Birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor: May 6, 2019

[Cathy-PA USA]

In the name Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, we've received the results of H&M collaborating and arriving at a joint decision in their own unique style.
That name is an H&M original. Look upon it, hold it up and rotate it, inspect for all aspects as their work of art.

I got a giggle from the comment made above in this thread that family and friend baby name suggestions were not much wanted, and the question of names effectively curtailed with "Elvis if a boy, Madonna if a girl"! That's all well and good for genuinely private citizens, but what about public figures?

I'll just say it sure took the wind out my sails, and 90% of the fun and vicarious pleasure from the child's arrival that they've refused or been almost ungracious in what they are willing to share. Despite a desire for a fan-following for their humanitarian efforts (with everything else about their lives clearly private and off limits), they are alienating the public despite their wiz PR specialist. To be honest, the way they rolled it out with the April 11 "birth details to remain private", the no doubt universally unexpected and unavoidable wait of almost a month, botched labor/delivery announcement and then the name left me with the following reaction: "Ugh. Okay, then! The way you've brought your child into the world, announced, then named the child is just plain off-putting, so ... I'm out! If you so insist, I shall pay no further attention. Thanks ever so much."

[CTchic]

Originally Posted by Cathy-PA USA

In the name Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, we've received the results of H&M collaborating and arriving at a joint decision in their own unique style.
That name is an H&M original. Look upon it, hold it up and rotate it, inspect for all aspects as their work of art.

I got a giggle from the comment made above in this thread that family and friend baby name suggestions were not much wanted, and the question of names effectively curtailed with "Elvis if a boy, Madonna if a girl"! That's all well and good for genuinely private citizens, but what about public figures?

I'll just say it sure took the wind out my sails, and 90% of the fun and vicarious pleasure from the child's arrival that they've refused or been almost ungracious in what they are willing to share. Despite a desire for a fan-following for their humanitarian efforts (with everything else about their lives clearly private and off limits), they are alienating the public despite their wiz PR specialist. To be honest, the way they rolled it out with the April 11 "birth details to remain private", the no doubt universally unexpected and unavoidable wait of almost a month, botched labor/delivery announcement and then the name left me with the following reaction: "Ugh. Okay, then! The way you've brought your child into the world, announced, then named the child is just plain off-putting, so ... I'm out! If you so insist, I shall pay no further attention. Thanks ever so much."

I disagree. They did not want the whole business of the press gathering around taking photos at the hospital given the press treatment of Meghan why give them the chance to make money off the Sussexes.

Btw Harry came out and announced that a boy was delivered which I thought was very personable than a formal press release or easel.

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by Cathy-PA USA

In the name Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, we've received the results of H&M collaborating and arriving at a joint decision in their own unique style.
That name is an H&M original. Look upon it, hold it up and rotate it, inspect for all aspects as their work of art.

I got a giggle from the comment made above in this thread that family and friend baby name suggestions were not much wanted, and the question of names effectively curtailed with "Elvis if a boy, Madonna if a girl"! That's all well and good for genuinely private citizens, but what about public figures?

I'll just say it sure took the wind out my sails, and 90% of the fun and vicarious pleasure from the child's arrival that they've refused or been almost ungracious in what they are willing to share. Despite a desire for a fan-following for their humanitarian efforts (with everything else about their lives clearly private and off limits), they are alienating the public despite their wiz PR specialist. To be honest, the way they rolled it out with the April 11 "birth details to remain private", the no doubt universally unexpected and unavoidable wait of almost a month, botched labor/delivery announcement and then the name left me with the following reaction: "Ugh. Okay, then! The way you've brought your child into the world, announced, then named the child is just plain off-putting, so ... I'm out! If you so insist, I shall pay no further attention. Thanks ever so much."

I also liked the way Harry and Meghan presented their child much better than the Lindo wing (hospital stair) circus which also disrupts other patients. Having the father make the announcement and then a couple days later when they can make sure everything is okay a brief photo call where there is actually a conversation instead of everything yelling over each other. That seems much more respectable to me.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Why would Meghan need to tell her closest friends to keep calling her Meghan?

Meghan's friend Daniel spoke about his feelings of awe when he was helping Meghan with makeup on her wedding day. He describes suddenly becoming concerned about how he should address Meghan (perhaps in public), in view of her new role and her royal title. Of course, she responded with a smile, "I'm still Meghan." I am basing my comments, as I always do, on direct quotes from believable sources.

It pays to be even-keeled and open-minded, rather than immediately jumping to conclusions.

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

It depends on the context/situation, the friends may have been joking with each other and something along the lines of now you will be a princess/HRH and she replied with with I will always be Meg/Meghan (true to herself).

Exactly. That is very close to how Daniel related the experience on that special morning.

[MaiaMia_53]

I don't even think it's a slam dunk that there will be photo-op appearances for Archie's christening. There may be if he is christened at St. George's Chapel, Windsor. However, he might also be christened privately at the chapel inside Windsor Castle, with no public appearances by the family. Maybe pictures will be released after the event, with the names of the godparents.

[MARG]

Perhaps they will throw us a bone because of the interest in the Sussexes and depending on how HM and Charles intend to deploy this unexpected PR bounty.

[jacqui24]

Little Archie is a month old today!

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Little Archie is a month old today!

Happy one-month to Archie.

[Biri]

Nothing known about the christening date?

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Biri

Nothing known about the christening date?

We won't know that until close to it. My guess will be in July.

[Pranter]

My guess is they may not even tell us when..and it wouldn't surprise me if we didn't know about it till after it happened.


LaRae

[Somebody]

My guess is whenever Meghan's mother is coming over this summer. And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't be announced in advance - although somehow most of the times it is somehow leaked as we typically see some pictures of entering or leaving a church.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Pranter

My guess is they may not even tell us when..and it wouldn't surprise me if we didn't know about it till after it happened.


LaRae

Oh lovely, there’ll be another collective meltdown.

But yes, I’d imagine it would have to depend on scheduling. Not just her mother, but I’m sure some of Meghan’s friends from North America would be included as godparents. I do look forward to it. Hoping we’ll get a picture of Archie before then though. Maybe Father’s Day?

Originally Posted by Somebody

My guess is whenever Meghan's mother is coming over this summer. And yes, I wouldn't be surprised if it wouldn't be announced in advance - although somehow most of the times it is somehow leaked as we typically see some pictures of entering or leaving a church.

We didn’t see anyone leaving or entering the church for Meghan’s baptism. Of course, it’ll depend on where. My guess is St. George’s. But maybe it’ll be London.

[Pranter]

They could do it just about anywhere. Where was it Harry was baptized ...seems like the same place they baptized Charlotte...was that at Sandringham?


LaRae

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

We didn’t see anyone leaving or entering the church for Meghan’s baptism. Of course, it’ll depend on where. My guess is St. George’s. But maybe it’ll be London.

I was thinking about the queen's other great-grandchildren as that's a lot more comparable - not about Meghan, who just like Catherine had a completely private service to become a full member of the CoE not that long before the wedding.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Pranter

They could do it just about anywhere. Where was it Harry was baptized ...seems like the same place they baptized Charlotte...was that at Sandringham?


LaRae

Why Sandringham? It was used for Charlotte as William & Catherine were largely atAnmer at the time. Sandringham is hardly used during the summer months..

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Pranter

They could do it just about anywhere. Where was it Harry was baptized ...seems like the same place they baptized Charlotte...was that at Sandringham?


LaRae

Harry was baptized at St. George's Chapel.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Oh lovely, there’ll be another collective meltdown.

But yes, I’d imagine it would have to depend on scheduling. Not just her mother, but I’m sure some of Meghan’s friends from North America would be included as godparents. I do look forward to it. Hoping we’ll get a picture of Archie before then though. Maybe Father’s Day?

Whilst the schedules of Meghan's mother and American friends will be a consideration, theywill need to fit into the very busy schedule of C,&C and HM, if included.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

I was thinking about the queen's other great-grandchildren as that's a lot more comparable - not about Meghan, who just like Catherine had a completely private service to become a full member of the CoE not that long before the wedding.

I can’t remember about the others, but Lena’s christening was at church accessible to others. But let’s see if they decided to do it at Chapel Royal, I don’t think we would’ve known unless they allowed media access. But my point is, it would depend on where they have it for the media to get photos.

[Countessmeout]

Archie is not comparable to any great-grandchildren other then his immediate cousins. Peter and Zara's children are private citizens, and the children of private citizens. Peter and Zara have no titles or roles, lead private lives. Despite Archie's lack of title, Archie is the son of working royals, the grandson of the future king of the UK.

His baptism is more comparable to the Yorks or Wessexes. Even though he isn't currently the grandson of the monarch, he will be. Considering his lack of title, his baptism will likely be along the lines of Louise and James.

Louise and James had a private ceremony but the dates and information were released. We knew the godparents and we got photos after the baptism. I doubt we will get any less of Archie.

I would think St George's is a good chance, considering Harry was baptized there and the couple married there. Or Windsor's chapel at the least.