It’s a boy!

CeeCee said:
I just saw this pic on the DM, I think it’s Archie.....


View attachment 65325

Im not sure though because the Daily Mail always gets wonky on my iPad and always has to reload page etc.

so if someone else can confirm this, I’d appreciate it.

Maybe it’s Meghan’s baby pic because the caption said something like looks like Meghan and then I was redirected and reloaded and can’t find it again.

So."probably not Archie...cute whoever it is!
Click to expand...

It's Meghan!!
 

Well, if Archie is George's nickname then shame on Meghan and Harry. (Actually shame on them anyway; Archie is a goofy name. My apologies to any Archies who may be reading, lol.)
 
I don't know why people insist on making any claims about who a baby "looks just like" when they are newborn. Babies change so much so fast, and usually just look like a baby. I hope the little one is healthy and happy.
 
CeeCee said:
I just saw this pic on the DM, I think it’s Archie.....


View attachment 65325

Im not sure though because the Daily Mail always gets wonky on my iPad and always has to reload page etc.

so if someone else can confirm this, I’d appreciate it.

Maybe it’s Meghan’s baby pic because the caption said something like looks like Meghan and then I was redirected and reloaded and can’t find it again.

So."probably not Archie...cute whoever it is!
Click to expand...
Looks like both of them to me.
 
Years ago there was a radio series in the UK called Educating Archie.

Archie was a ventriloquist's dummy.

No doubt he'll thank his parents for the name when he starts school!
 
Aunt Bea said:
I'm curious about the benefits or drawbacks associated with not having a title.

Is that an attempt to allow Archie the chance of a more normal life, etc...
Click to expand...

I think so, but according to what was reported this morning that can change later, if the parents desire. 'Later' could be years or whatever.

btw....Archie Leach = Cary Grant. :love_heart:
 
Aunt Bea said:
I'm curious about the benefits or drawbacks associated with not having a title.

Is that an attempt to allow Archie the chance of a more normal life, etc...
Click to expand...

Princess Anne chose not to use titles for her children. I'd imagine it does help them seem a bit more like their peers growing up, and I've read the royal family have been trending towards downsizing since King George VI. Andrew and Fergie chose to use titles for the girls, but that seems to fit some of the negatives you read about their characters.
 
Aunt Bea said:
I'm curious about the benefits or drawbacks associated with not having a title.

Is that an attempt to allow Archie the chance of a more normal life, etc...
Click to expand...

Absolutely. princess Anne, Charles sister and the Queen's only daughter chose to not have titles bestowed on her own children Zara and Pater. At the time everyone was up in arms wondering how she could do it. wouldn't those children grow up to be common etc.. , but in fact..Zara and Peter have had the freedom to go about their business, growing, up earning a living, and living a life without the restraints of the Royal protocol, and rules... yet still as grandchildren of the Queen very much a member of the inner circle .
 
This news has just come in..apparently little Archie despite not having a title now will automatically become a Prince when his grandfather prince Charles becomes king... it's all to do with the Male ascended line

The new royal Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor will automatically become a prince, but only when his grandfather Prince Charles becomes King.Archie was born on Monday and revealed to the world yesterday by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who have chosen not to give their son a courtesy title.
However, a royal decree made over 100 years ago by the Queen's grandfather George V in 1917, means that Archie will automatically gain HRH status, as will all grandchildren on the direct male line of the sovereign.
Charles' desire for a slimmed-down monarchy is well documented, and he could issue new letters patent to overturn the George V convention that guarantees his grandchildren royal titles.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but I do not understand how the royalty lines become what they are. Having stated such, I am hoping to have a few questions answered that may help educate me. So, here goes:
1. Is there a lot of money spent on royalty? What I mean is; do they receive a salary, plus expenses and other monies to run their day to day affairs?
2. Do the Brits control any of the royal assets?
3. Do Brits manly agree that supporting royalty is something that needs to be or should be continued.
4. Do Brits think that having royal lines will ever end, like when Russia abdicated the throne?

I warned you that I was ignorant when it comes to knowing anything about royal lines and how it all works.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top