Christening of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor: July 6th, 2019

[MaiaMia_53]

In any case, there will likely be leaks. So, in fact, there may be no official announcement of the godparents, just a release of pictures taken after the christening. And then the names of godparents may be leaked without any official announcement.

Or an unofficial announcement may be made on the Sussex Instagram with a few pictures. Who knows? As has been said, either way, it's not the end of the world.

Again, the Sussexes not making a godparent announcement to me would be intended to protect the chosen godparents from press intrusion about Archie and their relationship with Archie. This is especially true for those godparents who may be private citizens, unaccustomed to being bombarded by press queries.

 

[Hallo girl]

Have the Baptism details been officially announced or is this all leaks and / or speculation, or has a favoured reporter been given a scoop.

 

[jacqui24]

Have the Baptism details been officially announced or is this all leaks and / or speculation, or has a favoured reporter been given a scoop.

No one has been given a scoop. It's all leaks/speculation.

 

[Hallo girl]

No one has been given a scoop. It's all leaks/speculation.

So we are not sure if it is next weekend in the private chapel at Windsor.

 

[jacqui24]

So we are not sure if it is next weekend in the private chapel at Windsor.

Both private chapel and St. George’s have been floated by various members of the media. As have different dates with the latest being July 6th. At the beginning, the reports were more vague with just early July and in Windsor. They seem to get more detailed as we draw closer. I'm assuming they would know if there is a day St. George's will be closed if it's there, so it's not exactly hard to think it's at the private chapel, which only came out in the last couple of days.

Based on the way RRs are tweeting now, there might have been some unofficial guidance due to preparing them for the photo release, which isn’t unusual, from my understanding, to get everyone on the same page. Of course, that means now media is asking for a camera to be put in place for arrival and departure. But no official announcement. The announcement would likely come with photos like the Wessexes.

 

[Ista]

So in other words, we have no idea. Even if St. George's is not closed, it mightn't be in the private chapel, or this weekend, or at Windsor at all. I think it would be very amusing if permission were given to have a camera put in place, and then the actual ceremony was someplace else.

 

[Pranter]

Nothing official at all released. Just a few RR's who are claiming the baptism is this coming Saturday in the Queen's Private Chapel at Windsor. 3 pictures to be released after. That was today's info...but no one has confirmed anything.



LaRae

 

[jacqui24]

BTW, last week's story was that it'd be July 4th. Which sent some into a frenzy for another reason.

 

[ACO]

So in other words, we have no idea. Even if St. George's is not closed, it mightn't be in the private chapel, or this weekend, or at Windsor at all. I think it would be very amusing if permission were given to have a camera put in place, and then the actual ceremony was someplace else.

I would laugh but I’m sure the press core wouldn’t be as amused. I don’t get why they so obsessed with seeing people walk down a hall for a few seconds when we getting official pictures. Oh well.

The press seem confident it is Saturday, so my guess they got some kind of confirmation from BP about it.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

It is a wonder that July 1st was not selected as the christening date. That is Princess Diana's birthday.

 

[jacqui24]

It is a wonder that July 1st was not selected as the christening date. That is Princess Diana's birthday.

July 4th is a holiday in US. It’d allow Doria to travel over the long weekend without having to take too many days off. And obviously, we don’t know who else is invited to know if others are traveling from US.

 

[ACO]

It is a wonder that July 1st was not selected as the christening date. That is Princess Diana's birthday.

It also conflicted with other royals scheduling. Charles is away. The Cambridges had engagements. They would all be there. But yes it being Diana's birthday and Charles' Investiture anniversary. Lots of reason why it was not today.

 

[Iluvbertie]

BTW, last week's story was that it'd be July 4th. Which sent some into a frenzy for another reason.

The reason I never believed the July 4th date is that Charles has 6 engagements in Wales that day as part of his annual Wales week, which coincides with the Queen's Holyrood week. This year is also special for Charles and Wales as he celebrates 50 years since his investiture as Prince of Wales on the 1st.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

It is a wonder that July 1st was not selected as the christening date. That is Princess Diana's birthday.

I'm glad it wasn't. Imho it's weird to try to tie every celebration or event or occasion to Diana's special days. Jmho of course.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

I'm glad it wasn't. Imho it's weird to try to tie every celebration or event or occasion to Diana's special days. Jmho of course.

Cocoasneeze, Your opinion is excellent. I agree that all of Diana's days do not have to be scheduled for a remembrance in an event such as the christening.

 

[Rudolph]

Archie Harrison will be christened by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Private Chapel at Windsor Castle on Saturday, BP have have confirmed.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will share images taken by photographer Chris Allerton

Details of the godparents will be kept private .

Via Rebecca English Twitter

 

[Molly2101]

Archie Harrison will be christened by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Private Chapel at Windsor Castle on Saturday, BP have have confirmed.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex will share images taken by photographer Chris Allerton

Details of the godparents will be kept private .

Via Rebecca English Twitter

Oh come on, not releasing the names of the godparents? I understand they want him to be a private citizen and I’m all for that, but even the non HRH grandchildren of the Queen had their godparents names released to the public.

This is all just a bit too much.

 

[peanutbutterfly]

Oh come on, not releasing the names of the godparents? I understand they want him to be a private citizen and I’m all for that, but even the non HRH grandchildren of the Queen had their godparents names released to the public.



This is all just a bit too much.

Well the Godparents requested it so should Harry and Meghan ignore their wishes?

 

[jacqui24]

Oh come on, not releasing the names of the godparents? I understand they want him to be a private citizen and I’m all for that, but even the non HRH grandchildren of the Queen had their godparents names released to the public.

This is all just a bit too much.

I read the original language from BP. It seems that the godparents wish to remain private, which I completely understand and they have an absolute right to.

The exact sentence is as follows:

The godparents, in keeping with their wishes, will remain private.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1146461802454224897

 

[ACO]

The godparents want to remain anonymous. That’s their right especially as we have already seen the media invade the privacy of some of her friends.

Also we don’t know the godparents of all the great grandchildren. It’s not required knowledge.

 

[Madame Verseau]

It's Archie's day and it should be surrounded but people that love him. We will get the family pic.

 

[Mbruno]

I read the original language from BP. It seems that the godparents wish to remain private, which I completely understand and they have an absolute right to.

The exact sentence is as follows:

The godparents, in keeping with their wishes, will remain private.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1146461802454224897

For members of royal families, date and place of birth, as well as date and place of baptism and names of godparents, are matters of historic record. Unsurprisingly, you can see that the Wikipedia articles on most, if not all living European royals have that information.


Harry and Meghan's unwarranted paranoia about privacy is becoming excessive. Their behavior is at odds not only with British RF practice, but also with the practice followed by all other royal houses.


BTW, shouldn't the name of the godparents be recorded anyway by the parish where the baptism is performed ? I know that Catholic parishes at least keep those records and I would also assume the CoE does it too.

 

[Molly2101]

I understand what you are all saying and I read the statement just like you all did. I just find this whole obsessive need to keep everything regarding their son private to be odd. I understand he is not intended to be a royal family member and I am very happy with that as I think kids should be allowed to have normal childhoods, but at the same time I don’t see why releasing one full photo of him when he was born to have been such a bad thing.

They will do whatever they want to do but I’m allowed an opinion on the whole thing. If the godparents wish to be kept private then so be it but I still think a lot of this screams Meghan.

 

[jacqui24]

For members of royal families, date and place of birth, as well as date and place of baptism and names of godparents, are matters of historic record. Unsurprisingly, you can see that the Wikipedia articles on most, if not all living European royals have that information.


Harry and Meghan's unwarranted paranoia about privacy is becoming excessive. Their behavior is at odds not only with British RF practice, but also with the practice followed by all other royal houses, who deal with these matters with ease.

People can also see records on any well known person's announced and disclosed. I don't see how Wikipedia articles matter. Again, I'm failing to see how it is their unwarranted paranoia about privacy in respecting the wishes of their son's godparents. Archie is a private citizen and as are his godparents. He won't have an official role when he grows up. And given the nature of the individuals on both sides of that relationship, I don't see public interest outweighing private individuals' right to privacy.

I understand what you are all saying and I read the statement just like you all did. I just find this whole obsessive need to keep everything regarding their son private to be odd. I understand he is not intended to be a royal family member and I am very happy with that as I think kids should be allowed to have normal childhoods, but at the same time I don’t see why releasing one full photo of him when he was born to have been such a bad thing.

They will do whatever they want to do but I’m allowed an opinion on the whole thing. If the godparents wish to be kept private then so be it but I still think a lot of this screams Meghan.

We got as good of a photo of newborn Archie as we did any newborn royal baby. It just happens the location is different. And this screams Meghan? Because Harry has always been so open with the press on his private life and hasn't hated press intrusions in the past?

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

The godparents want to remain anonymous. That’s their right especially as we have already seen the media invade the privacy of some of her friends.

Also we don’t know the godparents of all the great grandchildren. It’s not required knowledge.

I think the argument is that Archie won't remain "just" a great-grandchild of the monarch. Once Charles ascends to the throne, he'll be the King's grandson – hence the comparisons to HM's grandchildren like Peter and Zara rather than her great-grandchildren like Peter and Zara's kids.

 

[ACO]

For members of royal families, date and place of birth, as well as date and place of baptism and names of godparents, are matters of historic record. Unsurprisingly, you can see that the Wikipedia articles on most, if not all living European royals have that information.


Harry and Meghan's unwarranted paranoia about privacy is becoming excessive. Their behavior is at odds not only with British RF practice, but also with the practice followed by all other royal houses.


BTW, shouldn't the name of the godparents be recorded anyway by the parish where the baptism s performed ? I know that Catholic parishes at least keep those records and I would also assume the CoE does it too.

Who are the godparents to Zara and Peter’s children. I am pretty sure other than Harry being known the rest of the names were stated as “private matter” but please correct me if wrong.

Not sure why it’s paranoia for the Sussexes to want it to be the same. Archie is 7th in line. He is a private citizen. There is no comparing him to the need of public record like the Cambridges.

Also it’s at their request. No one should be forced to put their business out there just cause people are nosy for details.

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

I understand what you are all saying and I read the statement just like you all did. I just find this whole obsessive need to keep everything regarding their son private to be odd. I understand he is not intended to be a royal family member and I am very happy with that as I think kids should be allowed to have normal childhoods, but at the same time I don’t see why releasing one full photo of him when he was born to have been such a bad thing.

They will do whatever they want to do but I’m allowed an opinion on the whole thing. If the godparents wish to be kept private then so be it but I still think a lot of this screams Meghan.

I can't make out if you're implying that Harry is too weak-minded or too ignorant to partake in decisions regarding his own son?

 

[Mbruno]

People can also see records on any well known person's announced and disclosed. Again, I'm failing to see how it is their unwarranted paranoia about privacy in respecting the wishes of their son's godparents. Archie is a private citizen and as are his godparents. He won't have an official role when he grows up. And given the nature of the individuals on both sides of that relationship, I don't see public interest outweighing private individuals' right to privacy.







We got as good of a photo of newborn Archie as we did any newborn royal baby. It just happens the location is different. And this screams Meghan? Because Harry has always been so open with the press on his private life and hasn't hated press intrusions in the past?

Archie will be a prince of the United Kingdom when his grandfather is king. He is not a private citizen then.



Again, we know the godparents of Prince Joachim's, or Princess Astrid's , or Infanta Elena's children, all of whom are grandchildren of a sovereign in collateral line, just as Archie will be one day. It is not unreasonable that detailed information on his baptism be made public.


Why is that not an issue anywhere for several families in a similar position and is an issue specifically for the Sussexes ? I am sorry, but I think the Sussexes are overreacting.

Who are the godparents to Zara and Peter’s children. I am pretty sure other than Harry being known the rest of the names were stated as “private matter” but please correct me if wrong.

Both Zara's and Peter's godparents are known. It is a matter of public interest and historic record for grandchildren of a sovereign. Again, Archie may be only a great-grandson now, but he will be a sovereign's grandson eventually. We should know the same about his early life as we know about Peter's or Zara's or Louise's or any other European royal grandchild.

 

[jacqui24]

Archie will be a prince of the United Kingdom when his grandfather is king. He is not a private citizen then.

Again, we know the godparents of Prince Joachim's, or Princess Astrid's , or Infanta Elena's children, all of whom are grandchildren of a sovereign in collateral line, just as Archie will be one day. It is not unreasonable that detailed information on his baptism be made public.

What Archie's title will be is TBD. So we shall see. That's an entirely different conversation, but for now, he's just Archie. And just because someone is a grandchild to the monarch doesn't mean they aren't private citizens. I might have agreed with the sentiment that male grandchildren aren't private individuals in the 70s or 80s, but times have changed. If he's expected to find his own career and support himself in adulthood, he's a private individual no matter who his grandfather might be or what title he could be eligible for.

I understand the people are interested in knowing the godparents, and certainly think it's fine to be interested. I'm interested. But, at the same time, I also understand the right to privacy of private individuals. Of all the ones you listed, the parents chose to announce with at least the implicit agreement of private individuals. The Sussexes chose to respect the wishes of private individuals over public curiosity.

While it'd be nice to know, it certain adds nothing or takes away nothing.

 

[theroyalfly]

For members of royal families, date and place of birth, as well as date and place of baptism and names of godparents, are matters of historic record. Unsurprisingly, you can see that the Wikipedia articles on most, if not all living European royals have that information.


Harry and Meghan's unwarranted paranoia about privacy is becoming excessive. Their behavior is at odds not only with British RF practice, but also with the practice followed by all other royal houses.

I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Zara's children's godparents were not disclosed in Wikipedia. Yes, most European royal families have made this available but you can't bring that up to support your claim against Harry and Meghan.

Archie is not like the Cambridge children. He will have a separate path. This might be a little odd to some old royal watchers because as for you it's not going on with year old tradition but it's just the way it is.

Apparently privacy for their son is the most important thing, even for the people that will share this very special day with Archie.

I think the argument is that Archie won't remain "just" a great-grandchild of the monarch. Once Charles ascends to the throne, he'll be the King's grandson – hence the comparisons to HM's grandchildren like Peter and Zara rather than her great-grandchildren like Peter and Zara's kids.

The christening is happening in 2 days and as far as I know Queen Elizabeth II is still the Queen of the United Kingdom. Yes soon enough, he will become "The King's grandson." Soon. He will be elevated too with a new style and rank. Just wait.

So I think the comparison between Zara's children and Archie is on point.