If being christened into the Church of England or the Catholic Church there has to be a record of it somewhere. If Lidl wasn't christened as Church of England she cannot be inline for succession as defender of the faith. Therefore as with the birth at some point all of this has to be proven as per the laws of succession.There is no such thing as a Christening Certificate.
It’s not a legal ceremony and you can be christened anywhere and by anyone, it does not have to be in a church or by a member of the clergy. A sick child in hospital could be christened by a doctor or friend or family member.
If christened in a church it would be noted in the church register which records christenings, marriages and funerals as well as the number of attendees at a church service. But it probably wouldn’t name the godparents.
Perfect isn’t itThat’s one of my all time fave titles too!
Most churches will give a certificate of some type but it is not compulsory or a legal requirement.There are Baptism certificates though. I have one.
It has my name, my parents' names, my godparents' names, the church I was baptised at, the date and the Priest who baptised me.
People in the UK don't get certificates?
I have a birth certificate and a beautiful christening cert, with spaces for confirmation, first communion etc. It's gorgeously done, with saints etc all in colour, and proper calligraphy (not loopy like Smegs). Don't know whether parish churches do this now, this was the 50s/60s. My brother and sis got one as wellMost churches will give a certificate of some type but it is not compulsory or a legal requirement.
And it does not have to be registered.
Most churches will give a certificate of some type but it is not compulsory or a legal requirement.
And it does not have to be registered.
This is a theory. As far as we know, KC3 can have evidence of the children being totally legitimate. As far as we know for a fact, KC3 and HMTLQ could have been mislead. Maybe the only lie is the date of birth of Archie. Maybe the lie is they had IVF. We don’t know what the truth is and we don’t know who knows what. There are simply no evidences. We can choose to believe whatever regarding the children’s existence and origins, but we have no facts at all.Everyyhing you say is spot on. There's no proof either way, just conspiracy theories and we all agree on that.
If your neighbour down the road used moonbumps and muddied the water about births, it's their business and their right.
My point has always been that despite not knowing whether the children exist or not, KC put them in the LoS and gave them titles.
Therefore their existence or otherwise takes on a whole new significance, and KC should have ensured proof of life. If surrogates they are not legally in the LoS. He didn't, because it wasn't there, and he's hoping to buy his way out of this ghastly mess which has arisen because he and HM allowed the Harkles to blackmail them from the start. They're working with the Harkles and always have been, and the stonewalling was a joke.
The RF can't hide and say they didn't know. There's centuries of protocol and law to be observed here and they're ducking and diving as much as the Stoats are.
I think the children have to exist, as its an impossible scam to deliver 18 years down the line, if no children actually exist.I believe that the children exist, they are his and hers and she carried them.
From what we have seen from Harry and Peg, they are way too stupid to pull off an elaborate ruse like that.
The belly was shaking and moving weirdly because just like all of her underwear, she chose the wrong maternity shapewear. Not every woman has a smooth and round belly, some children move a lot in the belly and a knee or elbow will stick out to make it look incredibly weird. Also, the baby can move into different shapes which affect the size of the belly, within minutes. I think she was pregnant.
Archie's birth was murky because they wanted control. They wanted to teach the British media a lesson because they were calling her out at every second. They wanted the US Media to be the first to announce his birth but the royal family pulled a fast one on them. In the end, they ruined their own experience. Harry was high on gas, Peg was in pain, stressed and allegedly suicidal, all the while they were trying to outmanoeuvre the media instead of focusing on the birth of their first child.
They think they got the media? Nope. The media lives inside their heads. For free.
ahahhahahha 100%. Archie is Hollywood trying to be royal and avocado simultaneously. Lilibet is just tacky and tasteless.Regardless of real or not 'Prince Archie' and 'Princess lilibet' are stupid names.
Diana got it and put proper names on the birth certificate and then used a nickname immediately.
Actually, 'Archie' is stupid and 'Lilibet' is just downright offensive.
I too feel that she must have been pregnant with Archie, no way would such a scam remain uncovered . Don’t know about the girl seeing as they were established in Cali by then and she was never seen pregnant iirc ( until the reality show, that is) .I think the children have to exist, as its an impossible scam to deliver 18 years down the line, if no children actually exist.
But there is something odd and off about it. Which makes my hackles rise! The pregnancy bumps were unreal, and unrealistic, so I believe that even if Megsie was carrying a baby, she also chose to wear an artificial bump as well, which seems extremely odd to me.
Harolds description of M giving birth in Spare was totally unrealistic and impossible. Either he was deliberately making things up, or he wasnt actually there at the births itself.
So at the moment, I am firmly sitting on the fence about Archie and Lilibet. Its all too weird!
I'm wondering why she isn't merching the kids 24/7
I honestly expect reems and reems of photos, days out, holidays, events, she as the perfect mother.
But nothing
Is it H thats stopping it given his paranoia?
Anyone else think its odd? (Flatpack theory aside)
Aitch's paranoia, as you say, and children are not "photogenic" like the Waleses children.I'm wondering why she isn't merching the kids 24/7
I honestly expect reems and reems of photos, days out, holidays, events, she as the perfect mother.
But nothing
Is it H thats stopping it given his paranoia?
Anyone else think its odd? (Flatpack theory aside)
Until Netflix, I thoroughly believed that H was very very protective (to an OTT degree) and wanted to keep them private...I'm wondering why she isn't merching the kids 24/7
I honestly expect reems and reems of photos, days out, holidays, events, she as the perfect mother.
But nothing
Is it H thats stopping it given his paranoia?
Anyone else think its odd? (Flatpack theory aside)
It's also odd that nobody sees them out and about in Montecito as you would have thought that there would have been a sighting of them by now, but nope they haven't been seen out with Harry and Meghan once. Another thing I don't understand is that on Lili's birthday last year why didn't they have a family photo of the 4 of them together.I'm wondering why she isn't merching the kids 24/7
I honestly expect reems and reems of photos, days out, holidays, events, she as the perfect mother.
But nothing
Is it H thats stopping it given his paranoia?
Anyone else think its odd? (Flatpack theory aside)
because Misan Harriman wasn’t available to do his shoddy photoshopping?It's also odd that nobody sees them out and about in Montecito as you would have thought that there would have been a sighting of them by now, but nope they haven't been seen out with Harry and Meghan once. Another thing I don't understand is that on Lili's birthday last year why didn't they have a family photo of the 4 of them together.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?