Duchess Kate & William take George on a play-date with peasant babies: adorable?

wenn21256661

Yay! The Cambridges are done with their grueling 48 hours of luxury vacation and are back on their grueling royal tour in New Zealand. These are photos of Duchess Kate, Prince William and Prince George at a “play-date” at the Government House in Wellington. George got to interact with other babies his age, and Kate and Will got to show off their hands-on parenting skills. I’ll be very nice: it’s wonderful to see George in his mom’s arms and to see how engaged Kate is with him. If we hadn’t spent the past five months talking about nannies, I would say that she probably spends a lot of time with him.

According to People Magazine, George was one of the biggest babies there, although (as I said) all of the babies were close in age (eight months or so). One onlooker called George a “bruiser,” and like a little king-to-be, George “confidently helped himself to other children’s toys.” Kate wiped George’s chin (he’s teething) and George chewed on Kate’s hair and her shoulder. Kate’s dress is a $556 Tory Birch, by the way. Kate’s never worn Tory Birch before. You can read the details about George’s little ensemble here.

As for Kate, William and George’s mini-vacation in New Zealand, People Magazine had a really interesting article about it yesterday. It reads like a resort pamphlet for the most part, but there were some funny details. Poor Will and Kate had to stay indoors because of the terrible rain! Luckily the resort offered spa treatments. A palace spokesperson said that the family was “staying at a private location at the recommendation of the New Zealand Government, who have secured the accommodation at a substantially reduced rate.” Now that’s interesting, right? I always wonder if their vacations are always at a significant discount and how that’s different from accepting freebies.

wenn21256662

wenn21256663

wenn21256665

wenn21256921

wenn21256660

Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

288 Responses to “Duchess Kate & William take George on a play-date with peasant babies: adorable?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. LadyMTL says:

    Seriously, George is one cute kid. I have no love of babies in general but I’d make an exception for his Pudgy Highness.

  2. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    Yay! Bring on the smocking. I would say he looks cute, but I would be accused of being classist, shallow and I forget what else. Oh well, I don’t care. He looks cute.

    • Erinn says:

      It’s those damn chubby cheeks. I’m rarely gaga over babies, but those cheeks are so freaking cute. I love the photo where he’s smiling into her shoulder.

      Thank god I have my depo shot today. I swear – there are babies everywhere lately.

    • Catherine Anne says:

      I agree with you, he is really adorable.

    • Original N says:

      Hi GoodNames! I actually understood the point that the commenters were attempting to make yesterday, as I know you did from what you wrote back. The point, however, fell flat because the commenters failed to make the distinction (in the initial comment) that if one appreciates a baby for its appearance regardless of issues of class, it isn’t a promotion of a class system over another (e.g. someone that finds/comments on George’s cuteness AND that of other baby pictures posted v. someone that only comments on George’s cuteness BECAUSE of his royal connection). He is adorable to me as well.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Hi, Original N, I understood their point. I just thought they were wrong and unfair and incredibly rude. The original commenter just said he was cute, and they ripped her to shreds. I don’t think she thought he was cute because he’s a prince. I think she just likes babies. They called her names and accused her of having all kinds is motives that they had no way of knowing whether she had or not. I just get weary with that sort of posting, and I felt for her. I wouldn’t have had a problem with a separate post expressing their viewpoint. It was the fact that she made an innocuous remark and they chose to make their point by attacking her. I wanted to comment that he was cute and hopefully not experience the same treatment.

      • Original N says:

        Yes – you make an excellent point … the comment should have been made separately. I have actually noticed a decline in the general tone of CB comments over the last two years but in particular the last year (I followed for a long time before commenting) to the point that I will take a break from reading from time to time. Rather sad :(

      • boredsuburbanhousewife says:

        @original N & GoodNames. Agree with you about unnecessarily beliigerant and sarcastic tone of some commenters on these royal posts. Generally the commenting and debates on the royal posts are extremely nice and respectful even when disagreeing — I have a mental image of all you ladies sipping tea together, nibbling delicately on spongecake, and debating royal gossip politely.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Totally agree. I thought many of the comments seemed very mean spirited.

        I could care less that Grorge is an HRH — he’s frickin ADORABLE (it is those chubby cheeks).

        But I do dislike it when people project things on him, or any baby. Let them be babies — they only get to do it once.

      • Liberty says:

        He is a pretty cute-looking baby. I agree with LadySlippers and others here — he’s a baby, let him be a baby! he’s adorable with or without regard to any royal connection, in my opinion. If i saw him anywhere, if my neighbors carried him in, if I saw him in Taco Bell or in the lobby of the Four Seasons in NYC — I’d say the same thing: he’s pretty darling. Those little pudgy limbs are killing me. And I am not a huge baby fan, by the way, I am more “there” with toddlers and up, but I will say I think all babies are cute in their own way. Like George here has awesome brows and expressions in addition to his photogenic baby-ness. Signing off.

      • FLORC says:

        It is nice to see him smile. Is this the 1st shot of George smiling?
        Babies are adorable when they start showing personality.

    • MonicaQ says:

      Agreed. Gosh, yesterday someone went ham because someone just said a baby was cute. I think most babies are cute and they don’t have to be royal family oriented or famous for me to think so. My cousins are flippin’ adorable.

    • BooBooLaRue says:

      Yup! He’s adorable, but all babies are!

    • bluhare says:

      And let’s not forget the most exciting part, GoodNames. Smocking!! I thought his outfit was very cute, and he’s a very cute baby.

      • Anne says:

        He IS adorable, through and through, and Kate interacts beautifully with him. Confession: Even though I know this “peasant” language is a joke, I can feel it starting to aggravate me – just a little.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Bluhare, you know I’m eating that up!

  3. Amelia says:

    The one where he’s clinging onto her shoulder is lovely! His chubby arms!
    But – two things; firstly, yet more evidence that Kate should put her hair up more often.
    Secondly, the Daily Fail have pictures of George’s nanny waiting patiently in the corner, which is a bit depressing. Yes, you’re supposedly very busy people, but you can’t take your kid to a playdate without his nanny?
    Feeling particularly snarky this morning.

    • Zimmer says:

      My thoughts too. Give the woman a break. Also, does William ever hold the child? Do love George’s outfit. Would have loved to dress my son like that a lot as a baby.

      • K says:

        I have noticed that William rarely holds the child (publicly) and does not seem very into his baby.

      • Mel M says:

        @zimmer, my first thoughts after seeing those pics were the same. Do you think they want to make Kate look like a really hands on mom so that’s why William has her hiding him at all times??

      • FLORC says:

        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/09/article-2600284-1CF47C6F00000578-279_470x1004.jpg

        Isn’t this nanny suppose to be early 20′s?

        K
        William does seem very distant as a father. I wonder if he’s spent so much time away that George cries when he holds him. I know a few families now that have the same issue. The baby just isn’t comfortable with a stranger in their eyes.

      • Zigggy says:

        My son is the same age as George (and a chubby blonde bruiser too!) and he does not want to be held by my husband- and my husband is the best dad. Just a mama’s boy! He’ll grow out of it :)

      • LadySlippers says:

        Florc,

        Maria is 43. Apparently she was interested in either becoming a nanny or a nun.

        **ETA**

        Ziggy,

        Who says they grow out of it?!? My 18 son still cuddles with me at least once a day. And I love it! (He’s also very independent too)

      • Tessy says:

        I was wondering the same. I’ve never seen a picture of Wills holding the baby, maybe he’s repeating his father. The queen wasn’t affectionate with her kids either, I remember her being gone for weeks on a royal tour and shaking little Charles’ hand when she got home instead of hugging the poor little guy. Its no wonder those people have issues.

    • Splinter says:

      Yes, I also noticed that DM has a hilarious picture of Fraulein Maria. She looks very unimpressed.
      I think Kate should have worn more sensible footwear for a playdate.

    • Original N says:

      That photograph where he is smiling into her shoulder just melted my heart. I remember when mine were like that and it was the BEST feeling to have them happily snuggle in for a cuddle!

    • MollyB says:

      I don’t know. It’s possible Will and Kate expected to be asked to give short interviews and/or promotional bits for the charity (Plunket) they were supporting. It’s not like they can hand the prince off to a stranger while they talk, sign something, whatever. Just the fact that the nanny was there doesn’t necessarily mean anything.

      • Amelia says:

        Ssh. No logic allowed :)

      • L says:

        That’s what I figured. And weren’t they also supposed to have tea with just the parents at some point? They need to hand the baby off to someone at that point. Plus if he has a meltdown, it’s not like the two of them can walk out of the room with him.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree, MollyB. Or George could have decided to pitch a royal fit and might have had to leave until he composed himself!

      • LAK says:

        Royal events are not at all spontaneous. Planned events don’t simply disappear, even if there is a delay in the event kicking off.

        The invited journalists are given detailed briefing notes about what is planned for the event. On the rare occasions that the planned details change, it’s note worthy and publicly commented upon by the journalists.

        So if an interview or a tea was planned and not carried out, we’d have known about it.

      • Steph says:

        George is SO cute!

        Also wanted to say that I think you can tell a lot through pics about how much time Kate spends with her baby. To me, HRH looks totally comfortable in his mummy’s arms. And another poster said that her baby is the same age and definitely not okay with anyone who is a “stranger” so I think they are doing okay.

      • Scal says:

        I agree with LAK that there wasn’t a ‘adult’ event planned or it would have been on the calendar.

        I agree with other posters that she was on duty in case George had a meltdown so he could be whisked away and Will and Kate could stay in the room.

    • T.C. says:

      I love chubby babies. Cutie George is such a big guy. I don’t understand why Kate wears her hair down for a child play date, those little cuties yank hair until they almost come out at the roots. Her nanny should have given her the FYI.

      We all know why Wills or the nanny doesn’t carry big George in public, not a fan of Kate but she would be called a poor mother. Besides she wants to be seen as Diana 2.0 who always had her boys in hand.

    • Yeah Little George appears to be eating her wiglet.

  4. BeckyR says:

    I think he looks like his Grandfather Middleton! He is quite a boy!

  5. paola says:

    That is one gorgeous baby. His royal chubbiness is amazing in that picture where he is snuggling into his mother’s shoulder. I’m in love.

  6. Aura says:

    I don’t care what anyone says, you can’t fake that- George looks totally comfortable with Kate and she with him.

    • Snazzy says:

      I agree! That pic with is head on her shoulder is gorgeous! He seems so happy :)

      • Amanduh says:

        Agreed…Kate and George look very much enamoured with each other. Genuine and sweet.

    • Rhea says:

      Yes. She is definitely not a “stranger” for him. Such an adorable baby.

    • LadyAnne says:

      You’re absolutely right – these pictures are lovely and make me smile, he looks perfectly happy in her arms. I guess you can have a nanny and still spend time with your baby.

      • The Wizz says:

        How is having a nanny any different from putting your child in childcare for 10 hrs a day? We don’t question the love parents and kids have for one another in that situation.

      • FLORC says:

        That comment makes little sense to me.
        A nanny takes care of all the grunt work. Previous articles have stated the fleet of nannies willtend to George’s needs and that Kate is likely playingg with him when he’s awake and not fussy.
        Just as on the plane. She slept while the nanny tended to his teething.
        This sounds snarky, but i’m trying to make it sound factual.

      • Devon says:

        FLORC, do you have kids? If I had someone travelling with me and my baby was fussy and I was tired, I’d hand my daughter over too! When my daughter was a newborn, my mum was here visiting and every morning, I’d hand her off to my mum so my husband and I could get a few more hours of sleep. I don’t doubt that Kate has it a bit easier then me, ok a lot easier, but having a baby is HARD work no matter how much help you have.

      • FLORC says:

        Devon
        I think you’re reading into my unintended snark as i’ve tried to clear up.
        I’m not faulting her for this. She has nannies. It’s their job.

        And you bring up a good point. Babies are hard work. Although when you have a large staff devoted to your baby and have no outside stressors of work, money, etc… Well, You just can’t fairly compare Kate to anyone who reads this site. It’s an unbalanced comparison.

        And no. I have no children and this is a very tender subject with me so please tread lightly.

      • My2Pence says:

        delete

      • bluhare says:

        Hugs to you, FLORC.

      • wolfpup says:

        ditto hug! (no licking, I know)

    • The Wizz says:

      Yes I remember my babes doing that to me. George is definitely in love with his mum and she looks like she’s very very bonded with him.

    • Devon says:

      I LOVE this picture! Mamma and baby look so happy together. I hope people start backing off about how nannies are raising this kid when you can obviously tell George loves his mum and her him.

      • My2Pence says:

        There aren’t a lot of people on here saying that if you use a nanny or daycare you cannot have a strong bond with your child or that you do not love your child. The questions come in when they have all those staff to do the heavy lifting and STILL cannot find time to work a decent amount.

    • LadyAnne says:

      @The Wizz sorry my comment doesn’t sound right (I’m not an english native speaker), I meant to say exactly what you said : that having a nanny doesn’t mean you don’t spend time with your child. My baby is at the daycare everyday while I’m at work and we manage to spend a lot of time together. Actually seeing George in his mother’s arms reminds me a lot of how my baby is in my own arms !

      • The Wizz says:

        Absolutely agree with you. I get so frustrated at people for getting stuck into them for having a nanny when it’s considered perfectly normal to send your kids to childcare. It’s the same thing! And we do all spend plently of time with our kids, nanny, childcare, whatever

      • bluhare says:

        I think most of us feel the same way. It’s their press that gets everyone thinking one thing, and then something else is shown. They weren’t going to have a nanny at all, then there was the part time nanny (only mentioned when she was photographed), and now we’ve got a full time nanny when neither are working full time schedules.

        I think that’s the only beef here. Not that they have one; I think most of us would have one if we could afford it! Personally, if they want a staff of nannies, I don’t care. Just don’t bill them as the world’s most involved parents if that’s the case. And, for what it’s worth, the interaction between George and his mom is lovely to see.

      • LNG says:

        I think that lots of people thought they were going do something a certain way before they had a baby, only to have that go completely out the window when the baby actually came… on this issue, i give them more of the benefit of the doubt. George’s needs are probably changing as he grows, as are their plans for how they want to raise him. Now, if these pictures came out with George completely uninterested or uncomfortable with his parents, I would think differently – he clearly loves his mama!

      • My2Pence says:

        @Bluhare. “and now we’ve got a full time nanny when neither are working full time schedules.” That is the ongoing problem, isn’t it?

        I do not doubt that working parents bond with their children (as LadyAnne attests to above), even when the demands of earning a living mean they have to leave their child at daycare 10 hours a day. Here we have photos of two parents who do NOT work, have cook, housekeepers, cleaners, at least one nanny, and 27 office staff to handle their correspondence, planning, and pathetically-light schedules.

        I’m not doubting that they spend time with PGTips, I’m just doubting the amount of time that is done. It is not 24 hours a day, so I get annoyed when people insist that she is a “full-time stay at home mom” and cannot work because she has to “bond with the baby and see to his every need.”

        To me that is a continual back-handing of every parent (particularly women) who HAVE to work. Refusing to do her royal duty and work for the taxpayers does NOT make her a better mother, and I’m getting really tired of that argument and what it keeps implying about parents who work outside of the home

        She clearly spends a lot of time out of the house shopping, at the hairdresser, shopping again, etc. That means she could easily be spending that amount of time working, and she SHOULD be doing so. They have plenty of help and should be out there working to earn their living.

      • wolfpup says:

        Do they have the idea of a work ethic? If so, what would that be? Are they accountable?

        They act like they are just a wealthy family, with benefits.

    • Audrey says:

      Yeah she may shop a lot and have nannies.

      But you can tell that she has spent lots of time with him and they have a great bond.

      These pictures are great and so touching

    • Carmel says:

      Agreed! George definitely seems to adore Kate.

  7. Lilacflowers says:

    George is adorable and yes, he is a bruiser. But, I would really like to see his father hold him at some point.

    • Zimmer says:

      Yes!!

    • ncboudicca says:

      Yes, I would like to see that, too. I’m trying to remember if I ever saw a photo of Charles holding either of his sons, now.

      • justme says:

        There were actually quite a lot of picture of Charles with his sons. There are some cute ones from the trip to Australia with little William for instance.

      • epiphany says:

        Yes, there are in fact a lot of photos of Charles holding and being affectionate with both boys. Diana made sure Charles was portrayed as a cold, distant father, but that was fiction. He loved, and loves, his sons. Considering how cold his relationship was with his own parents has been, Charles’ bond with his boys is pretty remarkable.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Epiphany,

        Diana only did that when the boys were older and The War of the Wales’ was well on. She needed to not lose custody of her children like her mother did so she played dirty (this was very late 80′s but mostly the 90′s). In her mind, the odds were stacked against her (which they were but not as bad as she imagined) and in her desperation Diana did a lot of not so nice things to ‘even the board’.

        But in the beginning — there wasn’t that animosity. She encouraged Charles to be with the boys.

      • bluhare says:

        LadySlippers, as the Queen could take her children away if she chose, I can see why Diana was paranoid about it. Whether the Queen would actually do that is highly debatable, but it’s there.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Bluhare,

        That’s exactly it.

        Diana felt powerless and it was always something she knew about — and first hand too. The aristos are very sexist and fathers often trump mothers which is what happened in the Spencer divorce. So she had two things to be paranoid about (sexism and the BRF).

        But HM isn’t a mean woman and would have never pulled something like what Johnnie did. And neither would have Charles.

        Diana, for all her faults, was a wonderful mother and HM recognised that. It’s too bad that the only person who didn’t see it was Diana herself. It would have spared them all a lot of needless mud-slinging.

      • LAK says:

        LS: Diana’s fear is well founded in royal law. It’s not Charles or Aristo rules she had to fear, but HM and the royal law that states that the monarch has legal custody of children and grandchildren under legal age. IF HM had decided to exercise her right to take those boys away, there is nought Diana could have done. She had the example of Caroline of Brunswick, wife of George IV, to show her what could happen despite Caroline being more popular than her husband.

      • LadySlippers says:

        Oh LAK,

        I totally understand that the Soveriegn has legal authority over Royal children and Royal grandchildren. My point was and is that QEII wasn’t the sort of woman OR Queen that would act so heartlessly.

    • L says:

      Just to play devil’s advocate (personally I think he should hold him more), when my brother in law used to try to hold the nephew/niece at that age, they would lose it and cry and kick and scream. And he’s a dad that’s very hands on and around all the time.

      It was only a phase of course, but maybe George is going through that phase. William seems the type who wouldn’t want a picture of him holding George while he’s crying and pitching a fit. Wouldn’t want to look like a bad parent or something like that.

      • ncboudicca says:

        Ah, good theory.

      • Audrey says:

        Now that you mention it, my daughter was the same at that age.

        She was 10-11 months before I could leave her with my husband without having her throw a fit.

        The separation anxiety phase. Fun! Teething makes them so clingy to mom

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        Good, theory, L.

        I also thought everyone yesterday who kept saying that William should have carried George down the stairs of the plane were assuming he didn’t offer and Kate said no thanks. I mean, we don’t really know.

      • LadySlippers says:

        True every baby is different.

        GoodNames,

        Kate hesitated too many times and it never appeared that William stayed close to assist. She might have turned him down BUT he has a habit and an established pattern of going off and leaving her behind. To me, it looked like he did that again.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree with everyone. Babies go through mommy and daddy phases.

        That being said, William could have helped Kate down the stairs. So what if George would rather she hold him right now? Getting both of them down the stairs is more important than George pitching a fit. Besides, I think William could have got huge sympathy as a harried parent with a fussy baby, He could have polished that halo for the rest of the tour!

      • FLORC says:

        LadySlippers
        Agree. William looked very much in his own world. I’d believe he offered Kate help if he glanced over to her as she let go of the railing.
        Why he never holds that baby is odd to me.
        And as it’s said.. All babies are different. Seperatin anxiety and teething do not seem like full proof reasons only Kate holds George. Especially when he has nannies that hold him a lot. I’d imagine he’s getting use to lots of people holding him and William would be just another.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        LadySlippers
        Certainly, he could have offered an arm to steady her or help that way, even if he didn’t carry the baby. You’re right.

      • mayamae says:

        William needs to wise up and realize that holding and interacting with George is great PR. I despise George W Bush with a fiery passion, but every time I see that picture of him grinning holding his newborn twins, I soften up a little.

      • hmmm says:

        But according to Wills via the BBC, he is a hands on parent:

        “Prince William said he supported his wife by giving George his bottle at night and putting him to bed.” Hmmm….

  8. Splinter says:

    DM has a hirarious picture of Fraulein Maria. She looks very unimpressed.
    I think Kate should have worn more sensible footwear for a playdate.

  9. m says:

    Did you hear how they were offered to stay at the Government House yesterday but turned it down saying they would rather stay at that resort? You are on a dam tour, not a vacation. Get a grip.
    Another kicker is that this little engagement was their only event yesterday. For all the hype, this sure is a light tour, isn’t it?

    • Original N says:

      I have no doubt that the backlash that accompanied that tidbit being released is the reason we are hearing the following now: ‘A palace spokesperson said that the family was “staying at a private location at the recommendation of the New Zealand Government, who have secured the accommodation at a substantially reduced rate.” ‘

      They are trying to push the idea that W & K stayed at the posh resort on the recommendation of the New Zealand government … apparently, we are to forget where previous diplomats and dignitaries have all stayed (safely and with privacy) and believe this was completely the work of the NZ government! Oh! The justification from many remains: Oh, the tourism revenue that will be generated! Yet, such a claim cannot be substantiated …

      Sigh … the tour is disappointing in how few engagements have been planned. It definitely appears more like a holiday – though, why I am even disappointed I have no idea because at this point, it should just be expected …

      • T.C. says:

        Trying to clean up the bad PR as quickly as possible. So predictable.

      • My2Pence says:

        They couldn’t take top secret baby to a playgroup in the UK before this? So yes, agreeing that they’re cleaning up bad PR by visiting a play group. Should we give their staff points for knowing ahead of time that the 2-day break at the luxe resort would go over badly, so at least they planned ahead and put the PR op into the schedule weeks ago?

        She’s wearing 4″ spike heels and a $600 dress from an American designer to visit a play group. What was that about her being down-to-earth? What was that about how she is supposed to wear British designers on duty to promote BrandUK, or to wear designers from the country she’s visiting? These are simple things that even I know, so why doesn’t she?

      • hmmm says:

        Perhaps, as for me, the disappointment is in the relentless pretensions. They never stop pretending to be something they are not, just as they pretend this tour is something it’s not. And then then there are the lies.

      • Original N says:

        @hmmm – Yes, that is part of it because the effect is to treat the general public as though the general public is without critical thinking skills. It is insulting to me to watch these PR blunders occur over and over again and then with a photo release or scheduled outing of a cute baby or pretty dress, all is expected to be forgiven. Sadly, the strategy works with some so it continues to be employed. With regard to “they never stop pretending to be something they are not” – I would give the example of a modern monarchy. My personal opinion is that a “modern monarchy” is about as oxymoronic as a combination of words can get and thereby, is not relevant in today’s world. I absolutely refuse to subscribe nor support the notion that someone, by birth, is somehow entitled to be Head of State, without being elected (or being able to be fired) by the very people they are to represent. I say this as an American, who will readily admit that our own system needs an overhaul (as Sixer said yesterday – it isn’t an easy fix for either country but I would like to see the motions get going for the UK and USA. I loved living in the UK, but I will not again until the monarchy ceases to exist. I just cannot support it without feeling as though I am going against everything I believe in – that every single person deserves THE CHANCE to attain any professional position and path they choose to embark upon and may the best person for the position be employed/elected. As it stands, Will and Waity are far from the best people for this job). Of course, in my perfect world, children wouldn’t go hungry or be afflicted with fatal illnesses, public education would be superb and start at a minimum of age 2 (early education is so important), exceptional medical care would be available to all, we would all have 3 day weekends and work only 4 days so that we had plenty of time to spoil family and friends whilst still earning enough to pay our bills, and we would all be vegetarians that worked to conserve the earth and its animals…..so you know, I have my faults ;) .

      • wolfpup says:

        Geez, I was feeling pretty cynical there for a minute, but by you, Original N, my hope is restored; I love this earth life too.

  10. TG says:

    So adorable! All of the pics. Why is Prince Eilliam never holding or interacting his son though?

  11. Loopy says:

    Wow at peasant babies lol, he does look close to his Mommy though ,when a baby is disconnected to his parent you will just tell, babies can’t fake the funk.

    • zbornak syndrome says:

      Is that why little North always looks stressed around Kim and Kanye? I don’t have kids yet, so I was wondering about that.

      • Relli says:

        Funny you should make that point. I noticed that too in the pics of of K&K with the baby. With all the nanny talk and pictures of them coming off the plane I wondered how connected they really were to little Georgie. But Loopy is right babies or children for that matter cant fake the connection, you can tell he feels safe and secure with his mother.

  12. ncboudicca says:

    I really like the dress.

  13. Kali says:

    If you are able to find any of the footage, it’s super cute. On one of the Sky stories here, you could see William doing baby talk at one of the other babies in the background of the shot of Prince George.

  14. Karen says:

    George is adorable.

    This tour is not. Why cost NZ tax payers money to see a performance, take a mini holiday, and bring your son to daycare? How is this strengthening the bond of the Commonwealth? This is a PR tax-paid holiday. Poor George is stuck as his parents prop.

    My comments on the play date: george actually looks like he’s comfortable with Kate so it’s not 24/7 nannies/carol with him. William staying off to the side though with no interaction is a bit sad.

    • Anne says:

      My guess on the tour: even these brief appearances make in a difference in views towards the monarchy and the monarch’s role as New Zealand’s head of state.

      • wolfpup says:

        So it’s PR put out by the royals so they can keep their royal jobs?

      • DameEdna says:

        It’s also PR for the government involved. It gives the monarchists a chance to come out and wave and it quietens the non-besotted for the duration.

        Even a pro-republican government can benefit. Many Australians were quite touched when Princess Anne represented the Queen at the memoriaervice which was held after the devastating bushfires of ’09.

        Williim re turned on the first anniversary to see how the communities were coping. That’s what we pay them for, that’s what they do. Me, I’m not bothered but if it gives others pleasure, it’s only a few cents of my tax dollar.

      • DameEdna says:

        Couple of typos in my previous post which this flippin tablet won’t let me correct. Princess Anne attended the memorial service a week after the fires, William came a callin’ a year later.

      • wolfpup says:

        I’ll take everybody cents in a minute! I’ve heard of hackers just skimming a percentage of the penny, and stealing big bank.

        I’m trying to see how they are helpful. Lots of people do charity work for free here, I know I’m missing something.

  15. InLike says:

    Cuteness!!

  16. LAK says:

    Is it selective editing ie ‘let’s show only pics and video of Kate and George’ because William sticks out like a sore thumb to me.

    His body language in all the pictures posted is not engaged with any of the babies, including his own.

    And his comment along the lines of,’ babies everywhere!’ did he not realise that babies are what you get at a ten baby playdate??!! Or was that an example of his assimilation into the Middleton clan such that he is also speaking in #pippatips.

    And the nanny in the room (not outside or out of sight) !!! Major red flag to me.

    • Original N says:

      Hi LAK – would you explain your last sentence in more detail if you have time? I am curious …

      • LAK says:

        Original N: I’ll start by saying that the last sentence is complete projection on my part based upon my personal experience anecdotal and professional.

        I’ll also add that there is nothing wrong with having nannies, and having them doesn’t mean that a person can’t or isn’t able to bond with their child. Or that having a nanny means one can’t be a hands on parent. Or that only dickensian type parents are the only ones with nannies. I actually think it’s unhealthy for the mother’s wellbeing to have no help at all, but that’s another discussion.

        However, having a nanny helicopter in situations that don’t require that level of attentiveness speaks to how secure mother and baby are in their interaction.

        I have found in my experience that if nanny is required to be that physically close, then mother isn’t necessarily confident that they can handle the child.

        Then again, perhaps Kate wishes to have nanny present at all times because then nanny is deemed to be earning their keep if they are in the room even if there is no need for them to be.

        It automatically raises a red flag with me, but if it is the latter, then i’ve misjudged the situation.

      • The Wizz says:

        LAK wasn’t it raining outside? I’d consider it bad form to leave the nanny out in the rain.

      • My2Pence says:

        @The Wizz. I suspect a charity of this size has more than one room. The nanny could have stayed in one of the staff offices or even in the lobby. So the fact that the nanny was there helicopter-ing as LAK stated is *interesting*.

      • Original N says:

        Hi LAK – thanks for the explanation. My immediate reaction to the nanny being there mirrored the perspective GoodNames stated below, but yours is equally plausible, just not one I had considered but that I find interesting.

      • wolfpup says:

        She was probably the only nanny in the room, hence making the royals look more special. That’s the whole point in my mind – to impress.

      • jeanne says:

        have you seen how big that kid is? he’s HUGE (in an adorable way, I’m not fat shaming a 8-month-old). Of course Kate needs help from the nanny. The kid is stronger than she is already! :)

    • Lindy says:

      “speaking in #pippatips” just made me giggle.

    • LAK says:

      EDIT: @Kali above says there is video of William interacting with babies, so hopefully i’m very wrong and he is simply being edited this way. Much like happened to Charles.

      • FLORC says:

        LAK
        But why would he be edited that way? Kate is coming off looknig like a wonderful parent while William is the hands off, cold shoulder with his son. If he’s so controlling with his image this is a big slip up, no?

    • Audrey says:

      Let’s be honest. If the nanny wasn’t seen everyone would be going on about them trying to hide that they have one.

      No win situation. I like that they’re being open about at least one of their nannies

      • LAK says:

        Audrey: I doubt anyone would have judged them ill for not having a nanny visibly present. We know they took one.

        Goodnames has postulated that perhaps they are off somewhere else so will hand off PGtips to nanny when they done, but again I file that in the TMI file of image management. A hand off can be done discreetly out of sight, like they did on the tarmac when they arrived in NZ.

        I just find it alarming and unnecessary that nanny is required to be in the room with them and ALL the other parents.

        If they had to bring nanny, she could have spent the duration nearby, but outside the room.

      • wolfpup says:

        Not having a nanny in the room could have followed the narrative of how they are just like us…

      • FLORC says:

        While I agree with woldpup/just like us, I disagree overall.

        It didn’t even cross my mind initially about the nanny. It was brought up and I sort of assumed the nanny was mingled in with the crowd.

        Nannies have been cropted out for years. It’s not something William and Kate started.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      LAK, it could be that the plan was for them to play with the babies, then go do something “grown up” and the nanny was going to take George back to have his nap or something? So she was standing by. Just a thought.

      • bluhare says:

        I’m in this camp, GoodNames. Plus what if George started to act up?

      • hmmm says:

        So what if George started to act up? Is he only a prop? Could his mother not take care of that? And why does the nanny have to be so close by?

      • LAK says:

        what hmmm said.

        THIS is exactly what i meant by mother not being able to handle their own child and so they need a helicopter nanny to take over.

      • LNG says:

        Well, if Georgie had have freaked out, presumably both Kate and George would have had to leave the room to deal with the issue. Having the Nanny there allows her to deal with any major George tantrums (or hell, even a diaper blowout!) and allows Will and Kate to stay and continue to mingle with parents and meet the other babies. I suppose they could have had her wait in another room, but why not have her be a part of the event too?

      • LAK says:

        LNG:It would have looked very bad indeed if baby freaked out and Kate handed him to the nanny in a room full of media.

        She’d have been crucified for being unable to handle her own baby despite being a full time SAHM in a room full of other parents who don’t have the help she has.

    • boredsuburbanhousewife says:

      I am not sure that selective editing is at play here as it was with Charles — in that case, there was a definite agenda that seems absent here. The pitch here as I see it is to portray both of them as normal, hands on parents. I do find it odd that he is NEVER the one holding the baby. For PR purposes alone that would be a megahit for palace pr I would think.
      That said, he may just be one of those dads who is not that comfortable handling babies — some dads are afraid they will literally break them! He may become much closer when they are doing shared activities as they grow. He may also be a more standoffish, old school Dad like Prince Philip was (and Charles was apparently not).

      The nanny — GoodNames may be right here but I think it likely the nanny stands by for whisking PG away in the event of incidents such as needing a diaper change, spitting up, etc.
      As they are on a massively covered face-time, press-the-flesh event, I can see Kate not being the one who changes his smelly diaper or cleans him up in the ladies room rather than meeting the public. After all, they spend so little time with the public they probably want to maximize every second.

      He really looks like the Middletons.

      • LAK says:

        It’s a huge PR failure that Billy hasn’t been seen holding his child. Especially when his only public statements have been about what a screamer he is.

        i think he once described him as a ‘rascal’ once, and that’s as positive as he has ever been about him.

        There is no point trotting out anecdotes about walking PGtips in the park at 5.30am or giving his bottle when he looks so detached from him in the photo ops. He’s shown better body language around Lupo.

      • jeanne says:

        I think Kate is always holding the baby because there’s a huge PR push to make her more likeable and maternal. The vacations certainly haven’t helped. And, although he’s had some negative press lately, Williams knows people love him. One pic with him and George and all the nastiness will be forgotten. He’s Diana’s son. People won’t turn their back on him for long. Kate’s image and branding needs a lot more help at the moment.

      • LNG says:

        Will held him at both of his very first public appearances – when they left the hospital and when the arrived at the Christening. I think that they way he is looking at him in the first picture shows he is not indifferent to his son.

    • LadySlippers says:

      LAK,

      My red flag isn’t that the nanny was there — hiding OR in plain sight. It’s the fact Maria looks so damn grumpy and stern. My guess is she’s focused in on George in order to be useful but boy is she giving out a huge ‘anti-children’ vibe. She might have interacted with the other babies, because well, she’s a child care professional; instead she looks like she’s ingested something really, really bitter.

      Perhaps the phototographers just captured her at her worst. Let’s hope that was just it.

      • hmmm says:

        Maria looked worn out to me, and not too happy to be there.
        No one is engaging with her. Man, she looks like a servant from Downton Abbey standing at attention.

      • LAK says:

        I was brought up by nannies and boy did we have some sour lemon ones!!!!

        more frightening than the parents.

      • mayamae says:

        She definitely seems less Fraulein Maria and Mary Poppins, and more minion of the devil nanny from The Omen.

        I think nannies should be firm (I love the pic of a sobbing William and hiss nanny’s finger in his face scolding him), but they also need to be loving. Maybe this woman is both, but she scares me a little.

      • My2Pence says:

        Maybe it is a combination of her just having a dreaded “bitch resting face” and not wearing makeup? She doesn’t seem (quite) as intimidating to me in this picture:
        http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/04/07/article-2598619-1CE4A50000000578-386_634x928.jpg

      • wolfpup says:

        She scared me too. My first rational thought was that certainly William wouldn’t be going near her. (apologies, if needed, in advance)

      • LAK says:

        Wolfpup: LOL. i’ve right there with you since she was unveiled.

        a husband repelling nanny is a must, and i’m talking in all households.

      • Original N says:

        @wolfpup & LAK … I would NOT be so sure about that!! Where there is a penis, there is a way if the will is present even if the nanny/maid isn’t considered as attractive as the wife (citation: all the published stories regarding the Arnold Schwarzenegger & maid affair)!

        ETA: Posters: Please do not attack me for being sexist; in all gender fairness, I recognize and acknowledge that women also cheat with the staff, etc. but the particular stories I was referencing were concerning Arnold.

      • bluhare says:

        Seriously LOL’ing over here, wolfpup, LAK, and ON!! I thought exactly the same thing!

    • MinnFinn says:

      LAK, In the video clips, I thought Kate hovered and was tentative with George which made me hope that Kate is reading or getting some parent coaching tips from somewhere. So your astute observation about why the nanny was in the room IMO confirms what I observed in Kate’s behavior.

  17. Talie says:

    I wish we could’ve got a pic of William holding him too! What a chunk, so cute!

  18. blue marie says:

    Prince George is the best thing about these two, he is adorable.

  19. cro-girl says:

    I want that baby. His little overalls. Oh my melting ovaries.

  20. Savanna says:

    It’s BURCH. Ugh nothing distracts me more than small mistakes that take two seconds of Googling to prevent.

    He looks adorable though. Those cheeks!

  21. Zara says:

    Picture 3. What’s wrong with Kate’s elbow? looks weird.

  22. Lou says:

    Its not really freebies for Will and Late – the New Zealand government is paying for this trip anyway. Ughhhh.

    Kate and George are cute, but what’s up with Will? Hug your durn baby already. Will is weird.

  23. mel says:

    A couple of hours at a playgroup and now Kate is Mother of the Year and her fan club have forgotten that’s she’d done about 20 hours of “work” in the past 12 months.

    Whew, that was hard work. Time for another break, Kate!

    • samra says:

      Nobody is saying that she should be the mother of the year. Are people not allowed to say something Nice for ONCE. People hate her and that will not change. So dont worry.you will have enough articles about kate middleton where you can critic her. But in the above pictures i a see a loving mother and a cute baby.

      • justme says:

        +1 Great comment!

      • Belle says:

        I think there are many people that say nice things about Kate…. so the ‘for once’ comment doesn’t seem accurate. Also, I don’t think most of the people who are critical of Kate HATE her… I think they are just disappointed in her. Big difference.

        The photos of Kate and George are lovely… but there was a great deal of speculation that bringing George out for a few appearances on the ‘tour’ would be nice damage control for the substantial amount of negative PR these two have had lately. The speculation seems to have been correct, and this post/thread is a good example… overwhelmingly positive. I’d say that is a pretty successful PR campaign, LOL

      • justme says:

        Actually there are people who do hate her. Just look at some of the royal gossip forums. I mean some people are incapable of saying one nice thing about her and are utterly convinced that she is not George’s mother, but rather used a surrogate and wore a false “bump”.

        Most people aren’t like that of course. Most would just like to see her work some more (and put weights in her skirts or wear a slip!)

      • My2Pence says:

        Thank you Belle. Criticism and disappointment are not the same thing as hate.

        What people say about Kate Middleton in gossip forums is still nowhere near what Letizia has been subjected to for over a decade.

        People are allowed their own opinions, even as to whether or not some form of reproductive technology may have been involved in bringing PGTips into the world. It means they have questions and opinions that disagree with yours. Doesn’t make them right, doesn’t make them wrong. And no, it doesn’t mean they “hate” Kate Middleton.

        There are also people out there who qualify for the term “fanatic” when it comes to Kate Middleton. They cannot separate their self-image from their worship (and I use that word deliberately) of their idol Kate Middleton. People who go on tumblr and rant and threaten and obsess and actually weep when people say “mean things” about CATHERINE.

        There are many different types and levels of royal watchers. For the most part, as others have pointed out, this place is pretty well-balanced overall.

      • justme says:

        There is a big difference between suggesting that she might have used some reproductive technology like IVF and declaring that she is not the mother of her child – and that is exactly what is done by those who cannot stand her. And they don’t even say that it is a possibility – they declare that it is a fact and that the Queen knows and etc. etc. It gets into fantasyland and it all comes out of the fact that they hate her and cannot stand that she is the mother of the royal heir.

        That is not most people, but yes those who fanatically hate her are as much in existence as those who fanatically adore her. And they are both obsessed.

      • My2Pence says:

        I don’t think that discussing various IVF possibilities means they “hate her and cannot stand the idea that she is the mother of the royal heir.” I think that’s an enormous reach you’re making. Agreeing to disagree.

      • justme says:

        I didn’t say IVF possibilities – I said that they say that she is (and always knew she was) infertile and she used another woman to provide her with a baby who is not related to her and possibly not even to Prince William. She was never pregnant and she wore a prosthetic bump during the 9 months.

        I consider that crazy.

        That is not what is meant by IVF. IVF means taking eggs from the mother and fertilizing them with sperm from the father and implanting them in the mother’s womb. If they did that (and I have no idea if they did) then I can’t see that as a problem. However saying that she is sneaking another woman’s child onto the throne – that is a fantasy brought on by obsessive hate. And no it is not most of her critics by a long shot. But there are people who believe this.

        Most people have legitimate criticisms – of her work (or lack thereof) of her shopping, even of her hair. But to suggest that she faked a pregnancy and is not her child’s mother – well it’s either hatred or total insanity.

      • My2Pence says:

        I know what IVF is – egg and sperm combined outside the womb and then implanted into the woman who will carry the child. The definition does NOT require that the egg and sperm have to be from the people who will eventually raise the child (whom I would call “the parents”). The egg and sperm could both be from donors and still fall under the medical definition of IVF. Many women choose to use the eggs of a sister for example, if they themselves cannot produce viable eggs, and carry the child themselves.

        I’m not saying I give these people’s ideas credence; I put these ideas next to the people who think the BRF are secretly alien lizard overlords.

        The point is, that type of discussion happens because W&K have been proven to lie over and over again. They have earned a great deal of disrespect, such that some people cannot believe anything about them can be “real.” That distrust is a logical outgrowth of W&K’s behavior, so that type of discussion 1) doesn’t surprise me and 2) still doesn’t indicate “hate” to me.

      • justme says:

        Well we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. First of all with a hereditary system like the BRF if Kate used someone else’s eggs and someone else’s sperm then George would not be legitimately able to ascend to the throne. She would be guilty of fraud. Anyway they don’t think she carried even anyone else’s child (not even Pippas!) They think she bought a child and carried nothing but a prosthetic bump.

        But I can see you don’t give these people credence.

        Actually though these people who do believe in this are frequently terrible terrible snobs. They certainly don’t like her lack of work, but when one starts to look into their comments what comes out all the time is that she is nothing but the common descendent of coal miners and her unpure blood has tainted the BRF. A number of these types are convinced she is Jewish, which really makes their head spin.

        But we’ll just shake on it! Agree to disagree.

      • bluhare says:

        justme: But we aren’t one of those forums! I have read the ones you’re referring to and I agree that they’re really over the top. I hardly ever go read anything there any more just because they can’t say anything positive ever.

        That’s why I like this site. It’s much more balanced, and there’s some really good critical thinkers here who have swayed my opinion (both ways, I might add!).

      • wolfpup says:

        Man, did I get it wrong! I had always thought that the baby came because of the extra Vitamin D that she received in the south of France. (Sorta hot!)

      • My2Pence says:

        Bluhare, just as I “can’t” with TRF, I just “can’t” with RG. Both to me are way beyond the pale on opposite ends of the spectrum. Most of RD I have to avoid, so I just scan the relatively positive sections (Maxima, Letizia) on occasion.

      • bluhare says:

        I’ve not been on The Royal Forum, Tuppence so can’t speak to that one. I suspect you know the one I have been known to post on. :) That’s been an interesting ride. But I tried with Royal Gossip and couldn’t handle it. Duchess or Diva too. My god, you say one nice thing at either of those sites and you get a pile on! And not in a good way either. :)

    • Justme says:

      @bluhare– all I was trying to say is that while she has fanatically obsessive fans for whom she can do no wrong, she ALSO has got people who hate everything about her just as obsessively. For a rather bland person she stirs up immense feelings – such is the power of the idea of royalty I guess

      • bluhare says:

        I couldn’t agree more. I’m not sure it’s the power of royalty, but it’s definitely the power of the internet!

  24. Val says:

    Tory BURCH, not “Birch” lol

  25. Illyra says:

    Those are beautiful photos.

  26. Telicity says:

    His chubbiness makes him so cute!! But that pic of him chewing on Kate’s hair grossed me out. :\ NOT healthy!

    • The Wizz says:

      Every baby does it. In fact every baby puts everything in their mouths, hair is probably the most hygienic thing out of the lot!

    • Belle says:

      Seriously?? LOL As The Wizz pointed out, babies put things in their mouths… especially teething babies. The challenge is to keep them from putting dangerous things in their mouths. Mom’s hair is fair game! I would rather my baby try to chew on my hair than on the toys that all of the children are playing with (and putting in their mouths). ;)

  27. Mrs. Darcy says:

    The vids are so cracking me up today, when Prince George has to meet and greet the other babies he is seriously staring them down like “I’m the king, b*tch!” And the British coverage highlighted that he doesn’t like to share the toys, which I thought was cute of them. He is a beautiful little ball of ginger though he does look a lot like his dad at that age.

    I did think the footage of Kate carrying him down the plane steps was awkward, I would have found that nerve wracking and she seemed to be struggling, why not hand him off to his Dad? He did seem a little oblivious to it. In a normal world he would have been in a carrier but I guess they had to do the photo op.

    • Liberty says:

      I know, so funny and cute.

      My friends are not royals, are very down-to-earth teacher/ young law student, and their first son popped out with the “I am your king, world” royal attitude from the start. It was hilarious. They’re pretty funny people, and would joke about how they had produced their emperor. The kid was a bossy serious little poop at three months. And he totally chose which parent would be allowed to hold him that day and woe if the wrong one carried him around. Strong minded little guy. So that could be the same here — just a strong-minded baby and she’s carrying him to avoid him acting out like my friend’s son would act out if denied his selections! At a dinner party, to watch him glaring imperiously from his highchair with his special dish, cup and spoon — we were all like “OMG this must be how it felt to have to eat with Henry VIII.” His first best friend was their snobby little pug. “They sit around thinking we are beneath them!” is how my friend put it. That said, William may just truly be oblivious. I think Harry got the “kids” gene.

      • bluhare says:

        That’s really cute, Liberty. Great visuals!!

      • LAK says:

        That is funny.

        kids with personality are the best.

      • Mrs. Darcy says:

        Sweet, some babies are just born with it! He is too young to have any shyness yet really though. I don’t get too gooey over babies but George is pretty adorable. They are doing a great job so far with him having little media exposure and the British press seem to be behaving, I just hope it continues.

  28. Elise says:

    He is adorable. Why they don’t do playgroups – like a regular private group with parents and babies – at home in the UK? It’d be great for George and a nice time to bond with other parents and let George be exposed to other kids. This is sweet but so planned out and contrived it slightly embarrasses me to look at the photos. The poor nanny could have stayed back at the hotel for a much-needed rest!

    • justme says:

      Actually for all we know they do. A number of their friends have young children, so they may have something with them. We really don’t know what PG and Kate do most of the day. He certainly didn’t seem fazed by other kids.

      • Elise says:

        I read an article that said Kate said to the parents that this group was the most babies he’d ever been around (Daily Mail, maybe?) which was surprising. Of course I am just speculating :)

      • justme says:

        Well ten babies is a lot of babies! He may however have played with (or at this age alongside of) a smaller group of babies. The fact that she said this was the most babies he’d ever been around suggests that he has met other babies. He is only 8 months old. Babies start sitting up by themselves somewhere around 5-6 months and crawling a month or so later (although there is a lot of variation there.) Until babies are able to sit up and crawl around their ability to play even alongside of other babies is pretty limited. He is now getting into the age where this is possible – and even a little bit of interaction – even if it tends to be of the “hey that’s mine” type. :)

      • justme says:

        I knew I’d seen something about an informal group of mothers and babies that Kate was expected to be involved with after the birth

        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2357601/Kate-Middletons-royal-baby-date-Saturday-Heres-guide-Duchess-Cambridges-birth.html

        scroll down “Yummy mummies offer a bump start

        The Duchess has already identified a circle of yummy mummies with babies and toddlers to invite for playdates with the third in line to the throne.

        Marina Fogle, wife of TV presenter Ben Fogle and a close friend of the Royal couple, and her sister, Chiara Hunt, a private GP, have set up their own exclusive Bump Class to help ten mothers-to-be who are due to give birth about the same time as the Duchess.
        Their clients – who include Ben’s pregnant sister, handbag designer Tamara – are now expected to be part of an informal Palace playgroup and coffee-morning set.
        Marina, 35, who has two children, Ludo, three, and Iona, two, declined to say whether the Duchess ever dropped in on the £450 eight-week South Kensington classes or if she and Prince William attended their special evening sessions when future dads learn what to expect and how they can help at the birth.
        But these well-connected mothers have offered private advice to the Royals about childbirth and kit essentials for a new baby.
        The Fogles live near Kensington Palace.”

  29. rep says:

    The baby’s arms look like Popeye’s. She looks like she got her hair cut.

  30. old prude says:

    Watch out old prude is out ranting again…..

    This is their gruelling tour, having a2 hours play date with other kids and nothing planned for the while day. It’s such a slap to british tax payers that they are showing off George to new Zealand people and nannies, while we who pay for his palaces , family aren’t allowed to meet or see him.

    George is so cute and adorable, unlike his parents. I felt like he is not used to be around other kids. I will pledge him my unconditional support if he yank his mothers hair extension in public once.

    I think Laure is a pretty hands on and involved mother, even with all the help. She probably spends more time with him then regular mothers. It’s their projection that she is doing it all by herself that annoys me because that’s completely false and them using his as an excuse to not work mere 4 hours max. And yes before I get bombarded with all the evidence of her activities and nannies,I think she can go shopping, weddings , salon and have a lot of help and still be very hands on and involved mother. I think she is a doting, dedicated, indulging and living mother , just like she us with her other older favourite baby umm sorry husband.

  31. The Original Mia says:

    George is adorable and it’s obvious he loves his Mummy. No sure what’s up with William. This can’t be the first baby he’s been around. Guess Nanny Marie is there if George becomes fussy. Otherwise, I’m not sure why she’s in the room during this low key play date.

  32. SamiHami says:

    Say what you will about her, but Kate is clearly enamored of her little guy. And who can blame her? He’s adorable!

  33. Mitch Buchanan Rocks! says:

    It always looks like Kate is ready to bite. Never see her with a natural expression – Wills looks relaxed though.

  34. Jaded says:

    George is an adorable little chunkster. But if this is the extent of their tour duties for the day I’m not surprised. The “tour de farce” continues with them making what amounts to another holiday look like work. For her, work is hair, clothing, make-up and trying to remember names of people she’ll be meeting that day (all 3 of them). For him it’s trying to not look grumpy and bored.

    • Summer says:

      Yes because clearly there’s just 3 people in the room she has to ‘try and remember the names of’ . Just like there was just 3 people to greet them when they arrived. And who’s apparently looking grumpy and bored? William or the baby? If you think its William you must be looking at different pics of the play date – or is this just another sweeping statement that defies all logic and dozens of pics?

  35. Patricia says:

    Awwwww He makes me want to run out and get pregnant! Good thing I’m post menopause.

    He looks like a very happy baby. Always heart warming to see.

  36. boredbrit says:

    Lol, his mum is technically a ‘peasant’ so I doubt it’s a big deal.

  37. wolfpup says:

    OMG, check out the jewels the queen is wearing for the Windsor State Banquet. Emeralds and diamonds! So beautiful! The ladies are wearing lots of tiara’s, and I think that gender division is spot on, when it comes to who gets to wear the jewels. So pretty – such a display of wealth!

  38. manjit says:

    The 48 hour break after arriving in New Zealand was partly to acclimatise to the time difference but was more importantly supposed to not distract from the state visit going on in the UK at the moment. The President of the Republic of Ireland is visiting the UK as part of an official state visit for the FIRST time ever. This is a very big deal considering the history between the two countries and Will & Kate were put on ice for the arrival of the President and the state dinner at the Palace that was attended by some extremely controversial public figures.

    Not good for gossip, I know, but factually accurate.

    • hmmm says:

      So, they couldn’t stay at Government House?

      • manjit says:

        I’m sure they could have stayed there, the fact is they chose not to. Maybe having a nine month old baby with them had something to do with their choice. Mmm, luxury resort or official residence? Difficult choice.

      • The Original Mia says:

        They have a separate residence at the Government House for special guests. They could have stayed there, but what’s the fun in that? Much better to stick the NZ people with a huge bill for their entourage to stay at a luxury resort.

    • Wver says:

      Thank you Manjit for pointing out that babies and adults need time to acclimatize to the new time zone. I have traveled a few times with my toddler on 25-30 hr long plane trips – it is extremely difficult even when we are traveling in first class. My happy baby becomes cranky, tired and loses all sense of a schedule. It takes her a week to two weeks to adjust and become her normal self. Since this baby has to appear in public and his every gesture is going to be scrutinized, it makes sense to give him and his family some time to recover. The parents may have help and all the money in the world – but like all parents they will be frazzled when their little one is not comfortable and crying his heart out.
      Its easy to project all that we want to project on to these people, but the fact is we are not in the know about all the circumstances. So how about we think of a few alternative scenarios and not completely live up to the bitchy part of celebitchy.

      • another kelley says:

        Yeah, but it’s a different scenario when you are travelling first class with an entourage and have access to a bed.

      • hmmm says:

        @another kelley,

        They looked well rested coming off the plane. The nanny, not so much.

    • Scal says:

      Was it even 48 hours? Looking at the schedule on the Mail They landed on Monday-had a event until the evening, jet lag day on Tuesday, and did a event today (Wednesday). I’m lost on the 2 whole days thing.

  39. Ronia says:

    I can hardly understand the comments “he is comfortable with his mother”. Of course he is. At this age it’s an instinct, still. It’s the smell we know, the heartbeat we have listened to for months, even the sound of the breathing of our mother. It’s been proven again and again. Which is why I said before on the Maldives thread that this is the reason why leaving a baby of that age behind is extremely cruel and selfish. Because the baby’s bond with the mother at this point is still extremely strong, it’s a basic instinct and no one can replace the feel the baby gets from his mother’s proximity at this age. But Kate didn’t have an issue with leaving him behind. From then on, whatever play she puts on the stage, to me she is a selfish person. Period. I actually like the first pic andd the way William looks at George (and/or Kate). He does look happy with what he sees.

    • LadySlippers says:

      Actually not true.

      Trust is something that babies don’t dole out for anyone. By 8 months you have to earn it. It appears Kate has.

      Also babies that have strong bonds with other caregivers do fine when one of them leaves — even for an extended time like a week.

      All of my statements are backed up with both experience AND studies. I was a military day care provider* plus went back to college that dealt with a lot if psychology, including child and developmental psychology.

      Can we stop shaming women needlessly for their choices? Please?

      *The military has sponsored studies on caregiver (usually mother)/child bond due to the multiple deployments many women (and men) were enduring.

      • My2Pence says:

        I really wish the shaming the other directions would cease as well. It is all over this thread. The subtle idea that “she clearly has bonded completely with him and spends LOADS of time with him” (because she is a SAHM not an evil working mother part being implied).

        There are so many *adamant* Kate Middleton defenders who insist that she is a BETTER mother because she stays home full time. The whole “She’s rich, she can afford to, if you could afford to too you’d do it as well. Stop being jealous haters” thing is incredibly tiring.

        Maybe someday some of those adamant defenders will have to earn a living, learn that having a career makes many people BETTER more complete parents, and potentially they’ll regret shaming women who work for a living when they end up leaving their own child in daycare 10 hours a day.

        From other comments on this thread, it appears that they do not take him to a playgroup in the UK. I personally do not think it healthy to keep him holed-up in the 57 room Kensington Palace digs with only the nanny, mother, and dog around. So IMO, if that is what they’re doing, that doesn’t make me think they’re parents of the year no matter how much time they do or do not spend with him.

        They are not, in and of themselves, “rich” and we’ve had that discussion many times. William and Kate Middleton receive a ridiculous amount of privileges IN EXCHANGE for working for the taxpayers. Trouble is, they do not work. No work, no privileges. But let’s please stop pretending they are anything close to 24/7/365 parents taking care of the kid, the household, and the bills all by themselves.

      • hmmm says:

        How about stop using the word “shame”? Geez. it’s inappropriate and so ridiculously overused that it’s lost its meaning.

      • justme says:

        @My2Pence – what makes you think he is holed up in Kensington Palace?

        Here’s what they said to other parents:

        http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/royal-tour-2014-prince-george-3390966

        “We spoke to the Duchess about group play – George had never played with so many babies before.

        “She said it was the most amount of babies they’d ever had in a room with
        George.

        “He does see other babies, but not many in a group like this.”

        Their friends the Van Cutsems and other posh folk have babies and live in Kensington. It is not necessary to be in a formal “play group” to see babies

      • My2Pence says:

        I’m happy if they’re NOT keeping him holed up. From other comments, it sounds like he hasn’t been to play group but potentially has played in a smaller group of friend’s babies. Of course, I’d see nothing wrong with him going to a play group of non-posh babies, as long as everybody passed security checks, etc.

        Also trying to make the point that it seems odd that they have deliberately hidden him from sight in the UK, but trot him out for this event on this tour. They could have chosen to highlight a similar charity in a similar way in the UK, then this one on this tour. Makes me lean more towards “good photo op, good PR move” and again makes me wonder why not do this before now?

      • hmmm says:

        I think it’s damage control, My2Pence. They holiday like crazy because they know full well that all it takes is a cute image to have the masses melt and forget their minds. The kid is a prop, IMO. And even though everyone argues ‘you’re not less of a mother for having nannies’, which is true, the fact is that it is assumed that Dolittle is motherly. I don’t think she is- she is too selfish, self-absorbed and self-indulgent. She does what she needs to do and leaves the rest to a vast army of servants.

        They don’t care about charities. If they did, it’s as you said, they would have shown up with George somewhere at home. This tour is PR for their image.

      • LadySlippers says:

        My2Pence,

        In reality, an infant gets plenty of social interactions with just a small circle of people. Developmentally, young children (especially infants) do not need the type of social interaction that the media presents as ‘required’ for healthy development. At his age, he is too young to gain anything from groups. Heck, even older children and teens do not need a huge peer group to function successfully in life — that is a myth.

        And I agree about the all around shading from people. I’ll nail her, and William, for things I see they are truly mishandling (like not being fiscally responsible or not working etc.) but not about everything. George seems happy and healthy. Bravo to them for however they are accomplishing that.

        Note to everyone:
        It does appear that George has a warm ‘secure attachment’ to Kate (no indication yet if the same is true for anyone else). Please be aware that the attachment styles preferred in the West are *not* universally valued world wide.

        Culture matters.

  40. idk says:

    I love the smile he’s giving as he’s resting on his mother’s shoulder. He is so cute. Chubby babies are the best. I like his outfit and shoes, looks so “British” !

  41. Penelope says:

    Just want to kiss that baby’s chubbo cheeks.

  42. Allie says:

    That baby is so cute. Makes me want another!

  43. Michelle says:

    My 10 month old basically only wants Mommy all the time. If I’m in the room, he wants me and won’t tolerate anyone else, including my husband, who is super involved and hands on. Could be Prince G is the same way and they know that if William takes over there will be a major tantrum, which they are obviously tying to avoid.

    I assume the Nanny is there in case there is a meltdown, so she can whisk G away and calm him while Kate and William continue to socialize. I don’t think it has any impact on Kate’s comfort level with him, since its apparent that George adores his mama.

  44. Dena says:

    PS: given my quick glimpse of the pics, based on the body language, it looks as if she spends time holding and playing with PG–which is good. It looks authentic.

  45. Stephanie says:

    So . . . Is Will unable to hold the baby?

  46. watchmaker says:

    The photo of George nuzzling in his Mums shoulder is absolutely priceless. I smiled and had a happy cry moment when I saw this…and I’m not ashamed to admit this! 😊

  47. pam says:

    Let’s stop calling him “chubby” – that is way too polite. He is fat!

  48. lenje says:

    So if they hire nannies, George can’t possibly be emotionally close to Kate? My sister’s children have almost always had a nanny (it’s pretty affordable to middle class in my home country), and yet they are very, very close to my sister. They also listen to her.

  49. Stephanie says:

    When my crazy parents moved us to India in the 1960s, my dad made plenty of Fraulein Maria jokes about the nannies we would have. The answer: Nine servants and an ayah, or nanny. And they saved our lives. These underpaid, poorly educated yet lovely, lovely people provided much of the love and structure my parents couldn’t – and never – did. Maybe Maria will be the making of George, who knows. Bet William becomes even more petulant as George continues to steal all of the thunder. I hope he turns into Diana’s last laugh on the royal family.

    • wolfpup says:

      People are lovely, for the most part. And definitely all are worthy of respect. Not some, more than others. Everyone seems to know this in their gut. Yet part of the very definition of royalty, is being the leader, no? So how are they leading as a whole, where are they taking the country? Is this a meaningful question ?

      Diana would want no harm to come to the royal family.

      • My2Pence says:

        I come from the school where respect has to be earned.

        Respect (noun)
        a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

        Respect (verb)
        admire (someone or something) deeply, as a result of their abilities, qualities, or achievements.

        Diana did love and admire the BRF, and believed in service through her role no matter what. I think she would be appalled by what William, Kate, (and sometimes even Harry) get away with in her name.

  50. Ag says:

    he’s a little chunker! very cute. i really like the pic where his head is on his mom’s shoulder, i love it when my son does that. :)

  51. holly hobby says:

    He looks just like his Daddy. Such a sweet baby.

    • Bwarf says:

      I was thinking how much he looked like Kate when she was a baby. I saw a recent picture that put Will’s and Kate’s baby pics next to George and he looks just like hers lol!

  52. mercy says:

    Oh! That little chubbster is making my ovaries hurt! I may have to rethink waiting a couple years on a babby lol. I have no opinion on Kate and Will beyond they’re nice to look at and they produced one beautiful, well fed boy.

  53. Sam H x says:

    He’s soooo adorable!! Developing into quite the little personality.

    LOL at George pinching that little girls toy! 😄😝

  54. dorothy says:

    He’s a cutie. Someone should tell Kim Kardashian this is how a mother acts with her child.

  55. tupolev says:

    I hope George will be a gay. It’ll be very fascinating to see a gay heir, and how the royal and british people deal with it.

    Moderator note: Banned multiple nicks

    • cass says:

      That’s an interesting comment – not necessarily the part about George, but how the rf deals with being gay and the gay community. My view is they choose to ignore or avoid it – e.g. how many gay weddings do we see William & Co. attending? Seriously, the royal family are constantly being photographed at weddings but they are all hetero. Does William RSVP “thanks but no thanks, here’s a gift” when a gay friend invites him to a wedding???

      One thing I remember about Diana is she looked past people’s race, colour and sexual orientation in her interactions with them and had many gay friends. Maybe things would be different if she was still around, who knows.

    • wolfpup says:

      Respectfully, like everyone else. (presuming!)

  56. KateBush says:

    Love the photos. george is a big boy isn’t he?
    Has Kate had a hair cut? Thought her hair looked shorter than usual

    • another kelley says:

      Maybe she’s using shorter extensions/wig? Either or, it’s a risky undertaking using fake hair around a baby in public. Yikes!!

  57. Camille (The Original) says:

    Blah blah blah evil, lazy Royals and all that crap. Well if nothing else it is bringing publicity and interest to New Zealand, which can only help tourism here, so that in my opinion is a good thing.

    • My2Pence says:

      I’d suspect Peter Jackson brought a lot more tourism to NZ than these folks.

      • KateBush says:

        His movies also cost a lot more too!
        I read yesterday that New Zealand’s involvement in the America’s Cup cost $37 m and was estimated to have bought in approx $90m in tourism dollars. This visit will cost the taxpayer around $1m and bring in $20m tourism dollars so not a bad return.

      • My2Pence says:

        I’m going to guess that for now any tourism estimates are *estimates* and therefore premature. If NZ does a survey of tourists in the next few years, and asks if royal visits were related, then we’d have solid numbers to explore to see if this visit does anything for tourism. Until then, estimates are only estimates.

        Even with what I’m sure were generous government tax-subsidies, he still made those movies and earned that money on his own.

        “The Lord of the Rings trilogy created as many as 1500 jobs for actors and crew and up to 20,000 through catering, hospitality and transport contracts”

        “Statistics showed that one in 10 visitors admitted being influenced to come to New Zealand when The Lord of the Rings was being filmed and released.”

        These are just the figures for what they cost and earned, not what tourism they may have brought in:

        Fellowship
        Production budget: $93 million
        Global gross: $870 million

        Two Towers
        Production budget: $94 million
        Global gross: $926 million

        Return of the King
        Production budget: $94 million
        Global gross: $1.1 billion

        Must have been weird to live there through all of that, to experience the before and after of a global phenomenon.

  58. KateBush says:

    Agree that these were estimates.
    But my point is that any event that garners world wide attention be it BRF, LOTR, the Rugby World Cup etc etc is going to generate tourism $ that make the investment worthwhile in most people’s eyes.

    • My2Pence says:

      Definitely, things that bring positive attention would hopefully bring tourism. I think that this tour is not generating much “world wide attention” other than on sites like this and royal blogs. For the most part, the global news focus on NZ and AU right now is because of flight 370, not a royal tour.

      I’m going to suggest that Peter Jackson’s 6 films will have more of an impact over time (both globally and for NZ) than this tour by W&K.

      • Camille (The Original) says:

        Yes Peter Jackson’s film have brought a ton of interest in NZ, of course they have (but that isn’t the point), and any *new* exposure such as the Royal Tour is only a good thing.

      • KateBush says:

        So $ for $ the Royal visit will make 20x the inital investment (according to estimates based on previous royal visits). thats pretty comparable to the other events i mentioned on a smaller scale.

        Also must respectfully disagree regarding the attention on the Royal visit.
        NZ has as many international reporters visitng here at the moment for the Royal visit as were present for the Rugby World Cup which is a pretty big deal both here and overseas.

        @ Camille Hi fellow kiwi! i know right their visit is leading the news every night so far …

    • Camille (The Original) says:

      Exactly KateBush!

      (BTW I’m from/live in NZ. The Royal visit is all that everyone is talking about)

  59. Bwarf says:

    It’s so disheartening to read all the negative, judgmental comments on here. So much criticism about Will holding or interacting with Prince George, Kate’s hair, their itinerary, their vacations and all that; it’s sad. I once watched a segment on a show where celebs would read out mean tweets or comments about them, I’d hate that. People commenting on your looks is one thing but to comment on someone’s parenting is such a personal thing. To hear people talk about the Cambridges’ parenting, even people I don’t know, and labeling William distant and uninterested and all the mean comments about how they need the nanny close by etc etc etc…it’s so cruel, it’s not snarky, just cruel.

    • Anon says:

      I agree. I guess a few people missed the video and pictures showing that Kate is a very warm person and is indeed, adored by her baby very much.
      Imho, the nanny was present so if little George had a meltdown due to teething or whatever, the nanny could take him out of the room (as parents should do before all the babies meltdown) then Kate and Will could continue visiting with all the parents/babies present who came to see the Royal family. Nothing would please those parents more than have Will and Kate coo over their child or compare notes. (In this case, it was an important event for the guests…other parents.)

    • Ayre says:

      Thank you for this comment. I know the internet is an anonymous space where people tend to be more harsh in their judgments. But sometimes I wonder if they can hear how they sound — which is why I was indulging in some satire the other day.

      Would you talk this way about people in your real life? I was raised to give the benefit of the doubt and to treat people with compassion — yeah, even those who are “famous.” Like, you can tell from this one snippet that William is a bad father who spends no time with his child and has no respect for KM? There is no way to make that argument and not sound a little…over-invested.

      I understand the distinction between “haterz” and constructive criticism, but people make some really nasty inferences on these threads and then retreat into genteel platitudes when confronted with it.

      • bluhare says:

        Serious question. Do you really think that the royal threads are worse than others? Personally, I hardly ever venture into some threads simply because the posters there are pretty rabid. I’ve also not gone in them and bitched about the residents either. Your satire didn’t read as satire; it read fairly aggressively to me, and I’ve only got a small dog in this hunt.

        I’ve found it’s easier to get a discussion going by being respectful, even if you get slagged the first few times. Being perfect, it’s easy for me to say that. ;)

      • Bwarf says:

        Exactly. Who would say these things in real life? Someone actually commented that william seems distant as a dad. Seriously? The snippets of videos online are all less than 5 minutes, and even from the pictures of their engagements, there is no way any inferences about the closeness of any relationship can be made from those.

        The comments about the nanny are shocking too. Why wouldn’t she attend the play date? Her job is all about George, of course she should be there.

        I don’t know anything about their pr team’s game plan and I don’t care if they’ve done differently from what they’ve said in the past, they’re not doing a anything so bad as to warrant the kind of comments that I’ve read. I’m not one of those ppl who think they never do wrong, I’m just surprised at some of the things I read here…but I guess this is more tame than some other blogs. People sure say some seriously hurtful things about strangers.

      • Ayre says:

        I don’t think I would say that the royal threads are *worse*, but I don’t find value in comparing levels of hostility because the people who comment here aren’t teenagers or buffoons, like you’ll find on much internet gossip commentary.

        I read these royal threads every single day, and most people seem very nice, certainly very well-educated, and like people I would have over for dinner. Why there is otherwise such a blind spot about the tenor of some of the commentary here is baffling. When it swerves into thinly veiled classist, sexist pettiness I cringe, and I guess I expect more from people who seem so smart and nice and whose comments I agree with elsewhere.

        KM is not an appealing figure to me, I’m not trying to praise her, but she is a fascinating one. Imagine having all that power, through no work of your own, and not having been raised to it? She’s certainly done nothing with it so far, and doesn’t give an impression of substance. But she doesn’t give the impression of much of anything, yet, which is the point Hilary Mantel was trying to make in her oft-misunderstood speech.

        Because she’s such a blank canvas people project onto her. Some people project personal fantasies — it could have been me! — some people project political dissatisfaction. And some commentary on these threads projects a mean-spirited, Daily-Mail-fueled, anti-feminist callousness that, I admit it, really gets to me. For what it’s worth, bluhare, you’re always reaching out to people and encouraging open-minded discussion, so this really isn’t directed at you.

  60. Ladies of Lavender says:

    Such a cute little baby. Kate seems like a really lovely Mum. I loved the pictures, reminded me of when my sons were babies, they too had the chubby cheeks:)

  61. KateBush says:

    Update from NZ…
    Kate wore her hair up in a ponytail and blue McQueen for their walkabout in Blenheim today… ;)

    • bluhare says:

      She looked nice, although I personally didn’t like her coat. Made her look like a lab technician or garage mechanic. :)

      BUT, she was dressed really appropriately for the occasion I thought.

  62. DameEdna says:

    There’s been some complaining upthread that the Kiwis have had more opportunity to have a sqizz at George than those who live in Britain have. Don’t forget how far away the Antipodes are…….it’s fairly certain they won’t (as a family) be back here soon. So, make hay and all that.

    In the future, those back in Blighty, and other parts of the Commonwealth, will have many chances to gaze in adoration as he toddles about, carrying out his royal duties. Whether we need ANYONE at all carrying out such duties is another thing altogether.

    One last thing…….how many of those wittering on about the cost to the taxpayer are actually domiciled in countries where their tax dollars do benefit the RF? Because really, there are enough of us anyway without some random bystanders getting their knickers in a twist on our behalf.

  63. caughtsomething says:

    it seems kate doesn’t really like having george around. she never seems to look at him unless she’s put in a situation such as the play date where she has to have him around. think this video says it all:
    http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=4CGTGEgCYvY#/12;26