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

[Lilyflo]

I think arrival and departure pics are an easy ask. If the Sussexes go completely ‘private’ there will be tons of negative press.

There weren't tons of negative press for all the other royal Christenings that were completely private so why should there be for this one?

 

[theroyalfly]

The world is not going to end if there's no entrance and departure pictures.

Apparently, it is for royal reporters

 

[Mbruno]

Depends what you mean by 'private' (in Victorian times) I suppose. This is a painting of the 1842 christening at Windsor of the future Edward VII in 1842. Complete with family, courtiers, foreign royalty, masses of clergy etc.

https://www.rct.uk/collection/40585...nce-of-wales-later-edward-vii-1841-1910-at-st

Clearly it was not a private family ceremony then.


Who was the last British prince to have a big ceremonial christening ?

 

[wyevale]

Complete with family, courtiers, foreign royalty, masses of clergy etc.

That WAS Private, by their standards, everyone present was well known to the Family, Courtiers lived 'cheek-by jowl' with them, and [during their three-Months 'on duty'] were in permanent 'waiting', the Clergy attended to their 'spiritual needs' again on a regular basis., and the foreign royalty were 'family'.
What there wasn't was Press intrusion/presence nor any of the Public there...

 

[theroyalfly]

Clearly it was not a private family ceremony then.


Who was the last British prince to have a big ceremonial christening ?

Excuse me. If that wasn't private enough for you, what is your definition of "private?"

 

[Mbruno]

Excuse me. If that wasn't private enough for you, what is your definition of "private?"

If it were private, there wouldn't be a public painting of it.

 

[Osipi]

If it were private, there wouldn't be a public painting of it.

Perhaps it was treated like a photograph for the family only and hung within palace walls totally private and over the years, became part and parcel of the Royal Collection as being historic.

We often see photographs in the background taken of the Queen which, perhaps, have never been released to the general public. I wouldn't be quick to say this painting was always in the public domain.

 

[Heavs]

Perhaps it was treated like a photograph for the family only and hung within palace walls totally private and over the years, became part and parcel of the Royal Collection as being historic.

We often see photographs in the background taken of the Queen which, perhaps, have never been released to the general public. I wouldn't be quick to say this painting was always in the public domain.

I was going to say a painting was pretty much used in the same way as a photograph then. It might have appeared in the papers of the time or might have been kept only as a family memory.

Whilst there were probably more people present it doesn't seem to have been a public occasion/celebration in the way weddings or coronations have been.

If it was filmed for the public the next controversy would be if they were using the Book of Common Prayer or Common Worship (traditional or modern) ala the wedding ceremony.

 

[theroyalfly]

If it were private, there wouldn't be a public painting of it.

I don't think there's a public painting whatsoever you call it at that time in history. Royal families, nobles, affluent class--- they commission for a painting for souvenir purposes and not for public consumption.

Of course, that painting in history became public "now" because only because its a piece of history

 

[Alison H]

I would assume they'll release some group pictures afterwards, like William and Kate did. Christenings here aren't the same sort of big event as weddings are: most people only invite a few close relatives and friends, and royal christenings certainly don't get televised.

 

[An Ard Ri]

I much prefer St Georges Chapel as a venue for royal events and its nice and private too.

 

[ACO]

Rebecca English has more details on the christening this upcoming weekend. It will apparently not be held at St. George's Chapel but instead in the Queen's private chapel. That would definitely prevent the media from seeing anyone arrive. So it will be pictures released to the media and likely other shots on their account.

Though naturally this doesn't please some members of the press.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...asing-stylised-arty-pictures-baby-Archie.html

 

[rominet09]

I really hope we will be gifted with some official pix….Now I respect their need to keep certain things private.

 

[Fijiro]

Good for the Sussexes. Their choice of the Queen's Private Chapel seems to be a good one, if it is true.

 

[Ista]

Rebecca English has more details on the christening this upcoming weekend. It will apparently not be held at St. George's Chapel but instead in the Queen's private chapel. That would definitely prevent the media from seeing anyone arrive. So it will be pictures released to the media and likely other shots on their account.

Though naturally this doesn't please some members of the press.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...asing-stylised-arty-pictures-baby-Archie.html

I wonder if this is accurate? If so, what a nice idea for a very intimate and private family ceremony. I'm still hoping we'll at least see a few of the the posed family photos, but it's possible we might not.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

There weren't tons of negative press for all the other royal Christenings that were completely private so why should there be for this one?

The only recent Christenings anyone really cared about the Cambridge kids. And William and Catherine gave the public and the photographers/reporters something to see, while keeping the actual ceremony private.

I would assume they'll release some group pictures afterwards, like William and Kate did. Christenings here aren't the same sort of big event as weddings are: most people only invite a few close relatives and friends, and royal christenings certainly don't get televised.

I wouldn’t assume the Sussexes will follow the Cambridge model. We might get something more than from the “private citizens” of the Tindalls & Phillips, but I feel that would be their preferred model to follow at this point.

 

[soapstar]

Lets's stick to discussing the Christening and not speculate about how the media will react to the event.

 

[jacqui24]

I honestly don’t think it’ll be either completely like the Cambridge model or Tindalls/Philips model. Meghan and Harry’s roles are different from both, and they understand that and find a compromise to reflect that. As a Sussex fan, I’ve not been disappointed to what I’ve gotten on celebratory events from them so far, albeit if different. I don’t feel like I’ve been denied anything. So my guess is that it’ll continue.

 

[Pranter]

My guess is they will have a private baptism (perhaps in the Queen's Chapel so no one sees anything coming/going) and then release a photo or two to their IG account.

I don't see an issue with it. They are not obligated to share their private lives with the media.



LaRae

 

[ACO]

Based on Rebecca English's article and tweets it seems we will have official pictures released via the press and then maybe some more intimate ones via their Instagram. English seems to be under the impression that the press pack are fighting for at least one media agency to be allowed inside but I suspect that won't happen. They clearly want this as private as possible.

 

[Iluvbertie]

This sounds like this christening is going to be on a par with Louise and James' which also took place in the Queen's private chapel at Windsor. They were both 8th in the line of succession at the time of their baptism while Archie is 7 so it also makes sense.

Harry is the younger son of a future monarch. Edward is the youngest son of the present monarch. It seems more and more that Harry is following Edward's lead in how he wants his child raised.

This whole year to me has been about positioning William and Harry for their future roles - one as the future King with his own office and two large homes while the other has the one large home, an apartment at BP and the office being overseen by the main office at BP. Harry is being clearly positioned as the younger sibling ala Andrew, Edward and Anne while William is being given all the requirements of the future King.

 

[andi]

The only photos that matter are the official portraits. So if we get those, seeing guests arrive or leave is hardly important

This whole press outrage is very reminiscent of the wedding/birth presentation press restrictions. For weeks before the events, the press whined about supposedly “no press allowed” but for both events PA/private photographers provided many good photos.

If the royal reporters/photographers want to complain about restrictions, they should frame their grievances better instead of trying to frame everything as “the public will miss out”. This dramatized conflict is between the press pack and the Sussexes NOT between the public vs Sussexes

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Yep, I called yesterday. If the Sussex plan was to stay as private as possible for Archie's christening, I said it would more likely be held at the chapel inside Windsor Castle. And I was right. Having the christening take place at St. George's Chapel Windsor would have made it much more difficult to keep cameras away.

After the fire at Windsor Castle in 1992, Prince Philip was responsible for overseeing the restoration of the interior chapel. He also redesigned the stained glass windows in the chapel. I saw this discussed in the documentary,Windsor Castle: A Royal Year, originally released in 2006. Prince Philip takes viewers on a tour of the chapel and the wing that was restored and renovated after the fire.

After the leak about the christening, a number of reporters are once again bellyaching and whining about not having access! Stating that the christening is private is kind of silly because the other royal christenings were actually private too! The only thing we aren't going to see surrounding Archie's christening are the arrivals and the departures. Some photos will surely be released to the public afterward, so frankly that's not very different from what we got to see of the other recent royal baby christenings.

It's clear to me that Prince Harry ain't taking anything about his family lightly. He wants to keep his wife and his son to himself. And he has reason to desire to protect them and to fear for their safety in view of all this continued frenzy, hullabaloo and over-criticism of Meghan that's relentless in the media. Also, the leaking is not coming from the Sussex camp.

 

[soapstar]

Closed until closer to the Christening.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

It's quite possible that it won't be revealed who Archie's godparents are, since the tendency is very strong to keep as much about Archie's life as private as possible.

Whoever the godparents are, they have surely been selected by now.

 

[Countessmeout]

It's quite possible that it won't be revealed who Archie's godparents are, since the tendency is very strong to keep as much about Archie's life as private as possible. Whoever the godparents are, they have surely been selected by now.

It has been reported we will get photos. I don’t see any reason to think we’d not get names of godparents and photo with them. Louise and James has total private baptisms but we got photos and names.

I don’t see how much of his life you think they keep secret. He is a month old. We know as much as we did with Cambridge kids.

Godparents will have been selected long before now. Not something chosen last second. Especially as the godparents would need to arrange to be there.

It’s nothing new we don’t know names a week before.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

It's quite possible that it won't be revealed who Archie's godparents are, since the tendency is very strong to keep as much about Archie's life as private as possible. Whoever the godparents are, they have surely been selected by now.

In the Anglican Church of England, is there a time limit of when the godparents must be selected?

 

[jacqui24]

In the Anglican Church of England, is there a time limit of when the godparents must be selected?

That's up to the parents. The church just have to ensure the godparents are qualified under church rules.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

I'm not saying that the godparents names won't be revealed, just that it's a possibility they won't be revealed, in order to protect the privacy of the godparents, and the privacy of the godparents' relationship with Archie.

The reason I say this is related to how the Sussexes have also sought to protect the privacy of Archie's and Meghan's medical professionals, etc.

Of course, it's not unreasonable to think the godparents' names will be revealed, but I just think the coverage of the Sussexes is currently in such a siege-like atmosphere that H&M may feel the less revealed, the better. Photos will surely be released of family members, not necessarily of the godparents.

I don't think the christening pictures will show us very much, since Archie will again be swathed in coverings. And granted, he's a baby in any case, so there's not really a lot to see.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

The names of Louise and James’s godparents were released. I think not releasing the names will cause the rumor mill to go into overdrive and not be helpful to anyone.