Lillibet's christening

[OutOfChocolate]

Lillibet was christened in California last Friday by the Archbishop. Meghan's mother was there. Charles, Camilla, William and Kate were invited, but neither Harry's father or brother attended.

If you publicly call your fathers second wife an evil step mother & imply she has a toxic agenda it might explain their absence.

Even Princess Anne didn’t attend her own mother’s coronation. A very bored-looking aged-four Charles watched from an upper balcony, I think. But he was heir to the throne. I can’t see how any tiny children and babies would ever be invited, no matter their relationship to the king. It’s inappropriate.

Many many people called Megan out there. Not the one married to Prince Harry granted. 😀

It's up to them if they come for the Coronation.

But even if everything were tickety-boo, I don't think preschool children would be at the Abbey. I'd definitely expect them on the Balcony though

I’m afraid I agree. I really don’t want to judge the poor child by her name, but it was an awful, naff and embarrassing thing to name her that. They could have at least called her Elizabeth. And both names from Harry’s mother and grandmother, nothing from her mother’s side, or even just a random other name they liked. They really were emphasising the royal links at every chance.

It's not a huge surprise.

We know Harry and Meghan won't disassociate with the RF (whatever Tyler Perry thinks!)

We know the RF aren't going to get in a tussle with them especially around children

It's empty rhetoric - being a Prince/Princess outside of a royal environment feels redundant so that plus the constant slagging off just makes them hypocritical- still should make them happy. For some reason the titles the two kids already had meant nothing and only Prince and Princess will do so now that's done it's one less thing to get their knickers in a twist about.

They (royals) are playing the long game - time will take the monarchy down George's line and everyone on the periphery just moves out of the picture

I was corroborating your two posts, really. (This makes me wonder if you can call a woman, who is una femina, a petit chou, which is masculine, but they did and do, and if the French can live with it, so can I.)
Until Prince Philip died I hadn't thought about the fact that French was his first language.
I would call Lilibet a pet name rather than a nick-name. Did her parents use it before ever she met PP? I have never known another Elizabeth called Lilibet. I think it's more of a shame than a compliment that they chose to call their baby by the late Queen's pet-name-in-the-family name. Other names were available.

Yes, the young Princess Anne wasn’t at the coronation, but did appear on the balcony.

Lilibet was Elizabeth’s nickname from childhood, only used by her parents, and then much later by Philip.

"Lilibet" came from the Queen's own inability to pronounce "Elizabeth" when she was little. She said Lilibet instead, and this is the name her sister, parents and grandparents used, and then her husband.

The queen was also a fluent French speaker. I wonder if she and Phillip conversed in French in private.

Good question.....

I think that it was a crass show from Harry to show his narrative of being the special favourite confidant of the queen, that's why he didn't choose Elizabeth.

At George's Christening, Meghan rebelled against the dress code. Everyone was asked to wear blue or cream. She wore olive and stands out like a sore thumb in the official photo. She can hardly expect the Royals to drop everything and fly all the way to California for a Christening.

Lilibet was Elizabeth’s nickname from childhood, only used by her parents, and then much later by Philip.

It wasn't used only by her parents and Philip. It was used by her sister, her nieces and nephews (and their children), and by her cousins, including the ones on the Bowes-Lyon side of the family. She was also called Lilibet by various members of other royal families, including Queen Margrethe of Denmark and King Felipe of Spain. The younger ones used "Aunt Lilibet."

royalcentral.co.uk/uk/philip/dear-aunt-lillibet-king-felipes-poignant-message-as-he-mourns-uncle-philip-158126/

I’ve often wondered whether the claims about Elizabeth being a fluent French speaker are true… Languages need to be well used to keep them fluent and it’s very easy to lose fluency. Even if she did have a governess teaching her French from a young age, I doubt that equates to fluency in an adult who doesn’t speak or hear it often.

I think H&M have very much ensured that no senior royal will ever be in their company in a public setting where they cannot control e.g. photography and reporting, so flying out to a US christening would have been a total non-starter even if they had been given sufficient notice to work it in to their schedules.

I'm still annoyed, that nobody has challenged the whole , no titles for our children because of racism narrative on Oprah !
In my view it's far more damaging than the other accusations of racism they implied , which Harry back tracked on when questioned on that interview!

Sorry to harp on , but it's just been glossed over!

Given that it's a coronation the person who'll be centre stage will be Charles. Not family members who did a very public flounce and have been trashing their families ever since.

Well, the British viewer may well have known (or subsequently found out) that the LPs meant that Prince/ss would be automatic entitlement on Charles' accession, and in the period before that they were following rules that had been in place since 1917

Yes there had been a change for the Cambridge brood - because if no change to LP and if birth order of the first two were reversed, you'd have had the next heir Lady Charlotte, then Prince George, then Lord Louis ie a nonsense. Now perhaps they should have amended it to first-born only (rather than eldest son only) but as we now know Harry's feelings on being a 'spare' he must surely see why they didn't choose that.

So I do think that what they said on Oprah amounted to a misrepresentation.

We have only their word that there was ever any suggestion that the LPs would not be followed. It's up to the parents of the DGC of a monarch (in the male line) to decide whether Prince/Princess is used (hence difference between the York and the Wessex DC) and it was only yesterday that the Sussexes made their preference known.

I predict that whether they come or they do not come, people on here and elsewhere will still mainly talk about Harry and Meghan. Lots of people seem fascinated and enjoy tearing them apart too much for their focus ever to be on Charles.

I do think that the intention announced at the time of Edward and Sophie's wedding that their children would be styled as children of an earl was a foreshadowing of Charles's intention at the time to issue new LPs when it was up to him. But events have intervened.

Nothing was said at the time that Edward's children would have a choice when they turned 18. That came from an off the cuff remark from Sophie.

What does LP mean in this context?

Letters Patent. The governing ones as to Archie and Lilibet were issued in 1917.

I appreciate that @EdithWeston , but yes , a lot of us knew it was rubbish at the time and commented that none of their children were entitled to these titles until Charles became king.
Oprah didn't challenge a single comment, anyone unfamiliar with protocol will have believed this rubbish and honestly thought the royal family refused titles because of racism.
It's not true , it never was , but now is part of other smears that won't go away unless they are addressed by the people who made these accusations, even then as we know some people will refuse to believe the truth and that means the damage is done.