Duchess Kate: Prince George has oversized Spider-Man pajamas & he’s ‘noisy’


You would have thought that Duchess Kate and Prince William would have brought out Prince Bruiser, Big George following the Bum-gate scandal. Prince George is their “in case of emergency” button – once activated, Kate and William are Teflon because we’re just so enchanted by Big George’s grumpy mug. But they didn’t bring George to Scotland yesterday, which is too bad. Still, all of the Scottish people wanted to ask questions about George and Kate answered their questions charmingly:

Prince George is already superhero to many, and he’s already got the pajamas to prove it – a set of Spider-Man nightwear, his mom Kate revealed Thursday. But even the fast-growing prince isn’t quite ready for them.

“She said George has Spider-Man pajamas, but they are too big for him just now. She was saying how much her little boy has grown so big, so quickly,” a well-wisher, Lianne McNamara, told PEOPLE after meeting Kate in Scotland.

William and Kate are on their first official visit to the area of Strathearn, from which they derive their royal Scottish titles, the Earl and Countess of Strathearn. It’s their first outing as a couple since the tour of Australia and New Zealand.

At a local school, William, 31, was shown around an air ambulance amid speculation that he is considering flying one as part of a new career. “He was really keen to see how we work,” said John Pritchard, lead paramedic on the helicopter. “I would certainly welcome him on to the team.”

The couple flew to Scotland on Wednesday and stayed at the Gleneagles Hotel, next to the golf course where this year’s Ryder Cup will be played.

Kate, 32, met with some Girl Scouts – “I was a Brownie, but I never made it to the Guides,” she told one group of girls – and also spoke to well-wishers on a walkabout of a local park.

“She said, ‘George should be here, shouldn’t he? Maybe next time,’ ” one well-wisher, Jenny Hughes, said. Kate added that George was “noisy” and was “keeping them on their toes,” Hughes added.

[From People]

Big George is “noisy” and he “keeps them on their toes.” And he’s BIG. He’s a big bruiser baby. These are the understatements of the year. George seems like he has more personality than both his parents combined. And I really wonder who got him the Spider-Man jammies? I doubt it would be something Kate would get him and William never seems to give a crap. Maybe Uncle Harry bought George some Spider-Man jammies? Or Carole. Also, did you catch that little piece of information about how they checked into a hotel on Wednesday night? Another night of “vacation” spent away from George – they probably do that at this point just to get some peace and quiet. George is LOUD. And demanding.

Some additional photos from yesterday’s stop in Strathearn:



Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.

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

182 Responses to “Duchess Kate: Prince George has oversized Spider-Man pajamas & he’s ‘noisy’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Jessica says:

    I don’t blame them for traveling to Scotland the day before and spending the night in a hotel. Their first appearance was at 10am. I don’t know how long the flight from London to Strathearn is, but that would have taken time; the travel to and from the airports would have taken time; getting ready would have taken time. They would have had to leave London super early in the morning if they wanted to travel on the day. Granted, it could be done, but why do it if you don’t have to? It’s just easier to travel the day before. It makes sense that they did it that way. I would have.

    • m says:

      The point is that there are royal residences all over Scotland with one of them being just down the street from where their hotel was. But instead of staying in a place specifically for them, they decided to spend over £300 for a hotel (and that doesn’t even include their staff and security).

      • Jessica says:

        They also unveiled some sort of 90th anniversary plaque at the hotel. They didn’t just choose that hotel for sh-ts and giggles.

      • Suze says:

        Well, they would have to have someone pull off all the dust covers and that would cost money, too….

        I’m joking. I’m also not sure why I’m defending the Cambridge couple all over today, but I find staying overnight right at the hotel relatively reasonable.

      • DameEdna says:

        For an overnight visit, it would be less work for the staff to have them stay in a hotel…..demands of protocol and all that. Out of season, royal residences wouldn’t be fully staffed anyway.

      • Pandy says:

        What’s wrong with a hotel for a night? Agree that it would cost more to prep a residence for them.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Yet another example of dumping on the Cambridges because it fits within a certain narrative, not because each incident is looked at objectively and independently. This is unfortunate, imo, because it skewes the focus of real issues. The Cambridges give us lots of legitimate things to criticize so I see no need to pounce on every single, little thing.

      • FLORC says:

        Yea. This is no big deal. It really could have been worse.
        Hear that Kate fans? A Kate hater doesn’t think it’s a big deal. She can do things that aren’t terrible.

      • hmmm says:

        This is kind of funny. They have residences to stay in, but they are not being used right now/it would be too much trouble for one night (even if scheduled months ahead). So the point of having the residences is what?

      • LAK says:

        i am going to guess that they stayed at the hotel rather than their own Scottish home because it was a freebie…..one of those freebies they aren’t supposed to receive, but they tied it up with an official plaque unveiling at the hotel so it wouldn’t be so obvious a freebie. And the hotel receives free publicity.

      • AM says:

        I’m with hmmm on this one. What is the point on having residences upon residences?

      • LadySlippers says:

        Most of the residences in Scotland are not fully staffed or ready to accomdate people on a moments notice. In reality, it was probably loads cheaper to stay one night in a hotel than get the nearest Royal residence up to par again. Holyrood, for example, has to ‘ramp up’ when the RF comes up for any length of stay. Most of them aren’t ready for people to stay since they all live in and around London.

      • I feel I can comment with a degree of authority on this matter. This time of year, travelling in Scotland, even a short distance can be problematic. The roads, many of which are single track or two lane and twisty, are jammed with tour busses, people hauling campers and caravans, and all manner of other obstacles to a safe and speedy journey. This is twice as true in the highlands. My husband and I stay in a hotel the night before every single time we either fly or have an early engagement. All it takes is one road accident and a road can shut for hours, leaving you stranded. Ironically, I’m writing this from France, where the night before we flew here from Scotland, a road accident outside of our town caused the main road to shut for 10 hours. So while it seems like a waste to some, it is actually good planning.

  2. mimif says:

    Am I allowed to write that Baby George totally looks like the Queen in that header pic?
    (And he’s coming for you, Sixer.)

    • in_theory says:

      He totally does!

    • blue marie says:

      ha, he’s adorable

      • Lauren says:

        George is a chubby rable rouser! I like Kate. She is very athletic and stylish. Georgie seems content and happy. I enjoy all the George posts. Thanks Celebitchy.

      • Kate2 says:

        He is such a freaking cute baby, I just wanna bite him. I don’t follow the Royals that much so they don’t bother me. I like her style. But I’m also a bit of an Anglophile. I’m a history nerd with a fondness for the history of the British monarchy, so I may be a bit biased, not having to live in the country, either. Although I’d move to London in a heartbeat.

  3. InvaderTak says:

    I’d love it if Harry was the one who gave him the pj s. I can’t wait til George is big enough for Harry to start using him for pranks. The the worm he gave the one girl at k&P’s wedding.

    • Erinn says:

      I could see it being Harry, or Kate’s brother. It seems like a super ‘uncle’ gift, doesn’t it?

  4. PunkyMomma says:

    Bruiser Georgie looks like a mini Winston Churchill. Adorable.

  5. Hautie says:

    I am old enough to recall that William, was a bruiser also as a small child. I recall many articles about his bullying behavior, even when he started school.

    Which to be honest… does not strike me as odd. Some kids are simply loud.

    But I had a pack of male cousins… that were feral from birth. No matter how much time and effort their parents put into them. Them boys were feral from day one. My grandmother would start to sweat when she heard them coming. Plus they gave their parents heart palpitation, all through high school. And all of them eventually out grew most of the loud crazy behavior.

    Oddly, I like knowing that this kid George is so loud and hard to handle… that they have limited the public seeing him in action. :)

    • Zimmer says:

      Thanks Hautie. I am having a similiar experience with my son and I’m so glad for your family that your feral cousins turned out okay. Gives me hope that it is possible.

      • MrsB says:

        Ha! Me too. I have a 6 y/o boy is quite a force to be reckoned with. However, as he has gotten more involved in school and extracurricular activities and I’m around more boys his age I have realized that they are almost ALL like that. It is amazing the difference between the boys and girls (not in all cases of course but for the most part).

      • Bridget says:

        I have a couple of bruisers and it really helps to find similar children as their friends and play date companions. And then we set ground rules: wrestling is okay, but if you get hurt then no complaining. No shoving, biting, kicking, or hitting. And as the parent just have lots of patience and accept that they’re basically always going to play with sticks.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        If you get hurt then no complaning?

      • Bridget says:

        @Dame – within reason. I mean, my b ruisers are 6 and 4, so if they really got hurt its not like I’d tell them to rub some dirt on it and stop being a pansy, but if they play too rough with their friends and get the usual bumps and bruises that’s just the natural consequence. Say, if you decide to practice body slams onto some couch cushions with your best friend (even after being told not to repeatedly) and someone ends up being slammed a little too hard.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Lol, ok sorry. That makes sense.

    • Dani says:

      My daughter is one of those loud noisy kids. She’s always babbling, screaming, not sharing her toys but she’s only 8 months so she’ll grow out of it (pretty please God I hope).

      • wolfpup says:

        Babies don’t understand the concept of sharing until they are able to empathize; until then, they can share only by order. I remember my first baby, she cried so much, I was too. It was very difficult for me to see that I had a life outside of her, and stepping outside, and twirling in joy, because I did not have a baby in me, or sucking on me, was simply not enough. Young mothers need lots of joy that has nothing to do with babies.

    • mayamae says:

      Didn’t William tell a classmate that his grandmother would chop off his head, or something like it?

      • LAK says:

        “When I am King I am going to send my knights around to kill you!”

        - what William allegedly said to nanny who made him clean up his mess.

        “My daddy can beat up your daddy. My daddy is a real prince.”

        - what William allegedly said to a classmate at nursery school

      • hmmm says:


        He hasn’t changed much, has he?

      • wolfpup says:

        In the past, I’ve gotten a real entitled kind of vibe from Charles – perhaps it is because he felt entitled to leave a conventional marriage, only because he was the Prince of Wales, and that he could do everything his forbearers did, who enjoyed that title. I wonder about the royals, and how they conceive of themselves, really.

      • LAK says:

        wolfpup: Generally speaking, most the heirs have been entitled. It’s the way they are brought up. Special snowflakes that everyone bows down to from the day they are born.

        It’s rare the heir who isn’t entitled.

      • wolfpup says:

        Well LAK, how special…

        It is strange as well, in ordinary life, so many folks are intent on finding themselves better than others, in myriads of ways.

      • wolfpup says:

        On the other hand, it can be very isolating to have more than everyone else.

      • bluhare says:

        That’s how I feel, wolfpup. I look at everyone else and think, “poor things; if only they knew what it’s like to be me”. Then I go kick a dog, push an old lady down in the road, and fart in the library.

        It’s good to be me. :D

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        You are truly a…special person ;)

      • bluhare says:

        Not quite sure how to take that, but as I am me, I will conclude it is envy and jealousy on your part and you worship me from afar.

        Before everyone thanks me for posting, you’re welcome.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Oh, please, Bluhare, you can come and fart in my library anytime. I promise I won’t glare at you over my librarian’s glasses.

      • Feeshalori says:

        Hey, Bluhare, you can come fart in my library anytime and I promise that I won’t glare at you over my librarian’s glasses!

      • bluhare says:

        LOL, Feeshalori!!! :D

      • Feeshalori says:

        Sorry for the double post…..

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Lol, yes you are awesome. And I worship you from middle distance, not from afar :)
        I don’t have a library but I do have a lovely sitting room with a reading nook. Fart away!

    • FLORC says:

      Help me with something parents here.
      Lots of parents that work with alot and have kids under 1 have more quick things to say about their baby. I hear more 1 word answers from them than the “loud” and “noisy” I hear from these 2.
      Happy, excitable, healthy, active, curious for example.
      This makes me wonder how much time they truly spend with George if all they can say is he’s loud. Especially since every time we’ve seen him in public he’s laughing or quiet. And these parents work a lot of hours day and night. Just an observation.

      • RobN says:

        I think they say it because they are seeing people for only a moment or two and don’t want to sound like they’re bragging about their kid. It’s also a British trait to downplay things a bit.

      • FLORC says:

        Because they’re only seeing people for a moment is why I put out other 1 word responses. Because it is only for a moment.
        And I have several friends that have lived from their whole lives to a few years in GB. They also wonder this. Happy, hungry would also work and downplay. Instead it’s just that he screams all the time.

        Maybe there’s something I’m missing for a cultural difference.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        It is just a casual way to connect to people and other parents. The Cambridges are going for points that most can relate to. If it doesn’t come across that way it doesn’t mean they spend a small amount of time with George or hardly know him.
        They also seem oddly proud of the fact that George is rambunctious, loud and hearty. Will has bragged about his future role as a rugby player, they joke about his big appetite and healthy lung power. Will has also jokingly laughed about how much his son loves to pull on things and explore objects.
        They seem amused and pleased that their son is strong and confident. If they only gave simplistic, innocuous responses to questions about George I would think they were being insincere/haughty. And if they only said ‘George is lovely, thank you so much for inquiring’ I would lose interest in the lad.

      • Liberty says:

        My friends are raising another baby Churchill. They spend every possible second with him and adore him and yet he is so astonishingly strong and opinionated and vocal and grumpy face, they do the same thing….when strangers ask they sort of gasp “loud” and “strong” in a stunned way. I have spent a few evenings visiting and helping a bit and honestly that is what I’d probably say too though he is also smart, cuddly, fast, amusing. He is only quiet and gentle and baby-bubbly cooing with their bulldog, who is devoted to this 7 month old little king….There see, you made me defend these two.

      • LadySlippers says:


        It’s a very fair question but I honestly think they interact with George. And quite a lot by his level of comfort demonstrated with both Kate and William on their recent tour.

        To answer your question though, the adjectives they are using are the typical *male* adjectives that are used to describe a boy. Girls will often get tagged with less aggressive and more feminine descriptors than boys.

        It’s honestly part of the socialisation of boys and girls in our society. Gender is a biological fact but the social attitude we ascribe them is totally culturally based.

      • Ronia says:

        Interesting. I have never described my boy with “male words” apparently. Whenhe was one I had much more interesting words to describe his personality even in a minute conversation.

      • wolfpup says:

        Agreeing with you, Lady Slippers. Our language is embedded with markers.

      • Sixer says:

        If it’s any help, FLORC, both the Sixlets were tubby, outgoing, confident babies. I would have described them as bruisers, or loud, or gobby (that’s Britspeak for opinionated/talks a lot).

        Now they are bigger, I would describe Sixlet Major as dreamy and Sixlet Minor as earnest. Neither are in the least bit bombastic and haven’t been since they outgrew toddlerhood.

        It’s probably just an age/development thing – at George’s age, babies are curious and beginning to learn to communicate with a bit of sophistication, so they very often like to make themselves known or heard. Hence the descriptors parents often use.

      • FLORC says:

        Thank you for the insight.
        If George wasn’t on this tour and we hadn’t seen the interaction I would question it a bit. Kate was seen with George, but William was admittedly away for much of his life so far.
        Still, I dislike the quick response of loud and noisy. This goes to most parents I suppose. So many other single words could be used.

        That’s my issue here. Change it up. Especially when George from what we’ve seen hardly makes a peep. That might be due to choice moments and great nannies.

      • wolfpup says:

        I think that this young couple find George a challenge, especially as first time parents. But I agree with the snarkers (snarkie?) above, and say as well, that they are very proud of him, and rightly so. Sixer, the description of your youngsters brought back fond memories. I bet you gave them plenty of hugs and kisses.

  6. cro-girl says:

    George!!!!!! He’s precious. He’s going to be a big public figure I think. He’s got that certain quality… or maybe I’m just wanting another baby.

  7. Patricia I says:

    Anyone else find it strange that we see so very little of George?

    Part of me thinks that is perfectly within their rights as parents, but then I remember the whole royal family is paid for by taxes on its subjects, and I think they might just want to show the people of England what their paying for. Right?

    I’m sure they don’t see it like that, but they seem to be very determined to keep him under wraps. No home pictures released or anything. I was stunned to see how big he was on the Australian tour.

    Anyway. Strange. Very strange. Yes even considering Diana and William’s loss.

    • Suze says:

      Lord help me, I’m going to defend the Cambridge duo here.

      Prince George is not yet a working royal (although there are some who would say he works more than his parents, and is more effective when he does). He is going to spend his entire life in the public eye. His parents – probably mostly his father – are probably trying to give him as private an early upbringing as possible. William knows what an onslaught awaits.

      And I am ancient, so I remember Wills and Harry’s early years. There were official photoshoots and photos released, but until the divorce they were pretty sheltered. They were seen more than George, but not a whole lot more. (if memory serves).

      George will be seen enough when he is older. I was actually shocked we saw so much of him on the tour.

      • Syko says:

        Agreed. I’m so old I remember Charles and Anne as toddlers. I don’t think George is any more hidden than any of them were. There are always sort-of-regular photo ops, but for the most part, they keep the kids in the house.

        I think George is adorable. As for him being noisy, one man’s noisy is another man’s peace and quiet. They’re probably just not used to the babbling of babies.

      • Patricia I says:

        Good points.
        I understand better.
        Thanks for the feedback ladies.
        Apparently it’s just me seeing it incorrectly.
        I will be quiet and patient now :)

      • Suze says:

        Never be quiet and patient Patricia! It’s CB let your opinion fly free like everyone else does!

      • FLORC says:

        I do agree with you Suze that George is not a working royal yet, but also that the publlic should get more of George. Princess Estelle of Sweden has a lovely Tumblr. It shows her safely. There’s no invasion of privacy here. It really is just up to the parents. They just have to be upfront and say no. They do not want to show their child and not claim it’s a privacy issue.
        Not sure which is the official one.

      • bluhare says:

        Oh my, FLORC. I love Estelle. I never thought I’d be a total fangirl of a two year old!!

      • wolfpup says:

        FLORC, I love those pictures of the Swedish royal family. What a wonderful idea for the Cambridges.

      • AM says:

        We did see a bit more of William and Harry were babies – they used to have photocalls which were great for seeing the kids in action. But I think the royal family does less of that kind of thing in general these days, and I won’t fault William and Kate for making decisions they believe to be in the interest of protecting their child. I do still think it would have been nice to get pictures of George at Christmas, and I’d expect to see something of him for his birthday.

        The other great thing they do with Estelle is bringing her out for public occasions. I don’t think I’ve ever seen her throw a fit, and she’s been able to ease into coping with large crowds. I think it’s difficult, though, to schedule small children for events – it’s not fair to force them to go out if they’re having a bad day, and yet you’ve already said they would be at X event.

      • FLORC says:

        I love her too. absolutely adorable with that no nonsense lock them in the tower look she has.

        Of course it’s up to the parents. If they want George sheltered and protected it’s their choice. For tours he’s brought out dressed like William at his age and for goodwill. It’s on their terms and the reasoning gets blurred.
        Still, Estelle is seen well with both parents and the people feel less aggressive against their royalty with a happy family. She is being eased in and that’s great. And I hope i’m not saying George and young baby royals should be at events scheduled ahead of time. They’re babies still.
        But even so. George shouldn’t be so coddled he fears the public. They could end up walking a fine line.

      • AM says:

        Don’t disagree with you (especially that they need to be careful to not use him as a prop), just think it’s complicated. I personally think no royal couple has done it better than Victoria and Daniel, but I can’t knock William and Kate if they feel they are protecting their son.

    • hmmm says:

      Well, they were happy enough to use him as a prop on their last tour. But nothing for the Brits. Go figure.

      • DameEdna says:

        It’s doubtful they’ll be Down Under in the near future…..visits by royal personages are few and far between. So the Brits are much more likely to get a squizz of Georgie as he toddles about the sceptred isle.

        Not that I’m hanging out for it or anything like that. Someone usually puts in an appearance following bushfires and that’s about it.

      • bluhare says:

        I agree with everyone. George shouldn’t be paraded out as the latest public relations prop, but it would be nice to show him to Britain as well. Perhaps he could make a balcony appearance at the Trooping of the Colour.

    • Helvetica says:

      I don’t find it odd at all. First, he is an infant and the future King, not a Kardashian. The monarchy probably needs to keep him under wraps for security reasons. Plus, he’s a baby, not a circus freak.

    • Patty Cake says:

      I think its important Cambridge’s protect George from too much exposure. After all he’s just a kid. He didn’t choose his lot in life, he was born into it. With that being said if I were in their position, and he was my son I’d limit the public’s exposure to him as well. He deserves some normalcy in life, besides, I think its critical for healthy growth, just my opinion.

  8. Ag says:

    i think that’s sort of an odd comment to make for a parent – that’s how kids roll, they’re noisy.

    also, i know that someone here commented once that (british?) aristocracy makes their children wear shorts until a certain age, but they really need to pop a pair of pants on that kid. everyone is wearing coats and hats, and poor george is wearing shorts? wth.

    • joe spider says:

      Where did that idea come from? Of course they don’t. You Americans (I guess) do have some odd ideas about us Brits and sweeping generalisations to boot. :)

      If that photo was taken in Australia it was probably quite warm so he would be wearing shorts.

      • Ag says:

        it’s not “us americans” – it was someone british answering a question re george always wearing shorts. i didn’t google the answer to confirm its veracity. i restated what someone said – i didn’t vouch for whether that was actually the custom, since i have no clue.

      • Ag says:

        and way to make “sweeping generalizations” about “us americans.” :)

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        “You Americans”? Generalize much?

      • wolfpup says:

        Pesky Americans!

      • wolfpup says:

        I think that perhaps why the royal family is so interesting to some Americans, is because it is the land of our forefathers. My father comes from Welsh aristocracy (1st cousins to the queen 10 times removed, (whatever that means…) and my mother’s line comes from Scotland. It’s like our roots…

        When I toured the national museum in Korea, I was struck by the ancientness of their culture, and felt gypped that America was so young. I feel comforted by history of my ancestors..

    • Lisa says:

      I don’t think anyone dresses their kids that way these days — that’s middlebum’s attempt to appear klassy.

      • Abby_J says:

        Actually, I live in the South in America, and a LOT of people dress their kids that way. :) Smocking, shorts, knee socks, the whole thing.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Diana dressed her boys that way, including little frocks and Mary Janes, and it was not the contemporary style even then either. And yes, in many areas this classic look is treasured, especially for holidays and formal portraits.

    • mayamae says:

      I think you may be thinking of short pants, and it is an old fashioned concept.

  9. Mylene - Montreal says:

    This baby is SO adorable ! And we can see that he have is one personnality !! SO CUTE :)

  10. Lisa says:

    Can someone please explain to me the genetics of George’s dark brown eyes?

    • bluhare says:

      Please don’t go there. I don’t think you’ll find much support for your argument here.

      Plus it’s been done. Go root around some old threads about George. You’ll find them there.

    • Suze says:

      Short answer: Middleton eyes.

      • Lisa says:

        Close set and beady?

      • mayamae says:

        That would be the Windsors, not Middletons.

      • Lisa says:

        Have you seen pippa’s eyes? And Carole’s are tiny — thus the black eyeliner.

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        The Mids have small eyes, eyelid to bottom lash. This is not beady. Beady describes the Windsor eyes, narrow and rounder corner to corner and close set in relation to the nose.

      • Francis says:

        He’s definitely more Middleton-Goldsmith, I see a bit of Uncle Gary in him too, but he’s cute like a little cherub.

    • mayamae says:

      This quote is from a Stanford at The Tech article titled – How Blue Eyed Parents Can Have Brown Eyed Children. It’s preceded by a diagram and in depth explanation.

      “Because the two genes depend on each other, it is possible for someone to actually be a carrier of a dominant trait like brown eyes. And if two blue eyed parents are carriers, then they can have a brown eyed child. Genetics is so much fun!

      So all you light eyed parents with dark eyed kids, stop asking those paternity questions (unless you have other reasons to be suspicious). Darker eyed kids are a real possibility that can now be explained with real genes.”

      ** I’ve read Kate has green eyes, not blue. If true, she carries the brown trait.

      • Lisa says:

        This says both parents have to carry the brown eyed trait. I can definitely see how Kate can have one but where does William’s come from? As far as I know all of his known grandparents were blue eyed. Seriously — no one is curious about this? I am NOT suggesting george isn’t their baby — in this day and age that would be impossible to hide that but it is extremely improbable (I will not say impossible) for them to produce a brown eyed baby. I could be very strong so please point me to the brown-eyed Windsor.

      • Lisa says:

        I meant I could be “wrong” not “strong”!

      • Suze says:

        Hmmm….Diana’s father had dark eyes, I think.

      • Okie28 says:

        I’ve always thought Kate has hazel eyes. It’s not a big leap from hazel-eyed mom to brown-eyed baby.

      • FLORC says:

        Regarding Blue eyes and their traits. Some dark blue eyed people actually have the brown eyed layout of genetics. It looks blue, but they read out as brown.

        Still, Kate has hazel or dark hazel. That’s why. And in time (mid to late 20′s) George will barely look like a middleton and will look full windsor.

      • Francis says:

        Diana’s father the Earl Spencer,had blue eyes and looks a lot like her brother the current Earl Spencer. Both of Diana’s parents had blue eyes from what I’ve seen in photos.

    • joe spider says:



      But I hope you can understand it better than I did!

    • Isabelle says:

      Genetics is complicated. I’m from a racially mixed family. I have light skin with hazel eyes. My brother has bright blue eyes and blondish hair, very blond as a kid. Both parents had darker complications, jet black hair, mom green eyes, Dad dark eyes. We’re jokingly called the white sheep of family. We had several Scottish ancestors so we probably inherited their genetics (I had dark red hair as a kid).

      • wolfpup says:

        As an activist of many years, I am so touched that finally, perhaps finally, the varying hues a a persons skin, is no longer a marker of “shame based” lies. I was so appreciative Isabell, that you are able to describe your genetic markers, in such a refreshing way – absolutely proud of being a human being, with no excuses, and I call that character! And progress. It Just warms my heart. Brava!

  11. boredsuburbanhousewife says:

    Maybe this new story about George means Kate is finally leaving the Bumgate scandal in the rear view mirror.

    • bluhare says:

      That story really exposed the cracks in the façade, didn’t it?

    • Suze says:

      I see what you did there!

    • Justalark says:

      Those cheeky photographers…Always butting in where they’re not wanted!

    • Jaded says:

      The bottom line is that Kate is tired of being the butt of everyone’s jokes!

    • AM says:

      You guys, please stop giving her a bum rap.

      • FLORC says:

        Sorry for butting in, but you folks have me in stitches!

      • Olenna says:

        Butt, butt…oh, never mind.

      • dena says:

        Oooh. I will be so glad when we get to the tail-end of this.

      • wolfpup says:

        Too funny…, butt – I do not think these two like their jobs. It was a photocall! I saw Kate approaching it like a game, and she tries to play it with William… he looked so self-conscious; he did not know what to do with his hands (one needs a plan). I think that William just needs a big hug from his mum.

      • Feeshalori says:

        We need to get to the bottom of this levity. Kate is such an asset, after all.

      • wolfpup says:

        bluhare, I’m calling you out, daring you even, butt, can you come up with another knock-knock, er, I mean butt-butt joke? I want a belly-laugh. Please?!!

      • bluhare says:

        I’m the limerick writer, wolfpup. It’s Snarkweek who’s the poet. I don’t know any joke writers here . . . do we have some?

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        Have we reached the tail end of these puns yet?

      • dena says:

        @ Wolfpup:

        I agree. I believe that if PW could that he would assign the public aspect of his job to the nether regions of hell—putting this, his bespoke courses, and his half-assed job as a RAF all behind him, but he is not in a position—not with the Queen living (I don’t think) —to lay those desires bare to the public and/or to really expose himself in that way. In this, he would be like a mad-man baying at a full moon–with all the world to see. I think once the Queen passes on and Charles has had some successful years as King, and with Harry perhaps stepping up (and commanding good PR), then PW could perhaps fade into a private life with all the privileges of being royal but not the responsibilities—if that’s his end game. And as we know, in this Kate will not only through her full support behind him, but will probably be relieved too—given her public awkwardness and numerous missteps, i.e., Bum-gate. Only time will tell. And, of course, this type of move will need to be buttressed by the will of the people (and Parliament).

        Good luck to them. I think they have really hit bottom with this last fiasco. But I do want to say, all jokes aside, that Kate brings a certain WAGish element to the BRF—which is not good. She doesn’t need to be old and stuffy—certainly not. But we should see SOME evidence of a college educated woman, who through her privilege, has had some exposure to life. (The same goes for him too.) However, she is first and foremost his wife. And if she is what he wants and needs—then hey, more power to him. But they, so far, IMO don’t bring any dignity, integrity or (hell) modernity to the BRF. Her clothes, what she wears or what she isn’t wearing should not be THE central topic of a royal visit—outside of fashion circles. His scrambling to dodge his duties (constantly reinventing himself) should not be THE central topic of conversations either. Perhaps they should look to examples like CP Victoria of Sweden as an example of a modern royal or even Prince Charles. At 32, it’s time those two got a clue. University days are over. Real life started some time ago. Stop trying to delay it.

      • wolfpup says:

        So now I’m bummed-out.

        I’ve figured out why”‘bluhare” sounds full of magic to me. It’s the blue smoke coming from the caterpillar’s pipe in Alice in Wonderland…and the hare… I have always called your magical power Kindness.

      • dena says:

        Just lifted this from the DailyMail:

        The next he is reminding domestic staff that his wife must be curtsied to as befits her HRH status. ‘Like his father, he has a short temper,’ says a courtier. ‘People remember when they have been shouted at.’

        Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2644414/He-wobbled-Kate-Now-Wills-wobbling-choice-thatll-define-life.html#ixzz33H5xhRxx

        See . . . you can’t have ass-gate and other stupid sh*t happening then expect people to respect you. The days of tugging on forelocks are long gone.

      • wolfpup says:

        I’m just curious… Do people curtsy to anyone else other than the royal family? Does a curtsy signify respect?

      • bluhare says:

        There once was a British royal duchess
        Whose clothing did fly up in bunches
        She said “Alack and alas,
        I’m not really a bad ass,
        But I have no underwear that matches!”

        It’s not my best attempt, but it’s the best I can do when put under pressure (you know who I’m staring at, wolfpup!)

      • bluhare says:

        And this after I stayed up half the night crafting a (not my best attempt as the meter isn’t perfect) limerick for you, wolfpup??? Now I look at it in print, the last line should be “But I don’t have any underwear that matches”. And I can’t edit it any more.

        Actually, the story behind my name is because I am prematurely grey, but I’m not ready to slow down like an old person, and it’s a play on calling grey haired old ladies blue hairs. Although my nephew says they call the Sunday matinee at his theater shows the Q Tip Crowd.

      • wolfpup says:

        Your posts are so funny, bluhare. “I don’t have underwear that matches”! You’d think that she could find lingerie that would work for her hind-end! (and for William).

      • AM says:

        Love it, bluhare! It’s said that Kate has a rather cheeky sense of humor, I think she would have a laugh.

        This makes me think they should have gone the ‘Kate, she’s just like us’ route. Who among us hasn’t run out of underwear or realized our underwear would show through what we’re wearing? ;-)

      • Dame Snarkweek says:

        ‘Underwear that matches’
        I love this so much lol. Brava, Blu.

      • wolfpup says:

        I’m don’t mean to ask you something so personal, maybe you won’t mind. You’ve mentioned in the past that you have a Welsh pedigree. I searched for years to find out what “race” (?) I belonged to, because Welsh coloring is unique. My question is this…with the dark hair, how do you go gray, and what does it look like? I know that everyone is unique, but how will it look – salt and pepper? Are you being brave and proud, and not dyeing it? I do not know what to do with mine.

  12. RedWeatherTiger says:

    He’s a super cute little guy.

    They ALWAYS seem to comment on how noisy he is. I remember one of the first interviews, if not THE first on the stairs of the hospital (the WING), William said how he had good lungs or something. Did they expect a silent baby?

    Or maybe they just can’t think of much else to say? If they need a quick one word answer, why not go with “inquisitive,” or “curious,” as they are pretty common traits for babies and don’t sound overly boastful.

    • FLORC says:

      Said the same above. It doesn’t make sense unless George is strongly lacking in personality.
      And what little we’ve seen of George he is not lacking in personality and doesn’t seem loud.

  13. mayamae says:

    In other words, George is …………. a baby.

  14. Lisa says:

    He looks EXACTLY like Uncle Gary.

  15. hmmm says:

    Is her vocabulary so (emotionally) impoverished that she can’t find anything to say about Georgie other than some variation of ‘noisy’? Geez. And his daddy is no better. They make the babe sound more like an annoyance than someone with personality to cherish and gush about.

    • wolfpup says:

      I see that as well….hmmmm…

    • Santolina says:

      I think they’re just sleep-deprived new parents of a rambunctious baby. I find it refreshing that she didn’t try to sugarcoat her answer. Most new moms can relate.

      • Dawn says:

        This. And geez he is a cute kid. Looks like he has a bit of the devil in him as well!

      • FLORC says:

        New parents and Will/Kate are not the same. George has many expert nannies and all photos of nannies are editted so they vanish and it’s just Kate and George.
        They’ve had multiple vacations without him and she’s often seen without him for shopping trips.

        Yes, they are new parents, but don’t struggle in the same way. Now the head nanny in the backround of that play date on the tour… She looked haggard and exhausted!

      • Xantha says:

        “Most new moms can relate”

        Really? So most new moms have nannies who can take him every time he cries, or a household of staff who do the cooking and cleaning?

        I think they do spend time with George and have a bond with him. However, I think when it comes to most of the grunt work, that’s left up to the nannies.

        The few times we’ve seen George in public I would say he’s no worse than any of the other babies I’ve looked after. He hardly cries, is just a little squirmy and occasionally tosses toys. If that makes him the devil, then I don’t know what to tell ya.

      • vava says:

        I think she’s stressed out over Butt Gate. It has nothing to do with Baby George. Chick needs to get her stuff together.

      • wolfpup says:

        Agree, vava.

      • bluhare says:

        And I think she parrots William.

      • AM says:

        I think they just have standard answers so they don’t have to think about it, like how they always say he’s down for a nap or with Granny. It’s easier than saying the last time they saw him he was throwing a fit.

      • wolfpup says:

        So AM, they are trying to manipulate the gossip?! That’s both ridiculous and hilarious, and I bet that you are right.

      • AM says:

        I didn’t really mean it in a manipulative way, more letting people think they’ve had a glimpse of information while keeping their actual life private.

      • bluhare says:

        AM, I think that’s what I don’t like about them. The manipulation. Thanks for articulating it.

  16. Arhodo says:

    I miss Prince George!

  17. SoCal says:

    I just hope they release a few photos when he turns one in July. A really cute photo with his Uncle Harry lol.

  18. Barbara says:

    I think George favors his maternal grandfather. I would like to see a baby picture side by side to compare.

  19. Suze says:

    Hmmm. Heads up for anyone interested – the Go Fug women have photos of Harry being introduced to a possible blond duchess replacement – Charlotte Baer. (I think that’s her name).

  20. Suze says:

    Florc I am in the car on the phone so can’t link.

    Check out the last FUG Girls post on Harry where he is meeting all the kids. He is being introduced to a blonde (they call her Edwina). The folks over at the Order of Splendor actually say she is Charlotte Baer, from the ChelsyCressBeaEug crowd.

  21. DailyNightly says:

    That second photo is what Kate looked like when she saw the box of weights the Queen was having sewn into Kate’s hems.

  22. Flower says:

    He was perfectly well behaved in Australia, just a little animated. I think he is probably a very intelligent little boy who just needs lots of stimulation or he gets bored and acts up,

  23. Dany says:

    someone seen this article:

    A scottish artist made a painting of Kate and “When William saw it, he said, ‘Wow, it’s brilliant. That’s going up in my room.’”

    HIS room?

    • FLORC says:

      Link won’t work:(
      His room. I don’t doubt it. They really are apart often. It works for them. I just think it’s silly to believe otherwise. Lots of couples do this.

      • bluhare says:

        If you copy it backwards and past it it does. This is where I sympathise with them; having to ooh and aah over (what I think is) a pretty ugly portrait.

  24. Vee says:

    I love George and he’s so loud like an American!