Why does Prince William list his occupation as ‘prince’ rather than ‘pilot’?

wenn22444251

There are so many royal stories knocking around this week, it’s hard to keep up. Most of them are utterly random, like some psychic claiming that Duchess Kate and Prince William’s newborn baby daughter, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, will of course be JUST LIKE Princess Diana. But some of the stories are actually interesting and noteworthy. Let’s discuss!

First off, Queen Elizabeth finally got to meet her newest great-granddaughter yesterday. The Queen had been staying at Sandringham over the weekend and she didn’t get back into London until Tuesday. She immediately stopped by Kensington Palace to see Princess Charlotte. There was talk that William didn’t want to release Charlotte’s name until the Queen saw Charlotte in person. But I guess someone told him that he was being ridiculous.

E! News had a fawning piece on how William and Kate will raise their kids to be “normal” and how a big part of that will be moving full-time to Anmer Hall because Kensington Palace is just SO claustrophobic, especially after the multi-million-dollar renovation. I don’t know, you guys. How “normal” is life going to be for these kids if they’ve moved to a grand country mansion because their parents’ palace was too claustrophobic?

On Tuesday, @KensingtonRoyal released a copy of the official birth certificate or baby registration or whatever it’s called in the UK. I’m including the tweet below. I could honestly analyze this document forever. William’s handwriting! His signature is crazy – it’s looks like he just signs official documents “Will [swoop].” Again, he cites Kate’s occupation as “Princess of the United Kingdom.” Best job description ever, right? And why isn’t Prince William’s occupation listed as “air ambulance pilot”???

Last thing – by all accounts, Kate did not have an epidural or any kind of drugs during the birth. Sources claim that Kate and the midwives did all the work and the doctors were just there to “supervise.” The labor went by really quickly, about two hours, and everyone was surprised by how quickly it was over and how well Kate did. Reportedly, Kate didn’t do an epidural with Prince George too. Props to her. No shade!

wenn22443422

Photos courtesy of WENN.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

223 Responses to “Why does Prince William list his occupation as ‘prince’ rather than ‘pilot’?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snazzy says:

    I love the pic of George waving. Here’s hoping his sister has just as much personality 😀

  2. MelissaManifesto says:

    Well he IS a prince. Adding pilot instead would have made him appear what? More relatable? More normal? It doesn’t matter because he was born a prince, it’s okay to list it.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Right, and the pilot thing is really just a hobby.

      • bluhare says:

        A very expensive hobby.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Very, very expensive hobby.

      • aus says:

        That may have been an issue in the days when royals actually ruled, but why would they have to protect a future king nowadays? They are really just figureheads. If he was to come to harm in that role, the world would go on without anything grinding to a halt.

    • perplexed says:

      Agree.

    • littlemissnaughty says:

      Plus, it is actually his job, isn’t it? Whatever he does before working as a royal full-time is just preparation, no? And what would he list as his wife’s occupation then? This is much easier.

    • capepopsie says:

      Princing is what he does best!

  3. Elisabeth says:

    prince is his main occupation

  4. vylette says:

    Occupation: His royal highness the air ambulance pilot.

    Yeah that ought to do it.

  5. PHD Gossip says:

    When did Kate get the HRH title?

    • vylette says:

      I think she has been HRH since wedding. Its princess she is not. If I am not wrong

      • megan says:

        No you’re not.

      • bluhare says:

        She is a Princess of the United Kingdom. She’s Princess William, but Duchess of Cambridge supersedes it so that’s what she uses.

        I remember reading before they got married that William didn’t want Duke/Duchess as it made him feel old but the Queen overruled.

    • Pop says:

      When she married Prince William

    • SleepingBeauty says:

      Kate is “Princess Willliam of Wales” since the day she married Prince William. She is a “Princess of the UK” because of her marriage not because of her birth.

    • AmyL says:

      I am guessing some of the forum’s more versed royal experts might have more to say on this topic. I found an article Victoria Arbiter’s twitter linked to be helpful. Naturally, everyone should keep the source in mind… I will try to link it. Fingers crossed.

      http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/explanation/why-well-never-see-a-princess-catherine-13573

      • *North*Star* says:

        Great article except Marina *was* a princess in her own right. She was born HRH Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark (first cousin of Philip). Just like her sister-in-law Alice, they both hated the term ‘Dowager’, so when Marina became a widow, she reverted to her birth name/title in front of her married title. Alice, on the other hand, needed permission from The Queen to call herself anything other than Princess Henry or simply Alice and HM gave it to her.

    • epiphany says:

      She’s been HRH since the moment they married, and she is a princess; she is simply not a princess in her own right, because she wasn’t born to the rank, she married it. She would formally be called Princess William of Cambridge, because the title come to her through her husband, just as Diana’s correct title was Diana, Princess of Wales, NOT Princess Diana, though that’s how she was erroneously styled while she was alive. For the sake of clarity, William and Kate use his title as Duke of Cambridge, rather than his rank of prince, to define themselves. Kate’s daughter, on the other hand, can correctly be called Princess Charlotte, as she is a princess born, not a princess married.

      • *North*Star* says:

        You’re almost there. She’s Princess William Duchess of Cambridge — she’s the exact but female equivalent of William’s title. The ‘X of Cambridge’ is used by their children.

      • Feeshalori says:

        And Diana’s correct title after the divorce was Diana, Princess of Wales. Her proper title was Princess of Wales during their marriage, or even Princess Charles, Princess of Wales.

    • Cee says:

      Kate’s full style and title, since marriage, is Her Royal Highness Princess William, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Lady Carrickfergus. She is known as HRH The Duchess of Cambridge. She became a Princess of the UK on her marriage, because she takes her husband’s title (her mother is always refered to as Mrs. Michael Middleton).

      Had The Queen not elevated William to the peerage on the day of his wedding, she would be known as HRH Princess William of Wales (think of HRH Princess Michael of Kent – her husband was not given a title of his own). William is no longer Prince William of Wales because as a Royal Duke, he loses his father’s territorial designation and is now His Royal Highness Prince William Arthur Philip Louis, Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, Baron Carrickfergus + all his Knight titles.

      If and when William becomes Prince of Wales, George and Charlotte will cease to use Cambridge as the territorial designation, and use ‘of Wales’ instead, because it will be their father’s highest title. If and when William becomes King, they will lose all territorial designations and be known as HRH The Prince George and HRH The Princess Charlotte, until they are given titles of their own (Princess Royal for Charlotte and Duke of Cornwall/POW for George, who will becomes Duke of Cornwall automatically on his father’s accession to the throne).

      Hope this helped 🙂

      • Tough Cookie says:

        wow, this is great, thank you Cee!!

      • Cee says:

        @ Tough Cookie – TY!

        I forgot to add that William’s next highest title will be Duke of Cornwall (the heir’s designated title before being invested as The POW) – Kate will be HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, George will be HRH Prince George of Cornwall, Charlotte will be HRH Princess Charlotte of Cornwall.

        Because the title of Prince of Wales is given to the heir at the Monarch’s discretion, William will have to receive the investiture from his father, now HM The King. If and when he does, then his family will use Wales as their territorial designation. And again lose it when William becomes King.

        Therefore, Kate and her children will be known for a LOT of different titles LOL. The British Monarchy is complicated. More confusion will come forth when Kate is address as The Queen, instead of The Queen Consort (she will always be HM Queen Catherine, never HM The Queen).

      • Okie says:

        This is a great response, Cee. If I may ask a follow-up? The Queen was never Duchess of Cornwall, was she? She was Duchess of Edinburgh before becoming Queen? I’m not sure how the titles work with the women of the Royal Family.

        Thanks 🙂

      • Cee says:

        @ Okie – Glad I could be of help! Ask away 🙂

        The British Monarchy has a different set of rules for women, especially those of “the Royal blood” such as Princesses Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie and now Charlotte.

        When Edward VIII abdicated in order to marry Wallis Simpson, his brother The Duke of York became King George VI and his daughter, HRH Princess Elizabeth of York became Heiress Presumptive. There was no equal primogeniture back then and if the King and Queen had a son, he would become Heir Apparent and would not be displaced by any younger sibling. This is why Princess Elizabeth never held the titles of Duchess of Cornwall nor of Princess of Wales, because these titles are reserved for the Monarch’s Heir Apparent. She simply became HRH The Princess Elizabeth (her sister became HRH The Princess Margaret).

        Upon her marriage to Philip, the King elevated him to the peerage and created him Duke of Edinburgh. She took his title in the feminine form and became HRH The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh while still being Heiress Pressumptive.

        Her children were HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh and HRH Princess Anne of Edinburgh. On her father’s death, she became HM The Queen and her son, the Heir Apparent, HRH The Duke of Cornwall, making him a Peer and outranking his own father. Anne became HRH The Princess Anne (years later she was given the title of Princess Royal, reserved for the eldest daughter of the Monarch. She is known as HRH The Princess Anne, Princess Royal).

        In the case of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York, when they marry they will take their husband’s titles. If Beatrice marries Dave Clark, she will be HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs. David Clark. If The Queen offers a title and Dave accepts it, she will be HRH Princess Beatrice, Female Form of Title (I’m not sure if she keeps her father’s territorial designation or not). The same goes for Eugenie.

        I assume that by the time William becomes King, the title of Princess Royal will be incumbent (it can only be held by one female at a time) and Princess Charlotte will be known as HRH The Princess Royal, a title she will keep throughout her life before it can be passed to the next eldest daughter of a Monarch.

        I don’t know what will happen when there is a Heiress Apparant. If we look at the monarchies in Belgium and The Netherlands, where there is equal primogeniture and the Heir has a title different to Crown Prince/Princess (like Denmark and Sweden), the female takes the title in it’s female form (The Princess of Orange; The Duchess of Brabant). So I assume that were George a girl, she would become The Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, and her husband would be created a Prince of the United Kingdom or at least afforded the courtesy of using that title or a Dukedom in the Peerage.

        I hope I was clear. It is a bit complicated, no? I prefer the way other monarchies handle the issue of titles!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Quick note to this great info, cee. Not sure what you mean by “incumbent”. Do you mean the title would be due and appropriate? The Princess Royal title is not automatic. It has to be given by the monarch, like the Prince of Wales title has to be given it isn’t inherited. It was thought that this time around, the Princess Royal title was done to distinguish Princess Anne from Diana and Sarah.

      • Okie says:

        Thanks, Cee.

        It gets so confusing because there is also primacy in the titles themselves, so the Duke of Edinburgh is Prince Philip, whereas she may become HRH Queen Catherine (as opposed to HRH The Queen Catherine — side note: my spidey senses tingle whenever I see the capital “t” in royal names).

        If there were equal primogeniture and the roles were reversed, would Charles be Prince Camilla of Wales? Or would he need to be invested with his own peerage so as not to outrank the Heiress Apparent, so that she would be Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and he would be, say, the Duke of Weaseltown?

        Perhaps there isn’t equal primogeniture because they can’t get the naming down.

      • Cee says:

        @notasugarhere – Sorry, what I meant is that only one person can hold that title at a time, and it is reserved for the eldest daughter of the Monarch. Diana and Sarah were addressed by their husband’s highest titles – Prince of Wales and Duke of York, they were never Princesses in their own right.

        In simpler terms – The only Princess eligible for the title of Princess Royal is Charlotte because she will be a future Monarch’s daughter, but in order to be given that title, it must be incumbent – no one should have it. If Harry had been a daughter, she would not have the title even with Charles as King because Anne would still be alive. By the time William is King, it is very probable Anne will not be alive (I feel kind of bad for writing this! lol)

      • Cee says:

        @Okie – Tried to answer as best I could!

        The Duke of Edinburgh was born HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark but renounced his princely status and acquired British citizenship in order to marry The Princess Elizabeth. Back then people didn’t want their future Queen to marry a foreigner, even if they’re related through Queen Victoria. When Elizabeth became Queen Elizabeth II, Philip became her Consort. Because King trumps Queen in precedence, he cannot use a title that a. doesn’t belong to him and b. would denote his superiority over hers. For years he was known as HRH Philip, The Duke of Edinburgh and outranked everyone except for his own son, who was Heir Apparent and a Prince and Peer in his own right. Some years later the Queen made Philip a Prince of the United Kingdom and stated that he would take precedence over EVERYONE, except her. This was a unique gesture from her.

        Upon William’s accession, Kate will be known as HM Queen Catherine, taking the female form of his title. She will not be Catherine I nor HM The Queen, because she is Queen Consort not Queen Regnant.

        I don’t know how they will address an Heiress Apparent. By logic, she would be The Princess of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, but I don’t know what title her husband would be known by. Let’s pretend Charlotte is William’s Heiress. Upon her marriage, she could be created a Duchess in her own right – Duchess of Sussex or her husband would be given the title, not her. They would be known as TRH The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Upon her father’s accession, she would automatically become The Duchess of Cornwall. Her husband might use the title Duke of Sussex, to avoid confusion over precedence or simply be known as HRH Prince Name. But if he has no territorial designation, like the Monarch’s children, it would create even more confusion.

        Regardless his title, he would never outrank his wife for two reasons: 1. She is royal and he acquired his royal status through marriage to her (losing it if divorced), and 2. she is Heiress Apparent, the most senior member of any Royal Family besides the Monarch and Consort. For example: When William is present, Kate has his status and everyone except The Queen, Philip, Charles and Camilla will curtesy to her. If she is by herself, she is quite low in the pecking order and has to curtesy to almost everyone (this is why some people lose their cool when they see Kate walking in front of everyone except William).

        Equal primogeniture is great because it ensures females aren’t passed over due to their gender, but I don’t know how they plan on executing it. For starters, Charlotte should be able to pass on her title to her children. As it stands, only the grandchildren of a Monarch through the male line can inherit Princely titles (reason why Anne’s children’s are not Prince/ss).

      • Maura says:

        Cee- you just made this the most educational comments section of any article ever. I seriously almost diagrammed all of that. Brava!

      • *North*Star* says:

        The laws in England and Scotland still state that the eldest MALE son of the Sovereign automatically holds Cornwall and Rothesay and they haven’t been modified to reflect the new laws that went into place. No idea if the new laws will mean an heiress apparent will be invested as Princess of Wales in her own right.

        To further add to the discussion, if Charles predeceases his mother — William stays the Duke of Cambridge until his grandmother invests him as Prince of Wales. Assuming of course, he wants to be Prince of Wales at all.

        So there a lot of twists and turns…

      • LAK says:

        If they don’t change the peerage laws, it will be interesting to have an heiress apparent because she can be invested with the POW title now, but not the peerage ducal titles because those can only be granted to a MALE heir as currently written.

        It was short-sighted to make a song and dance about the top and do nothing about the fabric.

        Of course there are those peers who will be in a snit because suddenly their sisters or daughters outrank their sons/brothers plus the threat of breaking up estates, but really it’s about time.

      • Cee says:

        @ LAK – you’re on point, as usual. I read a piece on Lady Kinvara Balfour in some mag. She whines about her mother not inheriting Arundel because of being born a female and the Dukedom being passed to Kinvara’s uncle. But so often these estates and titles are tied to a family name, and a woman loses hers upon marriage. Establishing primogeniture is great and ABOUT TIME, but the execution of it seems rather sloppy, especially after George being born a male and realising they didn’t need to get into it straight away. Seems very much unfair.

        @ *North*Star* – you’re right, I knew I was missing something, so thank you!
        It seems unlikely William would refuse the POW title. Of course, I carried on with the assumption of Charles becoming King, making William Duke of Cornwall. The POW title is another matter altogether.

        @Maura – Thank you! It’s the first time I could give this info some use as I tend to know a lot about pointless things LOL And yes, it is very much complicated, especially now with equal primogeniture or whatever it is they’re trying to put in place.

      • *North*Star* says:

        Cee,

        You are welcome!

        But I think Lady Kinvara is correct though. Many women have expressed their frustration, angrer, and sadness at not even being included in the lines of their family — and many have seen titles die because they lacked a penis. I’m with LAK, it’s fine and dandy to change the laws at the top but it needs to be done for the entire peerage and baronetcies too (basically all inherited titles) in order to affect real change.

        And changing the inheritance laws but not the Cornwall/Rothesay laws are honestly laughable. It makes them look like idiots that can see the forest for the trees. One, in my opinion, goes with the other — but that’s just me!

        I’ve seen some good arguments about whether or not William will accept the Prince of Wales investiture. Some think he’ll want it right away to honour his mother (several good articles out right now adressing how badly he wants her honoured) and others think he may skip it to honour his father (and to avoid working more). Or at least wait a bit before accepting it. Only time will tell.

      • LAK says:

        CEE – speaking of daughters fighting for their rights, a case has just been settled involving the Earl of Durham who was taken to court by his 3 sisters for a bigger share of the family estates as opposed to the pittance they were going to inherit. As their father had lived and died in Italy, they argued the Italian law of equal shares of estate amongst deceased’s children.

        The Earl, based in England, let the case go as far as the high court. He had to sell a very valuable painting in order to pay their share.

        Then I think of a case from a few years back involving one Baron Braybrooke with 8 living daughters who had variously looked after the family estate when he could not, but who were to be disinherited on his death with the entire estate going to a very distantly related nephew no one had met.

        Many women are being more proactive in pursuing their rights even if at the moment it’s only their financial ones, but the entire system needs to be overhauled.

      • Caroline says:

        Brilliant!

      • Cee says:

        @*North*Star*

        I agree on all accounts. As a female, I would be enraged if my gender determined my ability to inherit and run an estate.

        “And changing the inheritance laws but not the Cornwall/Rothesay laws are honestly laughable.” > THIS! I was disappointed when all talks of changing the laws were swept under the rug the second KenPal announced the Heir’s Heir’s Heir was a boy and not a girl. You could almost hear a collective sigh of relief. And I agree with Kinvara – it should be the House of Peers, especially since some titles can be inherited by women.

        On William not wanting the POW title – what difference does it make between being The Duke of Cornwall or The Prince of Wales? He would still be Heir Apparent. He should know this. He could best honour his mother by working more and following her example, but that has more to do with my opinion on William AND Kate. I find them extremely lazy and pointless, TBH.

        @LAK

        I believe titles and fortunes should not be tied together. Then a male could inherit the title but all daughters would get an equal share in profits from the estate and size of fortune. Good for the Earl of Durham’s sisters for fighting, taking him to court and establishing precedent for other women and younger brothers in a similar position.

        In my ideal world – and I will gladly admit I have no experience on the subject – the title would go to the eldest, regardless of gender, with money being divided equally. On property, I have no idea how it could be resolved.

        Some time ago I heard about a young man stating that women should not inherit in order to preserve the family name, which seems to be a ridiculous reason. Even if the surname matches the title (eg Earl Spencer), I would assume children could also have their mother’s name.

        And yes, the system needs to be overhauled. It’s a very unequal, discriminatory system that has no place in the 21st century. I mean, Crown Princess Victoria’s husband took HER name upon marriage, and they will both represent House of Bernadotte when she becomes Queen.

      • Kimberly says:

        Thanks Cee! You are brilliant. I also tend to know a lot about things other people find pointless, but I didn’t know almost all of what you stated. Glad I’m not the only one. 🙂

      • Suzanne says:

        WOW…WHAT A BUNCH OF GIBBERISH!

      • Dena says:

        Thank you all for having this conversation around primogeniture. I’ve read about the more recent concerns about estates moving away from the direct line because of the lack of males heirs, daughters inheriting (the 3 daughters situation comes to mind), etc., and think those cases are intriguing but don’t know enough about the ends out of the system to fully apprecIate the possible impact any changes may have. So I just want to say to each of you “thank you.” Thank you for broadening my education around this issue. Isn’t Earl Spencer facing this same issue? And would sex-selection be seen as cheating? Not saying that I support the patriarchy. Thanks.

      • *North*Star* says:

        I’d like to see the eldest child of a peer/peeress/title holder inherit regardless of gender. And the estates stay with the title as title holders are expected to uphold a certain standard. That’s not to say any younger children should be completely left out though — they all should get a decent chunk as well (it needs to balance not wiping out the estate though). Last names can be resolved easily too, whichever parent has a higher rank passes on their last name, unless there is some history attached to one name vs another.

        The 9th Earl Spencer does have boys so that title is secure. His eldest son, Louis, is Viscount Althorp.

        Patriarchy has had its day, it’s time it was modernised and equalised.

        ETA:
        If think the title Prince of Wales carries much heavier expectations than Duke of Cornwall or Rothesay. Charles and Diana, with all their faults, have left enormous shoes to fill. And he hasn’t liked it when anyone else expects bigger things of him and I don’t see how a title will assist him. Or us for that matter.

      • FLORC says:

        Suzanne
        What is rubbish? And your caps lock is on 😉

      • Cee says:

        I always feel bad for younger sons… so close yet so far away.

        As North Star said, Earl Spencer has at least 2 sons that I know of, but I’m sure we’ve all heard the story of Diana’s birth being a massive disappointment to her parents because she was the third daughter and the 8th Earl Spencer (her father) needed a son and heir. That example right there puts everything in perspective regarding this matter.

        I always think of Title+Estates as a privately owned business. You have the shareholders and the person running it. Shareholders get a profit, the CEO gets a huge salary and title (and profits if s/he is a shareholder as well). Maybe the eldest child could be the CEO and his/her siblings the shareholders, helping to preserve the estate and history while also receiving a fair share of the fortune and assets. Maybe I’m too business minded lol

        If title and estate go together, I don’t see why a woman cannot inherit. I could be Her Grace The Duchess of Somewhere, hyphenate my last name for my children and then pass on the title and estate to my eldest, making sure both names are passed down.

        ETA: indeed, Charles and Diana have made an impact. I honestly only see Harry following their footsteps, William is the perpetual teenager – he’s lost and idle. Even if he rejects the POW title, he would still be his father’s heir and future King, with all the perks and responsibilities that come with it. Which is why I’m worried about Charles downsizing the Royal Family (not the Royal House – separate things).

        Loved having this conversation with all of you! 🙂

      • *North*Star* says:

        Cee,

        I think the business model you suggested fits well. In most cases, the estates ARE indeed a business and should be preserved. Title holders describe themselves as stewards of the property for not themselves but the people who came after them.

        Hyphenating names can get long though. There are lots of people that already have triple barrel last names! Wow!!!

        Charles and William I think have good intentions but I don’t think they have a lot of people around them to constructively brainstorm with them. I like the idea behind a lot of their thoughts but totally disagree with execution. Does that make sense? And ‘downsizing’ the Royal Family won’t actually change people’s perception. And perception is everything.

      • *North*Star* says:

        Notasugarhere,

        The title ‘Princess Royal’ has/had nothing to do with distinguishing Anne (HRH The Princess Anne) from Diana (HRH The Princess Charles) or even Sarah (HRH The Princess Andrew). But everything to do with HM wanting to honour the hard work Anne was doing for the Monarchy, and by extension, the British public (and world) through her various charities.

        It’s a title that came into being when a Stuart Queen (Henrietta Maria) wanted to bring something from her homeland of France to Great Britain. The title is the British adaptation of the French title ‘Madame Royale’ which is also given to the eldest daughter of the French Sovereign.

      • notasugarhere says:

        NS, that’s what I meant. It was acknowledging her years of hard work that had happened before the two new, younger, higher-profile brides married in. So she wouldn’t get lost in the PR shuffle.

  6. Snazzy says:

    Professional procrastinator and vacationeer extraordinaire?

  7. Mispronounced Name Dropper says:

    You cat to be kitten me. If you had a choice between identifying as a Prince or pilot what would you choose?

    • wolfpup says:

      It seems to me that the title is just an empty word.

    • j.eyre says:

      I agree, Mispronounced Name Dropper.

      Generally, when I must list my occupation I tend to leave it at “Being Extraordinary” but that’s simply because I am American and we aren’t assigned as many titles.

      • bluhare says:

        LOL. But what else could you be, really?

      • j.eyre says:

        Well, I don’t know really, Duchess Bluhare. I mean, one wants to be truthful on these matters.

        Besides, when I use my CB given title, Marchioness J.Eyre of TrollopTown, people get so fussy and I don’t need all that pomp and circumstance. Okay, well maybe a hint of pomp is nice every once in a while.

  8. TX says:

    I know this is just the American in me, but it cracks me up to no end that someone can refer to themselves as “his/her royal highness” with a straight face. It just seems so silly to me.

    • Mispronounced Name Dropper says:

      I could see Snoop Dogg in a film about a stoner royal called
      “His Royal Highness”

    • frisbeejada says:

      As a Brit it cracks me up as well but not quite as much as the rows and rows of medals they give themselves that they wear to official functions. What are the medals for? Only the COS awards themselves more medals for no discernible reason.

      • Daisy says:

        The medals are hilarious, but there is some rationale behind them. We tend to think of all medals as heroism medals (the Victoria Cross) or awards like the US Purple Heart, given for combat wounds. A lot of them are actually service medals, though, given for participation in a campaign, and some are commemoration medals that recognize an event or celebration. So for example, my grandfather has medals that recognize that he was on a ship in Tokyo Bay when the Japanese surrendered after WWII, and served in Berlin during the Airlift, even though he did nothing more heroic than anyone else in his unit (although I’m sure that was plenty!)

        So the royal family members who are ceremonial heads of regiments would receive any commemoration medals given to that regiment, as well as possibly any service medal awarded to the regiment as a whole. (I’m not sure about that, depends if they only go to members who actually served!) That will be the start of their collection. Plus, someone like Philip who actually served in WWII, or Andrew during the Falklands, will get the awards recognizing that service. It is all mildly ridiculous when it comes to the royals, but I am glad that the members of the UK armed forces get the recognition they deserve.

      • *North*Star* says:

        Nope Daisy you are correct. When a whole regiment/division etc. get a medal — everyone does.

    • A.Key says:

      Yeah, the birth certificate literally looks like a big fat joke some kids made. I can’t take it seriously mostly because of all the pointless titles. Like just a name isn’t enough.

  9. Original T.C. says:

    He’s keeping it real for once. Pilots is his hobby for the moment not his real occupation. He is paid directly or indirectly to be a Prince although he can’t be bothered to do most of his princely duties.

    I noticed the Kate is not referred to as Princess Kate directly like Princess Catherine. He writes down her job as Princess not her title. Probably to reward her for doing her job of producing children for the crown and making it look good for his kids to look back in the future to see that their mom is from a respected high station. Snobbery and all that.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      If you are born a princess, you can be Princess Kate. (Like Princess Anne) if you marry a prince, your title is Princess His Name. So Kate is HRH Princess William. It has nothing to do with snobbery on his part.

    • megan says:

      Kate goes by the Duchess of Cambridge, not Princess like Diana, who also wasn’t born royalty. Both would become queen. Just a different word

      • GiGi says:

        Diana didn’t go by Princess. She was Diana, Princess of Wales. Because her husband was a Prince in two ways, born and titled, so he is Prince Charles. Had he only been titled only he’d be Charles, Prince of Wales.

      • Cee says:

        It was never HRH Princess Diana – that could have meant 2 things: 1. The Monarch’s daughter, or 2. The POW’s daughter.

        She was always HRH Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Countess of etc etc etc. She was known as HRH The Princess of Wales, or Diana, Princess of Wales.

        If and when Kate becomes Princess of Wales, she will still be Princess William.

      • Citresse says:

        Following that line of thinking, then due to the fact the Queen’s mother was a commoner, then at some point following protocol, would she (the Queen’s late mother) and when would she be required to curtsy to her own daughters?

      • Cee says:

        @Citresse – HM Queen Elizabeth was only required to cutsy to HM The Queen. She was the Dowager Queen and retained her status as the Windowed Queen Consort to a King. Perhaps Prince Charles outranked her, but she only curtsied to Queen Elizabeth II.

      • *North*Star* says:

        During marriage Diana was : HRH The Princess Charles, Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay…and so on.

        After marriage: Diana, Princess of Wales, etc. (she kept all her titles and was still a princess). Only widows and divorcées put their own name in front of their title — this is done to distinguish two people that hold the same title.

        All children of the Sovereign have a ‘The’ in front of the title: The Prince Charles, The Princess Anne, The Prince Andrew, and The Prince Edward. Female spouses have the feminine equivalent: The Princess Edward (whereas the Duchess of Kent is only Princess Edward, no The in front of Princess). HM extended this privilege to Philip as well.

        All children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign are entitled to use HRH Prince/Princess in front of their given name. So Charles, Andrew, and Edward’s children have that right, although not all use it. HM extended this right to all William’s children (originally only it would have only applied to George).

      • *North*Star* says:

        Citresse,

        No. Once you are a Queen you remain a Queen. The only issue was, her eldest daughter as Sovereign automatically takes precedence over every other person. If not for that, Dowagers or widows (as the Queen Mum was) always take precedence over the incumbent title holder. For example, at one time, there were *FIVE* living Duchesses of Marlborogh and precendence rules keeps it from getting tangled.

  10. Betti says:

    George looks so much like Kate’s father in that pic of him waving – that kid is a Middleton and with his personality will no doubt be a lady killer, just like Uncle Harry 😉 Lock up yours daughters now. LOL

  11. Bea says:

    Well at least he acknowledges his workshyness. Polyannaing it up.

  12. Citresse says:

    I note with this document, George’ birth and the marriage document, William prints Middleton in capital letters unlike the rest of the document. From a psychological view, William perhaps considers his in-laws as quite a powerful force in his life.
    I don’t think it was ridiculous for William to want to wait to release the name until the Queen had met his daughter. I think it’s nice. A sign of respect.

    • Esmom says:

      Very interesting observation. I tend to veer between all caps and lower case but now I’m sure I’ll pause to see when and why I am doing that! 🙂

    • Sixer says:

      On UK register forms – births, deaths, marriages – all surnames have to be written in capital letters by law. And it looks to me, as I said below, that the registrar filled out this form and William merely signed it.

      Sorry to burst any bubbles!

      • Esmom says:

        That all makes sense. So much for the analysis! 🙂

      • Olenna says:

        Yes, I believe the registrar completed the form and William signed it. It looks like the same hand-writing that was on George’s certificate. That lady got loads of complaints about her penmanship.

      • Citresse says:

        Yeah Sixer, there goes the bubble.
        Interesting to note last names of commoners are capitalized, yet HRH is not. 🙂
        It would be interesting to find historical documents with Spencer to see if capitalized, to verify.

      • Sixer says:

        It’s just the law, Citresse, that’s all. On the Sixlets’ birth certificates, I am Sixer SIXERSDOTTIR. Surnames have to be capitalised. Given names don’t. Forms of address, whether they be Mr, Ms, or HRH, don’t.

    • Betti says:

      I thought all names has to be caps on registration forms.

    • Imqrious2 says:

      If you’ll compare the writing to the writing to the signature in the bottom right of the form, it is the registrar who filled out the form, not William (same for George’s birth certificate). William only signed his name.

  13. Sixer says:

    Isn’t that the registrar’s handwriting? It looks as though the registrar’s signature matches the handwriting on the form and not the nincompoop’s signature.

    Bejaysus, why did I even look?

    We almost forgot to register poor little Sixlet Minor. Had to be reminded by stroppy government officers. He was almost a non-person. Oops!

    • Nashville girl says:

      In one of the DM articles they interviewed the registrar who said it was her handwriting.

      • Citresse says:

        I really thought it was William’s handwriting for a variety if reasons but also because it resembles Diana’s writing a little bit.

    • Green Girl says:

      Can you imagine being the registrar for this?!? I would be so nervous and would probably have to go through five copies before I got it right. Although I’m sure someone from the Palace was standing right by to say “No, no, no, it should be….”

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Sixer – I agree that it’s the Deputy Registrar who filled out the form and that William only signed it.

  14. Jess says:

    I was wondering if Kate went drug free because she was up and about so soon after the birth, epidurals can keep you numb and wobbly for hours! Good for her, I was impressed with her behavior that day, she looked radiant, and yes I know she has a styling team and any of us could look that way with help, but to me she looked like she was on that oxytocin/endorphin high some women get after delivery, and William looked smitten with both Kate and Charlotte, I thought it was cute.

    • goofpuff says:

      she did hypno therapy I believe to handle the pain, pretty cool

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I agree, Jess. I thought she did great and looked beautiful, and they looked happy as a family.

    • wolfpup says:

      I personally don’t understand why anyone would not want help with the pain. My first child weighed 9 1/2 lbs. and I had nothing! Am I supposed to get a gold star for this? Why does my daughter choose to go through a birthing process without pain relief (she’s due in September)? Whatever – gold stars… Does it make one more of a woman?

      • Faun says:

        According to my 85 year old MIL, yes. She referred to her granddaughters as “not really women” because they had drugs.

        I can only imagine what she thinks of me, a childfree-by-choice woman.

      • Marigold says:

        There are plenty of legitimate reasons women don’t want epidurals. Some people are needle averse. Some don’t like the way epidurals feel-the loss of feeling can make it hard for some women to feel the urge to push. Some women have terrible reactions to them-vomiting, blood pressure reactions. No one is necessarily looking for any gold stars for going without. Why do you care what other people do? Why do you need to understand? If it isn’t your vagina, who cares?

      • wolfpup says:

        Childbirth doesn’t make one more of a woman – it just forces one into a patriarchal woman’s role through helplessness.

      • Tanya says:

        I was planning on an epidural with my second, but couldn’t get one because it all happened so fast. It may be that she didn’t even get a choice in the matter.

      • sienna says:

        At no point during childbirth did I feel helpless, thank you very much. I was strong, and capable and proud of my what my body accomplished.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Oh, I wasn’t shading people who take pain medication during labor. That would have been my choice, believe me. I think it’s a personal choice, unless things happen so fast there isn’t time for medication. I just meant she was up and around and looking happy hours later, and seemed to take the whole thing in stride.

    • FLORC says:

      Keeping this short.
      Epidurals are not the only way to manage pain in a major way while in labor. There are numerous other paths that imo do equally as well. I’m a practicing and registered nurse and midwife in my state. A woman could give birth without any extreme complications and not have an epidural while still not feeling like the pain is overwhelming. And imo these other ways (which i’ve listed at length on other threads) are more just superior in many ways vs. the epidural.

      So, no shade, but let’s not forget not having an epidural does not mean you’re gritting your teeth with white knuckles while delivering.
      Done.

      • Jess says:

        Florc, so jealous of your profession! I often think of going back to school to be a nurse or midwife, helping my older sister with her delivery was a life changing experience, something I’d love to help other women with!

      • FLORC says:

        Jess
        It’s both rewarding and a struggle. You have to take the good times with the really awful times. If you can do that and not take that stress home with you I very much support you following that career path!
        And great you were able to help your sister! That sounds wonderful 🙂

      • Feeshalori says:

        I hope you watch “Call the Midwife” on PBS, FLORC. Marvelous show about a group of midwives during the ’50s and ’60s practicing in a working-class section of London.

      • FLORC says:

        I haven’t even heard of that show Freeshalori.
        Will check it out though. It’s such a science and art form in a way.

      • Jess says:

        Florc, one thing that has stopped me is I’m afraid of being too emotional. I cry at anything and I’m not sure I could handle the losses that will happen. I’m already in the medical field but I don’t see much death or work with babies, so it would be a huge change, but maybe it’s something I’m meant to do.

    • Jess says:

      I’m one of those who thinks any way a woman gives birth is simply amazing, no judgment from me and I hate that it feels like a competition between women sometimes!

      I had an epidural with my daughter but it completely screwed up my blood pressure and I was sick for 8 hours straight, by the time I was ready to push it had worn off and I could feel almost everything and refused more medication, so next time I’ll just skip it all together! My mother is one of those judgmental as*holes who thinks because she had 3 children without drugs every woman should, so to be able to have those bragging rights and not hear anymore passive aggressive jabs about how I got an epidural and my sister didn’t will make it worth it to me, but I know all women are different and we handle pain differently, take the drugs or don’t! Whatever works for you:)

      • FLORC says:

        Sorry that’s your mother and not mother in law. We shouldn’t judge other women for how they gave birth. Because 1 went without an epidural doesn’t mean that’s the gold standard. Different circumstances in every case. And often expecting mothers aren’t aware of the alternatives to pain management. Or are unable to implement those alternatives for various reasons.
        No judgiing on how a woman chooses to give birth regarding pain management. I’ll give all deserving shame to those who use how they gave birth to shame or humblebrag though. Bundchen/Kerr

  15. Hazel says:

    Notice her name is Catherine Elizabeth, HRH The Duchess of Cambridge; whereas he is HRH Prince William, The Duke of Cambridge. So, while her job is princess, her title is duchess, although the palace released a statement saying that since her marriage, she could call herself Princess William of Wales, but NOT Princess Catherine.
    Either way, those two produce adorable offspring.

    • Elly says:

      the different position of the “HRH” is the way to put the non-royal spouse in his place. It shows how important it is for the firm to show that Kate is not equal, not blood-royal like her husband and kids. Only Kate´s Duchess title is a royal highness, she herself is just Kate and nothing without her husband. Nice right?

    • Anaya says:

      People magazine always call her Princess Kate. That’s their thing. It hasn’t quite caught on lol. I agree that George and Charlotte are absolutely adorable.☺️

      • CG says:

        That People “Princess Kate” thing drives me batty. I have no idea why they’re so stubborn in their insistence on using it.

      • Green Girl says:

        I am just speculating here, but for some readers, it might not be immediately clear who DoC is if a publication only refers to her by her formal title.

      • Feeshalori says:

        CG, it probably doesn’t suit People’s fairytale as well as the general public that a mundane duchess lives happily ever after, only a princess. So Princess Kate it must be!

    • Becks says:

      I also noticed the different placement of the HRH for her.

      It tickled my fancy to believe that he forgot to put HRH until AFTER he had written her name.

  16. Chrissy says:

    Re; epidurals. Are British midwives licensed to give epidurals? Here in Canada, only anesthesiologists are allowed to give epidurals. Thoughts?

    • Sixer says:

      No, they aren’t. Only anaesthetists here, too. So if mothers choose a midwife-led unit rather than a hospital, they wouldn’t be able to have an epidural (although if anything goes wrong, they transfer you to hospital by ambulance).

      • puffinlunde says:

        The maternity wing where she delivered would defintely have an anaesthetist available to administer one if required even if her delivery was managed by midwives. The fact that she arrived at the hospital at 6am and delivered by 8.30 makes it sounds as though it was a pretty quick birth

      • Sixer says:

        Yes, of course, because she gave birth in a hospital. In the UK via the NHS, you can choose (and change your choice as often as you want beforehand) whether to give birth at home, in a less formal midwife-led unit, or a hospital. Many (low risk) women pick the midwife-led unit as a kind of best of both worlds option.

  17. LAK says:

    For everyone who says UK celebs in America eg Catherine Zeta Jones are lying about their ages, the form above is filed for every UK born citizen within 42 days of their birth.

    The record is public and accessible to the public should they choose.

    As for William’s shenanigans….he is simply exhausting.

    What should we do about William?

    • notasugarhere says:

      LAK, it is exhausting, isn’t it? I’ve been a royal watcher since before W&H were born. Back when everything was hard-copy, shipped-over-the-pond, or ordered through special book sellers (listed in the back of things like Majesty magazine). I never would have guessed that this is how he would turn out. I don’t think anyone would have. He is a remarkable disappointment, no getting around that.

      What to do about him? Hope that the royal reporters don’t give up on exposing the lies from fact, and that more online fangirls/boys start accepting those facts. It is happening on tumblr already, with more pro-W&K sites turning or shutting down. The hysteria around Diana’s arrival on the scene was matched by her hard work, which people saw early on.

      If the fan hysteria about the idea of “ooh, squee, KM is a princess” dies down, more will start discussing the nature of monarchy and what these two do NOT bring to the table. With increasing coverage of people like Maxima and Letizia in the international scene, more newer royal watchers may see what is possible and required of royal roles.

      If HM can’t keep up the pace or Philip passes soon – those may be the only ways to get William to start owning up to his responsibilities. Even if those happen, he may continue both his Hermit of Norfolk ways and refuse to step aside.

      Harry’s next few years will be especially interesting to watch. He cannot do more royal engagements than William, PR and a brotherly code is my guess. I expect a lot more time spent out of the UK at Sentebale, as much time as he can get away with, and getting his feet wet managing the Romanian estates. He’ll keep his head down for the 20th anniversary of Diana’s death in 2017.

      • LAK says:

        The only sad thing about those tumblrs shutting down is the loss of archived information, especially rare video and photographs that they obsessively collect.

        I don’t see William changing his tune. He is stuck in a rebellion for rebellion’s sake without offering up any solutions.

        As much as I dislike public maulings, I think he is overdue one. It’s the way the senior royals are forced to change.

        That said, after the spate of articles pointing to their complete removal to the countryside, I was left wondering what sort of job Jason, Rebecca etc have. If you are hired to do a job, but your boss refuses to work, what do you do with your days?

        ELF has a lot of work coming up with Harry, but what work are Jason and Rebecca to do?

      • FLORC says:

        Nota/LAK
        Exhausting indeed. To have followed as things unfold in historical or simply past events within our time and to google search how they’re said to have unfolded revealing history being rewritten. And the loss of archived information is sad, but all too common.

        LAK
        What do you do when your boss refuses to work? You have to work so much more to make it look like they are working. Recycling stories, fluff articles, hoping journalists will still care to write the same old stuff they wrote a month ago.

        And agree William is overdue for a dose of public opinion not filtered. And sadly, that might be the only way reality sinks in. He is a prince, but fails to act like a decent one aware of his duties. And that he is a pilot and that is his only true source of income listed shouldn’t he be a pilot somewhere on there?
        Have other princes listed their military jobs or as prince being their only occupation? And is it true if William and Kate divorced she would only be entitled to his wages as a pilot? With his trust and all other funds protected?

        Nota
        If William does stay with his wife and children while working I thinkk some slack is given. I think it’s likely like last time in a week or 2 at most he will take up residence elsewhere. Kate will take up with her mother again. Anmer will be vacant. Hope i’m wrong. So far history favors this route.

      • notasugarhere says:

        What will W&K’s 2 dozen office staff do? Keep writing, “Sorry, they’re not working right now. When will they be? Your guess is as good as mine” form letters? Since the requests are likely already dwindling, they’re probably out looking for new jobs.

        As long as ELF shows up in uniform a few times, you’ll be good, right?

      • Sixer says:

        I think it will all drag on until Charles becomes king. At that point, William will run out of excuses and as PoW will have to step up. He’ll do his best not to, at which point will come the inevitable press and public mauling. And then he’ll have to decide. I expect, like most of the stupid little princelings before him, he’ll end up doing what’s required and discover that it’s actually easier than ongoing avoidance. But there’s always a small chance he’ll step aside.

      • Dena says:

        I suspect Rebecca’s job is abused, flunky “poor relation” friend.

        For the life of me, I simply don’t understand how a life that appears to be depressingly insular will prepare W/K for the extraordinary roles they will go on to play. What experiences do they have or have had that will prepare them to remotely speak to issues & events outside of their circle? What level of experience do they have that will give them the type of discernment they will need to hire the types of people whose job it is to keep them informed about issues and events? IMO, it’s simply not enough that she is pretty and he is tall. Life for royals (anyone) is no longer that unqualified–I would think.

        I don’t have a problem with them trying to establish and maintain a “normal” life and a routine of “normalcy” to keep them grounded and together as family. (My problem in this area is when they play on normal as a PR stunt.)

        ******
        Just thought of this . . . Or perhaps William is hoping to simply retire into the confines & security of private wealth.

      • LAK says:

        Florc: if precedent is followed, then yes. In the event of a divorce, and William isn’t Duke of Cornwall yet, then Kate’s divorce settlement will follow his pilot salary with afew additions like a house and security thrown in.

        Nota: yes, more ELF in uniform is exactly what I need.

        Sixer: we can only hope that he’ll step aside, right?

        Dena: William shows how i’ll prepared he is whenever he meets world leaders, but apparently no one tells him off, so this merry go round continues.

      • *North*Star* says:

        William needs both his father and his grandparents (especially Granny) to say that he needs to step up more to the plate. Anyone else he’ll simply tune out.

        The need for a strong family life is important — but so is working for the family business. He could be a part-time Royal with 150-175ish engagements a year and a part-time pilot. And that won’t detract from his wish to build a firm family foundation. True of Kate as well, 150ish engagements a year still leaves lots of room to be a mom.

        But Granny & Papa seem to appear to endorse his ‘Lets wait some more before becoming a full-time Royal’.

      • FLORC says:

        Oh NorthStar
        How true that is.
        It could even be argued having William and Kate occupy themselvs with other interests or work would disply a work ethic children pick up on. To discuss topics of charities and events. Not as much shopping, purchases, and appearance upkeep or vacations.
        To be home for their child early on is a wonderful thing. Though being middle class and wanting privacy doesn’t mean they have to seclude themselves like is being suggested. Nothing they have done their whole marriage has been middle class.

        Giving William this much rope will only do more harm than good. And imo we’re already seeing the effects. That he hasn’t yet stepped up after claiming numerous times to be preparing to do so very soon says all too much.

        LAK
        If those leaders are picking up how poorly prepared William is you know thy’re talking about it in private. That does not hold well for his future on the throne.

      • Imo says:

        Anyone feel free to jump in here.
        I read here that everyone is upset with William’s work ethic. He’s lazy, I get it but my question is how do we know the queen and Charles didn’t agree to let William take it easy until the kids are bigger? Some articles have said the queen wanted Will and Kate to take time to raise their family and enjoy this time. I know how angry everyone here gets at that idea but more and more it is looking like the truth. Does anyone have anything to refute or corroborate this? I’m sure the courtiers are livid but they’re always livid about everything so palace leaks don’t carry much weight sometimes. I know William and Kate set their own schedule but I want to know if their schedule is based on a bigger arrangement/agreement? If Charles can leak his displeasure over Carole and his state of affairs with Andrew why wouldn’t he leak that the Cambridges should be helping him more? William is close to the queen. Wouldn’t he do more if she asked him to? we know she should ask him to but can we be sure she has done so?

      • notasugarhere says:

        imo, those stories about HM wanting to “give them time” are generally spun out of lies about Malta. The press ran with those lies and created the idea of “give them time” to try to justify the laziness early on. Go read Prince Philip’s 90th birthday interviews and tell me that’s a man who doesn’t want his grandson to step up and take on some of the load.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Dena

        “What level of experience do they have that will give them the type of discernment they will need to hire the types of people whose job it is to keep them informed about issues and events?

        IMO, it’s simply not enough that she is pretty and he is tall. Life for royals (anyone) is no longer that unqualified–I would think.”

        I really like how you put this.

      • lisa says:

        why do they own property in romania?

        i’m sorry if that is a dumb question

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Imo

        I just don’t believe that the elder BRFs think that W&K can’t walk and chew gum at the same time and shouldn’t have to, when they themselves have had to do so for decades and still are doing it into their 80s and 90s.

        And it’s not like it’s all based on and around the kids. They were like this before they had kids. When William went on that safari with Jecca and friends, was his wife and kid with him? No. Also, how long does it take away from kid-time when their events are at night when the kids are already asleep, or when it’s been said that they stay less than an hour at an event. Some have said it’s about 30-45 minutes. Then they’re out. That’s a shorter time than they take when they go shopping or when she goes to her salon or when he goes out to the pub or hunting with his friends.

        I don’t think the Queen and PoW can complain to the press about W&K’s lack of work ethics. That would come back on themselves too and hurt the overall BRF image. It would raise more questions about whether all the money spent on them is worth it.

        Whereas complaints about grandbaby time doesn’t affect the reason for why the BRF still exist or get as much money as they do.

      • Dena says:

        Thanks u, anne_000😊

      • Imo says:

        Notasugar
        anne
        I understand why the Cambridges have no excuse. No one buys the excuses anyway but what I’m asking is how do we know the queen/Charles aren’t on board with the scaled back work schedule? Because it doesn’t make good sense to us doesn’t mean it doesn’t make sense to them. And it’s not like the queen always has her finger on the pulse of public opinion. She gave Andrew a promotion two weeks after the sex scandal broke, so…
        It seems less and less likely that someone high up the ladder is not condoning this. And saying the queen’s permission was spun from lies doesn’t give me a factual basis to understand this situation. The Philip interview may shed some light on it but not much. William isn’t looking to Philip for permission/validation for anything. It’s the queen who has William’s ear, according to everyone.
        I’m not dismissing your opinions and I agree with 95% of them but they don’t really answer my questions.

      • FLORC says:

        Imo
        I disagree the Queen isn’t on the pulse of opinion. That Andrew promotion came at time enough to counter the bad pr. It did work better than nothing.

        And Look at it this way.. The Queen and Charles operate to not rock the boat.
        Neither Charles or The Queen have gone on the record saying they wanted William to take this time off nor would they.

      • *North*Star* says:

        IMO,

        There have been articles that state that The Queen and Charles are all on board with William wanting to concentrate on family life and not start full-time Royal duties and then others that question whether they agree with it. I tend to lean towards the two of them being on board as the proof is in the pudding. William and Kate want to be homebodies and it’s happening.

        I also don’t think William is actually lazy per se. But I fully concede it sure as heck looks that way and perception is everything. So whether he is or isn’t — doesn’t matter — it’s the perception that counts. This, among other things, is a direct result of him being stubborn and not wanting to be a public person so people are left not knowing OR listening to pissed off courtiers. He needs to find a good middle ground (which seems to be an issue for all royals). He isn’t going to please everyone (no one can) but it looks as if he is only concerned about pleasing himself and Kate, with everyone else (ie Royal duties), not even breaking his top 10.

        I also think this is an error on The Queen and Charles’ part. The entire Royal Family needs a major overhaul and to change how they communicate to the public. If they’d put out a memo stating that the Cambridges are focusing on family vs Royal duties for the time being, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Dissemination via reputable papers is a horsesh!t method of communication. My opinion of course.

      • Imo says:

        FLORC
        Are you serious? You think Andrew’s promotion quelled the general disgust of the public? The queen is notorious for sticking her head in the sand, especially about Andrew. After Diana’s death the angry, grieving crowds desperate for a message from the queen did not think she had her finger on the public pulse.
        Northstar
        I don’t agree with you that William is not lazy but everything else you said makes a heck of a lot of sense. Because of their rank and the loss of their mother combined with how many years will likely pass before Charles dies, the firm is willing to give William and Harry whatever they want.

      • *North*Star* says:

        IMO,

        In the bios of William they paint a much different picture of his work ethic as it appears only his *Royal* duties that he dodges (when he does them people are thrilled though). Note: I am aware of the DM articles about the possible loss of his wings in the summer of 2012/ into early 2013 but that has not been verified by anyone else (either reputable paper or journalist). So in my book it stays as speculation until confirmed.

        So I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt as he might actually be a good worker…but that’s not readily apparent.

        LISA,

        Not a dumb question at all. I’d guess many others had the same question. 😊

        Charles bought property in Romania to help preserve their heritage. That’s his shtick. He’s done it all around the UK for the same reason.

      • FLORC says:

        Imo
        Yes, serious. I’m not defending the actions and do not agree with them. The promotion gave the press something else to write about and shortly after there was nothing more to be said. It’s awful, but a tactic that worked then and has worked throughout history.
        And i’m not referencing anything with Diana. That was many years ago and very different for a lot of reasons. I’m speaking to Andrew only.

        And I didn’t mean to say William is not lazy. He is. And William has been handed the world. He can take as he needs or wants from learning and leisure. That he’s dismissed the learning and indulged the leisure will be his downfall. He’s into his 30’s and has yet to take on his duties with dedication. Or to treat his station with respect. For whatever reason Harry has had an easier time while William revolts. Sometimes giving that space works out and others not as much.

      • *North*Star* says:

        FLORC
        I agree with IMO here. HM has a pattern of being oblivious to certain things when she either likes/dislikes something. Andrew gets away with murder and she assists in that arena. Diana was just another example of it.

        As for William’s laziness. I tell you all his bios paint a very different picture than what is commonly known in the media. It’s kinda crazy how radically different the portraits are as you’d think we are talking about 2 different people. William’s insularity and stubbornness I think get in the way of a good picture because he pisses off so many courtiers which is why I think we hear so many negative stories in the first place. But you gotta read some of his bios to see what I mean. He has some great, and named quotes, about him as a person and his work ethic, from not only his office but Charles’ too.

  18. jules says:

    Why did someone think it was so important to reveal whether or not she had an epidural and had a drug free birth? I can understand releasing info if she had a surgical birth, but who cares if she went drug-free? Seriously.

    • Sarah says:

      Seriously? Every judgy busy body from here to timbuktu!! Motherhood is for public shaming, didn’t ya know? Had drugs = didn’t experience the beauty of birth, bad mothet for drugging your baby. No drugs = think you’re better than everyone and a masochist. Don’t breastfeed = poisoning your child, destined for a life of sickness and obesity. Breastfeed = put your breasts away you harlot, only feed while wearing full body burqa
      etc etc etc etc

      • jules says:

        So the palace released the info to appease the “judgy busy body”? Right. I wonder if they would have disclosed that she did have drugs if that were the case..

      • notasugarhere says:

        Jules, it doesn’t state that the Palace said anything about drugs, no drugs, midwives vs. doctors. Kaiser states “sources” not an official spokesperson on record.

      • Sofia says:

        Right on, Sarah! Depressingly accurate.

      • jules says:

        “sources”?? Okay….

      • notasugarhere says:

        Jules, meaning the third hospital staff person on the left, on another floor, who heard it 24th hand in the cafeteria from someone who knows someone who might have been there. That kind of “source”. Not on record from the palace.

      • jules says:

        nota – so in other words, not credible? not suggesting the palace has always been 100% honest and forthright, but this seems sketchy at best.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Jules I’m suggesting that the “source” or “sources” are not Palace-based but rather staff from the hospital who may or may not have access to any facts.

    • The Original Mia says:

      To make Kate seem like the wunder mother their PR portrays her as. Kate didn’t need an epidural. She’s strong enough to birth dem babies without it. And look her! Leaving the hospital within hours of giving birth. Look at her perfectly styled hair and face. She’s wearing heels. She looks amazing and is amazing and…that’s your future Queen, people!

      To be truthful, no one knows what happened because of HIPPA laws and for that, I’m thankful and so is she.

      • Flames Fan says:

        no one knows what happened because of HIPPA laws and for that, I’m thankful and so is she.

        and so it should be. all the minutiae of what happened in the hospital is private – except for the fact that she had a baby girl. wonder if the “sources” would have been as forthcoming about no drugs, no epidural if she had “given in” and said yes to pain meds. If as you suggest the leak was from her pr team, then I doubt it. why portray her as weak?

  19. perplexed says:

    The only interesting thing about Kate and William are their kids. Hopefully, George’s chubby cheeks will last more than a few years.

  20. Kiddo says:

    Mini Sir Winston Churchill demoted him.

  21. Marianne says:

    I think its says Prince because his royal duties come first and foremost. Afterall if the Queen and Prince Charles died tomorrow, William would no longer be a pilot as he would have a country to run.

    • notasugarhere says:

      No, he would not have a country to RUN. Heaven help the UK and Commonwealth if that was ever the case. In 33 years, his royal duties have never been first and foremost to him. Perks, yes. Duties, nope. I don’t see that changing any time soon.

    • mazzie says:

      Nope. They reign, not rule. There’s a difference. I wouldn’t want him running my country (Canada – Crown of Canada, etc. etc.)

    • A.Key says:

      That’s the saddest part really. The Queen doesn’t run anything nor will William one day. They’re just pointless figures. Politicians do the actual work and run the country.

  22. tabasco says:

    I wondered about his signature when I saw it on George’s birth certificiate. I mean, I guess people can sign however they want in general, but is it some kind of royal thing that you just sign your first name?

    • LAK says:

      Whilst it seems strange that they sign only their first name, the fact is that they don’t have a surname. This is as long a signature as your are going to get.

  23. Angel says:

    “rebellious for rebellion sake” – love that!
    It seems like no one ever gets around to raising these royal children. They get impressions of how they are to act, they get historical references on how they are to act and they get how others are to act towards them but no one seems to get it their face and say ‘NO, stop this now’.
    It has been said that the Queen doesn’t like to bring her children to heel herself, and I think everyone just went hands off with the boys after Diana died. William seems like a very lazy, angry, bitter, stubborn man-child.

    • Imo says:

      I think this is where Charles let the boys down after their mother died. He comforted them but he didn’t do the right things to help them, imo. Being your sons’ best friend and polo buddy isn’t the same as being a father.
      The boys should have had firm boundaries, expectations and therapeutic oversight.
      Charles let the boys work out their grief the best way they saw fit, it looks to me. Harry drank too much, was rowdy at school and William drank too much and threw tantrums. This still may have been the case had Diana lived – she was indulgent with them so who really knows. But Charles’ Camilla revamp was more important to him. This may still be the case.

      • *North*Star* says:

        IMO,

        I agree. Charles set up people to guide his children (very typical of the upper class parenting style) but Diana was very much a hands-on American style parent (if you look at her maternal side — it makes sense as her grandfather, Baron Fermoy, had an American mother and was even raised in the States) which is what the boys knew and responded to. She was a lenient parent but would have not tolerated them going off the rails like they did as teenagers/young adults.

        I think that’s 100% the reason William involves the Middletons as much as he does. He’s looking to recreate that closeness his mother tried to achieve when she was alive. I think that’s also why William hasn’t involved Charles & Camilla more. William may respect certain aspects of his father but it’s clear he’s less than thrilled with how he parented.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Being a hands-on-parent isn’t an exclusively American thing.

  24. bettyrose says:

    Kate could title herself Princess Consuela Bananahammock if she fancied and the RF should just go with it. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world (at least in archaic traditions where a woman’s power is gained through birthing healthy heirs).

  25. A.Key says:

    The birth certificate is hilarious really, it perfectly describes them and their ridiculous situation.
    But at least he was honest, being a prince is literally what he does and what he is. His and her job is to be “princely”, smile, wave and look good and benevolent for the masses.
    It really would have been shameless if he had written pilot, I’m sure all the actual full time proper pilots would riot. It’s nice Willy is aware of how little he does in reality.

    Question though, the birth certificate says NAME AND SURNAME, why write the titles then? Is Her Royal Highness her actual name? Isn’t it a title, like professor or PhD or general? Why put the titles, why not just her full name, Charlotte Elizabeth Diana of Cambridge?
    Same goes for the parents. HRH is a title not their actual name.

  26. Anne says:

    I don’t see a resemblance to William in Prince George at all.

    • FLORC says:

      Not all sons look like their fathers as toddlers. There is Spencer in George and is discussed above. Spencer being Diana’s side.
      To add many claimed they saw no charles in William and Harry. Now as they age you absolutely see it.
      It’s possible George and Charlotte will favor their mother’s looks until their early 20’s and then the Windsor genes will trump all.

      • Christin says:

        The Windsor looks seem to take root with a vengeance eventually. Like kudzu — once it appears, you see it everywhere.

      • Citresse says:

        Michael Middleton has a good head of hair. I suspect both George and Charlotte will be exceptionally attractive adults since the Middleton is now mixed with strong Spencer.

      • FLORC says:

        Citresse
        At some point the Windsor genes take over no matter the norm for how genetic traits are passed. There’s no guarantee they’ll take that much of the Middleton side as time goes on.

    • Feeshalori says:

      If the Windsor genes trump all, then wave goodbye to George’s hair as the years go by.

    • Christin says:

      That happened with William. He had a full mop of hair (much like his mother) and then the Windsor genes took over.

    • Imo says:

      Baldness is inherited from the mother.

  27. anne_000 says:

    Since I noticed that Elizabeth is Kate’s middle name and I recently read that Charlotte is Pippa’s middle name, now I know what must have been the primary reason why the baby is named Charlotte Elizabeth. It’s just lucky happenstance that the Queen’s name is Elizabeth too and PoW’s name is Charles, imo. Very much a Middleton baby.

    And for those who’ve been criticizing people who’ve been criticizing W&K for not working or not much, look at what these two keep putting down as their occupations on both birth registration forms. They admit that it’s their job to be a working member of the BRF. That’s why they have to step up and work like the elder members do and at least as much as Harry does.

    • bettyrose says:

      To me, putting Prince/princess as your occupation smacks of a Disney- esque happily ever after narrative. Like, do W&K really equate those titles with obligation or just with their station in life?

    • Citresse says:

      It’s things like this that make me wonder if everything is meant to be?
      Not only the names of the Middleton children, but other things including Carole and Michael’s remarkable jump from the middle class world and the old video footage of a young Kate acting in a school play sighing about marrying a prince someday, all of it long before William met Kate.

      • Chrissy says:

        IMO, the Middletons are still considered middle-class. Just because their daughter married into the BRF doesn’t affect their status whatsoever no matter what they might think. They are part of the entrepreneur/ business class. They are not of old money but rather gauche, social-climbing nouveau riche. Kinda like the Kardashians.

    • LAK says:

      No one has mentioned that Elizabeth is also Carole’s middle name.

      Carole, Kate and Charlotte have the same initials C.E.

      I think the Cambridges have slyly included people not expected to be included because everyone is looking at the royal side only.

      To wit, both babies share names with Spencer cousins including Charles Spencer’s kids.

      Charlotte Elizabeth has a lot of crossover with the middletons, Carole and Pippa. Not to mention the same initials as Carole and Kate.

      If the next baby, assuming they have another, is named Frances/Francis, that will include Michael Middleton since his middle name is Francis.

      James doesn’t have to worry about use of his names since he shares a name with the babies’ father ie William is his middle name.

    • Suze says:

      The influence probably came from both sides. Both families contributed to the “lucky happenstance”. I think the baby is named for her grandfather and aunt, probably tilting toward the royal side because that is the historic, public side.

      I think if the Queen’s name had been Effie Mae, it would have found it’s way in there.

      • wolfpup says:

        Carole gave all of her children the names of queens and kings? Perhaps she had plans in advance.

      • *North*Star* says:

        Wolfpup,

        They are also commonplace English names. So there is that.

  28. MinnFinn says:

    I assumed Wm listed his occupation as “Prince…” on his kids’ birth registries b/c they are legal documents that are part of a body of evidence for his and his kids’ claim of royal lineage and their place in line to inherit the throne. Someone in UK, please shed some light on this.

  29. Beep says:

    Prince sounds better than Pilot?

  30. angee says:

    Let me make this clear: we don’t care about William or Kate. What they wear, what their titles are. We just want to see more photos of GEORGE!

    Thank you.

    • FLORC says:

      Who’s “we” here?
      And William will not allow that without it being an invasion of privacy. So, those George pics to come more than they do? Those might be taken illegally or without the father’s consent. Still want those pics?

    • perplexed says:

      Pretty much.

  31. Citresse says:

    I read that William tricked the paps by going through the side entrance at Sandringham.
    Well, that’s it. They’re in seclusion for months. The next update and family photos will be at the baptism, I guess? Looking forward.

    • Feeshalori says:

      Or unless Mike Middleton takes out his handy-dandy camera again for some family photos prior to the baptism.

      • Citresse says:

        That would be lovely.

      • Citresse says:

        Freeshalori
        I just read a bit of information at my favourite Kate (fashion) blog stating the Cambridges are planning to release a family photo within the next few weeks, so you may be right about Mike Middleton breaking out the camera soon.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Oh, goody, Citresse, thanks for the info! Wonder if Lupo will be in it again.

  32. He is only pilot for a little while, but he has been prince all of his life. A funny story: then president JFK asked Sofia Loren for a date, she turned him down. Supposedly he said: “Don’t you know who I am? I’m president of thhe United States!” She said: “You will only be president for a little while–i will ALWAYS be Sofia Loren”!

  33. Tracy says:

    Uh, he listed his occupation as “Prince” because, well, he’s a Prince.

  34. mabel says:

    Fascinating royals info from Cee, above.
    • But the point that’s amazed me is the mention of Carole Middleton referring to herself as ‘Mrs Michael Middleton’. If this is true, it’s rare in women of her (and my) age, belonging more to our mothers’ generation and even they dumped it by the latter 70s, by and large.
    It’s certainly not a class thing, and it’s not a ‘step up the ladder’ at all. If you’re a very old-fashioned, inward-looking type of family, (or a wannabe Hyacinth Bucket) then maybe you’d unquestioningly carry on as your parents did, (and fair enough of course, whatever you choose), but neither Middleton seems to be encased in amber.
    (BTW I know it’s much more common in the States)

    • RobN says:

      Still quite common in the U.S., and I use it under certain circumstances (I’m 50), but not all the time, and not professionally. I’m forced to attend a lot of business functions through my husband and it’s quite common for me to be introduced as Mrs. Mike Smith, simply because he’s the person they know, not me, and it lets them know who I am in the grand scheme of things without a lot of explanation.

      I actually hear newly married women use it quite a lot; I suppose because the whole idea of being Mrs. anybody is still novel to them.

    • Cee says:

      Hi Mabel! I did not mean Carole refers to herself as being Mrs. Michael Middleton. She has been referred as such in official or social events. When the Middletons rode in The Queen’s carriage procession at the races (I don’t remember which and I’m lazy to Google) her name tag said Mrs. Michael Middleton, not Mrs Carole Middleton or even Carole Middleton. I suppose it’s because that’s her title. Notice how Pippa is always Miss Middleton or Miss Philippa Middleton, never just Pippa Middleton.

      • LAK says:

        The types of events you mention @CEE will always use the old form whether Carole or Pippa wish to be thus described or not.

      • Cee says:

        Yes, that’s correct and that’s what I meant (but sometimes I get so mixed up it dones’t come out correctly haha)

  35. Melibea says:

    Excuse my ignorance but since when is been a prince an occupation?
    Occupation = a job, line of work,it means earning a living
    Prince =Hederitary title, a male royal ruler
    I’m so confused!

  36. Vava says:

    Bye Bye, Cambridges!

  37. maggie says:

    For those complaining William never or rarely works I have to ask how it is that some spend every day here analyzing the royals and writing novels? I’m guessing they don’t work either? As for William describing his job……he is a prince and he has a young family and a job outside of being a prince. (runs away)

    • jules says:

      People don’t work 24/7 – how long does it take to scan a blog and post a comment or follow up comment(s)? Even hard-working regular tax payers have a bit of down time each day….

    • Vava says:

      Maggie, please…………….you are being ridiculous here. People work. They type a response while they are drinking their morning coffee and then they are out the door.

      William and Kate live privileged lives. Most of us, if we were sent into that situation, would make more of it than these two have. I suppose that’s because we actually have a work ethic, whereas these two can’t relate to that. Work? NO! That is for peasants!

    • MinnFinn says:

      Your claim that said posters are hypocrites is a false equivalency. Even if a Celebitchy posted here while sipping coffee during work hours, they do not live a few weeks a year in a palace that taxpayers paid $5m to renovate after allowing everyone to believe they would live there FT and be FT working royals.

      UK taxpayers fund Wm’s lavish lifestyle in a tacit agreement that their support is in exchange for him being a full-time working monarch. That is why there is complaining here about about him not working. And FYI, I do not read or post on Celebitchy on an employer’s timeclock.

    • Suze says:

      Now Maggie, I am quite sure you didn’t run away….

  38. msthang says:

    I’m sorry that baby does not look like she was born a few hours before,she looks days old or may-be I don’t know anything!

  39. Brasileira says:

    I don’t think it’s Willliam’s handwritting. It’s awfully similar to the writting in the “Signature of Register” box, which makes me think it was the Deputy Register who filled the form. As for listing his profession as Prince of the United Kingdom, well, that IS his main “occupation”, should he list everything he pretends to work at?

  40. Sammi says:

    I don’t think it was silly at all that William wanted to wait to reveal his daughter’s name, until after the Queen met her. That is a very lovely gesture both in a familial sense (showing respect for his grandmother) and royal sense (showing respect for the reigning monarch).