Talk:Prince Archie of Sussex/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WP:CRYSTAL about possible future title

The article includes the following sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly ! 37.164.189.55 (talk) 20:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1 37.164.189.55 (talk)

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

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

One can’t say better... alas! 37.164.189.55 (talk)

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

indeed... 37.164.189.55 (talk)

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

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

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Wikipedia is not based on Wikipedia editors' original interpretation of letters patent that predate the article subject's birth with more than a century and that don't mention him. Yes, I not only can, but am obliged to, ignore such original research. Wikipedia is not bound by any country's laws, we have own own rules regarding sources. And anyone who has any legal qualification will know that no law simply "stays in force" forever and unaffected by society and historical developments, or that interpretation (something Wikipedia editors can't do) is an important part of the process. There is no reason for Wikipedia to ignore the RS requirement and declare him, e.g., the "earl of Dumbarton" or a prince without waiting for reliable sources that expressly state that he holds these titles. There is much uncertainty regarding his possible future titles, in light of the fact that rules regarding names, titles and styles of the royal family have changed practically every generation, and that his father has made some fairly clear statements that he wants him to have a normal childhood without a title. --Tataral (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

At the time I am writing, the legal instrument of 1917 still is effective and Archie is one of the grandchildren of the sons of (a UK) Sovereign in the direct male line which therefore legally makes him - as of currently - entitled to be titled/styled as the son of a Duke and to become a prince with the style of royal highness at the second his grandfather ascends the throne. The BBC article based on the 1917 LP is a reliable source that expressly states what he holds / will hold (provided no legal instrument changes the current situation till then) as titles. Egzabhier

The Guardian mentions the future title:

When his grandfather, Charles, becomes king, he will automatically become Prince Archie, as the title is automatically conferred on a child of a son of a sovereign. But he or his parents may choose not to use it.

We could (and should) word it differently, but it is not WP:CRYSTAL because it is easily verifiable. We have a perfectly reliable secondary source. The only thing we could possibly debate is whether the information is encyclopedically relevant. I am inclined to say it is. Surtsicna (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree 37.164.189.55 (talk) 21:07, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I also agree 175.32.32.43 (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Surtsicna. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 01:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not verifiable that "his grandfather, Charles, becomes king" and it's not a matter of "when" but of "if." Neither we, nor anyone else, have the power to predict the future and what might happen in perhaps a decade. Charles is a man in his 70s who might never become king at all. At most it's verifiable that if that hypothetical situation arises in the future (which is by no means certain), a more than 100-year old document would in theory entitle him to such a title, with the following key reservations:

• the rules set out in that document have not been applied consistently and have been ignored in the most recent comparable cases, as seen in the case of Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and her brother James Mountbatten-Windsor (grandchildren of a monarch who do not hold a princely title)
• rules regarding titles, styles and names of the royal family have changed every generation during the past century
• the strongest direct indication we have regarding possible future titles of the article subject is a statement by his father that he doesn't want him to grow up with a title, and that he himself would have preferred not to be a prince when he grew up

That's a lot of hypotheticals and reservations, and even if based on sources that attempt to predict the future, it's CRYSTAL in nature. In practice we would have to wait for a decision by the royal family. In the two most recent comparable cases, the royal family simply chose to ignore the century-old document supposedly giving grandchildren a princely title and decided on other, lesser titles such as Lady, without bothering with any letters-patent, contrary to claims on this talk page that this would be impossible:

Louise is styled as "Lady Louise Windsor",[1] although letters patent issued in 1917, and still in force, assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all children of a monarch's sons.[18] Consequently Louise would have been entitled to be styled as Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. However, when her parents married, the Queen, via a Buckingham Palace press release, announced that their children would be styled as the children of an earl, rather than as prince or princess.[19] Thus, court communications refer to her as Lady Louise Windsor

When the current's monarch's two youngest grandchildren, who were born grandchildren of the reigning monarch and male-line members of the royal family, don't hold such a title, it's quite a stretch to assume that a person who is born only a great-grandchild of a monarch, and who is also a junior member of the family with no prospect of coming anywhere near the throne, and with parents determined to raise him in a more private setting without a title, will "automatically" be given a princely title under century-old rules that haven't actually been applied in the most recent comparable cases. --Tataral (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

"Upon his grandfather's accession, he would become a prince, but the title might not be used." This is perfectly accurate, concise, and in line with what a reliable secondary source says. Surtsicna (talk) 08:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

indeed! 37.170.241.140 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Town & Country article

The new addition of "However, should his grandfather become king, Mountbatten-Windsor would be entitled to the HRH style as the grandchild of a monarch" sourced to [1] misrepresents the cited source in numerous ways. The cited source even mentions prominently that that he probably won't become an HRH after all and most of the article is a detailed argument for that, and adds that this supposed "entitlement" to HRH is of a "technical" nature. This whole discussion is very reminiscent of the discussion of whether Mr Mountbatten-Windsor "technically" has a right to Danish and Greek princely titles that he doesn't use below. --Tataral (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Koenig points out that the answer to this may lie not in the recent announcement of Archie’s name, when his parents made it clear they wanted no title for their son, but rather in the way that Queen changed the status quo seven years ago. (...) The Queen could have at that point, changed the rules to accommodate all the children of the sons of the Prince of Wales. “If Harry's kids were to be royal, the 2012 Letters Patent offered the perfect opportunity to make that known. It didn’t happen,” says Koenig.

(...)

there is no precedent, Koenig says, for a member of the royal family to go from no title or even Earl to “HRH.” (Remember, Charles did not go from Earl of Merioneth to HRH Prince Charles when his mother became Queen; he was already an HRH.) “Why apply the 1917 Letters Patent [allowing Archie to be styled as Prince or HRH] when Charles is King, but not now?” asks Koenig.

(...) Koenig expects that there will be a new Letters Patent issued when Charles becomes King. It’s possible that these LPs could further limit who gets the title HRH (...) But for now, Meghan and Harry seem to be sending a strong signal about the kind of life they'd like Archie to have by not allowing their son to use a courtesy title.

“By eschewing the courtesy title of Earl of Dumbarton, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are saying that their children will not be on the royal career path,” Koenig points out.

It's not speculation that he will be entitled to use HRH should Charles become King, it's a well-established fact according to Letters Patent. It's also not much of a stretch to say Charles may become King, given that he is heir to the throne and his mother is 92. To say that is Crystal is a bit silly. CosmosCagoul (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course it is not silly. God forbid, the Prince of Wales could die tomorrow, so it's perfectly plausible he may not ascend the throne. His mother could live to 120, who knows? None of it is set in stone, as we saw with Meghan and Harry asking for him not to have titles, despite the fact he was entitled to them. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 00:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

See Tataral's previous message: "The new addition of "However, should his grandfather become king, Mountbatten-Windsor would be entitled to the HRH style as the grandchild of a monarch" sourced to [2] misrepresents the cited source in numerous ways. The cited source even mentions prominently that that he probably won't become an HRH after all and most of the article is a detailed argument for that, and adds that this supposed "entitlement" to HRH is of a "technical" nature. This whole discussion is very reminiscent of the discussion of whether Mr Mountbatten-Windsor "technically" has a right to Danish and Greek princely titles that he doesn't use below." Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 00:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

That's why one would say "should his grandfather become king" instead of "when his grandfather becomes king". While nothing is 100% certain, it is highly probable that Charles will be king. CosmosCagoul (talk) 00:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." It is not almost certain that Prince Charles will become King, or that Archie will be given the style of Royal Highness and dignity of Prince. Like I said before, these are both things subject to change and are not set in stone. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 00:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what this is supposed to be a reply to. The wording misrepresented the source. That's a fact. The article in Town & Country[3] that you added to the article does not support the claim that should his grandfather become king, Mountbatten-Windsor would be entitled to the HRH style as the grandchild of a monarch. The whole article is detailed argument for why this is rather unlikely. When you omit the key point of the article it's not an accurate representation of the source. The source mentions the "technical" entitlement under the 1917 letters patent (which is not necessarily the same as an entitlement that is in fact recognised today) and then explains at length why he probably won't receive any such title or style after all for a number of reasons. Also, the fact that the letters patent was simply ignored in the two most recent comparable cases (James and Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, born grandchildren of a reigning monarch) casts further doubt on your assertion that he will necessarily receive this title and style, and highlights why the title situation will depend entirely on a future decision that may or may not take the letters patent into account.

Also, that Charles will become king is textbook crystal because Charles is a man in his 70s and his mother could live for several more years. --Tataral (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

It's not exactly that the LPs of 1917 were ignored in the two most recent comparable cases (James and Louise Mountbatten-Windsor, born grandchildren of a reigning monarch), but more precisely that a decision was made by the Sovereign and announced (by press release) well before their births ("The Queen has also decided, with the agreement of The Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, 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" - released at 12 noon BST Saturday 19th June, 1999), therefore denying them in advance/anticipation the RH style and indirectly - yet not clearly - the prince/ss prefix (that there would be children to be born was not deemed textbook crystal there?)

The Queen could decide similarly in Archie's case for the time she is succeeded by Charles. Charles as a king also could do the same - yet knowing that until that Archie then will be entitled to HRH Prince AH of Sussex (like he currently is entitled to Lord AH M-W).

Interestingly, there were LPs by King George VI for the HRH of Philip Mountbatten in 1947 but none by King Edward VII in 1905 for the HH of Ladies (Princesses) Maud and Alexandra Duff and 1906 for the HRH of HH Princess Victoria Eugénie of Battenberg (the King's declarations and order/directive were just gazetted in the London Gazette). Circourt (talk)

I think that RH is a style, not a title (?). Moreso, there is no precedent, Koenig says, for a member of the royal family to go from no title or even Earl to "HRH" but, though it was in another era and the style was HH, on 9 November 1905 King Edward VII declared his eldest daughter (HRH The Princess Louise) Princess Royal and further ordered Garter King of Arms to gazette Lady Alexandra Duff and her sister Lady Maud Duff (the Princess Royal's daughters) with the style and attribute of Highness and the style of Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names, with precedence immediately after all members of the British Royal Family bearing the style of Royal Highness. Hope Koenig is aware of that? As per the currently effective legal instruments (the 1917 LPs), if Charles becomes King right now, Archie ipso facto immediately is entitled to the RH style and dignity of prince. If nothing has changed till he ascends the throne, it will be the same. So unless Charles doesn't ascend the throne or the Queen changes the 1917 LPs before she is succeeded by Charles, Archie will be entitled to both the above mentioned style and dignity... Circourt (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

HRH is a style Prince is a title. And you are correct on the point in strict legal point. It is very unclear if we will get some clarification. The announcement re his name and no title used was strangely worded - the whole ... at this time.. implying a change at a later date was possible. (Side not fwiw A's title if he used one could only be at the moment Earl of D not Lord AH M-W)Garlicplanting (talk) 09:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(Wow. Nostalgia for the Wessex edit wars of over ten years ago! DBD 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

First biracial baby

Regarding the section: "He is the first half-American and the first biracial baby in the history of the British monarchy;" this is not strictly true as the grandchildren of The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester via their daughter Lady Davina Windsor, Senna and Tāne Lewis, are also biracial/multiracial— their father is a Māori New Zealander. Archie might be the first biracial baby within the immediate and visible royal family, but he certainly isn't the "first biracial baby in the history of the British monarchy" as the article currently suggests.

I want to change this as it's factually incorrect but I'd also like to acknowledge him being one of the first biracial/multiracial royals in some way. I wasn't sure how to do it so I was hoping for some other opinions! Thanks, Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 02:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the biracial bit. It doesn't matter how well sourced it is, it doesn't belong if it isn't true. StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

And this is now being reported: "Prince Harry and Meghan's son isn't the first biracial royal baby – find out who is". StAnselm (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, StAnselm :) Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 04:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Lady Davina and her children are evidently not considered part of the British monarchy. While Archie has a biography on the official website, Lady Davina does not and her children are not mentioned anywhere on the website. I am much more inclined to go with The New York Times and The Telegraph than with Hello!. If nothing else, the information should be restored and attributed to The New York Times and The Telegraph. Surtsicna (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Lady Davina is a titled child of the senior male-line descendant of King George V, and who also sometimes takes part in official functions. I would argue that that makes them part of the British monarchy; just because they are not within the Queen’s immediate family doesn’t cancel out their part in the Monarchy. And Davina’s children themselves are 32nd and 33rd in line to the throne. So, I’d say they are part of the Monarchy. I've edited the section into something I feel is more accurate. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 18:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

We are confusing two things here. Working Royals and members of the RF. L.D is clearly not the former but is the latter Garlicplanting (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

... as an extended member. Therefore, her children are relatives to the RF. 77.136.40.197 (talk) 17:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Our biography of Lady Davina says that she does not carry out any official functions (though the source is dubious). Being a child of the senior male-line descendant of George V really is nothing more than a genealogical curiosity; nobody considers the senior male-line descendant of George III to have much to do with the British monarchy. I would say that never appearing in any listings, in the broadest definitions of the royal family, or anywhere on the website of the monarchy cancels out their part in the monarchy. Your rewording is fine with me, however; it is better than dragging this out too much and the sources can be reasonably interpreted as saying something to that effect. Surtsicna (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Before the 1917 LPs, Lady Davina would have been styled HH Princess Davina of Gloucester but now she is an extended member of the Royal Family and her children are relatives of the Royal Family (they are third cousins to King-to-perhaps-be (no crystalballing) William, Duke of Cambridge) 77.136.42.49 (talk)

I'm happy with the attributive wording we have - however we do need to say "recent history" per the NYT source. Note that Time is agnostic about previous multiracial people: "Why Historians Aren't Really Sure Whether Meghan Markle Will Be the First British Royal of Color". (Of course, it seems to be something US publications talk about a lot more than British ones!) StAnselm (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

If simply "in the history of the British monarchy" is not acceptable, I would prefer a rewording, perhaps something like "in the British monarch's immediate family", suggested earlier by Mesmeilleurs. The Guardian does not qualify the history as recent, and neither should we because the theory about Queen Charlotte being biracial is not taken seriously by historians and should not be promoted here. Surtsicna (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Just on another note "biracial" links to Mixed (United Kingdom ethnicity category) which makes no reference to the term. Perhaps we should just leave it as the fact he is mixed British and American heritage. MilborneOne (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

I like Surtsicna's suggestion of "in the British monarch's immediate family" as opposed to the entire British monarchy. I also think we should just use multi-racial instead of bi-racial as I find the latter rather constrictive. Multiracial is just as qualified and covers every base. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 00:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

We should go with the consensus amongst reliable sources, and I haven't yet seen "immediate family" used by any. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:07, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

We have a problem here, in that NYT says "recent history" and the Telgraph doesn't. I think the simplest solution is to remove the NYT as a reference - that answers Surtsicna's objection of buying into a fringe theory, and DeFacto's objection that "recent" is not in the Telegraph source. StAnselm (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Editor here need to stop indulging in original synthesis. The article current states he is "he is the first half-American and the first biracial baby in the history of the British monarchy", when the source does not say this. It says he is the "first half-American, biracial royal baby". The difference is clear. The New York Times, perhaps wisely, sticks to claiming "in recent history", most likely because the further back you go the more uncertain things become. And there is not mention on either source about "immediate family", or indeed how you'd define that. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Why does this even need to be mentioned? He's one quarter non-white; so what. It's only the media that are fanatical about issues such as this. I've got as much Irish ancestry as Mountbatten-Windsor has African-American ancestry, but no way would I ever think of myself as Irish at all, part or otherwise. Can't we just take out this polarising comment? Silas Stoat (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It's basically the reason why this article exists, so I don't think we can just take it out. Surtsicna (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That's not really the case. The article exists due to his notability, not his racial pedigree. It would exist if he was of white-only heritage. Silas Stoat (talk) 17:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, there is zero chance P.Harry's children (regardless of race etc) would not have been covered.Garlicplanting (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Poor kid

The only notable thing about him is the misfortune of having been born to celebrity parents, which dooms him to being the prey of the paparazzi for the foreseeable future. His parents, meanwhile, want him to grow up as a private citizen, and yet here he is on the main page of WP, and with an article devoted to him.

I'm sure moving that the article be deleted as non-notable would fail, but ... poor kid.

Awien (talk) 17:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion on those grounds but the nomination was rejected as a snow keep the same day. We waited three days to learn the subject's name but somehow managed to decide in the first three hours that the article about him should be kept. It's preposterous. So what I did next was nominate it for DYK and bring it to the Main Page. As we say in my part of the world, if you are having a ball, you may as well make it a masquerade ball. Surtsicna (talk) 18:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

As per the header of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Archie Mountbatten-Windsor article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 22:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

To be fair, discussing the notability of the topic is entirely in line with talk page guidelines. Surtsicna (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If an editor believes an article is not notable enough, they can begin the deletion process, and discussions on notability can happen thereafter. This just seems like a pity party and bandying about of personal opinions; I mean, the title of this section just says it all. It doesn't matter how the subject is notable, if it is notable nonetheless. He is a notable public figure from his birth, by virtue of his birth. I don't see how discussing one's fortunes/misfortunes in life will improve the article. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 23:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

It is possible for him to be notable but not to have his own article. See Brooklyn Beckham, for example. Copious column inches have been devoted to him since his birth, and he definitely meets GNG, but he's one of those topics we cover with a "redirect to a section in dad's article". That could well apply to Archie Mountbatten-Windsor as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

That’s right... Circourt (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is little more than a placeholder. Despite more than 1,000 edits, all it reports is that he is privileged but untitled, and a little bit black. Give the kid a break and let him just be a section of a family article. WWGB (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree Circourt (talk)

Someone needs to start the nomination for deletion process, then. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 13:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would argue that Wikipedia shouldn't cover him at all. Whether the article should be redirected to and merged with another article on his family or his father is normally something that can be discussed and decided on the article talk page. There have been two previous AfDs for this article, one resulting in delete and one resulting in keep. However, at the time of the last AfD on the "Son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex" most of the participants probably assumed that he was a prince and a royal, and he only turned out to be a completely untitled private citizen after the discussion had ended, and clearly a far less public figure than generally assumed when the discussion took place. --Tataral (talk) 07:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This whole thread feels POV. Put in an AFD if you want but I don't fancy your chances Any other discussion here is pointless. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't know who this "you" you are referring to is. I have merely explained above that there is no requirement to have an AfD discussion in order to redirect/merge an article, and that it's perfectly acceptable to discuss that on an article's talk page. --Tataral (talk) 11:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Then propose that. The OP was POV much of what followed is opinion. Frankly I doubt a merge would go though on a vote either. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

It has been proposed right here, and we are not supposed to vote but to discuss. Surtsicna (talk) 12:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

He is a notable person who has received a great deal of independent coverage, including some newspapers devoting dozens of pages to him. I personally happen to agree that it's a bit weird, but he is clearly widely covered in reliable sources and likely to remain notable; I can't see any policy-based justification for merging or deletion. TSP (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

One's certainly going to comment that what you wrote is crystalballing. 77.136.40.197 (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

And how is that considered crystalballing? He's merely stating a fact. This child's birth certificate was released today and the media went crazy. I don't agree with what they do, but it is what it is. I'm pretty sure that did not happen with Brooklyn Beckham, or other children whose parents are notable. The child seems to be notable in his own right, because he's a descendant of the British monarch, not because his parents are Hollywood celebrities. Keivan.f^Talk 21:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The b.beckham comparison always seemed weak as his fame rests and goes up/down (atm at least) solely on his father(mother) (now declining) fame. This child being so close to the throne will always have that regardless of what his parents do. I can't see given the level of coverage that this doesn't meet any reasonable standard of wiki for a separate article. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 12:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki is a website concept employed (but certainly not invented) by Wikipedia and countless other websites (including those older than Wikipedia) that run on one of the many forms of wiki software. Referring to Wikipedia as "wiki" is like referring to the specific book Das Kapital as paper. And there is no guarantee and very little probability that he "will always" be "so close to the throne" in the future. Just like him Prince Michael of Kent was seventh in line when he was born, and is now 48th and counting. A big difference between them, of course, is that Prince Michael was granted the title of Prince and the style of His Royal Highness on the day of his birth, while Mountbatten-Windsor's parents have said he is a private citizen without any royal or even noble title, and indicated no desire to give him any princely title. --Tataral (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Is anyone going to do anything useful with this discussion? Or are we just going to sit here crystalballing his possible future rank within the monarchy and the echelons of society, and discussing our opinions on how downtrodden and unlucky he is to be a monarch's grandchild? If people are so convinced that the article is not notable enough to stand on its own, nominate it for deletion or merging, and a consensus will be reached. It seems like we're just going around in pointless circles here. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 14:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

He's not "Biracial"

This has been mentioned before, above, but I'd just like to pick up on it again. What does "biracial" mean? According to the unsourced assertion in the Wikipedia article [4] it's someone with parents or ancestors from different ethnic backgrounds. Unfortunately the 'bi' prefix is quite misleading, implying that Master Mountbatten-Windsor is as much African-American as he is European, which he isn't. I suggest we don't use this description. Silas Stoat (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. As per the earlier discussion "First biracial baby", I think we should just use the term that it is linked to: "multiracial". It covers all bases and is not as restrictive as the language currently employed in the article. The only problem I see with that is that the newspaper article used as the source for that statement uses the term "biracial" and not "multiracial". We could just put "biracial" in quotation marks? Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 17:55, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. In British English "biracial" is the correct word to describe someone from two ethnic backgrounds - and is used in the cited source. The word "multiracial" tends to be used more when referring to populations from multiple (generally more than two) ethnic backgrounds - e.g. "America is a multiracial society", "a multiracial crowd gathered", etc. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Err the UK Gov, quangos and the press use 'Mixed Race' by a landslide over biracial. Biracial is a primarily American usage check the press usage in the US -v- UK is quite apparent Garlicplanting (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, 'mixed-race' has a similar meaning, but as 'biracial' is part of a verbatim quote from the cited source, and means specifically from two races as is the specific case here, it seems appropriate. Either way, 'multiracial' is certainly inappropriate. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Citizenships in the infobox

The subject infant has dual citizenship. The article infobox listed the British citizenship ahead of the American one. All citizenships being equal (e.g. the UN flags always hoisted and the Olympic Games national delegations always parading based on the alphabetical order), I amended in alphabetical order to read American and then British but 2 users reverted it on grounds that he was born in the UK and that the US citizenship alledgely is a secondary one. Being the son of nationals from each country, the place of birth seems irrelevant. Being a private citizen, his membership to the RF doesn’t seem to make the British citizenship primary vs. the American one either. Or why would we favour the father’s one? (which would be quite interesting, knowing that the mother is an advocate of gender equity/equality) ... Circourt (talk)

His claim to British citizenship is stronger. 1. He was born in the United Kingdom. 2. He has one British parent. 3. He is within the sphere of the British royal family (even if he's not an official member). He only has American citizenship because of his mother, and she hasn't even lived there in years, and seems unlikely to return permanently, however definite that is. Also, it's quite jarring to put American before British when reading it, the reading flow is interrupted. Also, I have very rarely seen anyone/thing described as 'American-British'. It always seems to be 'British-American'. It's nothing to do with 'favouring the father's one'. It's logical he's described as British first. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 17:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

'American-British' refers to US-born citizens who move to the UK and acquire citizenship there. This he is not. He is a British citizen with an American mother, which means he has American citizenship added on, and he might decide to lose it when he turns 18. I argue that British-American is more appropriate. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 17:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the place of birth and residence of a duel citizen should always be the first of the two. And while I'm passing as there is no def of member of the RF you can't say he's not officially a member. Thats a POV Garlicplanting (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting the flow of your reading. Except the fact he's connected to the RF, no, it's not that logical and therefore it's favouring one side. He is a British citizen with an American mother, which means he has American citizenship added on? Well, he as well is an American citizen with a British father, which means he has British citizenship added on. I believe he can decide to lose that one too, one day. In the eyes of the US authorities, he will be a US citizen unless that citizenship is relinquished. The actress was in Canada for work, her mother was still living in California. The fact he was born (overdue) in the UK is irrelevant, he could have been born (prematurely) in the US a few weeks ago when his mother was there for the shower - or anywhere else in the world during a trip. The parents are residents in the UK? Yes but you can't know what their plans are (e.g. the press earlier this year speculated that the family would perhaps move to Africa - and there may be little doubt that his mother would keep ties with the US and would take him to visit her home country, presumably often), we are close to crystalballing there (Mr. M-W may very well study in a US university one day). Of course, I agree that if he becomes the grandchild of a British sovereign my opinion may change :) Circourt (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Note: I see that now the infobox lists UK and US instead of British and American (which is now in alphabetical order).

Someone may have a different citizenship to their nationality. He is British with UK and US citizenship. Anyway, the infobox has been amended to reflect this and UK and US are in alphabetical order so it's now a moot point. But I hope you're satisfied with the current revision since they're alphabetical. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 18:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Can't you understand that he is not only British with UK and US citizenships but American with US and UK citizenships too? He is half/half. But yes, indeed, that's good for me now. Circourt (talk)

His nationality and citizenship are separate things. Here's an article that explains it. [5] From the article: " The nationality of a person, reveals his/her place of birth, i.e. from where he/she belongs. It defines the belongingness of a person to a particular nation. On the contrary, citizenship is granted to an individual by the government of the country, when he/she complies with the legal formalities. It is the status of being a citizen of a country." So, no; he is not an American with UK and US citizenship. He is British with UK and US citizenships. Thanks, Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 18:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Mesmeilleurs: he has dual-nationality - UK and US, and he is a citizen of those same two countries. Your recent change to the template parameter values (misleadingly purporting to be an undo of one of my edits) is nonsense, and the "citizenship" parameter should not be used as the "nationailty" parameter is now also used and the countries of citizenship are the same as the countries of nationality (per {{Infobox person}} documentation). -- DeFacto (talk). 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I very well know - because I am myself in a same situation - what the difference between nationality and citizenship is. His mom being of American nationality, he is (half) American too (like Grace Kelly's children whose grandfather almost was a Mayor of Philadelphia) and (partly) belongs to the US (even his grandma still lives there). He isn't a naturalized Malawian immigrant in Germany (who wouldn't be of German nationality). He is both a British national with UK and US citizenships and an American national with US and UK citizenships. Since we do not agree, let's just disagree ;) Circourt (talk)

UK / US has been reverted to British / American (not in alphabetical order anymore, which again makes me puzzled) Circourt (talk) 18:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Good. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 02:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Referring to him as Mountbatten-Windsor

I have changed the prose of the article to use his given name, Archie, rather than referring to him as Mountbatten-Windsor but it was reverted a couple of times so bringing it her for discussion. This matches the guidance in MOS:SURNAME, which carves out an exception to the usual rule for royals, as well as the article at Lady Louise Windsor, Which routinely refers to her as Louise. It just seems really odd to call him Mountbatten-Windsor and I can't find any other source anywhere that does that. We shouldn't be making stuff up. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This child is not royal so the exception does not apply. He has a perfectly good surname that we can and probably should use. Surtsicna (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We could just avoid using first name/surname and just use he/him pronouns in the article? Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 23:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Or Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Surtsicna (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I still think just Archie is better, but as a compromise spelling out the name in full could work. Calling him "Mountbatten-Windsor" is still making up our own style though: for most issues the MOS typically doesn't apply if no reliable sources whatsoever use that form.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME applies, so we use it. WWGB (talk) 12:43, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), but I need to study it in detail. When I read this article it just doesn't sound right to refer to a child by its surname only. I agree with MOS:SURNAME 100% for adults, and have fixed some articles to adhere to it, but when applied to a child it is very jarring to read. I think we need to keep the discussion going on this one. Silas Stoat (talk) 19:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Other kids with articles and surnames are referred to by that surname, for example Omran Daqneesh and Jeremy Maguire. WWGB (talk) 01:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

There are also examples of the alternative; Ashley_Cabrera. I must admit, it was difficult to find examples of non-royal, young people with their own article; most are princes and the like. We have a particular issue here in that the person in question is very young and it just doesn't look right to refer to such people by their surname. He is styled as 'Master', so maybe this should be used in conjunction with the surname? There are just two cases in the article, as it stands, where this is an issue. Silas Stoat (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite, and thank you Silas Stoat you've hit the nail on the head. Since you and I find it jarring, I'm quite sure readers will too and there must be some compromise available to us even if it's just a WP:IAR type of thing. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, and no problem. I've made a bold edit (anyone not happy then please revert it), reworking the text to expand the lead slightly, thereby removing one instance of the surname usage. For the other, I've added the Christian name to the surname. Silas Stoat (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The bold edit has been reverted. Okay, no problem with that, but what really irritates me about some users is how they revert, or make substantial changes, that are currently being discussed, but they don't partake in the current line of discussion themselves. Silas Stoat (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I reverted it, and I already made my reasons clear above, so nothing else to add. WWGB (talk) 12:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

The perfect attitude for reaching a consensus. Wikipedia really is a shit place for collaborative editing. Silas Stoat (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Referring to him twice as Archie Mountbatten-Windsor rather than Mountbatten-Windsor would really not hurt anyone. It's a reasonable compromise. Surtsicna (talk) 13:11, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Hang on, you said "anyone not happy then please revert it" so I accepted your invitation. Besides, there is nothing to consense. WP:SURNAME always trumps WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WWGB (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

No, this was a reasonable compromise and thank you to Surtsicna for proposing it. The consensus above seems to favour that compromise. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

To confirm my support for this proposal. Silas Stoat (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Portland Hospital in Infobox

To avoid an edit war, let's please have a discussion on whether or not listing the building in which he was born in his infobox. Per the template documentation for Template:Infobox person, all that is needed in the field birth_place is "city, administrative region and country" of birth. It also says to "omit unnecessary or redundant details".

I would say to not include Portland Hospital in the infobox as it is non-essential information which can be found elsewhere in the article. Most articles that use Infobox person do not include the person's residence/building where they were born unless it is a historically important or notable building, such as a royal residence. "London, United Kingdom" is sufficient information for a summary of the article, which is the purpose of an infobox. Also, one should not cite articles of other members of the Royal Family as their articles typically use Infobox royalty which has different conventions. I believe we should follow the documentation of whatever infobox we are using.

It also appears a majority of Wikipedians are in favour of not including the Hospital in the infobox. I'd like to reach a consensus here. I've also removed the contested section until a consensus is reached. Please discuss. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 18:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, keep it to just "London, United Kingdom" per the template documentation (and do not link London per MOS:OVERLINK). -- DeFacto (talk). 19:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, DeFacto. I've changed the info to reflect your suggestion in line with MOS:OVERLINK. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 19:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. No need for "Portland Hospital"  — Amakuru (talk) 19:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no need for the hospital name in the info box. It has no particular significance to the birth and best left to the article content. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 16:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

(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)

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)

In the case of Earl Wessex’ children, it is as per a 1999 decision of the Sovereign [6] released in a statement to the press / media accordingly. A bit different. Circourt (talk) 18:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

According to others we can't say he is either. So what do we do? He either is or isn't. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 18:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks like I've said it. Surtsicna (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m not even sure that the children of the Wessexes could - in the absence of any new decision, 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. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 00:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! 37.165.47.74 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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. :) Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 20:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

That's indeed correct. Circourt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

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)

References

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)

@Garlicplanting: Ok, will wait for more opinions before reaching a decision/consensus. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe the current general wikipedia consensus from a while ago is not to change England/Scotland/Wales/NI to the United Kingdom or the other way around, so the suggestion is just to leave in whatever form is started at out. MilborneOne (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The first revision to mention his birthplace as London, was this one: [7], which said "London, England". Going by this consensus, we should use England and not United Kingdom. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 16:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: any chance of a diff or discussion link for that? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that consensus only applies to varieties of the language (WP:ENGVAR). There is a separate guideline for nationals (WP:UKNATIONALS). If I can paraphrase it a bit, it says, "get it right, but don't edit-war over it". -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Just for reference- the template documentation for the field birth_place in Template:Infobox person says: "For modern subjects, the country should generally be a sovereign state; for United Kingdom locations, the constituent countries of the UK are sometimes used instead, when more appropriate in the context." Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 16:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

So, in the absence of any good reason to use the constituent country, it should be "United Kingdom". -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

In the context of this article about a member of the British royal family, and given the international context of Wikipedia, and given that all UK addresses can follow the pattern street address, town/city, postcode, United Kingdom, I support just "London, United Kingdom" for place of birth. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this view. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. In the context of the British royal family, the country is United Kingdom. DrKay (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree too. It doesn't bother me much but it seems this is the consensus on this issue. 91.125.237.175 (talk) 19:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC) (This was me (Mesmeilleurs); I forgot to log in!)

Thank you everybody for your opinions and reaching a consensus. Best wishes, Willbb234 (talk) 08:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Probably worth noting we have the articles all over the place on this so its been worthwhile raising it. Look in William/Harry. One is UK the other England! Garlicplanting (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a little look around and it is pretty confusing, probably something that should be decided by Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 19:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Telegraph's "first half-American biracial royal baby" claim

To claim that Archie is the "first half-American, biracial royal baby" is incorrect as this epithet could be applied to others, namely:

• Prince Hamzah bin Hussein (born 1980), the son of Hussein of Jordan and his American-born wife Queen Noor. Hamzah is 3/4 Arab and 1/4 Swedish (White European descent)
• Princess Yasmin Aga Khan (born 1949), the daughter of Prince Aly Khan and the actress Rita Hayworth. Yasmin is 1/4 Afghani, 1/4 Italian, 1/4 Spanish and 1/4 Irish and English
• Prince Ra'ad Zeid of Jordan, the son of The Crown Prince and Crown Princess of Iraq (née Sarah Butler). Ra'ad is 1/4 Arab, 3/4 White

Of course, we can't put words in these journalists' mouths, but I think if we are to keep this claim in the article, we should include an explanation or contextualisation, or remove the claim altogether. It would be correct if referring to the British royal family only, but the article itself does not make the distinction. To keep this line as is would be perpetuating misinformation. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 17:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think for a minute anyone thinks that the Telegraph is talking about anything other than the British Royals. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:04, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I thought that too but the British royal family are not the be all and end all. Just because these other royals are not British royals we disregard them? Some people coming from a different perspective may not immediately think of the British royals when "royal baby" is mentioned. The royal world is much wider than the British bubble, and this should reflect that, I think. The quote as it is is factually incorrect, as I've said before. I think it's too vague. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 19:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I think either we allow the "in the British royal family" addendum, or we eliminate the line altogether. Technically, Archie is not even royal either, as he has no title. As it stands, this line is misleading at best, and completely false at worst. Piratesswoop (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I say remove it entirely. It's already qualified with an "according to", the source is not that strong, and the strict wording in the source (of being the first royal [of any country] of that description) is disputed. In addition, we don't generally categorize or describe living people by racial group unless that person self-identifies. Archie hasn't self-identified as biracial. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

It's a correctly attributed opinion, do not falsify it. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If we cannot specify then it should be removed. The claim is wrong. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 19:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mesmeilleurs: It's an attributed opinion, not an asserted fact - and as such it is correct. You should wait and see what the consensus about whether to keep it or remove it turns out to be before doing anything to it. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

If we cannot remove it, I propose we change the line to: "According to The Daily Telegraph, he is "the first half-American, biracial royal baby," however, this could also apply to other royals such as Prince Hamzah bin Hussein and Princess Yasmin Aga Khan." I personally believe that leaving this "attributed opinion" as it stands is misleading. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 21:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

We can't include unsourced material. DrKay (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem with removing this is that this is a defining characteristic of the subject. The significance of his racial heritage is discussed by the most reputable media, including The Guardian (a full article about it), The Telegraph, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. I do find it distasteful, but I likewise find it distasteful to have an article about an infant whose parents made it clear that they want him to be a private citizen, but here we are, so let's roll it. Surtsicna (talk) 11:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The sources you've provided contradict the article content. The Telegraph says "first mixed-race child born to a senior member of the royal family in centuries" and The New York Times says " first multiracial, half-American child born in the top echelons of the royal family". Note the qualifications: "senior" and "top" (presumably because of Tane and Senna Lewis and the half-American Harewoods) and both sources say "the royal family", i.e. the British royal family. DrKay (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The article content reflects another source, however. A rewording might be in order. Any suggestions? Surtsicna (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The WaPo article states that Archie is a half-American baby who may be Britain’s first multi-race royal offspring in centuries. So I would propose using this article as a source so that it is clarified that he is the first half-American, multi-racial member, SPECIFICALLY in the British royal family. Piratesswoop (talk) 04:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Piratesswoop. I'm not particularly fussed as to which article we use, but I think we should use one of the articles which are more specific in their descriptions. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 17:38, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

@Piratesswoop: that's just another opinion - and shouldn't be used to supplant the other. I don't see the problem with the first, so long as it remains correctly attributed. I suppose we could add it too - along with any others - and contrast and compare them, but that would seem to add rather a lot of weight to the point. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't know--sure, it's another opinion, but it clarifies the one made in the one we're using now, which at present, as Mesmeilleurs has pointed out, is inaccurate. I don't think there's any issue with supplanting it. The quote would still stay intact, only now with the qualifier that is referring specifically to the British royal family. I don't see the purpose in doing a compare/contrast and digging into the genetic history of other royals if not necessary. If we the WaPo source, we can keep the quote and add additional information that makes it more accurate. Piratesswoop (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

But as both are opinions, and not necessarily statements of fact, it would be wrong to cherry-pick an element from one and add it to the other, thus drawing an unsaid conclusion. That would be WP:SYNTH. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, both look like plain statements of fact to me. What makes you think they are opinions? Surtsicna (talk) 09:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why we cannot just replace this quote or add others alongside it which spell out the meaning. There are copious sources which are much more specific and unambiguous, but we must keep this one because… it was the one that made it onto the article first? I don't see the difference in replacing it with a different quote that has the same meaning, but spells out that meaning more so it is more specific and clearer to readers. I don't see why this quote is the unchangeable be all and end all. Literally just swap it out with another reliable source that contains one more word that uncomplicates things. Mesmeilleurs^{Say Hey!} 20:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Godparents' Identities Suggestion

I'm wondering if we can pull that line re: his parents have decided to keep Archie's godparents' names secret. It smacks of WP:RECENTISM and seems totally irrelevant only a few months after his christening (Does the public really care about their identities? Can anyone remember Prince George's godparents without looking it up? It's really not newsworthy information after a day or two). The bigger point, of course, is that they are trying to protect the infant's privacy, so maybe we replace with a sourced sentence re: the overall privacy issue? I was going to be bold and just do it, but edits on this page seem controversial so I opened a discussion. ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree. If the names are not known, it is highly likely that the information is not relevant anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)