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


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Richard Palmer was asked about the media getting access to the public record of the godparents and he echoed what was stated here -- it isn't that easy to gain despite what some claim. So it appears unless you really want to trouble yourself then their ID will likely stay private.
 
You saw as much of him in that presentation as you saw of any of the Cambridge kids on the steps of Lindo. Not exactly posed
I'll have to gently disagree on this: William and Catherine made sure to angle their babies so that most of their faces were visible - Harry and Meghan definitely did NOT. The closest we've gotten with Archie is him peeking out from behind Harry's hand in the the black-and-white shot for Father's Day.
 
I'll have to gently disagree on this: William and Catherine made sure to angle their babies so that most of their faces were visible - Harry and Meghan definitely did NOT. The closest we've gotten with Archie is him peeking out from behind Harry's hand in the the black-and-white shot for Father's Day.
Harry tilted the baby towards the camera once they asked. The photo just didn’t get used a lot because the photo with Doria and his great grandparents.
 
I find that a bit weird too. I understand that they want to protect Archie - although I'm sure he wouldn't mind if we saw him arriving at the chapel: it's not like he's going to know who the press are! - but why not even name the godparents? It's beginning to cause some bad feeling.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As Archie is being baptized in the private chapel at Windsor Castle, will the register actually be available to the public? Do they use the one for St. George's Chapel...does anyone know?

Richard Palmer was asked about the media getting access to the public record of the godparents and he echoed what was stated here -- it isn't that easy to gain despite what some claim. So it appears unless you really want to trouble yourself then their ID will likely stay private.

Like I said earlier

church registers maybe public records, but may i remind you that Windsor (St george and the Queen's private chapel where the baptism will take place) are Royal Peculiars: 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.. So good luck with getting this information. The Sussexes are not this stupid

This means that everything that happens there is under the jurisdiction of the monarch. Accessing theirs records would require the monarch authorization
 
I find that a bit weird too. I understand that they want to protect Archie - although I'm sure he wouldn't mind if we saw him arriving at the chapel: it's not like he's going to know who the press are! - but why not even name the godparents? It's beginning to cause some bad feeling.


I agree.:flowers:
The RF depends on the public goodwill.

So why would anyone go out of their way to antagonize them?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is certainly a difference between Zara and Peter's children and Harry's son. We don't know Zara and Peter's kids godparents, but they also didn't announce that the christenings were happening, either.

This "We're fully aware that we're in a role where we should tell you about the christening but we're going to keep some of it private" attitude is, frankly, offputting.

It's painfully pretentious and cringingly precious.

With that said, it's fully their right to be pretentious and precious, but it's not their right to be preserved from people finding it offputting.
 
I find that a bit weird too. I understand that they want to protect Archie - although I'm sure he wouldn't mind if we saw him arriving at the chapel: it's not like he's going to know who the press are! - but why not even name the godparents? It's beginning to cause some bad feeling.

It was clearly said in the announcement, the godparents don't want their names to be published. Imho they have that right...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The doctors don’t want their names known, godparents don’t want their names known. It’s becoming a little too much I think.
 
I’m very happy with the Sussexes decisions about what they want to publicize about their family. I’m quite content with what they decide to share on their Instagram account or with selected media. It’s basic human rights to protect themselves & their family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The follwing topics have been deleted:

  • Posts about the media/tabloids
    [*]Archie’s birth announcement/certificate and how it was all handled
    [*]Meghan’s baby shower, stories about the rumored doula
    [*]Frogmore Cottage renovations

    [*]Back and forth bickering

Let's move on from speculating about whether the godparents truly wanted to keep their names private, or were pressured to do it. What we know so far is that this was a mutual decision that all parties wanted. So let's leave it at that.


And as a reminder: This thread is not about the relationship between H&M and the media/royals reporters and it’s not a place to rehash issues surrounding Archie's birth. This thread is for the Christening, so let’s stick to that and avoid the off-topic comments and repetitive and circular discussions.
 
Last edited:
A few stories out about the christening —

Palmer has learned the identities of the godparents will remain private as the public has no access to this information. He wrote a lengthy thread about it on twitter.

Rebecca English writes the christening was to initially take place today but the date was changed to accommodate Prince Charles. Apparently The Queen would have liked to attend but this date made it impossible which they report didn’t sit well with some senior palace officials.

And of course Meghan sitting with her two best friends yesterday has created chatter over the godparents though Lindsay is Jewish and also lives in London. So her presence doesn’t really mean she is a godparent, they also acknowledge.

Anyways it shall be an interesting next few days.
 
I haven’t had time to analyze Richard Palmer’s tweet in detail, but, if it is true that private royal chapels are not exempt from the. Parochial Registers Measure and that, as he claims, the only reason why the information is not made public is that the Royal Family chooses to “ ignore the law “ ( his words), then I believe there is a strong case to go to the courts to force the release of Archie’s baptism record. In fact, I would advise the British press to do so if the information is not surrendered voluntarily.
 
Do you really, honestly believe that the press should take action to make the names of Archie's godparents public? To me, that's really pushing the envelope way past what I would deem as acceptable behavior and would show very poor journalism. It shows no respect whatsoever for the family they're supposed to be reporting on.

I don't see it happening though. As St. George's Chapel is a royal peculiar, it lies under the jurisdiction of the monarch and not subjected to the rules and regulations as deemed by the parishes of the Church of England. I am also assuming that this is also true for the Queen's private chapel within Windsor Castle.

If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex wish for the people that they have chosen to be Archie's godparents to remain private, I think their wishes should be respected and honored.
 
Trust me, I do my best to like Harry and Meghan and to understand their decisions but I simply cannot!
I am not referring to the fact that the godparents will remain private as tbh I do not care less, but to the way they handle each and every situation around them. This private christening thing is a total non-sense when they are going to release official photos later on. If you want a private christening and raise your child as a private citizen, you keep the photos to yourself.
They are doing the same thing as William and Kate except for the arrival and departure from the church, but they simply want to appear as the normal loving couple in the eyes of the public.
Well, if they wanted to be normal and private, why didn't they renounce to the titles?
 
Do you really, honestly believe that the press should take action to make the names of Archie's godparents public? To me, that's really pushing the envelope way past what I would deem as acceptable behavior and would show very poor journalism. It shows no respect whatsoever for the family they're supposed to be reporting on.

I don't see it happening though. As St. George's Chapel is a royal peculiar, it lies under the jurisdiction of the monarch and not subjected to the rules and regulations as deemed by the parishes of the Church of England. I am also assuming that this is also true for the Queen's private chapel within Windsor Castle.

If the Duke and Duchess of Sussex wish for the people that they have chosen to be Archie's godparents to remain private, I think their wishes should be respected and honored.

The point is precisely that, according to Richard Palmer, royal peculiars are not exempt . If he is correct, by refusing to release the records, the Royal Family is, again in his words, “ flouting the law” and there is a legal case to be made.

Is it worth iit though ? I think so because the identity of Archie’s godparents is a matter of both public interest and historic interest. On top of that, on theological grounds, there is an argument to be made that baptisms should not be kept secret.
 
Last edited:
The point is precisely that, according to Richard Palmer, royal peculiars are not exempt . If he is correct, by refusing to release the records, the Royal Family is, again in his words, “ flouting the law” and there is a legal casem to be made.

Is it worth though ? I think so because the identity of Archie’s godparents is a matter of both public interest and historic interest. On top of that, on theological grounds, there is an argument to be made that baptisms should not be kept secret.

In terms of historic interest, the information is being recorded, and if a historian eventually need, there are ways to go about getting permission for it. There are other things that’s not always available at the time it happens, but eventually made public if there really is historic value years down the road. I don’t see how it’s a public interest matter. Typically, public interest is more than just need to gossip. And I’m not seeing what purpose it serves to the public here.

And if the press wish to make a legal case out of it, they can. I’m sure they arent shy and they always have lawyers on retainer. Although, I’m not seeing how this is “floating the law” as there is no law in the legal system that requires baptism records to be made public like birth certificates. That’s a matter for the church, and it gets even stickier with it being royal peculiar. So good luck to them if they want to go down that road.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t had time to analyze Richard Palmer’s tweet in detail, but, if it is true that private royal chapels are not exempt from the. Parochial Registers Measure and that, as he claims, the only reason why the information is not made public is that the Royal Family chooses to “ ignore the law “ ( his words), then I believe there is a strong case to go to the courts to force the release of Archie’s baptism record. In fact, I would advise the British press to do so if the information is not surrendered voluntarily.

🤣

I really don't see the point of such pointlessness. Anyone can guess who has probably been chosen as Archie's godparents and be practically on the button. It's likely that Genevieve Hillis, Lindsay Roth (or Benita Litt), and Markus Anderson were chosen by Meghan. And that Harry selected Mark Dyer, one of the van Straubenzees, and perhaps a Spencer cousin or one of Diana's siblings.

What possible difference should it make to anyone besides the Sussexes and the actual godparents?! It's nothing to do with anyone on the outside looking in!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
^^^But Archie's baptism will not be held in secret. At least 25 people will be present to witness it. No TV cameras are there at BRF christenings anyway, and guests were only photographed arriving and departing at Louis's christening.
 
The point is precisely that, according to Richard Palmer, royal peculiars are not exempt . If he is correct, by refusing to release the records, the Royal Family is, again in his words, “ flouting the law” and there is a legal casem to be made.

Is it worth iit though ? I think so because the identity of Archie’s godparents is a matter of both public interest and historic interest. On top of that, on theological grounds, there is an argument to be made that baptisms should not be kept secret.

Is there a public interest, or historic interest in the baptisms and names of godparents of Savannah, Isla, Mia, and Lena. If not why not? Their godparents names were not released, and christening photos were not released. They, plus Archie, are the non-titled great-grandchildren of the Monarchy.
 
Last edited:
Trust me, I do my best to like Harry and Meghan and to understand their decisions but I simply cannot!
I am not referring to the fact that the godparents will remain private as tbh I do not care less, but to the way they handle each and every situation around them. This private christening thing is a total non-sense when they are going to release official photos later on. If you want a private christening and raise your child as a private citizen, you keep the photos to yourself.
They are doing the same thing as William and Kate except for the arrival and departure from the church, but they simply want to appear as the normal loving couple in the eyes of the public.
Well, if they wanted to be normal and private, why didn't they renounce to the titles?

Meghan's friends can't even be seen with her without a newspaper digging into their lives.

I read some comments on one of Meghan's friends' Instagram page last night. Some of them are rude and nasty.

Maybe it's why the godparents want to be private.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trust me, I do my best to like Harry and Meghan and to understand their decisions but I simply cannot!
I am not referring to the fact that the godparents will remain private as tbh I do not care less, but to the way they handle each and every situation around them. This private christening thing is a total non-sense when they are going to release official photos later on. If you want a private christening and raise your child as a private citizen, you keep the photos to yourself.
They are doing the same thing as William and Kate except for the arrival and departure from the church, but they simply want to appear as the normal loving couple in the eyes of the public.
Well, if they wanted to be normal and private, why didn't they renounce to the titles?

With the exception of godparents, they are handling it very much along the way BRF typically handles it. BRF baptisms are always private. Even for the children of the Queen. Private christenings with photos released afterwards. Going by that logic, most of BRF should renounce their titles. Including The Queen.
 
Last edited:
Meghan's friends can't even be seen with her without a newspaper digging into their lives.

I read some comments on one of Meghan's friends' Instagram page last night. Some of them are rude and nasty.

Maybe it's why the godparents want to be private.

In my post I didn't write about the godparents as I do not care less to know who they will be, but I wrote on the whole private christening thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Meghan's friends can't even be seen with her without a newspaper digging into their lives.

I read some comments on one of Meghan's friends' Instagram page last night. Some of them are rude and nasty.

Maybe it's why the godparents want to be private.


Keeping the names of the godparents secret might actually have the opposite effect of attracting greater intrusion in Meghan’s friends’ private lives as the press will try to find by other means who the godparents were.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
With the exception of godparents, they are handling it very much along the way BRF typically handles it. BRF baptisms are always private. Even for the children of the Queen. Private christenings with photos released afterwards. Going by that logic, most of BRF should renounce their titles. Including The Queen.

With a slight difference: the Queen, Charles and Diana, William and Kate etc. didn't decide to raise their children as private citizens :flowers:
 
The welcoming of a child into the community of the Christian Church, is a public act, and declaration of Faith.
Similarly the identity of those charged with caring for that child's spiritual well-being, is [generally] 'on public record', in the relevant baptismal registers.
That the Parents and the God-parents should seek to keep this 'private' betrays a total misunderstanding of the rite of Baptism, and of the Church into which this child is being received.
 
With a slight difference: the Queen, Charles and Diana, William and Kate etc. didn't decide to raise their children as private citizens :flowers:

That’s because their children have titles and will eventually be working royals in adulthood. That is not the case with Archie. In that case, it’s very similar to the Wessexes’ children who are raised as private citizens as well. But back on topic, you were specifically talking about a private christening is ridiculous. I’m simply pointing out that it’s all private in the case of BRF.
 
Keeping the names of the godparents secret might actually have the opposite effect of attracting greater intrusion in Meghan’s friends’ private lives as the press will try to find by other means who the godparents were.

They should do what is right for their family. Most of the press will hate on them regardless ...
 
The welcoming of a child into the community of the Christian Church, is a public act, and declaration of Faith.
Similarly the identity of those charged with caring for that child's spiritual well-being, is [generally] 'on public record', in the relevant baptismal registers.
That the Parents and the God-parents should seek to keep this 'private' betrays a total misunderstanding of the rite of Baptism, and of the Church into which this child is being received.

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?
 
Trust me, I do my best to like Harry and Meghan and to understand their decisions but I simply cannot!
I am not referring to the fact that the godparents will remain private as tbh I do not care less, but to the way they handle each and every situation around them. This private christening thing is a total non-sense when they are going to release official photos later on. If you want a private christening and raise your child as a private citizen, you keep the photos to yourself.
They are doing the same thing as William and Kate except for the arrival and departure from the church, but they simply want to appear as the normal loving couple in the eyes of the public.
Well, if they wanted to be normal and private, why didn't they renounce to the titles?

Its not like Harry and Meghan deliberately chose to have the christening within the grounds of Windsor Chapel to keep it "private". Like so many other families, they choose their their "home" church. It just so happens that both St. George's Chapel and the Queen's private chapel lie within grounds that are not open to the public for the occasion should the Queen deem it so. Its close to home for the Sussex family.

George and Charlotte were baptized at St. Mary Magdalene Church which at the time was the "home" parish for Amner Hall with Louis being christened at the Chapel Royal at St James's Palace which is a royal peculiar and close to Apartment 1A at Kensington Palace. Those places afforded the opportunity to photograph arrivals and departures.

This isn't something Harry and Meghan are doing deliberately to thumb their noses at the public and the press but following the precedence of having their child christened close to home. This is what makes sense to me much more than any conspiracies that can be pulled out of a hat. In fact, they're not even required to release any photographs taken but they plan to. I'm just going to be happy with that. 😄
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom