Prince William cosplayed his very narrow, particular version of “normal life” for years. For William, normal life was a palace in the city, and a lovely country home on granny’s estate. It was working part time as an air ambulance co-pilot because he wasn’t ready or willing to take on full-time royal work. It was eschewing royal events to party in Switzerland, or spending time on boar-hunting trips with Jecca Craig, or trying to keep up with the Turnip Toff society by bedding an aristocrat’s wife. What was also part of William’s normal-bloke cosplay was a trickiness around the media’s access to his children. We would go months without seeing George or Charlotte, and most people were sort of fine with that, although William and Kate were often called “controlling” when they stressed that they wanted this kids to have more normal lives.
Well, you’re not going to believe this, but sources tell Us Weekly that William thinks Harry and Meghan’s desire for privacy around Archie is stupid. Because… sure.
Straying from royal norms has been Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan’s modus operandi for a long time. So it’s no surprise that when their son, Archie, received his baptism, the new parents chose the christening to be intimate and private — an event that usually isn’t kept from the public.
“The queen accepted Harry and Meghan’s decision to keep the event private,” a royal insider exclusively reveals in the new issue of Us Weekly, but Prince William and Duchess Kate “weren’t happy about it.”
In fact, the Duke of Cambridge doesn’t entirely approve of how the former military pilot, 34, and Suits alum, 37, are handling things regarding Archie’s privacy. “William thinks his brother is going overboard keeping Archie out of the spotlight,” the insider says, noting he “blames Meghan” for this.
Archie’s privacy is part of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s plan to give him a regular upbringing. The pair also “made the decision to have no live-in staff at Frogmore Cottage,”a source told Us in June. “It’s all part of wanting the most normal family environment for Archie.”
I wonder if William really feels this way? If anything, I would think that this is one small area where the brothers would be in complete agreement. Then again, that might mean that William would have self-awareness, and I’m not sure that’s the case. Also: I’m really disturbed by how this “the Sussexes are too private” narrative has taken hold. They act like Meghan and Harry refused to release any information whatsoever about Archie. They got the baby announcement, the name in a timely fashion, a postpartum photocall with Meghan and the baby, and the Sussexes released photos for Father’s Day AND the christening. That’s almost exactly on-par with what the Cambridges did with Prince George.
(All that being said, it does feel like the Cambridges have been A LOT keener to bring out their kids in the past few years. Gee I wonder why.)
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, SussexRoyal.
I want to know why William ignored his kids and wife on polo day?
He was thinking of Rose?
Yup, it was awful.
Just because we didn’t see pics, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen! My goodness, you didn’t see a pic of me eating dinner last, night, but I did!
I mean, I haven’t seen photos to confirm, but I would assume he was hosting Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha’s family when he wasn’t playing. The polo pictures are confusing to me because I’m not sure what the timeline is and how long everyone was there for. We really only got photos of Harry and Meghan together when they were leaving.
Lexa – I agree that the photos were confusing. They looked like they were all hanging out in a parking lot. I doubt any of the four kids were watching the actual match and I felt for Kate having to chase Louis around. He’s at the explore non-stop age. Meghan looked stressed and ready to go. 2 months is still very young.
Wow Geraldine, wasn’t aware you were there but would love more information since clearly you were.
It’s weird we didn’t see any pics of them. We all know he was there.
It’s interesting because everyone else was photographed including the kids and then Harry back at the car with Meghan and the baby. I would think the photographers would have taken a shot of William with his kids or Kate near the car if he was there. There are pics of Kate and the kids hanging out at the tailgate of the Range Rover so you would have expected him to return to the car and drive back.
The entire rose story is still percolating so it would be a good shot to have.
Seriously. People want to play dumb by saying “well you don’t KNOW that there weren’t any pictures of them together!” Uh…if there were, don’t you think one of the tabloids (or the royal reporters on Twitter, especially Becky English) would’ve happily included those? The RRs are so gung ho on presenting the Cambridges as the perfect, happy family in contrast to the Sussexes. You’d think that they’d have published some photos of Will with Kate and/or the kids if they existed.
Since we’re into jumping into conclusions, we didn’t see pictures of Kate and the kids leaving. Maybe they’re still there.
Can you imagine the headlines if the situation was the opposite!
With every story the Cambridges loook more and more pressed about the Sussexs. It’s hard when you see other people with the star quality that you probably wanted for you.
Ooohhh good point
I think if anything, the Cambridges are jealous over the fact that the Sussex’s can have more privacy. With William & Kates position, and George also being a future king, total privacy isn’t ever going to be possible.
That being said, the Cambridges & Sussex’s only want privacy when it suits them and the want all of the perks. They’re both annoying.
Non-story. This is US magazine. They’re just making sh!t up as they go, with whatever the narrative is going. Right now, it’s big, bad Meghan (because of course, Harry has NO say in his child’s upbringing), and of course, we want DISTRACTION!!!!
So yeah… nope…
“we want DISTRACTION!!!!”
It is not working as the Daily Fail just posted a story on Epstein & Andrew with comments being moderated. Would love to read the unmoderated comments! LOL!
Same. I don’t trust US Weekly after they were bought by American Media Inc.
The summer interns are writing fan fiction.
US weekly likes to just make fan fiction up. Theyre not real sources. Doesnt even make sense, if William and Harry are all about splitting up why would William care how Harry presents his kid especially if it’s similar to his own controlled view.
I do believe William has strong negative feelings about Harry and Meghan at this moment and that feeling is mutual.
yes, jealousy is a hugely negative feeling. William is likely jealous of the obvious love between H&M…
It’s really gross to me how people insinuate that William doesn’t love Kate all the time. Is he jealous of Meg & Harry’s popularity? Possibly. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t love his wife.
And really it is none of THEIR business. Little Archie has NO CHANCE at being king. So what is it to them what H and M do????? W and K are jealous of H and M, is all. W knows that he has been caught in the affair with R. He wants the attention to go to anything BUT!!! JS IMO
US magazine has no sources on the royal family- it is entirely fictional filler on that subject. Yes I’ll believe they have Kardashian and Gwen/Blake sources (their Hollywood PR people) but their royal coverage is not on point.
Just recently they had a cover story on Kate that actually said she regularly meets with the Queen to get lessons on ‘taking the crown’.
@BRANDY ALEXANDER
I dont know anything about William and Kate’s real relationship. But I would say William is not in love with Kate but sure loves her.
This is BS IMO. Harry and William were so happy to be together at the polo match.
i agree!
Why would they care?
I don’t buy this. W&K have only provided a smidge more access to their children. Did we see pics of the christenings themselves? I thought all we got were entrance pictures.
And as for the Lindo wave, what’s the difference between a couple of formal shots and two shots from 287 cameras at the same time?
They released a few formal pictures after the event, same as Harry and Meghan (maybe one or two more pictures, but not a lot.) The christenings themselves were always private.
I read this and laughed, partly as its absurd and partly as its the kind of thing I can imagine man baby William being annoyed about. Esp as he is soo keen to hide behind H&M to keep his affair story buried. W&K being pissed about being denied the photo opportunity to play lovey dovey for the paps is quite amusing.
He’s 2 months old. We’ve seen pics from his post-birth photocall, father’s day, his feet on mother’s day, and the polo match. That’s pretty much on par with how much we saw of the cambridges at this point.
But anyway, I honestly don’t think William has a problem with their privacy around Archie. He and Kate are very protective about their kids privacy.
Wait I thought US Weekly was bs now that they have new ownership?
It’s all selective.😏😏😉
So far out of 24 comments here only… two… actually believe the story.
It’s always hard to say because so many comments that are viewed as “pro-WK” get disappeared.
Bull.
@Sparkingg: Comments that “get disappeared” are often laced with problematic crap that has nothing to do with defending W&K. People simply use the Pro-WK language as a Trojan horse to carry in their implicit bias nonsense.
Once in a while Kaiser or CB will screenshot a comment that doesn’t get through and its really easy to see WHY it didn’t get through.
US Weekly is still BS. Any media format still harping on the christening doesn’t have any new plausible rumors or #mypalacesource news to write about. If PW had even a smidgen of envy about the christening privacy, he should credit QM Carole for it. Does anyone honestly think she’d allow her FQC daughter to keep the press away from an event she’d could be photographed attending?
That’s a whole lot of assumption based on one photo. Perhaps that photo was just the best one of Archie. We’ve all taken family photos where someone got caught almost smiling or being distracted or whatever. I think it’s a lot of hooey.
I remember when George and Charlotte were born it was literally 6 to 7 months in between the initial photos: Lindo Wing Steps, then Christening then. . .all the way to the first birthday–because being wheeled in a pram on the way to church completely covered up for weather doesn’t really count. So, Harry and Meghan seem to be following this same rule.
I’m sure we’ll see Archie his first birthday, and probably Trooping next year, but not much of him until then. Just like the Cambridges.
If this is true.William and Kate are just mad because Archie win’t Take the bullet for their kids.Like Harry did for william
This article makes no sense. This is is the same Bill and Katy who released one picture of George every year up until his third Birthday.
I think this is a made up article to garner support for the media position that M&H are not willing to ‘share’ Archie with them.
The RR’s have to be very careful what they write about Camb kid’s so they were likely hoping they would find an outlet in Archie as he is so far down the line of succession. They are angry that what they thought would be an ample supply of tabloid gossip has effectively been ripped from them.
Diana’s grandchild who has a bi-racial mother was a potential jackpot.
I call BS on this, and stories like this make me think the Cambridges aren’t as much tied into the negative press on the Sussexes as some people think. This story doesn’t make them look good, and it’s kind of against everything William has ever said. It also has legs with a few outlets. I feel it fits into the fighting scenario though.
Plus, I want to say a novel thing here. I know the Sussexes say they want to keep Archie private and have a different upbringing, but it’s not really much different from what the Cambridges have done at this point. I mean we got the baby born picture, yes a day or two later and not at the hospital but still pretty close. We’ve gotten about the same amount of pictures at this point in their early lives. Sure we didn’t get the godparents, but who cares. Just at this point it’s not that different.
It’s not that different which is why the RRs having hissy fits about privacy are ridiculous. US Weekly is just making stuff up here. Outside of seeing people walk in and out of the church, the christenings were all private. William may have issues with Harry but keeping his child protected from the press is not one of them.
Thank you for always making the connections for us regarding the past behaviors of the people in your stories. I love reading your commentaries because you consistently hit the nail on the head.
Agreed. It’s a smart way to look at what’s published!
I don’t buy this. Frankly, I think the Cambridges have realized what a huge, huge asset their kids are to their own PR. In some ways, it’s the way they can partially neutralize the Sussexes popularity. Louie was arguably ,the most talked about royal after Trooping and after the polo. If anything I would think they would be fine with the Sussexes hiding Archie away at Frogmore. It keeps their kids and their “brand” front and center.
William probable believe the British Press and British people abuse of Meghan isn’t enough. Archie should have equal abuse
Please give examples of how the British people as a collective have abused Meghan.
I’ll leave this here: https://www.harpersbazaar.com/uk/celebrities/a28364833/can-we-all-just-calm-down-over-the-duchess-of-sussex/
The last line is worth considering.
That article hasn’t provided any evidence that the British public despise Meghan beyond some isolated Twitter comments and 21 Instagram likes. A study done last year showed most of the social media hatred of Meghan came from the US. The last line is classic columnist handwringing, not evidence.
Just read a local newspaper. Watch a racist program put on by the BBC or the racist radio host that was fired and than rehired. Watch Loose Women or Piers Morgan. I’m certain none of these programs are broadcasted in the US or papers published in the US.
Danny Baker was not rehired. And I do read most UK papers every day and watch Loose Women and GMB, not all the time but more than anyone posting here who lives in the US. You still haven’t provided any evidence (nor will you be able to) that the British PEOPLE hate Meghan.
If this is true, William & Kate are huge hypocrites. We didn’t see their kids for months. They control when the press sees those kids. For the first years of George’s life, we only saw him when they needed good press. Hell, I can’t be the only one to remember when William & Kate threw a press exclusive event where they paraded George in front of their critics to get them off of some story about their laziness/spending/something.
William doesn’t really have legs to stand on if true because of how controlling he was about when/how much we could see of his kids. BUT…I do agree that the secrecy around the place of birth and godparents was not well thought out. The place of birth could have easily been included in the birth announcement as Meghan was already home by that point and in no danger of being ambushed. The godparents, just release the names of the ones who are okay with it, and mention nothing about the other godparents who want privacy. Let the press feel like they’re getting something. Don’t piss them off and leave them to dig, because you never know what they’ll come up with.
@ random, why is it necessary to know that information in the first place? Why do they need to know the hospital where Archie was born, unless it’s to harass the staff to see if there are any “Meghan was a nightmare!” stories? Why do we need the names of the godparents, unless it’s to try and dig up dirt or harass them? Based on the way the press have treated H&M so far, screw them, don’t give them any more ammo.
As a lover of history, it IS important. I adore the fact you can look up birth places and godparents of Royal babies going back hundreds of years, even the ones that didn’t live more than a few months. You can see why the godparents were chosen and how they were influential. You can read about palaces that fell into disuse and decay. History is simply important. And again, please note that I said name the godparents who were fine with it. There’s no need to even mention that there are godparents who wish not to be named. They were inviting trouble with that. van Straubanzee (who is apparently one of Archie’s godfathers)—that man doesn’t have a privacy concern. Members of the family are godparents to Cambridge kids and Will and Harry have known them forever, so the press arent going to go after him at all.
@A random commenter I have a degree in history and I don’t know or care where any member of Britain’s royal family was born and I certainly don’t care about who the godparents were. Ever. All of the stuff you mentioned isn’t history; it’s trivia and it’s only useful if you’re a contestant on Jeopardy.
All of this nonsense isn’t about history. Do you honestly think that most of the commenters at the Daily Mail even know how to spell ‘history’?
This is all about CONTROL, the media (and others) feeling that they have the right to control the life of the first woman of colour to marry into the royal family. And they’re willing to do it by any means necessary. Bullying, humiliation, death threats, they don’t care.
Reducing this to a matter of control is silly. Meghan and Harry—and their children—are important; we wouldn’t be here discussing them otherwise. Knowledge of them may become obscure with time, but there’s always going to be some degree of interest. It just sucks that, while godparents of random Tudor babies have been committed to history, here there’s just…ugly speculation.
They are not lost to history at all. All royal baptisms and the godparents are recorded for the royal family in their own book/bible. It’s kept private, but the info is there for official record keepers, who need it. No one other than family need know.
As for ugly speculation, there are those who delight in such a pastime, and no proof will ever be good enough for them.
I personally don’t buy this.
My read on this is that I think the Cambridges are making decisions on public appearances for their kids based on their individual temperaments. The Cambridges have found a few different low-stress ways to show the kids to the public without stressing them out over the years (using unobtrusive cameras at the Back to Nature Garden, agreements for long lens shots at polo, family entrances at the Christenings, Christmas cards, etc), and I think the Sussexes will too once they get into a more settled groove. It’s incredibly hard mentally to be “on” at public events as an adult, so I imagine they’re still trying to mostly keep them back as a way to make them feel more secure. Both Harry and Will seemed stressed by the constant presence of photographers as kids.
And you guys believe this shit??
Who makes this stuff up? And why should the public believe it?
The polls supported the Sussexes. 82% agreed to the idea of a private baptism without cameras in the peripheral. Consequently the argument moved toward information about the godparents.
Master Archie deserves a childhood free of media scrutiny as he matures and gain a healthy autonomy and self definition.
I applaud his parents desire to provide him with the space and opportunity to gain the necessary tools/skills to survive in a complex and changing environment.
IF this is true, William is an even bigger asshole than I thought he was. And also pretty stupid. If the media gets their way by bullying the Sussexes, who long will it be before they use the same tactics on his family? So far he’s been able to get away with his wandering scepter because the media has bigger fish to fry. He might not be so lucky the next time. And we all know there will be a next time.
I suspect William is about to get a whole lot more pressed. Andrew/Epstein stories getting more traction, despite the trifecta of cute royal kids/ Megan is evil for breathing/ Kate and Megan at Wimbledon and the humdinger of Megan and Beyoncé at the Lion King. Watch, there will be more Rose affair details released as a distractor soon, even if Willy doesn’t like it.
They all seem like real a-holes to me. Team Kids grow up and get actual jobs.
“If this is true, if this true…” “Sources say, sources say..” Lol you lot are gullible as hell. Since when is US weekly a source for royals? God forbid anyone even try to speculate about the Sussex stories! You’ll be told to hush!
So like….are you friends with Meghan? Because you seem SUPER EAGER to defend her. I’m not sure I buy this story but, if true, so what? I would also be irritated if someone took on the mantle of Duchess and then tried to pretend like she didn’t want publicity. Tough takes, kid. The public is bankrolling your life; they get pictures.