Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

At least until he's able to talk, when there is always that chance (though statistically miniscule) that he'll object to his gender identity, can't the boy be known as their son? Just askin', not sayin'. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's the title that was used for a previous version of this article, written before the child was born. In a few days, when his name and title are announced, the article will be renamed anyway. Rosbif73 (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Now the article has been moved back to Son, for some reason. I don't remember this happening last year (Third Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge moved directly to Prince Louis of Cambridge), though it did for George and Charlotte. Personally I don't view it as necessary to move Child to Son/Daughter, as the new title would inevitably be changed again after just a few days once the baby's name is announced. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Not much reason for vagueness that I can see. Looks fine now. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Is it me, or does this article currently fail WP:HAMMER? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:HAMMER refers to any future subject for which a name is not yet known and no verifiable information from reliable sources yet exists (my emphasis).Rosbif73 (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As he is not covered by the patents for princely titles, should he be styled by his father's subsidiary peerage? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be logical, but maybe we should wait until that is confirmed by some reliable source before adding the courtesy title to the article. --Editor FIN (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Although as you say it may be best to wait, the correct form of address will be Earl of Dumbarton for the first born son. Other sons and daughters will be addressed as 'Lord' and 'Lady' prefixed to their given names. The only way this could change would be for the Sovereign to issue a Letters Patent granting Princely status to any issue of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.Ds1994 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes he should be titled Earl of Dumbarton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.128.62 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. Prince George did not take the title that Prince William uses in Scotland (i.e. Earl of Strathearn). OliWatson (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

That's because he has a higher title (of prince), so doesn't use a courtesy title. DrKay (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

DrKay is correct Princes don't use courtesy titles. I don't mind waiting but this isn't really a controversial edit to put the title in now. This is no different that the Earl of St Andrews or Earl of Ulster Garlicplanting (talk) 10:07, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That would be usual... but Harry uses that title in Scotland, so best wait for announcements. DBD 14:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Here is a source https://www.clydebankpost.co.uk/news/17621407.new-earl-of-dumbarton-is-born-as-meghan-markle-gives-birth/

They've made a reasonable assumption, but an assumption nonetheless. We should wait for the name and style announcement from the Palace. DBD 14:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

It may well be that the first son will be styled the Earl of Dumbarton, with the caveat that Prince Harry may be given another Earldom with a Scottish name place for his use in Scotland. There is a precedent for this, but for other reasons, with the Earl of Wessex, who was also recently created Earl of Forfar for use in that country.Ds1994 (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There seems to be a clash between two different conventions and the announcements haven't yet given an answer. One convention is that the additional titles granted to princes in recent year are for use by the princes themselves, at least in Scotland, whereas previous Royal Dukes have generally used the same title everywhere with very localised exceptions (e.g. Prince Andrew only seems to use "Earl of Inverness" in Inverness-shire and "Baron Killyleagh" in Killyleagh, but "Duke of York" in the rest of Scotland and Northern Ireland). Edward's recent new extra Earldom is probably for similar use as his parents' longevity means he hasn't yet been made Duke of Edinburgh.

Complicating all this is that a quick search of the Court Circular suggests that neither Harry nor Meghan have actually undertaken any engagements in Scotland since their wedding, which means that they haven't yet had the option to use "Dumbarton" or not in place of "Sussex" north of the border.

The other convention is that whereas princes don't use courtesy peerages, non-prince eldest sons use one of their father's title as a courtesy title, even if their father is a prince (e.g. the Earl of Ulster, son of Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester, or the Earl of St Andrews, son of Prince Edward, Duke of Kent).

So "Earl of Dumbarton" means Harry when in Scotland under one convention and his newborn son under the other and nothing official has actually told the world yet. The only other case doesn't reveal anything as I don't think anyone ever intended "Viscount Severn" to be used for anything other than the heir apparent to the Earl of Wessex (and as the Severn Valley was at times part of the kingdom of Wessex even a local distinction is of limited use) but I'm not so sure what use was intended for "Earl of Dumbarton", and the official announcement just describes the baby as "a son" or Doria Ragland's "first grandchild". Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that, your contribution does raise some interesting questions. I was not aware, for instance, that Prince Andrew only used his Earldom in the same Scottish county of that name. Logic would suggest the title would be used throughout Scotland? The logic being of course that other members of the Royal Family use their Scottish 'named' titles in Scotland (Duke and Duchess of Rothesay, Earl and Countess of Strathearn etc). If the son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is not given princely status then a solution must be found for the courtesy title in question, as clearly the Duke of Sussex and his eldest son cannot use the title of Earl of Dumbarton at the same time! As suggested before time will tell...Ds1994 (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the shift is recent and probably linked to Scottish devolution, plus there were signs in the late 1990s that republicanism was strongest in Scotland (there was a big TV and phone in poll in about 1997 where Scotland had the only republican majority), hence a desire to strengthen the Scottish brand of the Royal Family, which also may be why steps have been taken to ensure the title Duke of Edinburgh will be reused so quickly. Andrew received his titles in 1986 when there was less concern about this and so by the time the concern came up Brand Andrew (you can just hear the Palace traditionalists screaming at the concept) was too well established as "Duke of York" to start changing. I also suspect that in practice Diana was better known in Scotland as "Princess of Wales" than "Duchess of Rothesay" (whatever the Court Circular used), hence Camilla uses the latter style in Scotland without comment whereas she's deliberately avoided "Princess of Wales" and used "Duchess of Cornwall" elsewhere.

By contrast the indication is that that the Royal Family hasn't been trying to carve out a distinctive Northern Irish brand, with the main titles generally used in Northern Ireland outside the towns in question. The dynamics and concerns there are very different from Scotland. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Certainly the change really only dates from Prince William - his creation was the first time BP announced a prince would be known as E of S in Scotland a pattern followed with Harry. Some bright spark clearly decided to mirror the PoW and use a Scottish title. I doubt anyone in BP PR even thought it through. It would never matter for the DoC (as his children are HRH). Even retrospectively using it on older creations like Andrew doesn't mater as he has no son. Edward has just been given a new Scottish Earldom to fill in the gap for him. Harry is the first occasion the problem caused by lack of planning can't be avoided. I daresay if someone had asked Garter this would have all been avoided! Garlicplanting (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The correct form for a subsidiary title is Earl Dumbarton. The Earl of Dumbarton is, and remains, Prince Harry. Compare with his two cousins, Viscount Severn the son of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex; and Viscount Linley, son of the Earl of Snowdon. Jaxsonjo (talk) 04:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't. of is never removed in such titles. Its the that's traditionally removed in courtesy titles. You misunderstand the differences in the way these titles are created. Apart from a few very rare and ancient scottish viscountcies neither they nor baronies are created with an 'of'. Viscount Severn is Viscount Severn because that is the title. Just as Harry is Baron Kilkeel not Baron of Kilkeel. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

According to the Royal Warrant of 1917, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex do not qualify for membership into the British Royal Family. Queen Elizabeth II made an exception to the rule by Letters Patent on December 31, 2012 for ONLY The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's children. This child is not a Royal Family Member or a British Prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.71.102 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is 7th in line to the Throne, so you can be assured he is a member of the Royal Family. The absence of the designation "HRH" does not infer that the person concerned is not a member of the Royal Family. Please also note there is no such thing as a 'British prince'. The correct term is 'Prince of the United Kingdom'.Ds1994 (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the edits from others stand with references. Thank you. 24.97.71.102 (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

The British royal family has no official definition and the term, as used by the press, often refers to relatives of the monarch who do not retain royal status (such as Lord Downpatrick, Zara Tindall, Lady Sarah Chatto, and Earl of St Andrews). A male-line great-grandchild of the monarch, although in this case of noble status and not royal status, is still a member of the royal House of Windsor and a member of the Mountbatten-Windsor family. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The contributor who cannot even be bothered to sign in correctly and just reveals their IP address should be ignored.Ds1994 (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Earl Mountbatten of Burma was once gravely upset when his position in the Court circular one week had him on a separate line from the rest of the RF. It was a one off but he was very much considered part even though his relationship was far more distant than any we are discussing here. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: OK. Instead of edit warring we have to talk about the issue. It's true that whatever the sources say would be some sort of speculation, but I would like to point out that the birth place of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother is not clear either, and both of those possible locations have been included in the infobox of her article. Keivan.f^Talk 23:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I see, but the difference is that Elizabeth is known to have been born in one of those two places. The place of birth of this baby is completely unknown, Windsor and London being mere speculations. We don't have a reliable source saying that he was definitely born either in Windsor or in London. Surtsicna (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't have a reliable source stating that the subject was born in England or in the United Kingdom. He almost certainly was, but we do not have a reliable source. I also think it is silly to list a whole country as the place of birth. I am not sure if it's a common practice, but it's ridiculously uninformative. Surtsicna (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It's a fact that he was born in the UK. It's just not clear where in the UK he was born. And yes, when you don't have the specific birth place, you can list the country instead. Keivan.f^Talk 01:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

But who reports this fact? Surtsicna (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

I do not know how this can be interpreted to mean that this child, who is not the child of Elizabeth II or a prince or Royal Highness, belongs to the "House and Family of Windsor". We are not supposed to interpret primary sources, but given this clear wording and the reputable sources saying the subject's surname is Mountbatten-Windsor, I think we need a very strong source (perhaps even official) if we are to list his house as "Windsor". Otherwise we might be better off saying nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 23:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

OK. Then we should go with Mountbatten-Windsor. Keivan.f^Talk 23:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

When, in any other royal or noble house, has a child not been a part of the family of their father unless specifically stated otherwise? I believe it goes without saying that this child is a member of the House of Windsor. Is there a law limiting membership? I doubt it. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 01:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The proclamation of Elizabeth II, cited above, seems to limit it quite clearly. I don't think anything should go without saying. In case of doubt, it's better to say nothing. Surtsicna (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you are overeading into that. The intent in that document was to make clear non HRHs would have that surname. Not to say that they are not members of the H of Windsor. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, but who says that? Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As Willthacheerleader18 references you are a member of your fathers house. We need something much more concrete to suggest that they are excluding descendants. I suspect that clumsy wording was designed to head off any suggestions of the royal house changing names that caused a stir in the 50s. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"You are a member of your father's house" + "Harry is a member of the House of Windsor" = "the child is a member of the House of Windsor" is original research by synthesis. In other words, it is not an acceptable conclusion. In the absence of an official source that includes him into the House of Windsor, we should neither say that he is nor that he is not a member. Surtsicna (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

That you are a member of your father's house is the standard format in both royal and noble families (at least in salic forms) for a thousand years. Its not controversial. If anyone is pushing wiki boundaries on OR you are by deciding they are not a member of the house without anything officially saying so. If the 1960 Declaration wanted to say 'House and Family of Mountbatten Windsor' rather than just a slightly different surname it could easily have done so. Indeed the logical end point of the argument you are making is that no-one is part of the H of W except for the Q and her Children. ie not William or Harry. The neutral position is simple to not assume any change; they are part of the HoW until told otherwise. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I would be pushing Wiki boundaries on OR if I wanted the article to state that the child is not a member of the House of Windsor. I want the article to state nothing about the child's house because nothing has been officially said about it while contradictory information exists. Your argument about a thousand-year-old tradition applying to someone born two days ago is the epitome of WP:SYNTH. Surtsicna (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I can't do anymore, but Danthirlby keeps adding copyright violation image to the article. Govvy (talk) 12:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The title of the page should be Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton Dachgr01 (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no current need to change the title of the page as it has not been confirmed if Archie will be taking the title of Earl of Dumbarton or not. Secondly, there is no need to use the full name in the page title. If it is confirmed he will take the title, the page title should then be changed to "Archie, Earl of Dumbarton" or "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton". Mesmeilleurs (talk) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: What Mesmeilleurs said. aboideau^talk 15:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

In the "Title and succession" section, it says he is preceded in the line of succession by "his father (the Prince of Wales), his brother (the Duke of Cambridge), and his brother's three children." The subject of the sentence is Archie so it seems odd to refer to Prince William as "his brother". It would be clearer to say, "his father (the Prince of Wales), his uncle (the Duke of Cambridge), and his uncle's three children."170.20.11.20 (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The subject of the sentence is the Duke of Sussex. DrKay (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Remove 'Earl' references - Any reference to Earl is almost certainly irrelevant now the name has been revealed - by giving it an official surname it will not likely be titled at all. 78.150.116.14 (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done: This is speculation. There cannot be any definitive edits until this is announced properly by official sources. James, Viscount Severn has the same official surname, Mountbatten-Windsor, but still possesses his father's subsidiary title, so I don't agree with your reasoning. Mesmeilleurs (talk) 16:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done actually. There are no further references to the Earl title other than a cited source saying he could have been one but the parents decided not to. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anything has been decided though? The use of the title Earl of Dumbarton by the eldest son is just by 'courtesy'. They may or may not decide to use it at any given time. You cannot assume at this stage that the courtesy title will not be used.Ds1994 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that it's accurate to say that the child is the first biracial child in the monarchy. Both of Lady Davina Lewis's children are part Maori. smash (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Look at Mariah Carey. Her mother is pure Irish and her father was biracial. Meghan is biracial (white/black), while Harry is pure British. Quadroon is not a term I'm fond of, but maybe we could look here for some guidance? The baby is 1/4 black, 3/4 white like Julian Thicke (Robin and Paula's son).

The term 'biracial' isn't correct anyway. Meghan Duchess of Sussex may clearly be described as biracial, but this epithet cannot be applied to any children, simply because the arithmetic is against it. The correct term would presumably be multiracial.Ds1994 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

We need to start deciding what redirects to keep and which ones to zap now before they get too entrenched. Remember a redirect doesn't have to be accurate and indeed inaccurate names/titles that people could be reasonably searching for are desirable.

• Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor
  • His full name, an obvious one to keep.

• Archibald Mountbatten-Windsor
• Archibald Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor
  • The announcement is clear it's "Archie" not "Archibald", but these will catch anything that assumes a longer formal name. Both are tagged with Template:R from incorrect name

• Prince Archie of Sussex
• Prince Archibald of Sussex
  • He's not currently a prince and will only become so if/when his grandfather ascends the throne or if another monarch issues letters patent making him so. But it's likely people will assume he already is and search for him as such, including under a more formal name.

• Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Earl of Dumbarton
• Archie Harrison, Earl of Dumbarton
  • As noted above, conventions clash as to whether the Earl of Dumbarton will refer to him or to his father, but again reasonable assumptions drive searches.

• Son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
• Baby Sussex
• Child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
  • These could all refer to any child of the Sussexes and are likely to come up again with any future pregnancy. It's probably best to delete these if there are no objections.

• First Child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex
  • Okay this one is unique to the subject but is it likely to be searched for?

Thoughts? Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the last four definitely need to be deleted. We had similar redirects created for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's children, but they were all deleted after their names were announced. And, since he's not a prince by law, Prince Archie/Archibald of Sussex needs to be deleted as well, in my opinion. Keivan.f^Talk 17:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Law is irrelevant to what terms a person might look for or link to. Already Archie was added to List of living British princes and princesses [1] and it was the existence of the redirect that meant it was spotted and soon corrected. Timrollpickering (Talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Keivan.f that the last four should go. All the rest seem plausible. Surtsicna (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph which has been deleted with edit summary "This reads like an ad. Wikipedia is not supposed to advertise any charities. It is also not biographical information. All things considered, this is not a helpful addition.": here to discuss.

Is this an appropriate addition? It is similar to the information at Wedding_of_Prince_Harry_and_Meghan_Markle#Charitable_donations.

The parents requested that anyone wishing to send gifts for their baby should support one of four charities: Baby2Baby, Little Village, Lunchbox Fund and WellChild.^[1]

I have created an article for Little Village (charity), and WellChild already exists. PamD 12:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To me, it reads like an advertisement of the charities. I don't think that's appropriate. I am also concerned about the biographical relevance here. Someone else asked that others donate to charity. I realize that the child himself is yet to do anything notable, but I don't think we should clutter the article with information about other people's actions in the mean time. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

To me, it's a description of how his parents asked people to celebrate his birth, and relevant here. PamD 16:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Baby2Baby now created, and a redirect from Lunchbox Fund to the existing article. PamD 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to ask people to celebrate a birth. The wording is not encyclopedic, and if this is notable at all, it belongs in the article about the parents. Surtsicna (talk) 20:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: American citizenship The child will not automatically receive the American citizenship as stated. The parents have the possibility to apply for one at the consulate. There is not automatism. See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6998727/Prince-Harrys-Meghan-Markles-Baby-Sussex-dual-U-S-British-citizenship.html 2A02:8388:180B:A980:89F6:52C3:436B:A9F8 (talk) 06:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  (with a better reference, given that the Daily Mail is a deprecated source). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The baby is a US Citizen Period. The statement about dual citizenship is incorrect. The baby is a US citizen by function of US law. US Citizenship passes automatically from parent to a child born abroad if the parent meets certain requirements. In this case it’s the parent has lived at least 5 years of their life with 2 years after the age of 14. There’s a lot of misconception about this with lots of media articles saying the child is eligible but not automatically a citizen. This is completely incorrect. The child is automatically a US citizen regardless of whether the birth is registered with the embassy. See link from https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-12-part-h-chapter-3 8/5/2019 9:12 AEST

I'm not sure why you are saying that 'dual citizenship' is incorrect? Since Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor was born in the United Kingdom with a father who has British citizenship, the baby is automatically and by legal right a British Citizen. So if you are correct with regard to his American citizenship, then the said Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor has dual nationality of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America (in alphabetic order).Ds1994 (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The article prior to the time that comment was written stated that the baby was a British citizen and had the option of being an American citizen too, if his parents went through the process at the American embassy. That is where the incorrectness is/was. Almost all the planet's media were claiming that American citizenship was optional. If the duchess had renounced her American citizenship and opted for formal statelessness at this time surely we'd all have heard about it, so that probably didn't happen before the baby was born. Thus, the baby was born the son of an American woman capable of passing on American citizenship, which happens automatically. The media grossly confused being an American citizen with having the documentation to prove one is an American citizen. Getting the documentation is optional but the citizenship is automatic. All the media understood that when it was about Ted Cruz being a natural born citizen of America born in Canada to an American mother. Though the circumstance is remarkably similar and matches on all the key points of American law, the media took the opposite stance with Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, resulting in a plentiful supply of reliable sources asserting he isn't automatically a natural born American citizen. In the past day or so some better research has been done and the wiki article no longer cites slothful erroneous sources that generally are reliable. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clear! So in effect Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor has dual citizenship, being that he is automatically entitled to British citizenship and American citizenship. One other point of interest that has been mentioned several times in the BBC and ITV networks in the UK, is that Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, since possessing American citizenship, would be eligible to stand for election as President of the United States? If this is correct, there is the technical possibility of a future President of the United States who may also hold a peerage title of the United Kingdom as the 2nd Duke of Sussex of the second creation? Ds1994 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi that is correct my comment about dual citizenship was before the correction. This is not a well understood law. Should there be a sentence in the article briefly explaining why the citizen is a dual national? Also yes as a result of having US citizenship from birth he is entitled to run for US president but I don’t think it’s important to state in the article. Another more important matter is US citizenship makes him liable for US taxes.

Master is the term used for the heir of a Scottish peerage. So is it thought as "Master of Dumbarton", heir to the Earl of Dumbarton that Harry is? --Mimich (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think it just means "Master" as in the younger form of "Mister". I think it just means young man. Mesmeilleurs (talk) 17:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, the subsidiary title for the Earldom of Dumbarton in its first creation was Lord Ettrick, which is not currently being used. Mesmeilleurs (talk) 17:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It seems strange that he is "Master" and not, at the very least, "Lord". Are there any other sons of British dukes who are not styled as Lord ___ ? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I really think it should be Lord.24.97.71.102 (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, does the title Master belong infront of or behind the name? The article has it placed in the front, and sources have certainly referred to the baby as Master Archie (such as the BBC's report), but looking at the article for Master, it seems Master comes after the name followed by the peerage to which one is the heir. So is he possibly Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Master of Dumbarton or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, Master of Sussex? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

None of the duke's peerages are Scottish peerages. They are all in the peerage of the United Kingdom. So, there is no applicable "Master of ..". DrKay (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Earl of Dumbarton is a Scottish title. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I know where Dumbarton is. Read what I said. DrKay (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that the recreation of the title was in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, as no new titles are made in the Peerage of Scotland. However, that does not remove the fact that it is a Scottish title. As Master is a Scottish title for an heir, and that is what the BBC is reporting the Royal Family has announced Mountbatten-Windsor will be styled with, I am simply speculating how it will be used. Master ____ is not a formal title, but is a proper form of address for someone holding the title of Master of ___. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Any boy can be called Master (form of address). It's nothing to do with a Scottish peerage. We don't use Mr, Ms, Mrs, Miss or Master on wikipedia. DrKay (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Totally ridiculous affected pronouncement from the Duke of Sussex, one can only wonder what absurd influence he is under. As the son of a duke, the child is Lord Archie, and unless his parents wish to surrender their titles (most unlikely) the choice of surrendering poor Archie’s title is not theirs to make. The use of the Dunbarton secondary title is within his father’s gift. However, as that secondary title was given by the Sovereign for the use of Harry’s heir, the withholding of it seems to be little more than an affectation. Giano (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, he is not a lord or anything of the kind:

Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor is not an earl or a lord, but will be known simply as Archie, with Master as a prefix when required.
— [2]

instead he will simply be Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor.
— BBC

--Tataral (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You may be confusing this Wikipedia talk page with a message board. Discussing parental choices and questioning the parents' right to decide how their child will be called does not help improve this article. Let's please bear in mind what talk pages are for. Surtsicna (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DrKay's comment above that the term "Master" is being used for Archie as an honorific for a boy, with the meaning explained in Master (form of address), not as Master (Peerage of Scotland). -- Blairall (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

actually rather like Prince Edward, Duke of Kent ... 37.170.241.140 (talk)

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)

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. Once you deviate from the facts and wish to present the world from your own POV, then any 'encylopedia' becomes worthless. 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)

What doesn't make sense? It makes no difference who you are or how many states you've been to. What you claim are "facts" are definitely not facts. If you can't see that, then my comment isn't for you. Also, mind your own IP address. 188.239.0.177 (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This reference comes across as Meghan being working class - which is of course not correct. The ref. needs to be rephrased so that it is clear that her maternal and paternal ANCESTROS were working class - but this actually does not need to be in unless in an Ancestry section. 175.32.32.43 (talk) 00:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Multiple attempts have been made to add a family tree under an ancestry section. All have been reverted. Other royals have family trees for example Elizabeth II under an ancestry section, so wouldn’t it be sensible to have one on this article? Regards Willbb234 (talk) 08:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an ancestry section and a link to the family tree in the "See also" section. DrKay (talk) 08:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

But please look at Elizabeth II. It should be like on that article. Willbb234 (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it is not really needed on Elizabeth II either as it adds zero to the article, if the reader is that bothered a link to Family tree of the British royal family is or should be provided. MilborneOne (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Why don’t you go and take it down then? Willbb234 (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

This talk page is not for discussing the article Elizabeth II. Please stay on topic. Surtsicna (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The ahnentafel is unverifiable and involves a great deal of original research by synthesis. The information it provides is trivial. I cannot imagine why we'd need to bring up Lady Cynthia Hamilton here. Surtsicna (talk) 09:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's quite clear under the current Letters Patent that Archie M-W will be entitled to use the style and title HRH Prince should Charles become King. Whether he will actually exercise that right is another matter but given that he is less than a week old I don't think he's had a chance to seriously consider the question (nevermind the fact that he has yet to acquire the power of speech or higher thought) and press speculation that he will never use the title is just that, speculation. There may be a basis to assume that his parents will ask the court not to employ the title but we have no way of knowing what Archie will want when he is of age. As an adult, he may well insist on being called His Royal Highness. We simply do not know. Nor do we know whether, as King, Charles will issue letters patent further restricting the use of the HRH style. That he will or won't do so is pure speculation. CosmosCagoul (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. (WP:CRYSTAL about possible future title) Thanks, Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 00:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

His parents have declined even a "lord" prefix or subsidiary title, so... again, whether he's "entitled" to a higher status is irrelevant at this point. Things can always change, for anyone. And maybe when/if Grandpa becomes King, who knows, maybe Grandpa King says,'Hey, Archie, you're a prince now," at that time, update his status here. But right now, the kid is Master Archie, and that's all. --Geekyroyalaficionado (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

is only irrelevant as per your own POV ...? 77.136.40.182 (talk)

I'm not one of the "truthers", but I read in an article that when introducing Archie to the press, Prince Henry said: "Everyone says the baby has changed so much over two weeks". Further, Archie's birth is being registered but the document is not being made public. Should these uncertainties be added to the article? Yoninah (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

He said 'It's only been two and a half days, three days, but we're just so thrilled to have our own little bundle of joy ... Everyone says that babies change so much over two weeks. We're basically monitoring how the changing process happens over this next month really. But his looks are changing every single day, so who knows.'[3] Birth certicates are public documents, so it will be available after the registration. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Is he (not) a prince by virtue of King George’s descent in male line?

No. His great-grandfather, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, renounced his Greek and Danish titles just before his marriage to Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom, which also meant forfeiting the rights to those titles of his descendants. Otherwise, Elizabeth would have become Princess Elizabeth of Greece and Denmark upon marriage and Prince Charles, Princess Anne, Prince Andrew and Prince Edward would have been born Princes/Princesses of Greece and Denmark and not of the United Kingdom, as they would have taken their father's titles and they were not male-line grandchildren of the then-British monarch, George VI. And even if they still had the right to the titles, I don't think Harry and Meghan would have given him the title anyway. Thanks, Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 03:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Where is the proof that he did renounce and, otherwise, couldn’t have those above been both?

(edit conflict)There seems to be a running thread that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex somehow have power to give their children titles and styles. They don't. The titles and styles come from pre-existing rules set down and parents don't have any power of granting or veto. What they can do, as the Wessexes already have, is chose not to use titles and styles for their children but they still exist and when the children come of age (and, in Archie's case, if he now qualifies) they could in theory chose to start using them.

Oh and the Queen's children & male line grandchildren would still be Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom even if Philip hadn't renounced his Greek & Danish titles. The male line descendants of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as well as of the United Kingdom until 1917 when George V relinquished the German titles held by British members of the family and legislation deprived the German members of the family of their British peerages & titles.

(I vaguely recall reading an argument that Philip's renunciation had no standing in Greek or Danish law. However if true nobody ever has ever made any fuss about this.) Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I Don't want to take this too OT but just to add there is/has never been any evidence that the renunciations were possible (in their kingsdoms law) or even that it actually occured at all. Its frequently referenced in sources but never with any evidence. So far as the public record indicates he was only ever asked by the King to renounce succession rights to the G/D thrones Garlicplanting (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The Queen’s children wouldn’t have automatically been Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom at birth before she ascended the throne as they were not male-line grandchildren of the sovereign, George VI. If he had not signed the Letters Patent giving them those titles and styles, the Prince of Wales and the Princess Royal would have been born The Right Honourable Earl of Merioneth (his father's subsidiary title) and Lady Anne Mountbatten (The surname Mountbatten-Windsor wasn't amalgamated until 1960). The Queen's children are not male-line descendants of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha either as they are descended from them through their father's maternal great-grandmother (Princess Alice of the United Kingdom) and their mother, so that doesn't apply to them either. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 17:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Since the Letters Patent were issued before Charles's birth it's somewhat tiresome to have to add another set of what ifs into the equation. The British LPs say nothing about foreign titles cancelling them out. The 1948 Letters Patent were effectively just fast tracking the styles and titles for those who would in due course automatically qualify for them under the 1917 LPs (as indeed were the 2012 LPs). I presume that there has been discussion within the Palace about the possibility of another set to cover all male line grandchildren of the Prince of Wales but all the talk of the Sussexes' desires suggest that no need is perceived. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

So Archie is legally prince of Greece and Denmark (though the title is dormant)?

No, because his great-grandfather abandoned those titles and became Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten before his marriage in 1947. And even if the title wasn't "officially relinquished" by Prince Philip, those titles are not used by the British royals at all. I don't see why they would anyway; they have their own legitimate princely titles in Britain; why would they use old and defunct titles of an exiled royal family? It says in Prince Philip's article: "By March 1947, Philip had abandoned his Greek and Danish royal titles, had adopted the surname Mountbatten from his mother's family, and had become a naturalised British subject." Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 18:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear YourBestOnes, the said article doesn’t source the relinquishment in question...37.164.189.55 (talk)

If you want sources, here you go. ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Also, my name is Mesmeilleurs, 37.164.189.55. Please use proper forms of address here. It would also be nice if you would register an account instead of hiding behind an I.P. address. Thanks, Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 19:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

These are really poor sources. None is a specialist source for this area. And indeed of the two I can check they don't cite their own source for the claim either. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

So true, indeed! ... 37.164.37.161 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

And in reference to my earlier message, when I said Harry and Meghan wouldn't have given him that title, I didn't mean I thought they had the power to bestow titles, I meant that they would have asked the Queen to refrain from bestowing such titles upon their children. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 18:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

And yes, the Queen's children and male-line grandchildren would still have been both Princes/Princesses of the United Kingdom and of Greece and Denmark after her accession if Prince Philip hadn't abandoned his titles— one does not cancel out the other. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 18:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Whether Philip's renunciation of the Greek and Danish titles had any standing in Greek or Danish law is disputed. Archie may well have a claim to those titles, but it is obviously pointless to discuss it here unless reliable, mainstream publications discuss it. I hate to be a party pooper, but talk pages are for discussing potential changes to the article. Surtsicna (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Surtsicna, thanks. It has been an absurd discussion I didn't think we'd need to have, or that it would have gone on this long! Especially for something so minute and irrelevant. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 19:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Well said. I am more interested in how you feel about this issue. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

not well said - the section is not irrelevant especially in the context of the previous section; that it is pointless to discuss it here unless reliable, mainstream publications discuss it is one thing (you seem right) however calling it absurd, minute and irrelevant is close to censorship and immaturity - not to mention it wasn't that long - based on a personal POV. I note that Mesmeilleurs is only 19, not a scholar versed in Danish titles. Circourt (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I note that bringing up an editor's age is against WP:No personal attack policy. Please refrain from such immature comments. Surtsicna (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

True! 37.170.233.23 (talk) 21:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Circourt. Firstly, I am not trying to censor anyone. I was only stating my opinion that I thought this discussion was unnecessary given no mainstream media is commenting on it and the fact it's common knowledge that the British royals don't use their Greek or Danish titles, whether they are still entitled to them after The Duke of Edinburgh's dropping of them or not, and that Archie has not been given any titles anyway; so why would they deny him all of his British titles but let him have his Greek/Danish titles? Even if we had reached the conclusion that Archie was in fact entitled to be styled as a Prince of Greece and Denmark, how would we add that to the article? "Archie's parents don't want him to have titles and to live as a private citizen but he might legally be a Prince of Greece and Denmark because his great-grandfather was one by virtue of birth, but he doesn't really use those titles anymore cause he's got better ones now, but they all can still use those titles if they want, okay?!"? That's why I think it's absurd. Secondly, I don't think my age has anything to do with my edits on Wikipedia. The notion that just because someone is younger than you means that they are less-entitled to contribute to a discussion is silly. Also, don't make personal attacks on anyone. I've been civil to everyone else, and I expect the same on return. I am a student at a university, so clearly I'm not that dumb. I have studied the European monarchies as a hobby for years now, so, whilst I may not be a "scholar versed in Danish titles", I do at least have an understanding better than the average person. I also don't think many 'scholars versed in Danish titles' have much time for Wikipedia talk pages. We're talking about a days old child who just happens to be the great-grandson of the monarch of 16 countries. This is not that deep. Thanks, Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 23:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps unnecessary but certainly not absurd and if indeed it was the situation (I don’t know, I am not an expert in Danish titles either), you’ve then somehow summed up the matter perfectly (P. S. - « why would they deny him all of his British titles but let him have his Greek/Danish titles? » : you’re right - yet, they just deny him a style and a courtesy title in the British peerage)

It also wouldn't be known that I am 19 years old if I hadn't listed it on my user page, so top marks for detective work! :) Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 23:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)