The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #121  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:38 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
The names of the God-parents must be entered in the registers. The idea that church registers are not public records is absurd, and the Press will have their names published very soon indeed..
The Sussexes have created a 'witch-hunt' where none were needed.
__________________

  #122  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:40 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,712
The names of the godparents are being withheld at their request. So obviously they are not so bothered by the matter of historical record as you are.
__________________

  #123  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:43 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
I didn't mention 'Historical record'.. but the names of Godparents are a matter of 'Public record' and will appear in the [public] register..
  #124  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:47 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Lawrenceville, United States
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by BaiSoSo View Post
Just because it isn't done the way you expected, doesn't mean they lack maturity. Harry and Meghan (and the people they selected as godparents) know what it's like living in their own shoes and know what's in the best interest of their family. I will say it again they don't have to do everything that the Cambridges do. Choices are allowed within the Royal Family.
ITA with this. Okay so the Cambridges allowed the press to film the arrivals and departures on their children's christenings. That is great but after looking back at other royal christenings it does not seem to be how it was usually done. Instead pictures or videos appeared to be released afterwards. Which is what H&M are doing. It is understandable for the public to expect to know how the Cambridges Godparents are, they will one day be king and senior working royals. Archie will probably not be a working royal as seventh in line to the throne. His godparents are private citizens and wish to remain so. I fail how respecting this and not releasing a list of names of people we do not know translates to a huge negative.
  #125  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:55 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by wyevale View Post
I didn't mention 'Historical record'.. but the names of Godparents are a matter of 'Public record' and will appear in the [public] register..
I was answering Mbruno's post which talks about being bothered that the historical record is being withheld.
  #126  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:56 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
Actually I haven't seen a full picture of Archie yet and I could barely see his face when he was shown to Harry and Meghan's handpicked TV crew at Windsor.



Having said that, I personally don't care about seeing Archie. I am bothered, however, that a matter of historic record such as the names of his godparents is being withheld from the public.
You saw as much of him in that presentation as you saw of any of the Cambridge kids on the steps of Lindo. Not exactly posed

The godparents don't need to be known and as private citizens it is their right.
  #127  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:57 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
We have no idea what Archieís title will be but Iím 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 Lenaís recent christening a statement from the palace said it was a private matter.
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.
  #128  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:03 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Herefordshire, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,397
Quote:
The godparents don't need to be known and as private citizens it is their right.
That is incorrect.. their names will be in the Public domain shortly, once the Baptismal register is examined, by the Press [whose hackles are now raised].
  #129  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:03 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
Frankly those offended and upset likely didnít care for them anyways. If you are angry that people want their privacy and it takes away your so called goodwill then likely it was never there in the first place.

Update from ITVís Chris Ship

ďFollowing much helpful commentary from the Sussex squad, I sought guidance on whether it was the godparents who wished to remain private, or Harry and Meghan who wished to keep their detail private. The answer was Ďbothí. The godparents, Iím told are not public figures or celebrities, but private citizens. And therefore both they, and Harry and Meghan, donít wish their names to be made public.ď
So, Harry and Meghan used their godparents as an excuse to not release their names. They never wanted to name them from the start but 'blamed' the godparents for not being willing to release their names. It's very unlikely that the godparents will tell Harry and Meghan that they want their names to be released after they were just told that Harry and Meghan didn't want to do so.
  #130  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:03 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
You saw as much of him in that presentation as you saw of any of the Cambridge kids on the steps of Lindo. Not exactly posed

The godparents don't need to be known and as private citizens it is their right.



See Wyvale's reply above. All baptisms have to be recorded in the church's register, including the names of the godparents, and church registers are public. Historians and genealogists actually research church registers all the time.


It is therefore a matter of public record which, in Archie's case, since he will be the grandson of a king and (at least under current rules) a prince of the United Kingdom, is also a matter of historic interest (which is why it is mentioned in encyclopedia articles for example).
  #131  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:07 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Glasgow, United Kingdom
Posts: 215
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.
Do you not understand? The godparents wish to be private. Harry and Meghan are respecting their wishes.
  #132  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:08 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
So, Harry and Meghan used their godparents as an excuse to not release their names. They never wanted to name them from the start but 'blamed' the godparents for not being willing to release their names. It's very unlikely that the godparents will tell Harry and Meghan that they want their names to be released after they were just told that Harry and Meghan didn't want to do so.
Any announcement from The Duke and Duchess of Sussex would reflect a final decision they are satisfied with. So I don’t think they are “scapegoating” anyone. And certainly, being Archie’s godparents is something the parents AND godparents would see eye to eye on, otherwise they wouldn’t be godparents. In this case, his godparents also wish to remain private. Like I said earlier, I doubt they had to twist the Sussexes’ arms.

His later tweet clarifies this issue further:

Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
The godparents, I’m told are not public figures or celebrities, but private citizens. And therefore both they, and Harry and Meghan, don’t wish their names to be made public.
  #133  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:09 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Somewhere in, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
Actually I haven't seen a full picture of Archie yet and I could barely see his face when he was shown to Harry and Meghan's handpicked TV crew at Windsor.



Having said that, I personally don't care about seeing Archie. I am bothered, however, that a matter of historic record such as the names of his godparents is being withheld from the public. Likewise, I was bothered when his place of birth (another matter of historic record) was not announced either.
And when it's the godparents' wish to remain private, shouldn't that override the public's "right" to know their names?
  #134  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:10 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Scotland, United Kingdom
Posts: 730
IF the god parents are really concerned about invasion of privacy they could decline the request to be god parents.
  #135  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:14 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Lawrenceville, United States
Posts: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
IF the god parents are really concerned about invasion of privacy they could decline the request to be god parents.
OR they can accept the honor bestowed on them by their friends as most people would and not still not wish their privacy to be invaded!
  #136  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:14 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 282
lol, church registers maybe public records, but may i remind you that e Windsor (St george and the Queen's private chapel where the baptism will take place) are Royal Peculiars: 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.. So good luck with getting this information. The Sussexes are not this stupid
  #137  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:14 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 6,427
Just speculating here: if all godparents are private / anonymous persons, could we guess that neither the Duchess of Cambridge, nor one of the York Princesses or even Zara Phillips are among the potential godmothers ?
  #138  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:16 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,345
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
IF the god parents are really concerned about invasion of privacy they could decline the request to be god parents.
Why should they decline it just because people feel entitled to their identities? This suggestion is mind-boggling. We don't need to know who these people are. The world will still spin regardless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alvinking View Post
lol, church registers maybe public records, but may i remind you that e Windsor (St george and the Queen's private chapel where the baptism will take place) are Royal Peculiars: 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.. So good luck with getting this information. The Sussexes are not this stupid
Just as I suspected.
  #139  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:16 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Wherever, United States
Posts: 5,875
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.
The issue here isnít so much he is the grandson or great grandson of a monarch. Nor is it how itís done in Netherlands. Itís the wish of his godparents, who are private individuals, regarding their identity. If they wish not to be named in the press, they have that right. To me, thatís the end of the story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hallo girl View Post
IF the god parents are really concerned about invasion of privacy they could decline the request to be god parents.
But why should they decline unless the parents are insistent their identity has be to disclosed to the public? The Sussexes asked the people they did because they entrust these people to guide their son in his journey with God. And that is the only requirement the church requires. Disclosure to the press isnít a requirement for it unless the Sussexes wish it to be. And clearly, thatís, understandably, not one for them.
  #140  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:17 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 5,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqui24 View Post
Any announcement from The Duke and Duchess of Sussex would reflect a final decision they are satisfied with. So I donít think they are ďscapegoatingĒ anyone. And certainly, being Archieís godparents is something the parents AND godparents would see eye to eye on, otherwise they wouldnít be godparents. In this case, his godparents also wish to remain private. Like I said earlier, I doubt they had to twist the Sussexesí arms.

His later tweet clarifies this issue further:

Chris Ship
@chrisshipitv
The godparents, Iím told are not public figures or celebrities, but private citizens. And therefore both they, and Harry and Meghan, donít wish their names to be made public.
I don't see how this contradicts the very real possibility that H&M didn't want to reveal the names and made sure their chosen godparents 'agreed'. As, otherwise it would be very surprising that while so far no private citizen who was a godparent of a (future) monarch's grandchild refused to be named and suddenly all of Archie's godparents truly want to remain private...
__________________

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
abdication american history anastasia anastasia once upon a time ancestry archie mountbatten-windsor background story baptism biography british royal family brownbitcoinqueen chittagong commonwealth countries countess of snowdon customs doll dubai duke of sussex facts games gustaf vi adolf haakon vii hill history house of windsor imperial household intro italian royal family jack brooksbank jacobite japan jewellery kids movie książ castle line of succession list of rulers luxembourg mailing meghan markle monarchy nepalese royal jewels norway prince constantijn prince dimitri princess catharina-amalia princess chulabhorn walailak princess ribha queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen mathilde queen maxima random facts royal dress-ups royal jewels royal marriage royal re-enactments. royal wedding royal wedding gown serbian royal family snowdon speech sussex suthida swedish queen taiwan tracts tradition uae customs unsubscribe wittelsbach


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:54 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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