Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Nanny's Name Revealed as Kensington Palace Complains About Park Pictures

Thursday, March 20, 2014

It was inevitable that the name of George's new nanny would be released, and today Maria Teresa Turrion Borrallo was the talk of the town as Kensington Palace confirmed her identity, remarked that William and Kate are delighted she is joining their team, and asked for privacy for the nanny...which, of course, was immediately ignored. 

Ms. Turrion Borrallo studied at Norland College, a prestigious institution founded in the late 1800's that trains nannies for the rich and famous.  The Daily Mail reports:
The institution's students are known for their distinctive uniforms and are schooled in all aspects of looking after youngsters during their three-year degree course. The training costs £36,000 in total and the college in Bath recently added martial arts training and stunt driving to its curriculum to cater for modern clients - many of whom are celebrities and the super-rich. Tae Kwon-Do is believed to be the martial art of choice - which has been specially adapted to include how to dodge a potential kidnapped with a pram.
Nannies are also trained in how to deal with paparazzi and are taken to Castle Combe Racing Circuit in Wiltshire to perfect their driving skills and learn how to drive at high speed in any weather condition. Driving away from pursuing photographers being the main reason for the training.
I seriously have no idea if that last comment was tongue in cheek, but I sincerely hope so. The last thing I would want would be an overly zealous nanny with a few "advanced driving" courses under her belt, using tactical evasion driving skills to shake the paparazzi. Have people forgotten Paris 1997? 

The upside to all this is that William and Kate won't have to cart George to Tae Kwon-Do class; they can handle that in-house now. Which will cut down on media exposure and hopefully reduce the need for all that tactical driving. 

In what is a possibly deliberately delayed reaction, Kensington Palace is now complaining about the pictures taken of George (or I should say his pram) and Nanny Maria just before William and Kate headed to the Maldives. According to royal reporter Peter Hunt, KP say says the photos were "taken in contravention of Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces Regulations 1997." So, I looked at said regulations wondering if there were some by-law about photographing strangers--and if so, why the palace hadn't trotted this law out a little earlier in Kate's defense. The infraction is in this list:

I quit at (9) No playing music in the park? How entirely unromantic. Whoever wrote this law has not been to Paris.  Lest you think the photographer was playing an accordion to lure the nanny in range of his lens like some kind of odd Pied Piper, let me set the record straight. KP has turned this situation over to the Royal Parks Police citing...(1), interfering with plants and fungus! Is it the first day of spring or April 1st? 

I guess the photog was hiding in a fungus bush...

[Update: I am disappointed happy to say that the law that was broken was not in fact the fungus, but #18

Fungus would have been more fun.  What isn't entirely clear to me--as we have been discussing in the comments--is why this hasn't been used in Kate's case. My guess based on little information, is that the paparazzi shots of Kate make a delicate battle that they only go to the mat on in certain instances, but that they are trying to crack down early for the nanny to hold the line there. That is also why I said that I think the timing of the nanny's name and this complaint is deliberate. Other theories welcome.. ]

Well, you now know what I know and are...up-to-date with Kate! 


  1. The important aspect of the by-laws was at #18

    Written permission required to: (18) take photographs of still or moving subjects for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a body of persons whether corporate or unincorporate.

    So you can take pictures of your friends and family but not other people for business purposes (ie making money)

    1. If true, (not that I doubt your veracity) that would make more sense. The fungus thing was hilariously odd. I will have to ask the reporter why he said it was the fungus, but I still don't understand why they are calling foul on these grounds now? WOuldn't you think they would have cited this law some time ago to protect Kate? She is photographed in the KP park all the time! And you know the photographers make a lot on those shots...

      If it is (18), then all I can assume is that they feel it is too much to police photos of Kate, but want to crack down on photos of the many, who is certainly more of a private person than Kate.

      I will dig a little more into it...

    2. interested to see what you dig up - beware toadstools!

      I think the reporter was being sarcastic for the very reasons you say - rather late in the day to do this etc.

      Only one paper in the UK printed the picture of the nanny in the park and they haven't signed up to the self regulating Press rules. KP shouldn't be so hard on the UK press when its the o/seas and paps that cause the issues.

    3. Hahaha! I have a brown thumb...
      I think he was being facetious. Apparently the fungus line made an impression on him, too.
      I agree, the UK media is pretty respectful of the royals and the rules. I think this must be a bid to make a point about the nanny's privacy.

  2. Jane another great post. Now let's hope she & her family are left alone. And when she is out with George that she has alot of security so the media too will leave her alone. I bet W&K will make sure that they both are well protected.

  3. Interested CanadianMarch 20, 2014 at 3:55 PM

    I am very impressed by William and Kate's choice of nanny. Norland nannies are really well-trained. And her age--mid-to-late-thirties-- is perfect. She's not old enough to intimidate a first-time mother in her early thirties, but she seemingly has a wealth of experience to share. Aside from that, she brings two invaluable things to the table; she has been trained outside of Royal circles, always a bonus, if Will and Kate want a grounded child, and, she is hopefully fluent in Spanish. The latter may result in a British prince who is fluent in two or more languages--finally the British Royal Family may be catching up to mainland European royals, none of whom are raised to be unilingual.

    All in all, this is great news, with the potential to be very forward-thinking indeed, provided, of course, that Marie was Will and Kate's first choice, and no one else's.

  4. Great post and that quick. Jane - are you sleeping with at least a pager next to you when news come in?
    I think they haven't complained earlier as it depends on whether you have a permission or not! Probably the fotographer of Kate had such sort of permission and the later taking images of the Nanny didn't. You can only take action and complain when rules are broken. As you can make real money with those images maybe the last photo was not even by an accredited photographer ...
    But I am not really astonished about the rules as you even need to be carefull by posting any sort of image from others on your own facebook account! So why should this differ? If you see Kate or the Nanny and take an image for your own memories it will all be fine but making money out of it - I can envision the flood of people lurking around in the park for just ONE purpose...

  5. Hi Jane what an interesting post! Full of all the juicy details I love! I can't believe the training is that much I'm paying the same for my degree. It can't really be true they teach them on a racing course how to dodge paparazzi, that must be an exaggeration.
    I don't kp should complain about every photo taken they were in a public park.

  6. I suspect that KP are making it plain that though they have not complained too much about photos where Prince George is not visible in the pram, they will do so if he is sitting up and the obvious subject of the photograph.
    If they were to get away with tha, the poor child could never be taken outside.
    The by-laws were put there for a purpose and should be obeyed.

  7. I had the same gut reaction to the line about driving away from pursuing photographers. And rule #18 is interesting in light of social media--twitter & facebook & instagram photos will be all over the place, just not official news media. Or, that's the progression--first on twitter, then in the DM.

  8. It is very astonishing that the D&D of Cambridge could not find a nanny from the UK for their baby. Are they purposesly trying to insult the people of the UK? They don't seem very in touch with their people.

    1. Well, I don't know that is is meant to be a slight to the British people. I presume it came down to qualifications and personality fitting in well. It won't be bad to have the heir to the throne proficient in a second language, either. I think that has been mentioned here already, and I think it is massively important.


Due to a number of factors, I no longer host a comment section.