The real reason why the Royal Watchers are angry Prince Harry and Meghan Markle had a private baptism for Archie

The baptism of Archie Harrison, son of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, has arrived and gone, but not without controversy. On July 6, 2019, the last member of the Royal Family was baptized in an intimate ceremony with a close family and friends, but the couple's decision to look into a private matter angered many people. .

Fans, royalty experts and politicians have all taken the same side of why they are not happy about the duke's and the duchess's choice. It has nothing to do with not knowing if George Clooney and Serena Williams are Archie's godfathers.

Here is the real reason why the royal couple attracts criticism.

Private business, sponsors will not be revealed

A few days before Archie's baptism, it was announced that this event would be private.

"Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor will be baptized at a small private ceremony organized by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the private chapel of Windsor Castle on Saturday, July 6," confirmed a statement from Buckingham Palace. He added that the couple's photographer would be present and that some photos would be shared once the ceremony was over.

In addition, the release notes that the identity of Archie's sponsors will not be revealed.

"The godparents, according to their wishes, will remain confidential," reads the statement.

Reason the royal observers are so angry

The choice of Markle and Harry to announce that the public will not see Archie on his big day did not bend to anyone, especially after last month's announcement that they spent $ 3 million taxpayers to renovate their Frogmore Cottage residence.

Fans have expressed their dissatisfaction with this decision via social media, but they are not the only ones to complain publicly about it.

"Meghan can not demand privacy for the Archie baby by asking the public to fund his family's lifestyle," the Daily Telegraph noted.

Royal biographer Penny Junor agreed, adding, "They can not have both. Either they are totally private, pay for their own home and disappear out of sight, or play the game the way it is played. "

And Labor MP Luke Pollard told CNN, "When you still take millions of pounds of public money – money that could be spent in schools and hospitals – to renovate and renovate what you know, the luxury palace, you're We must ask ourselves: what does the audience receive in return? "

Pollard continued, "I do not think the whole family will be upset here. I think it's a chance to watch: is the behavior of the royal family the right way to go? And at a time when there is not much money for our utilities, is every penny spent well spent? "

The royal family had private baptisms but …

To be fair, the Duke and Duchess of Susbad are not the only members of the royal family to have had a private baptism for their little one.

"The members of the British royal family have largely baptized for centuries before the advent of photography. A court correspondent would write a visual record of the baptism for the Times and other British newspapers, "said to BAZAAR.com, founder of Royal Musing, Marlene Koenig.

In fact, the baptisms of the children of Prince William and Kate Middleton were not open to the public, but photographers were invited to take pictures of the family and their guests coming and going.

Koenig continued: "We were spoiled by the decision of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to baptize their children when the public has access, or at least to let the press photograph the arrivals and departures. But this is not the norm.

Another difference with previous royal baptisms as opposed to Archie is that, for those we knew, we knew who the Godparents were.

Read more: Revealed: Which member of the royal family cost taxpayers the most?