Christening of Prince George of Cambridge: October 23, 2013

[cepe]

Fair point and I think that is what ALL the members of the BRF have always done.

They are not celebrities (nor a brand as I said in an earlier post) - they can survive without everything they do being out there.

 

[AndreaLF]

Why not wait until after the next 2 are released for Sunday's newspapers before making a decision on why?

Well said!

I think we can pretty much guarantee that at least one of those 2 released on Sunday will include the godparents. While I would LOVE it if the other picture was HM holding George, I am not going to get my hopes up too much. That way I can be pleasantly surprised.

As far as baby George's reputation for being fussy, it's a good sign that he kept it together for his big debut day. Maybe somewhere deep in his DNA the "royal good manners in public" gene woke up and somehow knew.

Another thought.... I think we are so used to this life with the internet giving us instant and thorough access that we almost feel entitled to see every detail of people's lives, especially royals, and most especially William and Kate and George. I can understand totally their instinct to protect their child as much as possible (the first sign being that they waited 4 hours to announce his birth). I put myself in their shoes and can understand and I think they are finding a good balance. And it's only been 3 months! We have many years to go to see this little guy growing up.

I hope that as the years pass that we do get to see a bit more "behind the scenes". It was just recently that I discovered the little treasure trove on YouTube of the "home movies" of the early Charles & Diana years, the videos of the young cousins running around the palace and the Queen joking with them, etc. Or the photo calls, like the one with toddler William inspecting the camera of the photographers. I'm just fascinated by palace life, and it's nice to see them when they are not posing in front of the public, just when they are themselves. Maybe one day we'll see the behind-the-scenes video of the portraits done this week. Patience, patience. I'll take what I can get!

 

[Dman]

Haven't we seen that face before? How George DEFINITELY gets his looks from his family-
Haven't we seen that face before? How George DEFINITELY gets his looks from his family | Mail Online

 

[cepe]

well who else would he get them from?? Good old DM.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

Fair point and I think that is what ALL the members of the BRF have always done. They are not celebrities (nor a brand as I said in an earlier post) - they can survive without everything they do being out there.

I have to agree with you on that. While I like the Documentary made during The Queen Silver Jubilee which was very interesting look at The Queen daily life and other little video clips on YouTube of the Royal Family like The Queen with her Grandchildrens at Balmoral it rare to see the royal family in their everyday life and when we do it nice but sometimes we can see too much or more then we should. There has always been that mystery about the Royal Family and in a way it kind of nice to have that mystery about them and so not everything has to be out there like The Queen and Sophie talking about books, Charles and William fishing or Harry and Catherine playing a game, etc (by the way none of these have been on camera but you get my point just an example) I am find with the bit and pieces The Queen has allowed us to see and we will have to appreciate what they want to share with us. The nice thing about what we have been shows that the Royal Family is just like any other family. The 1969 royal family documentary was hidden from the public to never be seen again because The Queen thought it showed too much and later regretted it.

There has always been that mystery and wile that have open the door a little bit there still is and that okay.

I don't need know everything the First family is doing unless it illegal .

 

[Archduchess Zelia]

Two more pictures? Bless them. I'm hope they're just as good as the ones already released. I'm still not over George's wonderful little hands up pose just yet He's really adorable.

As for the generation picture, while it would have been nice if HM had been the one holding George, I totally think that the picture of the BRF makes up for that. The way HM looks at George is just wonderful, such an adoring look - the look of a great-grandmother rather than that of a Queen - I love it.

 

[AdmirerUS]

I don't know why they did not do more with that 4 generations picture. Like:

1. Her Majesty with a fist pump
2. Charles holding up one finger
3. William holding up 2 fingers in a V
4. Little George holding up three fingers and winking at the camera.

 

[HRHHermione]

William was pretty hot when he went to St Andrews but he started losing his hair. Hopefully, George got Kate and Grandpa Mike's hair. It looks like he has based on the photos.

George is three months old. Trying to predict how genetic male pattern baldness might impact him based on how he looks at three months old is just silly.

 

[cepe]

George is three months old. Trying to predict how genetic male pattern baldness might impact him based on how he looks at three months old is just silly.

that just about sums up the UK press

 

[QueenJen]

Not Harry... To me Harry is better looking now than when he was younger. With the others you're absolutely right.

I agree, Harry is better looking now than when he was younger.

 

[COUNTESS]

It is all silly. George is adorable. He looks like "George". The queen didn't hold him, because, perhaps, he is too heavy for her to hold, a possibility and she is not a warm and fuzzy person. Her own son's testimony. She is who she is. The "Mystery" about the BRF is gone. It is all nonsense. They are all quite disparate and average as most families are. Sometimes they are worse.

 

[Queen Camilla]

I thought the Queen didn't hold George because she had another appointment & didn't want to crease her dress or risk George getting sick on her.

It is interesting that William chose a date for the christening when all senior royals had engagements except him, Kate & Harry.

As far as male pattern baldness, I always thought a study should be made to see if how much hair a man had as a baby determined how much hair he kept as an old man.

If in old age, a man's hairline resembles the same hairline he had as a baby.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

It is all silly. George is adorable. He looks like "George". The queen didn't hold him, because, perhaps, he is too heavy for her to hold, a possibility and she is not a warm and fuzzy person. Her own son's testimony. She is who she is. The "Mystery" about the BRF is gone. It is all nonsense. They are all quite disparate and average as most families are. Sometimes they are worse.

How do you know the Queen is not a warm and Fuzzy person? Have you ever met her? Have you ever visited her in private in Balmoral? No. You can't judge how she may be in private by her Public appearance! She has to act a certain way in public.

By the way The Queen Grandchildrens would all disagree with you. Prince William, Prince Harry, Eugenie and Beatrice have all commented how the Queen is a Doting and warm Grandmother in private. There are pictures of the Queen holding her grandchildrens and you can tell she a proud Grandmother. Also in one picture The Queen is looking at Prince George with a smile.

That doesn't sound like someone who is not warm and fuzzy! Stop trying to make The Queen out to be Stiff and Grumpy person because she is far from it. She is a lovable Grandmother and great grandmother.

 

[Mariel]

Concerning male pattern baldness, I don't think you can go on how a baby's head looks to determine his later state of hair or hairlessness. In my son's case, he was born with a full head of red hair, and during his youth, up until graduate school, it was wavy and springy and thick. Then the pattern baldness set in. He now wears a red beard to compensate for his bald top, which is about like a monk's, bald in the middle with a thin fringe around the edge. His two sons have gloriously thick hair (not red) but their mother told them to enjoy the hair now, as it is doomed. It seems to run in families, but I am not sure if that means Harry's red hair will recede like his brother's. Do some men NOT get the pattern baldness? Harry seems to have it all still, and he's 29 or 30, forget which.

 

[texankitcat]

I really don't understand why so many are so disappointed over HM not holding Prince George just because a previous generation photo showed Queen Victoria holding her great Grandson. The generation photo was perfect as is with the reigning monarch in front with the 1st in line on one side and the 2nd in line holding the 3rd on the other. Very appropriate IMO.

 

[Danishla]

............................THIS IS THE CUTEST PHOTO!!!!

 

[cepe]

Gentlemen did not hold babies in 1894. IMO the only reason Victoria held the baby was because she was a woman. Complaining that the picture is not a replica of the original is ridiculous. We got the picture, and it is lovely.

 

[Andolini]

Good gracious it was a joke for crying out loud. Do I need to put sarcasm after every sentence to make that obvious to u?

Maybe you do, I have no idea, but I apologize for misinterpreting your comment

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Gentlemen did not hold babies in 1894. IMO the only reason Victoria held the baby was because she was a woman. Complaining that the picture is not a replica of the original is ridiculous. We got the picture, and it is lovely.

QFT

 

[Queen Camilla]

The photo of the 4 generations was lovely as you could see the entire christening gown.

However, although the choice of the Morning Room was predictable, I would have preferred it if the pictures were taken in a different room.

I do wish they used the Garden Room but with the red settees and red chairs from the horse corridor and main hall. The cream christening gown contrasting against the red settee.

The picture of the godparents might be taken in the Garden Room as it is larger.

For the Queen and Phillip's 65th anniversary party at CH, the photo with only their children was taken in the Morning Room and the photo with the extended family was taken in the Garden Room with people sitting on stools & ottomans.

 

[Penny Royalty]

It's felt a whole lot of fun watching the many giving contributes from the members that gather here where we can talk about the serenity of the godsends called Royals. Many find the atypical reality of idols, their related and differentiated likeness to our own way of achieving super or the normal in our way of life, to be akin to an appreciated attribute if done to upheave, exalt us or enthrall us unto renewal of breathing in better or healthier extravagance in the environment we are given eyes for. I am glad and a bit tired following the forum but aware that we are gradually returning again and again to find that we are participating in the historical and memorable. So with that I say that it's an honor and a compliment to heritage and heredity that we can arrive at this destiny and find the homely and fantastic in the Royals' and in our selves. Continue being happy posters and admirers of a exemplary legacy. I enjoy reading and following. Cheers.

 

[angieuk]

Why do William's trousers look too short on the leg? Even when he stands up they are still too short on the leg. His trousers are for a shorter man.

Michael MIDDLETON's trousers - perfect!

 

[Mirabel]

Cute or just creepy? Pippa's unusual £7,000 christening gift to baby George - his hands and feet in silver by bespoke sculptors





Lots of criticisms of Pippa's gift, but I think it's a cute idea.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Two more pictures? Bless them. I'm hope they're just as good as the ones already released. I'm still not over George's wonderful little hands up pose just yet He's really adorable.

As for the generation picture, while it would have been nice if HM had been the one holding George, I totally think that the picture of the BRF makes up for that. The way HM looks at George is just wonderful, such an adoring look - the look of a great-grandmother rather than that of a Queen - I love it.

Isn't that a wonderful photo,one of my favourites so far!

 

[wyevale]

Queen Victoria had the limbs of some of her infant children sculpted in white marble, so this isn't a new or novel thing within the British Royal family.

 

[Lee-Z]

Cute or just creepy? Pippa's unusual £7,000 christening gift to baby George - his hands and feet in silver by bespoke sculptors

Lots of criticisms of Pippa's gift, but I think it's a cute idea.

Yep, cute i have drawings of my baby-hands/feet and i always loved that i have these
sculptings are even cuter (but my dad couldn't sculpt, just draw )

 

[wartenberg7]

Gentlemen did not hold babies in 1894. IMO the only reason Victoria held the baby was because she was a woman. Complaining that the picture is not a replica of the original is ridiculous. We got the picture, and it is lovely.

This is a generalization. Of course men were holding babies at the time, not as frequent or naturally as women did. But there are vintage photographs, even from the old king of Denmark (I think it was king christian IX) holding his great-grandson for the official christening-four-generations-photograph or King Oskar II of Sweden holding the future crown prince, of men when a baby or a toddler was sitting on the lap!

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/236x/d3/1b/ab/d31bab6bced1c99c50cb77f8586da1ea.jpg

I even watched a father pushing a pram on Brighton pier on a documentary from about 1900 while his wife walked beside him and no passers by looked irritarted or something - the whole scene was very natural.
In all periods there were men and women who coped easily with little children while others were not. But of course zeitgeist and social norms did their bit.

 

[wartenberg7]

I don't have any restatement towards any Queen or anybody. I was replying to a comment that Ish made which you probably didn't read. I was saying At least the two pictures I found of Queen Margarethe was holding a Grandchildrens. Maybe you need to read again.

By the way I am talking Grandchildren's not Children's which proves you didn't read the whole post i replied too and comments before that. Better read again.

By the way when I say holding I mean holding not just the child setting on their lap or next to them.

It´s you who didn´t seem to have read properly. I never said you had anything against certain Queens. But certainly you did refer to two particular Queens (Victoria and Margrethe), and I just doubted the possible reason you named why Queens regnant might have predictions against being photographed with a baby.
By the way I didn´t write "restatement" but "resentment". Pleas read again!

 

[Marty91charmed]

Has anyone already seen the new photo of George? I can't find it

 

[cepe]

Has anyone already seen the new photo of George? I can't find it

hasn't been issued yet.