Snapped!

Tags

Kate, Kensington Palace, Paparazzi, Prince George, Royal, William

In a not altogether surprising move, Kensington Palace has released a letter expressing its concern over the growing number of paparazzi photographs taken of Prince George in recent weeks – photographs subsequently bought and published by the foreign press. While aides were quick to praise the British media for not printing illicit photos, they issued their strongest warning yet to those who choose to forgo decent editorial practices. Citing the serious issue of security, the statement also drew attention to the perverse way in which such photos are obtained.

Many would argue that all children, not just those who are royal, should be allowed to play free of the prying eye of a photographer intent on financial gain, sequestered in the boot of his car, equipped with a long lens…but George is not just any child. There have been photos of him playing with his mother at a park close to the family’s Norfolk home, images of him on the beach with his grandmother, Carole Middleton, and others of him out and about with his nanny in London. The list goes on.

Paparazzi pix have plagued the British royals for decades. More than thirty years ago images of Diana frolicking in the surf were splashed across every British front page, and who could forget those above-the-fold corkers of Fergie having her toes sucked. When William and Harry were children, step-ladders were regularly propped against school walls in the hopes of gaining surreptitious photos, but the Royals are not alone in their fight for the privacy of their children. The British press now blurs the faces of famous offspring, but around the rest of the world there doesn’t appear to be any strict regulation. No doubt one day Suri Cruise, Harper Beckham and Shiloh Pitt will have plenty to say on the topic.

The question is how do you mandate a global press? Given the nature of their position as future King and Queen Consort, is it unreasonable of William and Kate to demand privacy for their children?  The Duke and Duchess have both expressed a desire to provide as normal a childhood as possible for George and Charlotte, and their efforts to offer experiences beyond Palace walls should be applauded. But it’s also true that any parent would be alarmed by the idea of his or her child being stalked. When it comes to the Royal Family, however, the lines of decency are often blurred as outlets feed what has become an insatiable public appetite.

Since his mother’s death William has made no secret of his feelings towards the media – feelings that were further cemented by the publication of photos revealing his wife sunbathing topless in the South of France in 2012. The Palace has consistently maintained its stance that unofficial photos are a clear breach of privacy, but when pictures are taken in a public place there is very little recourse, especially when there are occasional exceptions to the rule.

In 2014 royal-friendly Hello! Magazine published paparazzi photos of Kate and George en route to their hols on the Caribbean island of Mustique. The Palace didn’t utter a word. When pressed for comment aides said the photos were taken in a “public place” where dozens of other tourists were milling around, so “anyone” could have taken them. Yet it wasn’t just anyone who took them; it was a paparazzi photographer with his eye on the prize. In 2013, however, when photographs of Kate on the beach in Mustique were sold to the highest bidder, it was made abundantly clear that the Royals were not happy. As the Palace now fights to gain stricter control over what is and isn’t printed, it also needs to establish a clearer position on what qualifies as a public place. Early indications seemed to illustrate that the airport was indeed a public place. The beach? Well, that was a negative. With regards to the children it is now imperative that enforced guidelines accompanied by harsh consequences are put into place.

In this era of twenty-four hour news and online publications fueled by the necessity for click bait, there will always be those who refuse to be curtailed. Should outlets be banned from covering various engagements they might at the very least begin to question their editorial choices.

Some have suggested that William and Kate follow the model set by many of the European royal houses, which choose to provide regular updates and official photographs of royal children. It is a model that simply wouldn’t work for the British Royal Family. During the Cambridge’s 2014 tour of Australia and New Zealand, George undertook two engagements with his parents. William and Kate offered surprising access to their first-born son, resulting in a wealth of adorable footage. Nevertheless, during the family’s day off in Australia photographs of Kate and George playing privately were snapped and promptly sold. The couple was again remarkably accessible on the day of Princess Charlotte’s christening and provided official photos only three weeks later on the occasion of George’s second birthday. Generations of royals have just had to deal with invasive pictures, but William and Kate are a modern royal couple seeking a modern royal life. Today’s strongly worded letter indicating a zero-tolerance approach is just another example of their modern way of thinking. Whether or not their demands can be enforced only time will tell.

It wouldn’t matter how many official photos were released; as long as the public continues to click on links to pictures revealing private moments, images will be taken. By opening the conversation Kensington Palace is raising awareness as to the seedy fashion in which paparazzi photographs are obtained. And yet, let’s say an online entity teased a spread of Prince George eating an ice-cream while playing in the sand box with his baby sister and Lupo, which “somebody else” posted to Facebook or Twitter…would you click on the photo? Until there is a collective “no” it is a battle William and Kate have very little chance of winning.

 

Advertisements

A Royal Christening Fit for a Princess

Tags

Christening, Kate, Prince George, Princess Charlotte, Royal, Sandringham, William

In an unprecedented move members of the public have been invited to greet the Royal Family tomorrow as they arrive for Princess Charlotte’s much anticipated christening at The Church of St. Mary Magdalene, Sandringham – the site of Diana, Princess of Wales’s christening fifty-four years ago. Though the service itself will be private, royal fans will have an opportunity to glimpse the new family of four in public for the very first time. The decision to welcome well-wishers is in stark contrast to the christening of Prince George, a far more private affair held at the Chapel Royal, St. James’s Palace in October 2013, in which public access was restricted.

Upon the announcement of the new princess’s baptism Kensington Palace said, “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will be pleased to welcome well-wishers into the paddock outside the church. The Duke and Duchess are hugely grateful for the warm wishes they have received since Princess Charlotte’s birth – many of them from local people in Norfolk – and are delighted the paddock can be opened on the day of the christening.” It is an enormous step for a couple determined to guard and protect the privacy of their children in their formative years.

While William and Kate’s gesture of goodwill was a welcome surprise there will be no surprises when it comes to the christening itself. Officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury, it will be steeped in the symbolic customs and traditions long associated with royal baptisms.

Charlotte will be christened in the same gown as her big brother – a replica of the 174-year-old Honiton lace and white satin gown, first made for the 1841 christening of Princess Victoria, the first child of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. The original gown, worn by every royal baby from Princess Victoria to Lady Louise Windsor, was subsequently deemed too delicate for further use and following Lady Louise’s christening in 2004 it was retired and preserved. The replica, made by the Queen’s dresser, Angela Kelly, was first worn by Viscount Severn, son of the Earl and Countess of Wessex, for his christening in 2008. It has been used by every royal baby since.

Water for Charlotte’s baptism will be held within the Silver Gilt Lily Font designed by Prince Albert and commissioned in 1840 in anticipation of the birth of his first child. Lilies were believed to signify purity and water lilies symbolized new life. The font, which is housed at the Tower of London, has been used at every royal christening since 1841.

Traditionally royal babies are christened using water from the River Jordan. It is the river in which John the Baptist baptized Jesus and where the Israelites escaped slavery in Egypt by crossing the river into the Promised Land. Due to its symbolically meaningful ties to Christianity, water from the river continues to be used by several other Christian royal houses today.

In Queen Victoria’s era christenings were opulent, grand affairs attended by royals from across Europe. Today, they are far more personal, intimate ceremonies for close friends, godparents and family members. There are no hard and fast rules for selecting godparents. George has seven, William has six, Charles has eight and Edward I had twelve. Princess Victoria’s godparents included a king, queen, two duchesses and a duke, but as illustrated by the choices made for Prince George, William and Kate are far more likely to base their selection on friendship, trust and loyalty as opposed to status and wealth. George may be the future king, but not one of his godparents is a titled royal.

Sunday promises to be a beautiful (reportedly pastel?) occasion immersed in history and tradition. As four generations of royals make their way into the sanctuary of St. Mary Magdalene for Charlotte’s first introduction to the church, the nation will bear witness to a sense of continuity and living history. Elected officials may come and go, but the Royal Family remains a link to Britain’s past and a testament to its future.

Wimbledon v The Battle of Britain

Tags

Battle of Britain, Kate, Queen, Tennis, Veterans, William, Wimbledon, WWII

Since this article was published a spokesman for the RAF told Britain’s Daily Express newspaper, “The reason she (Kate) is not there is that all of the members of the Royal Family on the balcony are honorary air commodores and she isn’t one.” Unfortunately, the criteria for members of the Royal Family in attendance at the Battle of Britain commemorations was not stated in the original brief. It was baffling that Kate should not be included in such an important anniversary, and so the legitimate reason for her absence has been well received. Kate is the most senior member of the Royal Family to not currently be a Honourary Air Commodore. Given her history as a former member of the RAF family, hopefully it will be an honour bestowed in the not too distant future.

Debate ignited across social media platforms earlier today upon Kensington Palace’s announcement that William and Kate will attend quarterfinal matches at Wimbledon on Wednesday, but that only William will join the Queen and “other members of the Royal Family” in commemorating the 75^th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain next Friday. The question of whether or not William and Kate do enough will rumble on between royal lovers and haters for decades. It is a topic I generally avoid, as opinions are often extreme, and it can be hard to find the middle ground. For what it’s worth I think Kate is doing exactly what is expected of her for now, and that if the Queen wanted her to be doing more she would be, but in this particular instance it’s not about if they’re “doing enough;” it’s about perception and the couple’s ability to strike a reasonable balance between their public and personal lives.

Given William’s position as second-in-line to the throne, the Cambridges are fortunate that, for now at least, the pressure is off. As they are not currently required to be full-time working royals, William is able to carry out a civilian job – the first British direct heir to do so. By extension Kate is able to remain a stay-at-home mother (a noble profession sometimes pooh-poohed by those who don’t know how hard a job it can be). This type of hands-on royal parenting can only be beneficial for the couple’s two young children, and looking ahead to the future George stands to be the most normal, well-adjusted monarch to ever rule the land.

Having said that the timing of this week’s events are unfortunate. Much like William’s 2014 decision to hunt wild boar the day before launching an appeal to end the poaching of endangered wildlife, more thought should have been given as to how it might be perceived for the Duchess to attend Wimbledon, but pass on Friday’s commemorations.

I don’t begrudge Kate one second of her time at Wimbledon. She has made no secret of her passion for tennis and her attendance benefits the sport, players, All England Club and Britain itself (especially given the Queen last attended in 2010 following a thirty-three year absence), but Kate’s presence on the balcony at Buckingham Palace for Friday’s RAF flypast would be of far greater significance.

Kate’s grandfather, Peter Middleton, was an RAF fighter pilot. He served during WWII and used the wing tips of his Mosquito warplane to divert German “doodlebug” flying bombs away from London. At the time of the Royal Wedding in 2011 William was serving as an RAF Search and Rescue Pilot. During the couple’s 2011 tour to Canada Kate confided in a fellow service wife saying, “I always worry when William goes off on a mission,” and she later wrote the foreword to “Living in the Slipstream,” a book about life as an RAF wife. As a former RAF spouse herself, Kate has a deeply personal connection to the military branch.

WWII veterans are dying off at an alarming rate, and it won’t be long before marked anniversaries will be devoid of those it is our duty to honour and commemorate. As a nation we have a responsibility to educate future generations about the sacrifices made by those who have gone before us, and we can never, never forget the role they played in fighting for our freedom. The Royal Family is there to lead by example and provide a focus for national unity. On virtually every royal tour undertaken a wreath is laid at a war memorial. Come November each year, the Royals attend services marking Remembrance Sunday. Given their long historical ties to the military, the needs of veterans are constantly championed by members of the Royal Family. The Battle of Britain ranks alongside the battles of Trafalgar and Waterloo as one of the most significant in British history. It was the first major battle to be fought entirely in the air, and it was the first significant strategic defeat for the Nazis during WWII, therefore events marking its 75^th anniversary are of high importance on the royal agenda.

Centre Court tickets to Wimbledon are certainly a royal perk, but they are also a privilege, and along with privilege comes duty. As a mother myself, I am a staunch advocate for maternity leave, and I believe Kate should be allowed to enjoy it for as long as possible. If that includes an adult’s day out at the tennis to regain her sanity, then I’m all for it. Unlike royal mothers before her Kate is very lucky to be able to spend these precious, formative years with her children, but given the nature of her role, it is also important to remember that she is not just a “normal” mother. She is the wife of an heir, the mother of an heir and a future Queen herself; with that comes an enormous responsibility to the nation. As a senior royal and one of the family’s core members – as highlighted during the 2012 Diamond Jubilee celebrations – Kate is immensely popular, and her presence at the Battle of Britain anniversary would raise the profile of the event even further, thereby making it accessible to younger generations.

It is my hope that come Friday the suits behind the scenes will recognize how invaluable Kate’s presence would be to those currently serving, those who have lost family members in conflict and those who served seventy-five years ago. Should Kate make a brief but symbolically meaningful appearance alongside “other members of the Royal Family” on the balcony, the battle for balance would be won in an instant. A tight five-setter could last for hours, but with a simple look skywards to the approaching RAF Spitfires, Hurricanes and Typhoons dutiful reverence could be paid in mere minutes.

All in the Family

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Cambridge, Kate, Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana, Queen Elizabeth, Royal Baby, William

In announcing the name of their newborn daughter, HRH Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge, William and Kate achieved the near impossible. By paying tribute to both sides of the family and promoting the continuity for which the monarchy is so famed, the couple received worldwide praise and resounding public approval. Their choice also ensured a scandal free beginning for their newborn tot.

By nature William and Kate are a very traditional couple, so their decision was always going to be a conservative one, but it is one steeped in royal history and family tributes galore.

Charlotte, the feminine form of Charles, William’s father’s name, also happens to be Pippa Middleton’s middle name. Charlotte has not been used by a member of the royal family in over two hundred years, and so chances are the couple chose it more for its familial significance than the history it evokes, but its history is an interesting one.

George III married Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (the nation’s longest-serving consort after Prince Philip) on September 8^th, 1761 in the Chapel Royal at St. James’s Palace. Kate’s second pregnancy was announced on September 8^th, 2014, and the Chapel Royal is the likely venue for Princess Charlotte’s upcoming Christening. Coincidence? Yes, but isn’t that the beauty of royal history?

George and Charlotte first met on their wedding day, but regardless theirs was a happy union complete with fifteen children. Their eldest daughter, Princess Charlotte, was designated Princess Royal in 1789, a title newborn Charlotte is expected to one day assume as the eldest daughter of the reigning monarch. In 1762 George purchased Buckingham House – the site where Buckingham Palace sits today – as a family retreat for his Queen.

George IV’s only child, a daughter named Charlotte Augusta, married Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg on May 2^nd, 1816. A hundred and ninety-nine years later May 2^nd now marks the date of Princess Charlotte of Cambridge’s birth. As Princess of Wales Charlotte was an immensely popular royal figure, and her tragic death at the age of twenty-one, mere hours after delivering a stillborn son, was widely mourned.

The youngest daughter of Earl Spencer, Diana’s brother, is named Charlotte. Among William’s other cousins are boys named George, Alexander and Louis, all names William chose when naming his own son in 2013.

Elizabeth was the only certainty in predicting a royal baby name. As the name of both William’s grandmother and great-grandmother it seems an especially fitting choice given the Queen will become Britain’s longest reigning monarch on September 9^th of this year. Elizabeth also carries personal significance for the Middleton family. It is the middle name shared by both Kate and her mother Carole, as well as being the first given name of Kate’s maternal great-grandmother and her great-great-grandmother.

William has always strived to include his mother in the key moments of his life, and as such the most poignant and personal of Charlotte’s three names is that of her late grandmother, Diana. Perfectly placed so as not to be a burden, it ensures Diana’s memory is kept alive for the next generation of young royals. Charlotte’s name honours the women most cherished in both William and Kate’s lives as well as paying homage to William’s father, but perhaps more importantly it also allows for her to have her own identity within the royal family.

In the unlikely event she were ever to assume the throne and chose to keep her first given name, she would become Her Majesty Charlotte, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, but for now HRH Princess Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge will do very nicely indeed.

 

Di-nastically Speaking

Tags

Baby Names, Diana, England, Kate, Princess of Wales, Queen, Royal Baby, William

Much like ardent young royal watchers of today, enamored by the Duchess of Cambridge’s very being, I was similarly enamored by Diana, Princess of Wales when I was a youngster. She was a rare breed. Stunningly beautiful, immediately accessible, witty, charming and endearingly mischievous; she was a one in a million. Of course that was long before the, “There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded,” type interviews and tell-all books alleging suicide attempts and acts of betrayal, but back then I was unaware of her more scandalous infamy. I quite simply adored her…I still do.

Now, as the world awaits the impending birth of William and Kate’s second baby, potential names have become the topic of rampant speculation and heated debate. More accurately, girl’s names are causing the biggest stir as there seems to be a worldwide assumption that the couple are expecting a princess. If assumptions are indeed correct she will be the first Princess of Cambridge born into the royal family in 182 years. The birth of any baby is cause for celebration, but given the recent changes in the Laws to Succession, her arrival would be a historical one.

In choosing a name, titled royals tend to turn to the family tree, as opposed to 100,001 Best Baby Names. Traditionally they pick dynastic names, and there are in fact a wide variety to choose from. Elizabeth, Alice, Victoria and Charlotte have all been frontrunners, but the sentimental favorite among punters remains…Diana. In a Today Show poll 32% of Americans predicted the name was a shoo-in, and in the UK the bookies’ odds of a baby named after her late-Grandmother change almost daily as Diana becomes an increasingly popular choice. That said, in the event the couple do welcome a baby girl, it is my hope that they do not name her Diana.

Today Diana’s name is as divisive as the very institution of monarchy itself. While some have virtually sainted her, others have been vehemently critical, accusing her of being childish, unhinged and self-serving. Contrary to popular belief the Queen was very fond of Diana, but should her name be bestowed as a first name upon the baby, it would be perceived as a slap in the face to the monarchy. In the years since Earl Spencer’s scathing attack on the Windsors at Diana’s funeral, the nation has moved on and Diana’s legacy has been celebrated. She has become a part of royal history. Her memory has been preserved, and the royal family is once again enjoying a renewed sense of popularity. Out of respect to the Queen, Charles, Camilla and the baby herself the couple simply wouldn’t do it. Diana’s name conjures up both positive and negative responses the world over, and whichever side of the fence you’re on the moniker seems to me an almighty burden for a newborn baby to carry.

Since Diana’s death almost eighteen years ago, William has honoured his mother’s memory in a private and personal fashion. He has taken on many of her patronages and continued to champion her causes. At his wedding in 2011 the Bishop of London The Rt. Rev. Richard Chartres, a close friend of Diana and executor of her will, gave the address. He also conducted Kate’s confirmation at The Chapel Royal, St. James’s Palace, where Diana’s coffin rested in the week following her death. The hymn Guide Me O Thou Great Redeemer, which was sung at both Diana’s funeral in 1997 and at the memorial marking the tenth anniversary of her death in 2007, was chosen for the royal wedding. Julia Samuel, also a close friend of Diana, was asked to serve as a Godmother to Prince George. William chose Kensington Palace, his own childhood home, to be the primary residence for his family, and perhaps in the most public acknowledgment of his mother’s memory, he gave Kate Diana’s engagement ring. William doesn’t need to name his second-born child after his mother in order to honour her; he does so by being a good husband and father.

I still miss Diana. She was a one-off, and I don’t believe the world will ever witness another quite like her. Daily comparisons to her late mother-in-law are already Kate’s cross to bear. Shouldn’t a baby girl be spared the same fate? Diana’s tragic, untimely death and iconic status will ensure her memory is kept alive for generations to come. She wouldn’t want her granddaughter to languish in her shadow. She would want her to go out into the world, to make her own mark and help those less fortunate, to enrich the lives of others and to carve out her own unique identity…possibly as Alice, Elizabeth, Victoria, Charlotte or my own personal pick – Alexandra.

Royal Jet-Set

Tags

Australia, Kate, New Zealand, Prince George, Royal Tour, William

(CNN) — Britain’s Duke and Duchess of Cambridge leave England for their three-week tour to New Zealand and Australia this weekend with their baby son Prince George. A “hub and spoke” system has been put in place allowing for the new parents to travel to engagements during the day and return to their son in the evening, much like parents the world over who trudge off to work in the morning only to dash home in the evening to catch baby before bedtime…http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/04/opinion/george-royal-tour/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter

Picture This

Tags

Hello!, Kate, Mustique, Paparazzi, Photographer, Prince George, Privacy, Royal, William

In a surprising turn this week, Kensington Palace reportedly gave the okay to celebs-pictured-at-home-in-matching-outfits bible, Hello! magazine, to publish paparazzi photos taken of Kate with Prince George en route to their hols on the island of Mustique.  Was it because Hello! is considered to be a well-respected magazine as opposed to a tabloid rag you’d use to line the litter box?  Possibly.  Was it a case of image control?  Perhaps.  More likely it was a case of William and Kate resigning themselves to the idea of picking their battles.  They were harmless pictures, and while no doubt particularly irritating to William, he’d have sounded like a petulant child had he cried foul this time around.

Due to security concerns, magazine editors supposedly played it safe by asking permission from the palace and agreeing not to publish until Kate had returned to England, but I expect everyone fell off their seats when actually given the go-ahead.   A right royal pay day for everyone concerned.

The reason this is so surprising is that William and Kate in particular have been more vocal than perhaps any other royal over what is and is not deemed acceptable when it comes to their privacy.  In light of the recent Levenson enquiry into press standards, their wishes have, so far anyway, been pretty well respected.  The topless photos taken in France in 2012 were a major balls-up, but William went after the European publication like a bear with a sore head, and rightfully so.  At the other end of the spectrum, not wanting to reveal the name of their dog, Lupo, seemed a tad trivial; but regardless, the British newspapers have been exceedingly well behaved.  Thirty years ago topless photos of Diana or Fergie on holiday would have been splashed across the front page, and every subsequent page thereafter, of every single newspaper in the country.  Indeed, Fergie’s were…with an extra dash of toe sucking thrown in.

The printing of these new photos, however, does send something of a mixed message, and I fear that by letting the magazine publish without so much as a quibble, the palace has made a rod for its own back.  The green light was apparently given because they were taken in a “public” place where dozens of other tourists were milling around, so “anyone” could have taken them.  It wasn’t just anyone who took them though, it was a paparazzi photographer with his eye on the prize.  A very large prize when you consider we’ve only been granted two photographs of Prince George in the seven months since he was born.

During the royal couple’s last trip to Mustique in February 2013, photos of a bikini-clad Kate on the beach were snapped and sold to the highest bidder, and it was made abundantly clear that the royals were not happy.  Granted it was a sensitive time.  Kate had only just recovered from her bout of acute morning sickness, and timing wise it was hot on the heels of the topless pix printed by Closer Magazine in France.  There was also a sense that the photos had been obtained in a seedy fashion by a photographer with a telephoto lens hunkered down in a boat off shore.  That may well be the case, but the photos taken at the airport in St. Vincent last week were not obtained in a fashion any less seedy. They were still the work of a paparazzi photographer staked out in the bushes with a telephoto lens, all unbeknownst to Kate.

                Moving forward, it does beg the question:  what qualifies as a public place?  The airport?  Check.  The beach?  That’s a negative.  So what about the park?  The supermarket?  Starbucks?  I don’t believe Hello! would have published any photos of Kate and George out and about in London, and London is a very “public” place.

Generally speaking paparazzi photographers are made from different stock than your average Joe.  They feed on the thrill of the chase; they positively salivate over the resulting paycheque that comes from catching public figures in private moments, and they adhere to an alternative moral standard than the more “legitimate” photographers.  Give them an inch and they won’t just take a mile, they’ll take ten.  As there were no repercussions this time around, you can guarantee there will be at least one snapper who declares this open season.

Hello! is the first British publication to offer up numerous pages of paparazzi photographs printed alongside less than riveting text detailing everything from the colour of Kate’s shoes (taupe!!!) to how Prince George has…wait for it…grown!  The pictures have since been picked up worldwide, so while I’m inclined to believe this approach is likely a one-off for the royal couple, it remains to be seen how long the British press tolerates the publish-at-your-own-peril sentiment.

Diana famously wrestled with her relationship with the paparazzi.  She courted them to her advantage and then cried for privacy when things didn’t go as planned.  In light of that, William and Kate have probably been quite sensible to take a zero tolerance approach.  Let’s hope this one small reprieve doesn’t cost them the privacy they hold so dear.

Who’ll Be Home For Christmas?

Tags

Anmer Hall, Christmas, Kate, Middletons, Queen, Royal, Sandringham, William, Windsor Castle

The Queen has invited the Middleton Family to Sandringham for Christmas, or so the British newspaper headlines recently declared.  Oh, that it were true if only because Richard Palmer, Royal Reporter for Britain’s Daily Express, tweeted that if Carole Middleton emerged alongside the Queen and drove to church, he’d cartwheel naked down the path.  Lucky for Richard – and dare I say even luckier for us – it’s highly unlikely.

Invitations to Christmas are never extended to the families of royal spouses and why should they be?  Nothing personal, simply that Christmas provides an opportunity for the Queen to enjoy quality time with her own immediate family with no expectation of being on parade.  Well, that and the issue of space.  Large as Sandringham might be, it is a house, not a castle.  When the whole family is in attendance, there just isn’t room for anyone else.

The Royal Family has Christmas down to a science, and the Queen’s festive plans are as reliable as television airings of It’s a Wonderful Life and my inadvertently cooking the turkey upside down.  It’s the same every year.

Since the fire at Windsor Castle in 1992, the royal family has gathered to celebrate Christmas at Sandringham, the Queen’s privately-owned Norfolk estate.  Following arrivals on Christmas Eve, afternoon tea is served.  The evening brings a fancy black-tie dinner, and the opening of presents – a German tradition embraced by Queen Victoria when she married Prince Albert.  After breakfast on Christmas morning, it’s church, lunch, a huddle around the television to watch the Queen’s Christmas message to the nation, a country walk, and an evening of parlour games.  It is an occasion steeped in familiar tradition and protocol for the Windsors, but for the inexperienced newbie it’s enough to make you want to double-spike your eggnog.

Sandringham is the Queen’s house, and therefore as the Lady of the Manor invitations are at her discretion.  She has consistently been open to change and has adapted to the times accordingly.  During her reign she has opened Buckingham Palace to the public, made the royal finances more transparent, made walkabouts the norm, signed the Commonwealth Charter, and she was the first reigning monarch to visit the Republic of Ireland since Irish independence.  Christmas, however, is one area where change is unlikely.

The Queen is not obligated in any way to the extended families of either her children or her grandchildren.  The Middletons may well be the grandparents of the future king, but so too were Earl Spencer and Frances Shand Kydd, yet that didn’t see either of them swilling sherry and pulling crackers over the Queen’s Christmas goose.  Were the Queen to invite the Middleton family, it would in turn pave the way for other in-laws to attend.  Camilla’s children haven’t spent Christmas with their mother since she married Charles in 2005.  Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie haven’t celebrated Christmas with their mum since their parents’ divorce in 1996.  And how about Mike Tindall’s parents…?  The list goes on and therein lies the quandary.  Invite the Middletons, and suddenly Christmas becomes a free-for-all “plus one”.

Last year, with the Queen’s blessing, William and Kate chose to spend Christmas with Kate’s family in Bucklebury.  While alternating families for the holidays is the standard festive headache for us regular folk, it was an unprecedented decision for the Sandringham lot.  By doing something different William and Kate effectively changed the model of a royal family Christmas.

The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh enjoy a relaxed relationship with Michael and Carole Middleton.  Prior to the royal wedding the Queen asked them to lunch at Windsor Castle.  In June 2012 they were invited to sail on the Elizabethan Paddle Steamer during the Diamond Jubilee River Pageant, and they joined other members of the royal family in the Queen’s official carriage procession to Royal Ascot in 2011 and 2012.  She has already publicly embraced the Middleton family far more than she has the family of any other royal spouse.

William and Kate are the new owners of Anmer Hall, a property on the Sandringham estate, but it is currently being renovated, so there’s no room at the inn for the Middletons there.  Even if it were ready, I don’t see William and Kate leaving her family at home while they swan off to the “big house”.

Every family celebrates Christmas in their own unique way, and the Middletons would never presume to be included in the royals’ personal festivities, nor would the Queen, Philip, Charles and Camilla expect to load the corgis and a fruitcake into the Range Rover and head down to Bucklebury.

There is no slight, no malice, no scandal here, rather a wish to preserve the elements of a sacred family Christmas.  In that respect, the royals are “just like us”.  Looks like Richard will be keeping his clothes on this year after all.

Once Upon a Headline…

Tags

Buckingham Palace, Chris Froome, Cressida Bonas, Dating, Kate, Koo Stark, Prince Harry, Queen, Royal Family, William

 

Stories about the Royal Family splashed across the front pages of Britain’s newspapers are nothing new, but when those stories are about royal girlfriends, I start to get mildly irritated.  Is this really headline news?  Apparently so.  Last week the front page of The Sun screamed Her Royal Highcress spends the weekend at Sandringham in reference to Harry’s latest flame, Cressida Bonas, visiting the Queen’s estate.  Clearly, we were a country all the better for knowing what Cressida did two weekends prior, but, continued The Sun, although neither the Queen nor Prince Charles were in residence, such an invitation could mean only one thing: Cressida had been “Approved” by the family.  Hurrah!  Time to start shopping for fascinators and submitting our orders for commemorative teapots and Knit Cressida Kits.  Alert the bookies, raise the flags, and secure the bunting; another royal wedding is on the horizon!  Eventually…one day…far into the future…and maybe with a different pretty blonde altogether.

Royal weddings are big business, and there’s nothing like a royal romance when it comes to selling newspapers, but they are perhaps jumping the gun on this one. The UK is coming off a stellar two years.  2011’s Royal Wedding created an altogether excitable, patriotic, and fervent British public.  After worldwide reviews to the tune of “No-one does it like the Brits,” royalist pride rolled over into the Diamond Jubilee celebrations followed by the hugely successful Summer Olympics.  Just when we thought it couldn’t get any better, news of the royal pregnancy broke.  Seven months whizzed by; Andy Murray won Wimbledon; England clinched the Ashes over Australia; Chris Froome won the Tour de France, and Prince George was born.  Kate left the hospital with residual baby bump on full display, and the country collapsed in a pool of pride after an epic two years in the glare of the global spotlight.  I’m breathless just thinking about it.  But now what?

With no significant royal events on the calendar, the Olympic flame en route to Brazil, and headlines reverting back to emergency room negligence and horse meat in beef burgers, there’s only one thing for it.  Harry has to get married.  Or does he?

Being a royal girlfriend really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.  Former actress Koo Stark, who dated Prince Andrew in 1981, was widely tipped to become his wife, even meeting the Queen at Balmoral before it surfaced that she’d starred in a saucy film called Emily.   While Emily may have killed it for the Queen, Andrew’s insistence on his girlfriends (along with the rest of the planet) calling him “Sir” may have killed it for Koo.  Another well-known actress, who has asked to remain nameless, loves to share her tale of spending the night with another of the Queen’s sons at Buckingham Palace.  Much to her shock, the young prince was audacious enough to demand that she get out of bed to stand for the National Anthem as it played during the Changing of the Guard in the forecourt below.  He continued to lounge beneath the covers while she stood in the nuddy looking down The Mall as the Grenadiers trumpeted their resounding salute…at which point she knew it probably wasn’t going to work out.

Cruel monikers are often bestowed by the rags (although “Waity Katie” of “Wisteria Sisters” fame clinched the last laugh on that one).  Legions of photographers set up camp outside girlfriends’ homes, eager to pounce.  Her Royal Hotness – Pippa to you and me – isn’t even a royal girlfriend, and yet we’re bombarded with images of her buying coffee, drinking coffee, getting in car, driving car.  Who’d have thought such mundane tasks could be so riveting?  Phone tapping leads to sordid conversations printed word for cringe-inducing word.  Magazines run the ex-girlfriend fashion face-off:  “Who Wore it Best, Mollie or Flo?”  There are the endless comparisons to those who have gone before:  “Is Cressida Harry’s Fergie?  Is Chelsy his Camilla?”  The social media haters are particularly vicious.  Kate doesn’t read any of it. Harry is known for reading all of it.  It’s exhausting just thinking about it, which means that any girl mad enough to date a prince has to be made of some pretty stern stuff.

So far the press has been relatively kind to Miss Bonas, her biggest sin to date being her bird’s nest hair and rather over-zealous attachment to her scrunchies.  But at twenty-four she’s simply too young to get royally hitched with all that would be expected of her.  There’s a reason William waited so long before proposing to Kate.  Of course it is an enormously privileged life, but as glamorous as it may appear, being a royal wife can be a thankless task filled with tremendous pressures, constant scrutiny, and harsh criticism.  For the time being Prince Harry is married to the army.  He’s obviously crazy about Cressida and there have been bold hints to indicate as much, but it doesn’t mean that either of them are ready to take the ultimate plunge…and why the rush?

The country should be grateful to William for waiting to marry.  It gave the couple time to enjoy a long courtship and really get to know each other. It also gave Kate a chance to see if she was prepared to be a part of The Firm for the long haul.  No one wants a return to the marital disasters of the nineties.  We can only hope that Harry is as cautious when it comes to taking a bride.  After all, if we’re going to dole out comparisons, we want Harry’s first and only wife to be his Camilla.

 

Tradition

Tags

Chapel Royal, Christening, Kate, Prince George, Royal Baby, St James's Palace, Tradition, William

“In a break with tradition…” officially wins the prize as the most over used statement this week with regard to Prince George’s christening. In fact for the first time since their wedding, William and Kate broke with their own tradition of breaking tradition by not breaking any of the traditions associated with a royal christening.

The couple chose the Chapel Royal, St. James’s Palace as the venue because, according to an aide, they “liked it”.  Though steeped in history, the chapel holds personal sentiment for William and Kate. Kate was confirmed there prior to her wedding, and Diana lay at rest before the altar in the days leading up to her funeral.  The presence of Richard Chartres, Dean of the Chapel Royal, who was responsible for confirming Kate and delivering the address at the couple’s 2011 wedding, only made the choice of the Chapel Royal more fitting.

The Cambridges’ choice was not, however, a “break with tradition”.  In looking at the heirs who have gone before, William and his father, Prince Charles, were both christened in the Music Room at Buckingham Palace, but a relatively recent two-time occurrence does not a tradition make. The Queen was christened in a private chapel at Buckingham Palace; her uncle, Edward VIII at White Lodge; her father, George VI at Sandringham, and her great-grandfather, George V, at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor. Traditions broken? None.

With regards to the guest list quite the brouhaha erupted over the apparent invitation snub to William’s uncles and aunt, but christenings are often small, intimate gatherings for immediate family. William and Kate invited their siblings just as Charles invited his siblings to William’s service in 1982. This was not a slight on the extended family, but rather in keeping with the way things are done. Princess Margaret, who would at the time have been the equivalent relation as Princess Anne today (great-aunt), did not attend William’s christening. Traditions broken? None.

William and Kate chose seven godparents for Prince George, reportedly a “break with tradition,” and yet Charles has eight, William has six, and Edward I had twelve.  Find me the tradition in that and I’ll find you the key to the Crown Jewels. While the line-up does not, at first glance, appear to be quite as noble as the godparents of old, this bunch has more royal connections and lifelong ties to the royal family than you could shake an orb and sceptre at. Traditions broken? None.

The fact is William and Kate stuck rigidly to all the traditions of a royal christening, many of which date back to the mid-nineteenth century, some even earlier. Prince George, wearing the replica of the 1841 Honiton lace and satin gown, was christened by the Archbishop of Canterbury with water from the River Jordan contained by the silver-gilt lily font designed by Prince Albert…and therein followed in the footsteps of generations of royal babies.  The christening party then retired to Clarence House for tea and a slice of cake cut from a tier of William and Kate’s two-year-old wedding cake (one tradition perhaps worth dispensing with).

While William and Kate are keen to put their own stamp on things and have been much lauded for modernizing the monarchy, it’s clear that some traditions die hard. Tradition is defined as doing something that has been done by the people in a particular group, family, or society for a long time.  Given the vitality the couple has brought to the monarchy, there seems to be a staunch desire for them to break every tradition associated with the Royal Family.  But let’s remember it’s continuity that has kept the monarchy going for well over a thousand years. There’s something to be said for sticking to tradition every now and then, even if it does mean wearing a frilly, lace and satin dress!