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

[ACO]

I mean they tried digging into Lindsey and Genevieve's lives. Even called their employers. This is why they wanted to remain private and good for them for doing it.

It wasn't our business then and still isn't now.

[carlota]

it seems that godparents were then quite likely:
Mark Dyer, Thomas Van Straubenzee and Tiggy (from harry's side) and
Lindsey and Genevieve (from meghan's side) - both were seen in london around the time of the christening I believe?

Originally Posted by Osipi

I'm in agreement with Muriel. To be honest, I didn't feel the public had the right to know who Archie's godparents were in the first place. There were little things over time that didn't follow what the general public expected of this couple and I sincerely believe that some of the things they did were actually trying to keep a distinct line between their public and private lives.

i don't buy into that. the moment they married at taxpayer's expense, the moment they agreed to take on duties on behalf of the queen and the moment their home was renovated on taxpayer's money (now thankfully this will be paid back following their decision to leave), there could be no distinct line between their public and private lives. i am of course not advocating that because of that the press should invade their home, as they've done, or pursue meghan's parents. but certain things, such as releasing your first child's godparents or making his christening public are expected and actually raise more noise if you don't do them than if you do. proof is in the pudding - i bet 99% of the public don't know who george, charlotte and louis' godparents were without looking it up. they probably didn't even see the footage of the christening. yet H&M made such a fuss over a tiny detail that people forget within days just to prove a point.

which makes me think that if you want to prove a point, perhaps the BRF is not where you should be operating and if that is the case, then why sign up?

[Elenath]

Originally Posted by carlota

i don't buy into that. the moment they married at taxpayer's expense, the moment they agreed to take on duties on behalf of the queen and the moment their home was renovated on taxpayer's money (now thankfully this will be paid back following their decision to leave), there could be no distinct line between their public and private lives. i am of course not advocating that because of that the press should invade their home, as they've done, or pursue meghan's parents. but certain things, such as releasing your first child's godparents or making his christening public are expected and actually raise more noise if you don't do them than if you do. proof is in the pudding - i bet 99% of the public don't know who george, charlotte and louis' godparents were without looking it up. they probably didn't even see the footage of the christening. yet H&M made such a fuss over a tiny detail that people forget within days just to prove a point.

which makes me think that if you want to prove a point, perhaps the BRF is not where you should be operating and if that is the case, then why sign up?

I'm not buying this. BRF or not, the mere fact that some things are paid from public money (taxes and this is debatable) does not give everyone the right to know everything. Members of the BRF (as every other royal family) have a right to a private life. Marrying into it or being born into it is not signing up for slavery. Especially when this seeps into the private lives of others who are not members of the BRF, like godparents or friends.

More so because it seems the press in the UK (and to a degree elsewhere) finds it hard to determine a line between private and public. Apparently it needs to be decided for them.

[miss whirley]

Originally Posted by carlota

it seems that godparents were then quite likely:
Mark Dyer, Thomas Van Straubenzee and Tiggy (from harry's side) and
Lindsey and Genevieve (from meghan's side) - both were seen in london around the time of the christening I believe?



i don't buy into that. the moment they married at taxpayer's expense, the moment they agreed to take on duties on behalf of the queen and the moment their home was renovated on taxpayer's money (now thankfully this will be paid back following their decision to leave), there could be no distinct line between their public and private lives. i am of course not advocating that because of that the press should invade their home, as they've done, or pursue meghan's parents. but certain things, such as releasing your first child's godparents or making his christening public are expected and actually raise more noise if you don't do them than if you do. proof is in the pudding - i bet 99% of the public don't know who george, charlotte and louis' godparents were without looking it up. they probably didn't even see the footage of the christening. yet H&M made such a fuss over a tiny detail that people forget within days just to prove a point.

which makes me think that if you want to prove a point, perhaps the BRF is not where you should be operating and if that is the case, then why sign up?

It's Charlie, not Tom. Tom is Charlotte's godfather.

But I agree with the rest of what you said, especially since by Church of England law godparents are public information. So this big hoopla to break the rules, which makes the Queen look bad since she's head of the Church. And it did the Sussexes no favor by establishing the narrative of one rule for them vs. a rule for everyone else in the UK. I think their PR people did them a great disservice by not explaining the concept of "cutting off one's nose to spite one' face".

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by carlota

it seems that godparents were then quite likely:
Mark Dyer, Thomas Van Straubenzee and Tiggy (from harry's side) and
Lindsey and Genevieve (from meghan's side) - both were seen in london around the time of the christening I believe?



i don't buy into that. the moment they married at taxpayer's expense, the moment they agreed to take on duties on behalf of the queen and the moment their home was renovated on taxpayer's money (now thankfully this will be paid back following their decision to leave), there could be no distinct line between their public and private lives. i am of course not advocating that because of that the press should invade their home, as they've done, or pursue meghan's parents. but certain things, such as releasing your first child's godparents or making his christening public are expected and actually raise more noise if you don't do them than if you do. proof is in the pudding - i bet 99% of the public don't know who george, charlotte and louis' godparents were without looking it up. they probably didn't even see the footage of the christening. yet H&M made such a fuss over a tiny detail that people forget within days just to prove a point.

which makes me think that if you want to prove a point, perhaps the BRF is not where you should be operating and if that is the case, then why sign up?

They did not marry at taxpayer expense other than Security which would of been provided due to the members of the BRF being at the wedding anyway.

The home was already being on the list to be repaired by the Queen as it is a duty for her to keep those buildings in proper order. The furnishings/interior was not paid for by the taxpayer.

Some of these things the public expect are fairly recent 'traditions' and hardly something done for generations.

The general public likely care less. It was made a big todo by the media and a very small percentage of social media/royal watchers.



LaRae

[iradavidovna]

I've never seen so many mixed signals about a royal baby and I've been studying the British monarchy a very long time. The whirlwind it's been since he was born! Where was he born? oh, lord, the Wikipedia talk pages were hilarious when people were wrapping their heads around THAT alone! Windsor? The castle or in town? Frogmore Cottage? Oh, no, finally we get a confirmation that she was rushed to the Portland Hospital in the cloak of night and smuggled in and out through a delivery entrance to avoid photographs! And then the christening! Godparents? Anyone's guess. Archie may be seventh in line to the throne and here we are with the Queen and his other relatives in Windsor Castle's State Apartments, but not royal, and this is a private family matter, so no godparents... Just us, just granddad, great-grandparents, mama's mama, daddy's brother and sister-in-law (all royal, except the obvious) oh right, and Diana's sisters! Not godparents, we just wanted them here because Diana couldn't be here, blah blah blah.

I love it, really. It's fun for me to watch the royal watchers scrambling for the "right" information, debating over the "facts" because there is conflicting information and none of it makes sense. But I just have to wonder why everything is so complicated with that Sussex family? With others, it's so simple: it's all rolled out, neatly packaged and professionally composed Palace statements, the way it's always been done.

I know I should just keep myself silent here and appreciate the entertainment, but I have wondered.... I'm sure I'm the only one, but am I?

[Durham]

Originally Posted by Pranter

They did not marry at taxpayer expense other than Security which would of been provided due to the members of the BRF being at the wedding anyway.


LaRae

Is that really true? I thought the security bill was so large because of the procession through Windsor. Am I mistaken?

Sorry, gone off topic. Just curious.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I'm in agreement with Muriel. To be honest, I didn't feel the public had the right to know who Archie's godparents were in the first place. There were little things over time that didn't follow what the general public expected of this couple and I sincerely believe that some of the things they did were actually trying to keep a distinct line between their public and private lives.

I’m no fan of them now, but I agreed then and still think that they got unfair flak for not revealing the godparents. On the other hand, I think they were in the wrong about the christening.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Betsypaige

I’m no fan of them now, but I agreed then and still think that they got unfair flak for not revealing the godparents. On the other hand, I think they were in the wrong about the christening.

What was the point? Godparents have to be recorded like place of birth. All they did was annoy the press, who gave them a harder time.

[iradavidovna]

I guess it just comes down to picking your battles in life. At the end of the day, it was a pointless thing to grand stand about. No one threatened their privacy, but there was an expectation of things being done a certain way because that's the template for the birth of a child of an HRH, great-grandson of the Queen, grandson of the future King, etc. You have a birthplace, then a photo of new parents holding baby, and to say nothing of the announcement at the palace gate with the "delivered safe and sound" or yada yada. Then you have a christening, christening photo, godparents in the photo. It just seemed like an awful hell to do about nothing. They just wanted to "make a point," which didn't need to be made.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by iradavidovna

I've never seen so many mixed signals about a royal baby and I've been studying the British monarchy a very long time. The whirlwind it's been since he was born! Where was he born? oh, lord, the Wikipedia talk pages were hilarious when people were wrapping their heads around THAT alone! Windsor? The castle or in town? Frogmore Cottage? Oh, no, finally we get a confirmation that she was rushed to the Portland Hospital in the cloak of night and smuggled in and out through a delivery entrance to avoid photographs! And then the christening! Godparents? Anyone's guess. Archie may be seventh in line to the throne and here we are with the Queen and his other relatives in Windsor Castle's State Apartments, but not royal, and this is a private family matter, so no godparents... Just us, just granddad, great-grandparents, mama's mama, daddy's brother and sister-in-law (all royal, except the obvious) oh right, and Diana's sisters! Not godparents, we just wanted them here because Diana couldn't be here, blah blah blah.

I love it, really. It's fun for me to watch the royal watchers scrambling for the "right" information, debating over the "facts" because there is conflicting information and none of it makes sense. But I just have to wonder why everything is so complicated with that Sussex family? With others, it's so simple: it's all rolled out, neatly packaged and professionally composed Palace statements, the way it's always been done.

I know I should just keep myself silent here and appreciate the entertainment, but I have wondered.... I'm sure I'm the only one, but am I?

And that is before we get to the misleading statement put out that the Duchess was in labour, several hours after she had given birth!!

[sophie25]

Originally Posted by Durham

Is that really true? I thought the security bill was so large because of the procession through Windsor. Am I mistaken?

Sorry, gone off topic. Just curious.

No you are totally spot on. That carraige ride and the security required due to members of the public being invited into the grounds of the castle cost the taxpayer the best part of 30 million pounds.

[Pranter]

Originally Posted by sophie25

No you are totally spot on. That carraige ride and the security required due to members of the public being invited into the grounds of the castle cost the taxpayer the best part of 30 million pounds.

That's not right. The MET released the cost and it was way way below that.



Police commissioner Anthony Stansfeld has since stated that the end bill is "between £2m and £4m".


LaRae

[Jacknch]

I'm unsure why we are discussing security costs of the royal wedding when this thread is quite clearly about the birth of Archie Harrison. Whatever the reason, please move on back to the topic of the thread.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by iradavidovna

I guess it just comes down to picking your battles in life. At the end of the day, it was a pointless thing to grand stand about. No one threatened their privacy, but there was an expectation of things being done a certain way because that's the template for the birth of a child of an HRH, great-grandson of the Queen, grandson of the future King, etc. You have a birthplace, then a photo of new parents holding baby, and to say nothing of the announcement at the palace gate with the "delivered safe and sound" or yada yada. Then you have a christening, christening photo, godparents in the photo. It just seemed like an awful hell to do about nothing. They just wanted to "make a point," which didn't need to be made.

Didn't we get a christening photos? Didn't they introduce him and speak to the press? I remember the easel going up at BP? Literally everything expected happened, it just was done in a different way. Nothing wrong with that as other royal births also were different.

[JessRulz]

As we seem to have decided to go back to a circular discussion from eight-nine months ago, this thread will be closed.