The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #81  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:36 PM
Madame Verseau's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Louisville, United States
Posts: 1,760
It's Archie's day and it should be surrounded but people that love him. We will get the family pic.
__________________

  #82  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:42 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
I read the original language from BP. It seems that the godparents wish to remain private, which I completely understand and they have an absolute right to.

The exact sentence is as follows:

The godparents, in keeping with their wishes, will remain private.

https://twitter.com/jamesbrookes_/st...61802454224897



For members of royal families, date and place of birth, as well as date and place of baptism and names of godparents, are matters of historic record. Unsurprisingly, you can see that the Wikipedia articles on most, if not all living European royals have that information.


Harry and Meghan's unwarranted paranoia about privacy is becoming excessive. Their behavior is at odds not only with British RF practice, but also with the practice followed by all other royal houses.


BTW, shouldn't the name of the godparents be recorded anyway by the parish where the baptism is performed ? I know that Catholic parishes at least keep those records and I would also assume the CoE does it too.
__________________

  #83  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:43 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,505
I understand what you are all saying and I read the statement just like you all did. I just find this whole obsessive need to keep everything regarding their son private to be odd. I understand he is not intended to be a royal family member and I am very happy with that as I think kids should be allowed to have normal childhoods, but at the same time I don’t see why releasing one full photo of him when he was born to have been such a bad thing.

They will do whatever they want to do but I’m allowed an opinion on the whole thing. If the godparents wish to be kept private then so be it but I still think a lot of this screams Meghan.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
  #84  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:47 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
For members of royal families, date and place of birth, as well as date and place of baptism and names of godparents, are matters of historic record. Unsurprisingly, you can see that the Wikipedia articles on most, if not all living European royals have that information.


Harry and Meghan's unwarranted paranoia about privacy is becoming excessive. Their behavior is at odds not only with British RF practice, but also with the practice followed by all other royal houses, who deal with these matters with ease.
People can also see records on any well known person's announced and disclosed. I don't see how Wikipedia articles matter. Again, I'm failing to see how it is their unwarranted paranoia about privacy in respecting the wishes of their son's godparents. Archie is a private citizen and as are his godparents. He won't have an official role when he grows up. And given the nature of the individuals on both sides of that relationship, I don't see public interest outweighing private individuals' right to privacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I understand what you are all saying and I read the statement just like you all did. I just find this whole obsessive need to keep everything regarding their son private to be odd. I understand he is not intended to be a royal family member and I am very happy with that as I think kids should be allowed to have normal childhoods, but at the same time I don’t see why releasing one full photo of him when he was born to have been such a bad thing.

They will do whatever they want to do but I’m allowed an opinion on the whole thing. If the godparents wish to be kept private then so be it but I still think a lot of this screams Meghan.
We got as good of a photo of newborn Archie as we did any newborn royal baby. It just happens the location is different. And this screams Meghan? Because Harry has always been so open with the press on his private life and hasn't hated press intrusions in the past?
  #85  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:52 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
The godparents want to remain anonymous. That’s their right especially as we have already seen the media invade the privacy of some of her friends.

Also we don’t know the godparents of all the great grandchildren. It’s not required knowledge.
I think the argument is that Archie won't remain "just" a great-grandchild of the monarch. Once Charles ascends to the throne, he'll be the King's grandson – hence the comparisons to HM's grandchildren like Peter and Zara rather than her great-grandchildren like Peter and Zara's kids.
__________________
"Hope is like the sun. If you only believe it when you see it you'll never make it through the night."
Our Princess

  #86  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:53 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
For members of royal families, date and place of birth, as well as date and place of baptism and names of godparents, are matters of historic record. Unsurprisingly, you can see that the Wikipedia articles on most, if not all living European royals have that information.


Harry and Meghan's unwarranted paranoia about privacy is becoming excessive. Their behavior is at odds not only with British RF practice, but also with the practice followed by all other royal houses.


BTW, shouldn't the name of the godparents be recorded anyway by the parish where the baptism s performed ? I know that Catholic parishes at least keep those records and I would also assume the CoE does it too.
Who are the godparents to Zara and Peter’s children. I am pretty sure other than Harry being known the rest of the names were stated as “private matter” but please correct me if wrong.

Not sure why it’s paranoia for the Sussexes to want it to be the same. Archie is 7th in line. He is a private citizen. There is no comparing him to the need of public record like the Cambridges.

Also it’s at their request. No one should be forced to put their business out there just cause people are nosy for details.
  #87  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:56 PM
Archduchess Zelia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 2,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
I understand what you are all saying and I read the statement just like you all did. I just find this whole obsessive need to keep everything regarding their son private to be odd. I understand he is not intended to be a royal family member and I am very happy with that as I think kids should be allowed to have normal childhoods, but at the same time I don’t see why releasing one full photo of him when he was born to have been such a bad thing.

They will do whatever they want to do but I’m allowed an opinion on the whole thing. If the godparents wish to be kept private then so be it but I still think a lot of this screams Meghan.
I can't make out if you're implying that Harry is too weak-minded or too ignorant to partake in decisions regarding his own son?
__________________
"Hope is like the sun. If you only believe it when you see it you'll never make it through the night."
Our Princess

  #88  
Old 07-03-2019, 02:56 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
People can also see records on any well known person's announced and disclosed. Again, I'm failing to see how it is their unwarranted paranoia about privacy in respecting the wishes of their son's godparents. Archie is a private citizen and as are his godparents. He won't have an official role when he grows up. And given the nature of the individuals on both sides of that relationship, I don't see public interest outweighing private individuals' right to privacy.







We got as good of a photo of newborn Archie as we did any newborn royal baby. It just happens the location is different. And this screams Meghan? Because Harry has always been so open with the press on his private life and hasn't hated press intrusions in the past?

Archie will be a prince of the United Kingdom when his grandfather is king. He is not a private citizen then.



Again, we know the godparents of Prince Joachim's, or Princess Astrid's , or Infanta Elena's children, all of whom are grandchildren of a sovereign in collateral line, just as Archie will be one day. It is not unreasonable that detailed information on his baptism be made public.


Why is that not an issue anywhere for several families in a similar position and is an issue specifically for the Sussexes ? I am sorry, but I think the Sussexes are overreacting.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Who are the godparents to Zara and Peter’s children. I am pretty sure other than Harry being known the rest of the names were stated as “private matter” but please correct me if wrong.

Both Zara's and Peter's godparents are known. It is a matter of public interest and historic record for grandchildren of a sovereign. Again, Archie may be only a great-grandson now, but he will be a sovereign's grandson eventually. We should know the same about his early life as we know about Peter's or Zara's or Louise's or any other European royal grandchild.
  #89  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:01 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Archie will be a prince of the United Kingdom when his grandfather is king. He is not a private citizen then.

Again, we know the godparents of Prince Joachim's, or Princess Astrid's , or Infanta Elena's children, all of whom are grandchildren of a sovereign in collateral line, just as Archie will be one day. It is not unreasonable that detailed information on his baptism be made public.
What Archie's title will be is TBD. So we shall see. That's an entirely different conversation, but for now, he's just Archie. And just because someone is a grandchild to the monarch doesn't mean they aren't private citizens. I might have agreed with the sentiment that male grandchildren aren't private individuals in the 70s or 80s, but times have changed. If he's expected to find his own career and support himself in adulthood, he's a private individual no matter who his grandfather might be or what title he could be eligible for.

I understand the people are interested in knowing the godparents, and certainly think it's fine to be interested. I'm interested. But, at the same time, I also understand the right to privacy of private individuals. Of all the ones you listed, the parents chose to announce with at least the implicit agreement of private individuals. The Sussexes chose to respect the wishes of private individuals over public curiosity.

While it'd be nice to know, it certain adds nothing or takes away nothing.
  #90  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:01 PM
theroyalfly's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: N/A, Australia
Posts: 1,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
For members of royal families, date and place of birth, as well as date and place of baptism and names of godparents, are matters of historic record. Unsurprisingly, you can see that the Wikipedia articles on most, if not all living European royals have that information.


Harry and Meghan's unwarranted paranoia about privacy is becoming excessive. Their behavior is at odds not only with British RF practice, but also with the practice followed by all other royal houses.
I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Zara's children's godparents were not disclosed in Wikipedia. Yes, most European royal families have made this available but you can't bring that up to support your claim against Harry and Meghan.

Archie is not like the Cambridge children. He will have a separate path. This might be a little odd to some old royal watchers because as for you it's not going on with year old tradition but it's just the way it is.

Apparently privacy for their son is the most important thing, even for the people that will share this very special day with Archie.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archduchess Zelia View Post
I think the argument is that Archie won't remain "just" a great-grandchild of the monarch. Once Charles ascends to the throne, he'll be the King's grandson – hence the comparisons to HM's grandchildren like Peter and Zara rather than her great-grandchildren like Peter and Zara's kids.
The christening is happening in 2 days and as far as I know Queen Elizabeth II is still the Queen of the United Kingdom. Yes soon enough, he will become "The King's grandson." Soon. He will be elevated too with a new style and rank. Just wait.

So I think the comparison between Zara's children and Archie is on point.
__________________
  #91  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:08 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 311
The press release literally says, "The godparents, in keeping with their wishes, will remain private'. I.e. the godparents WANT to be private. Don't blame Meghan or Harry.
  #92  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:11 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Archie will be a prince of the United Kingdom when his grandfather is king. He is not a private citizen then.

Again, we know the godparents of Prince Joachim's, or Princess Astrid's , or Infanta Elena's children, all of whom are grandchildren of a sovereign in collateral line, just as Archie will be one day. It is not unreasonable that detailed information on his baptism be made public.

Why is that not an issue anywhere for several families in a similar position and is an issue specifically for the Sussexes ? I am sorry, but I think the Sussexes are overreacting.

Both Zara's and Peter's godparents are known. It is a matter of public interest and historic record for grandchildren of a sovereign. Again, Archie may be a great-grandson now, but he will be a sovereign's grandson eventually. We should know the same about his early life as we know about Peter's or Zara's or Louise's or any other European royal grandchild.
We have no idea what Archie’s title will be but I’m willing to bet he will never be Prince Archie of Sussex. I think not even giving him the Earldom told everyone where this was going. He is a private citizen. They treating him as such.

We are getting pictures. We will see him with his parents on tour and no doubt other family engagements like Trooping. That should be enough.

And who are the godparents for the Philip and Tindalls children, I just did a search and came up with nothing. For Lena’s recent christening a statement from the palace said it was a private matter.
  #93  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:14 PM
crm2317's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Belfast, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,541
I see no issue with the godparents wishing to remain private. It is their decision and they will be just as able to fulfill their roll without media intrusion!

I hope the photos do show Archie though and not just some artsy shots of his head being lowered to the font etc. The outcry will be unbelievable!
__________________
God Save the House of Windsor
  #94  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:18 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
My personal view is that details of Godparents are not a matter for the state - even tho' in this instance the parents in question represent The Crown.

A Godparents’ role is the spiritual concern for their Godchildren.

That said the reaction to this is likely to be wholly negative [within the United Kingdom], and the couple really seem unable to realise they are needlessly antagonising and excluding the Public on whom they [ultimately] depend.
  #95  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:21 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Another thing on godparents. I don't even know how much it is used for historic facts today as the focus has narrowed on the royal families.

And certainly, I think the Sussexes understand the public goodwill towards them and their son, and that's why certain photos, although at the discretion of the parents, are released. But when it involves other private individuals, I do think it's appropriate to consider the what is gain to what is lost.
  #96  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:22 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
My personal view is that details of Godparents are not a matter for the state - even tho' in this instance the parents in question represent The Crown.

A Godparents’ role is the spritual concern for their Godchildren.

That said the reaction to this is likely to be wholly negative [within the United Kingdom], and the couple really seem unable to realise they are needlessly antagonising and excluding the Public on whom they [ultimately] depend.

I am not an expert on religion and I know for a fact that royals have christenings and confirmations in private church services. Theologically, however, the private celebration of baptisms in a church is controversial. I won't get into that discussion, however, because, as I said, I am not qualified to do it and it would be off-topic.
  #97  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:25 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Alexandria, United States
Posts: 423
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
We have no idea what Archie’s title will be but I’m willing to bet he will never be Prince Archie of Sussex. I think not even giving him the Earldom told everyone where this was going. He is a private citizen. They treating him as such.

We are getting pictures. We will see him with his parents on tour and no doubt other family engagements like Trooping. That should be enough.

And who are the godparents for the Philip and Tindalls children, I just did a search and came up with nothing. For Lena’s recent christening a statement from the palace said it was a private matter.
These comparisons to the Philips and Tindalls are rrelevant to any argument in my opinion. Those families are not royal to begin with. Peter and Zara are the children of a princess, but are not royal themselves. Their children are literally regular private citizens, with the Queen as a great-grandmother. They are as relevant to the monarchy as Alexander Ramsay was, miniscule. While he may be titeless right now, Archie will become a male line grandchild of the monarch who has the ability to become a HRH. If he should be compared to anyone, I would say it should be Louise and James, who have a similar situation to him except for a few differences.


While I do respect the parents wishes and understand how they want to raise Archie, I do think their fears may be just a little overblown. I haven't really seen any indication that people would invade the godparents lives that much, but maybe I've missed the previous examples.
  #98  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:26 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Well we have already seen a woman have her personal business spread all over because someone falsely attached her to Meghan. Also we have seen the media actually go to the homes of her friends. Talk about invading privacy. These people are entitled to their lives not being tabloid fodder.

If they don’t want it then that’s their right. Who are we to deny them that?
  #99  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:32 PM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,077
Frankly, to me it is not an issue as to who Archie's godparents are. But to me, this is a pointless own goal. IMO, there is nothing to be achieved by withholding the information, but just more drama to be created, and more goodwill lost needlessly.
  #100  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:32 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalHighness 2002 View Post
These comparisons to the Philips and Tindalls are rrelevant to any argument in my opinion. Those families are not royal to begin with. Peter and Zara are the children of a princess, but are not royal themselves. Their children are literally regular private citizens, with the Queen as a great-grandmother. They are as relevant to the monarchy as Alexander Ramsay was, miniscule. While he may be titeless right now, Archie will become a male line grandchild of the monarch who has the ability to become a HRH. If he should be compared to anyone, I would say it should be Louise and James, who have a similar situation to him except for a few differences.


While I do respect the parents wishes and understand how they want to raise Archie, I do think their fears may be just a little overblown. I haven't really seen any indication that people would invade the godparents lives that much, but maybe I've missed the previous examples.
The press weren’t at the Wessex christenings either. So more or less the same. It was completely private and they released pictures. They did release the godparents names but again for Archie’s this was at their request which was made clear.
__________________

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 06:45 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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