The Rt Reverend John Harvey Taylor, the Bishop of Los Angeles, conducted the baptism of the Sussexes’ 21-month-old daughter at their Montecito home in California on Friday.

Although the Bishop has provided an update on his website regarding Lilibet’s baptism, no photos of the christening have been released.

The decision to have Lilibet baptized had been a matter of contention since her birth, resulting in her remaining unchristened for nearly two years.

After facing rejection, whether during their visit for the Jubilee or more recently, the Sussexes decided that the best course of action was to organize a royal-like christening on their own, with the involvement of a bishop instead of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

This is why they opted not to have an ordinary priest in a nearby church, and instead chose a celebrity godfather rather than a member of the royal family.

It is important to note that while they did not obtain everything they desired, their intention was to secure the same treatment as other members of the royal family and as their son Archie received when they were still working royals.

However, their request was denied.

John Taylor, the bishop who officiated Lilibet’s christening, has held the position since 2004.

Prior to his religious career, he served as the post-presidential chief of staff for Richard Nixon, who is widely regarded as a dishonest president and the second worst in US history.

The choice of having one liar’s former staff christen the child of two other individuals accused of deceit aligns with the overall narrative.

Despite having had two years to arrange the christening, they waited until just two months before the coronation to announce it.

This raises questions about their sense of urgency and their lack of preparedness.

Furthermore, it is perplexing that Harry and Meghan, who claim to despise and blame the institution they once belonged to for their own shortcomings, are now insisting on their children’s birthright within that same institution.

However, it is worth noting that their children hold no titles or significance in the United States.

They do not have a residence in the UK nor any authority over anything.

Additionally, there are countless individuals in the US who use the titles of prince and princess, rendering them mere monikers without any real prestige.

The focus on titles and the christening itself appears to be an excuse to secure a prominent position at the coronation.

Buckingham Palace and King Charles have chosen to remain silent and allow these events to unfold.

They understand that when the time comes for significant decisions to be made, all of this will be nothing more than a minor issue.

The absence of photos in the royal christening gown, the lack of extended family pictures, the absence of social media acknowledgments from King Charles and the Waleses, and the discreet update to the line of succession website all contribute to this understanding.

The only visual evidence provided is a picture of Meghan leaving lunch, bidding farewell to the paparazzi who often hound Harry and Meghan.

Jan Moir, a royal commentator and expert from the Daily Mail, recently criticized Harry and Meghan for accepting the title of Princess for Lilibet after relentlessly attacking the Windsors for months.

She finds it astonishing that they would embrace such a title while simultaneously condemning the monarchy.

Moir questions whether there is a contradiction in their actions, as they previously sought refuge in America to distance themselves from the royal lifestyle, claiming it to be racist and indefensible.

Their portrayal of the royal family as villains clashes with their decision to embrace royal titles for their daughter.

In conclusion, the baptism of Lilibet at the Sussexes’ home by the Bishop of Los Angeles has raised eyebrows and sparked debates about their motivations and intentions.