Archie Harrison Mountbatten -Windsor

[Feelbad1]

It's not like you all have not been wondering

It's an awful name.

Both are now quite common and chavvy.

As for those saying they turned down a title. They have turned it down, he isn't entitled to one. At most, he can use one of Harry's (that he doesn't use) but as for HRH/Prince he was never going to be that as he's too far down the pecking order and born to a spare not an heir.

I don't like the phrase chavy at all but unfortunately that's the only word that flooded my mind.

In what universe is Archie chavvy, I mean really?

It's a perfectly normal middle class name where I'm from.

Very disappointing

Aw, you must be gutted. What a shame for you.

Archie is quite posh in Scotland Erm no

Why do posters think it is a chavvy name? It’s not unusual - just a normal name.

I don't like the phrase chavy at all but unfortunately that's the only word that flooded my mind

I don’t think one word can count as a flood. A small stream at best.

I was really fed up with Harry and Meghan but now with this name choice they're top banana.

It's almost like the royals don't give two hoots about every little bit of unsubstantiated gossip greenlloon

It's not chavvy. It's just one of those names that got really popular for a few years so, while it was thought of as being different and interesting for five minutes, is quite boring now.

Not keen.

Everything about them is a bit off including the name. Can't quite put my finger on it.

Well I think it's lovely and congratulations to them both.

I suspect that Meghan and Harry chose those names specifically to be ordinary, every day names but they are so out of touch with "ordinary, every day" lives that they have not realised that there are some negative associations with both names. I appreciate that these associations may be snobby, unjustified and unkind but they do exist, as this thread and numerous Twitter feeds have proved. In that respect, I feel a bit sorry for them and hope they are not too upset reading social media tonight.
He looks like a healthy cute baby who has two very happy parents and lots of mega-advantages. He will be fine.

I love the name!

Forgot to say (dare I?) that both names are actually a little dated now, but, again, they won't have realised that.

The issue with Harrison is that it does seem punny in context. Also, the uk seems to have dropped the tradition of being "someones-son" aeons ago. For those of you that know a Michael Johnson say, his dad is likely to Keith Johnson son of Nigel Johnson... you'd maybe have to go back centuries to find the original John and his son!! Also if you know a Sophie Johnson, she's not Sophie Johnsdaughter, and is also unlikely to actually be a daughter of John.

they have not realised that there are some negative associations with both names.

What would they be?

Well, I really like the name. It's different and less traditional/stuffy from the more usual names Royals use, but still mainstream enough that it's not a 'ooh, look at me' name that some in the public eye choose for their children.

Also, Harry and Meghan aren't top tier Royals, and neither is their baby. They've chosen for him to not to have a title, so why would they have given him a 'Royal' name?

On a related Prince George note, I recall reading that his nickname at home is PG or Tips (as in PG Tips), not Archie.

@Dandelion1993 I was talking about Lord not prince or one of Harry's other titles he got last year.

Re other posters: Not giving him a title does not make him more of a man of the people, lol. Everyone will always know who is family is.

I appreciate that these associations may be snobby, unjustified and unkind but they do exist

Only to unkind snobby types though and honestly I think they’re outnumbered. I certainly didn’t make those associations. I thought of my late teens step-nephew who is a Harrison and about as un-chavvy as it’s possible to be.

Could have been worse, could have picked something
American like Hank

Ugggggrr...can we ban the term chavvy ?

The snobbery on this thread is appalling. Chavvy? Really?
The baby doesn't need a "posh" name. He's already been born at the top. He'll never need to prove himself.

LaurieMarlow
^they have not realised that there are some negative associations with both names.

What would they be? confused ^

Have you not read the thread then? I think it's been made pretty clear what some people think of the names.

i think it's been made pretty clear what some people think of the names.

So some idiots on mumsnet think they’re chavvy. That’s the best you’ve got?

FannyWork: It’s apparently quite common that if a royal wants to give their child a name that isn’t deemed suitable for a royal they register it as something royal (like George) but within the family use the preferred name (eg Archie). Edward VIII was called David for similar reasons.

Why do posters post such nonsense? but it did elicit this excellent response fromJacquesHammer David was one of his given names.

Edward VIII was christened with the following names:

Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David. The last four were in honour of the respective Saints of England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales.

He was widely referred to as David even by the public.