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

[Lady Reem]

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.

I think perhaps only the Queen's residences have a plethora of bedrooms standing vacant, ready for guests. Just because Meghan is a “foreign” bride does not entitle her to a castle with massive amounts of bedrooms for visitors.

I specifically referred to all the Cambridge children for a reason and not just the firstborn. William is not yet King, heck he’s not even the Prince of Wales and his current position could remain the same for a very long while yet. Meaning simply that tq didn’t have to take the measures she did at the time. Tbh I really do not care one way or the other about royal titles but all the same, since someone else used the logic that just because baby Archie might end up as a grandchild of a king someday, the identity of his godparents ought to be revealed, I wanted to understand why that same person was totally against tq issuing Letters patent to fast forward a hrh title for the baby the same way she did for the others. And this forumer argued on the basis that Charles was not yet King. The rules are the rules aren’t they? And once Charles is King and unless LPs are issued to revoke Archie’s future status, he automatically becomes a hrh Prince.

 

[ladongas]

A quick question for our CofE members: are godparents mandatory for a baptism?

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

A quick question for our CofE members: are godparents mandatory for a baptism?

Yes. A minimum of 3.

 

[ACO]

I do kind of get the point of the HRH debate. Again showing that Archie is not the same as the Cambridge kids therefore the expectations of him shouldn't be either. He is a private citizen for a reason. HMQ could have easily made him HRH but she did not. In fact he has no titles at all.

 

[Fijiro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
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.

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. .

If Archie was comparable to grandchild of the Monarchy, then he would’ve automatically been HRH Prince Archie of Sussex;
and the Cambridges would not have required LP from her Majesty to be HRHs Princes/Princess of … because it would’ve been also automatic.

Her Majesty issued LP for the Cambridges, but did not issue the same for the Sussexes.

Some posters on this forum were against LP being issued in the case of the Sussexes. In the end, the LP was not issued. The same posters who were against the issue of the LP, are the same posters who are now arguing about Archie’s status.

 

[Osipi]

When it comes to Archie's christening, I have to believe that this is more of a family baptism of a child belonging to The House of Windsor becoming a member of the Church of England than a yardstick to measure "importance" or "status" or "the line of succession" or "privilege".

So many convoluted theories coming out of something that is plain simple and straightforward. Babies are born. Parents choose to have their child baptized in their preferred faith and select godparents for the occasion. Simple.

 

[Yeine]

As other posters have noted upthread, the same people who staunchly opposed the idea of Archie getting a royal title, on the grounds that he's only a great-grandchild of the monarch, are now complaining because he's not being treated as a grandchild of the monarch. You can't have it both ways, folks. You can't constantly accuse the Sussexes of not knowing their place and then lambast them for not christening their child in the same style as the children of the future king.

I think the question of Archie's status is a lot more complicated than people make it out to be. He's not quite comparable to Louise, Zara etc as they're the grandchildren of the monarch, but he's not in the same position as the Phillips girls either as he's the son of titled, working royals & will one day be the grandson of a king.

They're in completely uncharted territory and it must be a really tough balancing act, I think they've done a great job so far.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Have we seen the relevant baptismal record for members of the BRF? I mean, I know they release the names of godparents, but have we seen the actual record? Even at a regular parish, not a royal peculiar, can anyone just walk up to the church and see the record?

Anyone can walk in, pay 30 pounds, and get the records. They aren't secret documents.

Yes. A minimum of 3.

I only had two as did all of my cousins. My mother only had one and her mother had none. My grandmother was baptised in the UK just before her family migrated to Australia. Her siblings each had only one. I have cousins in the UK who also have only one or two and are CoE.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Let’s take this to the appropriate forum/thread if you will.

I specifically referred to all the Cambridge children for a reason and not just the firstborn. William is not yet King, heck he’s not even the Prince of Wales and his current position could remain the same for a very long while yet. Meaning simply that tq didn’t have to take the measures she did at the time. Tbh I really do not care one way or the other about royal titles but all the same, since someone else used the logic that just because baby Archie might end up as a grandchild of a king someday, the identity of his godparents ought to be revealed, I wanted to understand why that same person was totally against tq issuing Letters patent to fast forward a hrh title for the baby the same way she did for the others. And this forumer argued on the basis that Charles was not yet King. The rules are the rules aren’t they? And once Charles is King and unless LPs are issued to revoke Archie’s future status, he automatically becomes a hrh Prince.

Your responses are oranges to the apples in my post.

 

[ACO]

More details have been released.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ristening-prince-harry-meghan-reveal-keeping/

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will be welcomed in a traditional royal manner, with a christening gown used for generations, water from the River Jordan and the choir of St George’s Chapel.

Members of the choir of St George’s Chapel, where the Duke and Duchess of Sussex got married and Prince Harry was christened, will sing at the ceremony.

Official photographs will taken by Chris Allerton, who also captured the Sussex’s evening wedding reception, in the Green Drawing Room.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I only had two as did all of my cousins. My mother only had one and her mother had none. My grandmother was baptised in the UK just before her family migrated to Australia. Her siblings each had only one. I have cousins in the UK who also have only one or two and are CoE.

I guess it depends on the parish then. I asked my mom and she said my grandmother had 3 (required at the time) and my aunts and uncles also had a minimum of 3 required by their parish.

 

[Fijiro]

More details have been released.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ristening-prince-harry-meghan-reveal-keeping/

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will be welcomed in a traditional royal manner, with a christening gown used for generations, water from the River Jordan and the choir of St George’s Chapel.

Members of the choir of St George’s Chapel, where the Duke and Duchess of Sussex got married and Prince Harry was christened, will sing at the ceremony.

Official photographs will taken by Chris Allerton, who also captured the Sussex’s evening wedding reception, in the Green Drawing Room.

I'm looking to Sunday cause we may get to see some released pictures by then.

?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

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.

I agree that is a very likely possibility, but the court did not publicize the rationale for the letters patent granting HRH status to all of the Cambridge children.

Regarding the above discussion of Archie Mountbatten-Windsor's future title, an anonymous "senior royal source" was quoted by Robert Jobson of the London Evening Standard as saying that he will become a prince once his grandfather becomes King.

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).

According to the Blog sur la famille royale belge, the godparents of Princess Anna Astrid (to use the styling given to her by the Belgian court) are Princess Maria Laura of Belgium and Prince Joachim of Belgium. I am not sure whether the blog made use of a source close to the couple or if baptism records in Belgium are made public.

 

[Iluvbertie]

More details have been released.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...ristening-prince-harry-meghan-reveal-keeping/

Archie Mountbatten-Windsor will be welcomed in a traditional royal manner, with a christening gown used for generations, water from the River Jordan and the choir of St George’s Chapel.

Members of the choir of St George’s Chapel, where the Duke and Duchess of Sussex got married and Prince Harry was christened, will sing at the ceremony.

Official photographs will taken by Chris Allerton, who also captured the Sussex’s evening wedding reception, in the Green Drawing Room.

Can a gown that was created 11 years ago is really 'a christening gown used for generations'? It seems as if the writer isn't aware of the fact that the gown that will be used is the replica and not the original gown.

 

[King of the Jungle]

I predict that Archie will have a traditional Christening and that we will see photographs of the occasion, including the Godparents.
There is no reason to keep the Godparents under wraps - except to create ill will.
I suspect that they will be announced after the event.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Can a gown that was created 11 years ago is really 'a christening gown used for generations'? It seems as if the writer isn't aware of the fact that the gown that will be used is the replica and not the original gown.

IMO that is nitpicking. It is not just another gown that someone bought when the original was worn out and everyone decided to use it. It is an exact replica, created by the Queen’s own dressmaker when the original became too fragile to wear.

 

[Grandma828]

The twisted logic and thinking of this column is my laugh for the day.

 

[ACO]

Apparently the photographs will be released in the late afternoon tomorrow.

 

[ladongas]

According to churchofenglandchristenings.org...

“...Parents may be godparents for their own children, provided they have at least one other godparent.”

This presents another interesting scenario.

 

[jacqui24]

As other posters have noted upthread, the same people who staunchly opposed the idea of Archie getting a royal title, on the grounds that he's only a great-grandchild of the monarch, are now complaining because he's not being treated as a grandchild of the monarch. You can't have it both ways, folks. You can't constantly accuse the Sussexes of not knowing their place and then lambast them for not christening their child in the same style as the children of the future king.

I think the question of Archie's status is a lot more complicated than people make it out to be. He's not quite comparable to Louise, Zara etc as they're the grandchildren of the monarch, but he's not in the same position as the Phillips girls either as he's the son of titled, working royals & will one day be the grandson of a king.

They're in completely uncharted territory and it must be a really tough balancing act, I think they've done a great job so far.

As tired as I am of the argument regarding Archie’s title, I agree with this.

And let’s not kid ourselves. Meghan and Harry are taking the excuse that they aren’t in the direct line and using it to their advantage. What’s fair is fair. Others use it to belittle them. Can’t complain when they use it to their advantage.

 

[Zaira]

Apparently the photographs will be released in the late afternoon tomorrow.

Thanks! is there a link w/this info by chance?

 

[Alisa]

What time is the christening set to take place?

 

[Lilyflo]

A quick question for our CofE members: are godparents mandatory for a baptism?

Yes. A minimum of 3.

I only had two as did all of my cousins. My mother only had one and her mother had none. My grandmother was baptised in the UK just before her family migrated to Australia. Her siblings each had only one. I have cousins in the UK who also have only one or two and are CoE.

The Church of England says:
"You should have a minimum of three godparents and you can have as many additional godparents as you like."
"every child should have at least three, two of the same sex and at least one of the opposite sex to the child."
"three is the minimum, unless it’s simply not possible to find three."

https://churchofenglandchristenings.org/for-parents/

 

[loonytick]

IMO that is nitpicking. It is not just another gown that someone bought when the original was worn out and everyone decided to use it. It is an exact replica, created by the Queen’s own dressmaker when the original became too fragile to wear.

And technically even the replica has now been used for two generations. Its first wearer was Edward’s son, James, grandson of the Queen, and cousin to the parents of all subsequent babies to be christened in it. Also, at this point, assuming it’s been used for all of the great-grandkids, it’s already been worn eight times.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...loophole-Archies-godparents-names-secret.html


The Queen's former spokesperson Dickie Arbiter explaines how although Archie's godparents' identities might not be officially released on Saturday, they will be put in the royal records which is held at Windsor Castle and will be available to historians in the future.

 

[wartenberg7]

James, Louise. Zara and Peter aren’t HRHs either and will never be working royals. Nevertheless, we know who their godparents are.
Archie is as much a future grandchild of a sovereign as the above-referenced persons and he might even be a prince of the United Kingdom when Charles is king ( unless current rules are changed). The rationale for treating his christening differently is weak IMHO and is actually putting the RF in the uncomfortable position of being accused of flouting the law to use Richard Palmer’s words. It is a very ill-advised decision if you ask me.

Flouting what law by doing what?
And what would be my benefit knowing the names of people I might never had heard of before? I mean, they won´t invite european aristocrats or even Royals to be Archie´s godparents!

 

[muriel]

Needless drama and negative press which could have been avoided.

Spot on.

Is it bad decision-making by H&M, or is it the incompetence and inexperience of the office they run at BP or a combination of both that leads to this kind of mistake?

To me, in context, it is not a big deal, but it all seems so avoidable. It is not the first blunder, and I suspect it will not be the last, but one hopes they learn. It almost seems that Harry is new to 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.

Actually, yes and no. It is entirely possible that some of the godparents may have wanted their names withheld, but I almost think it was for H&M to point out that, unfortunately, as godparents to a royal child, that was inappropriate.

.
And all of this, and the labor announcement has really turned my opinion and interest in them

And you are not the only one! ?

 

[wartenberg7]

At Harry´s own christening, arriving and leaving guests, though being son of the Pr o Wales, taking place at the same place, has not been televised live as far as I can recall! Only some features from the reception had been released later. Of course, godparent´s names were known, though.

 

[ladongas]

Have we had an official announcement about the ...

...”keeping the godparents’ names secret”, or has it just been tossed around in the tabs?

Looking back at George’s christening, I see that the godparents were announced only about three or four hours prior.

So perhaps word will come in the next few hours.

 

[Dman]

Inside Windsor Castle’s Private Royal Chapel-
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...sor-Castle-chapel-baby-Archie-christened.html