Names and Godparents for Harry and Meghan's second child

[irish_royalist]

We know it won't be named Thomas or Samantha.

Of all the posts on this thread, this is the most insightful ?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Will the baby even be christened?

I can't see them coming back to the UK so potential this will be the first descendant of the royals not to use the family christening robe - even the grandkids of the Gloucesters and Freddie Windsor's kids were christened in it

The first child of a British Royal prince and the only descendant of QEII never to be christened? I cannot imagine that. How sad.

Hopefully they will bring the baby back to Britain for a private christening and to introduce him/her to his paternal family...particularly his grandfather.

 

[Denville]

The first child of a British Royal prince and the only descendant of QEII never to be christened? I cannot imagine that. How sad.

Hopefully they will bring the baby back to Britain for a private christening and to introduce him/her to his paternal family...particularly his grandfather.

If they are likely to christen the child, then I think they should do it, in teh US where they are living.. and presumably attending church on some kind of basis. Why fly half way across the world to have a christening?

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Simple...so that at least Charles and other family members can be part of it and meet the child.

Meghan is not exactly surrounded by family in the US other than her mother.

Children should be raised with a sense of family and belonging.

 

[Pranter]

Why are ppl thinking this baby wont be baptized/christened? We have Churches in Ca. too!


LaRae

 

[QueenMathilde]

Why are ppl thinking this baby wont be baptized/christened? We have Churches in Ca. too!


LaRae

Meghan wasn't especially religious before she joined the COE.

 

[Pranter]

Meghan wasn't especially religious before she joined the COE.

Neither was Harry however sometimes kids change perspective.


LaRae

 

[Biri]

But she did it.
She made a vow to Harry in Anglican rite, baptized her firstborn in Anglican rite, why shouldn't she do it with her second?

The equivalent of Anglican is Episcopalian church in the US, I suppose.

 

[Duchess of Wakanda]

Not everyone is religious, and as they aren’t working royals anymore they shouldn’t feel the need to conform to the rules.

 

[Biri]

Being a working or non-working royal has nothing to do with being Christian.

List of Episcopal Church in LA, in which a baby may be baptized:

https://www.churchfinder.com/churches/ca/los-angeles/episcopal

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Not everyone is religious, and as they aren’t working royals anymore they shouldn’t feel the need to conform to the rules.

Not everyone who chooses to baptize their children is religious especially with the increasingly secular world we live in.

But in many cultures it is considered unthinkable not to.

I hope the Sussexes don't give their second child the distinction of being the only member of a thousand year old Royal house not to be given this most basic of Christian sacraments.

It would set him apart from his parents, his brother, his cousins...quite literally everyone in the family.

Anyway, I doubt Henry and Meghan would do that.

 

[QueenMathilde]

But she did it.
She made a vow to Harry in Anglican rite, baptized her firstborn in Anglican rite, why shouldn't she do it with her second?

The equivalent of Anglican is Episcopalian church in the US, I suppose.

I think it will be baptized just not have godparents. And I wouldn't be surprised if they left the COE - Meghan only joined because she was marrying into the royal family.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Most denominations including the Anglican/Episcopal one, require godparents/sponsors.

The choice to not have them is not Harry's or Meghan's to make.

And I hope Meghan did not convert simply to bag Harry. She wouldn't be the first. But a person who receives Baptism and makes the serious, solemn vows it requires for such a shallow reason has serious character flaws...to put it mildly.

 

[Countessmeout]

I think it will be baptized just not have godparents. And I wouldn't be surprised if they left the COE - Meghan only joined because she was marrying into the royal family.

Yes she only joined for marriage. So they are just going to choose a random christian church out of a hat?

I forgot Harry and how he was raised has Nothing to do with any decissions.

If this kid is baptized, it will have godparents. Its not a COE thing. Its not a royal thing. Its a pretty standard with most (yes I said most not all) christian churches. In the US like England, its pretty traditional. Meghan is godmother herself to several children (her two little bridesmaids in her wedding), so I don't see why she and Harry would buck that tradition as well.

Most denominations including the Anglican/Episcopal one, require godparents/sponsors.

The choice to not have them is not Harry's or Meghan's to make.

And I hope Meghan did not convert simply to bag Harry. She wouldn't be the first. But a person who receives Baptism and makes the serious, solemn vows it requires for such a shallow reason has serious character flaws...to put it mildly.

She certainly isn't the first royal bride to join the Anglican church just for marriage.

Autumn converted when she got married, so even no matter how far her husband and kids were from the throne, they would not lose their place in succession.

Kate may have been raised in the church but she was never confirmed. She had to be confirmed before the wedding.

But it seems only Meghan faces criticism for only joining for the wedding.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

My statement was meant to criticize anyone who converts for marriage only, not Meghan only. I find it insincere and cynical.

And yes I am aware that Kate was not confirmed prior to her engagement...a decision I found equally surprising given the lengths she and her family went to fit in with the Aristo/Royal set.

People at that level of society are always Confirmed as children or young teens.

 

[JessRulz]

Okay, enough with this debate - considering it is highly unlikely that the baby will not be christened at some point, this line of discussion is pointless.

Further posts will be removed.

 

[Countessmeout]

As the admins want us to move past the debate of christening, I won't respond.

With baby August Brooksbank, my thoughts go again to names for this little one.

I actually find myself wondering if Harry will be a godfather to Eugenie's son. It would be fitting as the last Duke of Sussex was Prince Augustus. They could do both ways, and Harry and Meghan could choose Eugenie for their new baby.

Back to names, as Philip has been used for baby Brooksbank, there is less pressure for them to honor Philip, if there ever was. But they may choose to include him as a middle name for his 100th birthday (two great-grandsons with a matching middle name is no issue).

If its a girl I'd love Alice for Philip's mother. (though not sure we will have double A's, though I guess the dutch have triple A)

 

[muriel]

Simple...so that at least Charles and other family members can be part of it and meet the child.

It will be interesting to see when Charles gets to meet his new grand child!

Meghan is not exactly surrounded by family in the US other than her mother.

Children should be raised with a sense of family and belonging.

Each of us places a different level of importance of the role of family in our lives. I just do not get the sense that family has much of a role in Meghan's life (evidenced by having one relative at her wedding!). So it will be interesting to see if she allows her children to have any meaningful relationship with their father's family.

 

[Osipi]

Whatever happens, I can guarantee it will be much more on a private level than Archie's birth was. We may never know the godparents at all and it will be up to them to even announce the new baby's name to the public and when.

Off the wall, I'm going to state that whatever name they do choose, the baby will have no living or dead namesake in a familial manner and it will be a name that they both just happen to like. That leave the entire list of names known and unknown open to choose.

I'm going to wait until they announce it themselves and be surprised.

 

[Countessmeout]

It will be interesting to see when Charles gets to meet his new grand child!



Each of us places a different level of importance of the role of family in our lives. I just do not get the sense that family has much of a role in Meghan's life (evidenced by having one relative at her wedding!). So it will be interesting to see if she allows her children to have any meaningful relationship with their father's family.

Some people are not blessed to have a close family.

Meghan grew up any only child really. Her half siblings are all much older then she was. She does have a relationship with a niece and nephew. For what ever reason they chose not to attend the wedding. Or they did, as some believe, and were seated with the other guests for their privacy. Which makes sense.

Her father and other family members showed their true colors selling out to the newspapers over having a relationship.

Some people embrace the 'friends are the family you choose for yourself'. You build a framework of support and love when those you are born into are not there for various reasons. Meghan was surrounded by her 'family' on her wedding day. Just not the narrow view that family has to have the same blood.


That doesn't mean she doesn't value family. Or that she would deny her children having family.

And last I looked Harry was not a mindless puppet. He does have a say in his children and how they are raised. And he does have a relationship with his dad and with his grandmother among others. I find it another sad reach from some people to think Meghan has him on such a short leash she controls even who he has in his life or that of his children.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Whatever happens, I can guarantee it will be much more on a private level than Archie's birth was. We may never know the godparents at all and it will be up to them to even announce the new baby's name to the public and when.

Off the wall, I'm going to state that whatever name they do choose, the baby will have no living or dead namesake in a familial manner and it will be a name that they both just happen to like. That leave the entire list of names known and unknown open to choose.

I'm going to wait until they announce it themselves and be surprised.

Not sure how it could possibly be more private than Archie's birth and baptism. To this day, no one knows who his godparent are.

With this second child , the public will be lucky to even find out the date of birth until a week or so after the fact.

 

[Denville]

Whatever happens, I can guarantee it will be much more on a private level than Archie's birth was. We may never know the godparents at all and it will be up to them to even announce the new baby's name to the public and when.

Off the wall, I'm going to state that whatever name they do choose, the baby will have no living or dead namesake in a familial manner and it will be a name that they both just happen to like. That leave the entire list of names known and unknown open to choose.

I'm going to wait until they announce it themselves and be surprised.

do you think if they have a girl, they wont use Diana or Doria?

 

[Osipi]

do you think if they have a girl, they wont use Diana or Doria?

I would bet my last BBQ'ed rib on that one.

 

[Denville]

I would bet my last BBQ'ed rib on that one.

Really? William named his daughter Diana.. and Doria is Meg's mother and it seems her closest ally and friend in the family.. it seems odd that they would not honour these grandmohters....

 

[Osipi]

Some families do not feel the need to "honor" someone by choosing the name for their child. Archie's name doesn't "honor" anyone familial at all. I think they'll follow the same route with their second child.

 

[Denville]

Some families do not feel the need to "honor" someone by choosing the name for their child. Archie's name doesn't "honor" anyone familial at all. I think they'll follow the same route with their second child.

yeah it does. It means "harry's son". I suppose they thought just calling him Archie Henry would be too conventional...

 

[Osipi]

yeah it does. It means "harry's son". I suppose they thought just calling him Archie Henry would be too conventional...

Along those lines, they may use Rachel as a middle name for a girl then. I just don't think they'll name any extended family in the child's name.

 

[Denville]

Considering how often Harry refers to Diana, I think it would be odd.. if he didn't honour his mother with his baby's name... And Doria has been big support to them too...but I dont know what they will call a baby..

 

[Osipi]

We'll just have to wait and see when the time comes. All guesses and suggestions are valid at this point. ?

 

[Princess B]

Considering they named their first born Archie, I won’t be surprised if their other offspring are called Jughead, Betty, Veronica, Reggie