Was Archie Mountbatten-Windsor’s lack of title an indication of Sussexiting to come?

Royal baby

Having covered the Duke and Duchess of Sussex from the very beginning – when they were just Prince Harry and Meghan Markle – I still have questions about the timeline being provided by both Camp Sussex and Camp Cambridge/Wales/Windsor. One of the timeline questions is about how everyone seems to be in agreement about how the wedding was the beginning of the end regarding Harry’s relationship with William and the family at large. But that’s not how I remember it. The summer of 2018, just after the Sussexes were married, it did feel like everybody in the family made an effort, from the Queen to Charles and even William and Kate. The breaking point, as it seemed in real time, was Meghan’s pregnancy announcement and the Sussexes’ South Pacific tour. THAT is when everything changed. Immediately following the tour, it felt like people within the family were going out of their way to attack the f–k out of the Sussexes, Meghan in particular.

The timelines and what we can now see in retrospect… all of that will be examined and re-examined and analyzed for months and years following Sussexit. I bring that up because some people have a theory about how the Sussexes side-stepped giving Archie a title:

Baby Archie’s lack of titles suggests Prince Harry and Meghan Markle may have been planning to step back from the royal family as early as last year, an expert claimed today. Joe Little, the managing editor of Majesty magazine, said that Archie’s lack of titles hint at his parents’ ‘wider masterplan’ to step back from their roles as royals.

The couple’s son was named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor following his birth on May 6 last year. As the first-born son of a duke, Archie could have assumed the title of Earl of Dumbarton. However the couple stated he would simply be known as Master Archie, which at the time was said to be in line with his father’s wish that he grow up as a private citizen.

Mr Little told the Express: ‘The fact Archie isn’t Earl of Dumbarton or styled HRH makes me wonder whether this wasn’t already part of a wider masterplan.’

[From The Daily Mail]

Honestly, I questioned at the time if Archie’s lack of title was entirely up to the Sussexes. I blamed the Queen and Prince William for the lack of title – I thought William probably pitched a fit about it and the Queen acquiesced. But what if the whole “Harry and Meghan don’t want Archie to have a title” thing was real and not just a cover story? Maybe they really were leaving their options open even back then. Considering the ramped-up smear campaign during Meghan’s pregnancy, that timeline would make sense. Not so much as a “master plan” to Sussexit, but to leave their options open so they could leave with more ease if push came to shove. That being said, I still think Archie should have gotten a title! Archie was the first mixed-race great-grandchild of the Queen, and it felt so notable and shady that he didn’t get a title.

Baby Archie meets Archbishop Desmond Tutu during a visit to Africa

archie harry2

Photos courtesy of WENN, Avalon Red and Backgrid.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

78 Responses to “Was Archie Mountbatten-Windsor’s lack of title an indication of Sussexiting to come?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Belli says:

    At the very least, I think it was them putting Archie firmly off limits.

    • Mignionette says:

      I agree. As a private individual reporting on his is not within the public interest. It also gives Archie a sense of having to work to create his own future without any titles until he would one day inherit his father’s Dukedom.

    • Amy Too says:

      I think they wanted to let Archie decide when he was old enough. When you give a baby the title of Earl, or HRH, you are locking them into a certain job—being and Earl or Royal. That’s not very fair to do to a baby. I’m sure Harry wishes he had more of a choice. Archie was never going to be a full time working royal, anyways, so why burden him with a title that he would not need? When he’s older and Charles becomes the king, they can reassess and see if they want to accept the HRH for him. When he’s 18 or 21, he can decide if he wants to be the Earl of Dumbarton. It’s much easier to start using a title, than to try to take it away. When he’s a baby and child, he’s a private citizen. Even if for whatever reason he grows up to be a working royal (like if there’s a tragedy), he’s not going to start working until he’s an adult. So there’s no need to give him the job title until then.

      • Fabuleuse15 says:

        Imagine Archie needing King William’s permition to marry? There’s no way the Sussexes would let William have that or any kind of power over Archie. When the no title was announced, I thought 1) the Sussexes were keeping their options open, and/or 2) they were were planning on leaving the RF when William becomes king.

    • Lucy De Blois says:

      It’s possible. But since it was announced, I felt in my head that the queen, with loads of explanations and merry-go-round, told them the baby wouldn’t have a title. Fantasy of my mind? Of course. Nothing supports it, except my own conviction.

      And this “fantasy” doesn’t contradict at all the news hinted by BP to DM, Express and the kind. The queen said no title, Harry didn’t put his foot down because he was already with his hands full of BS from the attacks of the press and if he tryed to make reason prevail (Archie with title) the fire would go higher. And Harry doesn’t look like a “title obsessed” and said, it works for me.

      And I abide to what I said before: RF was never, ever Meghan’s friendly or accepting her from the very beggining. The affair of the brooch is very clear. Yes, the said Princess used to offend, to show what she thought MM was, to discriminate. And no one goes to a family gathering with an offense on hands (or pinned to the clothes) without being very sure about how the majority of the gang will feel about. Or else she would take the risk of starting a fight or a discussion. And this one can’t afford to have the back of the others up on her and her husband. And Harry doesn’t look like having a “title obsession”.

      If the Princess knew her brooch would offend the queen or the heirs because it was offensive for a future in law, she would have kept it at home at the bottom of her jewel box.

  2. Melissa says:

    I maintain that Harry decided he didn’t want his kids to be titled years ago, when Kate was pregnant with George. The letters issued back then that made George a prince by birth specifically said “the children of the oldest child of the Prince of Wales”. There’s no way it wasn’t discussed when that wording was chosen. It could very easily have been “The grandchildren of the POW”. It was decided back then, long before Meghan was on the scene. Harry has wanted a life like Zara and Peter’s for his children since he first started giving the issue serious thought.

    • Mac says:

      Harry and William are both determined to raise their children very differently than they were raised. I suspect they both would have traded places with Zara and Peter decades ago.

    • ShazBot says:

      Yeah, I said at the time and I still believe, that no matter what – Archie was always going to be a private citizen in the way Zara and Peter were. No titles, but still a working royal parent and the associated family perks. Harry has been miserable for YEARS, there is no way he was going to subject his kids to that.

      • Agreed. I think Harry saw the freedom that being titleless provided for Anne’s children and wanted to give that to his children. I think he was firm on that choice way before he even met Meghan.

    • sassafras says:

      YES YES YES. People are acting like this is all a new found discovery by the Sussexes. Anne WAS ALREADY the daughter of the monarch, at the time of their birth Zara and Peter were higher up the order of succession (I believe?) than Archie would have been and she chose for them not to receive royal titles. So Harry and Meghan are following in the PRINCESS ROYAL’s footprints and suddenly it’s suspiciously shady?

      • Ava4eva says:

        Would Anne’s kids have been higher up At that time than Archie? My understanding is she was behind her brothers in the line of succession. Until the laws were changed before the birth of George

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes, at the times of their births. Archie is 7th in line. At the time of Peter and Zara’s births, they would have been….5th and 6th? in line? Because they were the first grandchildren. Once William was born and then Harry, they got knocked down. (so the line of succession at the time of Peter’s birth was Charles, Andrew, Edward, Anne, then Peter and Zara.) Peter and Zara always came after Anne and she kept getting knocked back by her brothers.

        ETA I’m pretty sure Zara is older than William. I don’t feel like going and looking it up, lol.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        I think Peter was the first grandchild.

  3. Ravensdaughter says:

    He is such a sweet little thing!!! He will be so much happier now!
    Please keep us supplied with Archie pictures! <3

  4. Maria says:

    I don’t think so really. I think this was their attempt to maybe signal they wanted less scrutiny and more flexibility and privacy — which of course they didn’t get.
    Mark Phillips and Anne turned down titles for their children. Maybe that move was more respected in the press when they did it than when Harry and Meghan did, not sure. Certainly seems so, but I wasn’t there then, lol.

    • Ali says:

      Anne’s husband turned down a title.

      That is the only way her kids could have received a title.

      • Maria says:

        I am aware of this and that’s essentially what I already said.
        Unless you believe the Princess Royal gave no input as to the concept of titles for her children through her husband, which I don’t believe.

  5. S808 says:

    1. I still maintain that the balcony scene in fiji(?) coupled with Meghan’s pregnancy is when the knives came out.
    2. I think not giving Archie a title was H&M’s decision entirely. Shit was really hitting the fan during her pregnancy and I’m sure her and Harry made the joint decision to forgo a title cause they’ll be damned if their children is beholden to the press and general public like this.

    • fatladysinging says:

      Agreed. And Harry saw throughout his life how his cousins without titles had it easier when it came to the press.

    • manda says:

      I really can’t recall all the details of their lives–what happened on the balcony in possibly fiji? (I’m not trying to be difficult, I am horrible at remembering things)

    • Bookie says:

      What happened on the balcony in Fiji? I thought I knew everything H&M related. :)

      • Becks1 says:

        It was a HUGE crowd. It was a total global superstar moment, the likes of which I don’t think Kate and Will have ever had outside of their wedding and George’s birth.

        Agree with others that that was the tipping point. It was just symbolic of how successful the tour was.

      • Mac says:

        William and Kate had massive crowds in Australia and visited many of the same sites as Charles and Diana. No one seemed to think this was a problem, but heaven forbid Harry and Meghan do the same thing.

    • morrigan01 says:

      I have to admit, when I saw that balcony scene in Fiji (I think it was Fiji) my first thought was “Okay, *someone* in the family is going to be jealous about this, I just know it.” And sure enough, the tabloid smears started get worse after they got back from that successful Oceanic tour and pregnancy announcement.

      That whole thing was the beginning of the end of them remaining with the Royal Family, that balcony moment.

      • S808 says:

        The crowd was so huge and the cheers too. The entire tour was a huge success but that balcony seen was the moment that made me go “Uh oh”. I’m sure other royals couples had that reception at their beginning too but H&M also have undeniable star power. I think it was the first look at how globally popular they are, even overseas. Someone or someones in that palace got jealous and instead of waiting for the hype to die down or brainstorming how to harness that popularity for the crown, they let insecurity take over and the abuse took off.

      • Lucy De Blois says:

        No matter how much success the jealous person has. The whole point is that the other one won’t have any. Point.

    • Mignionette says:

      I think until that point the press were hoping that Meghan would struggle to conceive (at the age of 36/37) leading to numerous column inches about how feminism and her thirst for a career had become her downfall in failing to provide an heir. Then Meghan got pregnant within months made the announcement in Oz and the Oz media got the scoop and lapped it up.

      I also remember all the column inches at the time dedicated to Archie being deformed because of Zika. It was as if they constantly wished them the worst.

      Thereafter the press really went into over drive and had it in for her.

      • morrigan01 says:

        Yeah, they were sure she wouldn’t conceive and the marriage would end with no kids having arrived before that. They really *really* didn’t see Archie coming. And, IMO, some actually, specifically *wanted* to prevent him coming with a stress miscarriage.

        I know people hate womb watching, but I’m still going to predict it: Meghan will get pregnant with baby #2 sometime this year. I kinda thought they’d wait until Archie was 2 years old instead of just 1, but I think they are going to have a “yay, we’re free!” baby instead.

        And if you think her pregnancy with Archie made some people lose it, just watch wrt baby #2.

      • Liz version 700 says:

        I actually think the press and some family may have hoped for a stress miscarriage. I feel gross speculating that but I think the RF and tabloids have shown time and again they are fine with a little bloodshed (I.e. Diana). Man alive as much as I respect H & M I am grateful to be a general nobody. They are tough as hell to have survived this last 18 months. And Archie is sooooo adorable omg.

    • Marjorie says:

      100% it was the Fiji balcony that turned the tide. Before that Will actually kissed Meghan on the cheek at some early event.

  6. Veronica S. says:

    I have a feeling that years down the road that we’re going to get an admission from them that her pregnancy was what started to change their perspective on whether the situation was tenable in the long run. It’s one thing to deal with that kind of abuse as adults, but when you have a kid in the center of it, the stakes are higher.

    On a side note, I’m amused that you can already see some of Harry’s features in Archie’s face. Usually with babies it can take awhile before anything really starts to show, but it’s right there in the nose/eye area already.

    • Lucy De Blois says:

      For sure the evil articles when she was pregnant were abhorrent. Never saw the kind and never care to see it again. To cause stress to a pregnant woman is to hit below the belt.

  7. Ali says:

    There seems to confusion.

    The Sussexes turned down the courtesy title.

    Once prince Charles becomes king Archie will be get HRH and be referred as prince Archie.

    • Sofia says:

      Not necessarily.

      1) Harry and Meghan could choose not to use his title. Or Archie could make that decision when he’s got the ability to do so

      2) Louise and James are entitled to be Prince and Princess but they’re Lord and Lady. Hence Harry and Meghan can reject it if they wanted to

    • Feeshalori says:

      Not if Harry refuses the title for Archie as Edward and Sophie did for their children. Louise and James can always choose to assume their titles when they’re of age, as can Archie. But if he’s not a working royal in the future, l don’t see that happening.

    • Maxie says:

      The Swedish removed the HRH titles from Carl Philip and Madeleine’s children. What’s the point of giving it to Archie if even his parents’ aren’t full-time royals?

      • sassafras says:

        I believe Swedish law is different from British regarding this point. I think there the HRH is much more closely tied to funding, but I could be wrong. The Swedish King removes HRH’s when the Swedish parliament starts grumbling about expenses.

    • Mac says:

      I think the direct heirs of the monarch automatically get HRH titles. Official title or not, Archie is his father’s mini me so I don’t think anyone will forget he is a member of the BRF.

    • Ainsley7 says:

      They didn’t even refuse a courtesy title. No one was offering a title to Archie that he didn’t rightfully have from birth. He can still be Earl of Dumbarton if he wants simply because Harry holds the title. He may need Harry’s permission, but not the Queen. They didn’t turn down anything official. Edward’s son James uses his title Viscount Severn. It’s the HRH that complicates things.

  8. Ali says:

    Plus Archie will never be a working royal. So he will get to live his life like Zara and peter.

  9. Carol says:

    Princess Anne, Princess Royal, did NOT GIVE TITLES TO HER CHILDREN. She wanted to keep them clear of the royals. Their lives are better for it.

    • Catlady74 says:

      Anne did not refuse titles for her children- they were not entitled to titles. Only the grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch through the male line are entitled to HRH; hence, Archie was not entitled to HRH either. Once Charles becomes king he can assume HRH if everyone wants it.

  10. morrigan01 says:

    Well . . . kinda.

    I think by the time Archie was actually born Meghan and Harry were starting to lowkey talk about leaving. If you look back, the intense trashing of Meghan started after her pregnancy was announced, and they returned from the Oceanic tour. It had been going on before that, but racheded up even more when it was confirmed she was pregnant.

    I think by the time she was set to go on leave to give birth and there was all the nonsense over there being no Lindo Wing and stuff, H&M began to talk about leaving. I think it was sometime after Archie was born when they decided 100% for sure to.

    I personally don’t think they were ever going to give him a title, that all said. If Charles had plans to officially make Archie a Prince after he became king, they *might* have accepted it just to make Charles happy, but I’m actually really iffy on that, since I think both H&M (Harry especially) don’t want his kids to be raised as working Royals, and what’s the purpose of a title if you aren’t a working Royal? So yeah, I don’t think Harry ever really wanted to give his kids titles (I don’t think Meghan cared about it either) and it might have only happened if Harry was just wanting to make his “Pa” happy or something. But now, whenever Charles becomes king, I don’t think Harry is going to want any kind of title near Archie, whether he’s supposed to get one or not.

    • Erinn says:

      I’m on board with all of this. I wouldn’t completely discount a title in his future. I think that all hangs on how things go going forward, though. If he and Charles can manage to have a healthy relationship throughout all of this, with Charles supporting Harry AND Meghan, I think they’d be more likely to consider it in the future. A lot of things can change between now and then, though so I wouldn’t be banking on it, but not completely discounting it.

      Ultimately though, I think the moves that Charles makes going forward are going to be very important when it comes to the future possibility of titles. If he plays it safe and is a supportive figure who will go to bat for his son and daughter in law he has a better chance if that’s something he wants.

      • Feeshalori says:

        I have mixed feelings about this. I think that may be fine during Charles’ reign if they can establish a better relationship. However, going forward, if and when William ever becomes king, if l were Harry and Meghan I wouldn’t want to be in the same room as him let alone the same country. I’m sure William wouldn’t tolerate any concessions Charles made for H/M and the abuses would start up again. I think they just need to keep their distance and do their own thing. They went through so much and fought so hard for this not to have it upended by future future King William.

  11. manda says:

    I agree that it really seemed like people were trying to get along when they first got married. I remember Meghan going with the Queen to some place and they took the train together, just the two of them. It seemed as if the Queen was happy enough about the match. You never saw Kate and the Queen doing anything with just the two of them, except for that thing where they were walking through the museum of wedding dresses and the queen noted it was “creepy” (IIRC) the way the dresses were displayed. I’m not super great with all the details but I noticed the turn happening when meg was pregnant.

    Which reminds me, there is a post on Buzzfeed comparing headlines of Kate and Meghan, like with avocados and air fresheners, and there is a comparison to how maternal kate was for holding her belly whereas Meghan was something bad for doing the same thing (blanking now). It’s crazy to me the mistreatment of Meghan, I can see why she probably didn’t think it would be so bad. Because the stuff they publish against her is off the rails crazy. And she just seems like a nice person.

  12. Mumbles says:

    I remember this topic being discussed a lot on this board and a lot of the posters thought this was an attempt by H&M to give their son more of a “normal” life. Also noteworthy at the time was the sweet and non-stuffy name they gave him (royal babies are often saddled with names with loads of history and tradition, Zara being the exception). We didn’t know what was ahead, of course.

  13. Me Again says:

    “That being said, I still think Archie should have gotten a title! Archie was the first mixed-race great-grandchild of the Queen, and it felt so notable and shady that he didn’t get a title.”

    That is a valid point but I truly feel that Harry was protecting Archie and telling the world that he was to be viewed as THEIR child, not a product of the kingdom. Does that make sense?

    I sincerely hope I’m right that it was H&M’s choice.

  14. Amelie says:

    Nah, they did the right thing by not giving Archie a title, it has nothing to do with him being mixed race. Look at how confusing it’s been for Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice who have titles but are not working members of the royal family and don’t receive taxpayer money (?). It’s this weird gray area they will have to navigate all their lives (but I’m assuming any children they have will not have a title so there will be less confusion). That’s Andrew’s fault for insisting his daughters have titles as “blood princesses” and as we’ve seen recently, he is not very smart at all.

    Anne and Edward were both smart when they refused titles for their kids and I’m sure this is something Harry has thought long and hard about all his life. Meghan was probably all too happy for her son not to have a title so she can raise him as a private citizen. Archie would have been phased out once George, Charlotte, and Louis were older anyways.

    • Lady D says:

      Any idea if Bea and Eugenie’s children will have titles? No, because their dad’s have to have a title to pass it on to the children if I remember rightly?

  15. Tiff says:

    I agree, I think William had a lot to do with Archie not having a title and that may have been the last straw with him and Harry. It was a big deal and a big statement. It also could have been a significant and symbolic moment for the crown/commonwealth – And I believe Meghan, Harry, and probably Charles knew that.

  16. Becks1 says:

    I agree with the timing of the smear campaign. Before that, yes there was racist press coverage, but it didn’t have the same feel of “the call is coming from inside the house” that the later coverage had. For example, the stories about the wedding – Kate crying, Tiara-gate, the SCENTED CANDLES!!!! – didn’t come out for MONTHS. Now we know that some of those things may have come as a result of the Charles biography (through Jobson, who for some reason blocked me on twitter and I cant figure out why and it bugs me, lol, even though I don’t think I have ever followed him or actively read his tweets) – but not all the stories. Some of those could have been leaked earlier. But they weren’t.

    I think the combo of the tour and Meghan’s pregnancy set off “people” in the family (once they realized how popular the Sussexes were and that Meghan wasn’t going anywhere) and then I think you factor in things like the “rural rival” episode and it ended up being…..well, what it was.

    I think not giving Archie a title was 100% H&M’s choice. He could have had a title – he could be Lord Archie, Earl of Dumbarton, but he’s not. I think if they intended to make him HRH Prince archie when Charles takes the throne they would have done that from the outset (with suitable permission/letters from the Queen.)

    I think the move was twofold – I think Harry knew Archie wouldn’t be a working royal, and thought foregoing the title would make his life easier, and I think they thought that it would give the press of a claim to him – “we’re the public ones, he’s not.” That failed spectacularly as we all know. And so here we are.

  17. Alexandria says:

    I maintain it’s the most sensible decision. This is a family built on hierarchy. The simple fact is George, Charlotte and Louis and their families would come first. There is no need for Archie to have a title and he can live his life without being hounded by the press.

  18. Gatorlover says:

    Charles and HM may have been welcoming early on, but I remember W & K smirking during the sermon at the wedding. And weren’t there issues noted in the atmosphere at the first Trooping as well?

    • Lucy De Blois says:

      You can see the video of the wedding and tell me if I’m mistaken: Kate’s behaviour was impossible, to say the minimum. She was fidgeting, talking to the people around, smiling, looking meaningful at her husband and Camilla… A reprehensible behaviour for a child or a teenager; unconceivable for an adult. Any religion, including the priests, deserve respect and there’s no place for criticism. Each one has a particular way to talk to God.

      • Nic919 says:

        I tried to give the benefit of the doubt, but really, Kate, Zara and Beatrice definitely made faces during the sermon and acted like immature fools. Kate has bitch face in the wedding photo too, which we know was intentional when she does perma grin for the engagements but she just didn’t care to try to look pleasant.

  19. Snap Happy says:

    This is very shallow, but maybe they didn’t want to use the name dumbarton. With how vicious the press is they would have come up with dumb nicknames (pun intended).

  20. DS9 says:

    There seems to be some confusion about how titles are created, given, and used. I’m not an expert at all but I do know there is a different in an HRH, a title in one’s own right, inherited titles, and courtesy titles.

    And a lot of the titles in one’s right and courtesy titles are highly dependent upon how the letters patent, aka the legal here’s your title document, are written. Without seeing them, my guess is that Archie is entitled to be addressed as the Earl of Dumbarton simply be virtue of having been born to the Duke of Sussex. His parents have said, uh huh, but we don’t want you to call him that. They also likely told the queen, hey, in deference to our wish not to use a courtesy title for Archie, please don’t make him an HRH.

    Courtesy titles are lesser titles held by the title holder that the eldest son is entitled to use until inheriting the primary title. Harry is the current Earl of Dumbarton. But he is not addressed as such because his title of duke is of a higher rank.

    Prince George likely could use the courtesy title of Earl of Strathern, which seems to be William’s lesser title but does not because there are letters patent that dictate how George should be addressed because Charles is the Prince of Wales and that designation is a higher rank than that of earl.

    TLDR: It makes far more sense to believe that H&M didn’t want their child using a title than it is to believe anyone else decided Archie shouldn’t use the title his mere birth dictates is his to use.

    • Becks1 says:

      People are confusing the concept of HRH with a title. Archie has a title. Its just not being used. the HRH (and the title of prince) are different concepts but again my personal theory is that he will NEVER use those titles (unless he decides to I guess at 18), even when Charles becomes king.

      • sassafras says:

        Prince Archie is soooooo the name of a bad boy prince in a book/movie though. I’d love to hear it one day…

      • DS9 says:

        Exactly.

        They are also confusing the permitted use of a courtesy title with the holding of a title in his own right.

        A courtesy title is in essence an acknowledgment that this child is the heir to his parent’s title.

  21. Catlady74 says:

    Archie was never going to be HRH. only grandchildren of the CURRENT monarch through the Male line are HRH. Archie is the Queen’s great-grandson and therefore couldn’t be HRH as per the current Letters Patent. It wasn’t a conspiracy or a choice. Anne did not refuse HRH titles for her children, they were simply not entitled to them.

    • Becks1 says:

      yes, most of us know this, but Archie WOULD be entitled to HRH once Charles becomes king. That is why there was some speculation over whether or not H&M would approach the queen about him starting off as HRH (I am sure it was discussed.) Charlotte was not entitled to HRH (nor was Louis) until the queen issued new letters patent when Kate was pregnant with George. Its not whether Archie was “entitled” to HRH at birth – the question was whether the queen would change it so that he was a HRH. I don’t think he will ever use it though, even when Charles is king.

      Anne’s children were not entitled to HRH but they could have had titles, even Lord and Lady, same way as Princess Margaret’s did (by virtue of AAJ being given a title at their marriage.) Again, I have to believe that this was discussed and rejected by Mark Phillips and Anne.

      • DS9 says:

        I don’t think Lord/Lady are titles though. Aren’t they forms of address and/or styles?

        Dukes/Duchesses are addressed as just that. But everyone else in the peerage, including their children for the most part are lord/lady despite their title.

      • Becks1 says:

        They’re forms of address but it would apply to Archie. They could have introduced him as Lord Archie, and they made an obvious point not to do that (unlike Lady Louise Windsor.)

        eta so if Anne’s husband had been given a title their kids could have been lord/lady, but they’re not.

  22. Bread and Circuses says:

    I still think the turning point was them not letting the British tabloids have access to their baby.

    The tabloids decided to punish the Sussexes (especially Meghan, because racism and sexism), and the family didn’t support the couple through that hell, and then the Sussexes hit their breaking point and have enough spine to simply opt out.

    I suspect things within the family are mostly okay, despite appearances. They’re maybe not okay if you add in everyone’s staff, too, but between actual family members, I suspect everyone is still talking, if tensely.

  23. Keira Lee says:

    Or they didn’t want their kid to be a Dumbarton anything, not the most elegantly sounding of toponyms.

  24. BC says:

    He is terribly cute!!!

  25. Beech says:

    He is so cute BC! Drooling while looking at the pastries, or because he’s teething. A little man after my heart! I would be drooling too at the sweets and not because I was cutting my gums.

  26. blunt talker says:

    I believe there were signs over the past year. Archie’s birth uproar-His name-No title-Showing Archie to the world uproar. There’s one thing you can see-the parents do not want Archie locked in the monarchy world. Harry wants him to have a choice about his life that he did not have. An editor I read today said -Tina Brown said Harry not wanting the monarchy to consume his entire life was always there way before Meghan. One of the reason he stayed in the military a little longer-he felt a sense of belonging without the monarchy being stuck everybody’s faces when they see him. His distaste for the big media boys will not change because he truly believes they had a part in his mother’s death. I am going to post something I read today in USA Today’s newspaper that explains the course of actions that will be taken in the Sussexes living abroad . It really broke it down into something everybody can understand. This is going to be an experiment for spare to the heir people.