The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 7: Oct. 2022 -

[Royalist.in.NC]

Originally Posted by Kaye1850

Are christenings at the family home/mansion commonly done in US?
I’m surprised the Bishop would make a house call to do this, rather than use a place of worship.
(Please note he is Bishop, not Archbishop.)

Yeah, I’m a former Episcopal clergy spouse. It isn’t against canon law to baptize during Lent but it’s usually not done. And baptisms almost always take place in the church where the parents attend as part of a Sunday service. A baptism on a Friday in Lent tells me that the parents are not active in an Episcopal parish where they live. But it sounds like it was important to them that she receive the Sacrament of Baptism or they wouldn’t have arranged it.

We are Anglicans: the only Archbishop is in Canterbury. Others are bishops and here in the US (ECUSA) our top bishop is called the Presiding Bishop, who is currently Michael Curry who preached at their wedding. From our Book of Common Prayer below:

“Holy Baptism is full initiation by water and the Holy Spirit into
Christ's Body the Church. The bond which God establishes in Baptism
is indissoluble.

Holy Baptism is appropriately administered within the Eucharist as the
chief service on a Sunday or other feast.

The bishop, when present, is the celebrant; and is expected to preach the
Word and preside at Baptism and the Eucharist. At Baptism, the bishop
officiates at the Presentation and Examination of Candidates;
says the Thanksgiving over the Water; [consecrates the Chrism;] reads the
prayer, "Heavenly Father, we thank you that by water and the Holy
Spirit;" and officiates at what follows……”

“Holy Baptism is especially appropriate at the Easter Vigil, on the
Day of Pentecost, on All Saints' Day or the Sunday after All Saints'
Day, and on the Feast of the Baptism of our Lord (the First Sunday
after the Epiphany). It is recommended that, as far as possible,
Baptisms be reserved for these occasions or when a bishop is
present.”

https://www.bcponline.org/Baptism/baptism.html

Hope this helps

[Claire]

I think the Sussex's have done it as Charles will now have to legally remove it now. Previously they were following the same guidance given the Wessex's that they have the titles - and just dont use it. Now if it we will use it and you have to physically stop us from doing so.
They are forcing Charles hand -and quiet actually I dont blame them.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by suztav

There is an article out in People magazine that Lilibet was baptized last Friday in Los Angeles.

Why didn't they just baptize her when they were in the UK for the Queen's Jubilee and they had a 1st birthday party for her?

This couple continues to perplex me with their passive/aggressive attitudes about everything.

Oh, by the way, Tyler Perry was godfather. Godmother remains anonymous.

Some were already accusing the couple of trying to steal some of the spotlight by holding a little party for Lilibet- imagine what would have been said if they did a whole christening.

[kimebear]

As much as I have come to dislike H&M, I'm glad they've forced the issue about titles for their kids.

Charles has been King for six months already and decisions regarding his family's status need to be made. I'm sure he's very busy, but it doesn't take a lot of time to sign a document one way or the other. The same with whether or not Edward will be the Duke of Edinburgh according to HLM and Prince Phillip's wishes. Just announce it one way or the other already.

Taking the titles away (or not bestowing them in the first place) may have caused some negative press for the King but, given how quickly he elevated W&K, he clearly made the choice to do so with the Sussex grandchildren and Edward, even if he didn't act on it yet.

Now that his hand has been forced by the Sussexes, IMO he will get more flak by denying his grandchildren their titles after their parents announced that they will be used, or he'll wind up giving in and letting them have them, even though he didn't want to in the first place. This is what happens with inaction.

[samitude]

I was looking at the official British Royal Family website and see that Harry's biography only calls him The Duke of Sussex. They said his official title is Duke of Sussex. No prince or HRH title at all. The only time prince is mentioned is at his birth. If he is no longer called a prince then his children should be titled as children of a duke. If they haven't stripped his prince title (I know they can't), then why don't they call him prince on the website?

[kalnel]

It’s not unheard of for Episcopal clergy to do baptisms outside the church, especially under special circumstances, such as a sick child in a hospital. I suppose this would count as “special.”

Calling Taylor the “archbishop” makes me wonder if Harry is doing his own media. It’s a careless mistake for a spokesperson to make.

Reading “Princess Lilibet” made me cringe. Sounds like the name of a cartoon princess, not a king’s granddaughter.

[acdc1]

Honestly I think it was a mistake for the family not to have set a precedent with the titles from the time the Letters Patent were issued back in 2012 (or whenever it was prior to George’s birth). It was well known Charles wanted things smaller, probably should have set a precedent of “After January 1, 2013 HRH Prince/Princess titles will be limited to the children of the monarch and their spouses, the children to the heir to the throne and their spouses, and the children of the eldest child of the heir to the throne and their spouses” or something of that sort. And it also would mean that you didn’t have a situation like currently is going on in Denmark where those who have been titled for 2 decades suddenly have them removed.

[Kenya]

Originally Posted by muriel

The bigger irony, in my mind, is that whilst H&M are so scathing of the royal institution and all that it represents, yet have gone ahead with the titles, quite possibly, unilaterally. Might there be a contradiction there?

Obviously, but these are the same people who have their H&M cipher on the doormat outside their home. I'm not the least bit surprised by this latest development.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by samitude

I was looking at the official British Royal Family website and see that Harry's biography only calls him The Duke of Sussex. They said his official title is Duke of Sussex. No prince or HRH title at all. The only time prince is mentioned is at his birth. If he is no longer called a prince then his children should be titled as children of a duke. If they haven't stripped his prince title (I know they can't), then why don't they call him prince on the website?

In the British royal family, ducal titles are given priority over princely titles. A royal who bears the titles of prince and duke is therefore formally referred to as Duke, not as Prince. (See also the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent.)

Note that this is not the case in any of the other current European royal families. For example:

The sister of the King of Spain is formally called HRH Infanta Doña Elena, even though she is also the Duchess of Lugo.

The crown princess of Belgium is formally called HRH Princess Elisabeth or HRH Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant or just Princess Elisabeth. The Duchess of Brabant title is never used without the Princess title.

In the UK, it would not be illegal for the King to strip princely titles as there is no established rule that the government or parliament must be consulted (unlike with peerages), but it is obviously unlikely.

Originally Posted by Claire

I think the Sussex's have done it as Charles will now have to legally remove it now.

I do not think the Palace would have briefed reporters that the parents' decision would be respected and eventually acknowledged on the website if the King were still considering legally removing them. But time will tell.

[Moran]

Harry, always Diana's son. Always whining about Diana. Always invoking her name to cover up for all his misdeeds. Unless he needs what he's due as King Charles's son. A lovely man, married to an equally lovely wife.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Claire

I think the Sussex's have done it as Charles will now have to legally remove it now. Previously they were following the same guidance given the Wessex's that they have the titles - and just dont use it. Now if it we will use it and you have to physically stop us from doing so.
They are forcing Charles hand -and quiet actually I dont blame them.

why? Why is it forcing C's hand? Im sure he is just ignoring htem as much as possible....

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by acdc1

Honestly I think it was a mistake for the family not to have set a precedent with the titles from the time the Letters Patent were issued back in 2012 (or whenever it was prior to George’s birth). It was well known Charles wanted things smaller, probably should have set a precedent of “After January 1, 2013 HRH Prince/Princess titles will be limited to the children of the monarch and their spouses, the children to the heir to the throne and their spouses, and the children of the eldest child of the heir to the throne and their spouses” or something of that sort. And it also would mean that you didn’t have a situation like currently is going on in Denmark where those who have been titled for 2 decades suddenly have them removed.

Exactly my thoughts. It's much better to change the rules on titles before the birth of the next generation. HMQ should have done it in 2012 but maybe back then, Charles was happy for Harry's future children to be princes/princesses as the expectation was that Harry would always be a working royal. I don't think that Charles should remove the titles from the Sussex children now, without removing them from Eugenie and Beatrice as well.

[Kaye1850]

Originally Posted by Royalist.in.NC

Yeah, I’m a former Episcopal clergy spouse. It isn’t against canon law to baptize during Lent but it’s usually not done. And baptisms almost always take place in the church where the parents attend as part of a Sunday service. A baptism on a Friday in Lent tells me that the parents are not active in an Episcopal parish where they live. But it sounds like it was important to them that she receive the Sacrament of Baptism or they wouldn’t have arranged it.

We are Anglicans: the only Archbishop is in Canterbury. Others are bishops and here in the US (ECUSA) our top bishop is called the Presiding Bishop, who is currently Michael Curry who preached at their wedding.…

…Hope this helps

Yes, it does help and thank you!
I do wonder why it was suddenly ‘important’ for them to christen her now and not in the preceding almost-two years?
(They probably would have loved for John Taylor to be an ARCHbishop!)

[Denville]

why should Bea and Eug lose their HRHS?

[acdc1]

Originally Posted by Denville

why should Bea and Eug lose their HRHS?

I don't think they should. Then you would get a situation like they have in Denmark currently which has caused all kinds of pain and hurt. I said in a prior post I think that the situation should have been firmly handled prior to any children of the new generation being born, but it wasn't, so here we are. Now that Archie and Lili seem to have been formally given titles I don't think they should be taken away either.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by JR76

Or, as has already set certain parts of Twitter on fire, the article states that according to a Sussex spokesperson Princess Lilibeth Diana was christened last Friday in California.

For a couple that did not want to call her Lady Lilibet when she was born , calling her “ Princess” is a big step. Obviously it is an uncalled for provocation unless the issue of the children’s titles has already been settled and we don’t know about it yet.

[Alison H]

They're in the same position - grandchildren of a monarch, children of a younger son. So for that matter are the Kents and Gloucesters. If a change is made retrospective so as to affect Archie and Lilibet, it'll affect them too. I don't think anyone's going to have their titles removed now: it'd just look too mean. A decision should have been made sooner.

[acdc1]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

Exactly my thoughts. It's much better to change the rules on titles before the birth of the next generation. HMQ should have done it in 2012 but maybe back then, Charles was happy for Harry's future children to be princes/princesses as the expectation was that Harry would always be a working royal. I don't think that Charles should remove the titles from the Sussex children now, without removing them from Eugenie and Beatrice as well.

I don't think anyone expected that Harry and wife would decide to step back as full time working royals and raise their children half a world away in the US. It was always assumed that they would work for the family, just as all the children of monarchs had done, and that they children would be born, raised, go to school in, and settle in the UK as adults. But even if that HAD happened, with the way things have gone with the other grandchildren, it's safe to assume that no matter what, as adults they would be private citizens pursuing their own lives and careers.

[Granada]

Removing Beatrice and Eugenie Titles would be a very poor response. Why should they ?
The Sussex's Children have NEVER had them "recognized" to begin with, since Charles assumed The Throne, according to the Royal Family website no less.
This was just another cat and mouse game by The Sussex's in their continuous quest to challenge Charles and William.
We don't know if the children were "given" the Titles either. The Sussex's just moved to proclaim them.

The kids were never referred to as Prince-Princess in the Netflix Series OR Book either, interestingly enough.

There was no reason to even announce Lili's Baptism, let alone refer to her as Princess Lilibet. Except 'to fire a shot against the bow' and spark controversy about The Sussex's Children's Titles.

I will be very, very disappointed if Charles doesn't move fast to issue new Letters Patent to restrict the The HRH Prince-Princess to just William's kids, then George's. I dont care how he words it retroactively either, since he became King.

The longer this ambiguous situation festers the worse and more farce like it becomes.
Are The Sussex's ALWAYS going to be in control ? Sure looks that way, the Royal Family weaker, dominated, diminished and playing a losing hand to them. Sure seems that way to Me.


American Prince Archie and Princess Lilibet will only use their Titles in "formal occasions" they say.....I'd be curious for the Sussex's to define "formal" ..since they redefine nearly every else to meet their own definitions.

[Moran]

I suppose a retrospective change can be made regarding King Charles' own line and no one else. But it would look too mean. It it's been confirmed by the BP that the titles have been given, they should stay. Bravo to Harry and Meghan. They knew what they wanted and they went for it, and they got it, unencumbered by things like their own past words, false accusations meant to harm and so on. That's how you get what you want if you don't care how you do it.

Now, I suggest rushing Princess Lilibeth to pray at Saint Grandmummy Diana's altar. He concerned parents already got what they were due from mean, cold Grandfather Charles.