New Post
Search
HelpHarry and Meghan just announced the name of their son!
His name is:
Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor
Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/BxNPb_9B0fn/
What do you think? :)
"It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society." ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986)
Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor
Source: https://www.instagram.com/p/BxNPb_9B0fn/
What do you think? :)
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I know! Archie isn’t exactly royal, but it’s sweet. I’m just worried it won’t fit as an adult.
1
Uhhhh.......Archie Bunker?
1
Or Archie Andrews?
1
It looks super nicknamey for a royal. Hypothetically, if his uncle ‘s family was wiped out, king Archie the First would sound pretty dumb.
ETA: I get why it might be a good PR move, but I still don’t care for it.
ETA: I get why it might be a good PR move, but I still don’t care for it.
This message was edited 5/9/2019, 1:59 PM
1
I LOVE his name, it doesn’t sound very Royal but I think it suits the couple very well (:
1
I'm not exactly impressed. While Archie sounds friendly and approachable, it doesn't sound exactly pleasant to my ears nor does it seem substantial. Then again, I'm speaking as someone who once knew a man named Archie. Not only did he despise his name (Archie Ned), he was embarrassed by it -- especially since his two brothers had more formal names (Joseph, Theodore [Ted]). Archie made sure he gave his children formal names that would allow them more naming options as well. I can completely relate to that.
Back to little Archie Harrison, I'm especially surprised by Harrison (son of Harry). It's such a non-royal thing to do and I sort of like that.
Back to little Archie Harrison, I'm especially surprised by Harrison (son of Harry). It's such a non-royal thing to do and I sort of like that.
2
It feels far too much like they are trying really hard to seem 'normal'.
Even though he's never going to be king, he's still a royal. I feel like Archibald would have been much more suited and Archie for everyday use. Quite a few of the little Archie's I know are Archibalds. I'm quite partial to Archibald as its been used in my extended family tree quite a lot. Archibald Henry would have been my preference.
Honestly though, Archie is so insanely popular here it's boring.
Even though he's never going to be king, he's still a royal. I feel like Archibald would have been much more suited and Archie for everyday use. Quite a few of the little Archie's I know are Archibalds. I'm quite partial to Archibald as its been used in my extended family tree quite a lot. Archibald Henry would have been my preference.
Honestly though, Archie is so insanely popular here it's boring.
1
I kinda already knew I wouldn't like the name but I have to say... I really don't the name.
I know my opinion doesn't matter but I really don't like when people use diminutives as first names. I mean Archibald is an ugly name on it's own but Archie just sounds so incomplete. Harrison's fine, I guess it's a nod to Harry.
I know my opinion doesn't matter but I really don't like when people use diminutives as first names. I mean Archibald is an ugly name on it's own but Archie just sounds so incomplete. Harrison's fine, I guess it's a nod to Harry.
1
I think Archie is so cute and Harrison as the mn doesn't bother me, as I assume it's a nod to Harry. Good on them for not going with the handful of traditional royal names that gets used and reused over and over again! This kid will never get the throne, so they really didn't need to go the traditional route for his name. Now let's all watch the already quite popular Archie (popular here in Australia and also in the U.K.) explode in popularity!
1
I don't like it at all.
Archie is a comic book character or a cartoon dog and Harrison is a cliché word pun often used in chick lit. Basically they made the baby’s name a meme joke.
On top of that I really hate diminutives as full names.
I’m not surprised though, the BRF has dismal taste in male names, James and William are the only decent ones in the bunch. It’s why I was hoping this baby would be a girl, they do better with female names.
Archie is a comic book character or a cartoon dog and Harrison is a cliché word pun often used in chick lit. Basically they made the baby’s name a meme joke.
On top of that I really hate diminutives as full names.
I’m not surprised though, the BRF has dismal taste in male names, James and William are the only decent ones in the bunch. It’s why I was hoping this baby would be a girl, they do better with female names.
1
The baby is cute and the parents are radiant, doesn't make me like his name though.
I have a cousin who's like a sister to me, she still has an ugly name. And she agrees, lol!
I have a cousin who's like a sister to me, she still has an ugly name. And she agrees, lol!
1
Don't love it but I don't hate it, either - at the very least, it's nice to see something unpredictable come out of this family. I have to say it's been fascinating to watch all of the overreactions pour in around the internet... you'd think Meghan and Harry signed the kid over to Satan based on some of the meltdowns I've seen.
edit: I'm curious if the backlash was this crazy 40 years ago when Princess Anne pulled the name Zara out of nowhere and refused titles for her children
edit: I'm curious if the backlash was this crazy 40 years ago when Princess Anne pulled the name Zara out of nowhere and refused titles for her children
This message was edited 5/8/2019, 1:58 PM
1
I don't recall any backlash when Mark Phillips refused a title, thus dooming his future children to life without one, nor do I recall a backlash when he and Anne named their daughter Zara, (other than my mother saying that she hated it). But the internet didn't exist then, so negative opinions were, for the most part, private negative opinions. They weren't public and they couldn't feed off each other, so they tended not to produce what we'd call backlashes.
1
Sounds middle class and cheeky.
1
I wasn't expecting that! I thought something more traditionally royal like Arthur or something more formal like Theodore nn Theo.
I don't mind Archie. It's grown on me over the years. I'm very glad they didn't go for Archibald - it's so stuffy and ugly!
I like Harrison. I can't believe I didn't spot the connection with Harry's name, I just thought it was a bit random!
I don't mind Archie. It's grown on me over the years. I'm very glad they didn't go for Archibald - it's so stuffy and ugly!
I like Harrison. I can't believe I didn't spot the connection with Harry's name, I just thought it was a bit random!
1
I like it. Not a huge fan of Archie myself but I adore Harrison, and the names sound good together.
1
Love the song "Sugar Sugar"! I play it for my kiddos too!
1
Sugar Sugar is great!
1
I'm not too sure how I feel? Archie in and of itself isn't a bad name. I'd always prefer it on its own to Archibald, which just sounds stuck up, formal, and elderly - basically, exactly what a royal name should be. It feels weird to consider that a kid who's going to end up with some kind of royal title is called Archie and nothing more. Additionally, being Scottish, I know way too many Archies and Harrisons already, and I can't say any of them bring positive associations. My final problem with it is that it feels very much like they're trying to be "in touch" with "regular people", when they have no chance of ever being like the rest of us. Sure, Meghan's a mixed race American woman, and that's cool progress, but she's still a member of the royal family - Harry is still a disgustingly rich man who went to the most prestigious school in the country and left with a B in art and a D in geography, and then went on to dress up as a Nazi at a "colonial" themed party. They are not, and never will be "one of us", and I wish they would stop trying to pretend they are.
1
Fine
Ye've all convinced me that a move towards informality is good for the Royals. But if my descendants face the terrible fate of living in a world without the British Royals, you and I will have a little talk in the afterlife.
Ye've all convinced me that a move towards informality is good for the Royals. But if my descendants face the terrible fate of living in a world without the British Royals, you and I will have a little talk in the afterlife.
1
But Harry has never particularly seemed comfortable with the life chosen for him simply because of who he was born to. In fact, for many years he actively rebelled against it. They have chosen not to bestow any title on Archie for the time being. Additionally, the 2nd son of the heir to the throne and his son were important back in the days when children were lucky to survive childhood (especially when inbred and living in or near London before good sanitation and when the Thames was a cesspool). But once George, Charlotte, and Louis are older and start dating and having families of their own, Archie will just be more apart of the extended family like Zara and her family are and not command as much attention.
I think Harry has "fallen in line" with tradition and responsibility more than I ever expected him to. My impression is that it would be disingenuous if he suddenly became this very traditional and conservative royal. The Queen clearly approved Archie's name and I think it got her approval because she is likely aware that Harry is Harry and he has calmed down and stopped it with the rebellious activities that could and did put the Royal Family's PR team into damage control multiple times, and he has chosen to use his position to do some good in the world.
Perhaps this is a controversial position but I don't think that William or Harry specifically 'owe' anything to the public, the media, or should be obliged to follow old rules. The reason that I don't think they should have to do that is because those boys automatically became unlike any royals before them due to the media circus following Diana's death.
I think Harry has "fallen in line" with tradition and responsibility more than I ever expected him to. My impression is that it would be disingenuous if he suddenly became this very traditional and conservative royal. The Queen clearly approved Archie's name and I think it got her approval because she is likely aware that Harry is Harry and he has calmed down and stopped it with the rebellious activities that could and did put the Royal Family's PR team into damage control multiple times, and he has chosen to use his position to do some good in the world.
Perhaps this is a controversial position but I don't think that William or Harry specifically 'owe' anything to the public, the media, or should be obliged to follow old rules. The reason that I don't think they should have to do that is because those boys automatically became unlike any royals before them due to the media circus following Diana's death.
1
I love the photo too. It's on the front page of all the papers here, on several of them it takes up the whole page. I saw that the Daily Mail has actually cropped it so you just see the Queen, Doria and Meghan holding Archie. I thought that was interesting (especially for the Mail) and a good choice as to me it made it more powerful.
1
I don’t like the name at at all but I agree with this, I remember how heartbreaking it was to watch those two boys at their mother ‘s funeral, while the entire universe was speculating about her , her marriage to their father etc.
I t must have been hugely traumatic for them and it’s not that surprising it had consequences on Harry’s behavior later, for instance.
I t must have been hugely traumatic for them and it’s not that surprising it had consequences on Harry’s behavior later, for instance.
1
Oh well this is a really nice response. I'm less mad now. Thanks, Aine.
1
I agree.
1
Agree with every damn syllable of this!
1
As someone who likes the fact that British royalty exists (I can't call myself a "supporter" or a "monarchist" since I'm an American), I greatly fear that if they allow themselves to be seen as ordinary and normal, it will be their doom.
And while I agree that this need not apply to those far removed from the throne, and while it's true that Archie is highly unlikely to ever be King, I don't consider Harry, his wife, or his children to be removed enough to be exempt from it, without damaging the prestige and mystery of monarchy.
However, your post, like almost all of your posts, is very indicative of your high level of empathy, a trait that I find very admirable.
And while I agree that this need not apply to those far removed from the throne, and while it's true that Archie is highly unlikely to ever be King, I don't consider Harry, his wife, or his children to be removed enough to be exempt from it, without damaging the prestige and mystery of monarchy.
However, your post, like almost all of your posts, is very indicative of your high level of empathy, a trait that I find very admirable.
1
From the British point of view, I think the opposite is true. Too much of an attempt at prestige and mystery would be the thing to doom them. The degree to which the British public approves of the royal family depends very much on their relatability and accessibility. Aloofness would be fatal, not the least because it would puncture the “I’ll get really wealthy and mingle with the royals” dream lol.
Also, the (predominantly working-class) parents of tens of thousands of Archies all over the UK are currently quietly congratulating themselves on their royal naming style. That’s a VERY savvy move.
Also, the (predominantly working-class) parents of tens of thousands of Archies all over the UK are currently quietly congratulating themselves on their royal naming style. That’s a VERY savvy move.
1
Are they really happy about it? If a super famous person in my country used a name I had used or planed to use I’d be annoyed, not happy about it.
I know a British couple who were expecting a daughter after Princess Charlotte was born and they were so bummed that their favorite name was now unusable (their words, I didn’t see the problem).
I know a British couple who were expecting a daughter after Princess Charlotte was born and they were so bummed that their favorite name was now unusable (their words, I didn’t see the problem).
This message was edited 5/9/2019, 4:59 PM
1
It's different if you were only *going* to use it - that makes it look like you were copying the royals, which isn't so cool. Secretly feeling like you were ahead of a trend that the royals followed, on the other hand...
1
HAHA never thought of that. Well maybe. I have an expat cousin who married a Brit, and she made a post about Archie's name, calling it "awkward" that they were seriously considering Archie for their kid due in a couple of days. POSSIBLY a humblebrag tho.
Hope they won't use it now I mean what a dumb name good lord.
Hope they won't use it now I mean what a dumb name good lord.
1
Beautifully said.
1
At first I thought it was strange, but after hearing (and checking for myself) that it’s popular in the UK, I think it’s nice. My American ears just hear an older man’s name, but it’s growing on me; and since it’s a popular name for young boys in Britain, it’s really not so strange. Good for them.
1
I personally don't like it :/ I was hoping for something not super traditional but this is too trendy for my tastes. It's a top 20 name in England so not very exciting either.
1
I talked with a reporter from "Time" about this just after it was announced.
This is one of those choices that is going to play differently on different sides of the Atlantic. Most older Americans are going to only think of an elderly uncle and/or Archie Bunker when they hear this and wonder "How on earth could they do that to a baby?" Younger Americans may be able to see it as cool and retro and be a bit more positive if they watch the TV show "Riverdale", but still it wasn't even in the top 1000 again yet in the USA in 2017.
I think the name may have been chosen partly BECAUSE it has been so popular in the UK recently. By choosing one of the snappy short forms recently popular as official given names in England (other examples being Charlie, Alfie, and Freddie) they are fitting their son in with "every day" British culture and signalling that they want be considered "regular people." Harry may want his son to be able to fit in with other boys in an average British school.
This is one of those choices that is going to play differently on different sides of the Atlantic. Most older Americans are going to only think of an elderly uncle and/or Archie Bunker when they hear this and wonder "How on earth could they do that to a baby?" Younger Americans may be able to see it as cool and retro and be a bit more positive if they watch the TV show "Riverdale", but still it wasn't even in the top 1000 again yet in the USA in 2017.
I think the name may have been chosen partly BECAUSE it has been so popular in the UK recently. By choosing one of the snappy short forms recently popular as official given names in England (other examples being Charlie, Alfie, and Freddie) they are fitting their son in with "every day" British culture and signalling that they want be considered "regular people." Harry may want his son to be able to fit in with other boys in an average British school.
1
Link to article
"Time" had the article quoting me up less than two hours after I talked with the reporter. Here's the link if anyone is interested:
http://time.com/5585773/royal-baby-archie-harrison-name-meaning/
"Time" had the article quoting me up less than two hours after I talked with the reporter. Here's the link if anyone is interested:
http://time.com/5585773/royal-baby-archie-harrison-name-meaning/
This message was edited 5/8/2019, 11:27 AM
1
At least, thank God, he isn't Alfie.
Seems like a kind of empty gesture; he's never going to be just an average British boy, and he certainly won't go to any average British school, no matter what his parents or their authorized representatives say now.
Seems like a kind of empty gesture; he's never going to be just an average British boy, and he certainly won't go to any average British school, no matter what his parents or their authorized representatives say now.
1
But it's so... popular
It's fine, kind of cute. But to choose a name that's been in the top 20 for the past 5 years (in England) - that's what's most surprising to me.
It's fine, kind of cute. But to choose a name that's been in the top 20 for the past 5 years (in England) - that's what's most surprising to me.
1
William and Kate did too, though. George, Charlotte and Louis are all thoroughly popular in England & Wales.
1
Fair point! I was just convinced that Meghan & Harry would go with something more unconventional, a la celebrity baby naming trends.
But now I'm talking myself in circles because on the other hand, Archie does sound like a US celeb baby name.
But now I'm talking myself in circles because on the other hand, Archie does sound like a US celeb baby name.
1
Yeah, I was surprised that an American would go for Archie. It's definitely not trendy here, sounds more like crotchety old grandpa. It even sounds a bit like "grouchy". (The "Ar" is pretty bad in an American accent too)
1
Choosing a first name that is so clearly UK trendy not US trendy may also be a subtle way to signal the baby’s Britishness (and Meghan’s agreement with that) despite the American connection.
1
It's great for them! Such a fan of Harry and Meghan.
1
I’m in the same boat as Rachel Shaina. Why do the British use nicknames as formal names?
I wanna say there was an error or a misunderstanding and this isn’t really the name. The baby may not become king, but he’s going to be the next Duke of Sussex. He ought to have something more...regal. "Archie Harrison" sounds like a rock star.
I wanna say there was an error or a misunderstanding and this isn’t really the name. The baby may not become king, but he’s going to be the next Duke of Sussex. He ought to have something more...regal. "Archie Harrison" sounds like a rock star.
This message was edited 5/8/2019, 2:40 PM
1
I like it a lot! Archie is a lovely name, even though it is a too nickname-y for me, and I'm not really fond of the long forms - Archer is too modern, and I don't like the -bald part of Archibald. I prefer Harrison as a surname (since it's my surname), but Harry or Henry couldn't be used for obvious reasons, and Harrison goes better with Archie than both of them.
1
Archie is just goofy to me.
They'd never have done that if he had even a remote chance of actually taking the throne.
I hope they have a nanny with a NYC accent whol will call him "Oh, Aaaahchee!"
They'd never have done that if he had even a remote chance of actually taking the throne.
I hope they have a nanny with a NYC accent whol will call him "Oh, Aaaahchee!"
1
Blech. Blech. Blech. Blech. Those two are a disgrace to the Royals.
1
1
So obviously this name was chosen because Harry hopes his son will inherit his rusty hair.
1
Harrison...hairy-son... that makes sense.
1
I know right? Cmon, aren't royals (not to mention actresses) supposed to set trends, not follow them?
1
I really love Archie, and I’m big on using nicknames as full names. Given that they evidently had more leeway, I’m not too surprised with Archie. It’s a popular, slightly vintage nickname name that’s very on trend here, so it makes sense. If anything, I would have thought they’d go more classic in the middle. It’s clever, and Harrison is one of the less surnamey choices, but alongside a double barrelled surname, I think it’s a bit much.
This message was edited 5/8/2019, 9:21 AM
1
I’m surprised! It’s definitely not a typical royal or upper-class name.
1
I never like nicknames as full names, especially -ie ones, but royals really should be better than that. I do understand not wanting to use the full form - there's just no getting around the bald in Archibald. But I still don't like it. I think it could have interesting if they'd gone for Archer as a full form.
I do like seeing them go a little more non-traditional. I do like a lot of classics, but it's fun to branch out, too. I would kind of liked to see at least one more name in there, which I sort of expect from royals, but I'm not *too* bothered by that.
I do like seeing them go a little more non-traditional. I do like a lot of classics, but it's fun to branch out, too. I would kind of liked to see at least one more name in there, which I sort of expect from royals, but I'm not *too* bothered by that.
1
No one predicted that
It's my favorite royal name so far, haha.
I don't really understand or enjoy the British trend of using nicknames as given names though; Archibald (or Archer even, since they're clearly not nearly as restricted as William and Kate) would have been better to me.
Harrison for Harry is great though.
It's my favorite royal name so far, haha.
I don't really understand or enjoy the British trend of using nicknames as given names though; Archibald (or Archer even, since they're clearly not nearly as restricted as William and Kate) would have been better to me.
Harrison for Harry is great though.
This message was edited 5/8/2019, 9:06 AM
1
I laughed until I cried, thinking off all the bets lost.
1
They subverted our expectations.
:P
:P
1
Best plot twist of the season though.
1
I like those kinds of royals, the ones who don't "flaunt" their wealth and everything.
1
I don't. And yes, I'm serious.
1