The Birth of HRH Prince George of Cambridge: July 22, 2013


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The painting is lovely, I deplore the attitude of the press continuing to emphasise that this girl has Down's Syndrome though.
Just to clarify, nobody has paid anything for this painting? It was a gift given freely which William and Catherine have accepted?
 
The painting is lovely, I deplore the attitude of the press continuing to emphasise that this girl has Down's Syndrome though.
Just to clarify, nobody has paid anything for this painting? It was a gift given freely which William and Catherine have accepted?

The article says that the £2,000 pound cost is an estimate value by the artist (I would assume based on work she's previously sold), but she's donating the painting to the Cambridges.
 
The article says that the £2,000 pound cost is an estimate value by the artist (I would assume based on work she's previously sold), but she's donating the painting to the Cambridges.

Its usually the case that when a gift is sent to the royals, they're catalogued and a general note of thanks is sent to the donor. We never know just how the gift is used as a rule.

In this case, a letter was sent in advanced asking if they would like one of the paintings and a letter was sent back accepting the gift with pleasure so I do imagine that Will and Kate will be using it and most likely in a the nursery. Perhaps at KP?

I also thought they stressed the fact that this artist had Down's Syndrome too much. Although its an inspiring article that teaches that those that do have Down's can and do become remarkable people, I like how she herself expressed it. "I'm not a person with Down's Syndrome that is an artist, I'm an artist who has Down's Syndrome".

All in all, a very touching human interest story and I do like her art. A bit out of my price range but I like it!
 
The article says that the £2,000 pound cost is an estimate value by the artist (I would assume based on work she's previously sold), but she's donating the painting to the Cambridges.


But just think how the gift has resulted in so much publicity for her work, much more than the cost of the painting would involve.
I'm not saying that was the reason for the gift, just that the artist is unlikely to lose out by giving it.
 
But just think how the gift has resulted in so much publicity for her work, much more than the cost of the painting would involve.
I'm not saying that was the reason for the gift, just that the artist is unlikely to lose out by giving it.

Two articles, one in DailyFail, it'll be forgotten tomorrow.
 
Does anyone know when we will get official baby photos in the magazines or footage as George is almost 2 months now?
 
There may be some footage around the christening.
 
Its usually the case that when a gift is sent to the royals, they're catalogued and a general note of thanks is sent to the donor. We never know just how the gift is used as a rule.

In this case, a letter was sent in advanced asking if they would like one of the paintings and a letter was sent back accepting the gift with pleasure so I do imagine that Will and Kate will be using it and most likely in a the nursery. Perhaps at KP?

I also thought they stressed the fact that this artist had Down's Syndrome too much. Although its an inspiring article that teaches that those that do have Down's can and do become remarkable people, I like how she herself expressed it. "I'm not a person with Down's Syndrome that is an artist, I'm an artist who has Down's Syndrome".

All in all, a very touching human interest story and I do like her art. A bit out of my price range but I like it!

There are two attitudes that are held by a lot of members of our society when it comes to people with special needs; they're incapable, and ought to be pitted, and put away, or, they're superhuman. I'm a big advocate for putting the person before the exceptionality (or forgoing the exceptionality altogether, unless there's an accommodation issue), because in reality, it shouldn't make a difference. I know it does, because this article certainly didn't let ANYONE forget that this talented woman has this exceptionality. I'm glad that the Cambridges received her work in a form of a gift for little George. Hopefully, it'll help him be as aware, and accepting as his parents are.
 
I have a question: if george would have been born later and the queen would have been in balmoral what would have it happened? And about the document to be signed?
 
I have a question: if george would have been born later and the queen would have been in balmoral what would have it happened? And about the document to be signed?

I would imagine that if the Queen had been at Balmoral, this weekend would be the first time either she or the DoE met George. As it was, after George and family left the hospital, they spent one night at Nottingham Cottage at KP so that HM could stop in and meet her great grandson.

Only document I can think of that needed to be signed was the register of birth and William did that. I don't believe the Queen has to sign anything.
 
Does anyone know when we will get official baby photos in the magazines or footage as George is almost 2 months now?

We've gotten the official photos. They weren't professional, and people may not have liked them, but that's what we got to see. We're not likely to get any more until the christening.

I have a question: if george would have been born later and the queen would have been in balmoral what would have it happened? And about the document to be signed?

Before George was born the Queen had said that she was hoping the baby would be born before she went on vacation, so she still would have gone. Fortunately, her presence wasn't necessary in any way for George to be born.

If George had been born while HM was at Balmoral I suspect that nothing different would have really happened. She, like the DoE, would have had to wait to meet him, that's all.

I'm not sure what document you're referring to.
 
sorry, I was mistaken. I thought the birth document put on the easel had to be sign by the queen as well.
Thanks
 
I'm not 100% certain, but I think it was signed by the two attending physicians and the midwife.
 
I'm not 100% certain, but I think it was signed by the two attending physicians and the midwife.

I think you're right on that. I think there's a good sized picture of the birth announcement somewhere here but heck if I can find it. Perhaps after another cuppa coffee. :D
 
Thanks! I knew it was there somewhere. :flowers:
 
The Queen's former gynaecologist, Marcus Setchell, Guy Thorpe-Beeston, Sunit Godambe and John Cunningham signed the easel. I think, I do see a David somebody on their but I can't find any official confirmation of who signed it.

That is William's birth announcement. I think Osipi was looking for George's, but I could be mistaken.
 
HMQ didn't have to sign anything. She had to be informed of the birth before any announcement was to be made. There was an issue as to whether she would have been woken to be told - and the answer was that she wouldn't. So it didn't matter whether she was at BP or Balmoral.

the document on the stand was the signed document (by attending doctors) giving date and time of birth.
 
Although I understood the immediate reasons for the new royal highnesses's names, I was hoping that the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge might choose names more historically appropriate to Cambridge itself: William's own name is a good example, as William the Conqueror was the largest landowner in the town.

But what about "Alan"? Count Alan Rufus of Brittany was the next largest landowner in Cambridge, the University of Cambridge coat-of-arms bears an Ermine Cross in recognition (wittingly or not) of Alan's role in promoting education, he had a much better pedigree than King William's (multiple descents from Charlemagne, membership of the ancient Sovereign House of Brittany, probable descent from Roman Emperors, and a claimed descent from Saint James the Greater). Alan was without peer in building the British economy (e.g. he built up the English ports, often at his own expense), he was an innovator in architecture, he worked tirelessly to mend diplomatic bridges between the Normans, English and Scots, his heirs' wealth enriched many royal houses of Europe and even helped fuel the Renaissance.

Moreover, the Royal family has countless lines of descent from Alan's family, e.g. from his brother Count Stephen's children and grandchildren.

On top of that, the Royal Stewarts descended in male line from Alan the Dapifer of the Bishop of Dol, an important town in the County of Penthievre in Brittany, governed by Alan Rufus's father Eozen, one-time Regent of Brittany. Eozen's elder brother Duke Alan III was a Guardian of the young Duke William of Normandy and Alan III's great-grandson Alan IV "Fergant" (the Strong) married King William's daughter Constance.
 
Last edited:
They didn't ignore Cambridge though. The last Duke of Cambridge (before William) was a Prince George. He was also Queen Mary's uncle.
 
An excellent observation! Moreover, Prince George of Hanover, Duke of Cambridge, was born in Cambridge House, Piccadilly (on 26 March 1819).

Still, perhaps the next son can be named Alan, Duke of Richmond? (That would bring a much-needed ray of sunshine to the North of England.)

"Duke of Boston" would also have a strong resonance: Alan Rufus built the port of Boston, Lincolnshire into the second port of England, and for the American alliance there are numerous historic connections between Boston in Massachusetts and Boston in Lincolnshire as well as with Cambridgeshire and the University of Cambridge, many of them through links to Alan's family.
 
Last edited:
An excellent observation! Moreover, Prince George of Hanover, Duke of Cambridge, was born in Cambridge House, Piccadilly (on 26 March 1819). Still, perhaps the next son can be named Alan, Duke of Richmond? (That would bring a much-needed ray of sunshine to the North of England.) "Duke of Boston" would also have a strong resonance: Alan Rufus built the port of Boston, Lincolnshire into the second port of England, and for the American alliance there are numerous historic connections between Boston in Massachusetts and Boston in Lincolnshire as well as with Cambridgeshire and the University of Cambridge, many of them through links to Alan's family.

Actually George Hanover was born in Cambridge House, Hanover. His father didn't come into possession of the Piccadilly residence until 1829, although it is him that the house's name comes from.

I'm not sure if it would be wise for a British prince to be "of" a major American city (even if there is also a British one), particularly one like Boston which is so well associated with the American Revolution, but that's just my thinking. Personally, I'd like to see a second son of William one day be the Duke of York, as it's the typically traditional title for the second son of the monarch, but that might not be available for use at the time.

Richmond is currently in use; the current duke is Charles Henry Gordon-Lennox.
 
I am hopeful that the British government actually passes legislation to allow the first born child inherit all titles so that York goes to Beatrice.

Of course in 30 years the second son, assuming a second son, could be about to marry and Andrew could also still be alive.

Andrew could also remarry and have a son - so it is possible that the title won't be available.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom