General News for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge 1: January 2013-December 2014


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.

re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.
You are so right, tell me how can a child be a public figure is the child has no function role in the public eye.......babies in diapers aren't public figures regardless of whom their parents are. The media is over stepping their boundaries when it comes to children. All the media wants is a picture so that they can sell more papers and make more money........the entire lot of media are just greedy whatever.......
Why doesn't someone start taking pictures of the people in the media and their family and putting the pictures on social media...........bet that would cure them once and for all. They don't want to be know yet they can invade the privacy of a child.........what goes around comes back to you..........
 
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.



re a 14 month old child being a public figure - I maintain he isnt. he has no public role AT ALL until he is over 18 and/or is heir to the throne. We have no expectations of him, he is not expected to carry out any royal function - he is a CHILD.


I disagree immensely with the idea that George isn't a public figure (or any other royal title holding child of a reigning family for that matter), but I do agree strongly that pap-type photos of him like these ones shouldn't be taken, let alone published.

First of all, he's extremely high up in the line of succession. He holds royal titles. His birth was marked with a gun salute and the bells of Westminster Abbey being rung. He could very well become King tomorrow, although that would be a tragic event. If he follows the pattern set by William, Harry, and the Yorks, he'll be doing some engagements long before he's 18 - according to Bertie's analysis of the CC in 2000 the Wales boys did 4 engagements each and the York girls did 2 each. William was 18, Eugenie was 10.

Even if he isn't doing some engagements by 10, he will be attending things with his parents well before then - he already has. His parents have already chosen to bring him on some of the engagements they undertake that are appropriate for him, and are likely to continue to do so in the future. He's also likely to continue to make appearances at polo games, and in the future we can expect to see him at events like the Trooping of Colour and balcony appearances, as well as the walk to church at Christmas and other big public family events.

All of this makes him, as a child, a public figure. And the fact that he is, as an adult, going to have to deal with this kind of stuff and the public scrutiny means, in my opinion, that his parents should be teaching him how to handle it all - how to deal with the press and public in public, how to do engagements, how to not be shy around the cameras, etc. This is something that Charles and Diana did with their children, that many (if not all) of the Continental royals are doing with theirs, and is what the Cambridges seem to be doing with George. He goes to events sometimes now and is exposed to the cameras as much for his future benefit as for the opportunity for us to see him.

Pictures should be taken of George - when he's at engagements or events with his parents. When he and his parents are on a tour and they get off the plane to be greeted by whatever dignitaries are there to greet them. Or when they go to a zoo to name an animal, or when he and his mother are watching his father play polo.

Pictures shouldn't be taken of him when he and his nanny are out for a walk or playing in the park. Or when he and his mother or father are out for a walk. I don't care if the paparazzi want to take a picture of William or Kate when they're out and about, but they shouldn't be taking them of George. The difference to me isn't that William is a public figure while George isn't but rather that William is an adult, and George isn't.

When Dax Shepherd and Kristen Bell started the whole movement to ban the paparazzi photos of celebrity's children one of the things they stressed was that we the public need to stop purchasing the magazines with the pictures of celebrities' kids in them, and stop clicking on the links to articles with such pictures. They asked that the magazines stop publishing these photos, or to blur out the faces of the children, but really if we're buying the issues (or giving the articles traffic) then the magazines are making money off of publishing the pictures and have no reason to stop.

This isn't just about George either though. Other royal or quasi-royal young children get the same treatment. Consider Mia Tindall, Sasha Casiraghi, and Raphaël Elmaleh.
 
re red hair : Queen Victoria was strawberry blonde/ reddish; Queen Alexandra had red hair; Princess Alexandra had red hair. there is a lot of it about.
Queen Victoria was red/auburn like her near-doppleganger Princess Beatrice of York; Queen Alexandra had red/auburn hair; Queen Mary was strawberry blonde; and Diana was the only Spencer sibling who DIDN'T have red hair. :)
 
It will also be interesting to see how the laws of privacy keep up with social media, and will all the things on the internet

It may be a moot point now that they will be at Anmer Hall. :flowers: I would guess that the young lad will be able to romp about the Sandringham Estate freely with no fear of the paparazzi or private phones taking illicit photos. Between Sandringham and Balmoral there will be plenty of privacy. Until school starts. I wonder how they will handle that?
 
:previous: not personal to you so apologies if thats how it came across. But I am frustrated that a child is seen as public property. It is so wrong. we dont get this with the children of the Prime Minister or other members of the royal family. I do feel strongly about this to the extent that I don't agree with some European RFs who display their children to the media on a regular basis.

these children will have years of being in the public eye, and I think their early years should be as 'normal' as possible. No one has to agree, its just my point of view

That's OK - I must have got the incorrect impression (I need to stop overthinking). :flowers: I kind of think it is good that the European Royal Children are seen more often than the British Royal Children, as it will prevent comments such as "how come we don't see enough of _____" and "I wonder why ____'s parents are hiding them from the media" and other similar comments in the media and online. Another reason why I think it is good is that it will make them more confident and prepared for the future, especially in the case of heirs like Prince George. However, I do think they should be entitled to have a normal childhood (or as far as normal can go considering the fact that they aren't your nextdoor neighbour's children) and just be children.

I can also understand the point of view stating that Prince George isn't a public figure as he is still very young now, but deep down still agree with my original post.
 
PLANS are being drawn up for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to make a historic royal tour of China, The Sunday Times can reveal-
William woos China to atone for Charles’s ‘waxworks’ jibe | The Sunday Times

Interesting. I wonder if they'll visit an orphanage over there. I think if this couple took up working with orphanages in Eastern Europe and China, so many more children from those nations (especially with special needs) will get homes. The plight of orphans is something that is for one reason or another is put on the back burner.
 
It is the governments . Putin stopped Russian orphans from being adopted by Americans. But that is going off topic.

Regarding a possible China trip- the Chinese government isn't going to let WK and therefore a huge press pack go anywhere that would make the Chinese look bad such as slum, orphanage or factory where there are horrible conditions. I would expect visits to the Great Wall, the Forbidden City, a school and a panda reserve as sort of the kind of engagements you would see.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Interesting. I wonder if they'll visit an orphanage over there. I think if this couple took up working with orphanages in Eastern Europe and China, so many more children from those nations (especially with special needs) will get homes. The plight of orphans is something that is for one reason or another is put on the back burner.

IF this happens, the Cambridges will go as representatives of the British Government. So they do not decide the agenda.

So be realistic about what is possible.
 
It is the governments . Putin stopped Russian orphans from being adopted by Americans. But that is going off topic.

Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

Yes, Putin stopped American adoptions, but there are other countries in that region too, but that's besides the point.

IF this happens, the Cambridges will go as representatives of the British Government. So they do not decide the agenda.

So be realistic about what is possible.

I got a little carried away there. You make good points :flowers:.
 
Princess Caroline of Monaco regularly sues publications for pictures of her minor children and wins. On the continent it is illegal to take pictures of any children even in a. Public place.
 
Interesting. I wonder if they'll visit an orphanage over there. I think if this couple took up working with orphanages in Eastern Europe and China, so many more children from those nations (especially with special needs) will get homes. The plight of orphans is something that is for one reason or another is put on the back burner.

Orphans are not on the back burner. It just isn't reported much. Tons of people are out there spending their treasure to adopt these children, but the countries of origin do not wish to cooperate.

There would be a hue and cry, as there are orphanages in the UK that need attention.
 
Orphans are not on the back burner. It just isn't reported much. Tons of people are out there spending their treasure to adopt these children, but the countries of origin do not wish to cooperate.

There would be a hue and cry, as there are orphanages in the UK that need attention.

I'm well aware that there are people who are adopting children. I follow a lot of adoption blogs, and currently, trying to figure out how to adopt a little one from China myself. It's unfortunate that countries of origin don't want to cooperate, since it doesn't look like there are people in the said countries that are willing to adopt a child with special needs. I've come across some horror stories that made my stomach churn.

However, there's no reason why the Cambridges can't take on the plight of orphans in the UK along with those in other countries as their cause. They're a high-profile couple, and they could bring so much awareness, but I guess everyone has different opinions of what's doable, and I certainly don't hold it against them if they choose to support the causes they support. They do a lot of good, which is what counts in the end.
 
I'm excited about a possible tour of China, along with any possible spotlight on orphans.
 
Because of the royals need to appear apolitical. It would hard to them to campaign for another countries orphans directly. It would have to be done via a charity such as Harry's Senteable.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
^^^I agree. Anything that they do cannot be seen to contradict official government positions/policies or they will likely face real consequences ie: Belgium's Prince Laurent.
 
PLANS are being drawn up for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge to make a historic royal tour of China, The Sunday Times can reveal-
William woos China to atone for Charles’s ‘waxworks’ jibe | The Sunday Times
Your tax pounds at work. William and Catherine to suck up to the Chinese government because relations got a little frosty when the Prime Minister and Prince Charles met with the Dali Lama. It will be interesting to see what eventuates.

Interesting. I wonder if they'll visit an orphanage over there. I think if this couple took up working with orphanages in Eastern Europe and China, so many more children from those nations (especially with special needs) will get homes. The plight of orphans is something that is for one reason or another is put on the back burner.
This couple will be representatives of HM and the British govenment. They will be there for diplomatic, political, and trade reasons.

The very last thing they will do is insult their hosts by 'showing the world they should care about chinese orphans'! I mean that's really cool. Go to a foreign country and tell you hosts that they are ill treating their orphan children.

It might create a great deal of warm fuzzies and open a whole lot of chequebooks, but not a penny will reach those orphans. Meanwhile the loud clanging of the diplomatic and trade doors slamming shut would resound as their trip was cut short for "diplomatic reasons".

Nobody would be amused.
 
I really do not see a problem if the Cambridges were to take on a patronage such as the charity Reece's Rainbow that deals with special needs orphans in Eastern Europe and Asia.
This charity has a branch in Canada and since William and Catherine are going to be monarch and consort of Canada what would be the issue?
That would be quite different from going on tour highlighting different governments poor care of these children which someone's gotta do, although the BRF cannot get too political. Still, William and Catherine would be ideal for the cause, and if they want to visit a few of the orphanages RR tries to help, why not?
May I remind you that the Duchess of York, her girls, Princess Diana, and Princess Anne Prince Harry visit/ visited orphanages, without an uproar. I say good for them. If Catherine and William take up orphans I'd be more than amused. I understand future monarchs have to tread carefully, but if they took it up I'd be thrilled. These countries need to improve their standards of care which barely exist , and are awful. No words for how awful. I know I come on strong, but when children are Dying horrible deaths without medical care,when they are abused and suffer horribly, and are denied human contact and love then I don't apologize. It is beyond sad that 2 people who are capable of doing good for suffering children are going to be stopped by politics.
Needless to say MARG, I disagree with you. No hard feelings- just disagree.
( PS. Check out the kids on Reece's Rainbow. Your opinion may be different afterwards. No one who loves children can fail to be moved.) Education needs to occur for people who are not aware of the crisis. William and Catherine would be ideal for that.
 
Last edited:
I really do not see a problem if the Cambridges were to take on a patronage such as the charity Reece's Rainbow that deals with special needs orphans in Eastern Europe and Asia.
This charity has a branch in Canada and since William and Catherine are going to be monarch and consort of Canada what would be the issue?
That would be quite different from going on tour highlighting different governments poor care of these children which someone's gotta do, although the BRF cannot get too political. Still, William and Catherine would be ideal for the cause, and if they want to visit a few of the orphanages RR tries to help, why not?
May I remind you that the Duchess of York, her girls, Princess Diana, and Princess Anne Prince Harry visit/ visited orphanages, without an uproar. I say good for them. If Catherine and William take up orphans I'd be more than amused. I understand future monarchs have to tread carefully, but if they took it up I'd be thrilled. These countries need to improve their standards of care which barely exist , and are awful....
I'd hardly consider this Sarah Ferguson could face jail in Turkey over orphans TV documentary - Mirror Online to be 'without an uproar.'
We all have our causes which we are personally passionate about. The plight of orphans in various countries already receives massive charitable attention. And I'm @ a loss to understand why this thread has become a tad derailed into a call for the Cambridges to take up the plight of orphans worldwide. I personally wish they'd take up global warming and the potential destruction of the atmosphere and all 7 billion human beings on the planet, but understand the Cambridges may not agree with my particular passion or may not see themselves as appropriate spokespersons to sound the clarion call to action in this particular arena.
The Cambridges & Harry appear to me to be approaching things from a 'less is more' perspective, ie: they seem to be focusing on a few core charities and trying to really make a difference through those charities rather than attaching their names to every worthwhile sounding cause or group. I recall they did an international call for aid through the red cross regarding starvation in Africa early on in the marriage, Harry has Sentebale w/ Lesotho, and William animal conservation in Africa (particularly rhinos,) but generally aren't most of their efforts rightfully focused on their own country?
Moreover, a visit by the Cambridges may soften barriers thus allowing future efforts in regards to issues such as the care of orphans to be more successfully addressed going forward by those actively working in that arena. As the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
 
Last edited:
Having causes that you believe in is good.

My comment ( back a page or so) was that they have no control over an agenda that is determined by Uk government.

so if they dont major on a cause close to your heart, there is no ground for criticism.

I have a number of issues Id like them to be involved with but not in China
 
I would think that British royals would run into some odd predicaments should they decide to sponsor charities and causes that relate to foreign countries such as China and Turkey. The Monarch and her family do not even visit foreign countries officially unless there is an invite. For a British royal to take on a charity or a cause on foreign soil, it may lead to political and cultural backlash even. We saw what happened with Sarah's intervention for an orphanage in Turkey and they were quick to jump on all kinds of legality that she could be facing. If, perchance, this had been a member of the British Royal Family, the backlash would have been even worse and could maybe even start an international crisis for the UK.
 
I agree with those here that see cross-border sponsorships as complex.
This is off topic and let's not continue this, but as an example, Sentable is perfect.
There was reported coup in Lesotho last week. The PM fled and has since returned to the country. He is being guarded by South African forces. "A way forward has not been publicized." Conflict is never good for the poorest and weakest of a nation. In any case, Harry's worthy charity, its workers, facilities and the children whom it supports are put at risk because of political instability. It's problematic and not simple at all. It could all become dust in the wind, despite Harry's good intentions.
Lets say the Cambridges decided to come in and speak for the poor of (as example) any number of rural stretches in my country where poverty is endemic and rampant (they would not as Cepe has explained, but I am using this an an example). We have these places, trust me.
They might be right to focus attention on the issue but the message would be lost in the indignation. Part of the American press would be on them like hounds - and the the press would never relent!
People freak out even when religious leaders claim the high moral ground and speak against world poverty. I can only imagine the headlines: "Millionaire Duke and Duchess who live in two fabulous homes decry orphanages in war torn and bankrupt (Insert name of Country)." "George is pushed in a $2000 baby carriage while his Mom calls out (insert name of country) for poor care in orphanages," or "Duchess in $5000 frock finds no heart for destitute orphanages."
 
Last edited:
I really do not see a problem if the Cambridges were to take on a patronage such as the charity Reece's Rainbow that deals with special needs orphans in Eastern Europe and Asia.
This charity has a branch in Canada and since William and Catherine are going to be monarch and consort of Canada what would be the issue?
That would be quite different from going on tour highlighting different governments poor care of these children which someone's gotta do, although the BRF cannot get too political. Still, William and Catherine would be ideal for the cause, and if they want to visit a few of the orphanages RR tries to help, why not?
May I remind you that the Duchess of York, her girls, Princess Diana, and Princess Anne Prince Harry visit/ visited orphanages, without an uproar. I say good for them. If Catherine and William take up orphans I'd be more than amused. I understand future monarchs have to tread carefully, but if they took it up I'd be thrilled. These countries need to improve their standards of care which barely exist , and are awful. No words for how awful. I know I come on strong, but when children are Dying horrible deaths without medical care,when they are abused and suffer horribly, and are denied human contact and love then I don't apologize. It is beyond sad that 2 people who are capable of doing good for suffering children are going to be stopped by politics.
Needless to say MARG, I disagree with you. No hard feelings- just disagree.
( PS. Check out the kids on Reece's Rainbow. Your opinion may be different afterwards. No one who loves children can fail to be moved.) Education needs to occur for people who are not aware of the crisis. William and Catherine would be ideal for that.

I'm in complete agreement with you (as you know from our private conversations), but ti looks like our world is wrapped up in political correctness. Heaven forbid someone that can help a cause would open his/her mouth, and actually try to help. It's extremely frustrating. I don't want to get too political, but that's pretty much my take.

Like you, I disagree with MARG, and feel that global warming is nothing to cry about, since there are way too many people crying about it already (and it's getting way too tiresome).

so if they dont major on a cause close to your heart, there is no ground for criticism.

Just for the record, I was not criticizing this couple for not taking up a cause that I feel strongly about. If it came across as such, I apologize. It's hard to get the tone of one's voice through a post on a forum, that's for sure :flowers:.
 
Having causes that you believe in is good.

My comment ( back a page or so) was that they have no control over an agenda that is determined by Uk government.

so if they dont major on a cause close to your heart, there is no ground for criticism.

I have a number of issues Id like them to be involved with but not in China

I really do not see a problem if the Cambridges were to take on a patronage such as the charity Reece's Rainbow that deals with special needs orphans in Eastern Europe and Asia.
This charity has a branch in Canada and since William and Catherine are going to be monarch and consort of Canada what would be the issue?
That would be quite different from going on tour highlighting different governments poor care of these children which someone's gotta do, although the BRF cannot get too political. Still, William and Catherine would be ideal for the cause, and if they want to visit a few of the orphanages RR tries to help, why not?
May I remind you that the Duchess of York, her girls, Princess Diana, and Princess Anne Prince Harry visit/ visited orphanages, without an uproar. I say good for them. If Catherine and William take up orphans I'd be more than amused. I understand future monarchs have to tread carefully, but if they took it up I'd be thrilled. These countries need to improve their standards of care which barely exist , and are awful. No words for how awful. I know I come on strong, but when children are Dying horrible deaths without medical care,when they are abused and suffer horribly, and are denied human contact and love then I don't apologize. It is beyond sad that 2 people who are capable of doing good for suffering children are going to be stopped by politics.
Needless to say MARG, I disagree with you. No hard feelings- just disagree.
( PS. Check out the kids on Reece's Rainbow. Your opinion may be different afterwards. No one who loves children can fail to be moved.) Education needs to occur for people who are not aware of the crisis. William and Catherine would be ideal for that.
Umm, what exactly do you disagree with me about?
 
UK leads Tourism Australia figures, thanks to Prince George
Figures released by Tourism Research Australia revealed that Australia’s tourism market had a healthy growth period, with record spending, which coincided with the visit by the royal couple, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their baby son George.
For the 12 months ending 30 June this year, Australia’s tourism has seen a healthy rise in tourism figures of 8%. This means that 6.1 million international visitors passed through Australia’s customs gates and for the first time ever, they went on to spend more than AUD$30 billion.
Tourism Research Australia’s survey also suggests that the Brits were the biggest cash splashers, spending 19% more on their Australian visit than they had done in previous years. The rise has been contributed mainly to Tourism Australia’s innovative marketing campaign in the UK and the visit by the Royals positively impacting on these figures too.
The research said that passenger volumes between the UK and Australia increased by almost 50%.
 
He's growing...he's getting cuter
Looks comfortable with his nanny
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom