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

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Erin9

It depends on how big the Christening is to begin with. It seems British ones lately have been fairly small gatherings in terms of both family and friends invited.

I agree about the small gathering, the BRF christenings tend to be events with only immediate family, the godparents and possibly their spouses/partners.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Yes, these are intimate affairs in contrary to Sweden or the Netherlands, where the christenings were public events and even televized.

When did royal christenings stop being public events in the UK ? In the ITV series Victoria, there is for example a scene from the christening of the Pncess Royal where the Queen was wearing what appears to be the George IV diadem. I don’t know if the series is accurate, but there is no doubt it was a public ceremony.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

When did royal christenings stop being public events in the UK ? In the ITV series Victoria, there is for example a scene from the christening of the Pncess Royal where the Queen was wearing what appears to be the George IV diadem. I don’t know if the series is accurate, but there is no doubt it was a public ceremony.

I don’t think wearing diadem equals public event. Certainly, once upon a time, tiaras would be regularly worn in private as well as public.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

I don’t think wearing diadem equals public event. Certainly, once upon a time, tiaras would be regularly worn in private as well as public.

In the series, Prince Albert was also wearing military uniform and the order of the Garter at the christening. It didn’t look like a private event to me , but I am sure the British ( or Commonwealth ) experts on TRF can clarify.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Many Americans, on Meghan’s side at least, were close friends that would attend Meghan’s wedding regardless of who she’s marrying. With maybe the exception of Oprah and George Clooney as we still don’t know for certain how they came to know each other. Although, I suspect the couples are close due to Meghan and Amal striking up a friendship. Neither are likely to go to the christening. Christenings in general are much smaller scale than weddings. So I don’t see how that should be treated differently.

Not denying that most of them would have attempted to attend (but her marrying a prince most likely meant they made an extra effort while not attending due to scheduling issues might have been an option otherwise) and then there is Oprah (and probably guests that we don't know about) who most likely attended because it was a royal wedding.

So, my point is that royal weddings are different than other weddings and in the same way royal christenings are different with people probably making that tiny extra effort to come because it's royalty.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

Not denying that most of them would have attempted to attend (but her marrying a prince most likely meant they made an extra effort while not attending due to scheduling issues might have been an option otherwise) and then there is Oprah (and probably guests that we don't know about) who most likely attended because it was a royal wedding.

So, my point is that royal weddings are different than other weddings and in the same way royal christenings are different with people probably making that tiny extra effort to come because it's royalty.

We don’t know how people see this. They picked a weekend where her former coworkers would be able to attend. So we’ll never know. It’s certainly normal to attend the wedding of someone you worked with for 7 years. Regardless, those that stand a good chance be invited to the christening aren’t everyone that’s at the wedding, but the likes of the Benita Litt and such. I don’t see how a royal christening would be to them than any other close friends’. It may be different to people here, but not everyone who actually knows those people.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

We don’t know how people see this. They picked a weekend where her former coworkers would be able to attend. So we’ll never know. It’s certainly normal to attend the wedding of someone you worked with for 7 years. Regardless, those that stand a good chance be invited to the christening aren’t everyone that’s at the wedding, but the likes of the Benita Litt and such. I don’t see how a royal christening would be to them than any other close friends’. It may be different to people here, but not everyone who actually knows those people.

When royals arrange any large family event, weddings for example, the priority are the diary's of the senior members of the family.
Maybe that is why Harry's wedding was on a Saturday, don't know, just wondering.

Once they have been coordinated and a date set, it is everybody for themselves. It is not the first time that a family member has missed an event due to clashing priorities.

The queen appreciates that a great deal of work and effort goes into a royal visit, and would be very reluctant to cancel for a family event and disappoint people.

[JessRulz]

Posts about the new photo of Archie for Father's Day have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...9-a-46407.html thread.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by ACO

We won’t know anything until it’s confirmed by the palace. Trooping would be an example of how info can be twisted. The day before some correspondents were saying Meghan might not attend. She did. People just guessing. That’s said Royals has missed family events. It happens.

I wondered if that was down to Meghan herself not 100% sure if she wanted to attend, didn't want to commit then be seen to cancel, leaving herself open to criticism. Would you like to bump along in a carriage after having a baby. She possibly wanted to see how she felt , also how Archie was, that was probably the first time she had left him since he was born.
The queen would be fully understanding of a new mother wanting to wait until the day to decide if she felt up to it.

If you recall there was no 100% commitment that Philip would attend the wedding, we had to wait until the day.

[amaryllus]

I respectfully have to disagree with you. Phillip is almost a hundred years old and done his duty tirelessly for 70 plus years. It’s warranted he get to pick and choose. He is not comparable to Meghan has been a Royal for about a year and had a baby over a month ago in what as far as we have been told was an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. It’s her role to support the Queen and we know she is not some fragile flower that can’t handle getting dressed up and riding in a carriage and waving on balcony for a few hours. She will have to get used to leaving her son for periods of time soon enough anyway and this was the perfect time to start IMO.

[Denville]

I think its a little early.. there was no need for her to appear so soon after her baby was born.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by amaryllus

I respectfully have to disagree with you. Phillip is almost a hundred years old and done his duty tirelessly for 70 plus years. It’s warranted he get to pick and choose. He is not comparable to Meghan has been a Royal for about a year and had a baby over a month ago in what as far as we have been told was an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. It’s her role to support the Queen and we know she is not some fragile flower that can’t handle getting dressed up and riding in a carriage and waving on balcony for a few hours. She will have to get used to leaving her son for periods of time soon enough anyway and this was the perfect time to start IMO.

I think that’s a bit callous. Many issues can occur after an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. And certainly, babies that age can have things come up all of sudden. It’s great that Meghan is able to be there. But at barely a month after delivery, she’s still within the minimum recovery period, which is six weeks. There is nothing wrong if she decided to not go. It’s not about her being fragile, but facing reality that it’s a healing process.

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I wondered if that was done to Meghan herself not 100% sure if she wanted to attend, didn't want to commit then be seen to cancel, leaving herself open to criticism. Would you like to bump along in a carriage after having a baby. She possibly wanted to see how she felt , also how Archie was, that was probably the first time she had left him since he was born.
The queen would be fully understanding of a new mother wanting to wait until the day to decide if she felt up to it.

If you recall there was no 100% commitment that Philip would attend the wedding, we had to wait until the day.

It’s become standard procedure not to announce this type of thing on maternity leave in case something comes up. Kate wasn’t announced for RAF 100 either. In case they aren’t up to it that day, they can pull out last minute. And I don’t believe Trooping attendance is announced anyways. It’s just expected most members will turn up unless they are told otherwise. The situation with Meghan is that it’s just so close. I think Kate had more time even with Charlotte and certainly with her other two children. I don’t know if there has been a situation where it’s a month and two days.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by amaryllus

I respectfully have to disagree with you. Phillip is almost a hundred years old and done his duty tirelessly for 70 plus years. It’s warranted he get to pick and choose. He is not comparable to Meghan has been a Royal for about a year and had a baby over a month ago in what as far as we have been told was an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. It’s her role to support the Queen and we know she is not some fragile flower that can’t handle getting dressed up and riding in a carriage and waving on balcony for a few hours. She will have to get used to leaving her son for periods of time soon enough anyway and this was the perfect time to start IMO.

And I respectfully disagree with you. Have you been pregnant and had a baby? If so then you know the pain you feel in postpartum. The process of healing is a long one. It is hard to do a lot of things and riding in a carriage would not be comfortable. I think Philip at age 98 would be in a better position than Meghan at 4 weeks postpartum.

It is great she wanted to be there but no one would have faulted her for staying home. She understands her duty. She respects her monarch. That is why she attended but to dismiss a true physical aspect her being there so soon after having given birth is a real disservice.

[loonytick]

A lot of women would be A-OK to ride in a carriage a month after birth, but it just depends on the details of how the delivery went and how her body has recovered. Sometimes there are still lingering issues. We don’t have any indication about the details of Archie’s birth, and that’s fine. Clearly, Meghan was able to participate in Trooping when it came down to it and she looked as comfortable as anyone else in the carriage.

[Ista]

If Meghan had not showed up for Trooping there would have been reams of speculation as to why not, even though she is so recently post partum, so I think it was very, very wise of her to make the effort, pull on some hose, slap a hat on her head, and do the required smiling and waving. She did the prudent thing, however she may have been feeling, and now she can return to (hopefully) enjoying her maternity leave.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by amaryllus

I respectfully have to disagree with you. Phillip is almost a hundred years old and done his duty tirelessly for 70 plus years. It’s warranted he get to pick and choose. He is not comparable to Meghan has been a Royal for about a year and had a baby over a month ago in what as far as we have been told was an uncomplicated pregnancy and delivery. It’s her role to support the Queen and we know she is not some fragile flower that can’t handle getting dressed up and riding in a carriage and waving on balcony for a few hours. She will have to get used to leaving her son for periods of time soon enough anyway and this was the perfect time to start IMO.

I think you are being harsh on Meghan with that but you are entitled to your opinion.

[Osipi]

There is also another good reason why she may have opted out of Trooping the Color while on maternity leave. Archie's feeding schedule. If she is nursing, that little guy is going to want to eat 7-9 times a day with a span of 1½ to 3 hours between feedings.

Most likely, the events for Trooping coincided with the times he slept and was probably waiting (with nanny) at Buck House for mama to feed him. I think we can safely say that perhaps Archie has attended his first "lunch" at the palace.

https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/breastfeed-often.html

[MaiaMia_53]

Yes, there have been published reports that Archie was indeed brought to Buckingham Palace to be near his parents on June 8. It's just that the public didn't get to see him. Possibly Kate did the same at TTC last year with Prince Louis.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/enterta...ng-the-colour/

[HereditaryPrincess]

Originally Posted by Ista

If Meghan had not showed up for Trooping there would have been reams of speculation as to why not, even though she is so recently post partum, so I think it was very, very wise of her to make the effort, pull on some hose, slap a hat on her head, and do the required smiling and waving. She did the prudent thing, however she may have been feeling, and now she can return to (hopefully) enjoying her maternity leave.

Meghan is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. I think many forget that royals have maternity leave just as us ordinary folks do if we become pregnant whilst working, and some demand to see Meghan (it was similar with the Duchess of Cambridge and her pregnancies IIRC) at every engagement and family event.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

The queen doesn’t always go to balmoral a week early it’s not a rule. She has to be there a few days into August for official events every year that is the official start of her stay.

While she missed Louis christening this is different. This is Harry’s first child which makes it special. Like Mia christening.

I do expect some of Meghan’s close friends to attend even if not godparents. Lindsay and Lucy live in London. Both Markus and Jessica are often there for work so can likely swing it. Benita asked Meghan to be her kids godmother I’d be shocked if she didn’t make it unless something came up.

Friends often attend even if not involved. There is also many of them are more like family.

It will be no different then any royal christening they are always private. They aren’t televised in the UK. We will at the very least get photos with family and godparents. They are handling Archie a lot like Louise and James. Expect christening to be like theirs.


As for the photo so adorable. I loved the sweet photo of Archie playing with daddy’s finger. Such a sweet photo.

Happy Father’s Day to Harry and all dads.

HM always has a week of engagements in Scotland in July, separate from her Balmoral holiday. These are longstanding engagements including a garden party.