UK: Second child for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex became parents to their second child on Friday 4 June 2021 at 11.40 a.m. when their daughter Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor was born at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, California, USA. According to the press statement the baby girl will be called "Lili". The statement in full:

Statement from the press secretary for the Duke and Duchess of Sussex

It is with great joy that Prince Harry and Meghan, The Duke and Duchess of Sussex, welcome their daughter Lilibet "Lili" Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, to the world. Lili was born on Friday, June 4 at 11:40 a.m. in the trusted care of the doctors and staff at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital in Santa Barbara, CA.

She weighed 7 lbs 11 oz. Both mother and child are healthy and well, and settling at home.

Lili is named after her great-grandmother, Her Majesty The Queen, whose family nickname is Lilibet. Her middle name, Diana, was chosen to honor her beloved late grandmother, The Princess of Wales.

This is the second child for the couple, who also have a two-year-old son named Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor. The Duke and Duchess thank you for your warm wishes and prayers as they enjoy this special time as a family.

As a daughter of a duke, the now 2-days-old girl is entitled to be styled Lady Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor, but as when her brother was born, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have expressed their wish that their children should not use courtesy titles.

Lili was born as no. 8 in the line of succession to the British throne. She is the Prince of Wales' fifth grandchild and the 11th great-grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II.

NEHGS: On the Ancestry of the New Royal Baby

Genealogist, author and Senior Research Scholar Emeritus at the New England Historic Genealogical Society, Gary Boyd Roberts, has recently written a short article titled «On the Ancestry of the New Royal Baby» about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's son Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor's ancestry and especially on his US American connections. It is well worth reading:

https://www.americanancestors.org/specials/ancestry-of-the-royal-baby

UK: Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex announced today the name of their son, who was born 2 days ago:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are pleased to announce they have named their first born child:

Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor

This afternoon Their Royal Highnesses introduced Her Majesty The Queen to her eighth great-grandchild at Windsor Castle. The Duke of Edinburgh and The Duchess’ mother were also present for this special occasion.

Shortly after, at 4.45 p.m. local time, Buckingham Palace confirmed:

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are delighted to announce that they have named their son Archie Harrison.

The baby will be known as Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor.

The choice of names stresses the fact that the baby is so far down in the line of succession (no. 7) that the parents didn't feel any need for a traditional name, but could chose names entirely of their own preference. Archie is usually a shortened form of Archibald, which is Germanic of origin and means «genuine» or «precious» and «bold». Harrison obviously means «son of Harry». Of course most boys with the given name Harrison don't have a father named Harry, but for the ducal son the choice is most fitting, even if Harry is only the Duke's nickname.

According to The Telegraph, Archie was the 18th most popular name for boys in England and Wales in 2017 (see more details at the website of the Office for National Statistics). The Telegraph also writes that «In Scotland, Archie was the 17th most popular name for boys in 2018, according to the National Records of Scotland.»

When searching for the name Archie or Archibald at An Online Gotha, I only get one hit: Hon. Lionel Frederick Archibald Fitzclarence (1857–1863), a great-grandson of King William IV (1765–1837). Maybe one can find the name among the Duke of Sussex's non-royal ancestors, but I think we can safely assume that the Sussexes didn't check Prince Henry's family genealogy in order to find a name they liked.

Yesterday I wrote that «I would be surprised if the baby boy will be not be known as Earl of Dumbarton.» The press statement says, however, if not explicitly, that Prince Henry's subsidiary title Earl of Dumbarton will not be used. He is of course entitled to the courtesy title, and one can of course argue that Archie became Earl of Dumbarton the very second he was born. But «Master» Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor it is, and he will probably continue to be untitled even after his grandfather has succeeded to the throne and even if this will be in conflict with the Letters Patent of 1917. The LP will have to be modified some time anyway.

And of course, some time in the future the young master will become the 2nd Duke of Sussex (second creation, 2018), unless the Letters Patent of 2018 has been changed in the meantime. One can of course wonder why Prince Henry («Harry») accepted the ducal title in the first place, but no ducal title would have meant that Meghan would have been styled HRH Princess Henry of Wales, which for many people doesn't look so good in this day and age.

Archie's surname Mountbatten-Windsor was of course as expected and in accordance with the declaration of 8 February 1960:

[...] Now therefore I declare My Will and Pleasure that, while I and My Children shall continue to be styled and known as the House and Family of Windsor, My descendants other than descendants enjoying the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness and the titular dignity of Prince or Princess and female descendants who marry and their descendants shall bear the name of Mountbatten-Windsor.

A photo call took place at Windsor Castle earlier in the days. The photos can be viewed in the Telegraph article linked to above or at the website of BBC News.

UK: Follow-up to the birth of Baby Sussex – place of birth etc.

I thought I should write a short follow-up to yesterday's article, in which I commented on the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's baby boy. I mentioned among others that the birth announcement didn't explicitly state where the birth took place and added that «is quite possible that the Duchess delivered the baby at home at Frogmore Cottage as the media has speculated about for quite some time». However, The Daily Mail claimed yesterday evening that the allegedly planned home birth was called off and that the Duchess of Sussex was transported to a private hospital in London, possibly The Portland Hospital, on Sunday night and where she gave birth early on Monday morning. No named source was stated and both Buckingham Palace and the hospital have denied to comment. As the Duchess allegedly was one week overdue, the decision to send her to a hospital is more than likely, but for now we will not know for sure.

The timing of the press releases yesterday – several hours after the birth had taken place – can easily be explained by the ducal couple's wish for privacy. They wanted to travel to the hospital and then return home again unnoticed. Their wish is of course easy to understand, considering what the British media is capable of. A car chase from Windsor to Great Portland Street in London would certainly not be a dream scenario for the parents to be. The ducal couple got it the way it wanted. However, it would have made more sense – and it would have been more professional – if the information department had dropped the first statement about the duchess being in labour.

Returning to the question about the place of birth – the operational note of 11 April said that «Their Royal Highnesses have taken a personal decision to keep the plans around the arrival of their baby private.» I interpreted the note as saying that the couple wished to keep the birth plans private prior to the birth, but not after, but obviously I was wrong. As many have pointed out, the notice of the birth which was displayed outside Buckingham Palace yesterday didn't include the names of the medical personnel assisting the birth, as has been the tradition in the past. Had the names been included, the place of birth would of course have been revealed.

The place of birth is of course of historic and genealogical interest. Richard Palmer, royal correspondent of The Daily Express, tweeted yesterday evening that «Palace officials are still refusing to say where Meghan gave birth amid conflicting reports that it was at Frogmore Cottage or in a private hospital. But they acknowledge they will have to reveal the place of birth on the birth certificate within 42 days.»

As the tweet says, the information department knows that the birth certificate will be public knowledge in due time. One reason for keeping the place of birth a secret for the time being could be to protect the privacy of the medical personnel and the doula (i.e. the possible doula for what was allegedly planned to be a home birth). In 40 days the media's interest might have dropped a bit. There is of course nothing wrong with a discussion about home birth versus the use of a maternity hospital, but the media pressure is of course something the royal family, the court and medical team wanted to avoid.

As already pointed out, the birth certificate will be made public some time next month. The historians and genealogists just have to wait in patience.

A photo call will take place either Wednesday or Thursday. We will then learn to know the names of the Sussex baby and how he is to be styled. Now, as already pointed out, traditionally the eldest son of a duke will by courtesy use the second (lesser grade) title, so I would be surprised if the baby boy will be not be known as Earl of Dumbarton. Some observers have suggested, however, that it is possible he will «only» be known as Lord X Mountbatten-Windsor (or something else). I guess other scenaries shouldn't be ruled out completely, but as of now I believe that Buckingham Palace will stick to tradition.

Updated on Wednesday 8 May 2019 at 20:45 (the sentence concerning the possible use of a doula in the third last paragraph was made more precise) and at 21:40 (orthographic mistake corrected).

UK: Duke and Duchess of Sussex have become parents to a boy

Finally – finally! – Buckingham Palace announced today – 6 May 2019 – that the Duchess of Sussex had given birth to a boy, born at 05.26 a.m.:

The Duchess of Sussex has been delivered of a son

Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex was safely delivered of a son at 0526hrs.

The baby weighs 7lbs 3oz.

The Duke of Sussex was present for the birth.

The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Lady Jane Fellowes, Lady Sarah McCorquodale and Earl Spencer have been informed and are delighted with the news.

The Duchess's mother, Doria Ragland, who is overjoyed by the arrival of her first grandchild, is with Their Royal Highnesses at Frogmore Cottage.

The press statement was first wired to the media and was immediately published some time before 2.30 local time before it was released on the Royal Family's social media accounts as well. Half an hour earlier or so it was announced that the Duchess was in labour. The statement said: «The Duchess of Sussex went into labour in the early hours of this morning. The Duke of Sussex was by Her Royal Highnesses’ side. An announcement will be made soon.» The wording of the statement suggested that the birth had already taken place, something the follow-up statement revealed. Of course, Buckingham Palace had in its «operational note» of 11 April stated that one could expect two press releases – one when the Duchess went into labour and then the second one after the birth had taken place and «once they have had an opportunity to celebrate privately as a new family». Releasing the first statement several hours after the birth had taken place only made the press department look silly. It could very well be that the ducal couple kept the press department in the dark for some time before it was allowed to prepare the statement. In this regard one can understand the complaints made by the press. Richard Palmer of the Daily Express tweeted for instance: «Not that it will matter to most people but for journalists, the palace’s handling of that announcement was an absolute shambles. It would help if the press office spent more time worrying about keeping journalists informed and less time on Instagram and overseas organisations.» Then again, thinking of how the British media was sulking after the ducal couple made its birth plans known I guess thay didn't deserve any better. Anyway, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was allowed to celebrate the arrival of their son for quite some time just like they had wanted it. We got the happy news soon enough anyway.

It was certainly a wise move by the Duke to give a few comments on camera outside Frogmore Cottage later on. As earlier promised, a photo call would take place in a couple of days and the Duke seemed to suggest that the names of the newborn baby would be made known at the same time. They were still thinking of names, the Duke claimed.

A notice of the birth was also displayed outside Buckingham Palace. The text read: «The Queen and the Royal Family are delighted at the news that her Royal Highness The Duchess of Sussex was safely delivered of a son at 0526am today. Her Royal Highness and her child are both doing well. 06 May, 2019.»

I would like to make a few points. First, it was not explicitly stated where the birth took place. I find it a bit odd that this relevant information was not released, but it is quite possible that the Duchess delivered the baby at home at Frogmore Cottage as the media has speculated about for quite some time.

The baby boy, who is no. 7 in the line of succession to the British throne, has – as I commented on last month – not received the title of prince, but will by courtesy be styled Earl of Dumbarton, which is the Duke of Sussex's second (lesser grade) title. The birth also means that the first 20 in the line of succession now are all descendants of the Queen.

I will not enter a guessing game about the names. Some observers expext that the new parents will chose a traditional name for the one to be used daily. Others have pointed out that the child is so far from the throne that the ducal couple would feel less burdened by tradition. I suppose there will be a good mixture of names the couple likes and names from both side of the family. So maybe Alvin or Frederick or Isaac would be combined with a name or two from the British royal family?

UK: Sussex pregnancy

Kensington Palace issued the following press statement this morning:

Their Royal Highnesses The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are very pleased to announce that The Duchess of Sussex is expecting a baby in the Spring of 2019.

Their Royal Highnesses have appreciated all of the support they have received from people around the world since their wedding in May and are delighted to be able to share this happy news with the public.

This was the text which was released from the official Twitter account. But according to The Telegraph and other newspapers, the statement also said that:

The Queen, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, and Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted for the couple.

Ms Doria Ragland is very happy about the lovely news and she looks forward to welcoming her first grandchild.

The happy news was published first today in order not to overshadow the York Brooksbank wedding on Friday, and the public was informed shortly after the expecting couple had landed in Sydney, Australia. In the next 16 days the Duke and Duchess of Sussex are going to carry out 76 engagements in Australia, Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand.

According to The Telegraph, «A source said the Royal family were told the news on Friday at the wedding of Princess Eugenie and Jack Brooksbank, and were able to congratulate the couple there in person.»

The decision to tell the happy news to family and friends at the royal wedding on Friday has obviously caused some critical comments in various social media. I prefer to focus on more important and interesting aspects, such as constitutional matters.

The baby will be born into the world as no. 7 in the line of succession to the British throne, after his or her father, and before Prince Harry's uncle the Duke of York. It will also mean that the Earl of Wessex will no longer be included in the top ten list.

As many newspapers and royalty watchers have commented on already, the baby will not be titled Prince or Princess with the style of Royal Highness unless the Queen decides otherwise. This is in accordance with the Letters Patent of 30 November 1917, which said:

The KING has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, bearing date the 30th ultimo, to define the styles and titles to be borne henceforth by members of the Royal Family. It is declared by the Letters Patent that the children of any Sovereign of the United Kingdom and the children of the sons of any such Sovereign and the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales shall have and at all times hold and enjoy the style, title or attribute of Royal Highness with their titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names or with their other titles of honour; that save as aforesaid the titles of Royal Highness, Highness or Serene Highness, and the titular dignity of Prince and Princess shall cease except those titles already granted and remaining unrevoked; and that the grandchildren of the sons of any such Sovereign in the direct male line (save only the eldest living son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) shall have the style and title enjoyed by the children of Dukes.

(London Gazette, issue 30428, Dec. 14, 1917, p. 2.) 

On 31 December 2012, the Queen decided by Letters Patent that «all the children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.» (Published in The Official Gazette on 8 January 2013).  If this decision had not been made, Princess Charlotte would have been styled Lady Charlotte Mountbatten-Windsor and Prince Louis Lord Louis Mountbatten-Windsor.

In other words, the baby, if a girl, will be styled Lady X Mountbatten-Windsor, while a boy will by courtesy be styled Earl of Dumbarton, which is the Duke of Sussex's second (lesser grade) title. But as already mentioned, the Queen could decide to issue a Letters Patent equal to the one published in 2013. In my opinion, that would be the best way forward, as the child would eventually, unless the Letters Patent of 1917 is changed in the meantime or the Sussex decides on something similar  to the Wessex solution*, be upgrated to Prince or Princess as soon as the Prince of Wales succeeds to the throne. The baby would then of course be a grandchild of the monarch.

But one thing is my private opinion, which really doesn't matter that much, another is what the Queen decides. Many people have argued that the Letters Patent of 1917 should be changed in order to reduce the number of royals (i.e. royal princes and princesses). But I would question the necessity, as the current number is bound to drop when the oldest generation dies out anyway. There are limits to how small the number of working royals can be, considering the relatively large British population and all the Commonweatlh countries where the British monarch serves as head of state. Even if the role of the monarch and the royal family is changed, they will still be on demand to carry out many engagements.

Therefore I personally think it is a pity that Princess Beatrix and Princess Eugenie of York, as it appears today, have not been asked to become working royals. I am sure they would do a great job. With the York princesses out of the question, the number of working royals could some time in the future be limited to William, Catherine and their 3 children as well as the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Having the latter's child or children on board as well would in my opinion be an advantage. It will be interesting to see what the current and future monarch finally decide.

Another matter is of course that the Letters Patent of 1917 some time in the future has to be brought into (better) agreement with the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

* «On June 19, 1999, at the time of Prince Edward's wedding, it was announced that The Queen had decided, with the agreement of Prince Edward and Miss Rhys-Jones, that any children of their marriage should not be given the style of His or Her Royal Highness, but would have courtesy titles as sons or daughters of an Earl.» The children of the Earl and Countess of Wessex are therefore styled Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn.

Updated on Tuesday 16 October 2018 at 22.45 (I wrote from the future baby's point of view and managed to write that the Duke of York was Prince Harry's great uncle while in fact he is of course his uncle. The typical mistake one makes when one think one thing and write something else ...).