Threads

See more results

Topics

Usernames

Mumsnet Logo
Please
or
to access all these features

No mention of Lilibet on Royal Family website
235

NaryFairy · 04/07/2021 23:40

The royal family's website - Royal.uk - says that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have one child , Archie. I find this extraordinary. You'd think they have the staff to update a website. Are there any informed royal watchers out there who could explain this? Does a new addition to the family need to be introduced to the Queen before he/she is acknowledged?

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

Temp023 · 04/07/2021 23:42

Probably embarrassed to mention such a stupid name! Poor kid!

Please
or
to access all these features

Samcro · 05/07/2021 11:31

well she is being known as Lili!

Please
or
to access all these features

NaryFairy · 05/07/2021 11:47

There is no mention of the fact that the Sussexes have had a second child on the Royal Family's website. This seems a bit of an oversight, no?

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

PotteringAlong · 05/07/2021 11:48

I think you are reading too much into a slightly out of date website.

Please
or
to access all these features

goldierocks · 05/07/2021 12:41

There are quite a number of differences between how Lili was introduced to the world compared to Archie, never mind other royal babies. I think this article summarises it quite well.

Buckingham Palace usually announces senior royal births via a short statement placed at the gates, e.g:

Prince George
Princess Charlotte
Prince Louis
Archie

The signatures on the Cambridge announcements are the medical team who delivered each baby. This follows the same format used by HMQ, Princess Diana and Sarah Ferguson.

Archie's birth announcement was different, and there was no BP announcement at all following Lili's birth. I presume this was because her birth was not made public by her parents for two days, by which time the other announcements would have already been removed from the gates.

I am sure we would have heard by now from "sources close to the Sussexes" if they thought the royals were deliberately excluding/snubbing them by not updating the website already.

The fact this hasn't happened makes me think the Sussexes are not concerned, and they'll approve whatever wording they want BP to use when they (the Sussexes) are ready.

Please
or
to access all these features

Oldbutstillgotit · 16/07/2021 22:44

I have just been reading that “ sources” claim that H and M want Lilibet christened at Windsor with HM present.
Not sure how reliable this is or how possible .

Please
or
to access all these features

TheLoneRager · 16/07/2021 23:08

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Please
or
to access all these features

Zuluqueen · 17/07/2021 00:17

Message withdrawn as it quotes a deleted post.

Please
or
to access all these features

MegaCityOne · 17/07/2021 00:39

They don’t usually go on the website until they have been christened. Something to do with formal lists etc and having to be signed up Church of England etc.

Please
or
to access all these features

Tealightsandd · 17/07/2021 00:46

Perhaps the person responsible for updating the website is off sick with Covid.

Please
or
to access all these features

PurpleOkapi · 17/07/2021 01:07

Harry's flown back twice in the past few months, and he didn't stay longer than necessary for quarantine plus the event either time. Either he didn't want to spend time with his relatives, or they didn't want to spend time with him. Unless that's changed, I don't see the point of flying over for a christening. Not sure why they'd want that, anyway - they'll be crucified in the press (rightly so, IMHO) if they take a private plane, and taking a baby and a toddler on such a long commercial flight is an awful lot of work for a short ceremony that neither child is likely to remember. I'm sure they can have Lili privately christened in California without the media ever hearing about it, if that were what they wanted to do. That sounds better than the media spectacle this would surely turn into.

Please
or
to access all these features

Northernlurker · 17/07/2021 01:18

The first time he came back he left a very pregnant wife overseas. The second time he was leaving the family with a new baby. Of course he went straight back!

My money is on a balmoral christening at end of the summer.

Please
or
to access all these features

PuffItsGone · 17/07/2021 01:51

Who cares? She was born in America and likely will grow up there. I don’t think she should be on the LoS at all based on those things

Please
or
to access all these features

Cacacoisfarraige · 17/07/2021 02:23

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Please
or
to access all these features

twinklystar23 · 17/07/2021 07:29

Surely a private christening in California would be easiest, and would sit better with their new life. They could invite the royal family over. Why having her christened in front of the queen is so important. Harry didnt even stay the extra couple of days for the Queens birthday when he attended the funeral. Can just see the trajectory of this all the media circus and the demands for privacy from the plebs who paid for the lavish wedding and were still expected by H&m to pay for their security whilst living in another country and not performing royal duties the entitled behaviour of this pair incenses me.

Not sure of the update to the royal website.

Please
or
to access all these features

FrogWaa · 17/07/2021 07:36

@PuffItsGone

Who cares? She was born in America and likely will grow up there. I don’t think she should be on the LoS at all based on those things

So it should continue to say that Harry and Meghan have one child because the second was born and lives in America?Confused there's some raging anti American sentiment on MN but that's the most mental thing I have ever seen yet
Please
or
to access all these features

Aroundtheworldin80moves · 17/07/2021 07:40

Maybe Harry wants to introduce his baby to her Great Grandmother? And her grandfather.

And maybe the Queen would like to meet her great grand child.

Please
or
to access all these features

VariantL1130 · 17/07/2021 07:44

Oh god, all this ridiculous speculation and it's highly likely that some poor communications administrator has it on their long list of to do, and simply hasn't gotten around to it yet.

Please
or
to access all these features

CliftonGreenYork · 17/07/2021 07:47

I think they stopped updating it when they stopped being members of the 'the firm'. The site is about the working royals and their official court engagements etc - they no longer have any.

Please
or
to access all these features

TheCaddieisaBaddie · 17/07/2021 07:51

Surely they will want her christened into the Church of England. Not sure if they have that in America. If they go for a different church then they will be criticised for snubbing CoE and how M who was christened herself into it to get married is two faced etc. Let them do what they want, Queen will decide herself whether to go or not.

Please
or
to access all these features

Oldbutstillgotit · 17/07/2021 08:00

HM doesn’t always attend christenings of Great Grandchildren. I don’t think she attended Louis’s ?
If the plan ( assuming there is one) is to hold the christening as part of the Diana event in September, it is likely HM will still be in Scotland.
Someone suggested Balmoral as a location - no way . They were invited to Balmoral in 2019 but refused as Archie was “ too young to fly” . Then popped over to see Elton on his private jet !
Whatever the truth , HM will expect a C of E christening. I could be wrong but I think the LOS is only updated after the child is christened in case he/she is baptised as Roman Catholic and therefore exempt .

Please
or
to access all these features

Roussette · 17/07/2021 08:22

Who cares? She was born in America and likely will grow up there. I don’t think she should be on the LoS at all based on those things

Hello 1950 haven't seen you for a long time Shock
So a child should be swept under the carpet and not acknowledged because they don't live where you want them to?

That's what used to happen back then, children not of the right pedigree, colour or illegitimate purposely faded into obscurity.

Please
or
to access all these features

NaryFairy · 17/07/2021 08:51

I don't know about the LoS. I don't imagine that a child is added to it though by its existence simply being acknowledged on a website. If I had a family member that I had a poor relationship with I would take extra care not to cause offence by not recognising the birth of their child. But it is true that the website is out of date because it states they stepped back 'as announced in January' - which was of course last year, 2020 . And all of this is under the description of M. There's nothing about children in H's description. Children are all the woman's arena? Grin

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

NaryFairy · 17/07/2021 08:57

And as to it's just a case of a member of staff getting around to updating the website, I'd think if anyone could get the staff it'd be HM Wink

OP's posts:
Please
or
to access all these features

anon12345678901 · 17/07/2021 09:01

Oh give it up, it hasn't been updated, it's not a snub to the baby, it simply hasn't been done. Maybe the Queen doesn't feel the need to pander to Harry and Meghan as to ensure they never are offended. If I had a a poor relationship with a family member, I don't think they'd be at the forefront of my mind tbh.

Please
or
to access all these features
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.