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

[Osipi]

That's what I mean - I don't understand the desire to keep things private that was expressed and yet sharing private photos in their social media. In my opinion it would be better if they chose one way and stick to it.

I don't think its an issue that some of their private lives and personal pictures are released by them as it is their decision to do so. I think that by stating that they want privacy relates to the invasion of privacy such as what has happened with the house is the Cotswolds. Harry and Meghan want to be in control of just what is presented to the public domain in regards to their private and personal lives and will use their Instagram account to do so. However, invasions of their privacy by the media or the paparazzi will not be tolerated.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

There is a difference between private and personal. Meghan has often talked about this during her Tig days. The photo the shared of Archie's feet was personal, but did it share anything private about their life? Not really.

Many royals, at one point or another, have complained about privacy. Yet, they've all, at different times, shared personal photographs.

Agree. There's also a way one can share personal photos publicly without being intrusive or releasing private details that they'd rather be protected; e.g. the photo the Sussexes released of Archie's feet for Mother's Day in the US. Private to me is information about every little detail about the royals lifestyles - paparazzi photos of royals shopping would also full under this category for me. Personal, however, is shared by the royals themselves IMO.

 

[Bassoonist]

As I think about it, I realize that as much as I like and respect everyone here, I don't wish to post the name of my doctor, my therapist and heavens no not my gynecologist. It's too personal and it would open the door to some hacker being able to get my medical records. Even though these are very famous people, I don't think that they owe us that information. I don't recall knowing the name of William or Harry's doctor. Why does being female make a difference here?

 

[duchessrachel]

As I think about it, I realize that as much as I like and respect everyone here, I don't wish to post the name of my doctor, my therapist and heavens no not my gynecologist. It's too personal and it would open the door to some hacker being able to get my medical records. Even though these are very famous people, I don't think that they owe us that information. I don't recall knowing the name of William or Harry's doctor. Why does being female make a difference here?

I agree with you on this. The only name I cared about learning in all of this was "Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor."

 

[King of the Jungle]

Bassoonist, you might find it useful to read back through page 59. It's not about being female.
Some people, who are not trolls nor conspiracy theorists nor a danger to the BRF and who, most likely, are huge supporters of the Monarchy are questioning the change in not stating the doctor's name and wondering why this would be.
Doctors are not permitted to share patient information, no one is suggesting hacking into private medical details. However, if that were a serious threat then it could be one reason as to why the doctor's name is withheld.
It is quite alarming to read here the reports of harrassment some connections to Harry and Meghan have received.
When everyone's birth announcements were more usually placed in the local newspapers it was very common practise to print, along with names, a thank you to the Dr (by name) and the hospital. Reporting the name of the royal birth doctor is perhaps a carry over of that polite practise. There was never any suggestion that by publishing a doctor's name one's medical records could be accessed.

 

[MARG]

We have to factor in the speed with which technology is overtaking us. What was possible to hack when George was born may very well be possible now. But while it's just in point of interest for some to want to know who the attending doctor was, to me it is of no interest and more, none of my business, but that is just me.

But, consider"

A woman erroneously identified as Meghan's Doula was harassed by the paparazzi when they knew that even if she had been, she would have been prevented by law from giving them any information. But, her life was rudely interrupted and her privacy invaded nonetheless.

Paparazzi went to all the problem of tracking down the doctor that delivered Meghan herself! Just think about it. Was that information in the public domain? I very much doubt it. Was the law broken? To track the birth records of a woman born over thirty-seven years ago? I would imagine very, very, much so. And once having found the information, said doctor was confronted and his privacy was invaded as indeed was Meghan's.

There was no reason for either situation and I am really happy to see that Harry and Meghan are taking a leaf out of William and Catherine's book and releasing cute photos as the need arises. Let's hope they continue to do so.

 

[Frelinghighness]

All of this excessive clatter certainly relieves my desire to learn about this family

 

[O-H Anglophile]

We have to factor in the speed with which technology is overtaking us. What was possible to hack when George was born may very well be possible now. But while it's just in point of interest for some to want to know who the attending doctor was, to me it is of no interest and more, none of my business, but that is just me.

But, consider"

A woman erroneously identified as Meghan's Doula was harassed by the paparazzi when they knew that even if she had been, she would have been prevented by law from giving them any information. But, her life was rudely interrupted and her privacy invaded nonetheless.

Paparazzi went to all the problem of tracking down the doctor that delivered Meghan herself! Just think about it. Was that information in the public domain? I very much doubt it. Was the law broken? To track the birth records of a woman born over thirty-seven years ago? I would imagine very, very, much so. And once having found the information, said doctor was confronted and his privacy was invaded as indeed was Meghan's.

There was no reason for either situation and I am really happy to see that Harry and Meghan are taking a leaf out of William and Catherine's book and releasing cute photos as the need arises. Let's hope they continue to do so.

Not necessarily-in a number of places in the US the attending physician's name is a field on the birth certificate--they may just have viewed Meghan's birth certificate and found the doctor. However, invading his privacy was over the line.

 

[Frelinghighness]

In none of our family’s birth certificates is the physician listed. And this is in several different states

 

[O-H Anglophile]

In none of our family’s birth certificates is the physician listed. And this is in several different states

It woudn’t necessarily be on the certified copy-just the original record. And often when you get a certified copy it is only the short form version anyway.

 

[jacqui24]

Not necessarily-in a number of places in the US the attending physician's name is a field on the birth certificate--they may just have viewed Meghan's birth certificate and found the doctor. However, invading his privacy was over the line.

I don’t believe that’s the case in U.K.. I don’t think anyone expected that information from Archie’s birth certificate. Just the location. At least not from people familiar with U.K. birth certificates.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Hey guess what I hate the baby's name!!! Think its a ridiculous name; how about we discuss that and stop harassing on these doctors.....Hey I tried

 

[Yeine]

I find this whole ordeal with the privacy thing quite strange, because to me they're sending conflicting messages.

First, they ask for privacy - which is understandable and admirable and I don't see anything wrong with that - and that would be completely fine. But then they not only publish the photo with HM and DoE, but also another photo for the Mother's Day in the US (and also the wedding anniversary video, that is offtopic, but it fits the trend) while constantly talking about keeping things private.

And yes, I know, the whole idea about strictly controlling the informations and photos and I'm more than fine with it, but to me it doesn't really matter who puts the stuff out there - is it the press or their media office - it's not keeping things private. Because to me, private means not publishing stuff like this (and not only not letting the press publish them first) and not only controlling what is out there for people to see.

So currently I don't really understand what they're trying to do here, because they're communicating two conflicting things.

When did they ask for privacy, if you don't mind my asking? The official statement relating to the details of Archie's birth is the only one that mentions privacy as far as I know.

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are very grateful for the goodwill they have received from people throughout the United Kingdom and around the world as they prepare to welcome their baby. Their Royal Highnesses have taken a personal decision to keep the plans around the arrival of their baby private. The Duke and Duchess look forward to sharing the exciting news with everyone once they have had an opportunity to celebrate privately as a new family.

In what way is posting personal family pictures inconsistent with their official statement?

 

[BaiSoSo]

Hey guess what I hate the baby's name!!! Think its a ridiculous name; how about we discuss that and stop harassing on these doctors.....Hey I tried

I knew the name would be unique but have some tradition to it... that is what this couple does best. I never would have guessed Archie but within a day or so I got used to it and now it seems natural to me. I do like it better than Archibald so that's a plus ?

 

[loonytick]

If Meghan intends to keep seeing the same physician for her ongoing OB/gyn care, any security concerns they had for the doctor leading up to the birth may continue to be concerns going forward.

 

[Osipi]

I'm thinking that a good way to look at things going into the future is to realize that there will be plenty of their public lives and engagements and incentives to keep us happy and informed on what this couple is doing and that is the given. Anything else relating to their children and personal lives that they wish to share with us will be a gift.

In a perfect world, the press and the media would focus on their public lives and the Instagram account may afford us some information and pictures to really make us smile as it comes directly from them.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

I don’t believe that’s the case in U.K.. I don’t think anyone expected that information from Archie’s birth certificate. Just the location. At least not from people familiar with U.K. birth certificates.

The discussion had nothing to do with Archie's birth certificate--it was about Meghan's and the doctor involved in her birth in California.

 

[jacqui24]

The discussion had nothing to do with Archie's birth certificate--it was about Meghan's and the doctor involved in her birth in California.

Ah, I hadn't realized we've moved on from Archie's birth certificate to Meghan's. Although I'm not convinced that's how they found the doctor who delivered Meghan. Even if the doctor's name is on the birth certificate, I don't know if anyone can request birth certificate in US like they do in UK.

 

[JessRulz]

Posts about the Sussexes not related to Archie's birth have been moved to the http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ussex-family-part-one-may-2019-a-46407-2.html thread. Please use this thread for any information on Archie unrelated to his birth.

 

[loonytick]

Ah, I hadn't realized we've moved on from Archie's birth certificate to Meghan's. Although I'm not convinced that's how they found the doctor who delivered Meghan. Even if the doctor's name is on the birth certificate, I don't know if anyone can request birth certificate in US like they do in UK.

Access to records like this varies from state to state. Some states keep them private (available only to the individual, the courts, etc.) for 50+ years, others make them public right away, albeit with a request process that may be lengthy, carry a fee, etc.

It looks like anyone can get an "informational copy" of birth records in California. The informational copy seems to have all the same information as a certified copy, only with a stamp across the top to say it can't be used for identification purposes.

https://www.lavote.net/home/records/birth-records/birth-records-request/online-request

 

[jacqui24]

Access to records like this varies from state to state. Some states keep them private (available only to the individual, the courts, etc.) for 50+ years, others make them public right away, albeit with a request process that may be lengthy, carry a fee, etc.

It looks like anyone can get an "informational copy" of birth records in California. The informational copy seems to have all the same information as a certified copy, only with a stamp across the top to say it can't be used for identification purposes.

https://www.lavote.net/home/records/birth-records/birth-records-request/online-request

Thank you for the information. I did know birth certificates aren't as widely and readily available in US. Nevertheless, they must really be out of things to talk about if they are tracking down a doctor about a birth 37 years ago. I mean, really, who would even remember?

 

[loonytick]

Thank you for the information. I did know birth certificates aren't as widely and readily available in US. Nevertheless, they must really be out of things to talk about if they are tracking down a doctor about a birth 37 years ago. I mean, really, who would even remember?

It's honestly more than a little troubling.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

That and perhaps an overwhelming need/sense to protect Archie as much as they can, by setting the tone up front with regards to his privacy. They have seen what Meghan goes through and it has already spread to the baby a little bit.

Exactly. I think there are many people of goodwill who simply wish the Sussexes well and cheer for them and the good work they do. However, there are others who seem overly fascinated, and then there are the trolls and haters. I understand fascination, but some of the commentary is reaching, fanciful and inarticulate, mixed with some good points too. However, I just think a lot of people are confused in their thinking and grasping to make the Sussex marriage stand for more things than it possibly can. Baby Archie too.

Check out this CNN coverage on the photo-call for baby Archie from May 8:

I'm actually a bit surprised by how the interest in the Sussexes, their new baby, and everything they are doing and not doing, seems to be growing. Meghan, Harry, their communications staff and their RPOs seem to be handling things well so far. A lot of people appear to need a good dose of some perspective. Maybe in some respects, H&M's love story is rather pleasant and uplifting so that a lot of people are either latching onto it for enjoyment, or hating on it and on them for negative reasons. I wonder if Meghan's Mom receives some form of protection in California?

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Harry talks about life with his baby son, Archie, while on a visit to a children's hospital:

https://ca.hellomagazine.com/royalt...e-harry-reveals-sweet-archie-harrison-detail/

 

[Kellin]

Am I the one who cringes when reading about "sleep deprivation' from royals? everyone knows they have nannies who tke care about their children.
And they don't need to cook and clean for themselves so their life with a baby can't be compared with a life of regular young parents.

 

[amaryllus]

They may well have sleep deprivation from staying up with baby sure but the difference from the vast majority of parents in the world is they choose that. They choose to deal with baby care. Fact is They don’t technically have to do anything with the baby they don’t want to and acting like oh gosh I am just regular harried parent and have the same issues as Joe Smith ya know is disingenuous at best.

 

[JR76]

Am I the one who cringes when reading about "sleep deprivation' from royals? everyone knows they have nannies who tke care about their children.
And they don't need to cook and clean for themselves so their life with a baby can't be compared with a life of regular young parents.

Royals might have nannies, but that doesn't automatically mean that they never take care of their kids. Crown Princess Victoria and Prince William have both been photographed almost falling asleep on events and both the Cambridges have told about being sleep deprived.

 

[crm2317]

I’m sure they are sleep deprived as they are probably the ones getting up with Archie in the night time. However I agree that they don’t have to worry about cooking, cleaning, ironing, washing dishes, getting groceries etc. Speaking as the new mum to a 3 month old not having those responsibilities would make a huge difference!

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Am I the one who cringes when reading about "sleep deprivation' from royals? everyone knows they have nannies who tke care about their children.
And they don't need to cook and clean for themselves so their life with a baby can't be compared with a life of regular young parents.

Ah, but William (and Harry too both) wished to experience 'normal' life. When George was first born, I'm fairly certain there was no nanny help for a number of months. This means William and Kate likely reveled in their baby-driven sleepless nights (just as Meghan and Harry are doing now). Kate & William employed Maria Borrallo sometime later, not when George was still an infant. Obviously, the Cambridges were also helped out by Mama and Papa Middleton in those early months, and throughout the current growing years for young George, Charlotte and Louis.

As far as we know at the moment, Meghan and Harry do not have any staff helping them at Frogmore, certainly not any nanny help. It was just Doria, Meghan and Harry at Frogmore before Archie arrived. Then Doria spent a couple of weeks helping out with Archie before she returned to L.A. And of course, they have been welcoming visits from close friends and extended family since a few days after Archie's birth.

I would imagine the Sussexes might have cleaning help on occasion. But aside from that, there's just RPOs residing nearby in accommodations on the grounds. Meghan does her own cooking. Maybe she gets extra assistance in setting up for dinner parties, but she surely does all the cooking even then. Probably their professional wardrobe is managed, cleaned and cared for by assistants, but their casual wear they probably clean themselves in the laundry they surely have inside their home.

 

[TLLK]

Am I the one who cringes when reading about "sleep deprivation' from royals? everyone knows they have nannies who tke care about their children.
And they don't need to cook and clean for themselves so their life with a baby can't be compared with a life of regular young parents.

If Meghan is the baby's sole source of nutrition and hydration then she is most definitely sleep deprived at this point just like any other nursing mother. While I can't claim this for all royal mothers, it does seem that many of them are opting to nurse their children and many would likely find it easier to just have their babies sleeping next to them in a small cot/crib. For now Archie will be feeding frequently around the clock and will be doing so for months. He'll also feed more frequently whenever he is getting ready for a growth spurt. He's going to grow and change dramatically over the year so it will be awhile before the Sussexes are going to have uninterrupted sleep. ?

Royals might have nannies, but that doesn't automatically mean that they never take care of their kids. Crown Princess Victoria and Prince William have both been photographed almost falling asleep on events and both the Cambridges have told about being sleep deprived.

Yes because it's not just the mothers who are taking care of their babies and other children. Toddlers and pre-schoolers don't always have regular sleep patterns through the night and often need their parents attention. Fathers often find themselves helping out too.


Finally with a new generation of royals who have married women/men from middle class backgrounds, the idea of having a nanny engaged before or immediately after baby is born might be an adjustment. The royal spouse might have grown up with a full time nanny or nannies, but this would a bit of "culture shock" to their non-royal spouse, so they might delay hiring one for months and choose to care for baby themselves or with assistance from family. Also the nanny or nannies might not be engaged to work a night shift and might be there only when the parents are required to be away overnight.