Never before had a royal child been given a nickname instead of a Christian name. Had he been called Archibald, there would have been no issue, for Archie is a diminutive of that name, though Archibald is not actually a Windsor family name, being one of the four or so names the ducal house of Argyll has reserved over the centuries for its dukes and lords. The 9th Duke of Argyll had been married to Queen Victoria’s daughter Princess Louise, so to that extent there was a royal connection. But Archie? It is a name which has customarily been given to dogs belonging to the upper classes, and only latterly to working class Britons, so its choice caused consternation.
Meghan and Harry would later claim that their inspiration for the name came from the ancient Greek word Arche whose primary and secondary meanings are ‘beginning’ and ‘origin’ with the tertiary meaning being ‘source of action.’ It is this third meaning which they have stated led them to call their son Archie.
Their choice of name was commendably erudite, to say the least. Few people nowadays are as familiar with Ancient Greek as they are, so it shows that they really are far deeper thinkers, with far greater sensitivities and far greater vision than the other royals, who call their children such mundane names as Charles, James, William, Henry, Andrew, Edward, David, George or any of the other names the Royal Family has used throughout the centuries. It also shows how liberal Harry and Meghan are in selecting only those aspects of something which suit them, for the word Arche is not pronounced Archie as in Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor, but Arkie, as in the Archangel Gabriel and the ie sound at the end Penelope.
The source of the baby’s middle name was equally innovative. In British terms, Harrison is not a Christian name, but a surname, though the American custom of endowing children with family surnames as Christian names has resulted in the actor Harrison Ford possessing it as a first name. Claims that the name had been chosen by Meghan to honour the baby’s father were greeted with perplexity, for no one in Britain attaches the Scandinavian suffix of son to a father’s first name and uses that as a middle name, nor does it seem to be a practice followed in North America. Only in ancient times and in countries such as Denmark or Norway would Harry’s son gain the distinguishing suffix and become Harrison. Even then, it was not a middle name, but a distinguishing mark which is how surnames came about.
The uniqueness of the baby’s names aside, one consolation was that Meghan and Harry could not complain about being denied their choices the way the Yorks had been when they were prevented from calling one of their daughters a non-royal Christian name because there was no royal precedent for it. This was proof, yet again, that the Royal Family and the palace were tearing up the rule book to facilitate Meghan and Harry’s choices.
Although the family and the courtiers might have thought they were doing the couple a favour, in reality they were not. Sufficient people in the world at large knew about royal rules, regulations, practices and customs to be alert to the possible meaning of this latest game-changer. It wasn’t only the baby’s unconventional names that were flying in the face of convention, but his moniker. And that could mean something huge.
All legitimate royal children, like all legitimate progeny of peers, are born with titles. If the child of a peer or royal is born without a title, the implication is that it is illegitimate. The eldest sons of dukes, including royal dukes who are the grandsons of a monarch (with the exception of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, whose children are granted the style and title of royal highness and prince or princess) take their father’s subsidiary title, and their eldest sons take the tertiary title. The style and title of the firstborn legitimate son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex is Earl of Dumbarton, and his firstborn legitimate son would be Lord Kilkeel. When the Sussexes therefore announced on Instagram that their son would be known as Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, this fed the supposition that Meghan had not carried or produced the child, for he should by rights have been Lord Dumbarton, and if he is not, that means he is not legitimate in the eyes of British law.
British and American laws governing surrogacy are completely different. In Britain, a child is deemed to be illegitimate, even if it is the biological issue of a married couple, as long as it is borne by a surrogate. The law in the US states that a child born of a surrogate is the lawful and legitimate child of the mother and father who have arranged the surrogacy. In England, however, the legal mother is the surrogate even though the legal father is the inseminator. Under English law, the woman whose egg produced the child has no legal status at all. If she wishes to be acknowledged as its mother, she has to adopt it. Even then, the child remains illegitimate at birth.
Under the laws governing titles, no illegitimate child can succeed to a peerage and no illegitimate child can therefore use the secondary and tertiary titles which customarily attach to peerages. Illegitimate children cannot have royal or aristocratic titles. Even if they are subsequently legitimised, they are disqualified from inheriting peerages, though they can acquire the style and title of second sons or daughters, i.e. courtesy titles. This puts them
