Meghan and Harry 2: Now with Archie

[Coconut Flan]

Continued from here:

 

[ViolaSebastian]

Looks like Meghan updated her engagement ring. 

https://people.com/royals/meghan-markle-upgraded-engagement-ring-band/

[nokidsmom]

Well at least Meghan's dad and sister are keeping relatively quiet these days.  Brother is making some noises about how it would be nice if Meghan invited the family for Archie's baptism and "end their feud".   Galls me that it's up to Meghan to "end the feud" after all the nasty stuff her family has said about her but you know, it always comes from the guilty ones.

Any at rate, hope that continues.  Whatever the family issues are, it is completely unacceptable the way her dad, sister and brother have behaved.  

 

[Thorns]

Ain't gonna lie, I'm looking forward to the tour and Meghan doing appearances again, both for the causes she/they choose and the fashion!

[adidas]

Archie’s Christening is this weekend, so we’ll see some new photos.

[viii]

Apparently godparents will be kept private and the names won’t be released. I’m assuming that eventually it will come to light, but I hope that Harry and Meghan have the private christening that they’re envisioning. 

[adidas]

I just read about that in the media. But don’t baptisms go on public record? I’ll see if I can find some information.

Edit: they do. I got this from DailyMail so take it with a bucket full of salt. I haven’t checked to see if it is correct but since they gave a source I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Quote

Under the Parochial Registers and Records Measure 1978, all Church of England baptisms are a matter of public record. 

Details of both public and private baptisms are kept in a large register for each Anglican parish.

Anyone willing to pay the required fee can look up the details of any baptism in any given Church of England parish.

For 2019 the set fee is £30.  

The details record for each baptism are as follows:

Date of birth

Date of baptism 

Christian name and surname

Mother and father's christian name and surname

Address

Mother and father's occupations

Godparents

Officiating minister 

Source: Legislation.gov.uk  

Edited July 4, 2019 by adidas

[viii]

Exactly, so the world will know, just like they found out about his birth certificate. It seems odd to keep things private when you know they’re going to be discussed anyway, although it certainly heightens the curiosity and therefore the attention.  

[tabitha2]

This is what gets me about these two. They say they want privacy  but they do things that are designed to get attention and stir up the press.  It’s becoming tiresome. 

[Blahblah]

My two cents: 

The royal family has its’ own way of conducting itself. The monarch (quite rightly) sets the “rules” of conduct. I understand that Meghan wants to do things her way, but it isn’t just her own life anymore. As soon as she signed up to be a member of this family, she signed up for the job, not just the never ending cash flow, house modifications, clothing allowance etc.

All jobs come with pre-set rules, codes of conduct, uniforms etc. You can’t just pick and choose the bits that you like.

She is happy enough to accept the benefits of her new job. But with benefits come responsibilities and although she may not like them, she knew what she was getting in to.

The royals exist due to the benevolence of the British people. They are, to a degree, public property. One aspect of being a royal is “giving back”. Meghan is losing public goodwill because of her willingness to take but not give. As someone has already pointed out, birth certificates and baptism info is public. Why all the secrecy?

[VelociRapture]

44 minutes ago, Blahblah said:

My two cents: 

The royal family has its’ own way of conducting itself. The monarch (quite rightly) sets the “rules” of conduct. I understand that Meghan wants to do things her way, but it isn’t just her own life anymore. As soon as she signed up to be a member of this family, she signed up for the job, not just the never ending cash flow, house modifications, clothing allowance etc.

All jobs come with pre-set rules, codes of conduct, uniforms etc. You can’t just pick and choose the bits that you like.

She is happy enough to accept the benefits of her new job. But with benefits come responsibilities and although she may not like them, she knew what she was getting in to.

The royals exist due to the benevolence of the British people. They are, to a degree, public property. One aspect of being a royal is “giving back”. Meghan is losing public goodwill because of her willingness to take but not give. As someone has already pointed out, birth certificates and baptism info is public. Why all the secrecy?

My question is how do we know this was a choice solely made by Meghan? Harry is an equal partner in that marriage and likely has an equal say in how they handle things. I think he’s been pretty clear that he is uncomfortable with a lot of media attention for a while now and I can’t say I blame him for that. He’s lived a life of extreme privilege, but he had no say in how public his entire childhood was or really how public his adult life has been either. It’s entirely possible these are choices they’ve made together rather than a choice Meghan forced Harry and everyone else to go along with. Harry could very well want as much privacy for his child as he can possibly get under the circumstances. 

Archie is not the heir. He will very likely never inherit the throne and he had no say at all in what type of family he was born into. I don’t really think the public is entitled to information about him the way they might be to information about the Cambridge children (who are higher up in the succession) or to information specifically regarding his parents - both of whom have chosen to live as working royals. The less the public knows about him, the easier it’ll be for him to live a more normal life. That’s a good thing in my opinion. 

The decision to keep it private doesn’t make much sense to me if it’s public information, but maybe they have their reasons for doing so.

Edited July 5, 2019 by VelociRapture

[Blahblah]

I’ll just leave this here. Saves me saying it myself.

And yes, it’s a partnership between Harry & Meghan but Harry has been brought up knowing what is expected of him. That snippy exchange on the balcony where he told Meghan to turn around because the national anthem was starting shows just how much ceremony and proper conduct is required.

 

https://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity-life/royals/big-problem-with-harry-and-meghans-christening-plans/news-story/bcd88fd873717b62f1d26e9b9c37b2ac

[BlondeIdol]

Archie isn’t the heir and most likely won’t ever be king but if the baptism is public information anyway, than quite frankly, Meg and Harry are acting a bit silly in my opinion.

Harry knows who is he is and who his family is. Meghan knew what she was marrying into. All this on the fence stuff is kind of obnoxious. Are they working royals with titles, wedding on TV, media attention, high profile appearances? Or are they just planning to be minor relatives of the BRF and have relative privacy like the Queen’s cousins? Like Princess Margaret’s children? Pick a lane guys. 

Edited July 5, 2019 by BlondeIdol

[viii]

It’s all the announcements that get me. They’re constantly announcing that they will not announce anything. It’s tiresome. 

[acheronbeach]

4 hours ago, BlondeIdol said:

All this on the fence stuff is kind of obnoxious. Are they working royals with titles, wedding on TV, media attention, high profile appearances? Or are they just planning to be minor relatives of the BRF and have relative privacy like the Queen’s cousins? Like Princess Margaret’s children? Pick a lane guys. 

Truth. The working members of the Royal Family and the British press have come to an understanding, developed after years, which has allowed the RF a great deal of privacy compared to the Fergie/Diana years.  Controlled photo ops are arranged for the press, or alternatively, photos are released to the press by the family.  In exchange, the British press don't engage in pap style photography for the most part.  

I don't think Meghan or Harry truly want privacy.  If you truly want privacy, there are several avenues to doing so that would work better than their current approach.  They could stick with the status quo like Kate and William do.  Some members of the Royal Family avoid talking about/merching related to their kids and are largely successful at keeping their private lives private (i.e. the Wessexes - when's the last time we saw an article about Viscount Severn?).  They could stop the frequent press releases, particularly the PR pieces about Meghan's Many Celebrity Best Friends or The Things The Sussexes Won't Be Doing.  They could decide to simply not allow public photographs of their child, rather than posting a pic of him on Instagram.  

It all seems to me a fairly transparent strategy to attract social media followers.  And I worry that alienating the media and giving them zero access could result in a dangerous revival of Royal paparazzi.    

[tabitha2]

I sincerely believe Harry has deeper issues he has never dealt with properly plus IMO he is not exactly the brightest jewel in crown and has shown tendencies to be influenced by others more than is healthy. It might that while he loves Meghan he also fell in love with what she represents: The exact opposite of his Royal Relatives and upbringing.He does not really want to be a Royal it’s known.  And Meghan is happy to use her sway over him in the honeymoon phase to implement her ideas. Or try to at least. It’s said she is used to getting what she wants.  I believe sooner rather than later they will have to make a choice: be Windsor’s or Go off and be do gooding socialites. 

[viii]

Damn, Archie is cute! I’m glad they released photos. 

[pook]

3 hours ago, viii said:

Damn, Archie is cute! I’m glad they released photos. 

Where?

[viii]

On their Instagram. 

[Blahblah]

Took a bit of googling to find out - the two women standing in the group shot are Diana’s sisters.

[viii]

Yes, I noticed them. Very touching for Harry to include them. I just wish Kate was standing in the back and Doria was sitting beside Meghan. 

[Giraffe]

I feel so uncomfortable with “we paid 3 million pounds for their renovations so the least they could do is show us their baby.” It makes me think of “I paid for your food so you need to give me sex.” I have no idea if they really desire privacy or not, but I so feel sad that no matter what, there will always be an expectation that the minor children are obligated to make appearances simply because they are royalty.

I am from the United States. I don’t understand why the minor children of royalty can’t be treated like the minor children of presidents (& politicians) - they’re not fair game for the press (as a general rule).

Edited July 7, 2019 by Giraffe
Clarifying

[tabitha2]

The Royals are here ultimately at the will of the people.Monarchies who forgot that fact were swept away.

[Giraffe]

51 minutes ago, tabitha2 said:

The Royals are here ultimately at the will of the people.Monarchies who forgot that fact were swept away.

“Will of the people,” yes. It’s a bummer that includes their minor children especially in the age of photography. 

 

Eta: On considering it, my comments are probably along the lines of cis-gender white men complaining about how everyone’s against them. The royal family lives in such privilege that I don’t understand the impact it has on the people they are over. I am going to creep back into lurkdom in this thread. 

Edited July 7, 2019 by Giraffe

[viii]

I think the royal children have it pretty good. They are rarely trotted out, and you don’t see very many pictures of them that aren’t orchestrated by their parents. They are given far more privacy than some Hollywood children.