Talk:Prince Archie of Sussex

"Title and succession" needs more nuance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

HRH Prince Archie Mountbatten-Windsor

According to the letters patent of 1917 the grandchildren of the current monarch are given the titles of His/Her Royal Highness Prince/Princess of … As Charles 3rd has become king, Harry’s children automatically receive those titles.

https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2021/03/23/craig-prescott-modernising-the-monarchy-moving-beyond-the-1917-letters-patent-and-the-george-v-convention/

Iimmiekins (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC) Iimmiekins (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 10:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Correct however his correct title is Prince Archie of Sussex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.117.131.118 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (2)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

"The grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes of these Our Realms" as a source ~ https://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a28368410/archie-harrison-title-master/ Titles: His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex 183.87.160.46 (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DrKay (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (3)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Archie is not a prince, as this title has not been bestowed upon him by his Grandfather the King. Further more if he were a prince he'd be Prince Archie of Sussex and not York 2A02:C7F:51AD:3F00:6D76:CE0D:D1F3:984C (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022 (4)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Prince Archie Mountbatten-Windsor 2600:1010:A112:F0DD:C0DF:CB4:D17A:1E47 (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aggregation of headings regarding the use of Prince/Princess

He’s now technically Prince Archie

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Since he’s now Prince Archie the article should be edited to reflect this. 2603:6080:DC01:780E:2C06:452E:2650:3988 (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you and I second your motion. As the son of a son of the current Monarch, Archie is "HRH" (i.e., "His Royal Highness") and Prince under the last revision of the rules, which I believe took place in 2012 (more than three years before Harry and Meghan even met, so there is absolutely no way the current rules could have anything to do with Harry and Meghan).2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Unless his parents have the legal power to renounce their CHILD'S Styles and Titles, Archie is right now and always will be "Prince" and "HRH" unless he himself can resign those Styles at a more adult age. Even if the present King revises the rules that were last revised in 2012, there is a principle in things like Heraldry and Honors that an honor cannot be withdrawn except by misconduct of the person who holds it. As long as the 2012 rules were in effect at the moment of Elizabeth II's death, Archie was "HRH" and "Prince" at that instant, and the present King has no power to diminish Archie's rank, except by Archie's own bad conduct or renunciation. Even if the present King restricts FUTURE "HRH"/Prince(ss) to a narrower range of Royal descendants, no person who is CURRENTLY an HRH or Prince(ss) can be deprived of that Style, except by their own misconduct, by a revision of the rules. For instance: the Duke of Gloucester is "HRH" and "Prince" because his father was son of a Monarch (George V). George V is no longer Monarch, but those who have the Styles "HRH" and "Prince(ss)" from their relationship to George V cannot, as long as they don't commit serious crimes, be deprived of their "HRH" or "Prince(ss)" simply because the man died through no fault of their own. Similarly, Queen Elizabeth's mother was always "Her Majesty" until she died, because as the wife of a Monarch she was "Her Majesty". The fact that her husband died was no fault of the Queen Mother, and so she remained "Her Majesty" until her own death despite no longer being a spouse of a Monarch.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The suggestion that it was EVER the case that Archie's Styles and Titles were ever determined by his racial composition is vicious defamation. As long as he was not a child of a son of the current Monarch, and was also not a child of the Heir Apparent of the Heir Apparent, the rules (of 2012, before his parents met) stated that he was not "HRH" nor Prince. The idea that any British Monarch of the 20th or 21st century would promulgate a set of rules that contains the phrase "unless such person has some black ancestry" is preposterous. AND, if any British Monarch before Elizabeth II HAD promulgated such a set of rules, she'd have CHANGED those rules. This whole lie about Archie being denied Styles and/or Titles based on his race should be met with, in all quarters where it is voiced, the contempt it rightfully deserves. It's all based not even on something Meghan said, but on how Oprah Winfrey's staff EDITED two different topics Meghan addressed to make us THINK she said something that she did not say.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Lady Louise Windsor is technically HRH Princess Louise of Wessex (granddaughter of Queen Elizabeth in the male line), however her parents chose to style her as the child of an earl. Would it be best to wait for Harry & Meghan to confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.194.212.21 (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I do beleive it would be best to wait for a response from the Duke and Duchess. Upon her 18th birthday, Lady Louise was able to gain the title of princess if she so chose, so it is enitrely possible that at some point Archie and Lilibet may become Prince and Princess even if their parents decline. EmilySarah99 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Silly

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's silly to clarify that "he's not obligated to call himself a prince". What are they gonna do? Put him in jail for not calling himself a prince? Damián A. Fernández Beanato (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The law is clear

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It is absolutely clear what the rules of titles are at this time. This child is HRH Prince Archie of Sussex.

His and his sisters titles should be added. If HM decides to issue a letters patent to remove the titles then the pages can be updated then.

Opinions on if he will or won't do such a thing are just that, opinion, it is fact that it has not yet been done. 173.212.65.254 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be clear that he’s legally entitled to the title “prince”, even if he’s not obligated to use it. This isn’t controversial and it’s unclear to me why these changes (supported by credible references) keep on being reverted. Gillespk (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It has not been reverted. Titles and succession explains that he is a prince, he is listed under the category Princes of the United Kingdom and the UK Princes template includes him. He is legally a prince but there has not been any official sources updating him and Lilibet's titles. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. cookie monster 755 20:01, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I did a quick search and found these two articles: CNN – Harry and Meghan's children become Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet; and The Guardian – Harry and Meghan’s children become Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet. The articles do not include comment from the Palace and are based largely on the 1917 Letters Patent. However, both are from reliable sources. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, these articles from CBS News; the Independent; and The Telegraph. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoi you are more then free to do a bold move. cookie monster 755 20:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I thought about doing so but noticed that several similar edits were recently reverted. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoi I have requested the pages be moved accordingly. cookie monster 755 20:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I kept getting edit conflicted when I was trying to respond to the discussion below so I am adding what I wanted to say here: Reliable sources support the statement that the children are entitled to the use of "Prince/Princess" under the existing Letters Patent, but they don't say that they are using those titles. Accordingly, I don't think this merits moving the article titles themselves per Wikipedia's article naming conventions. (Lady Louise Windsor is similarly entitled to the title "princess", but because she doesn't use the title, so her article title uses her WP:COMMONNAME.)

If reliable sources begin referring to them as "Prince Archie" or "Princess Lilibet", then I think this can be revisited, but I don't see a trend of that yet--the sources simply state that they are "entitled" to the use of prince/princess (or, alternatively, that they are technically a prince/princess under the existing Letters Patent).

For additional clarity: I fully support discussing these issues in the Titles section because multiple, high quality, reliable sources are discussing them, but I do not support moving the article titles. Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add your comments here, please. There needs to be a central section for discussion. cookie monster 755 21:06, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Never mind it is all in one section now. Thanks. cookie monster 755 21:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 9 September 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Closing as it is premature. Please see discussion below. cookie monster 755 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

---

• Archie Mountbatten-Windsor → Prince Archie of Sussex
• Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor → Princess Lilibet of Sussex

– Under the 1917 letters patent Archie and Lilibet are now Prince Archie of Sussex and Princess Lilibet of Sussex, respectively. Sources here describe them as such: CNN, The New York Timmes, CBS News, NBC Los Angeles, ABC7 News, The Guardian and others. (also please remember this is not a vote; this is a discussion.) cookie monster 755 20:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Hold, bearing in mind discussion about this supposed titles (below) DBD 20:45, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Supposed "legal" titles

Yes, there was a 1917 Letters Patent, and this has been widely-reported. However, (and we have discussed this very matter at length at Talk:James, Viscount Severn and Talk:Lady Louise Windsor) it is speculative (at best) to say that the children "legally have a title" when it is not used. It is not surprising that even usually-reliable American news outlets have got carried away, but they show little understanding of the British system. The Sovereign (now Charles III) is the fount of honour. By his agreement with the children's parents, they do not use titles. Any titles they may theoretically have had cannot, therefore, be used (because the King, fount of honour, doesn't wish it). So it's nonsense to say they "have" them. Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Therefore I propose: these articles should not move, and should not make too much of these reports in the prose. DBD 20:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DBD Should I close the move discussion as premature? cookie monster 755 20:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

CookieMonster755 Please. DBD 20:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

DBD it has been closed. The discussion needs to take place here. cookie monster 755 20:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

CookieMonster755 Much obliged. Wish me luck. DBD 20:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

cookie monster 755 21:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Both American and British reliable sources describe them as having the prince/princess title, there are many sources displaying this. It's all well and good for one wikipedia editor to assert otherwise, but Wikipedia should following the reporting of reliable sources (including reliable British newspapers of the Independent, Guardian, and Telegraph). Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, according to the 1917 Letters Patent Archie is a Prince and Lilibet a Princess. But, as with the Wessexes' children, their parents may not wish them to be known as such. Things have moved fairly quickly and the parents themselves have probably yet to make a decision. I think Wikipedia should wait until they do. Opera hat (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not the parents' wishes that matter, it's the Sovereign's, and two it's the known will of both the late and the current Sovereign that they not be prince/ss... So they aren't. Letters Patent aren't the only way for the Monarch to make their will known. DBD 21:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Archie & Lilibet are 'now' a British prince & princess. Whether or not they'll use those ranks? Up to their parents. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

But how are 'use' and 'are' different? If they 'are' but don't 'use', surely the being is hypothetical? DBD 21:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They are enititled to use those styles, but are not reqiuired to. EmilySarah99 (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

References

(conflict) Unfortunately there are media sources regurgitating each other and they quite often rely on Wikipedia for verification, which creates a circularity problem for us. The King has not made known any change in his grandchildren's styles, so as best we can tell officially, nothing has changed. In this case, primary source is king (geddit?). We ought to err on the side of caution and even-handedly report that certain sources claim this, but it is not verified. That way we avoid perpetuating either way. This is a difficult time characterised by a great deal of action without much thought in order to maintain interest and media engagement. We are an encyclopaedia not media; we can afford to take the long, slow, moderate view. DBD 21:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Louise & James (the king's niece & nephew) are a British princess & prince. Yet, the don't use their rank. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Or... they are Viscount/Lady because the late Queen said so and the new King has not yet said otherwise. The will of the Sovereign, however expressed, is authoritative in the matter of titles and styles, especially royal ones. DBD 21:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Edward & Sophie, didn't want their children to be a princess & prince. But, they were entitled to be. Anyways, if the king bestows the title "Duke of Edinburgh" on Edward? Then Archie will 'one day' inherit that title. On a side note, assuming the king will predecease his brother Andrew? Then Louis will likely be the next "Duke of York". GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, GoodDay. What does entitled mean? 1917 LP expressed the Sovereign's will; and then in 1999 (IIRC) the Sovereign expressed a change in her will: that the Wessex children not be prince/ss. Same for the Sussex children, but more recent. DBD 21:56, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

They are not viscount and lady becuause the late Queen "said so" (press releases are not letters patent). They are prince and princess because the 1917 Letters Patent say so. The Earl and Countess of Wessex just chose not to use their childrens' princely titles. The title of viscount is actually Edward's secondary title after earl; James gets to use it as a courtesy (which is common for the eldest sons of peers who have multiple titles). And lady is just the way of referring to all daughters of peers. Sophie is on record stating she would let Louise decide on or after her 18th birthday whether she wants to start using her title of princess or not. So far, Louise hasn't started to use it.

The Sussex children are not comparable. They're a generation farther away from the monarch than the Wessex children are. And that matters when it comes to the 1917 Letters Patent. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 21:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Sussex children are comparable. The Wessex children were the grandchildren of a Monarch, and so are the Sussex children. With both of their fathers being younger sons of a monarch. EmilySarah99 (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 5) I don't think we can simply ignore the secondary reliable sources. My suggestion is to edit the Titles section in one of the following ways: 1) change the words might have become a prince to became entitled to the use of the title "prince"; 2) state that Multiple sources state that Archie and Lilibet became entitled to the use of prince/princess upon the accession of Charles III; or 3) copy the sentence from James, Viscount Severn that says 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 (which is supported by several of the sources noted in the discussions above), and then note the prior statements released at the time of the childrens' birth indicating that they wouldn't use titles. (I also think we should note the statements from the Oprah interview where the Sussexes indicated that they thought Archie would become a prince upon his father's accession but they were told this wouldn't happen...but that's a different discussion altogether.). I don't think we need to change the article title, the lead, or the infobox unless reliable sources actively begin calling them "Prince" or "Princess." Aoi (青い) (talk) 21:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Let’s be very clear here. It doesn’t matter whether his mother wants him to be known as a prince or not. The second the Queen died, he automatically became a Prince of the United Kingdom. In the same way that Camilla was formally the Princess of Wales, even if she chose not to use the title, he is now HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. 86.25.204.48 (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

This involves their first cousins-once-removed, too. Maybe, this should be brought up at a more appropriate page, concerning this general topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Telegraph I first found this when she died. Unless Charles does a letters patent they are legally Prince and Princess with the use of HRH. Lady Meg (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Letters Patent are definitive. Archie is legally a prince by operation of law, until such a time that the law is changed. He is legally a prince/HRH by virtue of his relation to the Sovereign, but he (or his parents) may choose not to use that title. This is all supported by a multitude of credible primary and secondary sources, and it shouldn’t be the least bit controversial to note this information on his Wikipedia page (without the changes being reverted). However, until such a time as it is confirmed that he will henceforth be known by a different name than Master Archie, I agree that the page should not be moved to Prince Archie. Gillespk (talk) 00:09, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Gillespk—keep the article as is but mention that he is indeed a Prince and entitled to HRH. There seems to be only one person against this who is actively changing other pages to reflect their own personal views. Mountbatten Windsor was already changed by this person arguing that they aren’t Prince and Princess. Lady Meg (talk) 00:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction Mountbatten-Windsor. Lady Meg (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear that they "have" them but that the strong expectation is that they don't "use" them. I don't think it's quite correct to say they can't use them, except in the sense that if they decided to (on maturity, or even less likely, if their parents starting using them on their behalf) there'd be a Mexican standoff there the king, having established in a quasi-private agreement that they won't be used, would be put in the position of formally removing them (or else grinning and bearing it, or family-summitting to try to get a fresh agreement, or whatever that ep of the royal soap opera might eventuate as). So the articles should certainly not be titled according to these "legal" arguments, nor should it wikivoice state them as facts. If there's a notable amount of RS discussion of such matters, then it can be included and attributed on that basis. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't know anymore. There's been so much activity since September 8, 2022? That's it's going to take a little while for the dust to settle. I'm content if we go with prince & princess, or if we don't. GoodDay (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Gillespk. This situation has unfolded drastically and until we get more information, leave the base names as is. The article should state that they are legally (or might be) HRH prince and princess as that is what reliable sources say. cookie monster 755 06:07, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Seeing as they're male-line grandchildren of the monarch? ok. GoodDay (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer the prose be phrased as agnostic as possible. We are inevitably part of the news cycle and risk making something so merely by including it (because we have sources, which themselves used us!). I propose something like: Letters patent issued in 1917 (and still remaining in force today) assign a princely status and the style of Royal Highness to all male-line grandchildren of a monarch. Therefore, all else being equal, Mountbatten-Windsor would have become styled as His/Her Royal Highness Prince/ss Archie/Lilibet of Sussex from their grandfather's accession.{Prince/ss source(s)} However, before his/her birth, his/her parents (with the agreement of the then-Queen and now-King) decided instead that he/she would be styled as Master Archie/Miss Lilibet Mountbatten-Windsor in accordance with their wish that he/she grow up as a private citizen.{'Multiple sources'}

This way, we talk only about styles rather than entitlement or hypothetical titles; only what is the case, not what may or may not be. (And we contain reference to prince/ssliness to this paragraph alone.) What say we? DBD 07:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording of that could do with some work, but it's essentially on the right lines. I've two main issues with it: firstly, the first couple of sentences if presented like this in wikivoice sound a little like they're making an editorial line of argument. Better to attribute such logic to secondary sources -- and many of them are willing to, good luck finding a soberly worded one! -- doing so, rather than risk any appearance of leaning OR-ish. Secondly, it's rather unclear if the decision on styles was led by the parents (as this implies), the palace, is a mutual agreement, or indeed a sulky standoff. (Sounds a little like the parents were holding out for "Prince" or Duke or Earl of someplace they deemed nicer-sounding, and the palace were more inclined to say "be happy and use what you've got, and we're making no concrete promises about not 'slimming down' the HRH rules in future." But the sources implying this are rather gossipier than we'd like, so maybe an "by agreement between" or "after discussions between" would be safer (because vaguer). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source for titles

This site should be the official source for titles https://www.royal.uk/succession. They have now updated and changed the titles for William (Prince of Wales) and his children (Prince/Princess of Wales) but nothing for Archie and Lilibet's titles. Unfriendnow (talk) 10:41, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

And here's our official policy on using official sources: WP:PRIMARY. (Short version, we don't.) We have perfectly satisfactory secondary sources, which is how and why we establish notability and neutrality. It's probably fine to add this in addition, or as an 'external link', but it should never be the source when at all avoidable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see why a newspaper speculating about whether or not the Sussex children are now prince and princess is more reliable than the official Royal Family website which makes clear they're not. This seems a little like blindly following rules when it makes little sense to do so. Fahrenheit666 (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a lot of nonsense here. WP:PRIMARY does not say we don't use official sources. And the official Royal Family website does not make clear they are not prince or princess. The Duke of Sussex and Earl of Wessex are unquestionably princes even though the titles used on the page don't use the term "prince" for them. Rlendog (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The reason why the titles of prince aren't on the page for Harry and Edward is because the title Duke and Earl are higher than Prince. Unfriendnow (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

By no means the case. King > prince > duke > marquis > earl > viscount > baron > knight > pleb. It's because those are their "substantive" titles (the (and not just 'a') nabob "of" somewhere), as opposed to their "courtesy" ones. They also tend to be used in practice, partly to avoid a kerfluffle about "Princess Kate", "Princess Megs" and "Princess Soph" (tabloid pref) and "Princess William", "Princess Henry" and "Princess Edward" (royalist-cruft pref, being their "official" styles according to "royal tradition" for princesses by marriage). So it's somewhat natural to follow suit with the hubbies ("Duke and Duchess pitch up grandly somewhere" (maths checks out) as opposed to "Prince Wossisname and the Duchess of Wheresoever" (doubletake)). Plus of course "Harry" has specifically agreed he'll not be (further mis)using his "prince" title or "HRH" style, and is slumming as a lowly, lowly duke. (But drew the line at dropping to "earl" -- or maybe just at being "Dumbarton".) The bold Archibald's are both courtesy titles, and thus far it appears that he does use either, thus it can't possibly be his WP:COMMONNAME). Rlendog, as a rule of thumb it's unhelpful to take things like "lot of nonsense", not least other due to remarkable lack of specificity. Here's exactly what the policy says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." (emph. added.) Hence my disagree with the proposition that the "official" site should not be the source we use. Fahrenheit666, the reason we don't use primary sources is that that can be self-serving. In some cases blatantly ("your favorite president!"), in some cases very subtly. And arguably that latter's the case here, as the The Firm wishes to present things as cut-and-dried, where as there's a degree of grubby backroom wheeling and dealing going on here, according to (decently sourced) reports.

However, there's no actual material dispute here. His name is clearly as currently titled: by common name, by reliable secondary sources, by primary sources, and according to BLP consideration -- they all agree. In addition we have reliable secondary sources that he's first, legally HRH Prince A., and second, not presently using this style. (And in common law, your name is to a large degree the name you use, and you can also have more than one name, much as bureaucracies would like to pin you down to just one normally.) Lead section should clearly just describe him by first names names and surnames, it would be clearly undue to complicate that at that point. It may be justifiable to discuss the matter of the letters patent, his courtesy subsidiary title, and the surrounding discussions over them if there's a consensus that it's of due weight to do so, as appropriately attributed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The 2012 Letters Patent

This article ignores the 2012 Letters Patent, signed by the Queen, which confine the title of prince or princess to the children of the Heir Apparent. Harry is not Heir Apparent. His children do not automatically receive prince or princess. Neither will Charlotte or Louis’ children. Please correct this. 2601:987:200:BF10:3C71:B549:8FCB:E3BD (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The 2012 Letters Patent, which applies only to the "children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales," does not apply here because it did not overrule or replace the 1917 Letters Patent (it only supplemented it). With Elizabeth II's death, Archie and Lilibet are now grandchildren of the reigning monarch and are thus covered by the 1917 Letters Patent, as a number of sources have pointed out. Aoi (青い) (talk) 05:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing speculative sources for Royal Highness and Prince style

News outlets like ABC and CBC is speculating their titles without official sources. We need more reliable sources. For example ABC said that:

For example Archie, 3, could assume the title of HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. His younger sister, Lili, 1, could become HRH Princess Lili of Sussex.

This is speculation. We need to remove those sources. Justi7 (talk) 16:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Feel free to remove such sources as the only sources left are from CNN, Manchestereveningnews... which clearly stated the style of 'His Royal Highness, Prince Archie of Sussex' regardless of whether he chooses to use the style he legally holds. CBS, ABC, TheGuardian further confirms that Archie indeed became a Prince and legally holds the style Royal Highness in accordance with the 1917 Letters Patent which is a legal document and states that grandchildren of a monarch shall 'at all times' hold the style of Prince/Princess and Royal Highness. It's also only natural that he be styled that way as he is a Prince from Sussex and holds the style of Royal Highness. Stop ignoring reliable sources (not speculative sources) that you don't like and revert version that has been agreed upon. Minhle20002013 (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Manchestereveningnews wrote “Archie and Lilibet entitled to be Prince and Princess” which doesn’t confirm the name. The Guardian also said “entitled” with again no offical name. CBC news stated “They have not said whether the children will use their new royal titles.” and again no offical name. CNN sources wrote a name but without a offical source. Reliable news outlets needed have that.Justi7 (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's job is to summarize what the reliable sources say. If multiple reliable sources are reporting something, we cannot just ignore it because we disagree with what the reporting is. If sources conflict with each other or there is concern that the sources got the answer wrong, we can simply attribute the statements (e.g., Multiple sources have reported that...). Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources reports different things as you can see and we cannot pick one up. Justi7 (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

-Manchertereveningnews wrote and confirmed the legal, technical title:

"In 2021, it was suggested Charles – in a bid to limit the number of key royals – intended, when he became king, to prevent Archie becoming a prince. To do so, he will have to issue a Letters Patent amending Archie’s right to be a prince. Until that potentially happens, Archie remains a prince, whether his parents choose to use the title or not.

If it does not happen, Archie continues to technically be HRH Prince Archie of Sussex. Meanwhile, if the title is used, Lilibet will be able to use the title HRH Princess Lili of Sussex. Like Archie, Charles would have to issue a Letters Patent to remove this. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s titles will not change."

-CNN also wrote and confirmed the name:

"Following the death of the Queen, Harry and Meghan's children have become His Royal Highness Prince Archie of Sussex and Her Royal Highness Princess Lilibet of Sussex.

The change is a result of conventions created over a century ago. Under rules set out by George V in 1917, the grandchildren of the monarch automatically receive royal titles."

Both articles refer to the 1917 letters patent which wrote "…the grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms." Minhle20002013 (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

This is called speculation, they are not reporting a fact. Justi7 (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Aoi, Wikipedia's job is to summarize what the reliable sources say. If multiple reliable sources are reporting something, we cannot just ignore it because we disagree with what the reporting is. If sources conflict with each other or there is concern that the sources got the answer wrong, we can simply attribute the statements (e.g., Multiple sources have reported that...). You cannot just ignore it simply becausee they are 'not reporting fact' in your personal view. Minhle20002013 (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

News outlets wrote different things or the things they cannot verify. Even your example show words like “technically”. And how CNN confirmed? And from where? You can add “some media speculated” If you want but their name or style not confirmed. Justi7 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As has already been explained, CNN and Manchestereveningnews confirmed through 1917 Letters Patent which is a legal document and the law of the land which states: "…the grandchildren of the sons of any such sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have and enjoy in all occasions the style and title enjoyed by the children of dukes of these our realms." Minhle20002013 (talk) 20:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No they are interpreting letters patent. No other credible source wrote the name. Justi7 (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

There are already two reliable sources. Minhle20002013 (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2022

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Prince Archie (He is legally a Prince of the United Kingdom until his stylings are removed by the Parliament not the King as the King does not hold that authority) 2601:600:807F:9F0:9967:9A1A:63B4:8891 (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This is being discussed in the section immediately above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Title and succession

I'm curious as to why this quote was added " but his parents' wishes have always been that he not use any title" the sources offered for it doesn't specifically state the parents saying such a thing. I like to suggest this portion of the article be removed. Unless it can be proven that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex stated such a request, with a legit source showing it, right now it seems more like an opinion than an actual fact. Purplebrown43 (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur. Gillespk (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree. This is also seemingly contradicted by this article from The Guardian, which says The Sussexes indicated in the [Oprah] interview that they had expected Archie would be given the title of prince after Charles acceded the throne, but that they had been told that protocols would be changed – in line with Charles’s wish for a slimmed-down monarchy – so that the child would be excluded from becoming an HRH and prince. [...] Asked in the Winfrey interview if Archie being a prince was important to her, Meghan had replied: "If it meant he was going to be safe, then of course." At the very least, this contradiction needs to be addressed in the text; if it isn't, I have no objection to removing it. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this is probably indeed incorrect; if anything they've complained about it. Reportedly they refused one title, but not because they didn't want one, but because they (quite literally) didn't like the sound of it. (This is indirectly in line with the BBC source given saying "Harry and Meghan have also chosen not to use a courtesy title for their new son." (emph. added), and the Guardian saying something very similar.) So maybe better to say something like "after discussions with the Palace". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Please move to Prince Archie of Sussex

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/harry-and-meghans-children-become-prince-archie-and-princess-lilibet Twilight 18:58, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. If a name isn't in use at all -- other than in sentences like "there's a legal right to use a title, notwithstanding an agreement not to use it", then clearly it's not "the common name". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not at all what the linked article says. There are plenty of sources now calling them Prince and Princess Twilight 20:04, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: 1) whether the article title should be moved to "Prince Archie of Sussex", and 2) whether the article text should address that reliable sources are now saying that Archie and Lilibet are entitled to use (or could legally/technically use) the titles of prince/princess. The IP user is right -- WP:COMMONNAME generally directs Wikipedia article titles to use the name that most reliable sources use, and, so far, reliable sources are not referring to them as "Prince Archie" or "Princess Lilibet" (with, if I recall, just a couple of exceptions e.g., CNN--the rest of the sources (including The Guardian) only say that Archie and Lilibet are able to use those titles under existing Letters Patent). @Twilight, I don't think reliable sources currently support changing the article title, but whether this should be addressed in the text is being discussed above (see #Supposed "legal" titles and the subsequent subheading). I think you should note your opinion there. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:40, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It's exactly what the linked article says. There are plenty of sources where the headline might lead you to think that... but when you read the body of the article -- at least of the non-tabloid ones -- then they'll say "our reading of the letters patent is that they make him legally an HRH and a prince, dad has a ducal title that'd normally make him an earl, what he actually uses as his name and style is 'Master Archie'." And as @Aoi says, this is essentially duplicating the above discussion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This really isn't accurate. It's full of misinformation

Meghan incorrectly implied that security is always directly linked to title. This is not strictly true. Archie was entitled to protection even when not a Prince or HRH for as long as his parents were working royals residing in the UK. Archie was covered by royal protection officers whilst in South Africa with his parents when they were om tour as working royals. This would have remained the case whether he was made a Prince or not. The Sussex family only lost their security when they resigned as senior working royals. 82.30.177.12 (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

And the inaccuracy in the article is...? This seems to be entirely a complaint about what MM said. This is the talk page for the article, not a forum for discussing the subject of it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Please change, "expressed concern" to "speculated". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.161.143 (talk) 07:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2022

Meghan Markles official name per her wedding agreement with Queen Elizabeth Is Rachel Meghan, Duchess of Sussex. Not calling her by her proper name (not even putting duchess) is a huge disrespect to the Royal family 2603:8080:BB06:F700:B1F5:914A:5AB2:1D0A (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The very first line of the article refers to her as the Duchess of Sussex. RudolfRed (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I assume the requester wishes "Rachel" to be be added to the text of Meg's name in the lede. Seems like a terrible idea -- it's vastly less common than the version we use here, not even counting the any number of other things she gets called. Not even clear it's either her preferred or her "official" style. And really, if they wish to fight that battle, her own page would be the better -- slightly better! -- place for it. I can't help with the "duchess" point, it's indeed right there in the text. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)