Christening of Prince George of Cambridge: October 23, 2013

[Kellin]

It's so nice to see Prince George as he is an extremely handsome baby

Yeah, he is now, but I noticed that Windsors don't have attractive appearance. And young princes Charles, Edward, Andrew, even William and Harry were much more handsome than in adulthood. Maybe it's better for little George to look like Middletons.

 

[vkrish]

I am very much disappointed with the Queen not holding George. A very emotional connection (atleast for those seeing the photo) has been removed. They would have done it due to a strong reason..Maybe it was already nearing the end..the baby must have started getting fussing..and that would spoil the total pic..So it was better for Will to remain holding him.
That must be the only sensible reason IMO..

 

[EmmaNL]

For the pictures on Sunday (I hope this is true) I would really like another photo of George, Catherine and William and a photo with the godparents + parents or a photo of the Queen holding George (however this is also possible for the New Years Speech)...

 

[csw]

I love that the queen's handbag is in the photos. Are Britain's nuclear launch codes in that thing?

A

I loved the handbag too! Can't you just see her tucking it there out of the way!

 

[wartenberg7]

I am very much disappointed with the Queen not holding George. A very emotional connection (atleast for those seeing the photo) has been removed. They would have done it due to a strong reason..Maybe it was already nearing the end..the baby must have started getting fussing..and that would spoil the total pic..So it was better for Will to remain holding him.
That must be the only sensible reason IMO..

I was expecting this. She never, with the exception of Peter Philips (and that photo was not taken at his christening), was photographed holding one of her grandchildren.
The Queen Mother was pictured holding both William, Harry and Charles.
Even dignified Queen Mary was photographed holding Charles and Anne at their christening, not to mention Queen Victoria at the famous 4-generation pic....
Well, the current Queen has, for whatever reasons, her strict principles (the same goes with her refusal to attend important foreign royal events) which are even for me, a staunch supporter of HM since my childhood, hard to understand! Little gestures without any great efforts could make a huge symbolic impact.
I also think it would have not been too big of a strain for the Cambridges to appear for 2 minutes in front of the palace doors after the christening to show some respect to the many faithful admires who waited for so many hours, some even with gifts! Many regard this (to make a little impact as possible) as a "modernisation of the monarchy" - I fail to see what´s "modern" about this...

 

[wartenberg7]

Very stupid, indeed! Why should James shave the beard he loves just for his nephew's christening? It would be ridiculous. Sometimes I think some people have to have SOMETHING to complain about in any situation.

I absolutely agree! Like in the late 19th century (then even more than today) beards are fashionable with younger men - and that´s the case again since at least 7 to 10 years! In the 1980s and 90s beards or moustaches had been completely abondened (at least for young, up to date guys). But they experienced a great comeback, thanks to popular sportsmen or hollywood stars.
Okay, James Middleton is not the "beard type" and I also prefered the look he sportet at his sisters wedding, but hey, it´s his business, isn´t it?
In my opinion many men look rather better with a beard other than without it (Carl Philip of Sweden, Félipe of Spain, Pr. William King Philippe to name a few come to my mind here) and a properly cut beard is just terrific and causes even more efforts to look clean than just shave in the morning...!

 

[Bine221]

I was expecting this. She never, with the exception of Peter Philips (and that photo was not taken at his christening), was photographed holding one of her grandchildren.
The Queen Mother was pictured holding both William, Harry and Charles.
Even dignified Queen Mary was photographed holding Charles and Anne at their christening, not to mention Queen Victoria at the famous 4-generation pic....
Well, the current Queen has, for whatever reasons, her strict principles (the same goes with her refusal to attend important foreign royal events) which are even for me, a staunch supporter of HM since my childhood, hard to understand! Little gestures without any great efforts could make a huge symbolic impact.
I also think it would have not been too big of a strain for the Cambridges to appear for 2 minuets in front of the palace doors after the christening to show some respect to the many faithful admires who waited for so many hours, some even with gifts! Many regard this (to make a little impact as possible) as a "modernisation of the monarchy" - I fail to see what´s "modern" about this...

You are right, I was dissappointed as well, it would have been a lovely gesture, both by the Queen Holding the Great-grandchild, as well as from the Cambridges
Bye Bine

 

[Bine221]

Yeah, he is now, but I noticed that Windsors don't have attractive appearance. And young princes Charles, Edward, Andrew, even William and Harry were much more handsome than in adulthood. Maybe it's better for little George to look like Middletons.

Very good
Bye Bine

 

[Elenath]

Yeah, he is now, but I noticed that Windsors don't have attractive appearance. And young princes Charles, Edward, Andrew, even William and Harry were much more handsome than in adulthood. Maybe it's better for little George to look like Middletons.

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

 

[Skippyboo]

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.

 

[HereditaryPrincess]

The official photos are lovely and I'm pleased that we got a four generations one. The one of little George throwing his arms up in the air is adorable. That photo needs a caption! Although I am slightly disappointed that we didn't get a photo of William, Catherine, George and godparents.

 

[MichelleQ2]

apparently there will be 2 more pictures released on Sunday.... perhaps there will be a godparent picture included. I would also like to see a 4 generation shot of the male line... DOE, POW, DOC, Prince George.

 

[Noor Mariam]

Many thanks for sharing the official photos. They are not my favourites among all the royal christenings, in this case I love specially the photo of the four generations.

 

[csw]

I wonder if the Archbishop will be in the photo with the godparents?

 

[US Royal Watcher]

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

Harry is really good looking. Okay, William doesn't look as good as he did when he had a full head of hair but, when he wears a hat or cap, he looks terrific. I wonder if he will look even better when he loses even more hair and his face weathers a bit. Some men (Sean Connery) get better looking as they age.

 

[Al_bina]

Queen Victoria and Three Future Kings alongside Queen Elizabeth and Three Future Kings

I am surprised to see that Her Majesty decided not to hold Prince George at all.

Prince George's christening: Official photos | Spletniki.ru

 

[BritishRoyalist]

There aren't many pictures of QEII holding babies. There are shots of her holding her own children - I can't remember if I've seen any of her holding Andrew or Edward, but there are ones of her with Baby Charles and Anne for sure - and there's one of her with Peter as a baby. I'm pretty sure the picture of her holding Peter is the only one we have of her holding a grandchild, and there are none of her holding a great-grandchild. It's been suggested that this is deliberate because she feels it takes away from the image of her as a monarch - which makes sense. Female monarchs always have to struggle with how they establish themselves in a masculine role, and that may be part of how QEII did so.

Interesting and Good Point there. You are probably right about that. I did a search on and found only Two pictures of Queen Margrethe holding a Grandchild through several pages. Same with with Queen Victoria or at least the one I found and there only a few of her.

 

[wartenberg7]

Harry is really good looking. Okay, William doesn't look as good as he did when he had a full head of hair but, when he wears a hat or cap, he looks terrific. I wonder if he will look even better when he loses even more hair and his face weathers a bit. Some men (Sean Connery) get better looking as they age.

I agree. A man doesn´t necessarily look bad only because he lost his hair. William is still very good looking. For Harry I wish he altered his hairdo a bit, I mean, he still has the same style as he had as a seven year old

And Andrew looked very good during the 1970s and 80s (his "randy-andy" years...).
But I also wondered why Charles or Anne didn´t turn out to be more attractive with Elizabeth and Philip as parents. The Queen looked lovely up to her 40s. And the Duke o E. was a real heartthrob as a young man many women immediately had a crush on as soon as they set eyes on him. But it seems good looks doesn´t always pass on to the children.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

William lost his looks in the early 2000s and its not all because he lost his hair. It seems The Windsors peak early in their looks, with the exception of Andrew who kept his for decades, as well as his hair.
It's not just Charles and Anne who didn't get good looks but also Edward; the only one of the Queens kids who was attractive was Andrew.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

I agree. A man doesn´t necessarily look bad only because he lost his hair. William is still very good looking. For Harry I wish he altered his hairdo a bit, I mean, he still has the same style as he had as a seven year old

And Andrew looked very good during the 1970s and 80s (his "randy-andy" years...).
But I also wondered why Charles or Anne didn´t turn out to be more attractive with Elizabeth and Philip as parents. The Queen looked lovely up to her 40s. And the Duke o E. was a real heartthrob as a young man many women immediately had a crush on as soon as they set eyes on him. But it seems good looks doesn´t always pass on to the children.

I hate to say it but age doesn't seem to be on Charles side. He has always look older (to me anyway) then he really is. The Queen and Prince Philip have aged Gracefully. The only time The Queen really seem to aged fast was the 1990s when between 91 and 96 she aged quit a bet that seem more then five years. Before and after that it has gone slowly for her if that make sense? Philip mostly look the same he did 30 years ago.

 

[wartenberg7]

Interesting and Good Point there. You are probably right about that. I did a search on and found only Two pictures of Queen Margrethe holding a Grandchild through several pages. Same with with Queen Victoria or at least the one I found and there only a few of her.

If that was really the reason, the 2 Queens you are referring to wouldn´t have been seen holding children at all (either you have resentments as Queen Regnant holding a baby or you don´t. Something in between doesn´t make sense). So what we do here is pure speculation without any proof.
There are loads of vintage photos and paintings of Queen Victoria holding both children and grandchildren even though photography was quite a big deal these days which you didn´t just do "by the way".
Anyway, I have seen at least three times more pics of Qu. Victoria with babies than the present Queen (and we all know that Victoria wasn´t too fond about these "frog-like" creatures at all...)
Queen Elizabeth has also been often photographed with both Andrew and Edward (by Beaton, for instance), but regarding grandchildren there is this strange resentment.

 

[BritishRoyalist]

If that was really the reason, the 2 Queens you are referring to wouldn´t have been seen holding children at all (either you have resentments as Queen Regnant holding a baby or you don´t. Something in between doesn´t make sense). So what we do here is pure speculation without any proof.
There are loads of vintage photos and paintings of Queen Victoria holding both children and grandchildren even though photography was quite a big deal these days which you didn´t just do "by the way".
Anyway, I have seen at least three times more pics of Qu. Victoria with babies than the present Queen (and we all know that Victoria wasn´t too fond about these "frog-like" creatures at all...)
Queen Elizabeth has also been often photographed with both Andrew and Edward (by Beaton, for instance), but regarding grandchildren there is this strange resentment.

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.

 

[ladongas]

William lost his looks in the early 2000s and its not all because he lost his hair. It seems The Windsors peak early in their looks, with the exception of Andrew who kept his for decades, as well as his hair.
It's not just Charles and Anne who didn't get good looks but also Edward; the only one of the Queens kids who was attractive was Andrew.

I think William is still quite handsome- as long as he smiles (or not smile) with his mouth closed. He looks like a young Paul Newman.

 

[Duchess of Durham]

I am surprised to see that Her Majesty decided not to hold Prince George at all.

Prince George's christening: Official photos | Spletniki.ru

We don't know why she isn't pictured holding Prince George, so to note that she decided not to hold her great grandson is inaccurate.

 

[MichelleQ2]

I wouldn't read that much into it - they selected 4 images... there very well may be shots of her holding - they just chose the 4 that worked he best. Personally I don't think the one of the 3 Cambridges is the best of W&K - but the shot of George is priceless so that probably dictated that selection.

When you have a baby in a picture - you tend to go with the ones where he is looking at the camera and looking his best. the grown ups have to take what they get

 

[LadyGabrielle]

I thought the pictures were well done. It is true the one withWilliam and Catherine holding George makes her look a little strange, almost doll like but, they look truly beautiful as a family. This is going to be an attractive future generation of monarchs. Hopefully the boy will keep his hair.

 

[Kellin]

This is going to be an attractive future generation of monarchs. Hopefully the boy will keep his hair.

Even if he doesn't, he will have the opportunity to fix it.. There are quite a lot of ways to treat androgenic alopecia.

We don't know why she isn't pictured holding Prince George, so to note that she decided not to hold her great grandson is inaccurate.

Maybe they just didn't want to disturb the baby.

 

[cepe]

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

 

[BritishRoyalist]

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

There must be some pretty special photos coming out on Sunday. We will have to wait and see.

 

[RoyalNight]

I love the photos, even though Kate's face looks a bit strange...

George is very cute baby.

Do you also get feeling that William & Kate are constantly showing us that their are in charge? What I mean, they give us only a portion of what we want. For example, everybody was crazy about first photo of George and they gave us one, not really good, not a lot of the baby was shown. Now, we wanted different combinations of photos and we got Queen + 3 heirs, but Queen is not holding a baby, some family photos but any of godparents.

I think is their way of saying that they will be very private about their lives and they'll give us only small glimpses so we don't complain but we won't see everything.

I hope it make sense