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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
ACO said:
William and Harry are working royals. Eugenie and Beatrice are not. So not sure that comparison holds much weight. Now if they were working then I could buy that argument. And frankly Harry should be compared to the likes of Charles's siblings while William to Charles. They both should be working way more than they are but that is a topic for a different thread.
Click to expand...

And they are working royals why? Because they're expected to be working royals as the sons of the future monarch. That's my argument. That when you're close family to a future king, there will be different expectations of you. I'm not trying to start an argument about working royals. You and @Fijiro were arguing that Archie's situation should be compared to that of Peter and Zara's children because he isn't the grandson of the monarch right now and I'm saying that that just isn't how the monarchy works. Hence my example with Beatrice and Eugenie.

And yes, by all means, let's compare Harry to Charles' siblings. Because with those comparisons, Archie should, as I'm arguing, be compared to Peter and Zara rather than Savannah and Mia. I don't disagree that people are making mountains out of molehills (I mean, the world doesn't stop turning just because we don't know who his godparents are), but justifying Harry and Meghan's decision by arguing that we also don't know Savannah and Mia's godparents just doesn't work.
 
Last edited:
I've not accused them of 'seeking it', but I do think even the most naive might have worked out the likely result of this course of action ?

Heaven knows, the Duke has enough experience of the antics of the British Press..
 
I know I am going to get it in the neck for this one, but did they make the best choice to arrive at Wimbledon with Meghan yesterday , knowing it would cause interest and speculation. I know in theory they should be able to, but for it to be announced the god parents were friends, private people who did not wish to be named, then two people turn up with Meghan who are known to be her old friends, one of whom appears to have flown in from America.
Another thing about the press talking about people, I know more about Meghans friend from these forums, than from the newspapers, you have all provided details about their husbands, careers, children , even their religion. Information you obviously all looked up somewhere,
Just putting it out there for discussion.
 
wyevale said:
I've not accused them of 'seeking it', but I do think even the most naive might have worked out the likely result of this course of action ?

Heaven knows, the Duke has enough experience of the antics of the British Press..
Click to expand...

I only pointed that out because seeking attention is what my comment was a response to. And in terms of what attention would likely result, it seem EVERYTHING they do these days, whether in keeping with what's previously done or not, it always generates OTT reaction either way.

And I think your second paragraph might just be the problem.
 
Godparents gate rages on. Unless there is evidence the chosen godparents are threats to the UK's national security or a danger to Archie it's not required for the public to know. Meghan's friends at Wimbledon are being scrutined and throwing everyone a bone is not going to be enough. I'm being facetious because this is becoming ridiculous.
 
Does anyone remember why...

Diana’s sister didn’t want to marry Charles?
Or why neither Chelsy nor Cressida wished to marry Harry?

Is it surprising that would-be godparents should wish to be shielded from the sheer nastiness of some of the British press and some of their readers?

Or from the obsessive research and information-seeking by some readers of some online forums and message boards, and the concomitant and endless discussion of the godparents’ lives? (Not this Forum, of course!)

The godparents have no official or legal responsibilities related to the honor of being named. And they have every reason to fear being subjected to treatment none of us would tolerate in our own lives.

IMO
 
PS: It’s the Clooneys.
(JK)
 
Last edited:
Hallo girl said:
I know I am going to get it in the neck for this one, but did they make the best choice to arrive at Wimbledon with Meghan yesterday , knowing it would cause interest and speculation. I know in theory they should be able to, but for it to be announced the god parents were friends, private people who did not wish to be named, then two people turn up with Meghan who are known to be her old friends, one of whom appears to have flown in from America.

Another thing about the press talking about people, I know more about Meghans friend from these forums, than from the newspapers, you have all provided details about their husbands, careers, children , even their religion. Information you obviously all looked up somewhere,

Just putting it out there for discussion.
Click to expand...



Totally agree. I thought the decision was odd not to name them but hey ho. Then the Wimbledon display and I thought no this is a bit naughty.
 
jacqui24 said:
But that was my point, the Wessexes also release photos of their children’s ,who are private citizens, christening. As did Princess Anne. So I guess you want these people to renounce their titles? It’s well within the precedent. And certainly, they understand the interest people have in them and try to keep the balance between their child’s privacy and the public interest in their lives.
Click to expand...

I'd be fine if they followed that precedent. Releasing pictures as well as the names of the godparents (and preferably a picture with the godparents).

I would prefer all royals to just hold their christenings in normal church services as do most other parents (I don't know anyone who didn't) bjt it seems that's not happening in any royal family. They seem to prefer the special treatment - and many royal watchers are probably happy for it as in some families that means the service is broadcast.
 
ACO said:
But Harry and Meghan are not denying people seeing them. They are the titled working royals. We see them doing their duty. What has riled people up is their feeling of being denied Archie, who is an untitled private citizen far down the royal totem pole. They are doing things similarly to the Wessexes and Anne's children. What the media seems to want is them to do things like the Cambridges despite the fact they are not the heirs and shouldn't have to.

We are going to see images of Archie. It is not like they are hiding him.
Click to expand...

They are not doing things similar to the Wessexes. If so, Archie would be known as Earl of Dumbarton and the names of his godparents would be released. On the other end of the spectrum, they woukdn't have released a picture of Archie with the queen, duke and his non-royal grandmother.

If they prefer to keep Archie sheltered from the press, like the Wessexes did quite succesfully, that's totally fine with me. So far, they seem to be using him as a teaser. They are just too happy not to share him somewhat with the public.
 
Last edited:
Somebody said:
I'd be fine if they followed that precedent. Releasing pictures as well as the names of the godparents (and preferably a picture with the godparents).

I would prefer all royals to just hold their christenings in normal church services as do most other parents (I don't know anyone who didn't) bjt it seems that's not happening in any royal family. They seem to prefer the special treatment - and many royal watchers are probably happy for it as in some families that means the service is broadcast.
Click to expand...

The Cambridges did not release pictures with the godparents, so I don't expect any this time around.

A.
 
Last edited:
Dman said:
I’m frankly getting very tired of the unnecessary drama. It’s just a baby’s christening. Not a Coronation.
Click to expand...
Of an untitled child that is 7th in the line of succession at that.
 
Only 15% of UK adults identify as Anglican, so I highly doubt the greater public population cares about Archie's christening, much less who his godparents will be.

This is very much manufactured outrage.
 
26 pages and he hasn’t even been christened yet. I feel sorry for the moderators.
 
Fijiro said:
The Cambridges did not release pictures with the godparents, so I don't expect any this time around.

A.
Click to expand...

I had forgotten that, we saw them walking to the church, having said that I wouldn't have been able to pick them out in a line up other than Zara. I cannot even remember who they all are. It is funny how your mind plays tricks on you I was sure they had issued photographs but it was only the family group.
 
I'd bet my car the Sussexes are not bothered one bit. They said their piece, set their boundaries, and are moving on happily with the christening of their son with friends and family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What an odd decision. I can't think of any other royal belonging to a reigning family where the public did not get to know the godparents, except Archduchess Anna-Astrid of Austria-Este (great-granddaughter of king Albert II of Belgium).

If the decision was made due to privacy concerns I would not be surprised if they achieved the opposite of what they wanted to achieve. Considering the public interest in the couple I am sure journalists will try their very best to find out whomever the godparents are. If anything the secrecy will have drawn more attention to it, not less.

For a reigning royal family certain things are to be shared with the public. They are not private individuals, they are members of the royal family and with the many perks come certain sacrifices.

Needless drama and negative press which could have been avoided.
 
Last edited:
Skippy2236959 said:
For this post I take off my hat and make a deep bow. I totally agree with it.
All this secrecy about the christening and Archie being a private citizen is ridiculous.
Have the christening and release that info afterwards, then it will die down without much fuss.

Archie can not be a private citizen in the form they wish him to be - his parents are HRH's and he will be in direct line to a future king.
I don't know whomever's idea it was to do it this way, but a level of understanding seems to be missing.

Don't they see that because of who they are, there will always be interest for their offspring? Making him a private citizen won't keep the media at bay.
IMO there is some unresolved stuff from Harry's side that plays a part in these strange constructions.

The Phillips children have untitled parents who work for their own money - that is perfectly in line with each other. The Wessex children have a title (Lady and Viscount) but are not HRHs, in keeping with their low profile. Understandable.
But TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and plain Master Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor? That's a breech that does not go well.

They have a lot to learn and I have wanted to express my irritation with all this for a long time. There, I'm done.
Click to expand...
.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. And all of this, and the labor announcement has really turned my opinion and interest in them
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Marengo said:
What an odd decision. I can't think of any other royal belonging to a reigning family where the public did not get to know the godparents, except Archduchess Anna-Astrid of Austria-Este (great-granddaughter of king Albert II of Belgium).

If the decision was made due to privacy concerns I would not be surprised if they achieved the opposite of what they wanted to achieve. Considering the public interest in the couple I am sure journalists will try their very best to find out whomever the godparents are. If anything the secrecy will have drawn more attention to it, not less.

For a reigning royal family certain things are to be shared with the public. They are not private individuals, they are members of the royal family and with the many perks come certain sacrifices.

Needless drama and negative press which could have been avoided.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this.

I understand that Harry and Meghan want to honor the request from their friends and keep their names private, but this has unfortunately created more of a frenzy and made people more interested in finding out the names. I imagine sooner or later we'll know them.

jacqui24 said:
Palmer said that baptism for members of the Queen’s family are recorded in a separate registry kept by the Royal Household. And it has never complied with requests to make it public.
Click to expand...

I'm curious to know how many have actually been denied this request. Especially since Palmer says there is no need to request the information because the names of the godparents are usually made public.
 
Somebody said:
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.
Click to expand...


If that were the case then it could also be argued that since “Archie is comparable to a grandchild of a monarch not to a great-grandchild” (according to you) then by that same logic the queen should’ve issued Letters patent to dignify H&M’s child with a princely hrh title the same way she did for all the Cambridge children. I seem to remember you arguing firmly against her doing any such thing for a Sussex offspring, in fact you were so adamant and kept going on about it. Now, whether or not M&H would’ve accepted a hrh title for their mixed race child if tq was benevolent enough to have offered one is beyond the point. I just wondered about the inconsistency of the logic re Archie’s godparents is all.

And let’s face it, there are no guarantees baby Archie will end up a grandchild of a monarch. Long live Prince Charles but he is getting on and although he absolutely deserves to be king after waiting so long and the valuable hard work he does, his mother doesn’t seem to want to give up her crown just yet and will probably last as long if not longer that her mother did. She loves her job and good on her I say. So, since she’s unlikely to abdicate the throne anytime soon unlike some of her younger contemporaries across the continent unwilling to let their heirs wither away into old age with a ever decreasing chance of wearing the crown, I think it’s a bit presumptious to say with absolute certainty that Archie is comparable to the grandchild of a monarch. It is factually incorrect. Anyway, I wish the Sussexes and fellow well wishers of the Sussex family a lovely day tomorrow. I can’t wait to see the photos the couple are gracious enough to want to share with well wishers. And I am certainly glad the couple won’t have to navigate murky questionable sources:p to share the photos and will do it in their own preferred way :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:The reasons for all the Cambridge children to being made HRH had to do with the change in the rules of male primogeniture. This has been covered extensively. William’s first born son would have been an HRH. An older sister, the heir apparent under the new rules, would not have been. This was not a factor for Archie. He is not the eldest son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lilyflo said:
Unless what the Queen has been doing up until now isn't unlawful? The legislation appears to apply to diocesan records but the royal peculiars aren't under the jurisdiction of any diocese so the legislation might not apply.
Click to expand...

This is what makes sense to me. Royal Peculiars, by definition, is is 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. As its own entity as described, records are kept by the Royal Household and contained in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle and are a unique collection of documents relating to the history of the British Monarchy over the last 250 years.

Everything relating to the monarchy is kept in the archives from private letters to speeches to documents and diaries (The diaries that HM, The Queen are keeping now will eventually find their place there) and this is where, I believe, Archie's baptismal certificate will find its rest.

One can request access to the Royal Archives and one example that I do know when it was granted and that is when William Shawcross was penning The Queen Mother, an official biography of Queen Elizabeth, The Queen Mother. I do believe the press has the right to request access to the baptismal certificate but I'll eat my shorts if its granted. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Genealogy of the Royal Family of Bulgaria
Replies
2
Views
1K
tihkon2
tihkon2
JessRulz
  • Locked
Birth of Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor: May 6, 2019
48 49 50
Replies
1K
Views
178K
JessRulz
JessRulz
Iluvbertie
British Royal Family Engagements 2020
2 3
Replies
85
Views
15K
Iluvbertie
Iluvbertie
ROYAL NORWAY
Princess Ingrid Alexandra's confirmation: August 31, 2019
9 10 11
Replies
300
Views
61K
Somebody
Somebody
A
Future and Popularity of the Thai Monarchy
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
11K
Tatiana Maria
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom