The other point of note: "The godparents, in keeping with their wishes, will remain private." The wording of the press release suggests it's the godparents who do not want their identities known. Despite rumours to the contrary, I would say Archie's godparents are not well-known names at all and given the enormity of media coverage surrounding the Sussexes, I expect it was felt all round it was best to respect their privacy. Images will be taken by the couple's go-to photographer Chris Allerton and shared with the media and public afterwards. Ultimately, they are aiming to strike the balance between their son's future whilst sharing the day with the public.
'The announcement inspired speculation that a celebrity or public figure may be involved in the ceremony, as well as senior members of the Royal Family.
Sources indicated that assumption was wide of the mark, with the couple said to have chosen an unknown number of friends on either side.'
Chris Ship reiterated the above point.
It is thought the intimate christening will be attended by less than twenty guests, with Harry, Meghan, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate, Doria, the godparents and their spouses in attendance.
*************
In other news, Wimbledon is very much underway. Hello!'s Emily Nash exclusively broke news Meghan would join Harry for the Red Sox vs Yankees game, and in this week's magazine she writes it's very likely she'll cheer on close friend Serena Williams during the championships. Serena is playing the second round tomorrow afternoon, and she's also joining forces with none other than Andy Murray in the mixed doubles, also starting tomorrow. There's nothing confirmed, but an appearance at some point is certainly on the cards.
Emily Nash also reports there's a strong chance the Duchess will join her husband on Sunday, 14 July for the premiere of The Lion King. "HELLO! has learnt that Meghan is keen to be at her husband's side at what promises to be one of the most star-studded events of the year when it takes place in London's Leicester Square on 14 July. However, a final decision on Meghan's appearance will be taken closer to the date of the premiere, with much depending on how she is feeling, given she is still on maternity leave and therefore making plans day-to-day with baby Archie, her number one priority. The premiere will support the conservation work carried out by Prince Harry through his work with The Royal Foundation – an organisation he set up with his elder brother Prince William in 2009."
Buckingham Palace noted: "In celebration of the film’s release, the Walt Disney Company announced Protect the Pride, a global conservation campaign working with many conservation partners to raise awareness and support efforts to protect and recover the dwindling lion population across Africa."
I have to shake my head at the Twitterverse exploding (I have it on good authority the average British citizen couldn’t care less about royal christenings) about what is essentially 90 seconds of video footage.
ReplyDeleteI don’t really care either way but I think the Sussexes might have missed a chance to throw the public a bone. There was always going to be some bad press when the cost of the renovations to Frogmore were published and questions asked about what the taxpayer gets in return. (It always happens with big expenses like that)
Including the public a little bit in this celebration would have gone a long way. Official photos, no matter how beautiful they are, are not the same as candid shots.
I’m sorry but I really am concerned about this line of thinking. Renovations to their house do not entitle anyone access to an infant. Harry and Meghan are public figures with public roles and act accordingly. Archie is not. They will have plenty of opportunities to throw the public a bone (Meghan showing up unannounced at the baseball game for example). They’ve drawn a line in the sand around their son and their wish he remain as private of a citizen as possible. They haven’t once deviated from this messaging from the moment her pregnancy was announced. This shouldn’t be surprising to the public nor should the public need access to Archie.
DeleteI think most fans of the couple understand and respect their decision.
DeleteLike you said, most of the public don't really care about the royals, and therefore won't care if there is a video of the arrivals. And it certainly wont make the sting of the price of the renovation any better. Also, the godparents wish to remain private, understandably, so a video of guest arriving would deny them their wish.
Yep, and the negative press has gone from bad to worse. As an American, I sure hoped Meghan would be liked and be a respected member of the royal family, but I guess the haters will never change. I feel so bad for them, and hope they will find happiness. Thanks to this blog, there is a safe place to follow Meghan with fair and accurate comments.
DeleteSo ppl are complaining that there won't be pictures of guest arriving. Hmm... Wasn't it's just recently that ppl were saying how Meghan's baby shower was too "hollywood" and why didn't the guest use the hotels back doors to be more discreet. Everyone was yelling how it was unroyal. And now that the guest of the christening will be private, ppl are moaning that they want to see them arriving. FFS. People really need to get a life.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the public will get pictures of the christenings. Same as other royals.
And the press release literally said right there that the Godparents wish to remain private.
I forgot to add that maybe the godparents dont want the British press digging into their lives, knocking on their doors, contacting their family and writing stories. Maybe they don't want to be hounded.
DeleteNo one really wants that, so I respect their decision.
Fer real! You tell'em Mae! ;)
DeleteOne more time for the people in the back! Well said Mae!
DeleteMarina UK
I have to disagree with your sentiment, Charlotte. Archie might not have a title. And he might not be a working royal when he's older. But there's a false distinction here. To pretend he won't be extremely privileged by the mere fact that his parents are working royals and are being financed by the firm is disingenuous. And H&M's recent actions haven't done anything to tone down public expectations. Quite the opposite I'm afraid. If they want Archie to be hidden and private, then they need to stop posting half photos of him on IG. And they need to draw a line in the sand that he's a private person and he's not going to participate sometimes or when they feel like it. I'm not saying this as a criticism. But H&M are going to find things are a lot easier if they decide to go one way or the other with it instead of flirting with both sides.
ReplyDeleteThey posted one (1) half photo of him on Father's Day.
DeleteBeing a private person does not mean you're never seen in public and posting pics when Archie was formally introduced, on mother's day and father's day is more than appropriate given they were both new parents. You might have a point if they were posting pics every day. It bothers me when people talk about the public's expectations because where will such expectations end? What if the public decides they want to know what Harry and Meghan eat for dinner every night, should that expectation be granted too? They're the parents and they get to decide how and when their child is seen. The public and the RRs too for that matter should only be concerned about how H&M are performing their royal duties and if they are effective in doing so. That's it. People are quick to point out that Harry is 6th and Archie is 7th in line; thus, not important and that the focus should be on Will and his family yet they seem to demand more access to the Sussexes and we all know why.
DeleteTo me that's trying to have it both ways. RRs, royalists and royal watchers telling them they're not important but pursuing, covering and discussing them as though they're the most important people in the UK.
I finally had to unfollow some people on twitter today (mainly royal reporters, sadly) after the hysteria and faux outrage about the godparents not wanting their names made public. I suspect the people who are so outraged couldn't even name the godparents of all of the Cambridge children (I certainly can't) and just want to make a mountain out of a molehill because it's Meghan. UGH. Archie may be 7th in line for the throne, but as it stands, M&H have made pretty clear that he will not be royal. The endless double standards when there are plenty of similar examples within the royal family are exhausting. Can't wait to see pics on Saturday! I'm sure it will be a lovely ceremony.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree, Cat Ray, when you say that Archie will not be royal. Of course, he will. His great grandmother is the Queen, his father is a Prince, his grandfather will be King, his uncle will later be the King. Archie may or may not have a title, but he will still be royal.
DeleteI respect their decision, but this won't do any favors their public image. Furthermore, I would completely agree with you, Charlotte, that putting Archie's face out there is the parents' choice and if they choose to not, ok then. HOWEVER, Archie was already introduced in front of cameras, on instagram and there will be more pictures of him after this christening. And I highly doubt we won't see him on the tour.
ReplyDeleteIdk, it seems a bit hypocritical to me. From the public's POV, it's quite sad that we won't be able to follow live, it's like they don't want us to be a part of this special day. From the media's POV, it's like locking them on a closet and throwing away the key. They are treating ALL of the RRs as villains, as enemies, when there are only a few bad apples on the basket. And this only adds fire to the fuel, instead of letting the hate against Meghan die down. Using again an apple as an analogy, let's see this as Eva of Eden. As long as the fruit was forbidden, it was attractive, it called her. Same with the media will happen. They will crave Meghan and Archie more and more, just like when Diana was recently divorced and they wanted to see her every move.
According to my cousin, who lived and worked in London for 2 years as an ex pat, the British press have long been stirring up "news" about the royal family. As Diana's boys, William and Harry have had to deal with press intrusion and interest that perhaps only their mother could understand.
DeleteWhile it is a delicate balance with Archie, I see them doing their very best. It is not their responsibility to play chess with the media. More or less photos/access will not satisfy either way.
Exactly! The more you give the more they'll want. I've never seen a public or press that feels so entitled to know things that from this American's point of view are clearly none of their business. I am completely satisfied with whatever they decide because I respect them as two adults making the best possible decisions for their family.
DeleteThe other thing that is rarely mentioned when Harry and Meghan make what some feel are unpopular choices is that maybe they're being advised by security experts given that they both have received death threats. This may be one of the many reasons they did not do a Lindo Wing appearance. Also, some of Meghan's friends and acquaintances have been harassed online, slandered by RRs and some have had to close social media accounts because of the abuse so it's understandable that the Godparents would not want their names divulged. If they're regular people, they don't have access to security teams for protection. The daily flood of negative articles, on-line trolling and racist commentary creates a toxic environment that can very easily lead to tragedy. I really wish more people could be less selfish about what they want from Harry and Meghan and try to see things from their perspective. After all, it is their life and we're just watching it.
I would just like to add that H&M are navigating this as they go -- it's their first child, so they don't really have a blueprint for how best to strike the balance with Archie, yet.
DeleteExactly, right, anon 22:02.
DeleteI completely support Meghan and Harry's decision here. I would encourage it too.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the group of people most upset about their decision is the media/press and a bunch of royal reporters and so called "royal experts." The question to ask is how much are media outlets and some royal reporters pushing this furor because they themselves are upset about not being able to photograph, write a story, or make money off of arrival and departure photos? They want access and when they are not given access or that access is strictly limited, they get angry and lash out. After all of the racist/sexist/misogynistic/cruel stories many in the British press have produced on Meghan, I am not surprised that the couple want to keep them at a significant distance, especially when it comes to their child. It is obvious that the media has not learned any lessons from the death of Diana. I think it is perfectly appropriate that a few photos are released after the service, and the rest is kept completely private.
I am truly growing weary of the complaints in the media and other outlets about the cost to taxpayers of the renovations on Frogmore Cottage and the cost of the Royal Family in general. The head of state of any country (whether elected or a hereditary and constitutional monarch) is going to cost taxpayers money. It can be frustrating when the public has to pay for things they would rather not. For example, there is an event tomorrow night (here in the US) that, as a taxpayer, I am angry about having to support because I find the event and it's creator offensive. But I also realize that there's very little I can do about it. I can hope that our system of checks and balances will investigate and monitor what has been spent and respond appropriately and accordingly, but that is all I can do until the next election cycle.
The money spent on renovating Frogmore Cottage had already been earmarked for that purpose (because the cottage would have had to be renovated even if Harry and Meghan did not select it as their home), and the couple covered the costs of furnishings. I don't believe that money from the Sovereign Grant spent on renovations justifies the anger about the privacy they want for their son. Harry and Meghan are hard-working royals, but their son is going to be a private citizen. He is not the property of the UK people anymore than John Jr. and Caroline Kennedy were property of the American people when JFK was president. Yes, the public wants to see the young children of heads of state. But, those children are not public property. They deserve privacy and the opportunity to have as normal a childhood and adolescence as possible. William and Kate have chosen a path of limited access that works for their family and Harry and Meghan are choosing their own path of limited access. I commend them for doing so. The brothers have been deeply scarred by the press/media and they are trying to balance their roles and privacy for family as best they can. That is difficult to do, particularly when the majority of the British press are gunning for any profit-making story, no matter how salacious, racist, or untrue it is.
Sarah, nicely stated. I feel that the people who call themselves royal experts aren't experts at all. Their reports are far from credible, and should be ignored. What is sickening is how do you defend yourself against such trash reporting?
DeletePreach Sarah! After I saw all the uproar on the Frogmore renovations I googled other BRF renovations - not really a big deal, it turns out. I'm tired of the constant negative press. The christening is right in line with Zara; she didn't get a title, is still "royal" but behaves more as a private citizen. There's a model in place, why is the press so offended? Ugh. -op
DeleteThe Sussexes and Zara Tindall are not comparable. The Sussexes are working royals. Imho, if Archie is going to be a completely private citizen, his parents need to stop posting his pictures on their public Instagram. They can't have it both ways. They can't claim privacy but then post pictures of him for public consumption when they feel like it. It's more than fine if they want a private baptism but they can't go posting pictures of it later on. That's hypocritical in the finest sense. Posting the occasional photo of the child will generate interest. If the public knows the child will be a private citizen and, therefore, no photos of him will be released to the public, interest in the child will disappear which is what they seem to want. They need to stick to that policy.
ReplyDeleteEmily agree.
DeletePrivate citizens can and do post pictures in social media. And it is up to that person when and how they do it. They are not at the mercy of the demands of the press or the public. The same with Archie. Just because they want their child to have privacy and as normal a life as possible, doesn't mean that Archie will be a hermit and never see the light of day. I feel like ppl are now just trying their hardest to misunderstand or misinterpret the Sussexes in order to find something to moan about.
DeleteNo, they actually can choose to post their own photos for interested people in their own terms. They’re the parents and they get to choose their own level of comfort, whether it pleases you or not. I can see why it may seem hypocritical to some but it isn’t to me. And you’re completely ignoring that the godparents themselves have a right to privacy, which they’ve asserted here.
DeleteI completely disagree. If they never share anything interest will most certainly not die down. The stories will become outlandish in their idiocy. I can see the headlines now “what’s wrong with baby Archie” “what are they hiding” “baby Archie on deaths doorstep!” (God forbid). Tom cruise and Katie Holmes didn’t share pictures of their daughter until she was almost a year old and the tabloids at the time went completely bonkers making up stories.
DeleteThey did a photo call when he was a few days old. And have posted two other pictures on parent focused holidays with his face hidden or obscured. They aren’t being hypocritical in the slightest. They’re acknowledging that there’s interest but controlling the images and prioritizing his privacy. As they stated they would. Seems like a perfectly appropriate balance to me. Some on this thread are acting like they’re inundating instagram feeds with #Archie everyday. They aren’t. Their Instagram is primarily focused on elevating their charitable causes.
I also find it sort of baffling that the controversy is over not seeing 3-5 minutes of people walking from a car to a church. No one was ever going to see the actual christening in keeping with other family christenings. So what on earth is suddenly the big deal about not seeing people walk from point a to point b.
But they ARE comparable to the Wessexes, where likewise there has been limited access and information. I support the decision of the Sussexes to keep their child as private as possible.
DeleteWhy?? Who really cares? It's their child, their life, and they can do whatever they please. Talk about the press. Who are we to say what they can do or can't do?? Why get all bent out of shape over any of their decisions? They don't owe the public anything when it comes to their child.
DeleteBeanieQ, the Wessexes did a photocall at the hospitals when they left with their newborns as well as released photos of them when they were about a month old. Also, they released some photos from each of the baptisms and the names of the godparents were published. Btw, the names of the godparents will be public record, so do not understand the secrecy. Also, the Wessex kids have been very visible since they became church going age. I'll also add that other than the newborn photos and baptism photos the Wessexes have not published photos of the children on the RF official account because they are private citizens.
DeleteMany private citizens post pictures of their children on a public Instagram account. It's the social media age. Some private citizens with no fame or fortune even have instagram accounts for their children in which they buy followers. I don't agree that Archie should just never be seen again.
DeleteI do not understand why people cannot understand that Harry and Meghan are working royals, and Archie is not. Furthermore, they have decided that he not likely to ever be a working royal, and therefore want to give him his start in life as a private citizen. RR and haters act like they "own" the Sussexes because they are working royals. Because Meghan and Harry have not done exactly what William and Kate have done, they are being pilloried. However, I think we saw as much of Archie in his first month of life as any of the Cambridge children. Meghan decided to forgo the Lindo walk, (saving big security costs for the taxpayer) but she appeared before the press with Harry and actually talked to them a couple of days later. They shared two very touching photos of Archie which speak to their desire to love and protect him as he makes his way in this world, but they were criticized for being too "artsy" even though to my mind they were very intimate portraits. Harry and Meghan have said they will release photos from the christening (like the Cambridges), although I guess there will be photo of Archie with his godparents. Perhaps the Sussexes have chosen private citizens, and not their celebrity friends, to be godparents, and it's perfectly understandable that they would not want to be part of a media circus. I imagine that there might be a family member or two among the grandparents, and perhaps they could have been identified, but perhaps they decided to go along and just not be identified as a group at all. I'm appalled at this attitude that the taxpayers paid for the reno to Frogmore Cottage, which remains a royal residence of historical note owned by the crown estates that was due to be refurbished anyway, and therefore the public is entitled to know every little thing. Some of the RR's and the tabloids are acting like rabid dogs. Harry and Meghan have shown that they will give the press what they are entitled to, but they are not entitled to Archie unless he decides as an adult that he wants to work for Grandpa or Uncle William. By the way, and someone correct if I'm wrong, but after George's birth, and a couple of pictures, we saw nothing of George for ages as Kate spent time at her parents home, and later Amner Hall. Sorry for this bit of a rant, everyone, but I just feel a bit outraged on behalf of the Sussexes over this completely underserved bullying by the press. It's an abusiveness that warrants a calling out by those who see it.
ReplyDeleteAnon22;57,
DeleteTotally agree. You said it so well.
I would just add that there’s a good precedent for it as well. Anne and Edwards children were very rarely seen growing up. So it is possible for the parents to be working royals, and the kids to be sheltered. And really the Cambridges, too, have done an admirable job of restricting the cameras off their kids. Outside of the recent pictures of the flower show, we really haven’t seen them as much as the public did Wills and Harry.
Duch
I totally agree with their choice : to limit the intrusion of so-called journalists and to please the fans who want to see Archie from time to time. Those who don't agree go their way and then it's all
ReplyDeleteAnd I agree totally with you, Faiza.
DeleteSo they should hid their child away? I mean they can't even post cute pics of Archive like any other parent? This is ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteWow! Even dissention here.
ReplyDeleteCharlotte, I love your writing and perspective. I agree that H & M should do what they feel is best. I hope they just keep doing what they think is best taking advice from close family and friends only. I think it's perfect what they are doing. Archie won't be a working royal so give some pictures afterwards. Everyone must also remember that they have received threats too. What parent would want their child published worldwide with not only massive disrespect but also threats. None that I know. I hope they keep doing what they are doing. IMO they are doing things exceptionally well given their circumstances.
Thank you, Charlotte, for this post and to others who have posted before me with their reasoned and compassionate points of view. I agree with most of what has been written here. As I have listened to members of the press core and certain photographers who have basically been parasites on the Royal Family for decades whinging about "tradition" (i.e. recent practices not 50 years old) or that one tiresome coot who keeps on and on about being "ghosted" by Meghan, I have thought more and more about a devastated 12 year-old boy who had to walk all those miles through London being gaped at in his grief by those lining the streets and the millions on TV.
ReplyDeleteHe once stated in an interview that no child should be made to do that. Later he soft-pedalled that saying he was "glad he had done it." However, the fact remains that he did not wish to do it. Family pressure and and god knows what perverse reasoning that some "duty" might be compromised if he didn't compelled him to agree to walk.
At that time he didn't have a choice, nor could we expect him to take one. He was powerless to protect his beloved mother. Nor could he assert his own will in the matter of following her casket. However, now he has the choice and greater power to protect his wife and his son. I can understand his determination to do so whatever the cost. Plus, he is doing so without compromising his service to the public and the family. I cheer him on.
Yes, I enjoy seeing photos and following the Royal Family. But I have no rights in the matter.
Very well said! What a wonderful husband and father he is caring for and doing everything in his power to protect his wife & child. True chivalry!
DeleteWe have to now expect that EVERYTHING they do will be criticized by the press & stop bring surprised br it and stop reading it. There is no negative reality here, once again, just as none for her new ring, ...
Congratulations to the couple for a delightful christening day!
In Britain the godparents are public record so I'm a bit confused by their decision (but in reality I don't care one bit about who the godparents are and find it odd it's a matter of public record).
ReplyDeleteSurely Harry is wise enough by this point to realize that the press is a part of his life whether he likes it or not and to play coy with information only adds blood to the shark-filled waters sadly.
I hope one day they find the peace they deserve. ❤
I think we'll find out who the godparents are, as I've read that baptisms are a matter of public record and the info is there for a price. Someone in the media will pay up!
ReplyDeleteAs for any coverage of Archie, there is a difference between "private" and "secret", and I don't think Harry and Meghan have quite worked that out yet. Secret implies dishonesty, like when the media were told Meghan had gone in to labor when Archie had in fact been born already. Privacy was not disclosing the birth plan. I understand their desire for privacy, but there are some things that can be shared without harm. They just have to figure out how to manage that. As an actress, Meghan would have welcomed media coverage, but Harry learned at an early age what harm the media can cause. They will have to find a happy medium.
I will differ on this point. Saying that Meghan had gone into labour is entirely true. She had. Withholding that she had already delivered isn't a lie. It's simply information she and Harry were not yet prepared to share. There is nothing dishonest in it.
DeleteAny so-called problem with their choices around their son's birth is entirely manufactured via the conjecture and speculation attending the information--the press and their prattle, all salivating for the "scoop" going on and on about nothing concrete when nothing had happened for days already.
Then that prattle is inflamed by a fandom unwilling to wait for the announcements to be posted behind Buckingham Palace gates. The whole circus borders on irrational level of busy-body mentality which in this era has a global platform. It's the village gossips of old on crack. It would be the stuff of comedy except for the fact that Harry's mother died as a result of such insatiable lust for her image.
When photography was first introduced to indigenous peoples they resisted it vehemently as they were of the mind that taking such an image was took part of their soul. There may have been something to that. Today's practices often seem quite soulless.
Amen, Allison.
DeleteIt seems like most of the "backlash" is just by the media. I think the average citizen will carry on fine without any knowledge of the godparents. I am very nosy and would like to know, of course, but it is none of my business! Don't forget that when we post a photo of our child, our friends and family see it. For Archie, the ENTIRE globe sees it. And these are HIS godparents; if he wishes to tell us in 18 years, then he may. I am mostly curious as to how they could pick just a few out of all their friends and family. Because we don't know, I'll pick my own set: Markus, Jessica, Meghan's friend from college, Meghan's friend for whom she is a godmother to her children, Eugenie, Zara, and some friends of Harry's or maybe the Obamas!
ReplyDeleteI do hope for an image of little Archie -- he will change so much that it really won't violate his privacy. Cute little George's christening photo looks much different than him currently, and he'll look different at 21.
The media will watch for comings and goings, like whether Serena drives to Windsor, but they seem to be very good at concealment.
I am really looking forward to the photos on sunday. And hope to see Meghan at Wimbledon and The Lion King.
This lady, the Duchess of Sussex, has been and continues to be unfairly TRASHED and LIED on by various press and media. The same will probably happen to their son who is mixed race. I totally understand the parents being very protective of him at this young age. The pictures to be released after the Christening and those posted to SussexRoyal are attempts by the Duke and Duchess to satisfy the “public’s” interest in their son. I think that is fair enough. Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, is a working Royal. Archie is NOT being raised to be a working Royal. He has NO title. Already, unfair assumptions and speculations have started in the life of this child. Thank you, Charlotte for the information.
ReplyDeleteI think the Sussexes are well aware of the interest in Archie, and they are trying to find a balance between the private life they want to give him, and still satisfy the natural interest in their son because of his parents. I think they will be as generous as they can with updates and news of Archie; they simply don't want make him the direct object of reporters and photographers. They simply can't keep him hidden; that would be terrible for Archie, not to mention impossible. However, they need to protect him from the insatiable demands of the press and from cameras directly in his adorable little face. Like his birth, his christening is a private and family affair, which they will share with the public in good time.
ReplyDeleteAmen, Anon.
DeleteAs someone said before, they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. This has gotten so distressing. Why are people so vile?? It's a delicate balance to strike between H&M being working royals and their son being a private citizen. If they never posted anything about Archie, people would have their heads. If they post now and then, but still keep certain details private, people have their heads.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying H&M are perfect, but they sure do a lot more good in the world than not. Someone commented on ITV Royals Instagram saying "the drama surrounding these two is exhausting" and I have to agree -- not because of H&M, but because the press/haters/whomever won't just give them a damn break.
So true, Becca.
DeleteI have to be careful in how I express my thoughts. My comments on an earlier blog were attacked, because I quoted what some of the media/press were saying about Harry and Meghan. I was merely quoting them, but some people seemed to think that the thoughts were mine. At that time I was trying to express that H&M needed to be careful about alienating the public and the press further. Perception can become reality.
ReplyDeleteWhat Emily above said, is the heart of the issue..."They can't have it both ways." She is correct in saying there is hypocrisy. Either Archie and everything about him is private, or there is a sharing of information about him. This is all turning into a PR nightmare. Meghan is taking some very serious and undeserved hits. Some sources are saying that this quest for privacy is Harry's idea, but she is being blamed. There is plenty of garbage being spread by tabloids. But there are also some credible. competent and sincere people saying this is not being handled properly.
I wonder if the Godparents are just not being named on the weekend of the christening, or if they will be a mystery forever? Speaking for myself, I think being a Godparent to any child, famous or not, is a supreme honour and I'd be proud if people knew my name.
Bottom line, H&M and/or their PR team have made a mess of the past few months. Strategic planning before sending out press releases has been lacking. Much of what H&M do is getting flak and Meghan in particular is being dragged through the mud, when none of this is warranted. They don't seem to understand that for many, the curiosity about Archie is sincere interest and concern. The people that are part of this blog are supporters. We are happy that Harry is finally happy. We don't like all this negativity. Those who support the Monarchy want to celebrate when they celebrate, not be shut out.
Therefore, it is instrumental that H&M give serious thought of how to proceed going forward. The more they do things to exclude the press, the more the press will clamour and be intrusive to get information.
I fully endorse H&M if they want to withdraw from royal life and public life. They can be private citizens, not do public engagements, turn down government funding and live their lives. If, however, they want the privileges of being royal and they want to serve, then they should modify their current approach. As Emily said, "They cannot have it both ways." Her Majesty the Queen is a stellar example of how to do the job. She participates in public events and photos. She is gracious and tolerant of the press, makes herself available while still setting firm boundaries. The press in turn, for the most part, treat her with the dignity and respect she deserves. Yes, she has had some bad press and much of it came when she stayed at Balmoral after Diana's death. The media went wild and she was severely criticized. To her credit ,she did a complete about face...returned to London, made a speech, did walkabouts to view the flowers and allowed for a royal ceremonial funeral. She and her PR team were savvy enough to correct the mistakes and move forward.
If H&M would follow the Queen's example, which many others in the family do, then their image would be brighter. I personally think "Brand Sussex" is a mistake and "Brand Royal Family" should be the aim.
Laura you seem to have a problem with Harry and Meghan in general . So far your comments puts blame on them for everything as evidenced by your past comments. You may need to look at your statements and reflect to see why the majority are not agreeing with you.
DeleteHow? how do you handle helicopters on your property trying to get a photo of your living room? How do you handle a security guard giving you a wave from across the lawn that indicates you need to get inside because there is an intruder on your property? How do you handle not going outside your own home to enjoy your garden or patio as you wish , without checking your security cameras to make sure no one is lurking to take a photo? How do you then hold your head high and try enjoy the public part of your job as those same photographers snap your picture? When do you tell your press people to stop bring in newspapers because they call your wife every racist word they can think of ? How do you ignore your protective instinct for your own infant? How do you look at lurkers and cameras without resentment that this huge bank of press can act like a pack of wolves , they did, and they killed your Mum ? How do you handle silence from the other branches of the family who won’t join your plea to stop the racist comments? Here’s how : not allowing power over your private life. The press can chose to publish the photos they are given or they can go pout in corner.
DeleteHow? how do you handle helicopters on your property trying to get a photo of your living room? How do you handle a security guard giving you a wave from across the lawn that indicates you need to get inside because there is an intruder on your property? How do you handle not going outside your own home to enjoy your garden or patio as you wish , without checking your security cameras to make sure no one is lurking to take a photo? How do you then hold your head high and try enjoy the public part of your job as those same photographers snap your picture? When do you tell your press people to stop bring in newspapers because they call your wife every racist word they can think of ? How do you ignore your protective instinct for your own infant? How do you look at lurkers and cameras without resentment that this huge bank of press can act like a pack of wolves , they did, and they killed your Mum ? How do you handle silence from the other branches of the family who won’t join your plea to stop the racist comments? Here’s how : not allowing power over your private life. The press can chose to publish the photos they are given or they can go pout in corner.
DeleteI agree Susan in Florida, how are Meghan and Harry supposed to maintain privacy when they ate drones taking pics in their bedroom, enough is enough!
DeleteLaura, I want you to know that I welcome your comments. Respectful and rationalle commentary even if it is opposing to the majority of views on this blog have always been welcome by Charlotte. I have found nothing in your commentary to be disrespectful or hateful. Thank you for participating in the dialogue here.
DeleteThank you SupporterfromCanada, for realizing that my opinion is not disrespectful nor hateful. A main point is that Meghan is not deserving of all this negativity...but still it continues. Let's hope someone soon figures out the right way to make it stop.
DeleteCharlotte, I read on another blog that if someone really wanted to find out who the godparents are, after the christening, all they would have to do is pay 30£ to access the public records. Is this true? Seems scary, if the godparents are unknown private citizens who wish not to have media scrutiny into their lives.
ReplyDeleteWell, let's consider the broader picture for a moment. If some high profile private citizens such as the Obamas or Clooneys or Serena have been chosen as godparents, obtaining the information afterwards would not require the levels of logistical strategies that providing security would require if that information were given out prior to the christening. It's not that difficult to figure out if you think about it.
DeleteI bet because it’s HM’s private chapel , the records can be declared private and not public. I never heard of baptism records being public, maybe it’s a UK thing. In the US , records of parishioners are kept by the individual Church.
DeleteI fully support their decision to have a private baptism, especially since they want to maintain the privacy and safety of their close friends. BUT, I do see this as a sign of trouble up ahead. Meg and Harry are working royals and are chasing a bigger spotlight to bring more attention their causes. Yet they want to raise their children in the style of non working royals, a la Zara and Mike. Understandable, but it’s hard to reconcile those two styles in one immediate family unit.
ReplyDeleteLaura, I think that is the problem. I also think there are ways to keep things private. I do not think they (or their press managers) have figured out how to promote their brand to help raise money for their charities etc while also maintaining privacy.
DeleteI agree, Laura. To compare Harry and Meghan to Zara and Mike does not make for a valid analogy. Furthermore, candid photographs abound of Mia's and Lena's christenings, as well as the christenings of Savannah and Isla Phillips. They were all private, but not shrouded in secrecy. The names of the godparents are certainly entered into the church records. After all, they are solemnly promising to help to bring the child up in the Christian faith. When they agree to do that, their commitment is not a secret. I have never heard of anonymous godparents.
DeleteCharlotte, I was under the impression that godparents in CoE are a matter of public record, like place of birth. While you are under no obligation to announce them, they also can’t actually be kept secret either. Anybody willing to pay the admin fee can get access to those records.
ReplyDeleteDo you (or any of the UK readers) know if this is actually the case?
I feel quite sick that some haters seem to have invaded this lovely space. If you don’t like Harry and Meghan just don’t bother about them. Concentrate on William and Catherine.
ReplyDeleteNo member of the public has a right to any part of Baby Sussex.
I am amused by the comment that if M&H follow the Queen's example of being gracious in public, their privacy will be respected. There is no basis for comparison. First, H&M are MORE than gracious; both H&M and W&K go much further with the public and the media than the Queen ever did. I believe the Queen and her family had a great deal of privacy (it's called secrecy now) and of course that was when there were no smartphones or Internet and when the media had more respect. I believe the media would be ugly to the Queen today if they thought the readers wanted that. Some readers want ugliness to be thrown at Meghan, and I think it's a combination of racism and just how hateful a lot of people like to be. So now the media has an audience to satisfy and theyprobably are ENJOYING the fact that the godparents are private. Gives them something to fume over. Meghan's religious dealings seem to be important to her and private, so I imagine she feels very strongly about the same for her child.
DeleteThe media doesn't bother the Wessexes and the Tindalls because people aren't focused on them (i.e, don't care much). I think the York sisters could appear naked in public and there would be less uproar than there is about poor little Archie's godparents.
If the list really can be obtained later, then what's the problem for anyone? Meghan has a few friends who are not public figures, and I can live happily without knowing for certain whether they are the godparents.
This public funding excuse is ridiculous! The public is paying to (1) have a royal family and (2) have the family members perform job-related tasks. Having a child and caring for the child are not part of the job; it's private.
I do agree with you in all but two matters, @ Allison in US.
DeleteFirst, I think the BRF does enjoy relative more privacy than their European counterparts, especially the Dutch and the Belgian Royal Families, both of which make much less of a fuss in their daily encounter with media. Just wanted to mention that.
Secondly, I agree, having a kid is a private matter, but I really do not get why people keep insting that Archie is not funded by the public. Of course he is! His parents are paying for his livelihood and, as they do not have any other source of revenue than public funds, Archie is defacto funded through them. Sure Meghan has her savings from the times of her acting career and Harry vice versa from his time in the military, still. Raising a child, probably more to come in the future, sending them to all the best schools - all these things will be indirectly funded by the public via his parents. Where else whould the money to raise Archie come from?
Harry is very wealthy in his own right, having inherited millions of pounds from both his mother and the Queen Mother. He and Meghan do not receive public money. They are funded from the Duchy of Cornwall as are William and Kate.
DeleteFrom what I understand, there is a law that details of all Church of England baptisms are publicly available, whether the ceremony is public or private. There is simply a $30 fee and it includes details such as the names of godparents. Unless they are above this law (which I doubt), we will find out the godparents eventually. Much like after the birth was registered and we got hospital details etc. I don't know why they've chosen to makesuch a big deal over not releasing these details?
ReplyDeleteI’ve been following the dialogue, and one important consideration I’ve not yet seen mentioned is the actual experience of their day. As the public, we see photos and footage of the royals, but we rarely see visuals of the media set-up that offers those images. Dozens, sometimes, of cameras, lots of equipment, questions tossed at them, etc. In this case, they don’t want that to be part of the experience of their day, and they do not owe us that. Yes, they contend with it at public events, that is part of the price of their privilege, but this isn’t a public event. They recognize that, as public figures, there is interest, and in releasing their curated images from one trusted camera likely on their platform of choice, have found a compromise to honor the interest.
ReplyDeleteFor the future, they not only want Archie to be able to forge a life of his choosing, privately, but they also see the writing on the wall: as Charles campaigns for a “streamlined” monarchy, siblings are funded and covered, but his nieces and nephews are left to forge their own way (as we’re seeing with the York sisters). And so it will likely be a generation down the road when Archie is of age and William is King. Thus, any norms established for the Cambridge children, who likely will always be “funded royals” do not apply for Archie and his future siblings.
Nicely said, L. I am surprised with the tantarums being thrown by the media.
DeleteWell put, both L and Anon 14:33.
DeleteWell said!
DeleteIt is my impression that Harry and Meghan are cooperative and pleasant with the press when they are doing their public duties. I remember seeing Meghan thanking the press for coming to The Hub, for example and covering the story. The press is making this whole christening into a farce. I must say that I'm always annoyed when the press uses the word "secret" to what is really "private" and to information that is not given. I don't buy the argument that Meghan and Harry "can't have it both ways." Just because they are public figures doesn't mean that the press or the public needs to know all the details of their lives or their child's. I do think that there are arguments to be made on both sides as to whether or not the godparents of the grandson of a future king should be confidential. Perhaps when his grandfather becomes king, Archie's godparents can then be revealed. Perhaps the Sussexes could throw a bone to the press by identifying the make-up of the godparents- relatives from both sides, old friends, etc. Honestly, I think most people aren't really that interested, but do indeed want to see little Archie.
ReplyDeleteI have to say: I'm tired of this insane press coverage.
ReplyDeleteTo me, they didn't want to release the names of the godparents before the ceremony so they may come and go as they please for the weekend. It's not a matter of secrecy, it's a matter of timing.
Thank you Charlotte for this informative, fast and greatly enjoyable blog!
I wouldn't mind an invitation, but apart from that I don't see the problem. After all, a christening is a private affair.
ReplyDeleteI am looking forward to the lovely photographs the H&M select to share with us. I do think they will be very artistic in nature as this seems to be their past preference. With that said, what more do people want. I really have no understanding of the intrusive expectation. Additionally, in keeping with the spirit of the day, HAPPY 4TH OF JULY to all my American Mad About Meghan followers.
ReplyDeleteHappy 4th to you also USA Granny, from one granny to another. Enjoyed your comments, and wish a the Sussex family all the best.
DeleteIf they are having a full, sacramental, Church of England baptism, the baptism record, along with the names of the Godparent will be public record. If it is an non-sacramental baptism, ceremonial only, the records will not be available. This is reminiscent of the confusion surround Archie’s birth, when it was stated that his birth record would not be released, and then a few days later it was. Not sure why they are engaging in all the secrecy, the names will be available by next week.
ReplyDeleteActually,I would be delighted to see tons of photos of Archie ! And the inside of Frogmore cottage ! ! And .. and ... do I see that of my neighbor ? No . Why ?because life is private, even for public people, once they are off duty !!!! Royals’ or not !
ReplyDeleteSeeing the way Harry behaves with journalists is a treat thinking what he had to go through . He does it with a real warm contact , with no reluctance , probably because he knows the limits he does not want to cross . He has been incredibly charming and sincere while announcing the baby birth , he and Meghan have looked at ease, calm and smiling when introducing baby Archie , fine . They both know a large part of the public wish them good and support them , they understand this public do hope to see Archie from time to time , I am sure they will give their supporters access to some photos from time to time , not necessarily very often , their choice, fair enough !
As for the cost of the renovation of Frogmore Cottage , it seems that kind of operation does not happen very often , if I remember well, Catherine and William’s KP appartement had not been refurbished since Princess Margaret’s Death .... the cost per year was not that much , so ....
waiting for Saturday to come , and one nice photo of Master Archie !
Anonymous @14:51, maybe they are putting off the “inevitable” scrutiny as long as possible. I can’t say I blame them. Granny @ 14:48, Happy 4th of July.
ReplyDeleteArchie and any future siblings will be the Sarah Chatto and David Armstrong-Jones of their generation. They are seldom seen outside of big family celebrations as they are private citizens. I think the media and many others have forgotten that in the great grand scheme of the Royal family Archie will play a very small role. -LEM
ReplyDeleteI think the pictures released will be fairly traditional- they are for the public record. They might throw in an artful pose, but on the whole I expect to see the whole family and a nice shot of little Archie Harrison. I'm betting he's going to get his dad's hair.
ReplyDeleteWell speaking as a non-religious person I always find the christening events of the BRF very archaic. There will come a day when a BRF member marries someone of a different religion, and then what will happen? And godparents? Do people even have those anymore? I understand the Sussexes want a private christening but the whole announcement should have been simpler. Just an announcement of the day, that it would be a private ceremony, and that some picture will be released later. This announcement has an oversharing-by-undersharing vibe to it.
ReplyDeleteBut I would love for there to be a day when a BRF member chooses not to be part of the Church of England. Just because Henry VIII started it doesn't mean the royals should still subscribe to it hundreds of years later.