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

[Lilyflo]

If this is true, I don't believe a second that van Straubenzee insisted on remaining private and not named publicly as godparent, given his history with both William and Harry.

I agree. Nor do I think Tiggy Pettifer would have requested to remain private if she is a godmother as speculated.

Some of the Godparents quite clearly didn't want their names published so even if others are already in the public sphere, some of them aren't & wish to remain so. I can quite understand anyone wanting to protect their privacy, given the certainty of having their life picked over & sensationalised in tabloids.

 

[King of the Jungle]

Archie is a sweetheart!
Harry and Meghan look super proud and I love the released photos.

I think the Godparents will end up being revealed and perhaps they are controversial.
Could Meghan's nieces or nephews be the mysterious missing pieces?
Really, I don't understand. The secrecy is creating a stigma when being a Godparent is actually something special.
Why would anyone agree to being Archie's Godparent if they can't cope with being named? It goes with the territory.

 

[Alisa]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ing-like-lister-cloak-dagger-christening.html

Harry's wingman 'is Archie's godfather': Charlie van Straubenzee is named after christening - but secretive Prince and Meghan still refuse to reveal truth despite praising mystery godparents in social media post

Unless Charlie or BP or the Sussexes confirm this- it is nothing but speculation on the Daily Mail or wherever they copied their info from.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

Archie is a sweetheart!
Harry and Meghan look super proud and I love the released photos.

I think the Godparents will end up being revealed and perhaps they are controversial.
Could Meghan's nieces or nephews be the mysterious missing pieces?
Really, I don't understand. The secrecy is creating a stigma when being a Godparent is actually something special.
Why would anyone agree to being Archie's Godparent if they can't cope with being named? It goes with the territory.

I was thinking the same. Perhaps her niece Ashley (Samantha's estranged daughter) who Meghan is close to. No one knows what Ashley looks like, and I happen to think that she was actually at the wedding but didn't want to be known because well...her mother is Samantha.

 

[TLLK]

Archie is a sweetheart!
Harry and Meghan look super proud and I love the released photos.

I think the Godparents will end up being revealed and perhaps they are controversial.
Could Meghan's nieces or nephews be the mysterious missing pieces?
Really, I don't understand. The secrecy is creating a stigma when being a Godparent is actually something special.
Why would anyone agree to being Archie's Godparent if they can't cope with being named? It goes with the territory.

I agree. IMO Tiggy Pettifer as a Godmother might ruffle some of Diana's more devoted fans who were unhappy that the brothers maintained a relationship with her over the years.


I could understand one of Meghan's nieces or nephews wanting to remain anonymous because of their parent(s) behavior.

 

[Alison H]

It was clearly said in the announcement, the godparents don't want their names to be published. Imho they have that right...

The Church of England does generally require that godparents' names be recorded in the parish registers, which are publicly available. OK, unless the christening was of the child of a royal/celeb, no-one would bother looking, but technically it's breaking the rules not to name them!


It's also creating speculation where there wouldn't be any otherwise. Interest in who'd been named as the Cambridge children's godparents didn't really last beyond the next day's papers. If you keep something secret when it wouldn't normally be secret, people will wonder.

 

[Osipi]

The Church of England does generally require that godparents' names be recorded in the parish registers, which are publicly available. OK, unless the christening was of the child of a royal/celeb, no-one would bother looking, but technically it's breaking the rules not to name them!

The baptismal certificate *was* recorded in the CoE parish registry. It just so happens that the "parish" is a royal peculiar and the records are handled by the Royal Household and kept in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle and under the jurisdiction of HM, The Queen. As I've stated before, anyone can request permission to access things in the Royal Archives but then again, the Queen has every right to refuse access.

 

[wyevale]

Does anyone recognise Ms Ragland's Brooch ?

I'm wondering if it might have been loaned to her for the occasion by HMQ, or the PoW ?

 

[Countessmeout]

The Church of England does generally require that godparents' names be recorded in the parish registers, which are publicly available. OK, unless the christening was of the child of a royal/celeb, no-one would bother looking, but technically it's breaking the rules not to name them!


It's also creating speculation where there wouldn't be any otherwise. Interest in who'd been named as the Cambridge children's godparents didn't really last beyond the next day's papers. If you keep something secret when it wouldn't normally be secret, people will wonder.

The baptism record including godparents are kept by the parish. By the actual church you are baptized in. Archie was baptized at Windsor chapel so that is who keeps the record. Are they going to pick some random church in Windsor the baby has never been inside to house the records?? There is no subterfuge here, they are doing exactly as any other parent does.

 

[Gawin]

I agree. Nor do I think Tiggy Pettifer would have requested to remain private if she is a godmother as speculated.

I suppose it's possible only some of the godparents wished to remain private and it was decided to keep all the names private.

So, if Archie is "not royal and a private citizen' as some posters claim here, why did he have all the trappings of a royal christening including being baptized by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a royal chapel using the silver gilt Lily Font, water from the River Jordan, and the ivory Honiton lace and satin gown used for all royal babies’ baptisms since the reign of Queen Victoria?

.

Princess Anne's children are private citizens not royals but her son Peter Phillips was baptized at Buckingham Palace by the Archbishop of Canterbury and her daughter Zara was baptized at Windsor Castle by the Dean of Windsor.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

But then often the child who is baoptized often does not wear a tradtional chrstening gown but instead boys wear a little suit for example. But i would not compare christenings of normal people with christenings of royal/noble children.

I have seen Catholic baptisms where the child wears a white gown and all the men wear ties. It may be a religious requirement of etiquette.

 

[Countessmeout]

I have seen Catholic baptisms where the child wears a white gown and all the men wear ties. It may be a religious requirement of etiquette.

General idea you dress smartly. No need for the old tradition of Sunday best. But suit or slacks with sport coat for man and dress or even slacks for women are appropriate. Nothing out of place with how Harry was dressed at all.

 

[Princess Larisa]

Court Circular 6th July:
Kensington Palace

The Baptism of the Infant Son of The Duke and Duchess of Sussex took place at 11.00am this morning in the Private Chapel, Windsor Castle.

The Archbishop of Canterbury baptised the Baby who received the names Archie Harrison.

 

[wartenberg7]

Believe it or not, today I read a so called "body language expert" named Judi James claimed the christenig group photograph would speak of a serious rift between the Cambridges and the Sussexes....

 

[Denville]

The Church of England does generally require that godparents' names be recorded in the parish registers, which are publicly available. OK, unless the christening was of the child of a royal/celeb, no-one would bother looking, but technically it's breaking the rules not to name them!


It's also creating speculation where there wouldn't be any otherwise. Interest in who'd been named as the Cambridge children's godparents didn't really last beyond the next day's papers. If you keep something secret when it wouldn't normally be secret, people will wonder.

But that is what they tend to do, make an issue about something.. and then people discuss it and fuss over it.. whereas if they had just gone ahead and released the information no one would take more than a cursory interest.

 

[muriel]

.. whereas if they had just gone ahead and released the information no one would take more than a cursory interest.

That is quite right. This was also the case with naming the hospital where Archie was born. Having gone down this route, I am afraid the couple have, needlessly and without gain to themselves, squandered valuable goodwill.

 

[JR76]

Believe it or not, today I read a so called "body language expert" named Judi James claimed the christenig group photograph would speak of a serious rift between the Cambridges and the Sussexes....

Judi James has made quite a name for herself as the media go to body language expert and has featured in numerous TV, radio, pod and magazine situations where she's evaluated the body language and behaviour of many people in the public eye. We can think what we like about the credibility her rulings, but by many she's seen as the real deal.

 

[wartenberg7]

Judi James has made quite a name for herself as the media go to body language expert and has featured in numerous TV, radio, pod and magazine situations where she's evaluated the body language and behaviour of many people in the public eye. We can think what we like about the credibility her rulings, but by many she's seen as the real deal.

That prooves nothing. I mean let logic rule! Why would 2 brothers who went together a lot, who are in a pretty unique position nobody else really can understand how this must feel like, who have been the best of friends and supported each other suddenly drift apart as one of the two got married?!
Conflicts happen there and then in every family, that´s normal. Perhaps they had their little differences in the past. So what?

But a feud or a rift is another matter. And I still cannot see what would justify that!
No, it is the same as always with the media - good is boring. Getting along fine with each other? even more boring. No, there must be something! And if it isn´t we will write until there is!

 

[JR76]

That prooves nothing. I mean let logic rule!

I never said it did. My point was that Judi James is a well-known media figure that's made a great career for herself on enough people believing in what she claims to see.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Judi James has made quite a name for herself as the media go to body language expert and has featured in numerous TV, radio, pod and magazine situations where she's evaluated the body language and behaviour of many people in the public eye. We can think what we like about the credibility her rulings, but by many she's seen as the real deal.

And I said earlier in the thread, when her opinion came up before, I do not believe one photo can tell even an “expert” much. She wasn’t there. And if she’d said everything seemed great, the papers wouldn’t have printed that.

 

[Mirabel]

But that is what they tend to do, make an issue about something.. and then people discuss it and fuss over it.. whereas if they had just gone ahead and released the information no one would take more than a cursory interest.

Well-said! If they had done so, by now it would be all forgotten; instead there is this drama and ill-feeling about the whole thing.

 

[Elenath]

Well-said! If they had done so, by now it would be all forgotten; instead there is this drama and ill-feeling about the whole thing.

So Harry and Meghan should just give the press and others whatever they want?? There is a fuss because people feel entitled, not because Harry and Meghan are doing things wrong. These are private lives, people are not entitled to anything.

 

[Mirabel]

So Harry and Meghan should just give the press and others whatever they want?? There is a fuss because people feel entitled, not because Harry and Meghan are doing things wrong. These are private lives, people are not entitled to anything.

But they are not private citizens!
They are funded by taxpayer money (even if indirectly, though the Duchy of Cornwall), and to carry on this way causes needless resentment.

There is increasing hostility in the press, and that is the thing the RF always tries to avoid.

 

[Dman]

But they are not private citizens!
They are funded by taxpayer money (even if indirectly, though the Duchy of Cornwall), and to carry on this way causes needless resentment.

There is increasing hostility in the press, and that is the thing the RF always tries to avoid.

Things will calm down once Meghan get back to work. Also, things will calm down if Harry and Meghan and the royal press come to a mutual understanding and bridge to disconnect between them.

Right now, there seems to be a lack of communication and understanding between the couple, their office and the press. I totally understand the hard feelings the couple have due to the months of terrible treatment they’ve received within the press, but things gotta cool off now.

You hear me, Harry?

 

[MARG]

I think the overweening sense of entitlement is both from the media and even some here, is reducing them commodities.

What did you miss? A video of the family walking to the Chapel which you were never going to see since it is in an off limits private area, and the names of the Godparents who, if they are private citizens, have a right to their privacy.

Much ado about nothing except the low slow sound of normal people grinding their molars.

 

[wyevale]

Looking at the Duchess of Cambridge's pose on that chair in the photograph, she looks to me as though she cannot wait to leave...

 

[Elenath]

But they are not private citizens!

They are funded by taxpayer money (even if indirectly, though the Duchy of Cornwall), and to carry on this way causes needless resentment.



There is increasing hostility in the press, and that is the thing the RF always tries to avoid.

Even members of the BRF have right to a private life. They are not public property.

 

[BaiSoSo]

Things will calm down once Meghan get back to work. Also, things will calm down if Harry and Meghan and the royal press come to a mutual understanding and bridge to disconnect between them.

Right now, there seems to be a lack of communication and understanding between the couple, their office and the press. I totally understand the hard feelings the couple have due to the months of terrible treatment they’ve received within the press, but things gotta cool off now.

You hear me, Harry?

A better question is do the media hear Harry (and Meghan)? They aren't going to let the media treat their child as a zoo exhibit. It has been made very clear that the Sussexes are putting the best interest of their child (and family) first, and as a private citizen there will be limited access to him and their private lives and they aren't going to waiver from that. Once the media understands that and stops trying to 'other' Meghan things will cool down.

I don't get the media is whining, we all got wonderful pictures and some of the papers still managed 4-page spreads of the event. I wish someone could give me a sufficient reason why the media and the public need to know who Archie's godparents are...because right now, where I'm sitting there isn't one.

 

[Dman]

A better question is do the media hear Harry (and Meghan)? They aren't going to let the media treat their child as a zoo exhibit. It has been made very clear that the Sussexes are putting the best interest of their child first, and as a private citizen there will be limited access to him and their private lives and they aren't going to waiver from that. Once the media understands that and stops trying to 'other' Meghan things will cool down.

I don't get the media is whining, we all got wonderful pictures and some of the papers still managed 4-page spreads of the event. I wish someone could give me a sufficient reason why the media and the public need to know who Archie's godparents are...because right now, where I'm sitting there isn't one.

The public don’t need to know who’s, Archie’s, godparents are. But not releasing the names did create some very unnecessary noises. The Cambridge’s and Sussexes have set their own precedent of not officially releasing photographs of the godparents at the christening and that’s alright. But at least the Cambridges released the names of the godparents. Not releasing the names and making it seem like the godparents are creatures from outer space did make some unnecessary chatter.

Yes, we need to move on, but, it’s time for Harry and Meghan and the press to come off the edge now. It’s been too many months of everyone living on the edge and leading to nothing good.

Also, I don’t think anyone expect the Sussexes to hand over their privacy. It’s pretty clear the royals are totally entitled to some privacy. I don’t think anyone have the desire to infringe on the privacy of baby, Archie.

 

[JR76]

And I said earlier in the thread, when her opinion came up before, I do not believe one photo can tell even an “expert” much. She wasn’t there. And if she’d said everything seemed great, the papers wouldn’t have printed that.

That was my point, no matter if her work is credible or not doesn't matter as long as there are enough people who believe in what she says.