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

[Marlo]

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.

 

[ACO]

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.

 

[crm2317]

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!

 

[wyevale]

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.

 

[jacqui24]

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

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.

 

[ACO]

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?

 

[muriel]

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.

 

[ACO]

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.

 

[muriel]

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.

Very well put. Needlessly creating negativity where none is due.

 

[ACO]

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.

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.“

 

[Hallo girl]

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.

I think I am right in saying that the Cambridges were the first couple to invite the press to record the arrival of the guests. Previous royal christening were totally private with photographs issued later. I do believe god parents were announced though. I am referring to the queens children and grand children here.

 

[Molly2101]

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?

Interpret it as you wish.

People are saying we shouldn’t be comparing Archie to the Cambridge children and we don’t know who the Phillips or Tindall godparents are...Mia and Lena will never be grandchildren of a reigning Monarch, regardless of whether they and Archie are currently only great grandchildren of one. We know the godparents of all the Queen’s grandchildren because they are that - a reigning monarch’s grandchildren. Currently Archie is “only” a great grand child but he won’t alaays be just that. This obsession with privacy is bordering on weird frankly. Edward and Sophie strived for privacy for their children and they have achieved it but they still manage to provide details about their children’s lives. Whether Edward and Sophie liked it or not, their kids are grandchildren of a monarch and they realised that.

Archie will be even more well known than the Wessex children and Harry and Meghan need to get over themselves and realise this. Privacy can be achieved - all they have to do is look at Harry’s two youngest cousins to know it’s possible. They just also need to realise that they as the parents are not private people and belong to one of the most famous families in the world.

 

[BaiSoSo]

I love the announcement that the Godparents will be kept private. They don't need to be compared to the Cambridges, Wessexes or anyone else. I'm glad that Harry and Meghan are able to make their own decisions and put the protection of their family and friends first. Official pictures will be sufficient.

 

[jacqui24]

I think I am right in saying that the Cambridges were the first couple to invite the press to record the arrival of the guests. Previous royal christening were totally private with photographs issued later. I do believe god parents were announced though. I am referring to the queens children and grand children here.

I don't know about anyone else, but I do believe you are right that's the model was done for at least Prince Edward who was then the son of monarch.

Like I said, I do understand the curiosity about godparents, but this is far less of an issue of Archie's privacy or not as opposed to his godparents'. Obviously, I'd say it's different for George. But as it stands, I do think privacy of godparents matters greater.

 

[Cocoasneeze]

As the codparents wish to not be named, then that's it. Their right to privacy should come first. I don't get why anyone would be upset about that.

 

[muriel]

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.

I am not angry at all, I am just amused at the consistent lack of maturity in dealing with these matters displayed by H&M.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

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.

Exactly. They do not seem to see that they are creating negativity that does not come in handy for royals in the long term.

Pulling the privacy card whenever it suits them will be annoying people to no end. It's not possible to take off royalty like a coat and put away to the next outing when you expect adoring fans.
They want to be royals, private people or celebs when it suits them best but they will not be the first to find out that it doesn't work that way.

 

[ACO]

Interpret it as you wish.

People are saying we shouldn’t be comparing Archie to the Cambridge children and we don’t know who the Phillips or Tindall godparents are...Mia and Lena will never be grandchildren of a reigning Monarch, regardless of whether they and Archie are currently only great grandchildren of one. We know the godparents of all the Queen’s grandchildren because they are that - a reigning monarch’s grandchildren. Currently Archie is “only” a great grand child but he won’t alaays be just that. This obsession with privacy is bordering on weird frankly. Edward and Sophie strived for privacy for their children and they have achieved it but they still manage to provide details about their children’s lives. Whether Edward and Sophie liked it or not, their kids are grandchildren of a monarch and they realised that.

Archie will be even more well known than the Wessex children and Harry and Meghan need to get over themselves and realise this. Privacy can be achieved - all they have to do is look at Harry’s two youngest cousins to know it’s possible. They just also need to realise that they as the parents are not private people and belong to one of the most famous families in the world.

We shouldn’t compare as people point out endlessly their roles are completely different. And yes he will be the grandson of a monarch but he will likely spend most of his life the nephew of the monarch. So I think allowing him privacy is not unwarranted.

 

[jacqui24]

I am not angry at all, I am just amused at the consistent lack of maturity in dealing with these matters displayed by H&M.

And respecting a person's right to privacy is immature? I feel like I'm in a different universe now.

 

[ACO]

I am not angry at all, I am just amused at the consistent lack of maturity in dealing with these matters displayed by H&M.

People are upset that private citizens want to remain as such. So Harry and Meghan should ignore their request so some people will know the names of people they don’t know? Why so they can look them up which is the point of them wanting to stay anonymous.

 

[Erin9]

As the codparents wish to not be named, then that's it. Their right to privacy should come first. I don't get why anyone would be upset about that.

I don’t either.

 

[Curryong]

So these godparents wish to remain anonymous (and Chris Ship sought clarification on it) but somehow it's still Meghan and Harry's fault!

 

[wyevale]

Pulling the privacy card whenever it suits them will be annoying people to no end.

The problem is that Harry and Meghan seem to want all the privileges of their position without the “constraints” of tradition and publicity...which even as a life-long Monarchist I find hard to defend.

 

[jacqui24]

The problem is that Harry and Meghan seem to want all the privileges of their position without the “constraints” of tradition and publicity...which even as a life-long Monarchist I find hard to defend.

There are certain constraints of tradition and publicity that I can understand. And certainly, there is a certain aspect, or portion, of their personal lives that are public. However, what does that mean for the private individuals around them? Should they be fair game? That's the issue here.

And btw, aside from Meghan and Harry, "constraints of tradition and publicity" within the BRF have changed over the years as well. So it's certainly not a new concept or unique to the Sussexes.

 

[Marlo]

The problem is that Harry and Meghan seem to want all the privileges of their position without the “constraints” of tradition and publicity...which even as a life-long Monarchist I find hard to defend.

It said the godparents want to be private.

 

[ACO]

The problem is that Harry and Meghan seem to want all the privileges of their position without the “constraints” of tradition and publicity...which even as a life-long Monarchist I find hard to defend.

As in what? What have they denied the public? Did we not see Archie after his birth? Are we not getting images from his christening? Things shift. History proves that. That doesn't mean they are bucking so called tradition especially when some of these have only been in existence barely a generation.

 

[BaiSoSo]

I am not angry at all, I am just amused at the consistent lack of maturity in dealing with these matters displayed by H&M.

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.

 

[Mbruno]

As in what? What have they denied the public? Did we not see Archie after his birth?

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.