Talk:Prince Archie of Sussex/Archive 3

Proposal
Without further delay, consensus should be sought about this BLP's situation today as per previous discussion.

I propose that each interested user designate Keep (as this independent article) or Merge (with parents' articles) or Delete (as not notable on his own). (Please do not be overly wordy or repetitive! It's so exhausting & just derails everything constructive we're trying to achieve.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge the teensy-weensy bit of notable & relevant info here with his parents. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of coverage in reliable sources. Willbb234Talk (please &#123;&#123;ping&#125;&#125; me in replies) 12:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. We should be rigorous in removing anything inappropriate, but he is different from the Queen's other great-grandchildren, because we know who he is. If it wasn't for this discussion, I doubt I'd have even heard about the Phillipses. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. He is still widely-reported on, and will probably remain so, and is still seventh in line to the British throne. Private agreements between his parents and grandparents can only affect what titles they choose to use, not what status they actually have. TSP (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge Not a royal, is a living minor with nothing in his own life making him notable. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Significant coverage at birth, notability is not temporary. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 17:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge for now. When his grandfather ascends the British throne & more info is gathered about the little fellow, then we can undo the merge & have his own bio article. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep- The boy is the grandson of a future monarch, other young royals have had articles in infancy, he is far more talked about in the media than the queen's other great grandchildren who don't have wikipedia articles (who aren't the grandchildren of her heir), wikipedia has articles on huge numbers of living people (including children) many of whom try to avoid the press and every page here is vulnerable to vandalism, if weren't willing to take the risk of using volunteer editor's to protect and improve pages we wouldn't have this website. Llewee (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep- He's the grandson, nephew and cousin of future monarchs and receives extensive coverage in the press. He is considered a 'royal' by most members of the public, even without titles. He will one day be a royal Duke. Tens of millions of people know who he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 01:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment; Among the "keep" motivation, I see very little other than the boy's relatives (contrary to WP:INVALIDBIO & NOTGENEALOGY) but noting yet about accomplishments of his own which would make him notable, oher than having been widely reported as having been born. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To quote WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)" (my emphasis). There is very substantial coverage of Archie, so he easily fulfils the basic notability criterion - "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Wikipedia policy doesn't require us decide whether we think his "accomplishments" are worthy of such coverage; just to observe that it is there. Sometimes, just being born makes you notable; according to our sources, being seventh in line to the British throne is one of those times. TSP (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep due to substantial coverage on his birth. One can assume that coverage in the Canadian and American press, especially, will continue even though his parents have stepped back from royal duties. He's still a male-line grandchild of a monarch and successor to a dukedom. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

So...
This article was created under the assumption that Archie, who had not yet even been born, would one day be a prince and have a public role. It became clear that his parents intended otherwise by the time his name and title were announced. Unfortunately, Wikipedians could not even wait for the child to be born, let alone named, before creating a Wikipedia biography. Now that the parents have decided to reduce their own public roles, perhaps the Wikipedia exposure of the infant can be reconsidered? After all, we do not have biographies of Elizabeth II's other untitled great-grandchildren. Surtsicna (talk) 21:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article should be 're-directed' to Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, in the manner that the Phillips children are re-directed to Peter Phillips. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , "After all, we do not have biographies of Elizabeth II's other untitled great-grandchildren." How is this relevant? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a precedent. Precedents are usually thought to be relevant. Anyway, as it transpired, Archie's parents have not just reduced their public roles but have withdrawn completely. It does not seem right to me to have an article about their infant son. Surtsicna (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's good to see you're seeking consistency on this matter ;) GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I like consistency. I just don't put it above everything else. Surtsicna (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree. This article was created under the assumption that Archie was notable, just like any other article subject. No article is accepted based on probable future notability.  Coverage in reliable sources demonstrates he is notable.  Having been demonstrated as notable, to remove the article you'd have to argue that he'd somehow lost that notability.  I don't think that's even possible. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * How is he more notable then his Philips & Tindal second cousins? GoodDay (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Because he has significantly more coverage among reliable sources. Wikipedia doesn't determine if someone is notable, it demonstrates it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:16, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, what sources covered was the birth of a child to a very famous couple. How does Wikipedia demonstrate that the sources did not just cover a major event in the lives of his parents? Surtsicna (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point. But I think that being born seventh in the line of succession to the British throne, in itself, also suggests notability. Significantly higher than his second-cousins, which is a reflected in the coverage he gets in the sources.  And it's notability that's not temporary or something that can ever be taken from him.  The usual Wikipedia guideline that notability cannot be inherited doesn't really work for royalty.  Inheritance is precisely what makes him notable. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Isla Phillips, Elizabeth II's first great-grandchild, was twelfth in the line at birth. I would not say that's significantly lower than seventh; both numbers translate to no chance of inheriting. Any distinction between them seems arbitrary to me, especially now that Archie's parents have no role in the monarchy either. And that's the most important part in my opinion: Archie's parents are making headlines by withdrawing from the royal family in a bid to win more privacy for their family. It does not seem right to me to have an article about an infant whose parents clearly do not want him to be so exposed; nor does it seem warranted. Surtsicna (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there a proposal or request anywhere? I would support a merger. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We are just brainstorming now. What are your thoughts about this? Surtsicna (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, his case is different. His parents receive far more coverage compared to Anne’s children and he is shown more frequently in the news compared to the Phillips and Tindall children. By the way, his status will be further elevated when his grandfather becomes king. As a future king’s grandchild, he is far more notable compared to Savannah and Isla (I know notability is not inherited but he still attracts more attention). Even if he remains untitled, his case will be similar to that of Peter Phillips and that shows we have precedent for such articles. Not to mention that he will also get his father’s title one day. Keivan.f Talk 06:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, Archie's grandfather may become king within a decade or so and Archie may become a duke in many more decades. That does not mean he will be a public figure, and for now he is just the infant child of two people who have decided to withdraw from the monarchy and lead private lives. And while they are suing tabloids for intrusion into their family, the Wikipedia biography of their minor son acts as a sandbox for trolls and conspiracy theories. For example, vandals have alleged that he is the son of Michelle Obama and the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein or that he is a doll covering up for Meghan's fake pregnancy. No article is immune to vandalism, but perhaps minors with no expectation of future public roles and whose parents are seeking privacy deserve special consideration. Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We should be concerned with notability not privacy. Scientists and many celebrities are also private citizens but we have articles about them here on Wikipedia. The types of rumors that you just mentioned have been made up for years for different figures and we cannot do anything about it. This page alone has been viewed between 5,000-40,000 times daily during the past 20 days (much more than the articles about Peter or Zara). If that doesn't indicate notability, I don't know what does. Keivan.f  Talk 16:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What it indicates is the notability of his parents, who have been constantly in the news and whose Wikipedia biographies prominently link to this article (infoboxes and lead sections). There is nothing wrong with having articles about private citizens, be they scientists, celebrities, or Harry and Meghan. But we would not have articles about the infant children of these scientists or celebrities. It is not possible to demonstrate that the coverage of Archie is not merely coverage of his parents, and I think Wikipedia should err on the side of caution and sensitivity. Surtsicna (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You made a valid point, but there's a difference between those infants and this infant. This child was born to a family whose whole notability revolves around their claim to the throne, birth right and hereditary right. Those, combined together with the fact that he's the grandson of a future king, make his case kind of exceptional. Keivan.f  Talk 19:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

After reading this, I think I will voice my opinion. It all seems very simple to me: there are three possibilities. One, Archie is notable, in which case his wikipedia article should continue to exist. Two, Archie is no longer notable but once was. But even if he isn't notable anymore, if he was once, then his article should be kept. People who were once notable shouldn't have their wikipedia articles deleted once they fade out of the public eye. And three, Archie is not notable and was never notable to begin with, in which case his wikipedia article has no point. But, as someone has already stated, the article receives hundreds of views each day and he is constantly being referenced in the media, his very birth making the front page of many major newspapers. He is the grandson of a future monarch, the son of a prince, and seventh in line to the throne. If you consider just how notable the monarch of the United Kingdom is, and then consider that only six people stand in the way of Archie gaining that office, you should realize that Archie should be qualified as a notable person himself. (It was going slightly too far to give him a wikipedia page before he was born, though it could be argued that even if he turned out to be nothing but a phantom pregnancy, the media coverage of him was so great that he would still deserve a wikipedia article). Yes, the wikipedia help page on notability says somebody shouldn't be considered notable just because they're related to someone notable, but the whole point of royalty is that they're notable because they're related to someone else notable. I don't think the point of Wikipedia is to be moral and delete someone's wikipedia article just because they're an infant whose parents are trying to keep them out of the public eye so as not to ruin their life. The point of Wikipedia is to inform the public of facts. If someone thinks, "I wonder what the birth date of that person I was reading about in the newspaper is," and looks the person up, then they might find the birth date on wikipedia. Because that's what wikipedia is for. If you want to find something out about a person, place, or thing that you have no personal relation to but have seen or read about somewhere, then that's what wikipedia is for, isn't it? For instance, I noted recently that one of my relatives had received a wikipedia page as a being of relatively minor notability. Yet I'd say only at most fifty or so people have heard of him who have not met him. Whereas in Archie's case, I'd say tens of millions of people who have never set eyes on him have heard of him and remembered his name. The UK alone has over 60 million people, most of whom will have heard of Archie. I'd say at least a million people know that his middle name is "Harrison". Think about that - a million people. As a grandson, nephew and cousin of a future monarch, and the heir to a Royal dukedom, Archie is just as notable as the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Gloucester, or Peter Phillips (and he outranks them when it comes to the Order of Precedence, or at least he will at some point in the future). That is my case for keeping Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's wikipedia article. 22nd January 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.126.230 (talk) 05:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Somebody said something about The Sussexes not having any role, and maybe Meghan will bow out of things, but I find it really unlikely that major events will not include Prince Harry. I really can't see Prince Charles being crowned King at Westminster Abbey one day without Harry there, or Prince William, or perhaps one his children, if God forbid he doesn't live long, either. He's a big shot, even if his doesn't "use" his HRH. He's still got one 47.20.54.151 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Member of the British royal family?
I an attempt to avoid an edit war, can we please discuss Archie's status re: being a member of the RF? Some say yes, others say no, and it just seems to be going back and forth. Unfortunately, there is not an official definition as to what constitutes a member of the Royal Family, which makes this a little harder to decide upon. I feel like just saying he's a 'relative' is inadequate, as he's more than just that and there are many people worldwide who could claim that moniker. Anybody have thoughts? MesmeilleursSay Hey! 21:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I would say that he is a member, because his mother's article states that she is a member. Of course, it would be useful to see the comments of other Wikipedians, particularly more experienced ones. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The royal family are a peculiar bunch, with lots of precise definitions and traditions. Without any doubt Archie is described as a royal baby, with royal parents, complete with a placard placed in the courtyard at Buck House and all the associated excitement. However the royal family is something a bit different. As far as I'm concerned, unless or until he gets listed at https://www.royal.uk/royal-family alongside George, Charlotte and Louis, he probably hasn't quite made full membership. Member of a royal family yes, but not the royal family. Sorry I don't have any alternate wording for dealing with these technicalities, but alternate wording is probably the way forward. -- zzuuzz (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

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


 * If you count, there don't seem to be too many users in favour of saying he's a relative. I guess in the absence of reliable sources, depending on the definition, it could be debatable whether or not he's a member, so we should probably use more precision than has been used - ie different words or phrases. I would just say, as a native English speaker and person in the UK, that introducing him only as a relative of the royal family is just bizarre. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought too, zzuuzz. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 22:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
 * If the royal family indicates Archie is not a member then he is not. WWGB (talk) 04:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That section of the site does not appear to have been updated recently; neither Harry or Meghan's pages make mention of Archie and Lady Gabriella Kingston's info has not changed either. So I'm not sure whether we can take this as confirmation or not. MesmeilleursSay Hey! 04:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thats imo intended more as PR - a 'things prominent royals have been doing section' its certainly not an official list of members of the family. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well as the official webpage of the royal family, I'd give it some weight, and also some time to get updated though I won't hold my breath. It does contains the three very small royal children, including 1-year old Louis, who have done nothing at all interesting in their own right apart from being members of the royal family. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Best thy don't rush to update as they accidentally published that Archie was 'first child of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge' on his birth ;-) The Court Circular its more measured and makes it much clearer on who they are considering members!~ Garlicplanting (talk)
 * We cannot say that he is a member of the royal family and a private citizen unless we can cite the official website. The royal family are inherently public figures, or at least have been so far. It is best to define him simply as the son of Harry and Meghan. Surtsicna (talk) 06:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well both those things can of course be true. I'd suggest for example The DofY's daughters B&E are both. We are I think in danger of confusing/conflating several things here. Being members of the House of Windsor, RF and working Royals/private citizens. There is not and never has been an official list or definition of the RF. However The Court Circular has always been taken as the traditional 'Royal Family'. The royals are mentioned together in a paragraph(s); non-royals apart. The only issue is that even there unless you look to see every person who is mentioned (you can use the search) its still not exhaustive. It often mentions many members of the family and then says 'and other Members of the Royal Family ' eg


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


 * The trouble we will have with this is that he won't be mentioned on the CC until he is older but it does as zzuuzz mentioned seem likly to make wiki look a bit daft to not have him as a member of the RF.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, one cannot be both a public figure and a private citizen unless you twist the definitions of these terms so much that they become meaningless. We do not have to say that Archie Mountbatten-Windsor is not a member of the royal family. We do not have to say that he is either. It is incredibly easy to define him as the great-grandson of Queen Elizabeth II if need be. Does Wikipedia already look daft by not mentioning Lord Snowdon as a member of the royal family? Surtsicna (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You've slightly changed the terms here. My point was Member of the RF & Private Citizen are not incompatible. You replied with public -v- private. That is certainly incompatible. Fwiw the E/C of S *are* listed with other members of the RF in the CC.


 * 5 March 2019
 * Buckingham Palace


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


 * The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, The Princess Royal, The Earl and Countess of Snowdon and the Lady Sarah and Mr. Daniel Chatto were present. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
 * My point is that the royal family are inherently public figures. Surtsicna (talk) 06:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure how far that goes. Working Royals obviously but not obviously much further. While Andrew/Edwards children gets some coverage they are ,outwith the odd public Royal event they attend, private figures.Garlicplanting (talk) 09:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess the choice is between « member of the RF » or « extended member of the RF » - until he becomes a Sovereign’s grandchild (an extended member like Lady Gabriella Kingston, but not a relative of the RF as are the children of Lord Frederick Windsor, for instance) - depending on the interpretation of the 1917 LPs and knowing that the Royal House includes distant descendants – see the Treaty between Great Britain and Sweden for the Marriage of Lady Louise Mountbatten with His Royal Highness Prince Gustaf Adolf, Crown Prince of Sweden (Stockholm, October 27, 1923): His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India, on the one part, and His Majesty the King of Sweden on the other part, already connected by ties of friendship and relationship, having judged it proper that an alliance should again be contracted between their respective Royal Houses by a marriage, agreed to on both sides, between: The Lady Louise Mountbatten, daughter of Admiral of the Fleet, the Marquess of Milford Haven and Princess Victoria of Hesse, granddaughter of Her Royal Highness Princess Alice of Great Britain and Ireland, and great-grand-daughter of Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Ireland, Empress of India Circourt (talk)
 * The strange thing about the wording there is that Lady Louise Mountbatten might have been a member of the RF but was certainly not a member of the House of Windsor as implied by the wording above! Alice had married into a foreign R house (Hesse) and her daughter had married into a branch of the same. Garlicplanting (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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


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

I reverted 129.7.106.239's edit re: the child being a member of the BRF, as there still doesn't seeem to be consensus, but I probably should have opened a discussion before I leapt in.ChiHistoryeditor (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello folks! Please don't bite my head off, and I am really not sure and therefore simply thought to put my comments innocently in the talk section. But I think that British law has never been changed, and theoretically, the son of a HRH Prince, like Harry, would pretty much automatically have the recognition. However, years ago, there was a royal powwow and sort of an agreement, and perhaps just a thing that's done now, but the children of the HRH's who aren't directly in line for the throne perhaps are simply not known really known as that, even though that could be argued perhaps. For instance, Prince Edward's children don't have HRH's, even though in the past they would have, and kind of sort of perhaps could call themselves that if they wanted. I remember hearing about this, but is really unclear. In this thinking, Archie is known only the Mountbatten-Windsor surname and not designated an HRH, but maybe he kind of really might entitled to use that one day, like the Prince Edward's children were said to possibly be able to do if they wanted to when they get older. I don't really know. It's kind of along the same lines of legally the former Meghan Markle, Kate Middleton and also Camilla Parker-Bowles, are from what everything I understand British Princesses, but never are called that, but rather Duchesses. Diana, Princess of Wales, during her marriage to Prince Charles was routinely always referred to as the future Queen, but that is never the case with The Duchesses of Cornwall and Cambridge, even that's likely going to be the case for both women. People might not like it, and there's been some talk of Camilla being called something else perhaps, but likewise as she's the Princess of Wales, but never calls herself that out of respect for Diana as the story goes, if the couple is still married when Queen Elizabeth passes away, Charles is going to be Sovereign King, and Camilla, Queen Consort, no matter they call her. And if you ask me, she's going to be called Queen, because why not? I don't think that is an issue any more. They have been married for 15 years, and there's never any talk anymore of her using the title of Princess Consort as "intended". I don't see any future other for her than Queen Camilla and maybe you heard it here first. 47.20.54.151 (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Continued
Well, do you actually have a rebuttal to my last edit summary? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I find stating that he is a member of the royal family totally redundant, when followed by the facts who his father is, and is seventh in line to the British throne. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is the consistent style, WP:BROY. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 13:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced it's the best style, at his age his relationship to his parents is more significant. But fair enough, if you want to change it I won't revert. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 20:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus to define the subject as a member of the British royal family. He is not a "Royal Highness", and his parents evidently want him to appear as little royal as possible. There is no reason to insist on such wording. Surtsicna (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. His parents explicitly stated that they want him to be referred to and styled as a private citizen. His relations are mentioned in his biography already. --Bettydaisies (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)




 * : Firstly, User:Abbyjjjj96 (page does not exist). That could speak for itself. Otherwise, I am slightly bemused why you reverted an edit and "restored usual format" to state that he "is a member of the British royal family" in the lead, when you posted on 27 November 2020 (above) that you "find stating that he is a member of the royal family totally redundant." I agree with User:Bettydaisies and User:Surtsicna : There is no reason to insist on such wording. Sampajanna (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it's unnecessary and a bit inflammatory to revert an edit when active discussions are taking place surrounding it. Mountbatten-Windsor is not a titled member of the royal family, he (presumably) will not undertake engagements alongside his parents, nor is he entitled to the style of Highness or Prince by birth. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex have specifically requested the media for him to be treated and respected as a private citizen, not a member of the royal family, the way say, Princess Beatrice or Princess Eugenie are viewed by the public.--Bettydaisies (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I reverted to what I had agreed with Abbyjjjj96 over a week ago, when we had consensus for it. Sometimes you have to put your own preferences aside. I did not read your above comments before I reverted your edit, and you made no reference to them in edit summaries.  My prior comments still stand, but I equally find your argument unconvincing. What his title is is irrelevant.  If he is not a member of the royal family, whose family is he a member of? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course he is descended from the British royal family; that is mentioned on the page, and on the pages of every other non-titled relative. But the Royal Family as an institution, as listed on royal.co.uk, generally refers to working and titled figures representing the Crown. The lead in "member of the British royal family" implies an active part in it, which doesn't fit in the bill in this instance due to both the roles of the subject's parents and the subject's age itself (for instance, Lady Louise Windsor is styled and referred to as a private citizen by the media, but upon her 18th birthday, could assume the titles of Princess, if she so preferred). He doesn't hold and presumably won't hold in the future a place within the institution, so such a prefix is a bit redundant when his ancestry is, again already mentioned, and his claim of notability will ultimately reside in his status as the child of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, rather then his representation or proximity to the throne.--Bettydaisies (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Prince Louis an active, working member of the royal family? The British Royal Family Wikipedia Project Style guide would seem a good starting point, rather than speculating about what children won't hold/do in future adulthood.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 21:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Prince Louis is a British prince and direct descendent of his father, second in line to the throne, and will, barring major disasters or political referendums, be the son of a sovereign monarch. I understand the WP:CRYSTAL concerns here, but all children of the monarch (with the exception of the Duke of York, for obvious reasons), have undertaken royal duties within their lifetime. I can see where the style guide might apply, but again, I don't believe that Archie should be situated as a junior/senior member of the royal family. He isn't titled, either royally or through nobility, a choice made by his parents to give him a normal life as a private citizen (unlike Prince Louis) during his childhood, which means we cannot expect frequent engagements or royal activities until he is at least eighteen years old, nor should we imply he might by listing him as a royal family member. Being a member of the British royal family is an explicitly public role. Furthermore, his own parents stepped down from the royal family, and while they are undergoing a current review period, they do not currently represent the Queen, nor have they or Mountbatten-Windsor attended any official royal events since March. Once again, as he does not currently take any kind of public position in the royal family or immediate role in the line of succession, his primary notability stems from being the son of his parents, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. His paternal relation to the royal family is mentioned and respected throughout the article.--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Firstly, User:Abbyjjjj96 (page does not exist). That could speak for itself. Otherwise,... What is the implication here? That, because I don't have a user page, I must be Escape_Orbit's sock account or some such nonsense? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * - Welcome back. There would seem to be quite a bit of activity since you commented on 27 November 2020. As you may be aware, Wikipedia is a dynamic-content based website. Discussions develop and deteriorate. Opinions change. Personal interpretations and/or alleged implications are entirely subjective. It is your prerogative to assume whatever you like. Sampajanna (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * THIS TALK PAGE is where YOU can discuss matters directly related to the topic at hand, rather than copying and pasting "Welcome to Wikipedia" (for new editors) on my talk page, with a request to respond on your own talk page. Sampajanna (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Shouting is not civil behaviour. Please don't. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to comment on my message to AussieWikiDan. As we can all see, this page is heavily overloaded with text. Possibly, a lot of archiving would help. That's why I recently added the new subheading "Member of the Royal Family (cont'd)" (above), to make it easier for others to find. In any event, as you may have noticed that the 'shouting' (capitalisation), especially "[ [Talk:Archie Mountbatten-Windsor|THIS TALK PAGE] ]" (refer edit history for actual coding), did not provide the desired internal link once posted, thereby not providing the intended reader (an Apprentice Editor) the opportunity to click and see the page in its entirety after being pinged. Instead, capital letters in heavy bold appeared. If you are able to clean up this whole page, please do.  Sampajanna (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In the edit summary I linked at the top of this section, I said "All of the other biological relatives listed here British royal family are still addressed as such in their lead sections." However, looking through their articles it now seems that none of them do as Bettydaisies (and one change by Surtsicna) has since edited them all (diffs of revisions at Peter Phillips, Zara Tindall (2), Lady Louise Windsor, James, Viscount Severn, David Armstrong-Jones, 2nd Earl of Snowdon). All were introduced in their lead as "a member of the British royal family" (except for David Armstrong-Jones whose lead said "a relative of the British royal family"). Was there a discussion somewhere where it was agreed to change the format? As far as I'm aware, there wasn't, because the style guide at WP:BRSG has not been changed, so I have reverted those edits. I noticed that Bettydaisies has started a discussion HERE, but the format should not be changed unless it is agreed on there. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi! The style guide refers to British royalty; but can Zara Tindall, an Olympian and untitled descendent of the Queen, really be referred to as such, given her life as a private citizen, and notability in her separate career? Additionally, the style guide in question seems to be formatted toward monarchs and again, royal members of notability and title in their capacity as a royal, .--Bettydaisies (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The question over who should be counted as royalty is mentioned at WP:BROY here, but the talk page link doesn't work and I can't see the discussion in the archives. I suggest waiting to see what members of that WikiProject recommend. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Bettydaisies has raised the matter on the WikiProject British Royalty talk page. We'll see what people there think.  -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Invoking the Royal we is not crucial at this juncture. Besides, the busy Christmas season is looming, and deflecting this matter could prove counter-productive. (See other comments below) Sampajanna (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Until there is consensus for inclusion, the disputed sentence should be out. See WP:ONUS: "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Surtsicna (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree with Surtsicna. Meanwhile, please move onto something else. As of, there are articles in the English Wikipedia containing over 3.7 billion words (giving an average of about 600 words per article), and  pages. Sampajanna (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * LOL. And yet, here you are. After spending a whole week of snarky comments telling other editors what's to be done, you've moved on to telling them where they should be doing it.  Your advice could fall closer to home. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 13:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:CIV WP:PA (Quote: EscapeOrbit) "LOL. And yet, here you are. After spending a whole week of snarky comments telling other editors what's to be done, you've moved on to telling them where they should be doing it. Your advice could fall closer to home." User:Escape_Orbit : Please refrain from referring to yourself in the plural and speaking on behalf of other editors, who have clearly indicated that they have individual thought processes of their own, even though they may not be the same as yours.Sampajanna (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your repeated little digs and insinuations at other editors are noted. You should reflect on how they make you sound to others.  When I say "we" I mean it in the usual sense of everyone in the discussion. Thank you for the diagram, but you seem to have forgotten that "we", everyone, establish consensus.  When I say "editors" I mean those you've shouted at, been snide to (you know exactly when you are doing it), or told to "move on". That is not a personal attack, that is a request that you please stop it. Behaviour like this makes editing Wikipedia a hostile place. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * A gentle reminder that positive or negative feedback directed personally toward an editor belongs on their individual talk page, not this talk page, per WP:TALK.--Bettydaisies (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)




 * WP:AVOIDYOU "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor . Personal attacks harm the Wikipedia community and the collaborative atmosphere needed to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks or even bans." Sampajanna (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to a comment on Talk:Sarah, Duchess of York, I've discovered that there is an official list at https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf, but it includes a whole of bunch of people that wouldn't ordinarily be considered any part of the royal family. It looks far too wide to me. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree. It also appears to be listed in the order of succession to the British throne, and there are various discrepancies in terms of the bespoke lead-in within the list. I think there should be a consensus/decision made on the precedent to avoid further confusion on who "member of the British royal family" applies to; regardless, their relations will be linked in their page.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

_______________________________________________________________


 * Hi - I put the following on Celia's talk page yesterday. No response. Seeing as you seem to research the royals very thoroughly, perhaps you may care to comment here. Sampajanna (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks to a comment on Talk:Sarah, Duchess of York, I've discovered that there is an official list at https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf, but it includes a whole of bunch of people that wouldn't ordinarily be considered any part of the royal family. It looks far too wide to me. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your attention is drawn to four listings on that document:
 * Their Royal Highnessess The Duke and Duchess of Sussex
 * Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
 * His Royal Highness The Duke of York

Then, at the foot of the page:
 * Sarah, Duchess of York

I can appreciate that Sarah is no longer a HRH. Hence, her name being at the bottom of the list. What I wonder though, and perhaps you can help speculate, is what the list would look like if The Duke and Duchess of Sussex were i) stripped of their HRHs (especially the Duchess) and ii) divorced. Based on the document above, my guess is the Duke and his son Archie would still stay positioned the same on the list because of their direct royal bloodline. However, the Duchess of Sussex (if that title was retained) would be moved down but just above Sarah, Duchess of York.

Thanks. Sampajanna (talk) 11:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd say it definitely depends on the March review, regarding their titles and place in precedence. In an ordinary circumstance, a royal couple "ranked" above the Sarah's ex-husband divorces, such as Harry and Meghan, I think she might be ranked/listed a notch higher, while Archie keeps his place. However, given the circumstances of his private upbringing as well as Megxit, while Archie will never lose his place in the line of succession, I doubt he will be considered "on par" with say, Prince George or Princess Charlotte if his parents' HRH titles are officially renounced. There's a myriad of speculation about whether this might happen, based on the couple's complete relocation to Santa Barbra, their lack of (public) activity within their UK patronages, the establishment of Archewell in Los Angeles, etc.


 * In my humble opinion, even if it's prior to the conclusion of their initial one-year "trial" period, it's sufficient to assume that their official departure from the royal family is a sure thing. Their names are being kept on the website to honor their agreement for now, much like how Prince Harry's honorary military positions haven't (I think) been revoked as of yet. If their departure is made official, I do think they might be moved with Sarah, though not without controversy. There's plenty of HRHs on that list who rarely engage in public work, but then again, no HRH has ever closed up shop and left the country in the same way, so it's a very chewy subject, especially when you add the "membership of the royal family" factor into pages like Archie's.--Bettydaisies (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there may be more than one type of 'official' list. For example, the list linked above is clearly as expansive as possible, and that is possibly [my speculation] because it is the list for trademarks/copyright and so they've cast the net widely to catch anyone who might be associated with the royal family in the media/business world. There's another list of 'working members' and then another list of people who use 'HRH' (working members, plus Beatrice and Eugenie), and another one of people eligible to use 'HRH' (people who use it plus Louise, James, Harry and Meghan). It's up to editors to decide together by consensus which of these lists we're going to use. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's definitely expansive and relative, rather than definite. In my mind, "member of the British royal family" can be taken two ways - either, a blood descendent/relative of the House of Windsor, or working public servant who appears at official events, engagements, etc. In my opinion, the latter is more popularly known and referred to by the general public. If it's up to the editors, I feel like this is a discussion that could be done on a separate article then this one? Perhaps at Talk:British royal family or something like that, rather than continuing to clutter this talk page.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

_____________________________________:__________________________

HRH eligibility, or not?
If the Queen would have made him an HRH had it not been for his parents' request that she not do that, then in what sense was he not eligible? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Re this edit:
 * Who says that she would have? He is not eligible under any letters patent. Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Then what was this about his parents requesting she not give him the title? Or was it that they asked she not give him a title? --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  23:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "eligible" is the right word. The Queen can make anyone she likes an HRH. I recall there was an expectation that extra LPs would be issued for the Sussex children as they would automatically become HRH in due course when Charles inherits the throne but it didn't happen. Whether the Duke & Duchess would have had to ask for the LPs to be issued or ask for them to not be issued is an internal Palace matter. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They asked that he not be styled as Earl of Dumbarton, which is typically how the non-royal sons of a royal peer are styled (i.e., George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, James, Viscount Severn, Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster). They instead asked that he not use his subsitiary title and just be plain Archie Mountbatten-Windsor. Piratesswoop (talk) 17:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

See Oprah interview. They clearly desperately wanted him to be titled a Prince. Meghan says ‘it’s his birth right’. Under current letters patent (specifically from 1917), when his grandfather becomes King, Archie will be eligible to be given the title of HRH Prince of Sussex. In the end, it’s Prince Charles decision. But we know for a fact now that The D+D of Sussex wanted their son to be a HRH Prince. Archie could technically use Harry’s subsidiary title Earl of Dumbarton, but for some reason no comment was made about that by Harry or Markle. Royaleditorviii (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Edit: a lot of what I’m seeing discussed above is just speculation from the media. We now know what the Sussexes really wanted. Royaleditorviii (talk) 12:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

UK/US category
Should young Archie be included in the British expatriates in /British emigrants to the United States category? I'm sure I read in some obscure publication that his parents had moved to California. This category is typical for Brits/Americans abroad. See any number of entertainment figures et al. No Swan So Fine (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Please do not leave one only message on my talk page, then close it as an 'Off topic discussion'. See comment already left in the edit summary for Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor : Because Archie was born to a U.S. citizen, he is considered a "natural born citizen". Sampajanna (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your edit summaries. I couldn't work out how your talk page displayed messages, as mine didn't appear after I posted it. I reasoned that here was the proper place for discussion as this was the primary subject. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See the request directory for a comprehensive directory of interactive services and assistance that can be requested on Wikipedia. Sampajanna (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No, he shouldn't be in that category because Americans aren't expatriates when they live in their own country. Sampajanna, No Swan So Fine did not alter any formatting on your talk page or close off a discussion with a hatnote. You did that yourself by using hat instead of hab here. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * DrKay : Thanks for your input. There was no need for No Swan So Fine to post on my talk page in the first place, as I had already commented in the edit summary of the Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor article. Sampajanna (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. Sampajanna, I merely wished to tell you of my query here, and intended no harm. It was after I had posted the message that I saw your edit summary. I am sorry if I have caused any upset. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That's literally what talk pages are for. Communication between editors. No Swan So Fine, you have no reason to apologise. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. / Escape_Orbit : The matter has been resolved. / No Swan So Fine : Is there any reason for this UK/US category discussion to remain open?   Sampajanna (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps as evidence of the internecine nature of our project for Master Archie to read in decades hence; otherwise, no. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No Swan So Fine : I wwill take that as a comment and close the discussion for you now. Sampajanna (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The current prince/princess protocol is not a result of just the 2012 letters patent
, the phrase Of the Queen's nine great-grandchildren, only the three children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are currently Princes and Princesses due to letters patent issued 2012, ... is only partially true. All that the 2012 letters patent did was ensure that all children of William would be princes/princesses, and not just the oldest son. That 2012 provision did not change William's eldest son's right to be a prince, that was due to the 1917 letters patent. That is why I disagree with your revert, and think we need to make that clear by saying something like Of the Queen's nine great-grandchildren, only the three children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are currently Princes and Princesses due to 1917 and 2012 letters patent, ... -- DeFacto (talk). 21:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * DeFacto is correct, as summarized in this piece by the BBC, which makes clear that Prince George would have been entitled to the title "prince" without the 2012 letters patent. I would support mentioning the 1917 letters patent in the statement on accuracy grounds. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor
(Moved to here from my talkpage. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC))

Hello [DeFacto], many things are speculation, yet they are still being included, without proof or evidence. It's included because it's been reported. The reference to Archie becoming Prince upon Charles' accession was even referenced in the interview with mention of the 1917 letters patent. It provides the context of why Archie doesn't have it now and why the reason given is not a valid reason now, but will do in the future for another reason which is legal. There's nothing wrong with including it, as it is even in the source how it would affect Archie by explicit use of his name. — Calvin999 10:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , assuming you were referring to this edit of mine, speculation cannot be stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, it needs to be carefully attributed as speculation. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well if that is the case, Wikipedia needs a purge of content. Many things are included which are speculation but never the less reported and part of daily discourse. It was in the news 3 weeks ago, so before any of this about the Sussex's, that Charles wants to remove HRH Prince from Beatrice and Eugenie and strip them of Royal Duties when he's King, it's been a hot potato between Charles and Andrew for years. Even the on the Queen's bio, it says 'should she still be reigning she'll break X, Y and Z' records, but that is speculation, as it hasn't happened yet and may potentially not happen. What level of speculation are you willing to include, especially when it's getting a lot more coverage from reputable sources owing to this interview. It is a fact that Archie will be elevated upon the accession of Charles by default. — Calvin999  11:11, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , notable and properly attributed speculation can be acceptable. See WP:DUE and WP:VER too. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But this is not? Even though many more news sources like the BBC in the past hour are running articles about it. — Calvin999  12:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , what source did you use (the name you gave was missing)? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:04, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This one, This one say about a slimmed down monarchy, and this This one also says about what will happen when Charles accedes. I did includes references and it's in other articles that haven't been used yet as it's become a focal point of fact checking. — Calvin999  12:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , those sources do not support what you wrote. The BBC one suggests it is not known how Charles would like to see the family slimmed-down. In my view, the best we could say from those is something like: The Duchess suggested that they had been told that, because of Charles's wish to slimdown the royal family, the protocols would be changed to prevent Archie from becoming an HRH and prince. We need to be clear that it is a personal opinion or interpretation and not incontrovertible fact. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It literally says But the couple indicated they had been told those rules would be changed, in line with Charles’s plan for a slimmed-down monarchy, leaving Archie without his birthright title or the security protection that goes with it. It's not a fact because it hasn't happened, but it's being spoken about. Charles has said this for years, well before Meghan or Archie, but Harry and Meghan are taking it personally as if it's being applied to them only, which isn't the case. Beatrice and Eugenie will likely be stripped under this slimmed down monarchy proposal too. That's why it's relevant, as she's made an accusation about something to do with Archie's title when Charles becomes king, so he would be title-less. — Calvin999 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , as I said, those sources do not support what you added to the article. They do support what I offered above though. The main difference is the attribution and the voice used. We may know, and be able to reliably source that Charles has stated that he wishes to see a "slimmed down monarchy" as sovereign, but we cannot conclude from that (especially as we also know that no details of his ideas have been published) that This would preclude Archie an elevation of status should he accede to the throne and provided letters patent then be issued to create the change required. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is that one is indicative of the other, because if Charles does slim it down and remove titles, this will be done by letters patent (similar to the Queen removing HRH from Diana and Sarah). So it would preclude him from having the title he would otherwise get under 1917. That's what I was getting at. — Calvin999  16:54, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , if he does choose to slim it down and if he does choose to remove their entitlements... That's unfounded speculation then. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is completely unfounded and upon another listen the Duchess did not suggest anything however a lot of opinions and so-called experts worked to put words in her mouth. The Duchess recalled the convention and named it, I think we need to stick with facts lest this article become a farce close to the comment section of tabloid websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyAvia (talk • contribs) 04:12 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Name
Isn't choosing a hypocoristic Archie instead of the original name Archibald unusual for a given name? Isn't it more informal than expected in a royal family? Has there been some explanation on the choice? --Error (talk) 12:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You are indeed correct that choosing a pet name is quite unusual for the royal family. That said, I have not seen any explanation for the choice, other than that Harry and Meghan liked the name. Jacoby531 (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * It would once have been unusual but is becoming a lot more common in the UK. I don't know if anyone has done any research, but I would wager the ratio of hypocoristics like "Billy" to names that often end up abbreviated like "William" has increased substantially over the last twenty years or so in terms of names recorded on birth certificates. The choice of "Archie" here therefore reflects a wider trend, but as you've noted, the royal family might be expected to be more traditional, and evidently Archie's parents decided to go the non-traditional route. If someone can find a reliable source making this point it should go in the article. Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Additions
Hello.

I was going to add some elements to the page, but I thought that I'd run them by everyone else here first.

Would there be any objection to a "See also" section being added that contains a link to the Black British nobility section of the page for Black Brits? Although Archie is admittedly mixed race as opposed to Black, the definition used on the page itself describes a Black Brit as a person of recognizable Black African descent. He undoubtedly qualifies. O.ominirabluejack (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Claims of racism
Text to be removed: In the 2021 television interview Oprah with Meghan and Harry, the Duchess of Sussex said that a member of the royal family was concerned "about how dark [Archie's] skin might be when he's born".

Reason for change: Many readers may understand the Duchess of Sussex's quote to mean that a member of the royal family was racist towards her son, while in fact, her statements on the subject contradicted with those made by the Duke of Sussex in the same interview which being that there were no such conversations while she was pregnant. While he did say somebody inquired what their offspring might look like, before their marriage, there is no clear evidence as to whether there was a racist attitude.

GoNeutral (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The text appears to be supported by the source and I am unable to find a source saying that Harry contradicted the remark by saying that there were no such conversations while she was pregnant. DrKay (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The same article used as the source for those texts: Oprah with Meghan and Harry contains the elements of Prince Harry's contradiction. Is that not enough? Additionally, i found one article titled 'Meghan Markle and Prince Harry’s ‘contradiction within interview’ on key Archie claim' GoNeutral (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So, if I'm reading that correctly, the source is 'Rona from Norway' contacting a podcast reported secondhand in the Daily Express? DrKay (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just one question. As i've previously mentioned, what about the wikipedia article (Oprah with Meghan and Harry) that the texts are sourced from? Not to mention, that article sources it from The Guardian. GoNeutral (talk) 10:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian is a reliable source, though sometimes opinionated, but the Guardian article is a list of quotes. It doesn't actually say it's a contradiction or pass any commentary on the interview. I think it's fine to re-activate the edit request if there's a Guardian article (or other reliable source) saying explicitly that there was no clear evidence of a racist attitude, but I also think there's greater chance of an edit request being accepted if it's adding Harry's words rather than removing Meghan's. DrKay (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
Why is the terms "(father)" and "(mother)" placed next to Harry & Meghan's names in the -parents' section here & at Lilibet's infobox? GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is how Template:Infobox person interprets "mother" and "father" parameters. It would not say so if we used the parameter "parents" instead. Do you think we should? Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We should. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Arguments are always appreciated. Surtsicna (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What is there to argue about? The change to the 'parents' parameter would make it consistent with most the other British royal bios infoboxes. I say most, as Lady Louise Windsor & James, Viscount Severn also aren't using the parents parameter. Then, there's Peter Phillips & Zara Tindall, which use yet another version. GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Decisions about his style and title
Headlines are appearing like Was Meghan's son Archie denied the title 'prince' because he's mixed race? To answer readers' curiosity about Archie's lack of a title, I would think the article needs to mention the George V letters patent that cover this.

The perception emerging following the interview seems to be that Archie was actively denied the title of prince, but as I understand it the legal situation is that he would not be automatically entitled to that, nor to the style HRH, until Charles accedes to the throne, at which point Archie would be a prince by virtue of being a grandson of the sovereign. There is a meaningful distinction between "queen actively denies Archie style and title of a prince" and "queen doesn't go out of her way to make someone who isn't automatically a prince into one". If I understand the rules correctly it looks like an act of omission rather than commission.

Regarding precedent and comparators for such an omission, the article should probably mention that William's children did all become princes automatically at birth under letters patent from 2012, but these were issued before any of William's children were born and long before the engagement of Harry and Meghan. Since Harry's descendants are on course to form a cadet branch of the house of Windsor in future would it not be expected that they don't necessarily get to be princes and princesses? There have always been lots of people with traceable royal ancestry and only a small fraction of them have styles and titles. The queen has nine great-grandchildren: William's three children, Archie, and then August Brooksbank, Savannah and Isla Phillips, and Mia and Lena Tindall. Apart from William's three, none of them are princes or princesses. Unlike Archie, the others won't become such when Charles accedes. The queen also has a niece, Sarah Chatto, who has never been HRH Princess Sarah (though perhaps female-line descent makes a difference there).

A separate question concerns the decision not to use one of Harry's subsidiary titles like Earl of Dumbarton as a courtesy title for Archie. Does this have anything to do with a decision by the queen? My understanding is that it doesn't, i.e. no letters patent would be needed, and that Archie's parents were and are free to refer to their son as the Earl of Dumbarton and request that others do the same, but for whatever reason have not done so. I hope someone on firmer footing with this topic can add the necessary explanation to the article. Beorhtwulf (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The situation is confused because there are precedents in both directions and we have seemingly contradictory statements from the Sussexes that have to be viewed in light of the breakdown in relations between them and at least some of the Palace.
 * In 1917 George V performed a big clearing out exercise of the Royal Family. As well as separating out the British and German titles he also did a big cut down on who had the style & title HRH Prince/Princess through the issuing of the Letters Patent that remain the core legal instrument. Basically he cut it back to the children of monarch, the male line grandchildren plus any third in line apparent not otherwise covered since they would become King unless they died early (remember that Edward VIII was born in his great grandmother's reign). Reportedly a lot of cousins were not very happy with this but these have been the basic rules.
 * However just because something isn't provided for in written law doesn't mean that it doesn't normally happen. A lot of things get repeated every relevant time even if they are strictly a voluntary new action to the point the de facto custom is different from the de jure law.
 * Additional Letters Patent have been issued over the years either to add someone whom it is deemed should be of the rank (Philip who had renounced his Greek & Danish titles) or to deny it in special circumstances (basically the boundary of the Royal Family was placed in the middle of the Duke & Duchess of Windsor's marriage; later another set stripped divorced ex wives of the style) or, most relevantly, to fasttrack it to children who would otherwise have to await an accession before the qualified automatically. In the late 1940s the-then Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh's yet-to-be-born children were given the style & title as it was now clear their mother would be the next monarch. More recently all the future Cambridge children were given them before George's birth. To the best of my knowledge there are the only other two cases of children who would not have the titles & styles at birth but get them later under the 1917 LPs.
 * (The Wessexes are a very different situation. The children have the style & title automatically but their parents have made a conscious decision to not use it. No legal instrument has removed it. If their parents change their mind or if one or both children on coming of age opt to start using them then they can do so straight away.)
 * The Queen is, I think, the first great grandparent on the throne since Victoria. So there simply isn't a post 1917 precedent for a future monarch's male line grandchildren via a younger son. The default position in law is that Archie would default not become HRH Prince until Charles's accession but what is the default position in practice? Was it expected that the Queen would issue another set of LPs fasttracking the Sussex children but someone asked for it to not happen? Did a conscious decision get taken to make an exception and not grant them a fasttrack? Or would the Sussexes have had to ask for it and either actively chose not to, failed to ask at all or got turned down?
 * The Earl of Dumbarton situation is also complicated. First it's also not clear if the Earldom is a normal one that would be used by a Duke's heir as a courtesy title or it's like the Earl of Strathearn and Earl of Forfar which are both used by the relevant Princes themselves as their titles when in Scotland. (To the best of my knowledge Harry and Meghan never performed any duties in Scotland between marriage and departure so it's hard to check what they are officially called when in Scotland.) Royal Princes don't use courtesy titles so it normally wouldn't be a problem. But there's the statement that the Sussexes have chosen for their son to not use any courtesy title which is something within their control.
 * The whole thing is messy because there seems to a mix of statements suggesting active rejection and uncertainty over what would have happened. From reports it also seems the Duchess was not very well informed of the legal situation. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this is exactly the kind of attention to detail I was looking for. I just hope some of it can make it into the article! Since my original comment above, I and others have made some edits that have covered the basics, but not yet the nuance and context you've given here. You are surely right about the Duchess of Sussex appearing not to know the rules. It was striking that she also hadn't realised she would be expected to curtsey when she was first introduced to the queen, and also that the couple appeared to believe they had actually been married a few days before their public wedding, presumably at a rehearsal of some kind, with no witnesses.
 * Hopefully sources will emerge soon that will allow us to cover this topic with the nuance it requires. Although judging by what I've seen so far I expect we will see articles appearing in supposedly reliable sources, e.g. major newspapers, that get the legal situation wrong. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:23, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. In 2018, the title 'Master' was decided upon. I hope this helps. -HyacinthBucket55 (talk) 07:28, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This portion about Archie and the title of Earl of Dumbarton not being used over the word "Dumb" is inaccurate and needs to be removed or a disclaimer added. Furthermore, Archie's parents have not mentioned publicly they had any issues with the name Dumbarton. The quoted source is an anonymous royal aide. Also, his father is already Earl of Dumbarton. Source https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-44180383

Remove portion re: Dumbarton. Archie is not eligible to use the title of Earl of Dumbarton as it is still his father's. The same way George does not use William's other titles is the same way Archie doesn't use Harry's, that is not how titles work this needs to be corrected. Furhermore, the source is a gossip reporter who feels the need to attack a toddler, surely wikipedia isn't citing her emotions as source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyAvia (talk • contribs)
 * Archie would normally use Earl of Dumbarton as a courtesy title in the United Kingdom, in the same way as James, Viscount Severn, and George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, etc. I see no particular problem with the paragraph on the grounds of verifiability as it is qualified by 'reportedly' and the Sussexes haven't denied it. There may be grounds to remove it on triviality. DrKay (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No. James is the grandson of the current monarch and was given the title of Viscount Severn by the Queen through letters patent. That title never belonged to his father it was gifted based on Sophie's Welsh roots. No other member of the royal family aside from the Prince of Wales is titled using a Welsh name. Archie is the great-grandson of the current monarch and is not yet titled as per his birthright though he should be if Charles becomes king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyAvia (talk • contribs) 03:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What? That's nonsense. James was not given anything by the Queen through any Letters Patent. The Letters Patent was for Edward, giving him the titles Viscount Severn and Earl of Wessex. James, as the eldest son of the Earl of Wessex, can use his father's subsidiary title as a courtesy title which he does because it was the Queen's decision, with the assent of Edward and Sophie, that even though their children legally still have their royal titles, they would be styled like children of an earl. As the eldest son and heir of the Earl of Wessex, James is entitled to use Viscount Severn as a courtesy title. Just like the Duke of Kent's oldest son and heir is Earl of St. Andrews and the Duke of Gloucester's son and heir is Earl of Ulster. Archie, similarily, as the oldest son and heir to the Duke of Sussex is entitled to be Earl of Dumbarton as his father's courtesy title. George does not use a courtesy title because his royal title of Prince George of Cambridge is already a courtesy title as the son of a royal duke. Piratesswoop (talk) 04:11, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

It should still be removed or a clarification that his parents have also not confirmed this information as true about using the title. Simply saying, "They haven't denied it" is not sufficient enough to keep that source listed, on the child's bio. In fact, it leaves the readers to believe it's true, that they have a problem with the Earl of Dumbarton title. When they've not spoken for nor against the Earl Dumbarton title use, for their son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebrown43 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"In accordance with their wish that he grow up as a private citizen"
Is this sentence still accurate? Should it be "purported wish"? It seems as if the parents did not wish for this, and would have preferred for him to be a prince Park3r (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is certainly an apparent contradiction between what was reported at the time, and what his parents said in their Oprah interview. The other interesting part is that while the decision about whether he should be styled and titled as a prince and HRH is not for his parents to make, they are perfectly free to begin using his subsidiary title, but appear not to have done so. Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are no subsidiary titles for Archie to use. Can we please ensure we have people contributing who have historical knowledge of how titles work? There is a law literally written out I've noticed a great deal of sourcing is from untrustworthy UK papers full of opinions. Please let's at least ensure proper research is done and valid points raised are looked into properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyAvia (talk • contribs) 04:12 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect, as can be determined by doing research. DrKay (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * U|Beorhtwulf Correct. This is determined by several different Acts that were written out of necessity over Britain's history.
 * Support with revisions — I agree, this section needs to be revised. Possible suggestions: 1) [Disclaimer: These should be reworded/copy edited by someone else before being used.] "The widely reported claims that it was the wish of his parents that Archie not receive a title; be given the Mountbatten-Windsor family name; and not be entitled to the benefits due such title, are dubious." 2) [Disclaimer: Reword/copy edit] "Further, based on updated statements made by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex during their televised appearance in the Oprah interview, the Duke and Duchess expressed concern for Archie's safety and their desire that he be granted a title and any benefits due such title, including protection detail over safety concerns." Kimdorris (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Why no picture? How is he notable?
Why no picture? Other bios have one. Also, what has he DONE (other than be born to notable parents, which is not sufficient to make one notable oneself) to be notable? How many other notable 2-year-olds does Wikipedia have? WordwizardW (talk) 07:09, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Per Image use policy, there are copyright and privacy reasons why it is legally difficult to include an image. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact you are here discussing his photo suggests he is notable. Also a great many reliable sources discussing him prove he is notable.  He needn't have "done" anything to be notable. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 19:25, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User:WordwizardW If you can source/upload a picture, without infringing copyright, please do. Sampajanna (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As for articles about young children, we have quite a few. For example, we have an article about Patrick Bouvier Kennedy, who died when he was 39 hours old. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:13, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * How do I source/upload a picture? I don't know how. Oops, forgot the tildes. WordwizardW (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have been at a public event with little Archie and took a photo yourself, then you are the copyright holder, and you can upload the image to Wikimedia Commons. But I do not think he has appeared at a public event. Any photo you find online must be presumed to be limited by copyright, unless you see rock solid evidence to the contrary. And that seems highly unlikely, given the circumstances and his parents privacy concerns. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * User:WordwizardW The "Privacy and the media" * section of Meghan, Duchess of Sussex article may add more context for you. Sampajanna (talk) 03:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Sampajanna. However, if I enter his name in the DDG search engine, and click for pictures, pictures can be found, presumably in the common domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordwizardW (talk • contribs) 00:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Those photos were likely taken by professional photographers, his parents or other individuals who hold copyrights to those images. The odds of them being free use are very slim. Piratesswoop (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I’d like to suggest you read the WP notability policy: it has nothing at all to do with importance or significance, it comes down to significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Moonraker (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a36332859/prince-harry-meghan-markle-daughter-lilibet-diana-first-photo/
 * there is a photo of Archie here and they've released others. If they don't mind them being in magazines and google images, why would they mind them being on Wikipedia? 188.30.46.5 (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Because we do not allow copyrighted images since our licensing is not compatible. <span style="color: white; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(red, orange, green, blue, indigo, violet)">PRAXIDICAE🌈 16:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2022
He is sixth in the line of succession now Mctaylor214 (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As a male-line grandson of the King, surely Archie should be known as Prince Archie of Sussex Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Education
Since when is Marie Claire a reliable source? Can we refrain from using loaded language, if we don't know the name of the nursery which should no even be mentioned, useless information such as what is written now does not need to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyAvia (talk • contribs) 05:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

"Title and succession" needs more nuance
In this portion of the article, the Duchess said that she had been told that changes would be made to remove that entitlement.[22] She suggested that this was because her son is mixed-race,[11] but the Prince of Wales's plans for a scaled-down royal family date back to the 1990s. Doesn't fully explain the reason behind the Prince of Wales's decision. Since both he and Queen Elizabeth allowed Princess Charlotte and Prince Louis to be given their royal titles, even though their grandfather hadn't reached accession. If the Prince of Wales has had plans since the 1990s for a slim-down monarchy, why does it appear he only plans on enforcing it with Archie and Lili? The readers of their articles are left to wonder why the letters patent issued by King George V will be amended to excluded Archie and Lili. Purplebrown43 (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Not really. Charlotte and Louis are the children of a (presumed) future monarch. Archie and Lilibet are not. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

According to the letters patent issued by King George V, as the grandchildren of a future monarch (presuming) Prince Charles, does ascend to become a monarch. Upon the passing of the Queen. Therefore, Archie and Lili would indeed be entitled to be princes or princesses and get the HRH title. However, if the letters of the patent had been followed in Charlotte and Louis's case like it's being done currently for Archie and Lili then ''Under this protocol, Prince George's siblings - Charlotte and Louis - would not have received the title either. But in December 2012, the Queen also issued a letter patent which said that all of Prince William's children would be entitled to be princes or princesses and get the HRH title.'' This leaves readers of Archie and Lili's articles to ask why was no such letter of a patent issued by the Queen for Prince Harry's children, as he is the son of the future heir. And if the letters patent issued by King George V had not been ignored the children "would have to wait until Prince Charles, the heir to the throne became king, at which point they would be the grandchildren of the monarch and hence entitled to be princes or princesses." This would've applied to both Charlotte and Louis, too. But expectations appear to have been made for them because they're children of an heir (Prince William), who will not be king until after both his father and the Queen, are no longer monarchs. Which is fine. But the claim of Prince Charles wanting a slim-down monarchy contradicts this belief, if he's allowing other family members to continue receiving royal titles, and plans to make changes to the letters of the patent if it only directly affects his two multiracial grandchildren. Thus, it leaves some sort of credence to Markle's claim about a racist bias being the possible motive, to the planned changes of the King George V letters patent. This is why I suggested this section be more nuanced. Purplebrown43 (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This change was made before any of William and Kate's children were born and likely had more to do with the fact that the succession laws were changing and the BRF was, for once, attempting to avoid the bad press that would have occurred had they ended up with Lady Charlotte Windsor, third in line after her father and grandfather who wouldn't be displaced by any future siblings, and her brother, HRH Prince George of Cambridge, fourth in line and given a royal title and style despite his sister having precedence. Piratesswoop (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * King Charles can only amend the 2012 rules as they apply to FUTURE use of "HRH" and "Prince". The moment that Elizabeth II died, the 2012 rules were in force, since Charles was not yet King and could not change the rules until he was King. At the moment Queen Elizabeth II died with the 2012 rules still in force, Archie and his sister became the children of a son (Harry) of the current Monarch (Charles), and if the 2012 rules apply to sons or to both sons and daughters, then one or both of them are "HRH" and "Prince(ss)" as of the moment the Queen died. No future change in the rules can deprive them of these Titles/Styles. Only their own misconduct or their own choice to renounce can deprive them of these ranks. (This is why Queen Elizabeth, as Heir PRESUMPTIVE (not Apparent) to the Throne/Crown, was never Duchess of Cornwall and was never created "Princess of Wales". Should her father have ever had a SON, then, under the old rules, the son would immediately be Heir APPARENT, Duke of Cornwall, and sooner or later Prince of Wales. This would require taking those honors away from Princess Elizabeth, but NOT through a guilty action on her own part: her father had a male child. That's not her culpability. To avoid any possible circumstance in which an honor would have been conferred on Elizabeth and later have to be taken away from her for a brother without fault on her part, the honors were never conferred in the first place.) The current King has nothing to do with the titles and styles of William's children. As Prince of Wales, Charles wouldn't get a say-so there. It was under control of the Queen, and her rules as of 2012 treated the children of the oldest son of the Prince of Wales differently from the children of a male-line grandson of a Monarch. No matter WHO Archie's mother was, under the 2012 rules he would NOT be, at birth, "HRH" or "Prince". Any suggestion that Archie would have been treated differently if he'd had a whiter mother is an outrage vicious lie. I am opposed to Monarchy but the late Queen Regnant should not have been accused of things she wasn't guilty of. 2012 was before Harry MET Meghan.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson