual and not the first time it has been done, I would be inclined not to include it. MilborneOne (talk) 12:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that this detail is noteworthy, and I would therefore not include it. In particular, I note that it is sourced only to a primary source. Are there any secondary sources that explain the significant of this announcement for the child? Cheers, Bovlb (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

• Exclude as per Surtsicna above. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Spencer-Churchill

Is there a reason why Category:Spencer-Churchill family is omitted, considering Master Mountbatten-Windsor is the grandson of Lady Diana Spencer? CookieMonster755✉ 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Because his name isn't Spencer-Churchill? Opera hat (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither of his parents were named Spencer-Churchill. If we were to include that category, there would be no reason to omit categories for the families of his other ancestors who are more distant than his parents, such as Category:House of Glücksburg (Greece), Category:Battenberg family, Category:House of Hesse-Darmstadt and so on. --Tataral (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

No need to throw shade, Opera hat. But that makes sense, Tataral. CookieMonster755✉ 16:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

All rather misses the point as the Earls Spencer descend from the wrong branch of the family. Its the 5th Duke who first used S-C. The Earl Spencer's line descends from the 3rd Earl of Sunderland before the Dukedom (Churchill) was even inherited Garlicplanting (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Country of birth

Hello, I’m sure the country of birth (in the infobox) has always been United Kingdom and, whenever it was changed to England, it was reverted to United Kingdom. Is this correct? What should his country of birth be? Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally London, United Kingdom as its the country. E/S etc are parts of the UK.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)