The Duke & Duchess of Sussex announce the name of their foundation: Archewell


We were all overthinking the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s next moves and what they would call their charity/non-profit, and what their new Instagram brand would be. Some people suggested Spencer-Ragland, some said some variation of just their first names. But we missed the fact that their new branding could be found in little Archie’s name. Yes, Harry and Meghan have announced the name of their new foundation: Archewell.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle have confirmed the name of their future foundation, and it has a special meaning. Harry and Meghan’s foundation, which has not yet been launched, will be called Archewell — a name that shares a connection with their son Archie, who turns 1 on May 6. In a statement obtained by PEOPLE, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex explain how they decided on the name, which predates their son’s name. The news was first reported after The Telegraph obtained paperwork filed by the couple in the U.S.

“Like you, our focus is on supporting efforts to tackle the global COVID-19 pandemic, but faced with this information coming to light, we felt compelled to share the story of how this came to be,” the couple, who officially stepped down as senior royals on March 31, said in the statement.

“Before SussexRoyal came the idea of ‘arche’ — the Greek word meaning ‘source of action,’ ” the couple continued. “We connected to this concept for the charitable organization we hoped to build one day, and it became the inspiration for our son’s name. To do something of meaning, to do something that matters. Archewell is a name that combines an ancient word for strength and action, and another that evokes the deep resources we each must draw upon. We look forward to launching Archewell when the time is right.”

With Archewell — which is still a work in progress as the couple continue to explore educational opportunities — Meghan and Harry hope to create a nonprofit that provides a wide range of charitable services. The paperwork obtained by The Telegraph also includes a number of trademarks for Archewell, which were filed for protective purposes so others cannot use the name.

[From People]

According to this YouTube pronunciation video I found, Arche is not pronounced with the hard CH-sound, it’s pronounced ark-EE or AR-kay. So is that how Archewell will be pronounced? Ark-EE-well? AR-kay-well? Or will they pronounce it like Archie’s name? Archie-well? I don’t know. But I don’t hate the idea of naming a foundation after one’s children! Angelina Jolie has been naming charities and non-profit initiatives after her kids for years too. Also: it turns out Meghan and Harry ARE doing a foundation? Previously, they got a bit pedantic about whether they would do a non-profit, charity or foundation.

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle continue their visit to Africa

Prince Harry and Meghan Markle watch the Red Sox vs Yankees game

Photos courtesy of WENN, Backgrid, SussexRoyal IG.

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

306 Responses to “The Duke & Duchess of Sussex announce the name of their foundation: Archewell”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Nev says:


    • pineapple says:

      I love it too Nev. So creative. Leave it to her … she probably has 14 names she could draw on to name their foundation. XO

    • LahdidahBaby says:

      I like the fact that after all the unkindness, bigotry, and simpleminded meanness these two have endured, Archewell sounds like a fresh start. Harry and Meghan seem to be going forward with their customary good-naturedness and community spirit, and without rancor.

      Here’s to Archewell!

    • Rhos says:

      So how does this work in terms of them working towards becoming financially independent – if the foundation is for the profit of others, do they pay themselves salary or do they get paid separately for other work? If I understand correctly, this foundation has nothing to do with their income but is more like, their calling and a hobby?

      • RoyalBlue says:

        No, it’s not a hobby. It’s their legacy.

      • Still_Sarah says:

        @ Rhos : I’m a bit confused about this too. Not-for-profits have administrators who get salaries for running the NFP. They try to keep these expenses low but big money may be paid for the top level administrators who also bring in major donations as part of the job. But I don’t see Harry and Meghan really having the NFP as a source of income. I think their sources of income will come more from articles, books, documentaries, etc that highlight the issues they are focused on. So you are right that it is like a hobby or calling in that they love it and probably won’t make money from it.

      • Chelle says:

        Conceivably, they may forego taking a salary from the NPO (which I think they should) but make themselves open and available to lucrative partnerships and investments in projects that parallel their interests.

  2. bub244 says:

    I don’t love the name at first pass but at least it is meaningful. I look forward to what they do next.

  3. S808 says:

    I like it and I live that it has no ties to the chapter they just closed.

  4. OriginalLala says:

    If I remember my Ancient Greek classes from my undergrad days, arche is pronounced kind of with a “hhrr” sounding “ch” – so like “Arhrr-ay” . That’s all I got!

    Not a huge fan of the name, but I hope they do alot of good with the new startup

    • malorca says:

      I thought it was odd to link it with the Greek world when the chances it actually will get the Greek pronunciation are slim to none.

      • BabsORIG says:

        I don’t think they care who pronounces it how, I mean, I know I wouldn’t. I think what they want is for tier fans to understand the meaning of the name, at least that’s how I see it. As always, we naysayers will find something, anything, to pick about the name. I choose to say nothing about the foundation name because I have nothing nice to say. But I do love their son’s name Archie though, I think it’s really cute for such a beautiful baby.

    • BabsORIG says:

      I’m with you @Originlala, not a fan. Like you,not gonna diss them about their foundation, it’s their right to call it whatever they please, shrugs. As they say, if you have nothing nice to say, just be quiet, so that’s all I got. Peace out.✌🏿✌🏿✌🏿

    • dogmom says:

      I don’t like it either — it reminds me of Madewell and Snackwell cookies (do those still exist?). I’m not foaming at the mouth with hatred about it, and I’m not going to scream about them being terrible or thirsty or anything — this particular name just isn’t my particular cup of tea. And I actually like the name Archie! But regardless of the foundation name, hopefully they do a lot of good with it, so 🤷🏻‍♀️

    • Chubs says:

      L’Arche of Toronto is not pleased on Twitter

      • notasugarhere says:

        She’s already been slapped down repeatedly for her attempt to grab attention over this. The names are completely different with different roots, but she tried for her 15 minutes.

  5. Chisey says:

    I don’t like the name – I think it sounds weird and pretentious. But I suppose it doesn’t matter, I like them, and I bet I’ll like what they do with the weirdly named foundation

    • SkaraBrae says:

      I agree.
      Unfortunately it is a name that is likely to be mispronounced- their son’s name is pronounced with a soft ‘tch’ sound but the Greek is a hard k.
      And is the e silent, or ee or ay?

    • minx says:

      I don’t like it either, and what if they have another child? Does that boy or girl get another foundation named after them?

      • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

        Archie was named AFTER they chose the name for the foundation.

        Look back at their statement: “…Duke and Duchess of Sussex explain how they decided on the name, which predates their son’s name.”

      • MsIam says:

        It’s not called “ Archie-well”. I believe It will be pronounced like the sound in archetype or architect.

      • minx says:

        Right, but the end result is the same.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The end result is only the same if you insist on thinking that way. This word was the root word for their non-profit endeavor and they also like part of it for their son. That doesn’t mean it is only for their son to run in the future.

    • Stefanie says:

      Pretentious specifically in a first year art student kind of way too. Like this is what someone would name their foundation for a class project. I was once a first year art student – that is how it struck me right away. Kind of similar to how Meghan’s writing strikes me, to be honest.

      • Sophie says:


      • GuestWho says:

        LOL. The word “pretentious” must be part of the twitter troll script of the day.

        What did you name your international charitable organization when you set it up?

      • Cynthia says:

        I’ve never seen the name of a NPO elicit such strong feelings before. Interesting…

      • Olenna says:

        Thank you. Without some indication she/he is even on par with the Sussexes, @Stefanie just sounds like another troll who is not getting paid very well.

      • ennie says:

        omg sooopressed- I follow them, I like them and they’ll do ok regardless.
        their foundation, they can name it whatever.

      • AGreatDane says:

        Meghan wasn’t an art student though, she was a Theatre and International Relations student and she can write in three languages. Don’t try to compete where you don’t compare. Go back to your watercolors and the rivers and lakes that you’re used to.

    • Kk2 says:

      Yea I like them but weird and pretentious was my first thought also. It really doesn’t roll off the tongue either. But whatever, hopefully they put it to good use.

      • Fabuleuse15 says:


      • Candice says:

        You know people need to stop starting with “I like them but” and then progress to trashing a couple or individual. Anyway, how a name for a foundation can cause such hysteria like “oh theyre pretentious” is beyond me. The scrutiny Harry and Meghan but more specifically Meghan had to endure was horrid snd now all of you wanna just pile on the hate? WHY? The name doesn’t have to roll off the tongue for you, all they ask is for you to follow their endeavors

  6. Priscila says:

    Maybe there are legal aspects to the decision of whether is a foundations, non profit or whatever?
    The scope of what they want to do seems to be broader- perhaps they got not large donations but a very large partnership with some billionaire?

  7. Amanda says:

    That’s a terrible name, regardless of the meaning. For two so focused on their branding, this is an unusual mis-step.

    • Laalaa says:

      I agree. It feels so amateurish. Maybe it’s like a Eurovision song, we have to hear it a few times to get it.
      I do love they named it after Archie, though.

      • malorca says:

        I laughed at the Eurovision comment. Missing that delightful bit of cotton candy fluff this year.

      • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

        “….Duke and Duchess of Sussex explain how they decided on the name, which *PREDATES* their son’s name.”

        From their statement. They chose this BEFORE they had the baby. They named him Archie BECAUSE of this choice.

    • Sofia says:

      I think the opposite. I think it’s very on brand for them to pick something with Archie. In fact it’s something a lot of people criticise them for – they’re very sentimental and they think a lot about the message they want to send.

    • BUBS says:

      Misstep? Terrible name? Amateurish? Pray tell, how? Lol. You guys take yourselves too seriously. You desperately want them to fail; so it’s natural that you’ll eagerly bash whatever name they come up with. Then you’ll try to butter it up by saying “oh, but I love them!” Nah boo, we see you! It’s their foundation and whatever name will sell because it’s Harry and Megs…calm down!!! They’ll do so much good and I’m so here for it!!
      Archie is their child and this is their foundation…Archewell is fine. The name has meaning to them, and that’s all that matters.

      • Laalaa says:


      • EB says:

        Archewell has meaning for them, and I like that, but I don’t like the name. It reminds me of a stuffy hotel chain or boys school, and it’s guaranteed no one will pronounce it correctly. So yeah…you can be a Sussex supporter and also think the name isn’t great.

      • Amanda says:

        @ Bubs
        People are allowed to have a contrary opinion when it comes to the the Sussexes. That doesn’t mean we’re trashing them or wanting them to fail. You need to not be so defensive.

        Take it from an Angelina Jolie fan – if you leap to their defence at every little thing you will eventually lose all objectivity. It’s okay to be critical sometimes! Doesn’t mean you admire them any less.

      • BUBS says:

        Oh honey, but you should also live up to your own words too. Why does my comment rub you the wrong way? If you have an opinion, can I not have a counter opinion? If someone goes on the offensive, can I not be defensive? Lol.

      • NVYwife says:

        @bubs you literally went on the attack immediately and began personal attacks.

      • BUBS says:

        Oh love, did you read the comments preceding mine? Like, did you?

      • Marie says:

        I agree Bubs. The name has meaning to them, they didn’t name it for anyone else. It’s their foundation and no matter what they named it, people would hate. I’m more excited to see what they come out with.

      • Gingerbee says:

        Yes Bubs to all your replies.

      • pineapple says:

        I honestly really, really like the name. Archewell. I love the word it draws on, remarking about action. Harry and Meghan work, naming their foundation after a word symbolizing action? I love it.

      • Erinn says:

        Bubs, I think you were fine asking how someone considers it amateur but as soon as you jumped to “You guys take yourselves too seriously. You desperately want them to fail; so it’s natural that you’ll eagerly bash whatever name they come up with.” and that’s where you’re going to lose people. The condescending “oh love” doesn’t help things, either.

        There’s been a lot of shouting down on these threads. Before the royal drama, this site didn’t have that problem very often. There’s just WAY too much hostility, and it’s not productive. People are allowed to not love the name. You’re allowed to share your opinion too. But when you jump to generalize and insult posters who don’t share your opinion it becomes toxic very quickly.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Marie – I am with you. I am much more excited to see what they will ultimately do with their foundation and/or non-profit. I couldn’t care less about the name.

      • BUBS says:

        @Gingerbee, I have time today. Lol. @Erinn, I know you’re not a troll, and I know your heart is good, so I’ll give you this explanation. I stand by all I said…everything! But if you care to scroll down, you’ll see that I eventually understood Amanda’s position. I can understand constructive criticism not coming from a place of hate. But any other thing? Nope!

      • MsIam says:

        You know it’s the usual chorus of naysayers. I bet they couldn’t wait to rush over with their “ opinions”. I absolutely love the name, it’s perfect. It’s unique and it will be associated with them without actually using their names and most importantly it has nothing to do with the BRF! So no, using your title, trading on Sussex, Noah, blah, blah.

      • minx says:

        This site is very supportive of Harry and Meghan,, and you know, we’re allowed to not like the name.

      • Nic919 says:

        It’s not the people who dislike the name but the snide comments that go with it. Many here said they didn’t like It but didn’t try to throw in an insult about Harry and Meghan, which is the difference here. Let’s not pretend that all comments criticizing this are done in good faith.

    • Talie says:

      I really want them to win, but this new name…not feeling it. The rollout is also clumsy, yet again.

      SussexRoyal was perfect – so sad that couldn’t work. It’s a shame they just didn’t stick with Sussex – Something. It’s much more clean.

      • pineapple says:

        Talie … I am worried you don’t have a creative bone in your body. Sussex something? I really like Archewell. It is wondrous, named after action AND their child. It is pretty amazing.

      • Becks1 says:

        The “clumsy” rollout is not their fault.

      • BabsORIG says:

        @Talie, I’m not sure if you read their statement. They said they’re addressing this because the tabloids were gonna put it out there. They filed for their foundation and the UK media got a leak and we’re going to print. This was the Sussexes beating them to it. They haven’t rolled out anything, they said they’ll do so when the right time comes.

      • Talie says:

        I think Lainey nailed it in her analysis – even though The Telegraph screwed them, they didn’t have to respond. The news is moving quickly now and stories like this barely are a blip. I would’ve waited for the full launch. I also think their PR company should’ve known that.

      • Redgrl says:

        I would’ve liked SussexGlobal personally.
        But it’s their foundation and they can call it whatever they want. Maybe they thought using Sussex in any form would be too much of a link to the royals and allow people to accuse them of trying to cash in. Still don’t know how to pronounce it, like others said.

      • Marie says:

        What rollout? A reporter was digging for this information and they had no choice but to put out a statement. They even said they weren’t ready to announce it and will in due tune. So, they haven’t rolled out anything yet. And yes, it’s good they responded because the Telegraph were going to run the story anyway and they already got some things wrong. It’s best to put the truth out there. And I am glad they are finally able to do that.

      • MsIam says:

        Lainey is not the be all and end all of anything. And the Sussex were right to put the kibosh on this because the tabloids were going to run with this like crazy with all of their sources say bullsh!t. And their statement literally said that they are not doing anything until the time is right.

      • Mercury says:

        @Bubs I am with you. I like the name. I think some of the naysayers are faux concerned

      • L4frimaire says:

        @Talie, They’re not rolling out anything. They just confirmed the name based on public trademark filings to respond to an article. They just said in their last IG post they’ll be away for a while and working behind the scenes.

      • Nic919 says:

        They literally said it’s not a rollout so maybe read the words instead of rushing to post a disparaging comment about something they didn’t actually do n

    • BabsORIG says:

      Oh c’mon @ Amanda and the rest y’all, stop with the over dramatic antics. There’s no misstep in anything, it’s their foundation, their right and choice to name it whatever they want.
      Know what? I don’t care for the name, but it’s their foundation to name, so whatever. I’m just here for the fact that the tabloids just can’t seem to leave these nobodies alone. You would think every UK media network would focus on reporting about the Cambridges and their royal foundation but I guess not. They and all those trolls keep bitching about the Sussexes blah blah blah, yet they continue putting them in their papers ad nauseum. And the trolls keep carrying on about the Sussexes this and the Sussexes that, LOL. They all gonna pop a vein one of these days. Meanwhile, the Sussexes are living their best lives and have no Fs to give about the haters.

    • FC says:

      Agreed, it sounds like a basic manufacturing company. It reminds me of Honeywell, the company that makes air filters.

    • Lizzie says:

      You don’t like it so it’s a mis-step? Not hardly.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Plenty of people didn’t understand Sentebale at the beginning, and here it is successful nearly 15 years later. So many pressed trolls today.

      • TINA says:

        Exactly. Plus, I wouldn’t be surprise if this is the name they were going with when they left KP. But the palace said no, you have to use Sussex. I’m glad they dropped sussex. Start fresh!!!

    • MerryGirl says:

      Jeez Louise…the naming a non-profit is a misstep now? If you don’t like it that’s fine but please give me a break with it being a misstep. Their non-profit, their name. You and I can name our what we wish……not that we’re in their league LOL.

  8. ABritGuest says:

    Most media incl Telegraph that apparently had story of name first, say it’s a non profit org they are launching

  9. Embee says:

    Re the type of entity I may be of some (limited) help here. I help people start not-for-profit entities/charities.

    In the United States, an entity may be exempt from paying taxes if it serves a purpose described in 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Donations to these entities are tax deductible to the donor, making fund-raising easier. Those purposes described in 501(c)(3) are often referred to as being charitable but they aren’t always. Any of the following are included: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. None of the org’s activities can “inure to the benefit of an individual owner”.

    You can call a tax exempt org (TEO) a foundation, but a Private Foundation is a smaller TEO usually run by a family and the organization has stricter regulations of its financial activities and is required, for example, to donate 5% of its assets to charitable purposes.

    Hope that’s helpful!

    • KellyRyan says:

      Thank you. It is helpful. H&M can earn monies as paid administrators, hire staff, purchase office supplies and equipment. It’s important to know when choosing to donate to a 501 (c) 3 , the amount of monies spent on administration.

      • OriginalLala says:

        totally true, it’s shocking how high the admin costs/salaries can be for some orgs in the not-for-profit/charity/foundation sector. I try to donate to orgs with the least overhead now, where most of the $ goes to the cause.

      • Salmonpuff says:

        I work with nonprofits as a consultant. High Overhead expenses do not always indicate a scammy organization. Many nps with low overhead pay their staff ridiculously low wages and have high turnover and thus less effectiveness. Or they have a big corporate endowment covering overhead so they can appear to be more efficient. NPs solving complex issues and without one or two big benefactors need highly skilled (expensive) staff and consultants to fundraise and administer. Overhead is not a particularly accurate way to measure the effectiveness of your donation. Charity Navigator ratings are imperfect, but take more than overhead into account. They are a better indicator for where your charitable giving will be used wisely.

      • OriginalLala says:

        @salmonpuff totally fair point! – I’ve been focusing my donations and volunteer hours towards local organizations who are working in my community, I like being involved and seeing the benefits firsthand.

      • salmonpuff says:

        @OriginalLala I think that’s the best way to go! I work with national orgs, but individual donors can have the most impact working with local NPs who desperately need the help!

    • lizzieb says:

      Agree lowest overhead is not always best. I look out for shell type nps. For example they take in money and pay admin and then they donate to the charity. They can be very effective but there is also the possibility for abuse

  10. Chubs says:

    Name is fine, but it makes me think of Archway, the stuff everyone sold in the 1980s

    • Mellie says:

      I think that’s Amway, but I believe there was a brand of cookies called Archeway…that’s what I thought of when I first heard that.

      • malorca says:

        It’s funny you’d say that, the first thing I thought when I saw it was of Archway, a pretty scuzzy neighbourhood in London!

      • Mara says:

        Is Archway still scuzzy? I’d thought they’d done it up. My mum used to work there and all I remember is that I loved the local swimming pool – great slide.

    • Mumbles says:

      Archway is a cookie brand in the US, maybe that’s what you’re thinking of?

  11. Sid says:

    They didn’t really announce it, as much as they had to confirm it. A reporter from the Telegraph went digging through legal filings, found all the trademarks, then approached them asking about it. I think it’s a shame they didn’t get a chance to announce this in their own time with a proper launch. I already see a bunch of fake social media accounts popping up pretending to be connected to this.

    • Ruby_Woo says:

      God! that’s so annoying! I did think this is a weird time to be launching an initiative.

      It best not be that cow Camilla Tominey – she’s such a nasty piece of work.

    • Flying fish says:

      Yes, they were forced to announce and correct some information that was offered up by the Telegraph.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      And now, predictably getting torn apart by DM (only saw the headline, didn’t click), for “launching” while the Prime Minister is in ICU. Fun times!

      • BabsORIG says:

        @Bella dupont, as I said upthread, we nay sayers, and in particular the British media, will always find something to bitch about when it comes to the Sussexes. The British media is having their noses bent out of shape because they can’t touch the Sussexes.
        Firstly, lest these people forget, life has to go on even if BoJo passed away. I’m not wishing the man any ill will, but the UK tabloids always seem to think the entire world revolves around the UK and what goes on there. The Sussexes, even if the had launched their foundation (which they didn’t) would have done so in the US. BoJo is no longer someone they should take into consideration or be concerned about in their decision making, the Sussexes are now in America. Secondly, the rest of the world doesn’t come to a standstill just because some guy in the UK fell ill, these people need to get over themselves.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ BabsOrig

        Agreed 100%. These people exhaust me. 😓

  12. Erinn says:

    This makes me think they’re not planning another kid immediately if they’re tying it in. But I’ve had that hunch for a while now. I wouldn’t be surprised if they were to adopt a child eventually rather than only having biological kids.

    The names okay. I don’t love it but I definitely don’t dislike it either. I’m kind of glad they didn’t go with their own names or their surnames or mothers surnames. It’d have been nice, but I think people would have just accused them of profiting off of Diana’s name as ridiculous an accusation as it would be. Spencer-Ragland sounds much more like a law firm – and I do like the meaning behind the name they chose.

    • S808 says:

      I agree. I get why everyone wanted Sussex Global or Sussex Royal or even Spencer-Ragland but that those all leave open backdoors for the press to make something out of nothing. Archewell has meaning to them and isn’t connected to anything dealing with their time as royals (except their son) which is why I think it’s a good fit. People will get used to it just like they got used to Archie.

      • Becks1 says:

        I think they are smart to not use anything with Sussex in it. And it also really just confirms in my mind that they are never going back to the royal family.

      • Erinn says:

        This exactly, S808.

        And I agree Becks. I think there would need to be a massive overhaul for them to ever consider going back. And the more time they have away I think it’s becoming more and more unlikely. I can’t imagine having that year of freedom to just go back to that mess.

    • TeddyPicker says:

      Interesting point about a second kid – I’m inclined to agree! Another way to break the royal mould, not doing the ‘heir and a spare’ model of baby-making.

      • Erinn says:

        I mean, I could always be wrong. But that’s just the vibe I’ve gotten from them. Watch, now that I’ve posted they’ll announce a pregnancy tomorrow haha. In all seriousness though, I would like to see them adopt in the future.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Erinn

        Ordinarily, adopting would be an amazing idea, but I feel as though that poor baby would become the focus of a lot of the media’s bile…..

        Anyhoo….A girl would likely face similar obsessive attention as the mother, so I would really love another boy if they can manage it. Maybe even twins? Triplets? Identical triplets, all with red hair?! ☺️ (Ok, getting carried away now).

      • Flamingo says:

        I don’t see them having any more and I don’t really see them adopting. Some people just like having one child.

      • Erinn says:


        I kid, haha. But I hadn’t thought of that – it would bring a hell of a lot of attention to a kid who didn’t ask for that. But it’s hard to say. Maybe they wouldn’t visit that idea for a few more years anyway, and by then things might have calmed down in the smear campaign front? That might be wishful thinking on my part though.

        Flamingo – I think that’s a fair point too. I know personally, I’ve told my husband that if we try for kids, I probably will only want to do it the one time. I think these two would be great parents no matter if they have an only child or a whole house full of kids.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Erinn

        Ginger identical quadruplets! Aww man…’re making me fantasize now…..imagine what mischief they could get into, with the BM run absolutely ragged, trying to keep up with their antics and trying to keep track of who to pin what supposed crime on…..all judiciously coordinated by Ginger-in-Chief, Master Archie of Malibu Beach, California.

      • L4frimaire says:

        I really hope they have another child, but Archies is just turning one, so maybe in another year or 2. Need some spacing. The rest seems a little out there. Too complicated and with Harry still in succession, not practical.

    • notasugarhere says:

      They didn’t name it after their son. They liked the root word for both their non-profit and their son.

  13. Beff says:

    Shocking that they had to make a statement after the tabloids ran with the story. Interesting that Wilileaks must be cut off since it didn’t come from him.

    • SkaraBrae says:

      The Telegraph is as from a tabloid as you can get!
      It’s a very traditional Tory newspaper.

      • Ruby_Woo says:

        It’s just as awful as any tabloid

      • Bella DuPont says:

        With Camilla Tominey, it’s worse than many tabloids. She’s the one who suggested Meghan was racist for not featuring more than 5 white women on her vogue cover. Dreadful woman.

      • Ruby_Woo says:

        @Bella: And for trying to link Meghan’s community hubb work with terrorism. I really hate her. The other RR are scummy, but there is something particularly vicious about her.

      • MsIam says:

        In 2018 was a special right before H&M’ s wedding on tv here in the US. I’m pretty sure Camilla Tominey was on it. This woman actually said that Meghan would be told not to emphasize her black heritage and instead to appear as white so that she would fit in with the rest of the royals. I about fell off the bed at that one. But given these other things she’s said that fits right in.

      • Bella DuPont says:

        @ Ruby Woo

        She also came up with the Hubb kitchen/terrorism narrative? Christ.

        She’s so hateful, she’s like the real life embodiment of Rita Skeeter from Harry Potter, except, she’s actually a lot crueler that her.

      • Olenna says:

        Camilla Tominey really is an lost, pathetic soul. Her stories and tweets about Meghan (and Harry) have been sly and demeaning, with spite and envy underlying each of them. I recall an article she wrote about her alcoholic mother a few years ago and thought she, of all people, should know better than to go about trashing other women who’ve never personally hurt her. But, she is too small-minded, racist and petty to let go of her envy of Meghan and what Meghan has.

    • malorca says:

      Intensely amused by the Torygraph being called a “tabloid”.

    • Jaxonmeh says:

      I actually prefer a news organization who did the work to get a lead rather then just get a gross tip from a relative and run with some fanfic spun around it to flesh it out.

    • notasugarhere says:

      W&K just hired one of their former social media people. Could have come from him.

  14. Becks1 says:

    I like it. I especially like that they were considering the name – at least the Arche part of it – before Archie was born. So it seems they aren’t “just” naming it after him, its more that they found a name/word that means something to them and used it for their son and decided to keep using it at this point.

    • Agree Becks1. And I guess their explanation of it being the inspiration for their son’s name, puts paid to all those nasty stories the RR printed about their deliberately stealing George’s secret name for themselves.

      • Prayer Warrior says:

        I think George overheard some conversations and chose the secret name for himself………

      • February Pisces says:

        Oh yeah I forgot about that. I can’t believe willieleaks put out that they called George ‘Archie’. Lol. If they stole George’s name, then Archie would be called ‘George’. Anyway George’s middle name is ‘louis’, so they themselves stole one of George’s name for their second son.

      • notasugarhere says:

        George was a mean/low pick by W&K anyway. Charles had made it known he wanted to choose George as his reigning name, for his grandfather. Cannot do it now because it would look like he was playing on the grandson’s name.

    • pineapple says:

      Becks1, I like it too. I love that they named their son thinking of the word Arche. Archewell, I really like it. Everyone else will too, soon enough. I suspect Archewell will do some amazing work.

  15. Digital Unicorn says:

    I like it, has lots of branding opportunities and is easy to remember/pronounce.

    Look forward to seeing what they can do with it.

  16. The Other Sarah says:

    Go to their Instagram! They’ve been low-key posting since February – bwahahahaha of course MM had a plan for this situation. I actually squealed with glee when I saw that.

    • Ash says:

      Ok, this is actually hilarious – the last post is from six weeks ago, so this has been in the making for some time. Super well done.

      (…I still hate the name, but oh well, I was never a fan of “Archie” either and the world continued spinning regardless!)

      It’s “” for others looking. The logo is pretty interesting, in particular.

      • OriginalLala says:

        very interesting logo! I started following the page in case it is actually them lol

      • EB says:

        There was an article in Jan of this year—websites and social media were registered for Arche/Archewell in late 2018. I dismissed it at the time as made up tabloid garbage and shit stirring, but now I guess they really had something. This move has been a long time coming.

    • new_kay says:

      That doesn’t seem to be their official Instagram though the official one is @archewellglobal

      • songbirds_thrive says:

        How do we know whether either account is their official new Instagram? The name, Archewell, must have leaked out all over the place as soon as they filed it with the Trademark Office. I like the logo on the account better.

    • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

      I must be missing the gene…what *is* their instagram?? I only have “SussexRoyal” Is there another that I’m missing?

      • songbirds_thrive says:

        ^^ Plenty of fake ‘Sussex’ and ‘Archewell’ accounts are strewn all over Instagram!

  17. Sofia says:

    It’ll grow on me. I didn’t like Archie the first time but it grew on me.

    • pineapple says:

      Yah, I loved Archie the first time I heard it, but then again, I wanted to name a child Gus. I love old Grampa names. XO

    • PrincessK says:

      Exactly. A lot of people were not keen on Archie at the beginning and now we love it. Interesting that the Sussexes chose the name Archewell BEFORE Archie was born? While it does seem that this news is yet another leak, why should they wait for the pandemic to end? The Covid 19 problem will still be with us in 2021.

  18. Jaxonmeh says:

    I like it. The name will grow on you. And at some point it will be like it always was.

    For some reason, I wasn’t too thrilled on H&M being bestowed the Sussex title. I literally just don’t like the sound of the word Sussex. I also don’t know if I have some negative connotation of Sussex (I’d never visited there specifically) while I lived in the U.K. but mainly I just didn’t like how it rolled off the tongue for me. Now it all goes together like PB&J in a good way. And I associate the title with this amazing couple who does amazing things.

    Give it time. It may never be your favorite name, but it’s new and it’s a vast departure from what we know. But not really. We already know they’re going to do amazing things.

  19. KellyRyan says:

    I agree with, “It’ll grow on me.” I do understand the name Archie is popular in the UK, not so in the US. I am happy H&M are in action building a new life in North America.

    • Emmitt says:

      Well that’s because Americans either think of “Archie Bunker” or “Archie” from the comic strip when they think of the name.

  20. JulieCarr says:

    Oof, bad name. The Greek pronunciation isn’t the natural pronunciation of that spelling for English speakers, and with the tie-in to Archie’s name it’s guaranteed that people are going to say ‘Archie-well’. Which is a crap name for anything, but really weak for a charitable foundation.

    • BUBS says:

      No it’s not a bad or weak name. Remember how most people didn’t fancy the name Archie when he was born? Now we’re used to it. Archewell is perfect…and the intention behind the name is laudable too. Plus, the foundation will definitely succeed…so calm down. Lol

      • BUBS says:

        Oh, was responding to someone who @me. Can’t find the comment anymore. Yo, I have time today. This is what a quarantine does. Lol at myself!!!

      • Lady D says:

        I might be used to the name Archie BUBS, but I still don’t like it. I got the same kind of grief for the name I chose for my son too, but I didn’t care. I love my son’s name and I wouldn’t change it for anything despite what a few other loudmouths might say.

    • pineapple says:

      Um ….. I suspect we will see great things from this “really weak” charitable foundation.

    • Cynthia says:

      oh well! Too bad they didn’t come up with something as ‘strong’ as….checks notes…the Royal Foundation of the DDOC, or oohhh..even better – the “Prince’s son Trust”.

    • Jaded says:

      @JulieCarr: Glad you’re an expert on charitable organizations and their nomenclatures. Maybe something like the “Screw the BRF” foundation would be more to your liking.

    • notasugarhere says:

      People didn’t know Sentebale either, but 15 years later it is doing fine.

  21. Other Sofia says:

    Hmm. No I don’t like it at all. Neither the sound, nor how it looks, nor how they explain it (strength, action, source, blabla). Sounds like someone looked into all kinds of words and syllables that can be combined for a new product name for any type or product (wellness, sports etc.) I would have liked something more personal, so would have actually liked Archie better or my favorite: The Harry and Meghan foundation.. Or related to the topic they want to work on. The Archie foundation for Education or The Archie Education Trust or something. But oh well. Maybe it will grow on me. And more important than the Name is what they do with it anyway.

    • MsIam says:

      The name Archewell is very personal, it’s like their mantra. It literally means “ source of good”. Plus it’s associated with their child. It’s what they both want to be, what they constantly talk about, doing good, helping others. Naming it “Harry & Meghan” would have set themselves up for accusations of famewhoring. And with a unique name like that, it will be instantly recognizable as theirs without plastering Harry & Meghan all over it.

    • Jules says:

      I agree. I also think it is incredible pressure to put on a kid… what if he doesn’t live up to his name? Or how will he ever live up to his name?

      • Jaded says:

        He doesn’t have to live up to anything. There’s no pressure….it’s not like he’s been named CEO and has to get up and work there every day…honestly some of the comments here make utterly no sense.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It isn’t named after their son, nor is it a requirement for him to be involved in it later. They like the root of the word and used it in two different ways.

      So much concern trolling on here today.

  22. Harper says:

    I appreciate the Greek word as the base–I learned something today. But not paired with the word “well.” Feels like Arche on its own would have been stronger and leant itself to bow and arrow/archery/strength imagery. Now with the “well” attached it sounds pharmaceutical, like a product for someone who has foot problems. But, like everything, we’ll get used to it. I am sure they are not going to read my opinion and change it.

    Dan Wooten must be feeling small this morning; he probably prides himself in being the top leaker in all things Sussex. He’ll be putting pressure on Wills now to make up for it.

    • BUBS says:

      I’m really surprised Wooten didn’t break this one. I thought he knew everything! Shocker!

    • MsIam says:

      Actually the word well means good. So nerd that I am, I looked up the word “arche” and some of the meanings are source or something that things flow from. So literally it could be interpreted as “source of good” or “good flows from this”. I think it’s beautiful and so unique yet simple. I think we will know more later, of course.

    • DarlingDiana says:

      I would prefer just Arche too.

    • notasugarhere says:

      What and have Keanu Reeves have to come after them for it being too close to his motorcycle company name (Arch)?

      It is a name that has meaning to them, like Sentebale. Archewell will do fine.

  23. tempest prognosticator says:

    Suddenly I’m hungry for cookies.

  24. Gingerbee says:

    I like the name and the meaning behind it. I can’t with some of these “new” posters calling it “pretentious”. This thread will be flooded with before the end of the day.

  25. Hirut says:

    If Arche means source of action, is baby Archie the source of actions that his parents took in order to protect him from his own relatives and the BM? I like it that they let that be known

  26. P says:

    Spencer- Ragland sounds like a lawyers firm hehe. Archewell is not good, why invent some random word with your kids name.

    • S808 says:

      Why not?

    • (TheOG) jan90067 says:

      My dad formed one of his companies with a combo of all 3 of our names (3 kids): an example like: JayBeeKay Inc.). Why not use your kids’ names…?

    • Jaded says:

      Thousands of companies invent random words to name companies. Especially involving kids’ names.

  27. Lizounette says:

    I’m rather over them. Pretentious and thirsty. Rolling out their new money making golden goose in a global pandemic ? Shame on them IMHO.

    • S808 says:

      OK troll.

    • BUBS says:

      You took out precious time to type this…so nope, you’re not exactly over them! Lol
      And I’m sure you already know that they haven’t even launched this. They said they’ll launch when the time is right. They only put the name out because, as usual, the press went snooping and forced their hand. But again, you probably already know this…because you watch their every move and then claim to be over them!

      • Gingerbee says:

        Bubs, they can no longer spew the bile on the Sussex Royal IG page, so they are posting any where they can. I’ve seen some of these trolls comments on other H&M IG pages.

      • BUBS says:

        True that, Gingerbee. They need an outlet to spew bile. Must be terribly unhealthy carrying around so much haterade in the system though…

    • EB says:

      To be fair, they DIDN’T roll this out during a pandemic. Someone from The Telegraph followed the filings and did some digging, then asked them to comment. I will grant that their statement—going into the name’s significance to them personally—was perhaps not well done. I would have preferred that they only confirmed the name and said they look forward to sharing more when the time is right in order to keep the focus on the pandemic.

      • BabsORIG says:

        Leaving at at just confirm would just create a vacuum which the UK tabloids would have gladly filled with all sorts of vitriolic bile, trying to poison the public against them. I don’t think they wanted to take that chance.

      • EB says:

        Their statement that they would wait until better timing would have acted as a smack down of sorts. Instead, they gave up a lot of information at a time they weren’t ready to give it up AND they get to contend with people criticizing them for launching now. I understand why they made their statement, but I don’t think it was the correct move here.

      • Cynthia says:

        You only think it’s not a “correct move here” because that’s exaclty what the british media wants you to think.

      • PrincessK says:

        The Covid 19 problem will still be with us in 2021 , so why should they wait? Life has to go on.

    • Izzy says:

      Go back to the Daily Fail where you belong

    • Horsforth says:

      Agree 100%. So disappointed in both of them

    • Lizzie says:

      Back in the start of my IT days the big phrase was GIGO – garbage in garbage out. Sort of like making up a lie then reacting with phony outrage. Just like your comment.

    • Becks1 says:

      They didn’t roll it out. They specifically said that they weren’t going to announce right now but after the reporter got the info, they felt they had to make a statement.

      Do people not read?

    • MsIam says:

      Seriously? Are your arms tired from reaching so much?

    • GuestWho says:

      And yet, here you are. You must be from Twitter, because reading comprehension is not their thing either. Does it not bother you to be wrong about so many things so often?

    • Nyro says:

      Oh look, it’s a Karen. Go wash your hands, troll.

    • Bella DuPont says:

      This is rather lazy, no? The Trolls from the early days (2016) used to be so much more authentic, creative and organized……they kept us on our toes.

      Troll standards have now fallen to unacceptable levels, I don’t even get pissed off by your comments anymore. What’s happening to you guys? Can we help in any way?

    • ravynrobyn says:

      @ LIZOUNETTE-Sure Jan…

    • Jaded says:

      @Lizounette – it’s at times like these that we NEED a patronage like this to focus attention, money and information on combating it. Go back to the Fail.

  28. TheOriginalMia says:

    I like it. I like the thought out into choosing it. I also am very happy there is no connection to the BRF. It’s theirs completely.

  29. Lisa says:

    I like the name and can’t wait to see where it goes. At least this reporter did the work correctly.

  30. Yoyo says:

    A Foundation’s name is not the reason for its success, it’s the work you put into the Foundation. Harry and Meghan will put in the work.
    It is OK not to like a name, you can choose your own name, like they did.

  31. Beff says:

    Wow it’s troll central today. Shouldn’t you all be focused on praying for BJ, that’s what “your” real “news”source the Fail is saying H&M should be doing rather than responding to tabloid leaks. Maybe you should follow. And leave. Buhbye.

  32. Amanda says:

    @ Bubs
    You’re just reinforcing everything I said, lol. My comment wasn’t going on the offensive, it was a mere opinion. You immediately got on the defensive and started attacking. And I get it. When you’ve been slammed as much as Harry and Meghan have, it’s an automatic response to defend them regardless but perhaps you could just chill out a bit and realise that criticism isn’t always an attack.

    • BUBS says:

      Oh, now I’ll chill dear. I’m sure you’re not a troll… I hope. See, I’m amenable to reason. Hehehehe…

      • Linda says:

        You don’t sound like you are chill at all.

        Anyway, I don’t care about the name, I am more interested in what the foundation will achieve and going by the antecedent of Meghan and Harry, I am sure it will do well.

      • BUBS says:

        Cos you’re in my mind now? Drink some water honey…you’ll be fine. Lolllllll

      • Gingerbee says:

        Bubs, you are on a roll today, and I loving it👏🏽👏🏽.

      • BUBS says:

        Hahahahaha. Gingerbee, I’ve just got time today. I’ll (probably) be quiet tomorrow…probably!

      • Linda says:

        I am adequately hydrated love, you should do the same, you sound parched as hell 😂😂😂

      • BUBS says:

        Sweetpea, your water supply is contaminated. Lol

  33. Fortifiedblonde says:

    Can everyone here complaining about the name share what they named their foundations so we can compare?

    • SkaraBrae says:

      That’s a little unnecessary isn’t it?

      Some people commenting on the fact that it sounds a little clumsy and no-one is actually sure how it will be pronounced, which is not ideal for a brand name.

      What is wrong with that?

      • MsIam says:

        Well, why not try waiting for the launch and then you will know. But I suspect it will be similar to the word “ archetype”. Which is not pronounced like “Archie”.

      • Cynthia says:

        Archewell sounds clumsy…compared to *check notes* Sussex Royal? LOL

      • notasugarhere says:

        You mean all the brand new, concern trolls failing desperately on here. You’re all so obvious.

  34. boobra says:

    meanwhile, somewhere in Kensington Palace, a shrill scream pierces the lockdown tranquility as Katy Keen realizes she has to start looking busy again.

    • Mumbles says:

      All because of a name? Let’s see what they end up doing with it.

      • pineapple says:

        Mumbles, you’ve GOT to be kidding. What they do with it? You mean like a phenomenally successful games for injured soldiers, or a phenomenally successful cookbook, or a phenomenally successful line of clothing?

        Yah, let’s wait to see what they do with it.

        William and Kate wouldn’t STILL be throwing Harry and Meghan to the wolves if THEY WEREN’T worried about their future successes.

      • Lady D says:

        At this point, it takes very little to trigger Cain and Unable. Everything the Sussex’s do is going to be seen as a dig at the Cambridges, and force them into another oneupmanship contest after another. I predict the Cambridges are going to spend a great deal of time in the next two years watching, copying, and trying to destroy everything the Sussex’s do or attempt, and in the process will destroy any chance they have at happiness. They might bond over this, but it still won’t be a happy marriage.

      • Lizzie says:

        Nope, all because of being overshadowed. Again.

      • Yoyo says:

        Meghan’s hairdresser and beautician spoke out last week about working with Meghan and Harry, and what do you know, Unable’s photographer chimed in to say that only like to show happy pictures of the family.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @pineapple – I am going to take up for Mumbles for a moment and I hope I did not miss interpret the Mumbles post.

        If Harry and Meghan can progenerate a “phenomenally successful games for injured soldiers, or a phenomenally successful cookbook, or a phenomenally successful line of clothing?” under the thumb of BP and KP imagine what they can do with no or limited restrictions.

        I am very interested to see what they end up doing too.

    • lanne says:

      they are busy! They are “thinking abut” NHS workers! Very taxing.

    • Chubs says:

      I think this is unfair. W&K have nothing to do with this post. Let the Harry and Meghan stories be about Harry and Meghan?

      • DarlingDiana says:

        Agree. With everything going on in England, and everywhere else, it is a strange assumption that W&K are hyper-focused on the Sussexs. The British media shouldn’t be either but they definitely are and they are being deliberately misleading and trying to damage the Sussexs.

      • notasugarhere says:

        And whom exactly do you think leaked it to this reporter? Wikileaks or Carole striking again.

    • notasugarhere says:

      The other royals are hiring the former Harry and Meghan staff. First Sara and now one of the social media guys. You can bet for damn sure W&K are desperate to try to get SM traction like Harry and Meghan did.

  35. SJR says:

    Archie is a cute baby.
    Hope H & M actually do some good for others with their wealth.
    That’s all I got.

    • pineapple says:

      You mean like the good they have already done?
      That’s all I got.

    • Lizzie says:

      George, Charlotte and Louis are really cute. Hope the Cambridge’s do some good with their wealth.
      I got more but I’ll stop.

      • Lady D says:

        That video with little Loius clapping was so darned cute, especially when he checks with George to make sure he’s doing it right. He’s a living doll, that one.

  36. Sofia says:

    It’s like the Daily Fail comment section here, yikes! Not everyone has to like Meghan but I wish some of you would leave the site’s comments alone because this is the one place on the internet where Meghan’s head isn’t wanted on a stick.

    If you want to hate, you’ve got the various royal forums, daily mail, instagram and twitter

    • BUBS says:

      Exactly! They can’t understand why we’re so protective of H and M. They don’t have many safe spaces online; so, here, we do our best to protect them. There’s a difference between constructive criticism and blatant hate. And it’s easy to tell, by reading the comments…
      I mean, there are so many places for haters to thrive…we just don’t want them here. And I don’t have anything against people clarifying when their criticism is not coming from a bad place…heck, I’ll even have a laugh with them when I see they mean no harm. But then, there are blatant trolls…those are the ones who need to be put in check. We don’t cramp their style on the Fail…so why should they try to shove their positions down our throats here and not expect pushback?

      • Nyro says:

        They don’t want her to have anything, not even a kind word. So they have to come here and infect the one safe haven with their diseased rantings and hatred.

    • Lady D says:

      The Fail comment section is horrific. You simply cannot compare the comments here with the comments there. They are not even close, even with today’s rotation of trolls.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That’s why we keep slapping them down, so they know they will never take over the CB comment sections or change Kaiser’s opinion of Keen and Petulant.

      • A says:

        You tell them notasugarhere!!!! Who do they think they are? To come to your comment section and just go and write their opinion! You tell them! We are so lucky to have you and nic919 here!

  37. May says:

    If I remember correctly, ἀρχή in Ancient Greek means beginning, starting point, the cause that lead to something happening, whether that’s positive or negative. It’s not linked to the concept of strength.

  38. Natalee says:

    Hooooooooooly at all the trolls in here.

    So some bored journalist who works for a Tory rag went digging into trademarks, asked them for comment, they commented, and now other Tory rags are shredding them apart for “announcing” this when the muppet is in ICU. Thank the lord they’ve left the toxic wasteland of Britain.

  39. Eribra says:

    I thought it was a brand of cookies but I looked it up and it’s archway cookies. Still what I’m gonna think though.

  40. Suzy says:

    I agree with Lainey that they should commit to staying quiet for awhile until they’re ready to launch. I understand why they feel compelled to make corrections and reveal details, after years of enduring lies and smears, but they’re free people and they should take advantage of it.

    • Yoyo says:

      This is one of the reasons they wanted out of the Royal family, everyone in the Royal family could comment on lies about them except the Sussexes.
      They don’t have to keep silent anymore, they have a voice and they are free to use it.

    • Harper says:

      Yes, they are free people but they are also honest and transparent. Maybe saying “no comment” is not their preference when the inquiry is about something that is true and will be eventually revealed. Let them be free to respond how they want not how Lainey thinks it should be. We will be in the Age of Coronavirus for the immediate future and every time H&M enter the news stream they will be accused of fame-whoring during a pandemic. Predictable.

    • S808 says:

      Nah. Staying quiet is part of why the hate campaign was allowed to continue and get to the size it did. They’re finally able to nip things in the bud and that’s what they’re doing.

      • Suzy says:

        I wish this were the case, but it has only legitimized the Telegraph report and added to the spectacle. But I admit it’s easy to say what they should have done in hindsight. In the moment, and in reality, they’re likely to always lose when it comes to the British press.

      • Olenna says:

        I understand the need to nip this Telegraph news in the bud, but @Suzy is right. SM and the tabloids are having a field day with what Sussex haters, people on the fence about them, and RRs are deliberately and/or incorrectly calling a launch. We can only hope this blows over quickly, but with British news outlets laying off hundreds of people due to the pandemic, tabloids like the Fail and Dim and, yes, the (lowly) Telegraph will need stories like this to keep them afloat since the other royals just don’t sell.

    • Nic919 says:

      They stayed quiet when Meghan was on mat leave and the tabloids kept spinning anyway. I don’t think Lainey is correct here. Harry and Meghan aren’t Beyoncé who gets left alone if she is quiet. Harry and Meghan are never left alone by the UK media. Even now when their PM could be dying the telegraph thought it was important to publish a story on a trademark search. The priorities are ridiculous and Harry and Meghan controlling the narrative by confirming they aren’t doing a launch right now is the only thing they could have done. This will be over in a day or so.

      • Pineapple says:

        Nic, this is such a good observation:
        “Even now when their PM could be dying the telegraph thought it was important to publish a story on a trademark search.”

        Now people are saying how dare Meg and Harry launch at this time. Why are these people not equally horrified that a publication is wasting resources on THIS story when their Prime Minister is so gravely I’ll from a Pandemic illness?

      • Marie says:

        I sometimes agree with Lainey but she got it wrong on this one. To compare Beyoncé with Harry and Meghan is ridiculous. They never said they were going to go dark for a length of time, just work privately for a few months while this pandemic is happening. The press will never give them the luxury of leaving them alone. This fountain is their life. They can’t fall back on the royal life. They have a right to speak on it and defend untrue stories.

  41. mjswim says:

    I LOVE it! It made me “ahhhh” and I’m absolutely positive they’ll do great work.

  42. ziaaa says:

    “What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
    By any other name would smell as sweet.”-Shakespeare.

    To all the trolls saying how over they are wrt H&M and calling them ‘pretentious’, why don’t you just stick to the threads displaying BRF fake-calling NHS workers coz the comment count there is quite low…devote your time in embiggening the keens rather than allowing H&M to live rent-free in your head!

  43. Daivd says:

    They like cutesy but meaningful things and so do I. It’s very sweet and the pronunciation doesn’t really matter to them probably. Just as long as it gets in your head. Good luck to the family and take it easy til things get rolling again.

  44. songbirds_thrive says:

    This is interesting news. It’s too bad though that M&H are forced to announce the name now because their trademark filings have been leaked.

    My immediate take is that the pronunciation is ‘Arch-well’, as in the way Harry abbreviated Archie’s name in the clip where M&H are taking him to meet Archbishop Tutu during the South Africa tour. But who knows?

    Wishing the Sussexes good luck and much success with their ‘foundation’ or ‘nonprofit,’ whichever they will be launching. From the direct quotes by M&H, it appears that the entity will be a nonprofit, which is the model they have previously indicated makes the most sense for what they hope to accomplish.

    It appears to be the publication you are quoting that is loosely using both ‘foundation’ and ‘nonprofit’ interchangeably in their reporting. While the distinctions between such organizations seems slight to the general public, there is apparently an important distinction.

  45. Le4Frimaire says:

    Interesting. Did this make the front page? Not totally into the name but it’s the work that counts. The Sussexes refuted a lot of points in that article but with all going on in the UK, they are still wanting their Sussex fix. They can’t even handle a week of them being gone. The British tabloids are so obsessed with everything this couple do. They could move to Tierra del Fuego and they’d still be fixated and writing about them .

  46. Abena Asantewaa says:

    I think it’s pronouned as: ARCHWELL. I love the meaning. Hannah Furness, who is not nasty at all usually, went snooping around, and forced their hands, prematurely to confirm it. Also with so much mistruths and exaggeration of her article, they were forced to clarify, otherwise the lies are repeated, till the actuall launch. So now they get blamed for releasing an article that was written in the middle of BOJO’S covid-19 illness! Wow! Christmas has come early for some of these trolls here, someone must have rolled away the boulders!

    • Dee Kay says:

      Yes I think this will be their pronunciation. “Archwelll” will sound cooler than “Ark-eh-well” and will invoke their son’s name. And for those wondering what about a second child, I think they probably *will* create a foundation for that child, too! That’s how Angelina Jolie does it!!

  47. BYk says:

    So who leaked to The Telegraph? I’m here with the popcorn to hear the stretch of how the Cambridges are STILL to blame for the leaks. And no, I dislike the Cambridges’ bland asses as well.

    • S808 says:

      I think the reporter just looked at filings which is public record. No leaks.

    • Lizzie says:

      This wasn’t a leak so your comment is nonsense. But by all means be smug all you want.

    • BYk says:

      they’re saying it themselves that the info leaked so they felt “compelled” to tell the story how the name came out and blah and blah…totally unnecessary, specially NOW, with the wold in its worst pandemic of modern times. The timing for that Greek crap sounded completely OFF. Is not that The Telegraph was revealing their full address or who knows what super sensitive info they need to feel “compelled” to fill in.

  48. Marivic says:

    The name of the foundation is ok. But the timing of the confirmation is bad, according to U.K. media I’ve read so far. Johnson is in the ICU. There is a vacuum in UK’s leadership now that it is fighting its biggest fight against the Coronavirus. They could have delayed it a bit. Worried for them as the BM wolves are all set to pounce on them.

    • L4frimaire says:

      @Marivic, It’s The media over there are still writing a million Sussex stories a day. They aren’t the one’s focusing on the U.K. news cycle, and the press over there don’t treat the pandemic with the gravitas it merits. They’d rather poke around in trademark filings. Think this same paper wrote that a pap shot of them in LA would fetch $100k. And I don’t see why them immediately responding to inaccuracies in an article would merit such outrage. They left, are minding their business in quarantine but have every right to speak for themselves.

      • PrincessK says:

        Exactly. All the major newspapers are running Sussex stories daily, and then people complain about actual real news about them. Why are people happy to be stupid?

    • MsIam says:

      So why is it wrong for the Sussexes to clarify the story because of COVID19 but not wrong for the reporter to run the story? Because they only confirmed what the press put out there. Reporters haven’t stopped covering other stories due to the crisis, at least not in the US. So if they can report on stories, the subjects have the right of rebuttal. And their statement was very brief and only about the name.

      • Marie says:

        Exactly Msiam. They just briefly confirmed the name and meaning. If Meghan and Harry said nothing, the press would still run countless stories on this AND put their own spin on it. The Telegraph already was speculating that there would be seminars, self help website, movies and podcasts. Harry and Meghan said they were exaggerating. They can’t win. This is foundation is their future and they have every right to defend it.

  49. Sid says:

    So now that the Sussex IG is closed for comments some of the trolls are trying to bring their nonsense here I see. And no, I am not against criticism at all, but it is pretty obvious when you suddenly have a bunch of new poster names that never had anything to say before….

    • Gingerbee says:

      Sis, I also commented about that up thread. The trolls are posting their garbage everywhere.

    • Olenna says:

      Yes, it’s Troll Central here today (we see you @Lizounette/@Horsforth-Heauxwork, et al.), and I can imagine they’ve invaded the Archewell IG site as well. For the life of me and despite others’ explanations, I cannot understand why the Sussexes allowed comments on SR IG. I expected (and hoped) that in the future they would only have an organizational website that didn’t allow comments or public input.

  50. Jen says:

    I don’t like the name but I like the fact that it is completely separate from anything royal. Petty Liz and her vicious vipers were “YOU CAN’T USE ROYAL!!!!” and Meghan and Harry were like “Cool, weren’t planning on it.”

  51. Nyro says:

    I like the name for what it stands for: a legacy they can pass on to Archie. He doesn’t need a title or to spend his life trying to curry favor with the royals. He’ll be no one’s “spare” or scapegoat. He has his own kingdom now. And it’ll be greater and more impartial than anything his father’s side does.

  52. ABritGuest says:

    At first I agreed that they shouldn’t have commented on story at all. But then looking at how it’s being reported with press saying they unveiled new org (which they didn’t- they said they look forward to launching at right time)& saying it’s bad timing etc- its lose lose either way.

    Telegraph would have gone ahead& reported name& discussed all the marks registered& similar to when SussexRoyal marks were registered, they would be accused of doing that to create merch rather than to protect the name- which the Telegraph still did& they had to clarify. Kanye shrug.

    It’s gonna be tough as British journalists are on social media begging for people to buy papers. They want content& clicks which is why they were moaning that Harry should return to Britain or why haven’t they posted PR shots of calls to patronages etc. They will want to draw them out so they will need to be smart on when to engage.

  53. lanne says:

    Well, there will be no excuses for the idiots who claim they’re cashing in on royalty! That’s the most amusing part of this to me: the British media sees the royals as the apex of class and society and the ultimate aspiration, and Meghan and Harry are like, “nah, we’re out.” That has to burn! Their entire game was based around the idea that “royalty” was so special that people would do ANYTHING to be a part of it, and would take any garbage slung their way for the privilege of being “royal.” Meghan and Harry are blowing that crap right out of the water. If “royal” no longer means special, what will be the point of it, esp. after the Queen is gone? Brexit still looms, so the UK is up a creek even without Covid19. Interesting times ahead.

    • Xantha says:

      I think you got right to the heart of the issue: Meghan got a taste of the royal life, realized it wasn’t what she wanted and got out. Harry was born to the life and prior to meeting her said straight up he didn’t want to be king and has hinted at wanting out himself.
      So two people on opposite ends of the situation came to the same conclusion(royal life sucks, let’s get out) and like you said that must burn all the people who love the whole idea of the British royal family. What does it say about the BRF and their fans who envy their life if the two most valuable people left?

      • MA says:

        It shows how strong Meghan’s sense of self-worth is that shes fine with not being a royal. Unlike the rest of them who cling to their status, titles, jewels because most of them would be nothing without those things. No substance, contribution to society, legacy. No one would give a hoot about any of them unlike Meghan, who earned a name for herself and was known by millions around the world before she became a royal.

  54. Tangie says:

    I was bummed that it wasn’t called SussexGlobal but I get it. They probably want to make sure House Petty doesn’t try to take away Sussex too which would render the name useless. Looking forward to what’s gonna happen nex.

  55. yinyang says:

    The name seems like it was put together quickly, but that’s okay–just a name, I think they’re more commited to the work and purpose of it. Much better than “Sussex Royal,” so pretentious sounding.

  56. Awkward symphony says:

    I CALLED IT! I hinted that it might be linked to that account janina was following (ArchFounation) although now it seems like they were probably setting up multiple options incase its taken. I think its lovely and it solidified their PERMANENT EXIT from the royal family. I bet chuck, NormalBill and the courtiers were hoping to sabotage this but it backfired on them and the Sussexs team shut it down quickly.
    On a side not @Kaiser please do a report about how the cambridges and the queen have been picking up ex Sussexs staff. David the Sussexroyal IT guy is now the latest to have taken a role with other households🙄

    • Linda says:

      @Awkward symphony

      I thought some of the posters here said the ex Sussex staff would not want to work with the
      Cambridge’s or the Queen out of loyalty to Harry and Meghan?

      • Bren says:

        Who said that? Name names. I doubt anyone here cares about Harry and Meghan’s former staff. No one would begrudge anyone a job because we all have bills to pay.

      • Abena Asantewaa says:

        @Linda Don’t get it twisted, the daily mail and the sun, wrote with screaming headlines, that no one in the royal households, would employ the ex Sussex staff, but what do we see now, a scramble for Sussexes staff, for a sprinkle of their gold dust. However, you are as good as the product you are working with. In Simone Biles’s words; ‘Don’t study me, you will fail.

      • yinyang says:

        Cambridges will only take Sussex white team members.

    • L4frimaire says:

      Interesting how the Queen took Sara Latham, and shortly afterwards gave that speech. Now the Cambridges are taking their IG guy. Will they be rebranded CambridgeRoyal. So the Sussexes were criticized for hiring Latham and for their IG page, but the royals hired them after H&M left. These two are game changers and have left their mark. They can gripe and moan all they want, but they end up following. As soon as they roll out their foundation and the causes they support, you’ll see the Royals, esp. the Cambridge’s, rallying behind similar causes, and Kate copying Meghans wardrobe again. They seem so shook by them actually working on their plans. You can hear the enthusiasm and anticipation in the Sussexes little statement. Excited for them.

      • booboocita says:

        Oh, wow — I hadn’t thought of that. “CambridgeRoyal,” huh? I’ll just bet they will …

  57. Guest with Cat says:

    I was trying to look up the name and there’s an Archerwell dotcom. They’re some sort of oil company.

    So the Sussexes may have to endure a little bit of people ending up misdirected or confused on that account.

    But other than that, it strikes me as a suitable name. I like how Archie’s name was explained and tied into the name of the foundation. I’m sure part of the official rollout will include the proper pronunciation, so there is that bit to look forward to.

    I think it’s a damned shame they’re getting dragged into the media again despite not doing anything, just minding their own business. Just about everything and anything is a matter of public record. There unfortunately is very little respite for anyone who wants to do a big reveal or keep something private for a time. We live in a world of media leaks.

  58. Lily says:

    I love the name and Archie is such a cutie patootie! 🙂

  59. MeghanNotMarkle says:

    It’s not the first name I would’ve come up with but it’s not my organization. I’ll support them regardless of what name they use.

  60. Cg2495 says:

    Lovely name….I am excited to know more once they are ready to present their new venture. I am so happy for them!

  61. Valiantly Varnished says:

    The haters are out in droves on this thread today I see.

    • Lizzie says:

      Imagine living your life to copy/paste hate posts from one comment section to another.

  62. Charfromdarock says:

    Too bad the trolls didn’t put this much energy into improving their own lives and communities.

  63. yinyang says:

    Some of those commenters are something else. Some airhead stated how low can you go using child’s name, like really I don’t know what Brits do, but in the West our prized things are namde after family members, and honored loved ones death by naming a cause or a bill after them, low is when you strut you’re kids out to cover up a scandel. Than there’s others commenting on how much is really going to charity and how much towards Sussex, like really?! where is this inquistiveness with the William and his shady chairites?

    • MerryGirl says:

      Or where was the inquisitiveness and digging to get the real story when Andrew was filching from Pitch@Palace; or heck with the Queen’s offshore accounts…..everything has to be made out to be a crime with the Sussexes even when they are minding their own business.

  64. AGreatDane says:

    Some of you would make perfect Cambridge fans as you are inanely tied up on how things look and sound. They told you what the name of the foundation MEANS, and what they plan to DO, and those are what are really important! 200+ comments about not liking how the name of a foundation sounds, who cares? It could be called Poop Patrol, as long as it does some good in the world, which is what this couple is known for doing separately and now together.

  65. notasugarhere says:

    Remember, best way to deal with trolls is the reply with only the word ‘troll’ to their posts. Allows Kaiser to find and delete easily.

  66. Watson says:

    I’m not into the statement and wish they had not commented despite this info being unearthed by a tabloid.

    I was rather hoping they would announce it once this whole pandemic was over. Then it would be all eyes on them, and they could be as splashy and glamorous as possible. Even better if she was preggo so like ALL the attention would be on them. Wills and Kate would have been so pissed🤣

  67. blunt talker says:

    They had to confirm what the telegraph had reported. The filing of patents and other forms is public knowledge in usa. The poster Marie is absolutely correct in stating they are working behind the scenes while this pandemic is happening. When something that is true hits the public they want to confirm or deny before every tab goes running wild. Anybody got anything to say about the name since it relates to Archie-it is their damn child-whom they love very much-including his name in this charity means they are working with projects that will include Archie and any other children going forward. These heathens with nothing better to do than criticize people who are trying to do positive things-let everyone see what you personally are doing to improve the world instead of sitting on your ass typing and griping.

  68. Reality check says:

    On the day the Prime Minister is admitted into the ICU and after a day of letting everyone know they were “taking a break” this announcement is made. How self absorbed are these people? If they wanted to show solidarity with England they never would’ve left in the first place. I also thought they wanted to keep their son out of the public eye, but moving to Malibu and using their sons name to be their new cash cow seems to contradict that. Just sayin…

    • PrincessK says:

      Why don’t you ask yourself why all the major U.K. newspapers are happy to print useless baseless negative stories about the Sussexes on a daily basis during a pandemic when the Prime Minister is in ICU. Stupid Sussex stories get more clicks than serious Covid 19 stories. Explain please!

  69. Vegan says:

    Go to lol ….. tell me what you see.