Jump to content

Talk:Prince Archie of Sussex

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Garlicplanting (talk | contribs) at 09:45, 22 June 2019 (→Spencer-Churchill). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Title

Both as a son of a duke and a male line great grandson other than son of the eldest son of the prince of wales of a british sovereign(by letters patent 1917 and 2012) he should be styled as a Lord. As eldest son of a duke he can use subsidiary of his father. Chamika1990 (talk) 13:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but we are not here to discuss his parents' choices. Unless you meant to suggest that we somehow improve the article, this should be hatted. Surtsicna (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This ground has been treaded over and over again for no reason. If he was meant to be, he would be. But he isn't. James, Viscount Severn "should be" titled His Royal Highness Prince James of Wessex, but that didn't happen either, did it? The reason why Archie is not styled as a Lord is clearly explained in the article. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 16:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(Not disagreeing, at all, just hoping to clarify as to style) His Royal Highness Viscount Severn. (I could be wrong.)Yseult-Ivain (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Its HRH Prince James (not used) or Viscount Severn. You can't mix courtesy titles with substantive R ones.Garlicplanting (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Earl Wessex’ children, it is as per a 1999 decision of the Sovereign [1] released in a statement to the press / media accordingly. A bit different. Circourt (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was different because James was (and still is) entitled to HRH and Prince styles, not just title and style of the eldest son of a duke. Also, Edward and Sophie have also not actively tried to have their children live as private citizens like Harry and Meghan are doing now. Lady Louise and James still take part in royal functions and are considered officially part of the Royal family; Archie is not. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said before there is no definition of member of the RF so stop POV'ing. You cannot say Archie is not a member Garlicplanting (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
According to others we can't say he is either. So what do we do? He either is or isn't. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like I've said it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would not anyone who has their own page on the official website of the British Royal Family, be considered a member of the British Royal Family? Official website of the British Royal Family Yseult-Ivain (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what "should have" happened, there is no need for this speculation or talk of "entitlement". Adding "Lord" to the article is incorrect because although he is the son of a duke, he is the eldest son of a duke, which means he would have taken one of Harry's subsidiary titles if they were going to let him have use of any titles. He wouldn't have been titled Lord at all, unless he was a younger son. But they haven't announced their intention to give him titles, ergo there is no reason for this speculation. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not even sure that the children of the Wessexes could - in the absence of any new decision[1], made by the Sovereign, still be entitled to the HRH style? (or would the wording of the press relsease have been « shall not » instead of « should not »?) But it’s not the page to discuss that (by the way, is Lord X in the case of a second - or third, or fourth - son of a (non royal) duke a courtesy title/form of address? Just wondering - as a side note for my knowledge) — Apologies to all for any inconvenience created here... 37.168.149.75 (talk)
It's no inconvenience. Yes, typically, the heir-apparent to a non-royal dukedom (the eldest son) will hold his father's highest-ranking subsidiary title as a courtesy title. In this case it would have been Earl of Dumbarton as it is Prince Harry's highest-ranking subsidiary title, after Duke of Sussex and ahead of Baron Kilkeel. An example of this could be in the case of the Duke of Montrose. His eldest son, James, holds his father's subisidiary title Marquess of Montrose as a courtesy title. His second son, Ronald, is styled as Lord Ronald Graham. All younger sons of a Duke have the courtesy prefix of "Lord" attached to their names. If Harry and Meghan have any more boys, they would have been known as Lord Name Mountbatten-Windsor (if they were titled). However, as Harry and Meghan have decided they want their children to be untitled, this does not apply to any children they have, now or in the future. Unless of course they change their minds and ask for the monarch's intervention. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 00:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! 37.165.47.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Marquess of Graham not Montrose. You can't use a subsidiary title that is the same as the highest title Garlicplanting (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did mean Marquess of Graham, I just got my names mixed up. I corrected myself in further discussion on the topic with Circourt. Apologies if my mistake caused any confusion. :) MesmeilleursSay Hey! 20:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's indeed correct. Circourt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bravo to the decision to take out that useless nonsense about what Archie might be entitled to at a future date when/if his grandfather is king. That was the dumbest thing I've ever seen on wikipedia, and that's saying something. People living in fantasy land. I'm glad the current editors/maintainers of this page seem to be grounded in reality and the present tense. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 00:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ « The Queen has also decided (...) that any children they might have should not be given the style His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl » (statement released at 12 noon on 19th June, 1999) – that statement looks similar (to me) to Letters Patent depriving the said children-to-be from the style they would have otherwise been entitled to under the Letters Patent of 1917

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? MesmeilleursSay Hey! 21:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I've removed the contested section for now so we can discuss. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:10, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
That's what I thought too, zzuuzz. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the royal family indicates Archie is not a member then he is not. WWGB (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 04:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
My point is that the royal family are inherently public figures. Surtsicna (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Because his name isn't Spencer-Churchill? Opera hat (talk) 22:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
No need to throw shade, Opera hat. But that makes sense, Tataral. CookieMonster755✉ 16:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prince_Archie_of_Sussex&oldid=902928152"