Baptism of Prince Charles of Luxembourg; 19 Sept. 2020


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Somebody said:
Yes, I don't think anyone suggested otherwise?! I was just pointing out that pictures taken within the church were include as the press only had pictures from outside...
Click to expand...

I misunderstood your post. I am sorry for that.

Can you share a picture of the mass booklet?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't have any, just the quote from the Luxembourgish paper I shared.
 
Sancia said:
Indeed, there is only one Sacrament of baptism, but when an emergency baptism ("ondoiement", in French) takes place, the anointing can be done in a separate mass or celebration after the baptism. There are rules for this case.

The french title for this video is "Messe d'action de grâce" (Thanksgiving mass) : https://www.rtl.lu/lifestyle/news/a/1577167.html

And the paper states :



No baptistery was seen on the pictures, so there was definitely no christening today.
Click to expand...

But the Abbey obviously contains a baptistry. Just because no photos of it appeared yet in the media you have concluded that no baptism took place even though 1) the infant was dressed in the Nassau christening robes 2) Both sets of families including the godparents were present 3) The news media and more importantly the Official website of the Grand Ducal Court specifically stated that the child has RECEIVED THE SACRAMENT AND BEEN WELCOMED INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY, and 4) Never at no time has the Grand Ducal Court indicated that Charles was baptized in secrecy earlier?

Why are today's events being called the baby'actual Baptism and NOT simply a blessing as you indicate? None of the media or official websites report that the baby was not baptized but only blessed.

Not one.

I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree with it. The announcement in Luxembourg is that Prince Charles was actually baptized today.

The baptism took place within a Mass of Thanksgiving to God for the birth of the prince. I don't find it confusing at all.
 
Last edited:
Moonmaiden23 said:
But the Abbey obviously contains a baptistry. Just because no photos of it appeared yet in the media you have concluded that no baptism took place even though 1) the infant was dressed in the Nassau christening robes 2) Both sets of families including the godparents were present 3) The news media specifically stated that the child has RECEIVED THE SACRAMENT AND BEEN WELCOMED INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY, and 4) Never at no time has the Grand Ducal Court indicated that Charles was baptized in secrecy earlier?

Why are today's events being called the baby'actual Baptism and NOT simply a blessing as you indicate? None of the media or official websites report that the baby was not baptized but only blessed.

Not one.

I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree with it. The announcement in Luxembourg is that Prince Charles was actually baptized today.

The baptism took place within a Mass of Thanksgiving to God for the birth of the prince. I don't find it confusing at all.
Click to expand...

RTL, the Luxemburgish media which has access to the best information from the court, writes that it was a "Messe d'action de grâce pour le baptême de SAR le Prince Charles avec les rites complémentaires du baptême". French is my native language and in French, "rites complémentaires du baptême" refer to the anointing, the giving of the candle and the white garnment. It nevers refers to the gesture with water. I have looked at every pic the medias have published : not a single one is showing little Charles receving water on his forehead. Not a single one. However, there are plenty of pics with the anointing, the white garnment and the candle. Here are some with the candle.

https://www.wort.lu/de/politik/die-taufe-von-prinz-charles-5f6596e8de135b92363fcf63

Usually, the date on the candle is the baptism date. On this pic, the date on the candle is his birth date. As we know HGD had an emergency C-section, my hypothesis is that there was some fear for his life or his health at birth, which have quickly disappeared as he was said to do well in the birth announcement. However, I stand with my take : he was not christened today but earlier. I thought on why the medias and the court used to word "baptism" : that was Charles's big day, a feast around him. Usually, when there is an ondoiement, as we say in French, there is a traditional feast, the same for any other baptism, the day the complementary rites are performed. A friend knew this for one of her sons.

So I stand with my take : "baptism" is, in prince Charles' case, a shortcut word for people unfamiliar with Catholic rites for such a situation.
 
Last edited:
Charles is such an adorable baby! He seems to have been well behaved at the christening too. He seemed particularly interested in the candle being lit :D

I agree that it doesn't seem like they already had another ceremony because the photos show that - there wouldn't be much point in having a private ceremony and then doing the whole thing again when they've been there already.
 
It makes sense if he had an emergency baptism.

If he was sick or a complication during his emergency birth they may have given him a baptism right there. It may explain why they didn't worry about waiting four months for this, if he had already been baptized.

In that case they would still have a proper ceremony and celebration after. To include the other rituals and remind those gathered of the sacrament. You simply don't do the anointing with the waters twice as that can only be done once in the catholic faith.

And as said, when an emergency baptism is held and then a secondary ceremony, the baptism date listed is the one of the original baptism. Would explain the earlier date on the candle here.
 
If the baby had been previously already baptized, the Grand Ducal Court would have simply announced this. This Royal family is not given to secrecy and subterfuge.

Especially not about something as important as this major milestone in the birth of the future ruler of the GD of Luxembourg.

Today's event would not have been announcement as a "Sacrament". Baptism itself is a sacrament. A Thanksgiving Mass, or Te Deum, is not one of the 7 sacraments of the Church.

Charles was born by C-section but he was not ill or premature, which would indeed have mandated an immediate baptism. And most importantly, the Court would have announced that some later event was going to take place.

Most Catholic Royal and even non Royal baptisms take place during a Mass. I have never heard of announcing a "bapteme"...in which everything takes place EXCEPT the baptism.

It sounds completely bizarre in fact.:ermm:
 
Last edited:
What are the consequences if a baby is not baptized? This is not a part of the faith I practice, so I am unsure. Thank you.
 
ladongas said:
What are the consequences if a baby is not baptized? This is not a part of the faith I practice, so I am unsure. Thank you.
Click to expand...

Baptism serves two purposes. To welcome a new soul into the church but also to cleanse our souls of original sin. The sin of Adam and Eve is born within every human.

It was taught for centuries that anyone who was not baptized, even infants, would go to limbo. A state neither heaven nor hell.

In recent years the Pope released documents saying that the church believes that infants who have died before they were able to receive baptismal rights would be shown the grace of god and entrance into heaven. But that is their prayer, and not undoubted knowledge. As a Catholic we would still think it important to baptize our child early.

https://ca.reuters.com/article/idUSL2028721620070420


If the baby had been previously already baptized, the Grand Ducal Court would have simply announced this. This Royal family is not given to secrecy and subterfuge.

Especially not about something as important as this major milestone in the birth of the future ruler of the GD of Luxembourg.

Today's event would not have been announcement as a "Sacrament". Baptism itself is a sacrament. A Thanksgiving Mass, or Te Deum, is not one of the 7 sacraments of the Church.

Charles was born by C-section but he was not ill or premature, which would indeed have mandated an immediate baptism. And most importantly, the Court would have announced that some later even was going to take place.

Most Catholic Royal and even non Royal baptisms take place during a Mass. I have never heard of announcing a "bapteme"...in which everything takes place EXCEPT the baptism.

It sounds completely bizarre in fact.
Click to expand...

Its not subterfuge.

If there was some concern (he may have been perfectly healthy but they just worried about covid) they may have done an emergent baptism. That doesn't mean that today's baptism was fake, its just the second part of the ceremony. They would have only performed the basic anointing of the waters the first time, the rest of the traditions like the candle were not performed. And we done today.

Its not lying. They may simply not have wished to worry the public about the health of the baby. The baptism of the future Grand duke is important and the people indeed did get to be a part of it.

There has been no modern need for a catholic heir to have an emergent baptism. Doesn't mean it couldn't happen. Just it hasn't happened.

May not have happened. This may be indeed be a misreport but there is grounds for it to be true as well.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the video iris so sweet. The priest is very human. The baby looks just like his mother. I was surprised at the gown, our children had a much more elaborate gown and are not princes
 
:previous: I compared a photo of Stephanie in infancy to her baby son and I agree...the two are almost identical. Except that Prince Charles has his father's mouth.

I also caught the video clip where Cardinal Hollerich sprinkled the baby with holy water and, speaking directly to him in French, pronounced the gesture to be "in remembrance of your baptism". ( It's the clip where Stephanie can be seen making the Sign of the Cross) The cardinal then traced the Cross on Charles' forehead.

So maybe Sancia and Countessmeout called it. It's possible that the actual Rite of Baptism took place before today, undoubtedly his jittery first time parents did not want to risk leaving their infant unbaptized indefinitely during a pandemic. I always found it unlikely that the uber Catholic Nassau and de Lannoy families would delay the baptism 4 months.

Perhaps today was the public celebration of the past event, something Charles's compatriots could feel a part of?

COVID has been a definite game changer in so many ways.:ermm:
 
Last edited:
What i noticed in the Video from inside the Chuch there was no baptismal fond to be seen and ther Kardinal only sprinkled a bit water on Charles and not really over his Head as at christening is done
It also once happened for Archduchess Gloria the youngest daughter of AD Karl and AD Francesca that she had an emergency christening after her birth and at a later point another Service took place where the extended Family and the Godparents attended.
 
Appreciation to those knowledgeable in the Catholic faith for further information and insight regarding Prince Charles Baptism.

https://www.rtl.lu/lifestyle/news/a/1577167.html
I used google to translate excerpts of this rtl.lu article from Luxembourgish to English. Granted someone native in Luxembourgish would have been preferred.

"At 3 pm they were ordered to Clierf and the abbey for a "Mass of grace for the baptism of SAR the Prince Charles with the complementary rites of the baptism", according to the official title of Saturday's festivities. At noon, baptized Prince Charles is already, by the cardinal." The name of the mass is clear but the noon vs 3pm is confusing (translation glitch?)

"To complete this baptism, there was the so-called Thanksgiving for the baptism, with a mass in which the complementary rites were performed. At the side of Prince Charles - who, incidentally, was dressed in a lace robe that the Grand Duke and his sisters had already worn. At his side, Prince Louis, as godfather, and then the sister of the Hereditary Grand Duchess, Countess Gaëlle de Lannoy, as godmother."
Interesting in the mention "to complete this baptism" ...

"The mother's family was well represented, in Clervaux, then, on the other side, besides Prince Louis and Sebastien with plaster, Prince Felix and Princess Claire had come with their children. Missing is Princess Alexandra." Confirmed Alexandra did not attend but no reason given.

"It was a rather long religious ceremony, led by Cardinal Jean-Claude Hollerich, which also included the holy oil, and the consecrated water. Celebrated by the Auxiliary Bishop Leo Wagner, the Archbishop Fernand Franck and the Reverend Père Dom Michel Jorrot from Clierfer Abbey."
Indications are "it was a rather long ceremony", I don't think we were privileged to the entire ceremony, and/or as some have commented, regarding covid a previous ceremony might have already taken place nearer to the time just after birth.

Again, these are only excerpts not the entirety of the article.

Honestly, I can't get enough of baby Prince Charles. The pictures of Stephanie giving him little kisses before going into the chapel were dreamy adorable!
 
Prince Charles is a charming baby! His parents are truly delighted with him.
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
What...SERIOUSLY? Then why was he dressed in traditional baptismal robes? When did the "real" event take place and why wasn't it announced?

I find this difficult to understand or believe. The RTL newscaster stated very specifically that the baby has "TODAY received the Holy Sacrament" and that " the future Head of State was TODAY welcomed into the Catholic Faith".

For a Catholic there is only one Sacrament of Baptism not two. A candidate for Baptism is never anointed separately from his/ her baptism.

It all takes place at the same time. I think the baby was baptized DURING the Mass, which is what happened with the Monaco twins.

The other explanation of a prior, secret baptism for the Heir simply makes no sense imo.
Click to expand...


There was no actual baptism (this was already done in privacy). The Archbishop did not pour water over the infant Prince. He did not say "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, etc."


The Archbishop sprinkled holy water over the royal couple holding their baby and then made a cross on the baby's forehead with a tiny little bit of chrisma ("holy oil"). After this it was essentially a normal Mass.
 
Last edited:
The video is wonderful. The delight of the parents is always clear when you see them with their son. And you can see how happy the entire family was for them. The pride in the godparents. I am sure it is special for Gaelle to be godmother, and for the siblings to see their sister a mother finally.

And yes he is certainly the image of his mom now. Though that may change.

Somebody said:
I wonder why princess Alexandra couldn't be present; is she abroad and not able to travel back to Europe?! And it's a pity that also the princes Gabriel and Noah didn't join the family for this important event.
Click to expand...

I didn't notice this before, and I didn't see it addressed either.

I am not sure about Alexandra but the boys go to school in London. Luxembourg was removed from the UK's foreign exemption list as of late July and remains off of it. If the boys made the trip, they would have to quarantine for two weeks after they returned. It was likely decided that though the baptism is a special moment, having them have to miss two weeks of school to attend, was not worth it. If the baptism had been in the summer time, when the boys weren't in school and spent much of the summer on the continent, it would have been different I am sure.
 
Does Alexandra not live in Paris? Probably this is the reason she could not be there as Paris and much parts of France belong to the Risk Area's. I think she also did not attended the Wedding of Gabriella last weekend.
 
Stefan said:
Does Alexandra not live in Paris? Probably this is the reason she could not be there as Paris and much parts of France belong to the Risk Area's. I think she also did not attended the Wedding of Gabriella last weekend.
Click to expand...

I think Alexandra attended the wedding, in this picture seems to be her in the back row.

https://blogs.sl.pt/cloud/thumb/7a4...0/c2235889cb18d5c8f29009cf1bf797c3.jpg?size=l

According to the latest information, she lives in Paris. She must have a valid reason for missing an event as important as this.
I don't know why, I always thought she was going to be the baby's godmother because she was Guillaume's only sister.
 
Lady Daly said:
"At 3 pm they were ordered to Clierf and the abbey for a "Mass of grace for the baptism of SAR the Prince Charles with the complementary rites of the baptism", according to the official title of Saturday's festivities. At noon, baptized Prince Charles is already, by the cardinal." The name of the mass is clear but the noon vs 3pm is confusing (translation glitch?)
Click to expand...

As I understand, Mëtteg can mean "noon" as well as "afternoon". I don't read in this paper from RTL.lu that prince Charles was baptized at noon.

I admitt the whole is confusing and I don't understand why the grandducal family released such confusing informations. However, it is rather clear that RTL has got the news on the "Messe d'action de grâces pour les rites complémentaires du baptême" directly from the family and the Court. Therefore, yesterday mass was not a baptism mass and the baby had already been anointed with water earlier. I would very much understand why the court didn't say anything about this before.

On a lighter note, prince Charles is such a cutie and I am truly delighted for the HGD couple that they have become parents at least, after such a wait.
 
Last edited:
Is a medical emergency necessarily indicated by baptism on the day of his birth and a mass for the "complementary rites" at a later date? Could it not be simply that the parents are devout Christians and wanted their child to acquire membership of their church as soon as possible, but also wanted a public celebration which would obviously be difficult to arrange on the same day he was born?

I suppose that will be answered if and when they have a second child.
 
The date on the candle being the same as Charles' date of birth seems to suggest he was baptized on the day of his birth.

For the Catholics among us, how would the church view the wish to baptize immediately and delay the completion of the rituals just because the parents liked the baptism to happen immediately (so, without a clear 'emergency' reason)?
 
Duc_et_Pair said:
There was no actual baptism (this was already done in privacy). The Archbishop did not pour water over the infant Prince. He did not say "I baptize thee in the name of the Father, etc."


The Archbishop sprinkled holy water over the royal couple holding their baby and then made a cross on the baby's forehead with a tiny little bit of chrisma ("holy oil"). After this it was essentially a normal Mass.
Click to expand...

Thank you Duc. I stand corrected, and I owe dear Sancia an apology.

Prince Charles was likely baptized within days or weeks of his birth back in May, as is traditional in Luxembourg Royal family.

The baby was presented to the public via video within hours of his birth. He appeared beautiful, robust and healthy. He did not stay in the hospital longer than the 3 days mandated by his Caesarean delivery.

So, IF the decision to baptize him in the hospital was made it cannot have been for any other reason than the pandemic.

If Gui and Stephanie are blessed with another child we will see.
 
Last edited:
charles is an adorable baby. and guillaume and stephanie look simply exultant with their newborn!

it was probably a good move to not announce the date of the baptism and to move it to a quieter location given the risks surrounding COVID. i also note that the attendance is much smaller than the extended family you'd expect to see, with the GD's Siblings and their family. shame to not see alexandra there. and also, what happened to sebastian?

the choice of louis as the godfather is also an interesting one. i thought felix would be the godfather chosen.
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
Prince Charles was likely baptized within days or weeks of his birth back in May, as is traditional in Luxembourg Royal family.
Click to expand...

Sancia and others mentioned in previous posts seeing his birth date written on a candle which would seemingly indicate a baptism on the day of his birth.

Were there quarantine restrictions in effect at the time? I wonder if the parents decided to baptize immediately without the complementary rituals because they had no idea if and when a mass with guests in attendance would be feasible.
 
:previous: If memory serves, Luxembourg did indeed have quarantine restrictions back in May.

A balcony appearance featuring the new heir has not yet happened. The likely time to show Prince Charles on the balcony would have either been on National Day in June, or yesterday following the baptismal Mass.

But I have read that there has been a spike in Covid19 cases in the Grand Duchy....so no balcony appearaces for the foreseeable future sadly.
 
Moonmaiden23 said:
Thank you Duc. I stand corrected, and I owe dear Sancia an apology.
Click to expand...

Apologies accepted :flowers:

I agree the baptism may have been performed at earliest due to the pandemic. However, the most important is baby Charles doing well and his parents being overwhelmed with joy since his birth.
 
I have been an altar boy and an acolyte until I went to university. The actual baptism is the formula which is accepted by all Christian denonimations: the pouring with water.

In the Roman-Catholic Church the anointing with chrisma means that the baptized truly is a Christian indeed (christ means: the anointed). After the anointment the Archbishop laid a white cloth over the infant Prince. This expresses the purity of the soul. I have not seen the Archbishop laying some salt on the tongue ("Thou are the salt of the world"), which still was the use in Limbourg (not far from Luxembourg) when I did attend the last baptism in the family so far, in 2018.

Often this additional part (like Charles yesterday) is done during regular Mass to show the new Christian to the parish and welcome him/her and the parents into the community.
 
Last edited:
Moonmaiden23 said:
A balcony appearance featuring the new heir has not yet happened. The likely time to show Prince Charles on the balcony would have either been on National Day in June, or yesterday following the baptismal Mass.
Click to expand...


There a no Balcony appearances at National Day but there are at the closing ceremony of the Octave procession which is always some weeks after Easter. So it is likely that we will see him for the first time on the Balcony around May next year if the Pandemic allows for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
Luxembourg: Birthday and Anniversary Wishes 2024
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri
Princess Robijn
  • Locked
Guillaume and Stéphanie: Confirmed Wedding Guests
Replies
9
Views
7K
Stefan
Stefan
Princess Robijn
  • Locked
  • Poll
Guillaume and Stéphanie: the Royal Honeymoon Poll
Replies
25
Views
9K
NGalitzine
N
Princess Robijn
HGD Guillaume of Luxembourg & Stéphanie de Lannoy: Religious Wedding - Oct 20, 2012
12 13 14
Replies
409
Views
82K
Blog Real
Blog Real
Princess Robijn
HGD Guillaume of Luxembourg and Stéphanie de Lannoy: Civil Wedding - Oct 19, 2012
2 3
Replies
76
Views
17K
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom