The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #361  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:25 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
So,if someone makes a request to see the baptism certificate under the Parochial Registers and Records Measure and the Palace claims they are private, how will the RF defend itself from the accusation of flouting the law ? Church lawyers have already said royal peculiars are not exempt.
Actually they didn’t say that. They said royal baptisms are kept in record privately owned by royal household. And they’ve never complied with requests under it. Never did they say it’s not exempt. There is a distinction. Lawyers are precise. They would’ve came out as said it’s not exempt if it’s not exempt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria View Post
Me too. Looking forward to the pictures. Regarding the fit, the dress maker probably made it to fit up to a certain weight for babies. Was Lena christened in the same gown? If she was, then it's a possibility it's made to fit babies from a few months up to 48 months. Just a guess.
I would guess so. We didn’t have pictures from Lena’s christening, but I remember seeing a picture of one of the Phillips girl in the gown. I think Lena was the biggest royal baby to be born, and they waited about 8 months to christen her. How in a world is a gown supposed to fit both her at 8 months and Archie at 2 months?
__________________

  #362  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:25 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I don't think it's up to Archie to decide whether he wants to be a full-time working royal. That's up to the monarch of that time (and most likely it's already clear what wille be expected of him - however, if a tragedy were to strike that decision could be altered). He might be able to refuse to become one if that would be requested (which I don't think will happen based on the numbers that I calculated previously) but he can't require to become one just because he would want to.

It has been said that Andrew would like his daughters to be full-time royals (and they indeed seem to enjoy doing royal-charity type work, so that could very well be the case) but they aren't because the current and/or future monarch don't want them to.



This is precisely what I mean. He could either be like Beatrice and Eugenie or like Zara and Peter. I think they are leaving that decision up to him.
__________________

  #363  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:25 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 7,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I don't think it's up to Archie to decide whether he wants to be a full-time working royal. That's up to the monarch of that time (and most likely it's already clear what wille be expected of him - however, if a tragedy were to strike that decision could be altered). He might be able to refuse to become one if that would be requested (which I don't think will happen based on the numbers that I calculated previously) but he can't require to become one just because he would want to.

It has been said that Andrew would like his daughters to be full-time royals (and they indeed seem to enjoy doing royal-charity type work, so that could very well be the case) but they aren't because the current and/or future monarch don't want them to.
while it is possible that the York girls wuodl like to be working royals but the Queen and Charles don't want them doing this.. I can't imagine that the monarch of the day is likely to insist that some younger royal "does the job" if he or she does not like the idea...
  #364  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:32 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
The thing is, you seems to attach status/title/dignity with being working royal or not. The problem is it has nothing do with each other. It is more a matter of historical status and ancestry. A blood Prince/Princess is what he is because of the accident of birth given the will of the monarch. Right now it is the 1917 LPs, until they are amended somehow
  #365  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:33 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Actually they didnít say that. They said royal baptisms are kept in record privately owned by royal household. And theyíve never complied with requests under it. Never did they say itís not exempt. There is a distinction. Lawyers are precise. They wouldíve came out as said itís not exempt if itís not exempt.



I would guess so. We didnít have pictures from Lenaís christening, but I remember seeing a picture of one of the Phillips girl in the gown. I think Alena was the biggest royal baby to be born, and they waited about 8 months to christen her. How in a world is a gown supposed to fit both her at 8 months and Archie at 2 months?
Sorry, but in this case I think Richard Palmerís tweet was crystal clear. In fact, the assertion that the RF ď flouts the lawĒ are Palmerís words , not mine.

If I were a journalist, I would actually make sure to use all legally available means to see the baptism certificate because it is. a freedom of information issue that goes beyond the particular circumstances of this case.
  #366  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:33 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,712
Eugenie was a big baby and apparently there was some trouble fitting her into the (original) gown. I remember reading that the ties at the back had to be left undone. Perhaps Andrew was at sea and the christening had to be postponed. I can't remember.
  #367  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:34 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
The thing is, you seems to attach status/title/dignity with being working royal or not. The problem is it has nothing do with each other. It is more a matter of historical status and ancestry. A blood Prince/Princess is what he is because of the accident of birth given the will of the monarch. Right now it is the 1917 LPs, until they are amended somehow
Actually, he is not a prince of blood according to 1917 LPs. How itíll be dealt with in the next reign is not yet known.
  #368  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:38 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Sorry, but in this case I think Richard Palmer’s tweet was crystal clear. In fact, the assertion that the RF “ flouts the law” are Palmer’s words , not mine.

If I were a journalist, I would actually make sure to use all legally available means to see the baptism certificate because it is. a freedom of information issue that goes beyond the particular circumstances of this case.
Richard Palmer is a reporter, not a lawyer. His interpretation of the law is irrelevant to the law. He has said a lot of things in his own opinion that is not true. There are plenty of articles that said it’s a loophole as well.
  #369  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:39 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Actually, he is not a prince of blood according to 1917 LPs. How itíll be dealt with in the next reign is not yet known.
I am not saying archie is a blood prince. I was speaking generally saying a blood prince/princess is a blood Prince/princess because of the accident of birth given the will of the monarch at a given moment
  #370  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:42 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Well, I canít wait to see pictures.

Btw, am I the only surprised there hasnít been a fit issue with the gown yet with all the babies?
There has-Princess Eugenie barely fit into it. Itís been a long time ago to remember details, but I think maybe they couldnít fasten it up the back. Of course, she was about 9 months old.
I think the way it is constructed, the garment is flexible enough for the typical 2-4 month old baby.
  #371  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:45 AM
O-H Anglophile's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 3,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria View Post
Me too. Looking forward to the pictures. Regarding the fit, the dress maker probably made it to fit up to a certain weight for babies. Was Lena christened in the same gown? If she was, then it's a possibility it's made to fit babies from a few months up to 48 months. Just a guess.
48 months is 4 years old-the gown isnít that adaptable.
  #372  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:45 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
There has-Princess Eugenie barely fit into it. Itís been a long time ago to remember details, but I think maybe they couldnít fasten it up the back. Of course, she was about 9 months old.
I think the way it is constructed, the garment is flexible enough for the typical 2-4 month old baby.
Thanks. I guess if itís too big, they can just clip it in the back?
  #373  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:51 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
a freedom of information issue
'Republic', the group that seeks the abolition of the Monarchy, CERTAINLY will be regarding it as such, and instructing lawyers accordingly...
  #374  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:52 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-H Anglophile View Post
48 months is 4 years old-the gown isnít that adaptable.
OH FFS...I meant 24 months. HA! This is what happens when you're preoccupied with other things and anxiously awaiting pictures. Not too much longer now.
  #375  
Old 07-06-2019, 10:54 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: MalmŲ, Sweden
Posts: 3,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Btw, am I the only surprised there hasnít been a fit issue with the gown yet with all the babies?
One of my brothers was so fat that they couldn't close the buttons in the back
  #376  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:00 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
One of my brothers was so fat that they couldn't close the buttons in the back
We need an emoji that spits out water from laughing.

But, between this and Eugenieís situation, it seems when itís necessary, not fastening the gown is another option to make it more adaptable.
  #377  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:09 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: NYC, United States
Posts: 767
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
One of my brothers was so fat that they couldn't close the buttons in the back
Awe...did Sofia of Sweden have to have an open gown also for Alexander?
  #378  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:12 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marengo View Post
I have not commented often on the couple before, preferring to give the couple the benefit of doubt. Some missteps were to be forgiven as the press attention can be difficult to navigate. In some cases I found the criticism out of proportion or even mean spirited. But this decision plus the decision not to enclose the location of birth of their son seems very odd and a lack of respect for their public and for the institution of the monarchy.

The monarchy survives by the grace of the UK public. They are expected to line the streets at public events, waving flags etc. They rejoice with the family in moments of joy, they mourn with them in times of sorrow. They also ultimately fund the very privileged lifestyle and perks that members of the family get.

In return the family has shown the decency to allow the public some access to their private lives. Nobody is asking them to make their lives a reality soap. But releasing some rather basic details seem to be a matter of respect. Not releasing the location of birth, not releasing the godparentsÖ I do not see the point of it.

That the couple wants to protect their private lives is their good right. But one could argue that highly visible 'glamour' occasions such as the lavish baby shower or even attending a match at Wimbledon with friends will do more to sustain the level of attention with the couple than disclosing fairly basic information such as the names of godparents or the location of birth.

This instagramification of the RF is a path that I do not think is fruitful. They are not normal celebrities but members of the most prestigious royal family of the world. Some common courtesy to the public would be the minimal thing they can do to show some respect to the people that they are supposed to represent. Instead they treat them the way normal celebrities treat their fans. If this is the future of the monarchy one wonders why we bother having one at all.
Very good post, you have really got to the bottom of it. The use of words like respect, courtesy and The institute of monarchy.
  #379  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:16 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 646
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
I'd say the names of the godparents are recorded in accordance with church requirements. I hope that one day access will indeed be granted to something that should be publicly available (although it's interesting that no one in the press ever thought to request the godparents of Savannah, Isla, Mia, Lena or grandchildren of the Kents and Gloucesters) - however, as you expect it to become available: what's the timeframe you are thinking about?


I find that interesting too.
  #380  
Old 07-06-2019, 11:21 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuliannaVictoria View Post
[/B]

This is precisely what I mean. He could either be like Beatrice and Eugenie or like Zara and Peter. I think they are leaving that decision up to him.
Neither of them is a full-time royal. Peter and Zara as female-line grandchildren were never an option to become full-time royals (as they aren't royal). Based on royal history, Beatrice and Eugenie weren't expected to be full-time working royals either - as only royal dukes were expected to have an active role previously, not their younger brothers or sisters (which is why Richard, the current duke of Gloucester prepared for a different career; but because his elder brother died, he ended up as a royal duke and therefore a working member of the family). The queen, however, made an exception for princess Alexandra (but not for her younger brother prince Michael).

It's quite likely that the decision on whether Archie will be a royal highness or not will be taken before he is of an age to be involved in making that decision as that will become clear when he Charles ascends the throne (if he doesn't and the throne passes on straight to William, he won't become a royal highness in normal circumstances).

Based on the above, it could be argued, that -based on historic precedent- if he would become a royal highness (which goes against him not being given even his courtesy title right now - but you never know) he should have a formal role as the future (royal) duke of Sussex - but any younger siblings should not work for the firm. If he doesn't become a royal highness, he won't be a 'royal duke' (just a 'normal duke'), so no expectations regarding a formal role within the firm.
__________________

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 stťphanie 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 06:43 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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