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

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Fijiro

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.

But Savannah, Isla, Mia and Lena will never be the grandchild of the monarch (as well as being the children of non-royal parents.)

Archie will be the grandchild of the monarch. His parents are royal.

That is a big difference.

[Fijiro]

Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile

But Savannah, Isla, Mia and Lena will never be the grandchild of the monarch (as well as being the children of non-royal parents.)

Archie will be the grandchild of the monarch. His parents are royal.

That is a big difference.

At the moment Charles is the Prince of Wales not the Monarchy, and we cannot call him King just because in future he will be.

At the moment Archie is a great-grandchild of the Monarchy, just like Savannah, Isla, Mia, and Lena. Currently, they have the same status - untitled great-grandchildren of the Monarchy.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

Archie is not the current grandchild of the monarch though and likely will never be HRH. And per the reporters own write up, what is happening with the Sussexes also happened with the Cambridges. Nothing is being filed differently as the same process is happening. The only difference is the Cambridges revealed their godparents and the Sussexes do not wish to. It also seems others are looking into this "law flouting" now that Palmer has brought light to it so it will be interesting to see their results as well.

BP gave very specific quotes stating their right to keep it private. I have a hard time imagining with this clear push back if they were in the wrong they wouldn't be caving a bit. Instead it seems they are doubling down.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by ACO

Archie is not the current grandchild of the monarch though and likely will never be HRH. And per the reporters own write up, what is happening with the Sussexes also happened with the Cambridges. Nothing is being filed differently as the same process is happening. The only difference is the Cambridges revealed their godparents and the Sussexes do not wish to. It also seems others are looking into this "law flouting" now that Palmer has brought light to it so it will be interesting to see their results as well.

BP gave very specific quotes stating their right to keep it private. I have a hard time imagining with this clear push back if they were in the wrong they wouldn't be caving a bit. Instead it seems they are doubling down.

Doubling down will only attract more negative criticism of the Royal Family.

It is important to state that the identity of the godparents of any child baptized in the CoE is by law public information in the UK provided you pay the required fee. Apparently the Royal Family keeps their baptism records private and chooses to ignore the law. That has never been a problem before since the identity of the godparents of senior royals was always voluntarily disclosed, but it might be a problem now.

I am not a legal or constitutional expert and I din’t know if the Queen could get away with it claiming sovereign immunity or whatever, but, in any case, it is not good when the Queen is accused of ignoring the law or acting unlawfully. It is an unnecessary harm to the RF’s reputation solely to accommodate the ( mostly unfounded) sensitivities of Archie’s parents and godparents.

[Archduchess Zelia]

Originally Posted by Fijiro

At the moment Charles is the Prince of Wales not the Monarchy, and we cannot call him King just because in future he will be.

At the moment Archie is a great-grandchild of the Monarchy, just like Savannah, Isla, Mia, and Lena. Currently, they have the same status - untitled great-grandchildren of the Monarchy.

Originally Posted by ACO

Archie is not the current grandchild of the monarch though and likely will never be HRH (...)

This argument is just pedantic. By the logic that William and Harry should also be able to get away with doing the same amount of engagements a year as Beatrice and Eugenie because they, too, are just children of one of HM's sons. In a monarchy, it does matter that your father/grandfather is the future monarch and as such, the comparisons to Savannah, Isla, Mia and Lena just don't hold.

I'm fully with the people who think it's laughable to get your panties in a twist over not knowing Archie's godparents, but come on now.

[Hallo girl]

Originally Posted by 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.

I will disagree on that , the original press reports around 2 weeks ago that the christening would be around this time, no specifics about date then, but the queen would not be attending. I recall the comments re how could they say the queen would not be there when they didn't know the date.
For there to be speculation a couple of weeks ago which has turned out to be reasonably accurate I still think a leak.

The 4th July came out last week.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

This argument is just pedantic. By the logic that William and Harry should also be able to get away with doing the same amount of engagements a year as Beatrice and Eugenie because they, too, are just children of one of HM's sons. In a monarchy, it does matter that your father/grandfather is the future monarch and as such, the comparisons to Savannah, Isla, Mia and Lena just don't hold.

I'm fully with the people who think it's laughable to get your panties in a twist over not knowing Archie's godparents, but come on now.

Honestly there is more fuss on here than there is in the press.

[wyevale]

but it might be a problem now.

I strongly suspect lawyers acting on behalf of the Press, are busily preparing a request for this information under [dear] Mr Blair's 'Freedom of Information' legislation..

More needless publicity, and trouble beckons... and as remarked above 'it is not good when the Queen is accused of ignoring the law or acting unlawfully'.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

I will disagree on that , the original press reports around 2 weeks ago that the christening would be around this time, no specifics about date then, but the queen would not be attending. I recall the comments re how could they say the queen would not be there when they didn't know the date.
For there to be speculation a couple of weeks ago which has turned out to be reasonably accurate I still think a leak.

The 4th July came out last week.

Whenever there is a large enough group of people in the know, there is a big chance of leak. The only way to ensure there are no leak is to tell no one. With that being said, I do think the initial reporting couple of weeks ago is nothing more than educated guesses on how BRF typically operate and the timing of it. For example, it's not hard to guess that HM will be in Scotland this week and not in Windsor.

The clearer information came out this week, and I believe that's more to do with typical under the tent stuff. There is media interest and they've been requesting comments from the Palace, and at the same time the Palace tries to strike a balance. It's not unusual for the Palace to warn them the timing of when something might come to prepare them. It's part of the relationship. When they started reporting it this week, discussion about cameras for arrival and departure were already on going.

The July 4th one. Yeah.

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

Honestly there is more fuss on here than there is in the press.

I don't know about press, but I would say general public. TBH, I feel like there is general more fuss about things here than in the general public. I feel like most like to see pictures of babies and such, but they usually aren't that pressed (no pun intended) about it either way.

[O-H Anglophile]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Keeping the names of the godparents secret might actually have the opposite effect of attracting greater intrusion in Meghan’s friends’ private lives as the press will try to find by other means who the godparents were.

I agree with this--more speculation about more people. It is not like the public and press don't know some of the people Harry and Meghan are close to in their lives.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Doubling down will only attract more negative criticism of the Royal Family.

It is important to state that the identity of the godparents of any child baptized in the CoE is by law public information in the UK provided you pay the required fee. Apparently the Royal Family keeps their baptism records private and chooses to ignore the law. That has never been a problem before since the identity of the godparents of senior royals was always voluntarily disclosed, but it might be a problem now.

I am not a legal or constitutional expert and I din’t know if the Queen could get away with it claiming sovereign immunity or whatever, but, in any case, it is not good when the Queen is accused of ignoring the law or acting unlawfully. It is an unnecessary harm to the RF’s reputation solely to accommodate the ( mostly unfounded) sensitivities of Archie’s parents and godparents.

Clearly they don't think it is unfounded. We have no idea what has happened to them to think otherwise. Heck today Meghan's friend Jessica has been dealing with trolls on her social media and that is purely because she is Meghan's friend. Yesterday the Daily Mail was doing write ups on Lindsay and Genevieve. I mean... we all know what comes with it especially with Meghan's connection.

If they are doubling down then they clearly not as concerned as people think. Overall I have seen more people wondering why people need to know such details versus the push back from a certain selection of the press. They might be trying to make it a bigger story but that remains to be seen how it will turn out. I suspect once the pictures come out tomorrow this story will die down as most do once they have something else to focus on.

Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia

This argument is just pedantic. By the logic that William and Harry should also be able to get away with doing the same amount of engagements a year as Beatrice and Eugenie because they, too, are just children of one of HM's sons. In a monarchy, it does matter that your father/grandfather is the future monarch and as such, the comparisons to Savannah, Isla, Mia and Lena just don't hold.

I'm fully with the people who think it's laughable to get your panties in a twist over not knowing Archie's godparents, but come on now.

William and Harry are working royals. Eugenie and Beatrice are not. So not sure that comparison holds much weight. Now if they were working then I could buy that argument. And frankly Harry should be compared to the likes of Charles's siblings while William to Charles. They both should be working way more than they are but that is a topic for a different thread.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by wyevale

I strongly suspect lawyers acting on behalf of the Press, are busily preparing a request for this information under [dear] Mr Blair's 'Freedom of Information' legislation..

More needless publicity, and trouble beckons... and as remarked above 'it is not good when the Queen is accused of ignoring the law or acting unlawfully'.

Unless what the Queen has been doing up until now isn't unlawful? The legislation appears to apply to diocesan records but the royal peculiars aren't under the jurisdiction of any diocese so the legislation might not apply.

[Betsypaige]

Originally Posted by suztav

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

I think the lack of respect for the wishes of the godparent is disheartening. I don't know who they are nor do I care to know, but even if I did want to know, I don't have the right. Meghan and Harry are doing what decent people do - respecting the wishes of their friends. These friends, if they are indeed private citizens, very likely don't wish to be thrust into the fishbowl - and I wouldn't blame them if that were the case. Whatever the reason, it's their own - and no one is owed an explanation.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by ACO

Yesterday the Daily Mail was doing write ups on Lindsay and Genevieve.

Exemplifying why any godparent of Archie might choose anonymity if it were an option.

[Duke of Marmalade]

Whatever H&M do about Archie being private and normal, they won't erase the lifelong public interest that he will create.
Their strange tactics will create even more interest, but maybe, as somebody said earlier, that's the point.
Regarding the godparents, if you don't like public interest, walk away and don't take the job. For me the idea of secret godparents for Archie is a ridiculous idea, of course the information will become public at some point.
I'm pretty sure the godparents were guests at the wedding, therefore have been photographed and the relation to H&M is already well known.
The image of the whole BRF will be harmed, not only that of H&M.

[suztav]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

Whatever H&M do about Archie being private and normal, they won't erase the lifelong public interest that he will create.
Their strange tactics will create even more interest, but maybe, as somebody said earlier, that's the point.
Regarding the godparents, if you don't like public interest, walk away and don't take the job. For me the idea of secret godparents for Archie is a ridiculous idea, of course the information will become public at some point.
I'm pretty sure the godparents were guests at the wedding, therefore have been photographed and the relation to H&M is already well known.
The image of the whole BRF will be harmed, not only that of H&M.

Exactly my point. You were an actress. You had a very public wedding. I’ll give her one point —. Her father and step sister are not nice people (does that sound politically correct enough?) so maybe she doesn’t want them to know anything.

But really?! They are attracting more attention than not with these tactics.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

The image of the whole BRF will be harmed

No it won't.

If there's a referendum at any time on keeping the monarchy I'll bet my last penny that knowing the names of the godparents of the 7th in line to the throne will not be a factor in anyone's vote. It's a ridiculous, fabricated controversy in the media that doesn't exist in reality.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Duke of Marmalade

Whatever H&M do about Archie being private and normal, they won't erase the lifelong public interest that he will create.
Their strange tactics will create even more interest, but maybe, as somebody said earlier, that's the point.
Regarding the godparents, if you don't like public interest, walk away and don't take the job. For me the idea of secret godparents for Archie is a ridiculous idea, of course the information will become public at some point.
I'm pretty sure the godparents were guests at the wedding, therefore have been photographed and the relation to H&M is already well known.
The image of the whole BRF will be harmed, not only that of H&M.

For this post I take off my hat and make a deep bow. I totally agree with it.
All this secrecy about the christening and Archie being a private citizen is ridiculous.
Have the christening and release that info afterwards, then it will die down without much fuss.

Archie can not be a private citizen in the form they wish him to be - his parents are HRH's and he will be in direct line to a future king.
I don't know whomever's idea it was to do it this way, but a level of understanding seems to be missing.

Don't they see that because of who they are, there will always be interest for their offspring? Making him a private citizen won't keep the media at bay.
IMO there is some unresolved stuff from Harry's side that plays a part in these strange constructions.

The Phillips children have untitled parents who work for their own money - that is perfectly in line with each other. The Wessex children have a title (Lady and Viscount) but are not HRHs, in keeping with their low profile. Understandable.
But TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and plain Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor? That's a breech that does not go well.

They have a lot to learn and I have wanted to express my irritation with all this for a long time. There, I'm done.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by suztav

Exactly my point. You were an actress. You had a very public wedding. I’ll give her one point —. Her father and step sister are not nice people (does that sound politically correct enough?) so maybe she doesn’t want them to know anything.

But really?! They are attracting more attention than not with these tactics.

Their wedding is in accordance with their position as working royals. Their son is not. Nor are their friends.

Attention is only given by those who are accusing them of trying to attract it. People DO have the choice of just moving on from it.

[wyevale]

People DO have the choice of just moving on from it.

As would have been the case [after the publication of a paragraph or two of a biography of the Godparents in the Press], as would be expected.. But NO.. a fruitless search for 'privacy' has created a furore, where none existed...

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by wyevale

As would have been the case [after the publication of a paragraph or two of a biography of the Godparents in the Press], as would be expected.. But NO.. a fruitless search for 'privacy' has created a furore, where none existed...

My point is that attention only happens when people give it. So, it's always amusing to accuse someone of seeking it by those giving it.

Again, given the position Archie is at. I don't see why the public need to know his godparents.