Harry and Meghan stir new debate about royal privilege by refusing to identify Archie’s godparents

Various media outlets spent the weekend trying to deduce the identity of the godparents for Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, the son of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, who was christened in a small ceremony at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle Saturday.

Only rabid royal followers may care about who the godparents are. But the fact that Harry and Meghan made a point of keeping the identities secret, when traditionally royal godparents’ names are made public, irked a segment of fans, as well as members of the British media. The couple’s move also raised questions about whether they violated Church of England law and stirred further debate about their desire for privacy versus their expected duties as taxpayer-funded working royals.

Anti-monarchy campaigners from the organization Republic fumed about Harry and Meghan expecting an exception to church rules on baptism records being public, according to the Daily Mail. Republic said in a statement: “The same law should apply to everybody. This is one of the many, many examples where that’s not the case for the royal family.”

The latest debate about royal privilege comes after the Duke and Duchess of Sussex faced a torrent of criticism last month after a new government report was released showing that British taxpayers had so far paid about $3 million to upgrade Frogmore Cottage, their new home on the grounds of Windsor Castle.

The godparent controversy began last week when Buckingham Palace released a statement saying the people’s names would remain private, in keeping with their wishes, the Independent reported. Queen Elizabeth also refused to release a copy of her great-grandson’s baptism certificate — another way the couple “tightened” their grip on the news blackout of the christening, according to the Daily Mail.

Typically, under a 1978 Church of England measure, “all baptisms must be registered and the record made is normally publicly available,” the Independent reported.

But there is an obscure church law that appears to have offered Harry and Meghan their privacy loophole, the Independent reported. It has to do with the fact that St. George’s Chapel is a private chapel that does not belong to any diocese but to the queen, who is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That means the chapel does not come up under the jurisdiction of a bishop, and the general rules of the Church of England don’t apply.

“The register to be used in this case is held privately by the royal household on behalf of the Crown and we understand that it has never complied with the usual requirement,” a Church spokesperson told The Independent.

But even if Harry and Meghan were eligible for the loophole, some in the media asked if they should have taken it,  Cosmopolitan reported. They pointed out that Prince William and Kate Middleton allowed the names of their children’s godparents to be released, while also allowing the media to be on the premises for their children’s christenings.

Harry and Meghan, on the other hand, barred the media, apparently figuring the public would be satisfied with the release of two photos from the event. The Daily Mail’s royal correspondent Rebecca English tweeted that refusing to release the godparents’ names and other moves would create “more hysteria around an event that should be a simple celebration of Archie’s birth.”

Unfortunately all it does is create more hysteria around an event that should be a simple celebration of Archie's birth.

— Rebecca English (@RE_DailyMail) July 3, 2019

A Twitter fan account for Harry and Meghan tweeted that Archie’s godparents have the right to be spared the harassment that the couple regularly put up with from the U.K. tabloids. “It’s not your business to know who they are,” said the KUWTRoyalSussexes account. “They don’t want or need you harassing them in the same manner you do Harry and Meghan.

Royal commentator Richard Fitzwilliams told the Daily Express he understands Harry and Meghan’s desire to protect the godparent from “vile social media trolls.” But the couple risk alienating royal fans and the media by restricting the public’s access to information that has been traditionally made available, he said.

“It’s one thing facing abuse from vile social media trolls and the vitriol of caustic commentators, quite another to alienate royal watchers and royal correspondents as they have with their handling of the christening,” Fitzwilliams said.

Fitzwiliams said he also sympathizes with the couple’s desire to provide as “normal” a childhood possible for their son, but explained that there has long been a bargain struck between the royal family and the British press. Whether Harry and Meghan like it or not, their son will become a public figure and a “role model” because he is seventh in line to the British throne and because his parents expect to use their global fame to represent the British people and to advocate for causes they care about, Fitzwiliams explained.

“Harry and Meghan have shown since Archie’s birth that they are determined to have total privacy, and this will make their relations with the press challenging,” he explained.

“The arrangement has been that in exchange for an occasional photo on birthdays on special occasions they will be left alone and this is obviously likely to continue,” Fitzwilliams continued.

For those interested in the godparents’ identity, Cosmopolitan reported that the suspects include Harry’s childhood nanny Tiggy Legge Bourke, Harry’s longtime friend Charlie van Straubenzee, Soho House executives Izzy May and Markus Anderson and Meghan’s classmates from Northwestern University, Genevieve Hillis and Lindsay Roth.

Writer Camila Long said in a Sunday Times column echoed the view that most people probably probably don’t care to know these people’s names. But she said Harry, the “people’s prince,” has nonetheless showed himself to be a “killjoy” for making a “snitty” point about keeping their names a secret.

Long added that Harry and Meghan’s unprecedented moves to control media access is symptomatic of how the couple want to enjoy the benefits of a public royal life without having to be more transparent.

“The royals don’t want privacy, they want a private life in public, and no one has the right to that,” Long wrote.

She added: “And so we have it: a royal christening in a building we paid for, conducted by a bishop whose salary we help foot, featuring royals whose lives we bankroll, in clothes we’ve paid for, sitting on seats we bought, waited on by staff we fund, with celebs who aren’t even sure they want to put their name to it. And they think they can say: ‘Oh, we’re not telling you anything about it?'”