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

[jacqui24]

So,if someone makes a request to see the baptism certificate under the Parochial Registers and Records Measure and the Palace claims they are private, how will the RF defend itself from the accusation of flouting the law ? Church lawyers have already said royal peculiars are not exempt.

Actually they didn’t say that. They said royal baptisms are kept in record privately owned by royal household. And they’ve never complied with requests under it. Never did they say it’s not exempt. There is a distinction. Lawyers are precise. They would’ve came out as said it’s not exempt if it’s not exempt.

Me too. Looking forward to the pictures. Regarding the fit, the dress maker probably made it to fit up to a certain weight for babies. Was Lena christened in the same gown? If she was, then it's a possibility it's made to fit babies from a few months up to 48 months. Just a guess.

I would guess so. We didn’t have pictures from Lena’s christening, but I remember seeing a picture of one of the Phillips girl in the gown. I think Lena was the biggest royal baby to be born, and they waited about 8 months to christen her. How in a world is a gown supposed to fit both her at 8 months and Archie at 2 months?

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

I don't think it's up to Archie to decide whether he wants to be a full-time working royal. That's up to the monarch of that time (and most likely it's already clear what wille be expected of him - however, if a tragedy were to strike that decision could be altered). He might be able to refuse to become one if that would be requested (which I don't think will happen based on the numbers that I calculated previously) but he can't require to become one just because he would want to.

It has been said that Andrew would like his daughters to be full-time royals (and they indeed seem to enjoy doing royal-charity type work, so that could very well be the case) but they aren't because the current and/or future monarch don't want them to.

This is precisely what I mean. He could either be like Beatrice and Eugenie or like Zara and Peter. I think they are leaving that decision up to him.

 

[Denville]

I don't think it's up to Archie to decide whether he wants to be a full-time working royal. That's up to the monarch of that time (and most likely it's already clear what wille be expected of him - however, if a tragedy were to strike that decision could be altered). He might be able to refuse to become one if that would be requested (which I don't think will happen based on the numbers that I calculated previously) but he can't require to become one just because he would want to.

It has been said that Andrew would like his daughters to be full-time royals (and they indeed seem to enjoy doing royal-charity type work, so that could very well be the case) but they aren't because the current and/or future monarch don't want them to.

while it is possible that the York girls wuodl like to be working royals but the Queen and Charles don't want them doing this.. I can't imagine that the monarch of the day is likely to insist that some younger royal "does the job" if he or she does not like the idea...

 

[alvinking]

The thing is, you seems to attach status/title/dignity with being working royal or not. The problem is it has nothing do with each other. It is more a matter of historical status and ancestry. A blood Prince/Princess is what he is because of the accident of birth given the will of the monarch. Right now it is the 1917 LPs, until they are amended somehow

 

[Mbruno]

Actually they didn’t say that. They said royal baptisms are kept in record privately owned by royal household. And they’ve never complied with requests under it. Never did they say it’s not exempt. There is a distinction. Lawyers are precise. They would’ve came out as said it’s not exempt if it’s not exempt.



I would guess so. We didn’t have pictures from Lena’s christening, but I remember seeing a picture of one of the Phillips girl in the gown. I think Alena was the biggest royal baby to be born, and they waited about 8 months to christen her. How in a world is a gown supposed to fit both her at 8 months and Archie at 2 months?

Sorry, but in this case I think Richard Palmer’s tweet was crystal clear. In fact, the assertion that the RF “ flouts the law” are Palmer’s words , not mine.

If I were a journalist, I would actually make sure to use all legally available means to see the baptism certificate because it is. a freedom of information issue that goes beyond the particular circumstances of this case.

 

[Curryong]

Eugenie was a big baby and apparently there was some trouble fitting her into the (original) gown. I remember reading that the ties at the back had to be left undone. Perhaps Andrew was at sea and the christening had to be postponed. I can't remember.

 

[jacqui24]

The thing is, you seems to attach status/title/dignity with being working royal or not. The problem is it has nothing do with each other. It is more a matter of historical status and ancestry. A blood Prince/Princess is what he is because of the accident of birth given the will of the monarch. Right now it is the 1917 LPs, until they are amended somehow

Actually, he is not a prince of blood according to 1917 LPs. How it’ll be dealt with in the next reign is not yet known.

 

[jacqui24]

Sorry, but in this case I think Richard Palmer’s tweet was crystal clear. In fact, the assertion that the RF “ flouts the law” are Palmer’s words , not mine.

If I were a journalist, I would actually make sure to use all legally available means to see the baptism certificate because it is. a freedom of information issue that goes beyond the particular circumstances of this case.

Richard Palmer is a reporter, not a lawyer. His interpretation of the law is irrelevant to the law. He has said a lot of things in his own opinion that is not true. There are plenty of articles that said it’s a loophole as well.

 

[alvinking]

Actually, he is not a prince of blood according to 1917 LPs. How it’ll be dealt with in the next reign is not yet known.

I am not saying archie is a blood prince. I was speaking generally saying a blood prince/princess is a blood Prince/princess because of the accident of birth given the will of the monarch at a given moment

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Well, I can’t wait to see pictures.

Btw, am I the only surprised there hasn’t been a fit issue with the gown yet with all the babies?

There has-Princess Eugenie barely fit into it. It’s been a long time ago to remember details, but I think maybe they couldn’t fasten it up the back. Of course, she was about 9 months old.
I think the way it is constructed, the garment is flexible enough for the typical 2-4 month old baby.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Me too. Looking forward to the pictures. Regarding the fit, the dress maker probably made it to fit up to a certain weight for babies. Was Lena christened in the same gown? If she was, then it's a possibility it's made to fit babies from a few months up to 48 months. Just a guess.

48 months is 4 years old-the gown isn’t that adaptable.

 

[jacqui24]

There has-Princess Eugenie barely fit into it. It’s been a long time ago to remember details, but I think maybe they couldn’t fasten it up the back. Of course, she was about 9 months old.
I think the way it is constructed, the garment is flexible enough for the typical 2-4 month old baby.

Thanks. I guess if it’s too big, they can just clip it in the back?

 

[wyevale]

a freedom of information issue

'Republic', the group that seeks the abolition of the Monarchy, CERTAINLY will be regarding it as such, and instructing lawyers accordingly...

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

48 months is 4 years old-the gown isn’t that adaptable.

OH FFS...I meant 24 months. HA! This is what happens when you're preoccupied with other things and anxiously awaiting pictures. Not too much longer now.

 

[JR76]

Btw, am I the only surprised there hasn’t been a fit issue with the gown yet with all the babies?

One of my brothers was so fat that they couldn't close the buttons in the back [emoji23]

 

[jacqui24]

One of my brothers was so fat that they couldn't close the buttons in the back [emoji23]

We need an emoji that spits out water from laughing.

But, between this and Eugenie’s situation, it seems when it’s necessary, not fastening the gown is another option to make it more adaptable.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

One of my brothers was so fat that they couldn't close the buttons in the back [emoji23]

Awe...did Sofia of Sweden have to have an open gown also for Alexander?

 

[Hallo girl]

I have not commented often on the couple before, preferring to give the couple the benefit of doubt. Some missteps were to be forgiven as the press attention can be difficult to navigate. In some cases I found the criticism out of proportion or even mean spirited. But this decision plus the decision not to enclose the location of birth of their son seems very odd and a lack of respect for their public and for the institution of the monarchy.

The monarchy survives by the grace of the UK public. They are expected to line the streets at public events, waving flags etc. They rejoice with the family in moments of joy, they mourn with them in times of sorrow. They also ultimately fund the very privileged lifestyle and perks that members of the family get.

In return the family has shown the decency to allow the public some access to their private lives. Nobody is asking them to make their lives a reality soap. But releasing some rather basic details seem to be a matter of respect. Not releasing the location of birth, not releasing the godparents… I do not see the point of it.

That the couple wants to protect their private lives is their good right. But one could argue that highly visible 'glamour' occasions such as the lavish baby shower or even attending a match at Wimbledon with friends will do more to sustain the level of attention with the couple than disclosing fairly basic information such as the names of godparents or the location of birth.

This instagramification of the RF is a path that I do not think is fruitful. They are not normal celebrities but members of the most prestigious royal family of the world. Some common courtesy to the public would be the minimal thing they can do to show some respect to the people that they are supposed to represent. Instead they treat them the way normal celebrities treat their fans. If this is the future of the monarchy one wonders why we bother having one at all.

Very good post, you have really got to the bottom of it. The use of words like respect, courtesy and The institute of monarchy.

 

[Fijiro]

I'd say the names of the godparents are recorded in accordance with church requirements. I hope that one day access will indeed be granted to something that should be publicly available (although it's interesting that no one in the press ever thought to request the godparents of Savannah, Isla, Mia, Lena or grandchildren of the Kents and Gloucesters) - however, as you expect it to become available: what's the timeframe you are thinking about?

I find that interesting too.

 

[Somebody]

[/B]

This is precisely what I mean. He could either be like Beatrice and Eugenie or like Zara and Peter. I think they are leaving that decision up to him.

Neither of them is a full-time royal. Peter and Zara as female-line grandchildren were never an option to become full-time royals (as they aren't royal). Based on royal history, Beatrice and Eugenie weren't expected to be full-time working royals either - as only royal dukes were expected to have an active role previously, not their younger brothers or sisters (which is why Richard, the current duke of Gloucester prepared for a different career; but because his elder brother died, he ended up as a royal duke and therefore a working member of the family). The queen, however, made an exception for princess Alexandra (but not for her younger brother prince Michael).

It's quite likely that the decision on whether Archie will be a royal highness or not will be taken before he is of an age to be involved in making that decision as that will become clear when he Charles ascends the throne (if he doesn't and the throne passes on straight to William, he won't become a royal highness in normal circumstances).

Based on the above, it could be argued, that -based on historic precedent- if he would become a royal highness (which goes against him not being given even his courtesy title right now - but you never know) he should have a formal role as the future (royal) duke of Sussex - but any younger siblings should not work for the firm. If he doesn't become a royal highness, he won't be a 'royal duke' (just a 'normal duke'), so no expectations regarding a formal role within the firm.

 

[JuliannaVictoria]

Neither of them is a full-time royal. Peter and Zara as female-line grandchildren were never an option to become full-time royals (as they aren't royal). Based on royal history, Beatrice and Eugenie weren't expected to be full-time working royals either - as only royal dukes were expected to have an active role previously, not their younger brothers or sisters (which is why Richard, the current duke of Gloucester prepared for a different career; but because his elder brother died, he ended up as a royal duke and therefore a working member of the family). The queen, however, made an exception for princess Alexandra (but not for her younger brother prince Michael).

It's quite likely that the decision on whether Archie will be a royal highness or not will be taken before he is of an age to be involved in making that decision as that will become clear when he Charles ascends the throne (if he doesn't and the throne passes on straight to William, he won't become a royal highness in normal circumstances).

Based on the above, it could be argued, that -based on historic precedent- if he would become a royal highness (which goes against him not being given even his courtesy title right now - but you never know) he should have a formal role as the future (royal) duke of Sussex - but any younger siblings should not work for the firm. If he doesn't become a royal highness, he won't be a 'royal duke' (just a 'normal duke'), so no expectations regarding a formal role within the firm.

So, then a complete private citizen?

 

[jacqui24]

All this discussion about what he could possibly do in adulthood is making my head spin. He’s only getting christened today and only two months old. They’ll sort all this out in the years to come.

 

[Somebody]

So, then a complete private citizen?

I'm trying to understand your point and question. You first stated that it was all up to Archie to decide to become a full-time working member of the family or not. Next you stated that the fact that Beatrice and Eugenie are princesses but not full-time working members of the family, just like Zara and Peter, proofs your point. However, I was arguing that it's not completely up to Archie to decide whether he will be a full-time working royal - nor is it up to him to decide on his title. I still stand by that statement.

Regarding your current question (that we weren't discussing previously imo), I'd say there is an in-between category. There are many members of the royal family who aren't full-time working members of the royal family but as members of the royal family they aren't 'completely private citizens' either. This is evident by for example their presence at various royal events such as garden parties and the charity work they undertake because of their membership of the royal family (not 'in name' of the queen - but they wouldn't do so if they were ordinary private citizens).

However, we should probably take this conversation elsewhere as it has little to do with today's christening.

 

[carlota]

You seem to have no understanding of the life Harry and Maghan live. While it is true their doings make headlines and boohoo, this doesn't happen to you once you don't read the papers. And we heard that they don't. While making the christening public they would have to put up their public masks and play out their public personas and this way, they are just the private Harry and Meghan who let their son christen. As it should be, IMHO. The taxpayer does not pay for them, just for their being part of the Royal family (housing, protection). So why should they open up their life to the public more than they do? I can completely understand this!

i thinkt the one without an understanding of H&M's life is you. whether they read the papers or not is irrelevant. what is relevant is that they are part of the RF, they take engagements at the request of the queen and that they are subsidised through taxpayers money. they are public personas all the time, regardless of whether they want it or not, so there is no 'putting up a mask' - this is the deal they got into. if they really wanted private lives, harry could have stepped down from the succession when he married and meghan declined a title.

Funny thing. Everytime i log on from my desktop the Sussexes subforum has always the highest number of viewers, and it has been like this for over 2 years now. If one looks at this as a sample, it is a clear testament of the interest they have been generating.

one can attract reason because of good reasons and because of bad reasons. i am afraid this is the 'bad reasons' case.

 

[alvinking]

All this discussion about what he could possibly do in adulthood is making my head spin. He’s only getting christened today and only two months old. They’ll sort all this out in the years to come.

To further make your head spin. He'll go to Eton, then Oxbridge, and post graduate studies at Harvard. How about that

 

[Fijiro]

Awe...did Sofia of Sweden have to have an open gown also for Alexander?

yeah, I remember that; Prince Alexander of Sweden the gown was not be zipped at the back.

 

[Somebody]

All this discussion about what he could possibly do in adulthood is making my head spin. He’s only getting christened today and only two months old. They’ll sort all this out in the years to come.

That's a normal part of royal discussions See for example the discussions about the future of princess Madeleine's children

 

[jacqui24]

To further make your head spin. He'll go to Eton, then Oxbridge, and post graduate studies at Harvard. How about that

Goodness, have we planned where he’ll be buried yet?

That's a normal part of royal discussions See for example the discussions about the future of princess Madeleine's children

I understand there are general discussion, but when he’s christened? I doubt any other life decisions will be made today. I understand an off comment here and there, but it’s gone way beyond. The main point is still his christening.

 

[TLLK]

Well, I can’t wait to see pictures.

Btw, am I the only surprised there hasn’t been a fit issue with the gown yet with all the babies?

No you are not alone. I've wondered about that as well. I believe that Princess Eugenie was the oldest baby to wear the original gown at over six months and somehow it was managed. I would guess that the gown is somehow adjustable to accommodate infants of all sizes. ?

 

[An Ard Ri]

Just a thought and seeing as its little Archie's Christening perhaps we could all be a bit more reflective and leave out any negative comments just for today?