Christening of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor: July 6th, 2019

[Heavs]

But what would be a non private Christening? The royal family never have cameras or photographers for the papers in the church or chapels. That happens in some (mainly Scandinavian) families but never here. What we are missing is the arrivals and departures and probably the names of the parents which aren't exactly necessary and we haven't always had arrivals etc for all working royals either. We get the photos we normally get and probably along with some "arty farty" personal shots later.

If titled royals usually filmed the service for the public I could understand the upset, but they don't. I would personally say release the names of the godparents but they've asked to be kept private so that's that. It's not like we see them interacting with him (unless another RF member) anyway.

The welcoming of a child into the community of the Christian Church, is a public act, and declaration of Faith.
Similarly the identity of those charged with caring for that child's spiritual well-being, is [generally] 'on public record', in the relevant baptismal registers.
That the Parents and the God-parents should seek to keep this 'private' betrays a total misunderstanding of the rite of Baptism, and of the Church into which this child is being received.

Sure, and a lot of parish churches try to include it in the Sunday service for this reason, but some are held after the service or on a different day with just friends and family, just as Archie is having. It's not secret, it's just for friends and family. No one demanded to see pictures of Meghan's adult baptism last year or ask if she had a sponsor for it.

I hope his godparents interact with Archie as he grows up and are there for him spiritually (mine definitely weren't) but I don't think it damages the sacrament if the rest of the world doesn't find out.

[MissCongeniality]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

That’s because their children have titles and will eventually be working royals in adulthood. That is not the case with Archie. In that case, it’s very similar to the Wessexes’ children who are raised as private citizens as well. But back on topic, you were specifically talking about a private christening is ridiculous. I’m simply pointing out that it’s all private in the case of BRF.

Oh yes, I'm waiting for the day when Charles becomes King to see if Archie will have titles.

However no, I was pointing out that it is a contradiction to say that I want my son to be a private citizen and then do press conferences with the baby and release official photos of the christening. Very similar to what William and Kate did but Harry and Meghan want to appear as the normal ones.

Maybe I didn't express myself well, sorry

[Ista]

Originally Posted by wyevale

The welcoming of a child into the community of the Christian Church, is a public act, and declaration of Faith.
Similarly the identity of those charged with caring for that child's spiritual well-being, is [generally] 'on public record', in the relevant baptismal registers.
That the Parents and the God-parents should seek to keep this 'private' betrays a total misunderstanding of the rite of Baptism, and of the Church into which this child is being received.

This is all very true. I don't have much interest in who the godparents are, since my interest in the personal friends of any member of the royal family is limited, but the secrecy is very odd, unnecessary, and highlights how very privileged and un-private this child actually is, which I suspect is the opposite of what is intended.

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by wyevale

The welcoming of a child into the community of the Christian Church, is a public act, and declaration of Faith.
Similarly the identity of those charged with caring for that child's spiritual well-being, is [generally] 'on public record', in the relevant baptismal registers.
That the Parents and the God-parents should seek to keep this 'private' betrays a total misunderstanding of the rite of Baptism, and of the Church into which this child is being received.

Please stop it, Meghan herself was baptized at St James Chapel by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Her welcoming into the community of the Christian Church, and her declaration of Faith was it public? Pray tell who was there, who were the witnesses.

[MaiaMia_53]

Originally Posted by MissCongeniality

... the way they handle each and every situation around them. This private christening thing is a total non-sense when they are going to release official photos later on. If you want a private christening and raise your child as a private citizen, you keep the photos to yourself.
They are doing the same thing as William and Kate except for the arrival and departure from the church, but they simply want to appear as the normal loving couple in the eyes of the public.
Well, if they wanted to be normal and private, why didn't they renounce to the titles?

Your post is rather confusing. What specifically are you referring to about 'the way they handle every situation around them." What on earth do you mean?

To me it seems nonsensical to care whether or not arrivals to the chapel are photographed. The christening is taking place inside Windsor Castle's private chapel. For all we know, guests including godparents will be staying over for the weekend, so there are unlikely to be any 'arrivals' for cameras to capture in the first place. I see no reason for private guests at a private christening to have their privacy invaded because they are friends and/or relations of the Sussexes.

It would be highly unusual for cameras to be set up inside Windsor Castle for the purpose of showing the royals and their guests entering the private family chapel. It's none of our business. The christening is likely being held at the private chapel rather than at St. George's chapel for the express purpose of preserving Archie's and the godparents' privacy.

There is no contradiction with the Sussexes deciding to release photos later. They will have control over what is released and that's as it should be. Releasing photos is always a recognition of public interest by people of goodwill (with emphasis on the keyword, 'goodwill'). Those who clearly do not view the Sussexes with goodwill should realize that what any of us think has no bearing on how the Sussexes decide to live their lives and raise their son.

In any case, all royal christenings are private, with photos released later, as taken by a royal photographer. The aspect of filming arrivals makes no sense with the christening taking place inside Windsor Castle's private chapel. That's obviously the reason why the christening is being held there with 'private' being the keyword.

Harry and Meghan accept their royal titles as a way to make a difference in the lives of other people. The realization that his princely title would enable him to help others is the express reason why Harry decided not to relinquish his royal title and forego royal duties. That and his love for his grandmother are why Harry decided to remain a prince. For those who don't realize, Harry seriously considered leaving the burdens of royal life and royal scrutiny behind when he was in his twenties.

It should be very clear by now that Harry does not want Archie to bear the burdens he faced growing up. That or else Harry and Meghan have decided to allow Archie a role in choosing whether he wants to hold a royal title at a point when he's old enough to understand more about the family he was born into (probably around the time when Prince Charles becomes King).

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by MissCongeniality

Oh yes, I'm waiting for the day when Charles becomes King to see if Archie will have titles.

However no, I was pointing out that it is a contradiction to say that I want my son to be a private citizen and then do press conferences with the baby and release official photos of the christening. Very similar to what William and Kate did but Harry and Meghan want to appear as the normal ones.

Maybe I didn't express myself well, sorry

But that was my point, the Wessexes also release photos of their children’s ,who are private citizens, christening. As did Princess Anne. So I guess you want these people to renounce their titles? It’s well within the precedent. And certainly, they understand the interest people have in them and try to keep the balance between their child’s privacy and the public interest in their lives.

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Its not like Harry and Meghan deliberately chose to have the christening within the grounds of Windsor Chapel to keep it "private". Like so many other families, they choose their their "home" church. It just so happens that both St. George's Chapel and the Queen's private chapel lie within grounds that are not open to the public for the occasion should the Queen deem it so. Its close to home for the Sussex family.

George and Charlotte were baptized at St. Mary Magdalene Church which at the time was the "home" parish for Amner Hall with Louis being christened at the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace which is a royal peculiar and close to Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace. Those places afforded the opportunity to photograph arrivals and departures.

This isn't something Harry and Meghan are doing deliberately to thumb their noses at the public and the press but following the precedence of having their child christened close to home. This is what makes sense to me much more than any conspiracies that can be pulled out of a hat. In fact, they're not even required to release any photographs taken but they plan to. I'm just going to be happy with that.

Very well said; you're the voice of reason.

[Rudolph]

Under the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978, all Church of England baptisms are a matter of public record.

Details of both public and private baptisms are kept in a large register for each Anglican parish.

Anyone willing to pay the required fee can look up the details of any baptism in any given Church of England parish.

For 2019 the set fee is £30.

The details record for each baptism are as follows:

Date of birth

Date of baptism

Christian name and surname

Mother and father's christian name and surname

Address

Mother and father's occupations

Godparents

Officiating minister

Source: Legislation.gov.uk



This from the DM. So you know the press is going to get the information and publish it.

[ACO]

Except a few reporters have pointed out that the Daily Mail is not really accurate in that reporting. I mean it’s not really as simple as paying the fee and getting the info. Not for a common person like us and especially not for a royal. It’s not the same kind of public document as the birth certificate which is why Palmer did his research.

[MissCongeniality]

Originally Posted by MaiaMia_53

Your post is rather confusing. What specifically are you referring to about 'the way they handle every situation around them." What on earth do you mean?

To me it seems nonsensical to care whether or not arrivals to the chapel are photographed. The christening is taking place inside Windsor Castle's private chapel. For all we know, guests including godparents will be staying over for the weekend, so there are unlikely to be any 'arrivals' for cameras to capture in the first place. I see no reason for private guests at a private christening to have their privacy invaded because they are friends and/or relations of the Sussexes.

It would be highly unusual for cameras to be set up inside Windsor Castle for the purpose of showing the royals and their guests entering the private family chapel. It's none of our business. The christening is likely being held at the private chapel rather than at St. George's chapel for the express purpose of preserving Archie's and the godparents' privacy.

There is no contradiction with the Sussexes deciding to release photos later. They will have control over what is released and that's as it should be. Releasing photos is always a recognition of public interest by people of goodwill (with emphasis on the keyword, 'goodwill'). Those who clearly do not view the Sussexes with goodwill should realize that what any of us think has no bearing on how the Sussexes decide to live their lives and raise their son.

In any case, all royal christenings are private, with photos released later, as taken by a royal photographer. The aspect of filming arrivals makes no sense with the christening taking place inside Windsor Castle's private chapel. That's obviously the reason why the christening is being held there with 'private' being the keyword.

Harry and Meghan accept their royal titles as a way to make a difference in the lives of other people. The realization that his princely title would enable him to help others is the express reason why Harry decided not to relinquish his royal title and forego royal duties. That and his love for his grandmother are why Harry decided to remain a prince. For those who don't realize, Harry seriously considered leaving the burdens of royal life and royal scrutiny behind when he was in his twenties.

It should be very clear by now that Harry does not want Archie to bear the burdens he faced growing up. That or else Harry and Meghan have decided to allow Archie a role in choosing whether he wants to hold a royal title at a point when he's old enough to understand more about the family he was born into (probably around the time when Prince Charles becomes King).

Can I say that I don't like the fact that they want their baby to be a private citizen and then do press conferences, post photos on social media and release official photos? or do I have to ask permission?

That is my opinion without being offensive and I have the right to express it. This is not Harry and Meghan's fan club, this is a forum on royal families and everyone has the right to write his opinion whether it's in favour of the Sussexes or not

[MissCongeniality]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

But that was my point, the Wessexes also release photos of their children’s ,who are private citizens, christening. As did Princess Anne. So I guess you want these people to renounce their titles? It’s well within the precedent. And certainly, they understand the interest people have in them and try to keep the balance between their child’s privacy and the public interest in their lives.

I don't like it in general but this thread is about Archie's christening. For me is either you decide to be 'in' or 'out'. I don't like middle ways but that is my opinion.

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by Ista

This is all very true. I don't have much interest in who the godparents are, since my interest in the personal friends of any member of the royal family is limited, but the secrecy is very odd, unnecessary, and highlights how very privileged and un-private this child actually is, which I suspect is the opposite of what is intended.

Back when this child was born and everybody was arguing about his lack of title et al. I was saying it was by design in order to deprive the UK media for a rational for their intrusiveness. Had he been made HRH/Prince of the UK, the media would have said it is fair game since he is a Prince of the UK. Had he been Earl Dumbarton, Lord Dumbarton, or even Lord Archie Harrison Mountbatten Windsor, they would have said it is fair game since he is the son of the Royal Duke and titled. He is just Archie for lack of better word a private citizen for the time being and his parents are in control and hopefully peace he will grow up in peace protected. The media is trying the taxpayer angle but it won't work. They did what they did for the exact reason of what press is trying to do right now

Rest assured nevertheless that in due time they will claim his rightful titles and style be it HRH/Prince of the UK, or courtesy Earldom of his father, and later in life when the time comes the Dukedom of Sussex. I mean look at what is going on around him right now

[Curryong]

The argument over several posts here has been as to whether Royal Peculiars/Chapels within the RF's palaces etc are subject to that ruling. Palmer and the DM says they are. The Royal Household may well say no they aren't and withhold the information.

[Rena M.]

I'm looking forward to seeing the pictures of Archie's christening. I'm sure it will be happy occasion.

Remember princess Charlotte?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itFk8n3FexM

[hel]

Originally Posted by Osipi

Its not like Harry and Meghan deliberately chose to have the christening within the grounds of Windsor Chapel to keep it "private". Like so many other families, they choose their their "home" church. It just so happens that both St. George's Chapel and the Queen's private chapel lie within grounds that are not open to the public for the occasion should the Queen deem it so. Its close to home for the Sussex family.

George and Charlotte were baptized at St. Mary Magdalene Church which at the time was the "home" parish for Amner Hall with Louis being christened at the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace which is a royal peculiar and close to Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace. Those places afforded the opportunity to photograph arrivals and departures.

This isn't something Harry and Meghan are doing deliberately to thumb their noses at the public and the press but following the precedence of having their child christened close to home. This is what makes sense to me much more than any conspiracies that can be pulled out of a hat. In fact, they're not even required to release any photographs taken but they plan to. I'm just going to be happy with that.

I respectfully disagree. I think the private chapel was very deliberately chosen to ensure that there are no photographs of arrivals and departures.

Also, George was also christened at St. James's Palace. The chapel at St. James's is not accessible to the public, and it's not actually possible to get a look inside from a street. The fact that the arrivals for both George and Louis' christenings were recorded by the press was a result of the Cambridges allowing the press into the palace, not as a natural result of the location. The same is true of the church at Sandringham; the area where the press and public were is not normally open unless the BRF decides to open it.

Originally Posted by jacqui24

Have we seen the relevant baptismal record for members of the BRF? I mean, I know they release the names of godparents, but have we seen the actual record? Even at a regular parish, not a royal peculiar, can anyone just walk up to the church and see the record?

Yes, and that's rather the point of the Express article: for every baptized member of the CoE, you can walk up to the church, see the record and actually pay for a copy of it and they have to take your money and give you a copy of the record.

Church lawyers are now on the record as saying that the record held by the Queen regarding the baptisms of members of the royal family are not exempt from this law. (And it is appropriately referred to as a law, since the CoE is the established church and the UK Parliament says Church of England measures are laws with the same force and effect as Acts of Parliament.)

So the BRF is ignoring legal requirements. That's a big deal and I don't think the press is going to let it go, nor should they. The head of state should not have the power to flout the law in a modern parliamentary democracy.

Frankly, this pushes the Sussex's decision to announce the christening but keep the godparents secret from pretentious to foolish. The previous SOPs (either announce the christening and godparents or have an unanounced christening and just not say anything about the event) kept the whole question of baptismal records under the radar. By mixing and matching, the Sussexes have managed to point a big sign at the BRF's ability to flout the rules. It's not a good look, and it will not play well.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Curryong

The argument over several posts here has been as to whether Royal Peculiars/Chapels within the RF's palaces etc are subject to that ruling. Palmer and the DM says they are. The Royal Household may well say no they aren't and withhold the information.

Palmer said that baptism for members of the Queen’s family are recorded in a separate registry kept by the Royal Household. And it has never complied with requests to make it public.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by Ista

This is all very true. I don't have much interest in who the godparents are, since my interest in the personal friends of any member of the royal family is limited, but the secrecy is very odd, unnecessary, and highlights how very privileged and un-private this child actually is, which I suspect is the opposite of what is intended.

It just seems to me that in the efforts to keep things private, we end up with more drama than is necessary.

[suztav]

I like both Harry and Meghan. Unfortunately, Meghan is using well-known Hollywood press techniques to stage manage her royal life. I don't think it's going to work. Basically -- it's a "don't look at me, but I really want you to look at me" technique.

They are members of the royal family. Harry is the son of a future king. There will be both public and press interest. Period. End of question.

If you can't accept that reality, then both Harry and Meghan need to get regular jobs and move on.

[ACO]

I would hope this is not a pressing issue to the point of a legal battle. Talk about extreme and a bad look. All the issues going on in that country and you want to go to court because you need to know who is the godparent to a 8 week old? Also how nasty could that get with the royals and the private citizens who don't want it out. Do they also hire lawyers say the media prints anything about them? I mean how far does this actually go?

The press was already writing stories about Meghan's friends yesterday. It was clear they went digging and they even were writing about the cost of their homes. Their wallets have nothing to do with the taxpayers. Why do we need to know this information? Unnecessary. And just validates why they rather not be ID'ed though it seems it might come out anyways.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by hel

Church lawyers are now on the record as saying that the record held by the Queen regarding the baptisms of members of the royal family are not exempt from this law. (And it is appropriately referred to as a law, since the CoE is the established church and the UK Parliament says Church of England measures are laws with the same force and effect as Acts of Parliament.)

So the BRF is ignoring legal requirements. That's a big deal and I don't think the press is going to let it go, nor should they. The head of state should not have the power to flout the law in a modern parliamentary democracy.

Frankly, this pushes the Sussex's decision to announce the christening but keep the godparents secret from pretentious to foolish. The previous SOPs (either announce the christening and godparents or have an unanounced christening and just not say anything about the event) kept the whole question of baptismal records under the radar. By mixing and matching, the Sussexes have managed to point a big sign at the BRF's ability to flout the rules. It's not a good look, and it will not play well.

I’m afraid it’s not as simple as the CoE lawyer made it to be. And certainly, he’s not the judge. It’s the responsibility of the church to maintain baptism records. So why haven’t they? If the Royal Household wants their own record, that’s there prerogative. I certainly don’t see where it says in the law that royal household’s record replaces church records. Nor how it stops the Church from keeping a copy of their own record on royal baptisms. It’s the church’s records that are incomplete and not meeting the requirements if we really want to get down to it.