I am curious to know if anyone can tell me if it is true that Archbishop Justin Welby left the General Synod in York on Saturday 6 July 2019 for the christening of Archie Harrison, the son of Prince Harry and his wife Meghan. It is more than two years ago, but a few days the Daily Mail published an article in which a "well-placed source" said that did leave unexpectly and caused a chaos at the synod. However no witnesses for this were mentioned. My personal belief is that this story is pure nonsense. I am really fed up with hearing from this couple and suspect that is another effort of them to stay in the news. The whole story of the "secret baptism" of Archie was suspicious from the very beginning. And it would not be the first time that they tell a lie that involves Justin Welby. Think about Meghan's story about the secret wedding three days before the official wedding. However if the story is really true it would put Archbishop Justin Welby in a very bad light. Is he really able to leave an important event like the general synod because from one day to other they want to have a secret baptism? Does it really work that way in the Royal Family and the top of the Church of England? I have already contacted the press office of the Archbishop but they refused to give me a clear answer - just the statement that “it is not our practice to comment on the private relationship of the Archbishop with members of the Royal Family”. But maybe some people who were at the General Synod themselves or who know more about it can tell if it is really true that the head of the Church of England simply left on 6 July 2019 and "caused a chaos".
The son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was baptised. He was baptised by the Archbishop of Canterbury. That is not unusual. That archbishop is generally the minister who baptises members of the UK Royal Family. The baptism was not a secret and indeed you can find an article about it on the BBC News Web site as well as see official photographs of the event. It was, as baptisms in the UK Royal Family usually are, a private ceremony in one of their private chapels. In this case it was at the private chapel in Windsor Castle. Does the General Synod sit on Saturdays? I do not think it is absolutely necessary for either the Archbishop of Canterbury or any other member of General Synod to be present for the entirety of every discussion that takes place therein. I do not particularly like the Sussexes but feel this thread is in the same vein as their behaviour.
I think that the use of the word secret, which could probably just have been private would have been less seditious. It is my hope that Archie grows up as a good Anglican Christian, kind, charitable, and always ready to give an account of the hope that is within him. Probably not as much chaos as the Sussex's leaving Royal Life for a more private existence away from the press - Oprah Winfrey and others excepted.
I agree but, unfortunately, the meaning of the word 'secret' seems to be changing. Its meaning was, I think, synonymous with 'confidential', e.g. the details of my bank account are secret, i.e. they are confidential. Nowadays people seem to use the word as if it has some malign overtones, such as you are not to know what is happening because things are happening which we do not want you to know about.
It's because more and more people are easily duped into confusing conspiratorial-type thinking with genuine insight. It's rapidly becoming a default position so people have an alibi for lack of critical thinking. There's probably also a cultural Marxist element to it as well, in that to some "private" = "bad", so if some event, say, a baptism, were "private", there must have been some nefarious element to it or motive behind it. It's all quite silly really.