The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #261  
Old 07-05-2019, 05:42 PM
Frelinghighness's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New England, United States
Posts: 5,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippy2236959
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.
.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. And all of this, and the labor announcement has really turned my opinion and interest in them
__________________

  #262  
Old 07-05-2019, 06:09 PM
soapstar's Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hermosa Beach, United States
Posts: 5,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
What an odd decision. I can't think of any other royal belonging to a reigning family where the public did not get to know the godparents, except Archduchess Anna-Astrid of Austria-Este (great-granddaughter of king Albert II of Belgium).

If the decision was made due to privacy concerns I would not be surprised if they achieved the opposite of what they wanted to achieve. Considering the public interest in the couple I am sure journalists will try their very best to find out whomever the godparents are. If anything the secrecy will have drawn more attention to it, not less.

For a reigning royal family certain things are to be shared with the public. They are not private individuals, they are members of the royal family and with the many perks come certain sacrifices.

Needless drama and negative press which could have been avoided.
I have to agree with this.

I understand that Harry and Meghan want to honor the request from their friends and keep their names private, but this has unfortunately created more of a frenzy and made people more interested in finding out the names. I imagine sooner or later we'll know them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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.
I'm curious to know how many have actually been denied this request. Especially since Palmer says there is no need to request the information because the names of the godparents are usually made public.
__________________

__________________
  #263  
Old 07-05-2019, 06:31 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: SL, United Kingdom
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
As has been stated several times. Archie is comparable to a grandchild of a monarch not to a great-grandchild (although in some cases even that information is shared - for example for the grandchildrn of princess Margriet of the Netherlands), so whether the godparents of Peter's and Zara's children are known is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether their godparents are known (and they are just female not male line grandchildren).

They share official christening pictures, as is common for grandchildren of the monarch, not for great-grandchildren. So, Harry and Meghan clearly understand that Archie's situation should be compared to the practice of grandchildren not greatgrandchildren but nonetheless they decided not to reveal this basic information.

As they have made several illogical decisions that go completely against royal tradition, I am not surprised by this one but the argument that we also don't know Savannah's, Isla's, Mia's and Lena's godparents doesn't hold.

If that were the case then it could also be argued that since “Archie is comparable to a grandchild of a monarch not to a great-grandchild” (according to you) then by that same logic the queen should’ve issued Letters patent to dignify H&M’s child with a princely hrh title the same way she did for all the Cambridge children. I seem to remember you arguing firmly against her doing any such thing for a Sussex offspring, in fact you were so adamant and kept going on about it. Now, whether or not M&H would’ve accepted a hrh title for their mixed race child if tq was benevolent enough to have offered one is beyond the point. I just wondered about the inconsistency of the logic re Archie’s godparents is all.

And let’s face it, there are no guarantees baby Archie will end up a grandchild of a monarch. Long live Prince Charles but he is getting on and although he absolutely deserves to be king after waiting so long and the valuable hard work he does, his mother doesn’t seem to want to give up her crown just yet and will probably last as long if not longer that her mother did. She loves her job and good on her I say. So, since she’s unlikely to abdicate the throne anytime soon unlike some of her younger contemporaries across the continent unwilling to let their heirs wither away into old age with a ever decreasing chance of wearing the crown, I think it’s a bit presumptious to say with absolute certainty that Archie is comparable to the grandchild of a monarch. It is factually incorrect. Anyway, I wish the Sussexes and fellow well wishers of the Sussex family a lovely day tomorrow. I can’t wait to see the photos the couple are gracious enough to want to share with well wishers. And I am certainly glad the couple won’t have to navigate murky questionable sources to share the photos and will do it in their own preferred way
  #264  
Old 07-05-2019, 06:51 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
The reasons for all the Cambridge children to being made HRH had to do with the change in the rules of male primogeniture. This has been covered extensively. William’s first born son would have been an HRH. An older sister, the heir apparent under the new rules, would not have been. This was not a factor for Archie. He is not the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
  #265  
Old 07-05-2019, 06:54 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
A 'flavour' of what the more 'thinking Press' are printing.. ['The Spectator' is a hugely respected periodical, and very far from the Daily Fail] .

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...elf-awareness/
  #266  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:00 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
A 'flavour' of what the more 'thinking Press' are printing.. ['The Spectator' is a hugely respected periodical, and very far from the Daily Fail] .

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...elf-awareness/
I'll pass
  #267  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,910
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
A 'flavour' of what the more 'thinking Press' are printing.. ['The Spectator' is a hugely respected periodical, and very far from the Daily Fail] .

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/0...elf-awareness/
An interesting read and like you say The Spectator is at the opposite end of the spectrum to the tabloid press.
  #268  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:08 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
The Daily Beast's take on the situation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/archie...a=twitter_page

Lots of interesting opinions of varying degrees.
  #269  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:28 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
The Daily Beast's take on the situation.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/archie...a=twitter_page

Lots of interesting opinions of varying degrees.
I don’t think there is any controversy about the press being barred from attending the christening,. There is s legitimate controversy , however, about the identity of the godparents not being made public as that is at odds with both the law and the Church’s teachings.
  #270  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:29 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lilyflo View Post
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.
This is what makes sense to me. Royal Peculiars, by definition, is is a Church of England parish or church exempt from the jurisdiction of the diocese and the province in which it lies and subject to the direct jurisdiction of the monarch. As its own entity as described, records are kept by the Royal Household and contained in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle and are a unique collection of documents relating to the history of the British Monarchy over the last 250 years.

Everything relating to the monarchy is kept in the archives from private letters to speeches to documents and diaries (The diaries that HM, The Queen are keeping now will eventually find their place there) and this is where, I believe, Archie's baptismal certificate will find its rest.

One can request access to the Royal Archives and one example that I do know when it was granted and that is when William Shawcross was penning The Queen Mother, an official biography of Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. I do believe the press has the right to request access to the baptismal certificate but I'll eat my shorts if its granted.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #271  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:43 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: SL, United Kingdom
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
The reasons for all the Cambridge children to being made HRH had to do with the change in the rules of male primogeniture. This has been covered extensively. William’s first born son would have been an HRH. An older sister, the heir apparent under the new rules, would not have been. This was not a factor for Archie. He is not the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

I think perhaps only the Queen's residences have a plethora of bedrooms standing vacant, ready for guests. Just because Meghan is a “foreign” bride does not entitle her to a castle with massive amounts of bedrooms for visitors.
I specifically referred to all the Cambridge children for a reason and not just the firstborn. William is not yet King, heck he’s not even the Prince of Wales and his current position could remain the same for a very long while yet. Meaning simply that tq didn’t have to take the measures she did at the time. Tbh I really do not care one way or the other about royal titles but all the same, since someone else used the logic that just because baby Archie might end up as a grandchild of a king someday, the identity of his godparents ought to be revealed, I wanted to understand why that same person was totally against tq issuing Letters patent to fast forward a hrh title for the baby the same way she did for the others. And this forumer argued on the basis that Charles was not yet King. The rules are the rules aren’t they? And once Charles is King and unless LPs are issued to revoke Archie’s future status, he automatically becomes a hrh Prince.
  #272  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:45 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 2,773
A quick question for our CofE members: are godparents mandatory for a baptism?
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.”

Abraham Lincoln
  #273  
Old 07-05-2019, 07:50 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
A quick question for our CofE members: are godparents mandatory for a baptism?
Yes. A minimum of 3.
  #274  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:09 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
I do kind of get the point of the HRH debate. Again showing that Archie is not the same as the Cambridge kids therefore the expectations of him shouldn't be either. He is a private citizen for a reason. HMQ could have easily made him HRH but she did not. In fact he has no titles at all.
  #275  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:13 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
As has been stated several times. Archie is comparable to a grandchild of a monarch not to a great-grandchild (although in some cases even that information is shared - for example for the grandchildrn of princess Margriet of the Netherlands), so whether the godparents of Peter's and Zara's children are known is irrelevant. The relevant question is whether their godparents are known (and they are just female not male line grandchildren).

They share official christening pictures, as is common for grandchildren of the monarch, not for great-grandchildren. So, Harry and Meghan clearly understand that Archie's situation should be compared to the practice of grandchildren not greatgrandchildren but nonetheless they decided not to reveal this basic information.

As they have made several illogical decisions that go completely against royal tradition, I am not surprised by this one but the argument that we also don't know Savannah's, Isla's, Mia's and Lena's godparents doesn't hold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Reem View Post
If that were the case then it could also be argued that since “Archie is comparable to a grandchild of a monarch not to a great-grandchild” (according to you) then by that same logic the queen should’ve issued Letters patent to dignify H&M’s child with a princely hrh title the same way she did for all the Cambridge children. I seem to remember you arguing firmly against her doing any such thing for a Sussex offspring, in fact you were so adamant and kept going on about it. .

If Archie was comparable to grandchild of the Monarchy, then he would’ve automatically been HRH Prince Archie of Sussex;
and the Cambridges would not have required LP from her Majesty to be HRHs Princes/Princess of … because it would’ve been also automatic.

Her Majesty issued LP for the Cambridges, but did not issue the same for the Sussexes.

Some posters on this forum were against LP being issued in the case of the Sussexes. In the end, the LP was not issued. The same posters who were against the issue of the LP, are the same posters who are now arguing about Archie’s status.
  #276  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:23 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 15,664
When it comes to Archie's christening, I have to believe that this is more of a family baptism of a child belonging to The House of Windsor becoming a member of the Church of England than a yardstick to measure "importance" or "status" or "the line of succession" or "privilege".

So many convoluted theories coming out of something that is plain simple and straightforward. Babies are born. Parents choose to have their child baptized in their preferred faith and select godparents for the occasion. Simple.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
  #277  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:36 PM
Yeine's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: Somewhere, South Africa
Posts: 19
As other posters have noted upthread, the same people who staunchly opposed the idea of Archie getting a royal title, on the grounds that he's only a great-grandchild of the monarch, are now complaining because he's not being treated as a grandchild of the monarch. You can't have it both ways, folks. You can't constantly accuse the Sussexes of not knowing their place and then lambast them for not christening their child in the same style as the children of the future king.

I think the question of Archie's status is a lot more complicated than people make it out to be. He's not quite comparable to Louise, Zara etc as they're the grandchildren of the monarch, but he's not in the same position as the Phillips girls either as he's the son of titled, working royals & will one day be the grandson of a king.

They're in completely uncharted territory and it must be a really tough balancing act, I think they've done a great job so far.
  #278  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:43 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
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?
Anyone can walk in, pay 30 pounds, and get the records. They aren't secret documents.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria View Post
Yes. A minimum of 3.
I only had two as did all of my cousins. My mother only had one and her mother had none. My grandmother was baptised in the UK just before her family migrated to Australia. Her siblings each had only one. I have cousins in the UK who also have only one or two and are CoE.
  #279  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:50 PM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Reem View Post
Let’s take this to the appropriate forum/thread if you will.

I specifically referred to all the Cambridge children for a reason and not just the firstborn. William is not yet King, heck he’s not even the Prince of Wales and his current position could remain the same for a very long while yet. Meaning simply that tq didn’t have to take the measures she did at the time. Tbh I really do not care one way or the other about royal titles but all the same, since someone else used the logic that just because baby Archie might end up as a grandchild of a king someday, the identity of his godparents ought to be revealed, I wanted to understand why that same person was totally against tq issuing Letters patent to fast forward a hrh title for the baby the same way she did for the others. And this forumer argued on the basis that Charles was not yet King. The rules are the rules aren’t they? And once Charles is King and unless LPs are issued to revoke Archie’s future status, he automatically becomes a hrh Prince.
Your responses are oranges to the apples in my post.
  #280  
Old 07-05-2019, 08:51 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
More details have been released.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-fa...eveal-keeping/

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will be welcomed in a traditional royal manner, with a christening gown used for generations, water from the River Jordan and the choir of St George’s Chapel.

Members of the choir of St George’s Chapel, where the Duke and Duchess of Sussex got married and Prince Harry was christened, will sing at the ceremony.

Official photographs will taken by Chris Allerton, who also captured the Sussex’s evening wedding reception, in the Green Drawing Room.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor: May 6, 2019 JessRulz The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family 1495 04-04-2020 07:26 AM




Popular Tags
#royalrelatives #royalgenes abdication anastasia 2020 armstrong-jones background story bridal gown british royal family british royals buckingham palace canada chittagong commonwealth countries coronavirus daisy dna doge of venice dubai duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex elizabeth ii emperor facts family life fantasy movie hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume historical drama history introduction jewellery king willem-alexander książ castle list of rulers mail mary: crown princess of denmark mountbatten names northern ireland norway plantinum jubilee prince charles of luxembourg prince dimitri prince harry princess ariane princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn princess dita princess laurentien queen louise queen mathilde queen maxima royal court royal dress-ups royal jewels royal spouse royalty royal wedding royal wedding gown russian court dress settings speech stuart suthida taiwan thailand tips uae customs united states of america von hofmannsthal


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:48 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×