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

[marlene]

I'm not sure if they are doing this on purpose or by accident, but if you want to have the press craving info about you then you offer very little info and very infrequently. It was a technique that worked for Jacquie kennedy and always kept the press interested. If you want they press to lay off a bit then be a bit more accessible and offer info out more regularly on occasions that most other royals do. They are being really hounded now because they are standing out in their choices for Archie, whereas if they did things more or less as the Cambridges do with their children then everyone tends to know what to expect. I think this move will backfire and the press will turn on them and be evermore intrusive.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don’t see how they don’t understand there is public and press interest. In fact, they have complied with interest to a certain extent as a result. OTOH, their son and their friends are not public figures.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by 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.

But Harry and Meghan are not denying people seeing them. They are the titled working royals. We see them doing their duty. What has riled people up is their feeling of being denied Archie, who is an untitled private citizen far down the royal totem pole. They are doing things similarly to the Wessexes and Anne's children. What the media seems to want is them to do things like the Cambridges despite the fact they are not the heirs and shouldn't have to.

We are going to see images of Archie. It is not like they are hiding him.

[hel]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

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 Queen wants a record for her own records, that’s her prerogative. I certainly don’t see how her personal records is now as public as the church baptism 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 if we really want to get down to it.

I feel like I'm going to trust an expert in church law over what anyone on the internet thinks. But everyone is free to make their own determination on that.

And it's quite clear that it's not a case where the Queen holds some personal list of births that's nothing to do with the official register, like some devoted granny who went out to buy a book when her first baby was born and carefully records each birth and baptism ever since. The Queen -- who is the head of the church -- maintains the official register of her family's birth and it does not comply with the rules.

What people seem to be missing in the "but why would the press care that much about the godparents that they'd go to court" reactions is that the head of state, and the head of the church, is not complying with the church rules. It's not just about Archie any more.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by 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.

You have positioned this so well, there has been more coverage of this family because of what they are refusing to do rather than just getting on with it. I am not saying they shouldn't modernise things a bit and make changes just cut out the drama.

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by marlene

I'm not sure if they are doing this on purpose or by accident, but if you want to have the press craving info about you then you offer very little info and very infrequently. It was a technique that worked for Jacquie kennedy and always kept the press interested. If you want they press to lay off a bit then be a bit more accessible and offer info out more regularly on occasions that most other royals do. They are being really hounded now because they are standing out in their choices for Archie, whereas if they did things more or less as the Cambridges do with their children then everyone tends to know what to expect. I think this move will backfire and the press will turn on them and be evermore intrusive.

That theory didn't work for Diana, the more she gave the more they wanted until there was a tragic ending. I think Harry (and Meghan) are trying to avoid that with their family so they are setting boundaries up front. Archie is a 2-month-old and should not be treated as a zoo exhibit or that others own him. I think it is perfectly fine to keep some things about him, including his baptism (which all royal ceremonies are) and godparents private, why does the public need to know that information anyway?

[Rena M.]

Originally Posted by MissCongeniality

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?

H&M are royals themselves, but Archie is a private citizen and because of this they take a middle road between what is considered private and public.

BTW private citizens have IG accounts where they post their private photographs for people who LIKE them. Nothing strange about this.

[suztav]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

You have positioned this so well, there has been more coverage of this family because of what they are refusing to do rather than just getting on with it. I am not saying they shouldn't modernise things a bit and make changes just cut out the drama.

Exactly! Just cut out the drama piece and they will have peace in their lives.

[BaiSoSo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Harry is the son of a future king and of course, there is public and press interest and Harry resents having to live his entire childhood through the peering eyes of others. He does accept it as does his wife and they have been sublime in their royal/public royals and have brought all kinds of attention and funds to their charities/patronages, so no need for them to quit and get other jobs.

Archie, however, is not the son of a future king and therefore his life, especially at this age doesn't need to be so public. With the privacy of his baptism and godparents, they are doing their best to give him that.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

You have positioned this so well, there has been more coverage of this family because of what they are refusing to do rather than just getting on with it. I am not saying they shouldn't modernise things a bit and make changes just cut out the drama.

I said it upthread and I will repeat it -- people can't call Harry and Meghan minor royals who are not that important in terms of the monarchy (and this has been said quite a bit) and then turn around and have a fuss about their even less important child who is not titled and will never be a working royal.

People say the Sussexes can't have it both ways. Well, ditto to everyone else.

Anyways. Tomorrow will be a big day for the Sussex family and I hope it is a great one for all involved. I look forward to seeing the pictures shared of little Archie. Very sweet he will be christened at exactly 2 months. What a nice milestone.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

You have positioned this so well, there has been more coverage of this family because of what they are refusing to do rather than just getting on with it. I am not saying they shouldn't modernise things a bit and make changes just cut out the drama.

But is it possible to make changes without drama? The bottom line is, the Sussexes are very clear on where everything is. And if this wasn't a family with appeal, this wouldn't be an issue. And at the same time, if this baby had higher rank, it wouldn't really be an option not to announce the godparents. So they are in this gray area on these issue. The press could simply accept that godparents are private individuals and wish to remain private and move on. That's an idea too.

Originally Posted by ACO

People say the Sussexes can't have it both ways. Well, ditto to everyone else.

Ditto. It seems that some are trying to have it both ways on this issue at the same time saying Sussexes are trying to have it both ways. The Sussexes have shared momentous milestones in their life. However, their son and their friends are not subject to the same scrutiny or requirement.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by ACO

But Harry and Meghan are not denying people seeing them. They are the titled working royals. We see them doing their duty. What has riled people up is their feeling of being denied Archie, who is an untitled private citizen far down the royal totem pole. They are doing things similarly to the Wessexes and Anne's children. What the media seems to want is them to do things like the Cambridges despite the fact they are not the heirs and shouldn't have to.

We are going to see images of Archie. It is not like they are hiding him.

Bingo!!! *Some* members of the press is acting as though Archie is in Prince George's position and his parents are going to lock him up in a tower.

No. The Sussexes are going to release christening photos and they plan on taking him on tour to South Africa. There will be plenty of opportunities to see Archie.

[suztav]

I don’t know why they even had to make a statement regarding the godparents. Just release a family photo and be done with it. However, per my earlier post, the fact that they said “no info on the godparents” invites attention.

[alvinking]

Originally Posted by suztav

I don’t know why they even had to make a statement regarding the godparents. Just release a family photo and be done with it. However, per my earlier post, the fact that they said “no info on the godparents” invites attention.

It was not a statement to begin with. It was a Royal Communication note to the media, title media Advisory note. This note is not even supposed to be shared with the public. It can clearly be implied that it was a response to media inquires, and it is obvious that it is the media with its expectations that asked about the godparents and it was the response they got.

[Hallo girl]

How can you say a media communication should not be shared, surely that is the purpose of them.
Secondly if the media was asking questions it was because of rumours of dates, also that the queen would not be there which have turned out to be fairly accurate, so somebody is leaking information.

[ACO]

Well some people have revealed pieces of releases not meant for the public. We saw that during the lead up to Archie's birth and how one of the memos was posted that was basically for media eyes only. I don't think that was the case here though.

I also don't think the Queen not attending was really leaked. She has a diary appointment on that day (that is on the website) so it seemed more so the press were trying to get BP to confirm that was indeed the date because it would means no Queen and DoE. The press also claimed it would be the 4th and now saying it was to be today.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by ACO

But Harry and Meghan are not denying people seeing them. They are the titled working royals. We see them doing their duty. What has riled people up is their feeling of being denied Archie, who is an untitled private citizen far down the royal totem pole. They are doing things similarly to the Wessexes and Anne's children. What the media seems to want is them to do things like the Cambridges despite the fact they are not the heirs and shouldn't have to.

We are going to see images of Archie. It is not like they are hiding him.

James, Louise. Zara and Peter aren’t HRHs either and will never be working royals. Nevertheless, we know who their godparents are.

Archie is as much a future grandchild of a sovereign as the above-referenced persons and he might even be a prince of the United Kingdom when Charles is king ( unless current rules are changed). The rationale for treating his christening differently is weak IMHO and is actually putting the RF in the uncomfortable position of being accused of flouting the law to use Richard Palmer’s words. It is a very ill-advised decision if you ask me.

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

James, Louise. Zara and Peter are also untitled and will never be working royals. Nevertheless, we know who their godparents are.

Archie is as much a future grandchild of a sovereign as the above-referenced persons and he might even be a prince of the United Kingdom when Charles is king ( unless current rules are changed). The rationale for treating his christening differently is weak IMHO and is actually putting the RF in the uncomfortable position of being accused of flouting the law to use Richard Palmer’s words. It is a very ill-advised decision if you ask me.

James, Louise. Zara and Peter are grandchildren of the Monarchy.

Savannah, Isla, Mia, Lena, and Archie are great-grandchildren of the Monarchy who are not titled and we do not know their godparents.

[bertie5252003]

Yes Zara James Louise a d Peter godparents were announced at the time of their christenings .. I knew who they were and so I expect it wasn't sent via special messenger to me ! I don't flatter myself thereLOL. This matter with the Sussex's is rather foolish as it only increases interest and speculation ....but maybe that is their point!!!

[Claricecolin]

I have no issue with the godparents not being named especially if all/some are private citizens. I also find it frustrating that the blame is on Meghan for the most part. I think Harry is the driver in most of this. Think of it this way; would you want a close friend to be subject to harassment because you want them to have an important role in your child's life? Most non celebrity people don't have security of media people. I think Harry cares deeply about the people in his life. I can also understand the over protectiveness a first time parent may have.