Prince Charles gushes about granddaughter Princess Charlotte: ‘She is beautiful’


Here are some photos of the British royals and politicians at the Sunday VE Day service in England. Queen Elizabeth was there, wearing a rather beautiful navy coat and some gorgeous jewelry (that brooch is the business). I like her black hat too! The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall were also in attendance. I think Camilla looks really nice here – I like her devotion to pale, silvery blues. If you remember, she also wore a very pale blue on her wedding day to Prince Charles. The color suits her.

While doing an event over the weekend, Charles gushed about his new granddaughter. He told well-wishers “I really was hoping for a girl. She is beautiful. I was hoping for a grand-daughter – someone to look after me when I am very old.” I think it’s really sweet how happy Charles is about having a girl in the family. Reportedly, he always hoped to have a daughter with Diana, and he was hoping that Harry would turn out to be a girl. Now he’s got his granddaughter.

I’m also including a photo of newly re-elected Prime Minister David Cameron, who was at church with his wife Samantha. I wanted to mention Samantha in particular – is it just me or is Mrs. Cameron consistently underdressed? I don’t mean that she’s showing too much skin (she’s not), but it just seems like whenever there’s a formal event where ladies are in suits and hats, SamCam is wearing some breezy little dress and no hat. It’s weird. Is she consciously going for a more low-key, less formal look?




Photos courtesy of WENN.

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

116 Responses to “Prince Charles gushes about granddaughter Princess Charlotte: ‘She is beautiful’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Tracy says:

    I believe the Queen’s hat is navy as well, rather than black.

  2. Loopy says:

    Samantha has always dressed very poorly.And how the hell did Cameron get re-elected?

    • CM says:

      An excellent smear campaign by the Tories.

    • Jegede says:

      British Nigerian here, and cause I voted for them *smiles*

      • Misti64 says:

        You’re not at all a minority. In my decidedly mixed area, the MP is Labour but most of our councillors are Tory.

    • frisbeejada says:

      Only God knows, and the emphasis on the blue ‘Tory’ colours – just to rub it in as much as possible methinks – makes me want to reach for a bucket.

    • MonicaQ says:

      I asked the same question when George W. Bush was re-elected. Sometimes, as the great lyric writer Trick Daddy remarked, “You off the chain…but you gon’ learn.”

    • Gia says:

      I agree, Sam Cam is dressed horribly. I don’t know if anyone saw her not long ago in a story from the Daily Mail where she went to someone’s home and took off her shoes and OMFG her toenails were scary as heck! She needs fungus treatment ASAP.

      I just can’t unsee those hideous toenails….so gross.

  3. Sarah says:

    His wife shouldn’t be dressed like royalty. The prime minister is a public servant, not a celebrity. It’s inappropriate for his wife to dress too much above the regular class.

    • MinnFinn says:

      +1 SamCam sans hat was a deliberate choice likely b/c hats = old or perhaps hats = posh and old/posh are bad labels for a politico’s spouse.

      She didn’t wear a hat to Will/Kate’s wedding either. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      • LAK says:

        IIRC, she wore a small bejewelled headpiece to WK’s wedding.

        I tend to like her style, hats aren’t included in said style. She’s very consistent that way.

    • danielle says:

      I thought a bit of the same thing. How many people who are not aristocracy wear hats like that?

    • Sixer says:

      SamCam *is* aristocracy. She’s the daughter of a baronet. It’s very hard to be posher than SamCam!

      • LAK says:

        What Sixer said.

        Plus her step father is an Astor (that famous American/English Astor family) – the English side of the family.

      • frisbeejada says:

        She is but her husband’s still got a sweaty forehead of doom Sixer, never forget she’s got that looming over her after Match of the Day…

      • Sixer says:

        Are your bags packed yet, m’dear? I’m observing the new cabinet via Twitter and er… Scotland, here I come!

      • frisbeejada says:

        Cabinet smabinet THEY WILL NEVER TAKE OUR FREEDOM!!!!! and Haggis…(just getting into the swing of it before we go – like you do)

      • Sixer says:

        I’m off to buy some woad!

      • bluhare says:

        This is getting interesting. Woad,? Are you going to become BoadiSixer?

      • Sixer says:

        I might! I shall become a member of Nicola Sturgeon’s social justice army, paint my face blue and spend a lot of time shouting EFF YOU, WESTMONSTER.

        Or something!

      • bluhare says:

        We want gifs of you painted up in your chariot, encouraging the Sixlets to moon parliament. 🙂

      • Sixer says:

        Well, I am taking the Sixlets on the 20 June People’s Assembly march in London…

      • Megan says:

        Headed to Scotland next week for a little R&R. Hope they are still celebrating.

    • puffinlunde says:

      But SamCam is a royal descendent and an aristocrats daughter is she not? being the daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffied, 8th Baronet, a descendant of King Charles II.

      However she seems to like dressing in this mumsy style – like she’s attending a PTA meeting or a school play. She got a lot of criticism in the press for not wearing a hat to William and Kate’s wedding.

    • Sofia says:

      The Camerons are both from very privileged backgrounds. Samantha Cameron is a direct descendant of King Charles II. I think she dresses down to hide her privilege, to seem more like ‘one of us’
      Plus women of all classes regularly wear hats to church. It’s not exclusively for upper class women!

    • perplexed says:

      It’s not just the lack of a hat. I’ve seen better dresses at Sears.

    • Seraphina says:

      Ummmmm, Sarah. You are absolutely correct. Funny how we all lose sight of that.

    • MrsBPitt says:

      I agree…she is not royalty or 90 years old!!!!!! Why would anyone WANT to dress like that, unless they had too!!!!!

  4. RocketMerry says:

    The queen has so much style… here’s hoping little Charlie takes some of that from great granny.
    SOMEONE is going to have to show her how to not overdo eyeliner and rock some seriously hot hats, after all.

    • Shambles says:

      Seriously, the Queen is giving me pure, unadulterated glamour right now and I love it.

    • bluhare says:

      That brooch. The Queen always brings out the big guns for the veteran services.

      I like her outfit, too, expecially with that lovely print peeking out underneath.

      The DOE is looking thin; his suit is hanging off him, but at 93 he looks fab.

  5. Jegede says:

    I’m sure the Royal Family are quite happy Cameron was re-elected.

    The stories are legion as to how they famously did not get on with the Blairs (especially Cherie)
    Princess Anne/Margaret with Tony Blair;
    John Prescott and Prince Charles; e.t.c

    Lol. Could be a sitcom.

  6. Katydid20 says:

    Always love what the queen is wearing.

    And I’m getting so sick of the “everyone wants a girl” talk. You’d think no one in the world or the British royal family ever had a girl before……

    • perplexed says:

      Maybe everyone was hoping for a glamorous girl princess. I mean, I know there’s Princess Anne, but she’s Princess Anne…

      I realize Margaret was a glamorous princess, but if Diana is slowly being “forgotten” I don’t think anyone really remembers Margaret that much….

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Oh, but Charles needs someone to take care of him in his old age…

      • puffinlunde says:

        It was a bit worrying that he sees Charlotte as his caretaker but not George. A “girl’s role” for her

      • CM says:

        Ha – I had to swallow back a little bile at his comment! Because that’s what girls are for, right? I mean, god forbid she might actually want a worthwhile career or something. Let’s leave the tricky stuff to her MALE relatives. And, of course, if she doesn’t look after grandpa, how will he survive? It’s not like us Brits have to fund his palaces, doctors and the very shirts off his back, right? He might be – gasp – left to the mercies of a dodgy, poorly-funded nursing home! Etc etc grumble grumble

      • bettyrose says:

        On a previous thread I posted that Charles, like a lot of men, probably enjoys banter with women and little girls develop verbal skills sooner than boys so he’s probably envisioning all the entertaining dialogues they’ll have now and in his old age. Obviously he won’t require her services as a nurse.

      • CM says:

        Obviously. But ‘harmless’ comments like this perpetuate sexism – girls are the sweet carers while boys have careers – plus he’s a public figure that I pay for. I’d prefer he thinks before he speaks.

        Actually, I’d prefer he – and the rest of his family – f**** off.

      • bettyrose says:

        No disagreement there but it’s the RF, whose feet are firmly planted in the 17th century.

      • perplexed says:

        You know, I can actually picture Charles discussing philosophy with little Charlie…

        His comments do hinge on a stereotype, but maybe because he’s the future King of England (so he’ll have a way heavier workload than the average 90 year old if Kate and William are the future), he’s slightly chubbier than he used to be, he’s grey, and he’s really pink now, I did find the comments kind of amusing.

      • bluhare says:

        I can see where you all are coming from but I interpreted his comments as joy at having a granddaughter and saying he loves her. Yes, he could have said things about George when he was born, and he really didn’t, but I’m not going to slag on a guy who always wanted a little girl and now he’s got a granddaughter. The royals aren’t prone to emotional outbursts and I think it was his way of saying how much he’s looking forward to it.

      • perplexed says:

        I agree with bluhare.

      • Dena says:

        I agree with Bluhare but I also think his statement may come from a lot of different memories. For one, he loved his grandmother. If like me, he spent time with his granny being chatty and special and just loved then that may have pushed his wish for a girl. He seemed to enjoy Anne as a sister when they were kids. That colors things too. I’m sure he may have seen her as an equal or more so. And perhaps even naturally inquisitive. Then, of course, there is Zara (didn’t he suggest the name?). He probably enjoys her and could simply enjoy woman and all of the “stuff” girls / women in terms of banter & grit bring to the table. He’s probably tired of being surrounded by boys as well . I can even see how he might say “to take care of me when I’m older” in that checking that gotta check in on gramps kind of way.

    • bluhare says:

      Well, Charles didn’t, and apparently would have liked a daughter as well as sons.

  7. Belle Epoch says:

    Is Charles really that flushed and red? He looks like an alcoholic. Maybe sunburn? High blood pressure? Anybody know?

  8. GoodNamesAllTaken says:

    I have mixed feelings about English women and their hats. Side one – it’s a cool tradition, and very amusing to see the craziness and irony. Side two – I’m not sure they look that good. But I’d be a little sad to see them go.

    • bluhare says:

      My feelings aren’t mixed; love hats. 🙂

      And Camilla can really rock them. She looks good.

    • MonicaQ says:

      Being black and going to baptist service, the hats were the only thing that kept me sane. Hat game on point here 😀

  9. Sixer says:

    In the UK, it’s kinda tradition for politicians’ wives to under-dress. They try to stay below the radar. 1) we have royals so they don’t have a quasi-royal function like they do in republics; 2) anything to keep out of the crosshairs of the vicious tabloid press. 3) they generally have careers of their own (although SamCam’s career is more trust fund baby nepotism than the norm).

  10. MinnFinn says:

    Camilla’s ensembles for church things look very similar. She does look good in silvery-blue but it really makes her seem much older than she is. Camilla is 67 and she has the wrinkles and stooped physique of any 80 year old. More modern silhouettes and colors would help her appear more relevant. I’ll probably get jumped on for saying that. Negative stereotypes about someone who people deem ‘old’ are not fair but it is the reality of being in a public role.

    • Thinker says:

      I wonder how much of her looking old is a reflection of the fact that most of the women who age in the public eye and have many photographs taken of them undergo medical procedures to hide the physical manifestations of their age.

      There are not many 67-year old women in Hollywood without plastic surgery…. I appreciate that Camilla has not gone the plastic route.

      • MinnFinn says:

        Thinker – I agree that celebs do not represent normal aging.

        I was thinking of a relative (65), neighbors (about 70 and 90) that are 100% cosmetic-procedure-free when I put Camilla at 80 yrs old. Camilla iirc was (or still is) a heavy smoker and drinker. Those habits are #1 and #2 on’s list of lifestyle factors that exacerbate the disease. My 3 comparison targets represent normal female aging in the Midwest where I live in that they never smoked, 2 are very light drinkers and the 90+ neighbor drank a lot on weekends but stopped partying around age 50.

        I disagree that Camilla has not had any cosmetic procedures. She’s not botoxed and filler-ed to the point of taut skin but she had and continues to have one or both of these.

    • Jaded says:

      Unfortunately Camilla has osteoporosis which is causing the “stooped” looking back. She’s on meds for it but once it starts it’s hard to prevent bone loss. Her mother died a horrible death from it and could barely walk at the end her bones were so fragile.

      • maddie says:

        Osteoporosis is a “silent” disease and in the absence of a bone scan – which people seldom do until their senior years – you don’t know you have it until you fracture. It’s not just confined to the elderly and simply part of the ageing process, many very young people get it too – especially those with eating disorders and celiac disease.

        Hopefully Camilla can educate Kate on the repercussions of her severe dieting!!!

  11. jules says:

    I laughed when I saw your comment about the PM’s wife because in certain publications (cough, cough, DM) she is praised and fawned over for her fashion sense, clothes and looks. I find her to be nothing special at all,,,, I wouldn’t say “under dressed” necessarily, just not worthy of all the praise and attention.

    • puffinlunde says:

      DM is always trying to praise SamCam as some sort of fashion icon- I don’t see it myself – more a mumsy/school pick-up look

  12. CleaK says:

    That brooch is serious business; it is one of the famous Cullinan diamonds-V to be exact. Here is more information on the brooch:
    And, for anyone interested in that sort of thing, here’s a good background on the Cullinan group:

    My little magpie heart loves when the Cullinans come out to play!

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      Thank you!

    • PunkyMomma says:

      CleaK – what a fascinating blog – thanks.

      • CleaK says:

        You are welcome. I’m also going to preemptively apologize for the massive productivity suck that is their archives. It is one of my very favorite blogs (and I say this as someone who does not run it and is in no way affiliated with the lady who does-I’m just a normal tiara devotee.)

    • bluhare says:

      I love that blog. And the jewelry made out of that diamond is breathtaking. QE wore some more of it (I think??) last year at the D Day services in France.

    • MonicaQ says:

      Order of Splendor is life. God I love that blog.

  13. Stephanie says:

    I am LOVING the Queen’s hat!!!!!

  14. MrsBPitt says:

    I really dislike, when parents say “oh, I wished you were a girl (or boy)! When I was little, my parents already had a girl, and I can’t tell you how many times they said I was supposed to be a boy! I was supposed to carry on the family name! I screwed everything up by being a girl! Of course, they would laugh while saying it, but it always stuck with me, that, yeah, they would have much preferred a boy!!!!!! Can anyone say “low self-esteem”!!!!!!!

    • wolfpup says:

      MrsBPitt; Princess Diana said that she felt that her father had the same kind of disappointment about her being born female. Oh well, she showed them the stuff she was made of…

      • LAK says:

        With the Spencers, it wasn’t just her father who was disappointed that Diana was a girl.

        It’s amazing this system is still going strong. The current families may not say it out loud, but there are always sighs of relief when a boy is born. The first boy at least.

        And then there is the situation in Asia where girl babies are always unwanted or at least under valued.

      • Imo says:

        Gender selection technology is readily available if one has deep pockets.

      • perplexed says:

        Wasn’t the disappointment about Diana being a girl partly about passing the title on? Maybe that’s just an assumption I made, but the title of Earl couldn’t be passed on to to Diana, right? Isn’t her brother an Earl now?

      • Citresse says:

        William stated he wanted a girl when Kate was pregnant with George.
        Charles then stated he wanted a girl when Kate was pregnant with Charlotte.
        Charlotte may be a gender sperm sorting baby.

      • Imo says:

        Not outside the realm of possibility lol. They can certainly afford it.

      • Natalie says:

        I admit I am inclined to think they selected the gender of each child.

    • Imo says:

      Charles expressed disappointment that Harry was a born and a ginger to boot. Tactless to say the least and now Harry has the rest of his life to hear those words in the back of his mind.
      If your child is healthy and strong, be grateful and stfu.

      • LAK says:

        I would think the number of people who openly insist Harry is a Hewitt rather than a Windsor is more hurtful than momentary disappointment that his new baby wasn’t a boy, no?

        Charles’s alleged disappointment was momentary and the two are incredibly close unlike the ugly, untrue paternity rumour that has followed Harry for decades which is a direct wound from his mother.

      • Imo says:

        I would like to think Harry didn’t believe those ugly rumors for one second, although hurtful. But Charles’ disappointment was captured in real time. We don’t know if it rankles Harry from time to time. No doubt from me that they enjoy a great relationship, regardless. Not really sure why this is about Diana.

      • LAK says:

        Harry’s parentage has been speculated upon since he was a toddler. By media and the public. It’s the subject of tasteless plays, films, documentaries etc.

        No one knew that Charles had a momentary disappointment in Harry’s gender until his own mother put it in the public arena that he did.

        It was a private moment that no one would have known about without his own mother choosing to make it public in her ongoing war to paint Charles as a cold, unfeeling father and her as the better parent.

        As much as the boys were shielded from media, speculation about Harry’s parentage has been a RF narrative for decades as a direct result of his own mother’s behavior.

        Actually, as I type this, it occurs to me that both hurts were made by his own mother. She publicised a private moment that was momentary at worst, and then her behaviour has led to decades long speculation about his parentage.

      • Imo says:

        No argument here on the details but I don’t know what a good old fashioned Diana bashing has to do with the hurt people have when a parent expresses disappointment over their gender. I do not know that it has bothered Harry, maybe maybe not, but it is a crap thing to say. Why is Diana dragged into any criticism of Charles?

      • MinnFinn says:

        Imo, Why did LAK bring up Diana in a critique of Charles? Because it’s an important part of that story. It does sound like Diana did the far more damaging thing. And I honestly don’t see the confirmation bias you claim LAK has against Charles. Her posts indicate that she thinks objectively and that she will revise her opinion in light of new information.

      • Imo says:

        Diana had nothing to do with the OP. If Charles never made the statement then the entire conversation is unwarranted but he did. Diana’s affair had nothing to do with Charles’ tactless remark.

      • LAK says:

        IMO: I brought up Diana because in your post at 10.32am you said that Harry is potentially being chased or hurt by the knowledge of his father’s momentary disappointment that he was a boy. You go as far as saying Charles should be quiet.

        My riposte points out that in the context of various hurts wrought by his parents as far as his birth is concerned, his mother did the more damage because she facilitated an atmosphere that allowed an untrue rumour that casts doubt on his parentage. That is far more damaging than knowing that his father was momentarily disappointed that he wasn’t a girl. A fact the general public, and probably Harry, wouldn’t be aware of without his mother making it public.

        Finally, even if Charles was disappointed, he has never treated Harry as a disappointment and the two are quite close which makes up for that alleged momentary disappointment.

        If you are going to hang Charles up by the thumbs at least acknowledge what the other parent did too.

        And considering that Diana wasn’t above fibbing to paint herself as the better parent, we will never know for sure if this private moment really happened since she’s the only one saying it and not a raft of witnesses.

      • Imo says:

        You assume Harry would not know about the comment had Diana not published the story. Who can know for sure? I believe Charles did say it. I also believe it is a crap thing to say. As for Diana’s transgressions the contest is exhausting. Gender preference is the predominent theme here and if you want to air Diana’s mistakes then feel free. The Hewitt afair is another issue and if we’re talking about things the parents did to hurt their children that knife cuts both ways. Neither was perfect so I don’t intend to referee. But at least I was opining about the general faults of expressing negativity when your child is born – Charles lacked gratitude and sensitivity. Diana was an evil harpy. Okay I get it.

      • Imo says:

        Opps, I meant MinnFinn not Bluhare

      • FLORC says:

        They both had their faults and praise worthy points. The argument does seem extremely slanted to bash Charles Imo. Because a flaw that ispart of the conversation Diana had doesn’t mean anyone is calling her a Harpy for mentioning it.
        And even if Harry knew or didn’t know Charles had a preference on his gender it was spotlighted when Diana brought it up. What need was there to mention that knowing there was a chance your son would be caused pain over it.

      • Imo says:

        Much easier to excuse Charles for saying it than admit he shouldn’t have.

      • LAK says:

        IMO: i’m not calling Diana an evil harpy, but as you continually argue in one post before contradicting yourself in another, IF Diana had not mentioned it, no one would be the wiser. No parent tells their child something bad about their other parent unless their intention is to wound. And to make that hurtful thing public compounds the problem.

        I bring up Diana because in my opinion it’s far worse to speculate on a person’s parentage than to know that your gender was a disappointment. However, we don’t know that Charles said it even if you insist that he did. There are no other witnesses to this private conversation and as we know Diana wasn’t above fibbing or exaggerating things to suit her purposes. It’s a she said/he said moment that I choose not to judge unlike you, especially because Charles hasn’t exhibited any behaviour that he loves Harry less as a result of that alleged momentary disappointment.

        Your need to paint him as a horrid father requires better examples, not this one.

    • bluhare says:

      Well my mother told me yesterday she would have liked to have a boy first. I don’t feel particularly demeaned by it. She should have complained to my dad, not me.

      As far as the rest of it, Imo, you’re as biased against Charles as some are against Kate. And the Spencers needed a boy to pass the title to. In the age of primogeniture boys are everything. I don’t agree; it should be changed so women can inherit, but that’s the way it is right now. Diana was the third girl after a boy had died, and her parents were probably more upset that they had to keep trying to make another one, not so much Diana was female in and of itself.

      • The Original Mia says:

        Exactly! My dad wanted a boy. He got me. 2nd time around, he was told he was having a boy, my sister came out. He cried like a baby. 3rd time around, he was happy my sister was healthy. People can say they want this sex or that sex, but in the end, they are happy with the ones they get and love them all the same.

      • Imo says:

        That was your experience and many may share it but many also feel frustration or hurt under similar circumstances. If it didn’t bother you that is great.
        As for a bias against Charles I don’t really care for him. I have a pittance of sympathy for him in some ways and I greatly admire some of his initiatives. He will more than likely make a good monarch, as well. But I don’t necessarily like his character or find him to be honorable. I love his regal style and bespoke suits also.

      • MinnFinn says:

        imo, I have also have mixed opinions of Charles. And I so love his dapper fab-tailored Saville Row suits. I also love his voice.

      • Imo says:

        Add to that his above average taste in architecture and design and his willingness to go hither and yon on gruelling tours for queen and country. And Camilla’s jewels!

      • Imo says:

        And the dignity with which he carries out his duties. And the gardens at Highgrove. Oh, and Camilla’s jewels.

  15. Meg says:

    did anyone say anything about George’s looks when he was born? such sexism against girls, to look a certain way-she’s a week old and she’s ‘beautiful’ someone to look after me. I realize he doesn’t mean this literally but already sexist gender roles popping up. All my family wants me to do is stereotypical jobs for women which usually involve caring for other people-women can do whatever they want, we’re not just here to care for men. some men really need to get over their own self importance.

    • perplexed says:

      I think there were comments that George was handsome. William said that he was pretty loud and pretty-good-looking. And I vaguely remember “Gorgeous George” being bandied about in headlines. I think comments about babies’ looks are more about the beauty of their innocence than their actual looks though. I’ve seen lots of babies called beautiful (both by parents and by outsiders, if Facebook is any kind of gauge of these kinds of trends) and I really do think it’s more of an expression about their being so fresh and as yet uncorrupted by life rather than the fact that anyone can really tell what baby blobs actually look like. And of course almost everyone thinks their own babies and grand-babies are good-looking.

      (Although I suppose one could argue there might be an expectation for royal babies to be good looking in order to distinguish them from us regular peasants. What is the point of getting all over excited in mass crowds about royal babies if they turn out to be just like the rest of us?)

  16. Citresse says:

    Poor Charlotte. I hate it when babies are born with a job.
    Charles; get Camilla to change your diapers when (if) you become a (more) drooling, demented idiot at age 99.

    • LAK says:

      I pity Charlotte because she’s the spare. We all know how spares are treated and promoted as wastes of space compared to their older heir siblings. Even if we don’t have a monarchy when she’s of age. The poor girl is destined for a poor media image no matter what she does unless she possesses star quality that endures her to the public like Harry.

      • Christin says:

        I actually think Charles may have been alluding to this ‘spare’ aspect when he made the caring for him in old age comment. I don’t think it’s necessarily because she’s female; it may be because she is going to be the second wheel versus the firstborn, who should have more expectations in preparing for the throne. (As I type that, I realize ‘spare’ Harry likely outworks his brother.)

      • perplexed says:

        Yeah, I was thinking of the spare aspect too.

        Princess Anne has a good reputation for being a hard worker, so if Charlotte doesn’t inherit Kate and William’s work ethic I think it’s possible she could avoid going being seen as a waste of space. I actually think her gender works in her favour here.

      • Citresse says:

        Re- Charotte’s (the spare) personality/strengths

        Time will tell, LAK, time will tell for sure.