Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

New Picture of Princess Charlotte with Nanny Maria & Prince George

Sunday, September 27, 2015

Princess Charlotte marked an (infamous) milestone today as the first paparazzi picture of the little royal was shared by Woman's Day Australia. The adorable Charlotte was photographed tucked into the protecting arms of Nanny Maria on the lawn of Kensington Palace. 



The article says that Nanny Maria, Prince George, and Princess Charlotte were watching a helicopter carrying Princess Anne land on the lawn. I think that George must be a big helicopter fan--as would be natural--because I am not entirely sure why they would be out watching it land if that were not the case. Certainly, sweet George looks pretty intent upon the process, while Charlotte seems to be more interested in enjoying the autumn air. 

I am very excited to see another photo of her, but my gosh, the genes are strong in this family. She looks just like George did around her age...



...and frankly, just like mummy Kate:


I think she looks a lot like Granny Carole, and I suspect as time goes on we will see more Middleton resemblance. George looked a lot like Pippa for some time, although he has started to show Windsor traits since. You can see the Woman's Day article here



I am aware that there are mixed opinions about these photos. When it comes to paparazzi shots, I generally judge on a case by case basis. I found nothing problematic with these shots, although I have expressed significant concern regarding the terrorist issues related to certain tactics used to get some photos. Furthermore, saint or sinner, I cannot stand a hypocrite. I was excited to see these photos, and I "clicked." If I am willing to look, I would feel like an elitist if I made a decision for you, to which I was unwilling to adhere myself. If I am interested enough to look, I will share it with you. I know some of my readers have skipped this post, and I appreciate their right to do so. For myself, I am notoriously lacking in self-control. Do not leave a box of toffee unattended around me, I am not joking. :) For those still reading, all I can say is, isn't she adorable? 

We will be back in a  few days with "regular programming."  



119 comments:

  1. Very disappointed. Leave them alone.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My position on these photos aside, this is why you are hands down my favorite blogger. Always honest, real and fair. Thank you for having the guts to be this honest with your readers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Look, everyone is kind of "following their conscience" on these shots. I respect those who feel deeply opposed to them IF they refuse to look. For myself, I feel no such compunction, and I look. I have always written this blog for the me who wanted it when I was a teenager. This post is 14-year old Jane. :) I would have wanted to find the photo then, I looked at it now, and I have no choice but to share it. This isn't a judgement upon those who do not look, and do not share. In any case, very appreciate your kind comment! xo, Jane

      Delete
    2. I feel it is invasion of their privacy. They were not out and about. They are were on private property.

      Delete
    3. Actually, some of Kensington palace grounds are open to the public. Whomever obtained this photo may not have been deceptive, but just lucky.

      Delete
    4. Well, I think if we are all honest, there is a fourteen year old in most of us at times and that is not such a bad thing :-)

      Delete
    5. Correct some of KP grounds are public and those that aren't don't have solid fencing. This is why spottings can be easy there. Part of the price you pay when you live in publicly funded housing :-) My opinion is if they want privacy they can purchase their own home with a high, solid fence.

      Delete
    6. I live in London and every single time I go to KP grounds I look around hoping to see them. Perhaps I wouldn't take a picture (or perhaps I would, who knows, I've never been so lucky as yet), but that wouldn't prevent me to look at them for a little longer (not stare, clearly). Come on, whom of you guys would spot George and turn away because you are "invading their privacy"? And by the way, do you have an idea of how crowded Kensington Gardens really is? The palace, and its grounds, are not private property, they are part of the National Trust.

      Delete
    7. The part of KP large enough for a helicopter to land is not in the private, gated parts of the palace. If Nanny Maria chose to take the kids out to see it land then there was always the possibility they would be photographed. If Will & Kate are upset about this I would imagine they will take it up with her. This wasn't the paps chasing them so I'm OK with this because they are so close to the security and protection of the palace walls. It's the "in your face" paps that follow them to play dates that I oppose.

      I think it's also important to note, Jane, that you are not selling access to your blog through these photos. I don't buy tabloids because I don't want to encourage them, through their monetary gain, to pay those photogs who are vultures. This is quite a different thing.

      Delete
  3. Absolutely adorable to see the two of them, especially George's face watching the helicopter; I'm sure Charlotte has no idea what she's looking at yet. She's such a cutie-I hope we get to see both on the rumored Caribbean tour (the rumors are on again, off again about whether the children will go).

    ReplyDelete
  4. I totally agree Jane - the sweet babes were behind palace gates within full and plain view - and of course we all want to see her! Thanks for sharing and being honest!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Jane I truly admire your honesty and agree with your judgment call here. There is absolutely no reason to get worked up over these photos and anyone quick to express indignation is picking a poor case for their argument. Any passerby stopping to watch the Royal helicopter could have taken these, it's quite a public spot. I just hope if W is upset by them he doesn't take it out on the nanny for bringing the children out.

    He of all people should understand a child's interest in helicopters :) I wonder if he recalls or has been shown the Burnett piece on Charles and Diana from the early 80's, when he rushes out to see "Papa's" helicopter and Diana chases after him saying "There goes our future helicopter pilot!"

    Claudia

    ReplyDelete
  6. I see more of William in Charlotte than in George. The shape of the eyes. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. So adorable!! She does look like her mom and her brother. There is a profile picture somewhere of a baby Prince Harry that this photo is reminding me of as well.

    Thank you for publishing it Jane. I love seeing these pictures also, and really appreciate being able to see this one. I agree that it does not appear to be a problematic shot.

    ReplyDelete
  8. If they provided regular photos of the children, these wouldn't be so interesting. It's been almost 3 months.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree -- they could eliminate all this intrigue if they would share photos on a regular basis. Since the taxpayers of England are footing the bill for their lifestyle, the royals in turn should share with the public.

      Delete
    2. They need to follow the lead of the Swedes and Danish royal families. Must help the kids if the parent don't act stressed and uptight about it.

      Delete
  9. Its disappointing a Kate fan would continue to help fuel the market for such photos and be so brazen about it. You say you take all photos on a *case by case* basis but we dont know the circumstances in which these were taken. Its unfortunate you have such little restraint. I hope you dont read this comment as aggressive in nature Im just trying to understand how you can be a supporter of Kate on one hand but on the other have such disregard for the sanctity of her family. If you ever met Kate in person would you be straight up with her and tell her that her stance towards the paps is wrong and that you would continue to use such photos despite her protestations because it was your right to do so? please answer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi James: I can easily answer your query, but I have run out of my allotted time to spend on the blog today. If you circle back tomorrow afternoon sometime, I hope to have posted my reply.
      Jane Barr

      Delete
    2. Forgive me for interjecting here, and James I hope you don't take this as "aggressive in nature" either, but people jumping on a moral high horse over these pics are becoming almost comical.

      Here's an analogy to point out the absurdity of this particular instance: The children of the President of the USA are standing in front of the White House watching Marine One land --- is it wrong to take their photo? Wrong to look at the photos? Of course not! It's been happening for decades!

      Royal children were standing in front of a royal palace watching the royal helicopter, a landing spot quite visible to the public. Go to YouTube and you'll see countless videos of the helicopter taken by members of the public, there is no cause for outrage and indignation here.

      Jane is showing common sense which seems to be lacking in many corners right now, with people urging others to "stay strong" and not view the photos, as if they're something illicit! And to say she wouldn't be able to look Kate in the eye? Please, I assure you that Kate and William would loathe ALL of this; the blogs, the comments, twitter, etc... anywhere that people discuss and dissect them or their lives. Likewise, if you ever met Kate and told her you commented on blogs about her, she would find that equally offensive, say something awkward and move on rather quickly. They are just not at ease with the "cottage industries" that have sprung up around them.

      For goodness sake everyone needs to relax. If you for some reason find these particular photos inappropriate, don't look at them. But don't be so quick to judge others either. Trust me, save the energy to object to something far more offensive than this.

      Claudia

      Delete
    3. James Middleton, perhaps?!

      Delete
    4. Thanks to Claudia for her response. The comparison she seeks to make with the Obama children is interesting but inadequate in my honest opinion. One of my charges against the author was that she continues to fuel a market for such photos therefore these latest pics are part of a much larger issue. We know there are many many pap's (far more than we realise perhaps) whose currency is candid pictures of royals. Is there such an industry going after the Obama kids? Is there even an appetite for such photos? I'm not so sure. I do know that the Obama children would enjoy far greater protection from such prying eyes. Its hard to imagine the secret service tolerating the like of Niraj Tanna. Further to the point I didn't suggest the author couldn't look Kate in the face I merely asked if the author would be comfortable telling Kate she was wrong on matters relating to the privacy of her children, for which I am still waiting a response. Perhaps Kate would be creeped out by me posting on forums but I would still nonetheless tell her I stood up for her children's privacy rather than have the burden of telling her she is wrong on such a sensitive issue. James.

      Delete
    5. Hi James: I am sorry I do not have time to respond to you thoroughly. That is not an arrogant excuse, I genuinely am very short on time right now due to other commitments. I may address some of your comments in a future--general--blog post. To the thrust of your question, which is a good tactic, but not going to work here, yes I would "straight up tell her" what I thought. In fact, by posting my opinions publicly on a blog that receives the traffic that this one does, I have constructively already done so. I am not afraid to post these photos when I think it is appropriate, despite the significant pressure of the royal community--and I am not afraid to stand behind my stances posted in "cyberspace" in a real world scenario. I would tell Kate, as I have laid out thoroughly in other posts on this blog, why I think some photos are different from others. I would agree with her that children ought not to be stalked, I would vehemently oppose an intrusive photo, say through the lattices of Anmer Hall, but I would argue my point to her that some photos will be taken, and indeed should be taken, if the monarchy is to survive. Not every photo is grossly invasive. I would welcome her counter-argument, and I would be willing to cede to her any points that I felt were logically compelling. So...no, that isn't a trump card. :) I would not be afraid to take this up with Kate, I would be willing to have a discussion on it, and I have to a certain extent already done so in this very forum. I think it should also be noted that my opinion on photos of the kids is not fully formed. I read very seriously the Palace's last statement, and I have mulled it over several times since. Perhaps as we move forward, the balance will tip one way or another. I will not, however, take some false moral stance based upon feelings rather than fact. This is never going to be an issue to which a general rule will apply. Photos will be taken, or the monarchy is as good as dead. That leaves us to determine where the line is. I am not certain where the line is yet, but there has to be some principle that determines it.
      As it stands on this particular photo, I have no problem with it. If over a cocktail Kate could convince me otherwise, I would not be too arrogant to admit she was right. I do not claim a proprietary right over her children. I acknowledge a practical fact and attempt to determine a working relationship with reality, which is these children will be photographed their whole lives. Sometimes it will be ok, sometimes it won't be.
      And, with that I wish you goodnight.
      Jane Barr

      Delete
    6. Thanks for a very considered and articulate response.. It does nothing to change my opinion but it showed me you have at least thought your actions through and I respect your readiness to own your actions. I would however challenge your argument that these photos "need" to be taken. These photos are overwhelmingly and to the point exclusively published abroad. We have seen with the recent examples of the Nazi salute and Prince Harrys Vegas antics that the British press are not afraid to incur the wrath of the palace however to their eternal credit they will not run paparazzi pictures of toddlers, to do so is not in the public interest. Perhaps she can explain to me why she thinks photographs published on Pop Sugar and in rags like BILD in Germany are so important? I for one believe when it comes to the Royal Family there is no better judge on what is in the public interest than the British Public and it is a resounding No from us! You say you would "vehemently" oppose any intrusive photos but wouldn't the author agree with me that pre-empting the whereabouts of young children and photographing them from afar is an inherently intrusive act regardless of where they are taken? I would like to make a final point. As I believe I have now demonstrated reasonably well these photos are not in the public interest (although she may argue otherwise) I would like the author to consider what if these photos were taken for non commercial reasons? What if these photos were taken for the photographers own gratitude? Would the fact that they were in a public place still be a legitimate argument? And finally lets say a distinction can be made between straight out voyeurism and commercial photography, (I cant draw such a distinction), I would like to ask the author why would she condemn one as reprehensible and an act of stalking but the other as a legitimate act of journalistic expression, when in fact the tactics employed are EXACTLY the same as are the effects on the victims i.e. concerned, paranoid parents, violated children etc.. Thanks for allowing me to comment and taking the time to answer. James.

      Delete
    7. I am convinced that James is someone who is part of the inner circle.

      They read this blog!

      We love you Kate! But I do want to see pics of the children. But not stalker photos. Nor do I want them harassed or set upon by other chold rent for some photo op. But we are very interested in you and your family. I believe the BRF needs the public as much as we need to see you out and about.

      It can be done without stalking the children. There must be a happy medium.

      Delete
    8. My apologies James if I did not recount your statement correctly, I do try to be as factual as possible in these discussions :)

      I disagree however that the "appetite" or market for photos of someone should dictate how much privacy they're allowed. Certain photos are acceptable or not, regardless how popular the subject may or may not be.

      My comparison with the children of POTUS was more to illustrate that George and Charlotte were brought out to a very public area where there are many onlookers, just as the White House and lawns are visible to the public. I suspect the nanny would have cleared this first, "is it ok if I take them to watch the helicopter?" And the Cambridges likely figured, a photog can't be staked out there 24/7, so sure, go ahead.

      But as many have pointed out in these comments, the royal helicopter is enormous and highly distinguishable and attracts a great deal of attention. To walk out with the most famous royal children, in front of the palace where the live, as the helicopter is taking off/landing and expect someone won't notice and photograph them is incredibly naive.

      In this particular instance, I don't even see the debate. These specific photos are fine.

      Claudia

      Delete
    9. Awesome response Jane. You will be a fine lawyer someday.

      Delete
  10. I have no problems with these photos - you can see security around the children and Maria, so they were not in harms way. KP isn't a private residence, even if not on the public grounds. No harm, no foul. As I've said above and in the past, if they want more privacy for their children they can use their own money to purchase a private property with a high, solid fence. I'm not rich or famous and I have a 6' solid fence for privacy from neighbours :-)

    Adorable and interestin how strong those Middleton genes are!

    Thanks for posting here and on Twitter, Jane!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for sharing Jane, and your honesty about why you did.

    To anyone who feels that this was wrong or disappointing: you know full well that the editor of this blog posts paparazzi picture as and when she sees fit. You also have reels of explanation on this blog about her thinking in doing so. You can disagree with her policy but if you do, either don't check the blog or restrain yourself from making comments about how disappointed you are in her choices when you do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly! Those who are commenting against this picture had to click the link through their own curiosity and did not refrain. Jane is not everyone else's personal conscience. To complain about this photo is as if they're saying "If you didn't put it here I wouldn't have had to look at it."

      Delete
  12. AMEN! Thank you for being the only royal blogger to see sense today! It was taken in KP park so in a public place...I'd feel diff if they were taken on the grounds of amner or something like that but they weren't
    Taking a photo of two people isn't illegal and its a joke the British press allow themselves to be hogtied by KP I am a strong believer in freedom of the press and my god taking a photo of them IN A PUBLIC PLACE is every persons god given right
    So thank you for seeing sense!
    Sarah usa

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for sharing Jane, and your honesty about why you did.

    To anyone who feels that this was wrong or disappointing: you know full well that the editor of this blog posts paparazzi pictures as and when she see fit. If you disagree, either don't check this blog or restrain yourself from making comments about her choices when you do.

    ReplyDelete
  14. it is times like these, Jane, when I admire your commitment to this blog. Dealing with a very fickle community of testy feelings sharply expressed. I appreciate your elite comment and see the hypocrisy in many other's comments especially on Twitter. Thank you for not pretending to be anything but who you are and honestly sharing a photo you enjoyed. I suspect many who are looking down on you with such disdain have quietly peeked at the photo themselves. -Suze

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree with you more Suze! I find it completely inconceivable that "Kate fans" have not clicked to see these photos.

      And frankly, why not? What is all the fuss about? Really, there's no need to feel bad about this - Imagine walking by KP and seeing George and Charlotte out with their nanny, of course you'd take a quick photo! There is no harm done here, I just can't get to the "invasion of privacy" argument when they're in public view at a top tourist attraction.

      I realize none of you "know" me, but I'm quite a reasonable person :) I think many people are feeling bad for looking at these pics when there's absolutely no reason for it!

      Honestly, aren't there more important and serious issues affecting children to get worked up over? And for those of you who object to Jane's decision, you saw the headline for this post, why even click on it?

      Not said in a snarky way at all, but particularly in this instance, this is much ado about nothing.

      Claudia

      Delete
  15. Jane, I appreciate, and share, your lack of self-control. :) Thank you for the post.

    I honestly do not see a problem with these photos because the children were in a public park; it wasn't like someone was hiding in the bushes while they were in a private garden. And if someone does object to the post, I would ask this question, IF I may... If you were walking through the park that day, would you turn your back and walk away without looking at the children? If your answer is yes, I give you a lot of credit. I couldn't do it, nor could I skip this post. :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thank you Jane. This is your blog and I know that you have W&K's best interests at heart and wouldn't do something to harm them. I trust your judgement. That's why I'm here and not there. Lovely photo. Charlotte looks adorable. But this is why W&K moved to Anmer. They know that when they come to London, the kids can't go out without being photographed. I don't, however, think these are the kinds of photos they object to. I don't expect we will hear anything about it from them, unless of course there was some stalking involved. Hopefully not.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I appreciate you posting these. I wouldn't have seen them otherwise, and she is so darling!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Zoe! Plus, it was some sort of public venue so it's not like a paparazzi terrorist shot.

      Adorable children!

      Delete
  18. Hi Jane... I don't think I've ever commented yet, but I have followed your blog and your fb blog for quite a long time now, and I wanted to be sure I threw in my 2 cents' worth of SUPPORT for the way you handle pap pictures such as these. I hope all the negativity and naysayers doesn't get you down, because your blog is fantastic and I hope you keep it up forever ❤️ Anyway, I agree with you that my "guilt" or lack thereof when it comes to paparazzi photos of the family (and especially the kids) is dictated more by circumstance and case-by-case basis rather than just general principle/adhering to PW's somewhat ridiculously unrealistic demands. In this case, the kids were in public view, and all parties involved seem to be unaware and unbothered by the taking of the photos. This seems like a perfectly acceptable instance where these snapped photos should be able to be enjoyed by the public, guiltlessly.

    ReplyDelete
  19. hmmm I I applaud you jane for being honest and brief about it since the KP release it but in my take is there are some people does understand blogging there no wrong to that its seems for me kind of illegal when they are ham of course or ask for a pic I love your honesty about that

    ReplyDelete
  20. There is a difference between photos obtained by using long-range lenses or hiding in the bushes (or the boot of a car) and one taken in Kensington Palace watching the royal helicopter land. The latter, I believe, or on a par with those taken at the polo match; the children were not being followed, nor do they look distressed.
    Thank you for brightening up Monday morning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with Jean. This is an important distinction...

      Delete
  21. Love seeing these. Thank you for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good on you for choosing your stance and sticking to it. If people don't want to see these pics then they can stick to the blogs that have vowed never to print them :)
    Louise, Bath UK

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thank you for sharing! I hope you don't get flack for it. It's out there and I appreciate knowing about it!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Please do not print paparazzi photos.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jane - I just noticed Tom Sykes links to your blog in his new Daily Beast article on the photos :)

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm an American and have a slightly different perspective on the Will and Kate call for privacy issue...1.) If they want to make these illicit photos less interesting to the general public, release your own photographs and release them regularly. Then the public interest will not be as intense. Period. These two are supposed to be so sharp, so media savvy -- yet this idea has never occurred to them or their PR staff??? Maybe they just aren't that smart... When Princes William and Harry went out as children, photographers took pictures. When Prince Charles and his siblings went out in public, guess what?? Photographers took pictures. The same goes for the young Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret...photographers took pictures. Since when did William opt out of the royal family?? When did he decide we was too good to be treated like every other one of its members?? I say, "suck it up." 2.) William and Kate's entire luxe lifestyle is paid for by every member of British society. If the people want to see how their money is being spent, they have every right to look at any pictures of a royal family they support with their taxes. The royal family's wealth didn't just spring up out of nowhere. Your ancestors paid - and paid through the nose - for centuries, to build one family's enormous wealth. You speak and the royal family should listen...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As the Duke and Duchess have no payments from the British taxpayer---indeed the monarchy is totally supported by 15% of the profits from the Crown lands, the Queen is the only head of state to pay the taxpayer.
      Try looking at the financial reports or in any record office and you might learn something.
      I believe in freedom of speech; but one should find the facts first,

      Delete
    2. Releasing of more photo's will not curb pap pictures. Look at Diana. She was constantly out and about, yet the paparazzi were constantly after her. Look at what happened on the NZ/Aus. tour. Plenty of George to be seen, but there were still pap pictures. The same with this past summer. W/K live in a different age to when the other Royals were growing up. Instant media access and an insatiable greed by the public to know everything about them. Unless we have walked a day in their shoes, it is not up to us to criticize their take on protecting their children. I also think that your comment Anon 10.41 is a quite offensive to the British public.

      Delete
    3. As an American with deep roots in Wales and Scotland I am offended at your comment Anon 10.41. Your comment on who is paying for their 'luxe' lifestyle is just wrong. JEAN is correct in how they are funded. Let us not forget that William is not a poor man due to his inheritance from Diana. I also suspect that Kate has monies of her own from her family.

      Actually I am more than offended by that comment. Just a thought but to say 'your people have paid through the noses for centuries etc" is very rude. I believe you are not a follower of the BRF and wonder why you are commenting here.

      Delete
    4. Anon 10:41, I too am American and, with respect, I disagree with your comments and even more so with your tone.

      Delete
    5. Another American here to also agree that you, Anon 10:41, were out of line with your comments and tone. Your facts were off and, it must also be said, that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. How many of our own politicians, from the top to the bottom of the ranks, have been completely reckless with what are our tax dollars right down to the last dime?

      Delete
  27. Dear Jane, I was as concerned as you, as per the terrorist issues a while ago. But gosh, they live in one of the most crowded zones of London and I'd certainly be hypocrite if I denied that every single time I stroll through Kensington Gardens I look around at every children hoping to see George (and now Charlotte). After all they've been pictured there in the past with normal people around. I do not think we are harming the two children (or their parents, for the matter) if we melt in a series of "oohs" and "aahs" and "cutie-pies".
    We are their aunties, come on!
    Thanks for sharing my dear :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. The interest in George and Charlotte is to be expected because they are royal, but I have a problem with the suggestion that the public is *entitled* to photos, particularly when it's combined with references to W&K's wealth and privilege. Ironically, it is this wealth and privilege that makes the children prime targets for all sorts of scenarios I'd rather not put into words. In addition, this wealth and privilege doesn't mean that W&K love their children any less than the average mother and father who strive to do what they feel is best for their children. When did W&K lose this right?

    Another concern in my mind is what can come across as a knee-jerk accusation about William being irrational or unreasonable in his desire for privacy on his children's behalf. It's true that royal children have been photographed for decades, but the increasingly dirty tactics, and the possibility of these tactics being mistaken for someone wishing to harm the children (as in terrorist-type tactics), is newer territory. This is a very different world and it's understandable that the terms, set by W&K as parents, will reflect that.

    As far as releasing more photos is concerned... well, the public had regular "access" to William and Harry through photos and videos, but it didn't deter the interest in photos such as this. Releasing official photos *can* be used as a bargaining tool, *to a degree*, but I don't know how effective it is when it comes to unscrupulous paparazzi who will find a market somewhere in the world.

    Bottom line ... I think that Jane's balanced, common sense approach is the most realistic and reasonable given all of the circumstances involved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said royalfan

      Delete
    2. I liked your respectful tone, royalfan, I can imagine you having a pleasant conversation about this weighty topic at a tea party! I also don't feel the public is necessarily 'entitled' to these photos; they haven't BOUGHT the Cambridges with their tax dollars. However, I felt it was oversimplified and silly for KP to issue a release lecturing the public about creating demand for these photos and asking people not to click, and they lost me a little bit there.

      How silly to think it is just the internet and our attention that has created demand here. One thousand years of history, the entire structure of a monarchy itself, has created interest and demand! When a few people are elected to represent a society then represent they do - and they'll gather lots of attention for it, in whatever way attention is gathered in that day and age. I feel for W&K and their desire to protect their children to every extent possible. I am so thankful that they and their lovely children don't have to worry about the widespread threats to children in this world: so many children suffer from poverty, curable diseases, and lack of education. It is a pleasure to look at happy, healthy, and adorable kiddos who also represent the British people. I find nothing wrong with doing so, to the point that even 'invasive' photos don't bother me terribly so long as the kids are not scared or in danger.

      Jane, I think you are thoughtful and hilarious and kudos to you for making the blog an honest discussion. I more enjoy reading about her new pants (er, trousers) but I like all respectful discussion and your blog brightened my day!!

      Delete
    3. I agree, royalfan. The releasing of more photos never stopped the paps from chasing Diana everywhere she went with or without the boys. There are those who will do everything they can to get a picture nobody has ever seen - which would never include the officially released photos - to sell to the highest bidder. I look at William and Kate's plea as setting a legal stage so that when a photog really crosses the line they can take action.

      Am I the only one who doesn't understand why William is always portrayed as more the villain than anyone else? I don't think these critics take the thought to try and understand how he grew up, what the constant media did to his mother and father, and how that impacted his childhood. He had no control over the circumstances of his birth but he can try to protect his children to his best ability.

      Delete
    4. I agree Robinfrom CA

      I am rather tired of the portrayal of William as a villian, bad husband, bad Father, aloof, distant and uninterested. I say crapola! That is all nonsense.

      Delete
    5. People tend to focus on William's wealth and privilege without acknowledging the harsh reality that is part of the package; even more so if you factor in the loss of his mother's love and support at a young age...AND having to deal with his grief on the world stage.

      I have never seen a disinterested or unwilling young man; I see a man who has been determined to right the wrongs endured by his mother and, IMO, he has done so every step of the way, including the years prior to his engagement. And since I am setting myself up to be accused of looking at him through rose colored glasses, I will take it a step further... :) I would bet my last dollar that he made exactly this intention perfectly clear to Mike and Carole and assured them that Kate's experience, and that of their grandchildren, would be unlike anything they were privy to in the past.

      Delete
  29. Jane (Barr), thank you for posting these pics, and for sticking to your long-held principle which I interpreted to mean, re pics, that anything you were privy to, you would share with us.

    I am not upset by the publication of these pics, on several levels. First and foremost, I don't think that any of Maria, George or Charlotte appeared to be aware that they were being photographed; i.e., forget harassment. Secondly--perhaps I should have put this in first place--all three survived this non-encounter with the paps. Thirdly, and more frivolously, these candids tend to show the Cambridge kids in a much more flattering light than the staged photo-ops the Windsors arrange. Fourthly, the Wndsors, themselves, are not above using these two kids for gain--positive propaganda; they have no moral ground to protest. Come on, folks! Taking George to the hospital to visit Mummy and baby? Really? Just two hours before Mummy and baby went home? I personally interpreted this as a PR move designed to improve Williams iffy record as a Dad. --It was noticed, in the mainstream press, as opposed to the tabs, that William ignored his son in New Zealand; no doubt, he was informed of same because in Australia, he was actually photographed carrying his son. And most staged photo-ops since have William taking centre-stage with George: i.e., the Balcony appearance at the last Birthday Parade for the Queen; the walk to the church in Sandringham at Charlottes christening.

    I am sure some will disagree with me, but until the Windsors cease using George and Charlotte, why should the paps? Nor do I think the paps pose any real life-and-death danger to the Cambridge kids; the real danger, if there is one, is far more likely to come from within the ranks of those who want done with monarchy--from their own citizens--oops! subjects.

    JC

    P.S. Jane (Barr), have I missed something? What does this post have to do with fashion?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And here we go....

      I don't understand why you don't just scroll on by JC. If you are here for fashion and some comments lead to another topic then why not just.... be quiet and not comment?

      Totally respect your views but often and I say this with respect you tend to go nodded on William. I read this over and over. Seems you must always stick some statement aboit it is all PR ploys to make William look more Fatherly. It is not lost on many of us that you just don't like him. I am offended just as I was with the Anon 10.41 comments. You seem to always see a plot, ploy, untruth.

      Come on JC. Stop with the sparky (someone used that word and I like it example "from their own citizens-oops! Subjects". That is just rude and truly understood to be a swipe at TRH.

      Again I respect you but I am tired of scrolling past your snark and not commenting. Standing up for myself and others that I have seen be treated as less than worthy to comment.

      So PS Jane (Barr) , have I missed something? Whyou does that comment that seems offensive to the BRF allowed? This is a pattern. One can discuss issues but the end remarks seem snarky. I do like that word. What is the orgin? Ha

      Delete
    2. It was in spam. :)
      Um, nothing. This blog encompasses more than just fashion, although the primary focus is Kate, her clothes, and her life. George and Charlotte come under that final category.
      Fair point and objection is sustained. William is not a villain, and he is Kate's spouse. Let's try and keep that in mind.

      Delete
    3. Anon 5:06 maybe JCs remarks keep getting approved is because JC is Jane's alter ego ;-)

      Delete
    4. Thank you Jane. I just felt the constant comments regarding William as the absentee everything is old. The comment is constant and disrespectful. There is an adage about if you can't say anything nice then say nothing at all

      Delete
    5. Anon 7:49 I agree and as long as JCs comments are approved and of this nature I choose not to respond to or engage JC. Why fuel something we don't agree with :-)

      Delete
    6. Anon 7:30pm, I assume that was said in jest, but to clarify so there is no confusion, JC and I are certainly not one and the same. :)
      I did ask that all readers be respectful of William in their comments. If I have been lax in enforcing this, I will do my best to shape up.

      Delete
    7. Jane, the alter ego comment was definitely in jest. A little humor for the sometimes "passionate" community here. It's a full moon this week, what can I say... :-)

      Delete
    8. anon 7:30, 7:28- on another blog you would have been blocked from commenting again for criticising the blogger or remarks of long-time commenters.
      Jane accepts and addresses criticism head-on and gives commenters an opportunity to explain.There is a
      continuity between her posts and what transpires in the comment section.

      Delete
    9. Anon 10:37am my intent was not to criticize a person or comment. I made a joke. It seems we don't share the same sense of humor, and that's okay. I wanted to lighten the mood and I guess the opposite happened.

      Delete
    10. 5:49- I completely meant my 10:37 comment as a compliment to Jane. The atmosphere did need clearing
      and lightening. I've had a few of my attempts back-fire, too.
      Your joke involved irony and would have been great if Jane hadn't been already somewhat underfire about the
      picture.

      Delete
    11. Anon 6:58pm now I understand where you were coming from, and yes it is a compliment to Jane :-) I suspect this is one reason why she will be so successful in law school!

      Delete
  30. Jane, thanks for posting, I had read about this photo and was itching to see it! In the UK, it is not easy to get access to photos such as these......

    ReplyDelete
  31. This is a darling photo of two beautiful children. I'm glad you posted the photo of Kate when she was a baby because I was wondering where those little ones got those cheeks!

    I can't see the uproar about the taking of these photos. It's a public park. When a big helicopter with a royal insignia on it lands in the middle of the city people stop to watch. The fact that the two Cambridge children came out to watch it was just luck on the side of whoever took the picture. It's the photos taken by subterfuge that are so objectionable. Living in cars or bushes with long lens cameras is stalking. The amount of security just in this little picture alone seems that there is no possible threat to the children. The photos of George and Carole (as adorable as they were) did seem a little creepy after we found out how they were obtained. I can't see this photo comparing in any way to that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Ohhh, JC... I understand your point about the hospital visit, but can you imagine the reaction if George had not made an appearance? It was not an unprecedented decision (and with a similar timeline). On a purely personal level, I suspect that William would not have subjected his son to the "wall" of photographers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And, with that being said we see once again that they can never win. "Why did they bring George to the hospital when Kate was going home that day?" "Why didn't they bring George to the hospital to see his new baby sister?" No matter which way it would have gone there would be those who were unhappy about it. I hope W&K don't allow "news"papers in their home. It would drive one crazy to read all the theories people who have never met them have about them.

      Delete
    2. Royalfan, I suspect the same, given his immediate reaction to Georges unwillingness to walk past that barrage of cameras. Methinks Dad was half-expecting it.

      I, however, was hoping that George would be left at home on this occasion as I thought he was too young to go through it, and altho I am sure most people were pleased to see him, I rather doubt that the British public would've been terribly upset if George had not appeared, particularly once it was revealed that Kate and the baby were going home in time to say goodnight to George. The people who might have been upset were those in the media.

      JC

      Delete
    3. JC, my guess is that as *parents*, their preference would have been to avoid the hospital visit, but as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, they did what was expected and followed tradition. And I double checked, and Charles brought William to the hospital to meet baby Harry on the same day that Diana left the hospital. Same scenario. W&K's roles as parents will require a tricky balancing act between what is expected because of tradition, and what they feel is best for their children. Personally, I would not want to be standing in Kate's nude LK Bennett pumps. :)

      Delete
    4. I don't think it's weird for a father to take the child to bring the mother and baby home. That is done quite a bit I imagine I only had one childI so I never had that issue myselfI.

      Delete
  33. I like the posts that don't focus on fashion. They are public figures and as such forfeit some degree of privacy. I'm sure the manner in which the pictures are obtained is the larger concern. These appear to be taken more legitimately and not intrusively, so the BRF is benefitting from our collective admiration. I agree with Jane there is little cause for concern over sharing. Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Not being allowed to post this near the appropriate comments, so...
    Jane, you are honest and chose to decide, rather than abdicating the responsibility as admin. to a sort of reader's choice, "I dunno-what do you think?"
    thus taking the blame from the blogger-you. I respect you for this.
    I agree that, although obviously long lens, this photo was taken in more public circumstances. There are at least three
    PPOs, including Nanny-not apparent at the beach photos. The point that KP is public, therefore the public essentially owns
    the children and has unlimited rights to photos on demand is just wrong on so many levels. So the children of those who live
    in public housing have no right to safety and privacy?

    It seems ridiculous to me to suggest that the Cambridges build their own home with a high fence. It would be like
    telling a US president not to live in the White House.

    Charlotte and George do not have the high forehead we see in the infant photos of Catherine.They look like themselves at
    this stage.I actually think she resembles the Queen's baby pictures, with the expression and low forehead.
    "Tax-payer-funded?" This is a very tiresome argument. That and "royal work" seem to be dredged up whenever there is the slightest opening. "If KP released photos...."etc etc. "It has been three days, weeks, months..." The public appetite for these
    photos will not he satisfied, no matter how many are released. That has absolutely been demonstrated time after time.. mk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The difference is other children are not the future king of the country

      Delete
    2. PS- I liked the patterned trousers. I think Sophie wore a similar pair to a sport event some time ago. I have no idea
      what is "in or out." Ask me about the 60's.
      I was surprised to see Sophie in them at the time; but obviously, she was fashion forward. (Is that what that phrase means?) mk

      Delete
    3. I wouldn't expect the President to not live in the White House. But if he/she wants more privacy for their children he/she can buy a private property for weekends/holidays. W&K have accepted two residences that have the trade off of some public viewing/access. I'm not arguing work ethic etc just that they can make decisions that create the privacy they desire. They utilize the Middleton Manor which offers privacy and they could purchase their On my way! similar residence if they like.

      Delete
    4. Wow, spellcheck. "on my way!" Should be "purchase their OWN similar residence.

      Delete
    5. mk, I do agree with your comments. Every bit of it.

      Arguing that interest in the children is to be expected is fair and reasonable, but when wealth, real estate, and a certain "they asked for it" attitude creeps into it, the discussion is more reflective of resentment than anything else.

      Delete
    6. Nope, no resentment at all here...Sorry to disappoint all the loyal royal followers who think W/K can do no wrong...But I like William and hope for his continued happiness because I admired his mother. I'm sure he's a great dad, how could he be anything else having had a Mom like Diana?? My heart broke for W/H when she died. I'm old enough to remember C/D's wedding...but W DOES have the world at his feet and in the fullness of time he WILL inherit a crown and a kingdom and more wealth than he'll ever no what to do with...Mine is just a realistic view of the world we live in. For gosh sakes, the people of Australia and New Zealand have seen more of George than his own countrymen have...what is wrong with that picture...and what does it say about who is actually "using" W+K's children??

      Delete
    7. Anon 11:22, I'm confused as to what your "view" is... The objection you raise is that the people of Australia and New Zealand have seen more of George. Well, perhaps, but I don't see it as a plot to hide him from his countrymen. The tour took place after he was born, so it seems logical that they took him along because of the distance/length of the tour and, I assume, because it isn't the type of tour that happens regularly. It was also a nod to tradition (William accompanied Charles and Diana in 1983). But the circumstances back then were identical; it was Diana's first tour down under and, since William had been born, they took him along. William made his first appearance at Trooping in 1984 and likewise in George's case in 2015. But I do not recall Charles and Diana packing the family car and taking W&H along on "local" engagements when they were toddlers or babies as you appear to be suggesting.

      Delete
  35. To all those whining about the picture...would u have the same issue if for instance, I was strolling around KP snapped the photo when I saw them and.posted it on twitter?
    It doesn't matter if its long lense or the paps are hiding out its a photo for gods sake

    ReplyDelete
  36. Per usual a comment is a no show. There seems to be some favorites here. Only my second time to comment and no show. My response to JC is apparently not appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, forgive me for pointing out a logical fallacy, but if this is only your second time commenting, how can it be "per usual" that your post did not appear? I see no response to JC that is being held in the queue. What is unfortunately a not uncommon occurrence is for some posts to get lost in cyberspace. That is Google Blogger's fault, not my editorial opinion. I apologize your comment was lost. I will look in spam.

      Delete
    2. Forgive me what I meant was I read often where other comments seem to get lost when they are in response to some otherandom here. It doesn't matter Jane. Carry on

      Delete
    3. I found that if you establish a Google account and publish your post in that manner, it is much more reliable than using name and URL

      Delete
  37. So here's my take on this question since it comes up all the time --- If the Cambridges released more photos would that end the pap market?

    Complicated answer I think: Yes and No.

    NO, in that every time someone spots them they will take their photo, whether it be a professional pap, a curious onlooker, or a citizen paparazzi with a camera phone.

    YES, in that the more photos there are of them, the less papers, magazines, online outlets will PAY for a photo, and that is a very important point. Paps are not going to invest a lot of time following any celeb if the payday is not there.

    When there's been a 3 month drought of photos of Charlotte there's going to be a big payday. If there were photos from a week or two ago, payday would be much less.

    I also think the biggest problem is the kind of photos the Cambridges release, very stylized, very controlled and staged, and often photos from the same event are released to cover multiple occasions. This is a truly foolish PR strategy. I am no expert on European royals, but they handle these matters marvelously. Very relaxed, normal photo ops, that go a long way to satisfy demand.

    I've said this before, but ironic that Diana tried to control the media by feeding them, William is doing same by starving them. And whether you understand his intention or not, or the history behind it, fact is both strategies lead to same problem, a cat and mouse game with the media.

    How about inviting a group of photogs/reporters along to one of these petting farms for a photo op? How about some natural photos of the family together, of the children playing?

    This is not rocket science, it amazes me how the BRF still struggle with media relations.

    Claudia

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think we should all extend William a little grace. Maybe we misunderstand. He came from a broken home that was publicly shamed and embarrassed. Maybe he is some of the negative things people say about him. He has his own personality and is also the product of the good and bad he has experienced. His formative years were riddled with drama, instability, toxicity and dysfunction. Whatever he is or isn't I think he is TRYING to do better than he had.

    Other than that, cute kids doing what kids do!

    ReplyDelete
  39. Always wiseem you are Claudia :)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Given some of the criticism directed at William, I thought this was relevant...

    Princess Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands is 11 years old (not a toddler) and she is next in line after her father, King Willem-Alexander. The Dutch royal family has always been generous with photos, HOWEVER, it did not stop the king from asking for privacy on his daughter's behalf ...

    “Like her peers, the Princess has a right to an undisturbed youth. As the future life of the Princess will largely be devoted to public duties, it is important to respect her privacy.”

    http://royalista.com/114437/king-calls-respect-daughters-privacy-family-snapshot/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly royalfan! WilLiam is no villian and I am tired of the ongoing posts on this.

      Thanks for sharing

      Delete
    2. Agree absolutely, royalfan, and thank-you for that quote. I think sometimes people forget who heads the BRF, what
      she came from, and how long she's been around. It trickles down. The European way is not compatible with the
      traditions of the BRF. Also, most of the European royal families are headed by or dominated by members generations younger than the head of the BRF-(Victoria seems to be out front much of the time, the rest are mostly 40 something or younger) If one of them asks for privacy during childhood, why can't Williams's request be
      honored?
      This is not related to your post, royalfan, but I would like to see stats that pap prices went down following a series of KP released photos-which happened in May through the July christening We know pap photos continued.
      There is a cycle similar to the poaching process-stop the paps taking any pictures; stop the bidding wars;
      stop the publishing; stop the viewing. Since the first three are difficult to enforce, W&C resorted to the fourth
      approach. Appealing to our better natures. Also a tricky proposition.
      I know one thing-it's not a simple problem to solve and KP's doling out photos of a toddler and infant on a
      weekly basis won't stop pap photos. As someone pointed out, there is always the granny shot, or the Mum
      playing hide and seek...Yes, unstaged. But the question is, do we have a right to view private, personal
      moments in a family? The reasons given boil down to they belong to the public because their parents do.
      mk
      .We each give our opinion about
      what would decrease pap photos, but what are the facts?

      Delete
    3. Yes! If William were the villain he's being portrayed as we would have absolutely no respect for Kate for marrying such a dolt. Since that is NOT the case I'm confused about the constant Will bashing. I like him. I think they are a darling couple who have made some beautiful babies together.

      Delete
  41. Thanks for posting the picture Jane!!!! I can't resist either.

    ReplyDelete
  42. If only the Duchess would take her baby to work with her, we wouldn't have to scrounge for photos. (How adorable would it be to see Catherine baby-wearing Princess Charlotte? SOO adorable!!!)

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kate and William should be grateful for this type of blog. They are being admired not exploited. I just LOVE the way Maia is holding Prince George's hand. And I think Princess Charlotte Elizabeth DIANA (I love saying her name!) is the spitting image of William! Thank you, Jane. Don't change or second guess yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I am glad that you've decided to share this picture, Jane :)

    I can also understand those who think it's an invasion of privacy. When I was 5 years old, we were on holiday in Italy (pretty far down in the south).At that time, my hair had such a light blonde colour, it looked almost white. Most people at the pool, at the beach or in town just came towards us and touched my hair or said 'bella'. Some even took photos! In the very beginning, my parents were confused, but thought it was rather funny, but after some time, they were really angry and criticized them harshly. So, the reason why I'm sharing this little story is that I want to express that I can understand that W&K are upset by such an invasion of privacy, and those who don't look at the photos out of respect.

    However, any time I see a new photo of Charlotte and/or George, my heart skips a beat :) They are just so adorable and I love seeing new pictures. Jane, you're right: I was excited and I clicked, too. So thanks a lot for sharing this beautiful photo!

    Charlotte looks a lot like George at that age. I also think that her hair has become a lot lighter - at her christening, it looked rather dark brown, but now it's a light brown. I think George looks so much like Mike Middleton and his mother Valerie! But lately, I also see William in him... I hope we'll see (official) pictures of the adorable children soon (and please, a family shot of all 4 - or 5 with Lupo ;))!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I wanted to share a thought that occurred to me this evening... If not for some of the more intrusive and potentially dangerous scenarios referenced in the KP letter, it is very possible that this type of photo would not have been objected to. IMO, W&K tolerated a lot of this until very recently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the line was crossed with the guy hiding in the trunk and the covert photos taken of George and Carole on the beach. Once that happened they lost some of the tolerance that had existed until then.

      Delete
    2. Ive tried to reply to this thread twice but have given up. The matrix is not being kind to me today :-(

      Delete
  46. Would someone tell me what is that on top of Prince George's head? Looks like a blonde wig almost. What is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That would be his hair. It has lightened up so much, hasn't it? It will darken over the years. My sister was a blond much like this, and she has much darker hair now she is in her twenties. He is a little doll, though, gosh. William and Kate are very blessed with their beautiful children.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for replying, you can ignore my email now that I've read this answer. Didn't look like hair to me and it didn't match the hairline, that is why I asked. But these kind of photos can distort things.

      Delete
    3. He's wearing a cap, I think - close fitting.

      Delete
    4. Seem like that to me I'm like that too

      Delete
  47. Absolutely beautiful children, both of them! And they do look so much alike. :) I've never seen that picture of Kate's christening, how adorable! And don't you just love Nanny Maria, she seems like such a mellow, consistent, caring, kind caretaker, and the children are so relaxed around her, you can tell George loves her. I'm so glad for all of them they have this lovely little world they have created. :)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Having your photograph taken isn't going to kill you. They're not in the shower, they're in a public park. I also feel that if you set yourself up as so royal and special, and take all the money and prestige and castles and jewels and clothes and art, people are going to be interested in how you live. If you don't want it, dump the titles and go and live in a semi in Hull. Then no one will be interested in you. I like this blog because it isn't mealy-mouthed about paparazzi shots.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Little Charlotte's eyes and nose look like Carole Middleton in that picture.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Wow, so cute baby, stay blessed..!!

    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!