Christening of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge: July 5, 2015


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I don't deny there is a Diana connection. I do deny that it had any relevance in their choice.

I don't think it was the top priority in making the choice as I would imagine finding a date when everyone could be available (including the Queen before she leaves for Scotland), the proximity of travel and figuring in two small children were the top contenders. The fact that it does hold sentimental reasons is just the added blessing to make the occasion even more special I think.

I hope not. It would be a huge insult to invite the Spencers but not invite Anne, Andrew, Edward, Richard, Simon, Nicholas and Gary.

Its been announced that they're not invited?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Its been announced that they're not invited?

The poster only mentioned William's maternal aunts and uncle. My point is it would have to be all or nothing. Or it will be seen as a slight.
 
I don't deny there is a Diana connection. I do deny that it had any relevance in their choice.



I agree; Diana was christened there because she grew up at Park House, also on the Sandringham estate.

It's more a coincidence than anything, imo.
 
Here is a list of other royal baptisms:

George VI: St. Mary Magdalene Church, Sandringham, February 10, 1896
Princess Mary: St. Mary Magdalene Church, Sandringham, June 7, 1897
Prince John: St Mary Magdalene Church, August 3, 1905
Princess Eugenie: St. Mary Magdalene, Sandringham, December 23, 1990

Royal Musings: Royal Baptism: Prince George of Cambridge
 
Last edited by a moderator:
All Royal christenings are private. It's not like the event is ever open to the public.:cool:

For example, even though TSH Albert and Charlene baptized their twins in the most lavish of spectacles and invited the citizens of Monaco as much outside participation as possible(cheering along the route and outside the Cathedral) it was still an exclusive party for the Prince and Princess and their invited guests.

Princess Charlotte's christening will be on a much smaller scale, but it will be just as exclusive.

I think what the DM means by "private" is that there will be no TV cameras allowed inside the church.
 
I think they chose the church because of the Diana connections and being that one of her middle names is Diana.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yay! I can hardly wait. I love that she is going to be baptized where Diana was.
 
It was quite predictable that they will use a church near Sandringham as that is where William and Kate are based.

William will be starting his job soon and it would have been difficult to move the family to London for a few days for the christening and then return back to Anmer for William's job. The christening needed to work around William's schedule and the Queen's schedule without unduly tiring Philip.

The Queen will be in Holyrood on July 1st and will be in London on July 9th so Sandringham on July 5th is halfway between.

IMO, the date was chosen for these reasons rather than anything to do with Diana.
 
I think it's lovely that they've chosen Sandringham as the location for the christening. I believe the church is practically right next to Anmer Hall, so it's ideal from that perspective. Also a great choice because, yes, Diana was christened there, and obviously Charlotte is, in part, named after her. And, of course, it's where the royal family worships when they're at Sandringham. Obviously I have no way of knowing how much each of those things might or might not have influenced their decision in choosing the church, but it just seems like an all-around good fit.
 
All Royal christenings are private. It's not like the event is ever open to the public.:cool:

For example, even though TSH Albert and Charlene baptized their twins in the most lavish of spectacles and invited the citizens of Monaco as much outside participation as possible(cheering along the route and outside the Cathedral) it was still an exclusive party for the Prince and Princess and their invited guests.

Princess Charlotte's christening will be on a much smaller scale, but it will be just as exclusive.

I think what the DM means by "private" is that there will be no TV cameras allowed inside the church.

Monaco is an example of a princely baptism, but I get your drift. I would have used Sweden as a royal example. They love media inclusion in their religious ceremonies.

If the DM means "private" as in no tv cameras then they still look foolish in ignoring the precedent. The BRF doesn't invite tv crews into Christenings. The Mail was just hoping to rile up their oblivious readers into thinking they're getting shafted over Charlotte's Christening, when in fact the regular program is being followed.
 
I think it's lovely that they've chosen Sandringham as the location for the christening. I believe the church is practically right next to Anmer Hall, so it's ideal from that perspective. Also a great choice because, yes, Diana was christened there, and obviously Charlotte is, in part, named after her. And, of course, it's where the royal family worships when they're at Sandringham. Obviously I have no way of knowing how much each of those things might or might not have influenced their decision in choosing the church, but it just seems like an all-around good fit.

Exactly :flowers: A very happy choice all round for the start of the little Princess's Christian pilgrimage.
 
I think they chose the church because of the Diana connections and being that one of her middle names is Diana.
I doubt that William even knew about this. He doesn't read her biographies and doesn't have mom to call and ask.
 
I doubt that William even knew about this. He doesn't read her biographies and doesn't have mom to call and ask.

That doesn't mean he didn't know. His mother might've mentioned it to him at some point (after all, they would've been at the church together for Christmas services, etc.), and I'm sure he's aware that his mother grew up at Park House.
 
That doesn't mean he didn't know. His mother might've mentioned it to him at some point (after all, they would've been at the church together for Christmas services, etc.), and I'm sure he's aware that his mother grew up at Park House.
maybe or maybe not
 
What he knows is debatable. I have no idea where my parents were baptized.
 
I find it borderline impossible to believe that William doesn't know his own mother was christened at St. Mary Magdalen Sandringham.:whistling:

His mother was one of the most famous and written about women on the planet. Every bit of the minutiae of her life has been publically discussed and documented.

That said, I agree with everyone who says that is not why that church was chosen. It was probably more convenience than anything else/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a list of other royal baptisms:

George VI: St. Mary Magdalene Church, Sandringham, February 10, 1896
Princess Mary: St. Mary Magdalene Church, Sandringham, June 7, 1897
Prince John: St Mary Magdalene Church, August 3, 1905
Princess Eugenie: St. Mary Magdalene, Sandringham, December 23, 1990

Royal Musings: Royal Baptism: Prince George of Cambridge
+ King Olav V of Norway: St. Mary Magdalene, Sandringham, 11 August 1903.
 
I find it borderline impossible to believe that William doesn't know his own mother was christened at St. Mary Magdalen Sandringham.:whistling:

His mother was one of the most famous and written about women on the planet. Every bit of the minutiae of her life has been publically discussed and documented.

That said, I agree with everyone who says that is not why that church was chosen. It was probably more convenience than anything else/

I would think that his mother or some family member probably mentioned it to him at some point, as William has attended church their throughout his life, and it's hardly a secret that that's where Diana was christened. Even if he didn't know, he might have asked someone or looked it up at some point (my father died when I was relatively young, and that certainly led me to take up more interest in things I didn't know about his background. And for William, he can just look up such things on Wikipedia if he's curious). Even if he was unaware that that was where his mother had been christened, he likely would have come upon the information when they were were making the decision to hold it at St. Mary Magdalene's.

I certainly doubt that the Diana connection was the main reason the church was chosen. It seems like a natural choice for a variety of other reasons (aside from the fact that it's the royal family's church at Sandringham, it's also a nice way for William and Kate to more firmly establish their family roots in the area where they now live. The fact that Diana was christened there is, I imagine, a bonus for William.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyway, I can't wait to see christening photos (well, not of the christening itself, but of the baby and family afterwards.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hopefully, they will release an accurate picture of Charlotte and not a ridiculously photoshopped version of Charlotte to match the photoshopped George.
 
Trust me, he knows where his mother was Christened, its part of his history and he is not oblivious to it. Whether that is why it was picked, who knows.
 
I doubt it was chosen simply because its where Diana was Christened. If that was so important to them wouldn't they have also had George's christening there as well?

I think its a lovely link but equally its pretty much the local church to their home and certainly the church closest to their home that has lots of family links for them (well William's side of the family)
 
Hopefully, they will release an accurate picture of Charlotte and not a ridiculously photoshopped version of Charlotte to match the photoshopped George.

Prince George photoshopped? When, and more curiously why even the need to photoshop such a gorgeous little boy?:ermm:
 
Prince George photoshopped? When, and more curiously why even the need to photoshop such a gorgeous little boy?:ermm:

Did you really miss seeing the official released photos?

Here is one.
http://www.eonline.com/eol_images/E...560x415-131024141815-1024.3prince-christening

In another one they added even more hair to his head and tinted it red.

Compare the photos of George taken when they arrived and when they left the christening to the official photos.

His face, hair and skin color is completely different. They made his lips larger and painted them a bright red. They smooth his forehead and gave him more eyebrows and shaped them. He had creases and bags under his eyes but in the official photos they are no longer there.
 
Last edited:
I doubt it was chosen simply because its where Diana was Christened. If that was so important to them wouldn't they have also had George's christening there as well?

I think its a lovely link but equally its pretty much the local church to their home and certainly the church closest to their home that has lots of family links for them (well William's side of the family)

The local church to there home is basically next door - Anmer has its own church. That is where they went to church on Christmas Eve and will most likely be where they go to church on a regular basis - if they go on a regular basis. They have chosen the church more associated with the royal family on the estate but not the one closest to their home.

That Diana was baptised there is a factor of course but Eugenie was also baptised there.

George's baptism was different as it was a semi-state occasion as it was the baptism of the future King. It will be interesting to see if Charlotte's baptism is listed in the CC, as George's was, or whether it will be more like Savannah's, Isla's and Mia's. It probably will be but it is a more private event than George's as she isn't expected to be the monarch.
 
Last edited:
I've had to delete and edit a number of posts discussing a biography about Kate and her reasons for attending St Andrews. If you wish to discuss the biography, you can do so in the "Kate: The Future Queen" by Katie Nicholl (2013) thread. I've also had to delete posts discussing who is, or isn't fascinated with Diana. Please stay on topic, any further off-topic posts will be deleted.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it was the top priority in making the choice as I would imagine finding a date when everyone could be available (including the Queen before she leaves for Scotland), the proximity of travel and figuring in two small children were the top contenders. The fact that it does hold sentimental reasons is just the added blessing to make the occasion even more special I think.
As usual, I agree with you. It is hard to believe that they would have driven all the way to St. Mary Magdalene with a baby and a toddler if they were actually staying in London. It's lovely that Diana was baptized there.

I don't know where either of my parents were baptized because my parents moved from their home town before I was born. Since William has regularly visited Sandringham throughout his life (and has probably been to that church), I can believe that Diana, or a member of her family, told William that Diana was baptized there. I am also willing to bet that William has been to St. Mary Magdalene with his father and other members of the royal family.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The church is the one that the royals attend for Christmas when they are at Sandringham so it would be very familiar to the family.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
 
Back
Top Bottom