![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
(Wow. Nostalgia for the Wessex edit wars of over ten years ago! DBD 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Someone needs to start the nomination for deletion process, then. Mesmeilleurs Say Hey! 13:55, 16 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
@ 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. Pam D 08:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you everybody for your opinions and reaching a consensus. Best wishes, Willbb234 ( talk) 08:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
To claim that Archie is the "first half-American, biracial royal baby" is incorrect as this epithet could be applied to others, namely:
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
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)
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)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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.
(Wow. Nostalgia for the Wessex edit wars of over ten years ago! DBD 19:38, 16 May 2019 (UTC))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Someone needs to start the nomination for deletion process, then. Mesmeilleurs Say Hey! 13:55, 16 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
References
@ 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. Pam D 08:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Thank you everybody for your opinions and reaching a consensus. Best wishes, Willbb234 ( talk) 08:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
To claim that Archie is the "first half-American, biracial royal baby" is incorrect as this epithet could be applied to others, namely:
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)
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)
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)
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)