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.

@Howsimplywonderful 🤣! , very rude to get his position wrong really .
The absolute rubbish spouted to defend H&M is astounding, I'm an atheist and I apparently know more about religion than some!

I doubt that it's a huge issue. I did notice that articles in the US did manage to correct it without drawing attention to it.

That's what I was saying @SenecaFallsRedux ! It's was a tiny faux pas, why use that of all things .

After all the shenanigans of recent times, I can quite imagine Harry having a 'global religions spokesperson' and not even knowing about it.

@Hooklander 🤣🤣! Sounds entirely plausible to me !

We have not heard of the Sussexes attending church in the US, so surprised they wanted a Christening.
As regards members of the RF attending, it depends on how much notice they were given. Generally the diaries of the RF are planned months in advance. I read somewhere that members of the Spencer family attended.

I'm surprised the Pope as the Vicar of God didn't do it...let's not let a tiny matter of religion get in the way 😂

I have read Diana's two sisters were there.

My experience as an Anglican is that most parents who want their child baptised for reasons of faith do it within the first year - as soon as possible given the practicalities of the mother recovering, parents not being too sleep deprived, travel arrangements for extended family and friends, having a reasonable chance of good weather etc.

I have no idea why. But I have read articles saying they delayed the christening because they wanted it in a key church in England but could not get permission.

Well, anyone can write an article claiming anything!

But IF that's the case, then the christening was about status rather than faith. Which would fit with the timing. But none of us can really know.

In the UK many non church goers christen their children, They disappear for a few years then resurrect when it's time to choose a state primary school, only to disappear again when they do or don't get the school of their choice. But on a M&H thread I'm sure it's unheard of.

They don’t live in England, so why would they want a christening there?

or why not do it last summer when they were all over?

I have no idea. I simply posted that this is why I read the christening has been delayed.
They had to give up on their desire to get Lillibet christened in Britain and do it in the US instead as they could not get permission.

Who didn't they get permission from? For which church in England?

Who has alleged all this - because it sounds just a tad fabricated.

'You can have your baby christened at your local parish church. If you’d like to have the christening at a different church, for example, where you grew up or where you were married, talk to the vicar at that church to see what’s possible.
Unless there are very exceptional circumstances, a christening must always take place in a church, so it’s usually not possible to have a christening at home, in a function room or outdoors.'

From the CofE website - www.churchofengland.org/life-events/christenings/christening-faqs#na

So the general expectation is your local parish church, which makes sense as that would generally be the place/community where you worship. But the decision is down to the parish priest of any other parish if that's what the parents want. There is no overarching 'permission' needed.

St George's, Windsor isn't a parish church, it's a Royal Peculiar, so if that's what they wanted then it might be a case of getting 'permission'. But that applies to a handful of churches/cathedrals, not the vast majority of the 1,000s of parish churches in England.

I.e. if it was the status of St George's they wanted, that could have been the problem. Same as e.g. getting married or christened in St Paul's Cathedral isn't open to anyone who wants it. But that is about status, not faith.

They live abroad, they do not have a parish church in England. The nearest to a parish church would be the nearest church to Frogmore which is Windsor parish church.

I had a search and found a Blind Gossip item (it may be gossip but they are usually right) saying that H&M wanted the Christening ages ago in Windsor to get the photo of the Queen (that is the Queen) with Lillibet. Apparently the Palace came up with timings/venue not practicable but actually they just didn’t want the Queen to be a part of M&H’s Netflix deal.

You can't just rock up at a church when you live abroad and arrange a christening. Its not how it works.
So if they wanted that and were turned down, then it would lead to a delay in the christening.

@EdithHowland The Queen was not well and would be unlikely to have been able to attend. So I really do not think that is likely.

So, now that they're being styled Prince Archie and Princess Lillibet (🤮) aren't all the Americans who listened to Oprah scratching their heads just a little bit?

Nope, Charles had left the Royal website not showing their titles and there where lots of leaks that he was planning to remove the titles. The sussexes forced his hand to accept they should have their titles. Charles was outplayed here.

Charles was outplayed here

I disagree. He comes out of this looking endlessly patient. Announcing it themselves has exposed H&M as massively hypocritical and desperate.: most people in the UK regard their titles as a bit of a joke, and South Park and US opinion polls show that they are a bit of a laughingstock in the US as well.

So - the children have the titles - now what? They would have looked much better if they'd risen above it and stopped using any titles themselves, either. But they are too dim to realize that.

Also, Queen Margrethe has also helpfully set the precedent for William to remove some of these superfluous a little further down the line. I suspect Archie and Lillibet's will be among the first to go