No mention of Lilibet on Royal Family website

[NaryFairy]

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?

Blind gossip (who appear to get their material from Private Eye, or the same source) have said for a while that the RF intend to "freeze out" H and M, this meaning ignoring, not engaging with them and not referring to them. I would course take this with a pinch of salt but . . .

One of the quotes says something like " the omission of [the couple] from their communications will be quite subtle, yet each time it happens it will be noticed because it demonstrates a distinct break from past traditions."

Unless your family was a family run billion pound business.

@Temp023

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

If there is one thing this child is, it's not poor. The name is very nice too.

@Oldbutstillgotit

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 .

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I'm sure they do for a bit of publicity. I still can't get over Harry snivelling on TV his dad stopped funding him at the age of 36.

He wasn't exactly left in penury in a bedsit.

@BalloonSlayer

Blind gossip (who appear to get their material from Private Eye, or the same source) have said for a while that the RF intend to "freeze out" H and M, this meaning ignoring, not engaging with them and not referring to them. I would course take this with a pinch of salt but . . .

One of the quotes says something like " the omission of [the couple] from their communications will be quite subtle, yet each time it happens it will be noticed because it demonstrates a distinct break from past traditions."

That's plausible and would explain why. It's just an all round cringe situation now then. I hope H and M aren't too thick to get the message. They are apparently wanting to return for the baby to be christened here.

The thing that amazes me about wanting the christening here, if it's true, is if the royal family did treat them that badly, why would they want to come back for her christening? It's pick and choose with them, have the perk of being in the RF with none of the responsibilities.

On the 6th June on the official Royal Family Instagram account the birth was announced.

I looked this up. One site said she can't be in the line of succession or on the website until she is christened. Not sure if I believe that. I think they should send the Archbishop over there to perform the ceremony. He seems quite accommodating about their wishes since he agreed to marry them three days before according to them.

I’m sure they’ll have a private christening in LA and when ready send the relevant documents over and all this drama will be forgotten

I do hope so.

@ Viviennemary
“I looked this up. One site said she can't be in the line of succession or on the website until she is christened”

That confirms what I said earlier . I think it is to do with HM being Head of the CofE .
Happy to be corrected .

Why is it on the official Royal Family SM account then? Surely the protocol would be the same?

Of course all this could be “ testing the water” speculation. I would be amazed if MM would willingly return to a place with so many unhappy memories .

@Cacacoisfarraige

I just want to tell you all - even though nobody has asked if I’m okay - That I’m fine with being excluded though

I’m roughly 6,7777,9999,857th in line to the throne so it was a pretty long shot !

😆

I don't think this is related to a christening, reportedly Princess Eugenie's son hasn't been christened yet and he is still on there. I think they simply haven't got round to updating the list yet.

On a Line of Succession point, you don't need to be christened in the Church of England to be in line. For example, the Norwegian and Greek royals are in line but they were naturally christened in their state churches. The only restriction is that you can't be Catholic.

The word Catholic is not enough. I think you have been talking about being Roman Catholic. The mistake is widespread. Just saying, pedantically of course. I had a friend who used to make quite a lot of noise about Henry VIII detaching himself from the R.C. church 6(?) centuries ago, and the fact that the monarch is still head of the C. of E., but she still is.

My post was general, not particularly aimed at KatherineParr, but she knew about it because she married him a few wives down the line!

If we want to get really pedantic, I've just had a look at the Act of Succession and it says that the exclusions apply to anyone 'holding Communion with the Church of Rome'. I would have assumed that only applies to Roman Catholics, particularly as they are specifically mentioned in the 2013 Act, but aren't the Eastern Catholic churches also in full communion with the Pope, and if so, wouldn't this apply to members of these churches too? Were you thinking of Eastern Catholicism in particular upinaballoon or were you thinking of an independent Catholic church?

Anyway, this is all completely theoretical as I am sure the legislation drafting has already been thought through by BP and H&M have given no indication that they are planning to baptise their daughter into one of the above churches!

I think its better that the royal family ignores them. Then they can't get into trouble for doing or saying the wrong thing. Perhaps thats the plan.

@KatherineParr

If we want to get really pedantic, I've just had a look at the Act of Succession and it says that the exclusions apply to anyone 'holding Communion with the Church of Rome'. I would have assumed that only applies to Roman Catholics, particularly as they are specifically mentioned in the 2013 Act, but aren't the Eastern Catholic churches also in full communion with the Pope, and if so, wouldn't this apply to members of these churches too? Were you thinking of Eastern Catholicism in particular upinaballoon or were you thinking of an independent Catholic church?

Anyway, this is all completely theoretical as I am sure the legislation drafting has already been thought through by BP and H&M have given no indication that they are planning to baptise their daughter into one of the above churches!

No, Katherine, I was just meaning that people tend to use the word "catholic" when they are talking about "Roman Catholic", e.g. "Jacob Rees-Mogg is a Catholic". When they say the creed Anglicans (C of E) say, "We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church", but they are not Roman Catholics, and I have had it all explained to me once but I can't remember it all! When you speak of the Eastern Catholic churches are they what I would call, perhaps incorrectly, the Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church etc.? Later I will look up The Act of Succession. I realise this post is a long way from the original one and stands to be removed but I hope the whole thread won't have to go.

I looked up the Succession rules yesterday. . Its changed so somebody in the line of succession can marry a Catholic but they can't be a catholic themselves. So in other words the monarch can't be a Catholic as they have to be head of the Church of England.