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

[wyevale]

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.

[Curryong]

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.

[wyevale]

I didn't mention 'Historical record'.. but the names of Godparents are a matter of 'Public record' and will appear in the [public] register..

[Duchessblack]

Originally Posted by BaiSoSo

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.

[Curryong]

Originally Posted by wyevale

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.

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by ACO

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.

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.

[wyevale]

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].

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by ACO

Frankly those offended and upset likely didn’t 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 ITV’s Chris Ship

“Following 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 ‘both’. 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.“

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.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by ACO

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).

[CTchic]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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.

[Cocoasneeze]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

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?

[Hallo girl]

IF the god parents are really concerned about invasion of privacy they could decline the request to be god parents.

[Duchessblack]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

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!

[alvinking]

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

[Mbruno]

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 ?

[ACO]

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

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.

Originally Posted by alvinking

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.

[jacqui24]

Originally Posted by Somebody

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 isn’t so much he is the grandson or great grandson of a monarch. Nor is it how it’s done in Netherlands. It’s 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, that’s the end of the story.

Originally Posted by Hallo girl

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 isn’t a requirement for it unless the Sussexes wish it to be. And clearly, that’s, understandably, not one for them.

[Somebody]

Originally Posted by jacqui24

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.

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...