Prince Harry & Meghan unveil new baby and its name & introduce to the Queen

[Knife 6,897]

Aw, cute. Rooting for them.

I hate names that end in ie or a y like: Bobby, Suzie, Robby..Archie. They're all fine as nicknames, but for your actual name..? 

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

I'm surprised they picked Harrison. I'm assuming because it means "Harry's son". 

That baby is adorable, he already looks like he's got the Markle nose. 

 

[Glamourpuss 29,062]

9 minutes ago, Knife said:

Aw, cute. Rooting for them.

I hate names that end in ie or a y like: Bobby, Suzie, Robby..Archie. They're all fine as nicknames, but for your actual name..? 

I agree. You would think for a new member of royalty that they would have introduced him as Archibald. 

But I also sort of like how Meghan is changing things and not sticking to traditions. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,922]

From what we can see of him, he looks lovely. Surprised at the name Archie as it seems too casual as an official name and I see it as very Scottish. After hearing about that comic book character with this name who has red hair and freckles, I hope it's not some kind of weird in-joke because Harry looks like this. Rumours swirling about how old he is considering Harry said something about "we've heard they change so much in the first 2 weeks" and then seemed to change what he was saying was a bit odd and Meghan almost seemed to come in to rescue it. Maybe she was incredibly overdue all along but after their original announcement of "we'll just wait until the media has died down and we can have some family time together before announcing the birth" suggests that he had already been born some days ago or more and they've been wanting to perfectly time the reveal for whatever reason. I just hope the date they do give is genuine as it's not nice to have people speculate about your child's true age.

On 5/8/2019 at 5:22 PM, mauvais said:

What has she done now? I think these photos are so much more regal and posh than standing on the steps of a hospital six hours after birth while people scream at you. Perhaps that's the issue. The Sussexs aced it with that serene photo of baby Archie, Doria and the Queen.

That's just the thing, though. Royal babies should always be announced immediately and be shown to the public immediately as the royal family is essentially public property and we pay for them. A royal baby is a national event as it's another addition to a huge part of our culture and another mouth to feed. To make an "announcement that there will be no announcement" and potentially not show the baby until they've been here a week or two has been viewed by many as a snub of the public. They were all about publicity up until the last moment when they suddenly wanted privacy. It's all very strange and just not the way it's done. The fact it was "regal and posh" is the problem because a post-hospital announcement is so much more humble and down to earth as opposed to showcasing the baby in the interior of a lavish castle. Because the royals do live a life funded by the public, it is vital that they live a modest existence wherever possible and showing the baby on the hospital steps is a part of that. If the first glimpse of the baby is surrounded by cushy riches, it just points out that the royals are nothing like us and are above us which is probably the exact opposite of the message they wanted to convey. Basically, if the Lindo Wing was good enough for Kate, the wife of the future king, who has given birth to his heirs, then why isn't it good enough for Meghan, whose husband will not rule and whose child will never rule? I have no issue with the photo surrounded by family they decided to show but I don't think it conveys any more warmth than the one of Kate and William on the hospital steps. All the matters is the parents, after all.

On 5/8/2019 at 5:26 PM, kyanewest said:

Diana I believe first broke protocol by having her baby in the hospital when it was supposed to be at home and nobody ever took pics outside the hospital with the media, until it then started being a "tradition" when Kate did the same thing. I dont see nothing wrong with how Meghan introduced her baby. Plus, who really cares? Even if there are no more monarchy in UK I'm sure it would still be a "strong" country 

See what I said above. I think it was different when the Queen gave birth as back then, home births were more common. Diana didn't break protocol, she simply chose to give birth and make the announcement in another way. If Kate has now made it a thing and she's the wife of the future king, I believe that's how it should remain. It may not be protocol, but it's just the way it's expected to be done now and we'd like it to stay that way. To do it any other way is reminiscent of celebrity baby announcements which is not what the royal family can resemble if the public must pay for them.

I'm ultimately not bothered if we ever do become a republic but the royals are just so much a part of our culture, they're woven through it, they're all I've ever known, same for my parents, grandparents and further back. If they went, the UK would be very different. The royal warrant would disappear on products, certain ships would have to change names, our currency would have to be re-structured (think if the money that would cost), we wouldn't even be called the UK anymore, as we're no longer a kingdom. One thing that can't be  denied is how much money that the royals put into our economy through international tourism. Seeing Buckingham Palace or to be a spectator for a royal occasion is a nigh on everyday occurence for tourists and puts crazy money into our country's economy. To no longer have them would reduce tourism and we'd lose a bit part of our national identity.