Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Princess Charlotte's Spanish Bonnet + Photo Issue at Anmer

Friday, May 8, 2015

Happy Friday. Oh my gosh, what a week! William and Kate have whisked little Prince George and their brand new Princess Charlotte off to Anmer Hall. As you can imagine, the world is hungry for more photos of the Cambridges new addition, to say nothing of our favorite Mr. Chubby Cheeks. Willow privacy fences have been put up along the public roads near Anmer, to begin to screen the house from view.



Just before Charlotte was born, a number of pap shots of George were published in foreign magazines and you can imagine that anyone scoring a photo-set of the Cambridges relaxing in their new Norfolk bolt-hole will be handsomely rewarded. The Palace has contacted the press about the possibility with a very straight-forward warning:


This letter, shared by Peter Hunt of BBC, is preemptive action on the part pf the Palace, but it is not clear to me how useful it will be. I think if a photographer can snag a photo and sell it overseas, they will do so. That being said, we have never gotten any shots of George or Kate at their home in Norfolk, and I think that the changes they made to the property have made it very secure from photos. 



The fashion reports on Miss Princess Charlotte are already coming in. Her precious knit bonnet was a gift from Nanny Maria's mother! She bought it at a luxury store in Spain called Irulea. People reports:
"We had contact with someone who wanted to buy some baby things, but it was all very discreet," says Villar, who owns the shop in the picturesque beach town of San Sebastian. "We don't know who she was. She didn't want to be seen or noticed."

Irulea Facebook

Mrs. Borrallo purchased a number of items, only saying she was sending them to her daughter in London. 
"The person who bought the bonnet bought a set, which includes a jersey and some little slippers, all made from the same wool in the same color," she adds. "They bought various of these sets in both white and in bone, because she said she did not know the gender of the baby."
Whether by accident, or intentionally, Kate put the bonnet on Charlotte backward. I didn't notice, but maybe it will get a recycle the right way? In any event, I just absolutely love that it came from Nanny Maria's mother, and that Kate thanked her so publicly by using it at such a very iconic moment. Sweet, sweet, sweet all around. 



97 comments:

  1. I love that the bonnet was from Nanny Maria's mother! How sweet!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I've purposefully placed my daughter's bonnet on backwards - it actually showed the lace/knit detail better. (not the same bonnet as the Proncess', fir the record!).

    ReplyDelete
  3. ust curious - has it been confirmed that it *was* a gift from her mother, and not something the mother purchased on behalf of the nanny (for her to give to Kate and the baby)?

    Seems a very generous gift from someone probably on a fixed income and who probably doesn't have a close relationship with TRH. They did say she was on the phone with her daughter as she was picking things out.

    Maybe she bought it on her daughter's behalf as she is much less recognizable (and was able to go incognito), whereas Nanny Maria would be spotted?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it was put on backwards by accident. That is the nicest picture I have seen of Anmer, it is an unattractive house. I hope we do get pictures of them. The more they "hide" the bigger price tag and more motive there will be. I know Kate loves photography, I would release a picture or two from her of the kids. I think this would diffuse the issue and keep the pictures very family friendly, in keeping with the Cambridge motto, "We are just like you."

    Could you imagine the reaction to an adorable high chair picture of George? And this would emphasize Kate's role as a Mom, helping silence those that grumble about her "work".

    Abbey

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree with you. Would love to see some home shots

      Delete
    2. Totally agree with you. Would be lovely to see some home shots with the family

      Delete
    3. I have a feeling the first photo(s) will be taken in the garden at Anmer. One of the whole family (Lupo included)...and one of George and Charlotte. Fingers crossed. :)))

      Delete
  5. Excellent point, Am! At any rate, I suspect big brother George will soon be using it for a sling-shot.
    A little pricey for a nanny?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have no idea how much Nanny Maria makes or the financial situation of her family but I am so happy to read that it's from a high end boutique because, quite frankly, it looked itchy to me so I'm assuming the higher quality the softer the yarn.

      Delete
    2. I would imagine that being from the Basque Country, it would be of highest quality and VERY soft for the little Princess :-)
      Old Friend

      Delete
  6. Replies
    1. Absolutely. A lovely gesture from both sides. :)

      Delete
  7. what else does the nanny spend her money on? nice, generous gesture. she couldn't just get one at Walmart now could she?
    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her widowed mother? :) By the way, she is actually called Teresa Turrion, not Maria Borello. Any Spanish readers care to comment on that?

      Delete
    2. I hope the nanny has a life too. Sad if she doesn't.:(

      Delete
    3. I have another theory-maybe the multiple, expensive items were purchased in Spain for Kate, who paid for them-including the liner for the car seat. This may have been an attempt to avoid exactly what happened:the use of her baby for promotional purposes; but then, the blanket was ID'd. Maybe Kate just saw the site on line.
      It would explain something that puzzled me. Why she would choose the nanny's gift over a family member's gift, for example? I could not see
      a gift from a nanny, however fond they are of her, being worn for such a high-profile and photographed occasion
      The cap is adorable on baby Charlotte, whether backwards, upside down, or sideways. For all we know, the nurse
      or PA dressed the baby, while Mum was getting herself together.

      Delete
    4. Are you talking about the blanket in the reveal photo? That was from the same company that did William's. They actually contacted Kate when George was coming and introduced themselves and discussed their history with William. She decided to use them for both babies coming home blankets, just like William.

      Delete
    5. The use of her baby for promotional purposes.... Hmm.... I have never really understood this complaint from the rf. They are some of the most photographed people in the world. Do they honestly think what they wear won't garner attention? Kind of silly, huh? Seems that whenever they get something for free, trips to Mustique (yes, this has been verified by the villa owners in an interview), huge discounts on clothing, free leased Range Rovers and Audis, etc., it is OK. But if anyone else benefits financially, they hate it.

      It always seemed very immature to me. Like a little spoiled child gathering up all the toys. Like most things in life, this also is a two way street.

      Delete
    6. Anoun, I will add a theory to the mix. :) it's also possible that it was just given as a baby gift and Kate was touched and decided to use it on this special day. Imagine how you would feel if you gave this gift...talk about being tickled pink. :) Kate strikes me as the type of person who does not take things for granted, despite her position in life.

      Delete
    7. I meant maybe she saw the cap and other hand-made Spanish items on their online site, not the blanket. The blanket's maker was identified by KP so I can't really say that identifying the cap's source was any more promotion.
      I hope this clears up what I meant.

      Delete
    8. I think Kate used the bonnet because she loved it and as a gesture to honor their nanny. Nannies that work that closely to a family become like a beloved aunt.

      Delete
    9. Royalfan, I see your point, but..it wasn't just the cap. There were several outfits, apparently, as well as what was called a cot-liner,which was actually the car seat liner, I believe. It sounds more like a mother getting ready for
      her baby than a nanny's gift. If it had just been the cap, then, yes. I do agree that Catherine seems to be the very
      sort of person who would honor a valued, perhaps cherished care taker of her children that way.

      Delete
    10. Anoun, I agree, Too much ítems for a gift , much better it was a request. And yes nanny´s name is Mª Teresa Turrión, María Borallo might be her mother..
      An old friend

      Delete
    11. By the way, George´s sweater was designed by a Basque too, Amaia Arrieta.

      Delete
    12. "old frriend" I assume you are a Spanish commenter and are aware of the nanny's correct form of name. I
      appreciate your in-put. Thank-you! Do you think George's sweater was bought from the same source as the
      other items, such as the cap? If so, nice that George had something special to wear, too. No doubt his Mum's
      idea.

      Delete
    13. No, George's seawater is from Basque Country but another shop.

      Delete
    14. Maybe nanny's mum, bought more things in other shops the same day.

      Delete
    15. Possible all the items were gifts or she picked somethings up for Catherine and gifted her the hat and sweater.
      Regardless all the items are gorgeous, at least from the photos. I love items like the hat and sweater. Ali

      Delete
  8. Faith from MassachusettsMay 8, 2015 at 5:33 PM

    Lovely gesture to have Princess Charlotte wear the gifted bonnet for her most famous photo ever. I do wish it had been on the correct way as it is really beautiful. I thought I read somewhere that Nanny Maria is from an aristocratic family , so maybe not such an exorbitant gift. Of course, that doesn't mean they are wealthy. I agree with Abbey regarding photographs. I think a few " day in the life of" photos would go along way toward assuring their privacy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know, now I wonder what it looks like when worn correctly!:)

      Tessa

      Delete
    2. Me too! I was wondering if she had the matching booties and sweater on under the blanket as well. Would have loved to have seen the whole set on the princess. Btw, Tessa is one of my all time favorite names! I think it is really beautiful.

      Delete
    3. The nanny is not from an aristocratic family, middle class only, her father was an engineer and her mother a housewife.

      Delete
    4. @Anon 4:44. Yes, her father was an engineer and the mom a housewife but according to this Telegraph article of an aristocratic background . Of course it is
      The Telegraph but that's where I read it
      . http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-george/10713026/Norland-nanny-from-Spains-society-pages-for-Prince-George.html


      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-george/10713026/Norland-nanny-from-Spains-society-pages-for-Prince-George.html

      Delete
    5. OK,
      1. She is 44 years old, not 30.
      2. Her name is MªTeresa Turrión (Borallo is her mother´s surname, in Spain people have two surnames and women keep hers even after getting married).
      3. The Spanish media hasn´t said anything about an aristocracy family so I don´t know exactly.In fact her mother doens´t appear on ¡Hola! magazine.
      4. She is an expert in own defense and rapid driving and very religous.

      Delete
    6. Well, I did imply that I wasn't sure of the validity but thanks for clearing it up :-)

      Delete
  9. I agree, releasing photos periodically themselves is the way to go. I'm an huge royal fan/follower of all the royal families in the world and its always stuck out to me that the Swedish royal family is very good at this. They release at least 2 either personal family photos or professional ones every 2-3 months and of course for special occasions of their little Princess Estelle. The public and the press have regular updates into her little life and so there literally is no paparazzi thats willing to go to the trouble. Kate being a photographer herself, she could take nice family photos without interrupting her children's lives and I can guarantee that the press interest would die down substantially:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Its so hard to compare George with other royal children because the other monarchies combined only receive 1/10th of the global attention the British receive.

      Most people around the world have no idea who Estelle is. Some photos were recently released with her on a bike and no media besides the Swedish talked about them. The only way I knew is because I follow the royal forums. Even the Daily Mail who follows the foreign royals sometimes didn't have an article about them. So obviously the press is not going to spend financial resources stalking her when they wouldn't be able to sell the photos to any foreign press.

      When the Christmas photos of George were released it trended on twitter immediately. The photos were in many magazines around the world like US, France, Germany, Australia, Canada. I just don't see any of the other royal children on different magazines around the world ever .

      This theory that if they released more photos that the press would leave them alone IMO is false. Look at celebrities and the opposite is true in fact. The celebs who put themselves out more are the ones get the most attention. The Kardashians are very public about everything yet the paparazzi follows them everywhere. Miley Cyrus is always posting personal pictures on twitter and brings it more attention to herself. The more private celebs you see a lot less of.

      There is no such thing for celebs as bad press. Whether people love you or hate you all press means you are being talked about and are relevant. THE ROYALS DO NOT NEED THIS. They do not need anymore media attention. If they are constantly releasing pictures it would produce some nice stories but probably way more negative ones. The haters will come out even more.

      Its better that they only put focus on their official lives and keep everything else they do private. No one wants a repeat of what was going on during the Diana years where most of the focus was on the royal families personal lives. Its best that they keep the children out of peoples mind at much as they can.

      Delete
    2. I would love to see some family photos, but I'm not sure it would reduce the press interest. I'm just thinking about when William was little, they seemed to release quite a lot of photos of him, and the interest was immense!

      Delete
    3. Julia from LeominsterMay 9, 2015 at 9:01 AM

      It might not stop international press interest but it would give the couple more support in barring paps and negotiating privacy with the official press. At this point George has been so rarely seen, that any photo of him is news, especially in his native land (where interest in him is also more muted - and so some attention is important.) Reasonable release of photos would reduce interest in poorer pap photos in my opinion. There will always be camera shots - from private citizens if nothing else - but they wouldn't be worth as much.

      There have always been authorised photos of royal children - it's not something new. George is a future king. His childhood will never be the same as other children and the distinction between private and public life will always be blurred - especially at the moment when there is little public life on the part of his parents.

      As for all the talk of avoiding the "Diana" years - it is so much nonsense. Charles and Diana had a bad marriage had there been a good marriage, they would be a power couple today and there would be no issue. Publicity didn't destroy the marriage - although both used it to their advantage.

      Charles may have been jealous of Diana - although he would love the attention she brought him if he could get it today - but what destroyed the marriage was that he simply didn't love her and was in love with someone else and this was something she wouldn't accept unlike royal wives in the past. The press mainly reported on her official engagments until after the separation when her life became much more erratic.

      And anyone who assumes there aren't tabloids and tabloid interest in Scandinavia - hasn't read Se og Hor - some of the gossip about Scandinavian royals has been much more vicious than any about the British and papped photos just as graphic. Victoria knows exactly what she's doing in presenting Estelle in a controlled way. There may not be the same international interest but there are still paps.

      Delete
    4. I wonder if we really want to get into name-calling. Not just labeling the royals- William and Catherine specifically-
      but calling a poster's (anon 11:51) reasoned comments "nonsense" does not seem worthy of this forum. Sometimes it is a good idea to review one's long-held opinions and arguments in order to see if they still fit
      the realities of today For example, up to a week ago, the Cambridges had nearly constant media exposure, through their own press office, as well as paps. That reflects current reality. Not the "little public life on the part of his (George's) parents" that was referred to.. It is also wise to actually respond to a comment, rather than just enumerate one's "talking points." For example, I don't believe anon 11:51 mentioned anything about C&D's marriage. Bringing up their
      courting of the press does not relate to anon's remarks. It is the opposite: in bold caps, the remark was made
      that the royals don't need that kind of publicity-private time photos. As far as bringing up Estelle to
      compare to George-Estelle's mother is the next monarch of Sweden. In UK, William's father is the next monarch,
      There are plenty of pictures of William about.
      Finally-the mention of the existance of Swedish paps and the "vicious" comments:then, all those photo-ops that Victoria arranges are useless after all.

      Delete
    5. I beg to differ. Talk of the Diana years is not "nonsense". I am not aware of anyone here blaming publicity for the breakdown of C&D's marriage. The point is that Diana's face was on the cover of magazines and newspapers every single day of her royal life and I doubt very much that W&K would want their daughter to become the current "Princess Diana" to line the pockets of editors around the world. And it goes without saying that it would not be appreciate by certain members of the RF.

      Delete
    6. Julia- I have responded to your 9:01 am , 9/5 comment. (that would be 3am in UK) I posted it at the same time as I did my 01:50 comment
      above. I put a great deal of thought into my remarks. I presented my argument and my reasons. I was upset about name-calling being used ("nonsense" for example), but otherwise, I believe I made my points calmly,rationally,
      and without name-calling. It was no more critical than other comments that were posted. Hopefully, it is all a
      matter of where the comments were cut off and my comment will appear in the next batch.

      Delete
    7. Julia from LeominsterMay 9, 2015 at 7:09 PM

      I'm sorry if you thought my remarks too harsh Anonymous, (they were general remarks on the subject and not directed only at your posting), I look forward to your reply but I will do you the compliment to suggest that perhaps you are much younger than me and don't remember the early Diana years. It was a time of remarkably positive publicity for the royal family and much higher approval numbers than exist for the family today. Talk of republicanism was almost unheard of except in the fringes and work by all family members was much more widely reported because of the widespread interest in matters royal.

      As many of the articles were about Diana's work as her private life. It was for her work that she was so admired. She was involved with, and brought attention to, an enormous amount of good causes. I still have many clippings from that period about her viist to AIDS patients and her work with numerous other charities from Relate to Help the Aged. Unfortunately, the focus on her work is easily forgotten after the scandal of the marriage breakdown when attention did turn inevitably and sadly to the royal's private lives.

      Today it has become common, not just in this posting or this blog, to speak of wanting to avoid "the Diana years." Certainly, no one would ever want an awful year like 1997 again. But personally, I wouldn't speak of the publicity of the early Diana years as something necessarily to be avoided. The work of the royal family as a whole drew more attention and was much more appreciated and better understood. I would love to see a return to that kind of overall understanding of royal duties but don't see at the moment, how it can happen.

      I can't agree that the royal situation is so strong today that positive publicity generated by the release of photographs and building a strong relationship with the established press is unnecessary or harmful. Where there is a void, the press will fill it with articles such as appear in the Daily Mail today. (I won't use the word nonsense again but that's what I thought with regards to that that article.) Negative publicity can never be completely avoided in public life but offering opportunities for positive publicity can help balance and even negate the gossip in the tabloids.

      As for the Swedish family, they have received very strong favourable publicty for Estelle. The unpleasnatness I referred to concerned others - in the past about the Danish crown prince in particular. Fortunately, positive publicty outweighs the negative. For instance, when there were false hints about the state of the Norwegian crown prince's marriage - even in the respected press - the release of family photos stopped those rumours almost immediately. At the end of the day, the most important thing for any royal family, large or small, is what their own subjects think about them.

      Delete
    8. Julia from LeominsterMay 10, 2015 at 5:17 AM

      I don't see your response anon - I wrote the above one last night. (The original comment was in the afternoon I think so not sure how things post here - but I'll keep looking.

      Delete
    9. When I suggested Kate take some family pictures and releasing a few.... I meant one or two several times a year, certainly not "constantly". When people are complaining, as they are with George, that the little prince has been pictured and seen more overseas than actually in Britian, there is a problem. Since they had Mr. Middleton take the first family picture in a very relaxed setting, I think this would be in keeping with their preferred style.


      Abbey

      Delete
    10. Julia from LeominsterMay 10, 2015 at 3:20 PM

      I agree. Birthdays, Christmas and holidays (in exchange for further privacy) would seem like possible times - and have been used elsewhere. The same when school starts. It's really just a bit more than they do now. We used to see William and Harry when their father played polo too - it resulted in some charming candids. Kate has brought George once but she doesn't attend as often as she did before they were married.

      Personally, I don't there is too much to be read into car snaps. Michael Middleton may have had busimess or not wanted to stay as long as his wife. Or he may have thought letting the Prince of Wales be the first grandfather to visit was tactful. And it's a reasonably long drive to Norfolk. Kate may have been tired and more comfortable in the front seat.

      Delete
    11. Julia,
      Diana as daily mobbed by the press, even before her engagement--in fact from the time she was first seen at Balmoral and it continued until the day she died.
      Catherine has had the same problem with paps blocking the entrance to her own home. At least she was a bit luckier than Diana, as the relationship was strong before the press found out.
      It often seemed to me that the press were practically ordering Charles to marry Diana.
      "Sky" have an interview with Prince William today--interesting that he says he and William both think they need to have a job now to make them acceptable in their future positions.

      Delete
    12. Maggie, can you post a link to that interview?

      Delete
    13. Here is the link to the interview: http://news.sky.com/video/1481623/harry-on-life-love-and-the-army
      I don't think he said that he and William need to work to be "acceptable" in the future, but they both want to work and earn a wage to be more relevant, to have the experience so the public appreciates that they have both worked amongst them. That's what I heard in the interview anyway.

      Delete
    14. It will be on Sky's internet page. I saw it on TV---in fact almost every hour today

      Delete
    15. Julia from LeominsterMay 11, 2015 at 2:05 PM

      As Jane has noted, the interview was with Harry. He said he and William wish to earn a wage and work with "normal people to keep us sane...". The problem is how meaningful that is if you actually don't support yourself on that wage and live a life comparable to those "normal" people, most of whom have to survive on their salary and don't have country estates and staff. I think there are excellent intentions - and appreciate Harry's wish not to let his royal duties put a burden on his fellow officers but there is a fine line between really learning how people live and Marie Antoinette playing at being a milkmaid.

      I don't care if Kate sits in the front seat or not - I'm sure she's a fine involved mum, but I was concerned that it was said she didn't socialise with the other wives up in Anglesey and didn't join the wives club. There were no "normal" people from that time among George's godparents. William and Kate have already had a lot of experience living "normally" from university on - I do think the public are starting to want to see a prince and princess at work. But hopefully William will gain from the experience an appreciation of how people live - and how prvileged and protected he is from that real world even as he has other responsibilites most of us don't.

      Already William and Kate aren't living like any normal helicopter pilot does or facing the concerns of ordinary life. If William (and Harry) are to get meaningful experience - they must really get to know people on a social level - not just in William's case, fly and then go home to hang out with his rich friends in the neighbourhood. Without this, he would be better on taking on royal duties as increasingly there is less understanding of what that work really is - and with that lack of understanding comes questions as to why the royal family exists.

      As for the press and Diana - all royal girlfriends past and present have been hounded - it has become almost a rite of passage and is perhaps viewed as such. It rules out those who come to see the life isn't for them. But I don't think the press chose Diana - there was just as much attention to some earlier girlfriends. I think there was growing pressure on Charles from his family to settle down - some say it came from his father. And my own suspicion - and I admit it is only that - is that Camilla encouraged him to choose Diana -seeing her as young and impressionable, not one of his older more experienced girlfriends who might have told Camilla where to take herself off to. I thought it interesting at the time that Mountbatten's granddaughter refused Charles. Maybe she realised his heart was elsewhere.

      Delete
    16. Leo, are you calling Harry a milkmaid?

      Delete
    17. I don't know how much more real life you can get than the front lines of battle in Afghanistan, Or assisting
      those in life or death circumstances. It is not the money that gives them insight into their co-worker's lives-it
      is shared experiences on the job. The Princes are making an effort . They're young. Let's give it a chance to see
      where it goes, rather than judge them before they really have had a chance to get started on their jobs.

      We have no idea what they do or with whom they socialise in their private lives. All we know is the part that
      is shown us in media or in press releases.We don't expect the Queen to lift a pint in the neighborhood pub after an
      award presentation or ribbon-cutting and then go home to a middle-class dwelling (although she might enjoy the pub part)
      and we shouldn't expect Williiam and Harry to neglect their friends and be buddies with co-workers after hours.

      Delete
    18. Glad to see you back Leo!

      Delete
    19. Glad to see your back Leo!

      Delete
    20. Good to see you back mkleinfeldt. You always make so much sense.
      Old Friend

      Delete
  10. While the gift is beautiful and certainly generous, because it is a bonnet and not a sweater or something larger, it helps keep the cost down. So, you can give a luxury gift that is adorable and still within budget. And it is not so small that it is silly, just very appropriate. Perfect gift.

    Does anyone know how much it actually cost? I'm in the U.S., but as I have said before, Brits and Europeans make wonderful handmade items that are amazing and very affordable. As this is from a luxury shop, I'm sure it is expensive, but maybe not as expensive as we think. Would be interesting to know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is also the fact that British Pound Sterling fares very well against the US dollar and the Euro in Spain. The last time we were shopping in Spain I felt like I was stealing from them the prices were so good!

      Delete
    2. The bonnet costs about 50 €, which is expensive in Spain.

      Delete
    3. I agree Anonymous 09.12. Whilst it may be less expensive to a visitor, it is a big expense to a local. We must always appreciate this. So were it a present from their beloved Nanny, it would be VERY special indeed, and we could better understand why Kate would let little Charlotte wear it. Besides it would be the most beautiful of ALL bonnets, so she SHOULD wear it. And as Anoun said, any way frontwards, backwards, sidewards, upside down... the pretty Princess would always look GORGEOUS!! But of course the people who own the shop would understandably prefer the bonnet to be worn the way God intended :-)
      Old Friend

      Delete
    4. In fact the owners of the shop did say nothing, they were asked by the foreign media and the answered yes. People in Basque Country are very shy and quiet. They are a bit worried also, their shop has more than a century, their grandmother is 90 years old and visits the establishment every day.

      Delete
  11. If anyone is a knitter, there is already a pattern for the little bonnet. http://www.ravelry.com/patterns/library/a-bonnet-for-every-little-princess

    And, as someone who has used lots of pilot caps on my own babes, often times the neck opening is a better size for a newborn, who has an itty-bitty face, rather than the "proper" way round, which can be too large. So perhaps, they just liked the way this looked better.

    ~martha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ooh, thanks for this!!

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the link to the pattern. Funny how this pattern shows the hat the way Charlotte wore it. I sort of like it better this way than how is was visualized in the Spanish boutique pictures. It looks like a baseball to me in that photo ;-). Maybe ok if worn by a boy.
























      Delete
    3. Eva B. Boys don´t wear that kind of Bonnets, it is for girls. Very classic also.

      Delete
  12. It is possible that the letter is the formality needed to take legal action if the request is violated. As to them being upset about their children being used for commercial gain, it makes perfect sense to me. The adults know what their world is, they know what wearing certain clothes means for the designers or shops. Diana was specifically an ambassador for British fashion. Little children, however, are just that. They are not public figures no matter who their parents are. I respect the privacy William & Kate want for their children. Heaven knows William experienced just the opposite including long lens photos of he and Harry in Scotland while they were mourning the loss of their beloved mother. It's a complete invasion of privacy and I was so horrified when those photos came out I haven't bought a tabloid in the US or UK ever since - 18 years!

    On Charlotte's bonnet, and possible other items, coming from Spain...I am thrilled! I adore Spain and love the quality of items I've purchased there in the past. That Christening gown in the shop photo is beautiful - even though I know the royal babies wear a traditional gown - I hope someone sees this photo and buys it for their own use. I love baby fashion!

    ReplyDelete
  13. When George was a few days old and they were leaving to Bucklyberry, Kate was in the backseat with him, very attentive. This time, baby is a few days old, leaving for Anmer, Kate is in the front seat, nanny is in the backseat with the very newborn baby. (Yes, I totally believe the nanny was in the backseat.) And most likely George. Kate isn't sitting by any of the children. Yes, she is with her husband, but I think this is a time that the kids take priority. And especially, the baby, who at the time was only a few days old.

    I was very surprised by this. I have read that it is about a three hour car ride from London to Anmer. She seems to let the nanny take over a lot more of the parenting role than I ever thought she would. The nanny can be there to help, but I would have been sitting with the baby.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmm... I don't see any evidence of Kate allowing the nanny to take over. If William and Kate are traveling with their two children, I'm not sure a different seating arrangement was possible. Should nanny sit in the front with William and Kate in the back between the children? :) And as someone else pointed out, I'm sure they left KP at a time that was ideal for traveling with little ones (both children calm and/or sleeping).

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Agree with you royalfan. Plus there is no visible evidence that the nanny was even in the car. This is a second child and almost every mother is much more relaxed the second time around. Even if the nanny was in the car - that is her job.

      Delete
    4. Yes, Kate should have sat in the back with her newborn baby. Don't understand the smiley face when commenting on the nanny sitting by William... I'm sure the nanny sits beside William all the time. Your point is?

      With the nanny in the back with the kids, she will be caring for them during the trip. With a days old baby, that's sad. I expected more from Kate. That is certainly having the nanny taking over.

      This is a no-brainer call. Let's be honest and fair, not just whitewash behavior

      Delete
    5. Good points, royalfan.

      Delete
    6. The bonding with child will not be impacted by the Mother and Father alone or together sitting apart from the child for long car rides. I do not believe it indicates anything about Kate. Frankly I think it shows a very healthy natural state of Mother and child. Ali

      Delete
    7. In the largest Range Rovers, which I'm sure they use, there is plenty of room for two car seats and an adult. I don't know any Mom who puts a newborn baby in the backseat without an adult, if she has a choice. I'm sure the nanny was back there.

      Delete
    8. I have no idea if the nanny was back there but plenty of women drive around wth their newborns securely tucked into the car seat in the back of a car. You put your baby down at some point and are not right there with them from the beginning. Cribs, baby carriers, cradles are all used so you can have baby near by but not being held by you while you both sleep or you get some work done.If the baby has an issue you pull over and tend to him/her. The difference between the front and back seat for the adult is a matter of what 30 to 60 seconds to pull over and help, less the time than if the baby is in the cradle in the bedroom while you are in the bathroom:) to get to them. I would assume the nanny as there only because you would not have to pull over to tend, much more convenient for everyone if you can manage it.

      Delete
    9. Most mothers do not have nannies and actually drive quite happily all over the place with their babies and kids in the back seat, safely strapped in. This poses no problem what so ever.
      Seeing that Kate and William HAVE a nanny, she would of course sit in the back with the children. The nanny is employed to help care for the children, so that is what she will do IF they all travel together.
      Kate is now a Mum "second time around", much more knowing, relaxed and able.
      Kate and William are terrific parents, it is easy to see that :-)
      Old Friend

      Delete
    10. With all due respect, Anon 6:45, there's been zero evidence of Kate being anything but a loving and devoted mother. The "no brainer call" here, to use your phrase, is that some folks have taken advantage of the time Jane has been devoting to her other blog to promote their own brand of "joy and good will".

      Delete
    11. I have safely buckled all 3 of my newborn babies in the backseat while driving home from the hospital and every other time I have driven around with the children in the car. This is perfectly normal and safe. Has anyone seen the Jimmy Fallon Annoying British Correspondent video?? I died laughing.

      Can you imagine being constantly speculated about and criticized every single step you take. I would go completely mad.

      https://youtu.be/SKFQqSC_MnA

      Delete
  14. I don't think the Nanny was in the car with them. Not enough room with two car seats. I think she was in the back car with the protection officers. They could have always stopped along the way to deal with fussy children, but as Royalfan says their timing was probably coinciding with nap time. Nevertheless, again some make the choice to criticize with little evidence of support!

    JLN

    ReplyDelete
  15. Really not sure why people who make such negative comments are following this page. Personally I will never understand how some can make such assumptions and pass judgements on Kate as a Mother over this issue of being in the front seat. That is quite the stretch!!! I have personally travelled with my children ....infant included in thr backseat and I in the front. All three of my children grew into fine adults and were not 'damaged' by my 'lack of mothering and bonding' due to a few rides in the back seat. I am with the others in that they probably left at naptime... smart thinking when travelling such a distance. To think otherwise is just ridiculous and if I dare say.... a tad trollish. JMHO ~ Nina

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How true. Every bit of it! :))

      Delete
    2. It's going to be a long summer. Clearly some are looking for issues to pick at. If that's where you want to go, how about this? Kate sat in the front to get out of dodge (rather than have nanny pictured in the front seat with William, thereby creating a firestorm of another kind) and then when they cleared London, William pulled over and she switched to sit in the back. Since there is absolutely no evidence one way or the other, this scenario holds just as much water. My point is, this is a non-issue and a rather strange thing to speculate about. In my opinion.

      Delete
    3. Exactly Jane in Canada!!!
      ~ Nina

      Delete
    4. Jane in Canada,

      No one is going to think that William and the nanny have anything going on except a warm, professional relationship, no matter where they sit in the car. That's absurd.

      Delete
    5. Anon 11:49
      I do not think that is what Jane in Canada meant at all!!! I believe she just meant that it would give the press yet another tidbit to chatter about... as in 'Where is Kate'? 'Is she ill'? ' etc etc.. anything out of the ordinary they will run with. Kate sat exactly where she should. Actually she can sit where she likes.... front..back.. another car.. who are we to say? We do not know the dynamics. As to being absurd? It is absird for anyone to even suggest that 'idea' and certainly Jane did not mean to imply that at all. So say I anyway. I have read many of her comments here and she is far from going that 'direction'. Ridiculous to even bring up frankly. Of course NO ONE would think anything of the nanny as the 'co-pilot'.... I will give you that....absurb.
      JMHO
      ~ Nina

      Delete
  16. I think the issue is that Charlotte is a newborn, less than a week old, which many are not addressing. And Kate had the opportunity to sit in the backseat with the newborn and she didn't. But the nanny is in the backseat to tend to the baby. Most Moms with a days old baby would want to sit in the back. Every time we see Kate, the nanny is right there. Even going to swim lessons with George! It is crazy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I beg to differ anon 10:34.
      If the baby (newborn or not) is settled, it is not an issue for the mother to ride in the front. Baby is safely strapped in, and the quick hop to KP is certainly not a 4WD adventure.. It has no link whatsoever with the quality of parenting.
      Where would you get that idea from?
      In the upper-class circles where William and Kate reside it is normal for Nanny to go everywhere with the family.
      When I was in my 20's I spent some time working as a nanny with an aristocratic family in Europe.
      I went everywhere with the family, and I always sat in the back of the Range Rover with the little ones.
      I travelled with them, ate meals with them, went to the pool with them... you name it I was there with the family.
      Yet the parents were constantly engaged with the children, and they were extremely well brought up.
      The children were not spoilt or allowed any bad behaviour. I think the fact that I could spend time focussing on the urgent needs of the children; wipe snotty noses, take to the toilet, hold a jacket, pull out umbrellas;... actually meant that the parents could focus on being parents and instil good behaviour in the children. The parents were incredibly strict and expected perfect table manners, perfect speech and politeness at all times. What those parents wanted to achieve, and DID in fact achieve, was impressive. These children were simply superb and had a loving and secure childhood, yet they were not smothered, spoilt or ignored by anyone.
      That is all I can go by, but it made sense at the time, and I think it would make sense today.
      And of course we do not know anything about the security issues that the royal family face.
      Old Friend

      Delete
    2. I'm glad you chimed in, Old Friend. The scenario you describe is exactly what I believe to be the case with W&K. Nanny is there to help...not to replace... :))

      Delete
    3. Indeed royalfan, indeed. Help, not replace.
      Old Friend

      Delete
  17. I have two under three. I sometimes sit in the back with the kids while my husband drives. With a baby only a few days old, I would be sitting in the back with her. I think that is a lot of the concern, Charlotte is so little. Kate could pick to sit in the back with Charlotte or in the front.

    I am a SAHM and I have a babysitter four afternoons a week. I do think we see Kate with the nanny a lot. Even runs from KP to Buck House for swim lessons, there is the nanny. That's the one I can't figure out. What exactly is she there for?

    You hear about George being with Carole a lot, but I have never heard or seen the nanny with them.

    I think Kate is surprised at how exhausting children can be. Since she has never worked full-time, being a mom is the first demandingly rigorous thing she has had to tackle. Going from thinking that she needed no help (aside from family) to taking a nanny for a swim run with one child, that's a huge change. A large learning curve indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I would love to have a nanny on a swim run. It would mean I'd get to swim too.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I had 3 at swim lessons... heck while doing everything. It is difficult and it would habe been wonderful to have some help. Again.. we do know the dynamics. Just maybe Kate and the Nanny are close... maybe Kate enjoys her company. They are both alone with the children. Why shouldn't they be warm. If Kate is not oit and about because she is home with George (before Charlotte) everyone complains that she is not doing her duty. When she is home being a Mom and bonding she is 'lazy' because she has a Nanny in tow. She cannot win. I love how many make comments as if their own style is the end all of how to do everything as a parent. As women we should not be judging anyone. If anyone of us could have some help now and then it would be or would have been glorious! Stop bashing Kate because she has a luxury that YOU don't have... and wish you did. I sense more and more as this thread continues just a touch of 'envy'.... 'green'..... if this is so very bothersome to you naysayers why in the world are you following Kate? Or the BRF? Again I say.... trolling... they are everywhere.
    Nina

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nina, all good points....and good questions. :)

      Delete
    2. Also, as Anon 10/5 @ 10:57 pointed out, Nanny is trained as a PPO. Perhaps that is why she rides in the car to swimming etc.."The nanny is always with her." Perhaps that's why.To act as protection, she must be in proximity to the children. Again, we have no idea what threats there are or what adjustments have been made to protect the
      children. A three second film blurb has provided the basis for impugning Catherine's mothering skills and endless speculation. That's all it is. Such evidence would be laughed out of a court of law; yet some are willing to judge
      and convict her, bringing up as proof events that were speculations by the tabloid press and their followers to begin with.
      My intention is not to re-start this discussion; rather to slow the hair-trigger reaction of some bloggers and allow some time for thought before posting.

      Delete
    3. And...considering Kate was 9 months pregnant, it really is difficult to begrudge her having the nanny along for a swim lesson. Kate was/is in great shape, but who was better prepared to run after George? :)

      Delete
  20. I don't think a newborn baby cares who is sitting by them as long as there is milk and security. A car ride is not motherhood. Some of these speculations are absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The hat is not on backwards. The stocking stitch casing for the cord is at the front,so that the hat can be tied around the head, not around the neck. The garter stitch rows are short-rowed to snug in at the sides and back of the head.

    ReplyDelete

The rules for commenting are simple: be polite. Please be respectful of the BRF/Middletons, even in criticism; please be respectful of your fellow readers, even in disagreement. Vulgarity will disqualify a comment.

Debate is welcome, direct and personal insults are not. Topics we tend to avoid here: "does Kate work enough?" and "Is Kate too skinny?" Everything is subject to approval.

I (Jane Barr) moderate all comments. If a comment is live, I approved it. If you find something offensive, or think my approval was an error, please email me at princesskateblog(at)gmail.com.

At times, an acceptable comment just goes missing. If you felt your comment should have been approved, but did not show up within five hours, again, pop an email to the above address.

Happy chatting!