Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i like the name archie. i think it's a cute name. i think it is a tiny bit odd that they didn't give him the name archibald as a more formal given name and then call him archie. but he is their baby and they named him what they wanted to name him. good for them, i say!
i think the picture floating around the interweb ( ) of the queen in her blue sweater looking at the baby with her big smile is super cute too.
LA Times articles sit behind a true pay wall, so link isn't going to work for most.
That being said the Sussex child is only a few days old, there is no telling what HM may do in future, especially since Prince Harry seems to be a favorite.
Prince Harry OTOH is another matter. Not only his he not likely to succeed, but his heirs certainly have unfavorable odds. HM did raise her grandson up to a duke, but that seems far as things will go for now.
Like Prince Edward and some other members of RF, the Duke of Sussex seems intent on having his children grow up as "normal as possible", that that means moving in the world without any sort of royal rank, title or style. https://www.harpersbazaar.com/celebr...-royal-titles/
LA Times articles sit behind a true pay wall, so link isn't going to work for most.
You're supposed to get 5 free articles per month if you're not a subscriber (although that may apply to only L.A. residents). Which is too bad, because it's a good article.
Meghan and Harry sound as if they will continue to break with tradition. I admire them.
You're supposed to get 5 free articles per month if you're not a subscriber (although that may apply to only L.A. residents). Which is too bad, because it's a good article.
Meghan and Harry sound as if they will continue to break with tradition. I admire them.
Don't know about "breaking with tradition". Both Princess Anne and Prince Edward elected not to have their children given royal rank, titles and styles.
This isn't the 19th century, nor even early 20th; aside from the heir and his children the rest of RF need to and should find their own way in life. Even Prince Harry lamented at one point his being a prince hindered his finding any sort of full time job.
Advances in modern healthcare and so forth means not just longer life span, but reduced infant/child, teen and young person mortality rates. Thus it is fairly certain neither Prince Harry nor his children will ever inherit. Just as it was for Prince Andrew, Princess Anne and Prince Edward. More to the point Prince William has produced three children, and may yet breed more from his duchess.
Don't know about "breaking with tradition". Both Princess Anne and Prince Edward elected not to have their children given royal rank, titles and styles.
They've broken with tradition in other ways. As far as titles go, though, from the LAT article:
"The queen and her husband, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, had four children — three boys and one girl. In birth order, they are Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, and Prince Edward.
Under the George V rules, Princess Anne’s children were not able to use the “royal highness” title but it is believed that the queen offered to give them a courtesy title at birth, which was declined. They were therefore simply named Peter and Zara Phillips. (Zara was quoted in the Times of London saying that she felt “very lucky” that her parents decided not to give their children titles.)
The queen’s youngest son, Prince Edward, also decided to break with tradition and turn down the chance to give his children the title of prince and princess. Upon marrying his wife, Sophie, they adopted the title of Earl and Countess of Wessex, instead of the more prestigious Duke and Duchess. They also chose to give their children the more modest titles of Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn.
The queen's third-born, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, stuck to tradition. His two daughters are known as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York.
Had they wanted to give their son a title, Prince Harry and Meghan, his Los Angeles-born wife, could have opted for the Earl of Dumbarton. (Don’t ask why.) But they rejected that title. Instead, they gave their son the name Archie, which has no link with any other royal..."
They've broken with tradition in other ways. As far as titles go, though, from the LAT article:
"The queen and her husband, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, had four children — three boys and one girl. In birth order, they are Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew, and Prince Edward.
Under the George V rules, Princess Anne’s children were not able to use the “royal highness” title but it is believed that the queen offered to give them a courtesy title at birth, which was declined. They were therefore simply named Peter and Zara Phillips. (Zara was quoted in the Times of London saying that she felt “very lucky” that her parents decided not to give their children titles.)
The queen’s youngest son, Prince Edward, also decided to break with tradition and turn down the chance to give his children the title of prince and princess. Upon marrying his wife, Sophie, they adopted the title of Earl and Countess of Wessex, instead of the more prestigious Duke and Duchess. They also chose to give their children the more modest titles of Lady Louise Windsor and James, Viscount Severn.
The queen's third-born, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, stuck to tradition. His two daughters are known as Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York.
Had they wanted to give their son a title, Prince Harry and Meghan, his Los Angeles-born wife, could have opted for the Earl of Dumbarton. (Don’t ask why.) But they rejected that title. Instead, they gave their son the name Archie, which has no link with any other royal..."
Earl of Dumbarton is one of Prince Harry's secondary titles; given to him along with dukedom of Sussex IIRC. Eldest sons of a marquess, duke or earl normally take the highest secondary title of their father.
HM adores her grandson PH, and by all accounts is duchess as well. They do say PH is her favourite, and as such she likely had no problems with giving PH's son royal rank, style and title. As with his uncle and aunt PH made that call against.
I totally believe she used a surrogate. (No, I don't usually buy into conspiracy theories). The whole progression of the bump was so strange. It started out much too large very early in the pregnancy (especially for such a small person), then somehow became smaller. She was also photographed bending in ways that are not possible for pregnant women in later stages, and she told her ex-husband that she was unable to bear children. Add in the refusal to give birth in the Lindo Wing (which is a big show for royals and would seemingly appeal to her) and the refusal to consult with the royal doctors. I think she needed the child to "seal the deal" and quickly engaged the services of a surrogate. It's not a bad choice for women who can't produce children, but not one that a very public royal would acknowledge publicly, IMHO.
If you've ever been a pregnant woman, you'd recognize that post-partum puffiness in her arms, ankles and face that most of us experience. You can't fake that. She has clearly been carrying a child.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) of the queen in her blue sweater looking at the baby with her big smile is super cute too.
