Prince George will celebrate his 2nd birthday with the Middletons & no Charles

george1

Kensington Palace released a new (to us) Mario Testino portrait of Prince George yesterday to celebrate his second birthday, which is today. The photo is just another outtake from the Testino portraits from Charlotte’s christening, and it seems like Testino took several photos in particular of Prince William and his son together. I’m joining the birthday celebration by posting a bunch of George photos. I think my favorites are the candids from Charlotte’s christening, which is where George really seemed bewildered at the idea that people would come out to see his baby sister. I mean, George is always going to be “the most important” child because he’s the heir, but he’s also going to face a lifetime of being upstaged by his sister. Good thing George knows how to pull focus by leaning into the camera, playing with his hair and making grumpy faces.

There’s some question about whether George is still a handful, and if he’s just going to get worse now that he’s entering his Terrible Twos. William recently described George as “a little monkey” although The Daily Mail’s Richard Kay laid down a side-by-side comparison between William and George and William definitely seemed like he was the holy terror when he was a kid (and look what happened in adulthood). My take is that George is probably still full of personality but it hopefully won’t get too much worse. As for the birthday celebrations, we heard yesterday that the Cambridges would be celebrating privately – I theorized that the party would be more Middleton than royal, and guess what? Charles isn’t coming.

Unlike Prince George’s first birthday, which was marked with a party at Kensington Palace with his great-grandmother, the Queen, as guest of honour, and a tuneful rendition of ‘Happy Birthday’ by the band of the Irish Guards, this year’s celebrations will be significantly more low key. The mischievous toddler, who is third in line to the throne, will still enjoy all the trimmings – a cake and a visit from his doting grandparents, Michael and Carole Middleton, as well as a host of little friends and godparents – at his parents’ country retreat, Anmer Hall.

But the event is intended to be very much a ‘private’ family celebration as his parents, William and Kate, embark on a new life together at their grand new Norfolk home. Sadly the little prince’s grandfather, Prince Charles, won’t be able to attend as he and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, are currently on a three-day official trip to the West Country. The heir to the throne also missed George’s birthday last year as he was in Scotland on official duties. But he and Camilla plan to travel up to Sandringham at the end of the week with gifts for their lively grandson, the Mail understands.

Basing themselves at Sandringham House, the Queen’s private residence just a few miles away, Charles will remain in Norfolk for almost a week and is keen to spend some ‘quality time’ with George and his little sister, Prince Charlotte, who is almost three months old.

Although she has the help of a housekeeper and a nanny as well as her family, including doting aunty Pippa (who wrote an entire book on the subject of celebrations), Kate has apparently been determined to do much of the organising herself. And with her mother, Carole, running one of the country’s most successful online party goods companies the day is bound to go with a swing.

William started work last week as a pilot with the East Anglian Air Ambulance, so it is not clear whether he will be on shift – but at least his Cambridgeshire base it is only a short drive away.

The couple plan to spend as much of the next few years as possible based in Norfolk as they believe it will allow their young family to grow up away from public scrutiny. As part of the Queen’s Sandringham Estate it also provides the Cambridge’s – who also have a 20 room apartment at Kensington Palace, recently refurbished with £4.5 million of taxpayers’ money – with the privacy and seclusion they crave.

[From The Daily Mail]

In the initial reporting of William’s job, I seem to remember something about “four days on, four days off.” If he started two Mondays ago, that means he would have had Friday through Monday off, and he would have been back on call starting on Tuesday. Which means William will probably be spending his son’s second birthday in a confined space with Dr. Gemma Mullen. Which is why the Middletons are coming out in force! And do you believe Kate is insisting on organizing the party by herself? Doubtful. Not while Carole Middleton lives and breathes and can do everything to make Kate’s life easier.

wenn22566877

FFN_Charlotee_Christening_FFUK_070515_51790464

FFN_William_Harry_FFUK_061415_51772729

Photos courtesy of Fame/Flynet, WENN, Mario Testino/@KensingtonRoyal Twitter.

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

128 Responses to “Prince George will celebrate his 2nd birthday with the Middletons & no Charles”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. savu says:

    God he is SO CUTE. Even cuter once you know he’s a terror, but a terror that doesn’t belong to you ;)

    • Sullivan says:

      He really is a cute little rascal.

      • Feeshalori says:

        This is sweet and shows a lot of personality, but I’d have liked to see a specific photo taken just for George’s birthday, not another image from the christening similar to the black and white shot. It’s not unique and special in honor of his day. Meh, no effort at all. I really want to see one of George smashing his birthday cake, lol.

    • Megan says:

      I want to see birthday pics with cake all over his cute little face.

  2. Guesto says:

    “Kate has apparently been determined to do much of the organising herself.”

    There. That’s her royal duty work quota for July sorted.

    And people complain she does nothing.

    • Natalie says:

      Right? What else would she be doing?

    • Olenna says:

      Ha!

    • Ms. Turtle says:

      Even in the U.S. where maternity leave laws are crap, many women would still be on maternity leave or just coming off of it at her stage. So because she’s a gov’t employee, does she not get any expectation of maternity leave in the UK? Is that why everyone is upset she’s not doing royal engagements right now? (I get your disappointment overall in her but specifically right now she has a newborn at home).

      • Natalie says:

        The criticism is over what she chooses to attend. Her public appearances have been Trooping the Colors, polo, Wimbledon, the christening (counted as work) and soon she’ll be looking at some yachts.

        Except for Trooping the Colors, she’s coming across as out of touch and uncaring especially since she skipped the 7/7 remembrance but spent hours at Wimbledon.

      • NotFromHere says:

        She isn’t a government employee.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Ms Turtle

        When government employees don’t work, they get reprimanded.

        In the US: “In order to receive maternity leave, employees must …. have accumulated at least 1,250 working hours over those 12 months.”
        (The Federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, Wikipedia)

        For 2014, Kate did only 76 public duty events, which some say was boosted up to that number by being the only Royal allowed to count ‘private meetings’ as Royal duties.

        In order for Kate to have worked 1,250 hours in 2014, she would have had to have spent 16.45 hours at each of her 76 appearances – which I HIGHLY DOUBT she did.
        ……………………

        From Celebitchy (12.31.14):

        “Of the 15 “working royals” listed on the Court Circular (the monthly list of royal appearances), Duchess Kate is in dead-last for the 2014 tally, yet again. This is the same thing that’s happened every year since Kate married William. She does the fewest royal events and makes the fewest appearances of all the working royals.”

        http://www.celebitchy.com/404378/duchess_kates_2014_event_tally_she_works_less_than_every_other_working_royal/
        ……………….

        Here’s a list of the number of public duties performed by some other Royals in 2014:

        Queen (88) = 375
        Philip (93) = 200
        Charles = 450
        Anne = 419
        Andrew = 297
        Edward = 348

      • Ms. Turtle says:

        anne_000, I guess in my book, I give a pass to a woman with a 2yo and a newborn. I understand that she doesn’t work much. But where does it say she must? I’m not trying to defend her, but I just don’t get the rabid criticism here day in and day out of her. Her job was to marry him, produce the heir. She’s done it. And IDK, but I don’t think there is anything like a requirement for how much royals should do. I totally agree with those of you who say she should attend more for the charities she serves as patron of. But other than that, attending Trooping the Colour or visitng a farm, it makes no difference. None of it is real work. It’s more of a matter of lending her name to worthy causes. If you’re going to support the monarchy, it’s got to be with all its pitfalls and problems, not just when the royals are doing what you deem appropriate levels of work. KWIM? In any case, I understand the criticism of her TO A POINT. But the real criticism should be saved for the institution itself IMO.

      • CynicalCeleste says:

        To add, government employees are subject to wage cuts and departmental spending cuts – most recently 25-40%. The Duchess, along with the entire BRF, is immune to such indignities.

      • anne_000 says:

        @ Ms. Turtle

        > Her job was to marry him, produce the heir.

        Uh, no. That’s not her job. She didn’t have to marry him. And the monarchy can go on without them ever having children. It would just go on to Harry and then either to his future kids or to Andrew.

        Iirc, she discussed working for the BRF in the engagement interview.

        What’s so hard for her to do one 45-minute visit per week to a charity? That would have been counted as 52 public duty events, which is almost what her total count for 2014 was.

        It’s not hard for her to spend hours away from her kids entertaining herself. But going to a charity even once a week is detrimental to her health and her motherhood status?

        Are the kids going to forget who she is if she goes to ‘work’ at least once a week?

      • Green Girl says:

        Look, no one is expecting Kate to work 80-hour weeks. But it wouldn’t hurt to pop in at a charity for an afternoon or do an evening appearance. She could easily do two or three quick appearances a week and still have plenty of time to be with her kids.

        On another note, is it better to have a ton of short appearances throughout the year, or is it better to do fewer appearances, but spend more time at each one? I am just curious because I know some members of the BRF might schedule like three appearances in a day, but won’t spend much time at each one.

      • FLORC says:

        I’m confused at this defense…. If someone doesn’t want to work why should they work? … To not leech off of others. To better their lives. To keep themselves mentally fit. To improve their social skills.
        This line of reasoning is only applied to Kate and i’m not sure why. It’s a defense of sloth. No one should want to be this lazy or approve of another being this lazy. I suspect it’s because Kate is pretty and married a prince. Is this what gets valued? That’s tragic.

        Green Girl
        IMO if she worked with her charities in a way that was more than a pr visit lasting 45 minutes. If she did a few more prerecorded videos. If she appeared to care about these things it would be 500% better than it was.

      • notasugarhere says:

        In the UK you have to work full-time for a year to qualify for maternity leave. She has never worked full-time ever, and certainly never in this role.

        Due to the amount of money they get from the taxpayers in various ways, she does count as a government employee who is taking the money but refusing to do the work.

      • bluhare says:

        I think maternity leave was the term thrown out to indicate she would take time off after the birth of her child. I don’t think it is a legal definition or implies she’d qualify for statutory maternity leave. I think when we start on that, it’s a game of semantics, really. She wants time off after the birth of her baby. I think most of us understand that although I also understand some think she never has had much “time on”.

        I do see where questions as to the quality of engagements can kick in as she starts to do more, though. And I totally agree that this is lightweight stuff.

      • notasugarhere says:

        I keep throwing that bit in about earned maternity leave, bluhare, because so many of her defenders insist that all women in the UK magically get a full year so leave her alone, etc. Then they start complaining about US leave policies.

        You have to work to earn the right to the statutory leave in the UK. That part tends to be left out of one side of the discussion.

      • wolfie says:

        Florc, I sent your comment to myself! (I listen to your advice).

      • Natalie says:

        Kate wants to model herself after the Queen Mother who famously said, “Your work is the rent you pay for the room you occupy on earth.”

        Now, I’m not sure how much the gin-soaked old dear actually did, but Kate has to at least make the effort.

      • FLORC says:

        Wolfie
        I’m not sure I know what you’re refering to. But happy to help …? :)
        Hope all is well on your end btw!

        Bluhare/Nota
        We know it’s both. Maternity leave because it’s something reasonable. Even if not technically earned very few would argue against her being allowed to have it. And she was not going to work like anyone else during that span anyway. With the added benefit of making it sound like she is taking time off from something for something else.
        So, you’re both right!

      • bluhare says:

        nas, I actually didn’t mean you! :) I meant their press office. I don’t think they knew what to call it so they threw out maternity leave and the rest is history.

    • Betti says:

      That sentence implies that the people around her are doing everything and she has to fight them to do things for her own children. What kind of message is that giving – that she’s determined to organise her own son’s birthday party – you’d think she want to do it herself anyway as any mother would. It also implies that she somehow struggles to do things that most people take for granted. Its becoming apparent that with Kate, the lights are on but no one is home.

      • caitlin says:

        Good point!

      • Guesto says:

        To be fair, although it amused me earlier, that sentence is just meaningless padding. I suspect the Daily Mail knows as much about the organisation of this party as I do.

        For all we know, Kate may have chosen the cake AND the table decorations, AND blown up all ten balloons herself.

        Oops, looks like I’m still amused. ;)

      • Betti says:

        LOL – v true but others inc. Willy, with his ‘Kate is doing really well as a mother’ comment from last week, have said similar things in the past. Its a bit like patting a puppy on the head for doing its business in the litter tray than on the floor – a reward for doing something on their own initiative instead of being made to. It doesn’t bode well when you’re being opening patronised to the press by your own husband.

    • hmmm says:

      I would just like to point out that guppies have special babies too.

    • Sarah says:

      Exactly. Raising the heir and a spare IS her job. Peasants just don’t understand.

  3. Astrid says:

    I don’t understand why the party can’t be on another day so that Grandpa and Dad can all be there? Little kids don’t know or care what the actual birthday is as long as loving people are there to have fun with.

    • wolfie says:

      Charles had an entire year to clear his calendar, but no.

      • The Original Mia says:

        It’s Wednesday. Most people are working during the week and attend kids’ birthday parties on the weekend. George isn’t any different than millions of other kids.

      • Betti says:

        Actually the family members who actually do royal work have their calendars booked up at least a year in advance and sometimes birthday parties on actually fall on the date of birthday. W&K could have given more notice or at least tried to arrange a date EVERYONE IN THE FAMILY COULD ATTEND and not just for her side. Of course the Middletons will be free – don’t have much else to do. Didn’t the recently hire someone to help them run PP?

      • FLORC says:

        wolfie
        Have to agree with Betti and TOM on this. Schedules are booked and have few days to allow for canceled events.

        I would find it more logical that even though a birthday is on a weekday people for the sake of scheduling would move the party to a weekend. Or coordinate for others. And this sounds like it’s a Midd family gathering. I’m certain Charles has a gift for his grandson and will visit. That he doesn’t come to a party being thrown on a weekday… no one should hold that against him when he’s working.

    • anne_000 says:

      @ Astrid

      I agree. The article says that Charles and William are off work this weekend with Charles in town visiting for a week. So why not hold off the ‘big’ party until this weekend instead of having it today?

      A smaller party could be held today with the main event on the weekend if Kate and Carole wanted to.

      I’d think that with having the ‘big’ party on a Wednesday, the godparents and the parents of the other kids invited would be inconvenienced work-wise and the other kids might have to miss school or be tired tomorrow at school.

    • hmmm says:

      It’s a Wednesday and none of the Middletons are working? What’s that about?

      • anne_000 says:

        And apparently they think the godparents and the parents of the other kids they’ve invited don’t work on a weekday either.

        And they probably don’t think that the kids have to go to school today or tomorrow.

    • Jib says:

      I wondered that, too. My three children aren’t Special Royal Snowflakes like George (through no fault of his own, poor kid) and I was able to figure out a time that all of their grandparents and their father would be home for their birthday parties, at least until they got older and had “friends only” parties.

      This kind of makes me think that Kate didn’t want everyone there.

    • Megan says:

      Maybe the focus last year was on meeting the Queen’s schedule, so Charles had to miss the party. But this year? I actually feel bad for Charles. He does seem to have very little time with his grandkids.

    • Sparkly says:

      I agree with the others about the (more hardworking) royals’ calendars being filled well in advance, possibly even a year or more. But I also think, and this is just speculation from seeing how everything has been playing out, that P. Charles and the Middletons probably just don’t like each other. They seem to avoid each other as much as possible lately.

      • Maia says:

        I suspect the same Sparkly. The war that was waged through the DM was a message to Carole in no uncertain terms to backoff. I don’t think that there is any love lost between them.

  4. DavidBowie says:

    He’s adorable. For the record, most kids are terrors (I have three) at that age. Heck, my tweenager is a freakin’ terror.

  5. Ugh says:

    Just wanted to point out I’m not sure where this blog gets the idea that Charles is some kind of doting grandpa kept away from his grandkids by the evil Middletons when history shows he was a pretty distant father content to have his kids raised by nannies and prioritizing his mistress and hobbies over family life. I’m not sure what would have changed. That’s why William is so attracted by the Middleton ways because he never had that close knit family life.

    • MeeMow says:

      I agree. This site makes it sound like Charles is being excluded when the truth seems to be that he planned work activities that would keep him away on George’s birthday 2 years in a row. He’s Prince Charles – if he wanted to spend more time with his grandchildren he could easily make that happen. I don’t like how Carole Middleton was vilified for spending so much time with George over the past 2 years. As though she somehow has the desire and power to keep him away from the royal side of the family.

    • CarrieUK says:

      This…..exactly

    • wolfie says:

      My theory is that Carole is a secret Diana fan, and now that William can access his mother’s records, he is getting the emotional support he needs to align with Diana’s feelings about the whole royal family. I know that publically this is not the face of it; but it could explain all of the distances created. Carole is nearly Diana’s age, and she is somewhat fixated on royals; and there were many on Diana’s side of the story. William would know better than any other, concerning his mom’s rage. The life that he is trying to provide his family has Diana’s imprint on it: she thought that she would have been happier with a normal life.

    • Natalie says:

      I wouldn’t say he was a distant father. He helped out with nappy changing and bathtime. If I’m remembering correctly, Diana goodnaturedly had to send him out of the nursery because he was doting about too much.
      Kate herself let slip that William wasn’t around much during George’s first 6 months which doesn’t line up with his wanting a closer knit upbringing than his own.
      I think the issue was Charles made selfish decisions when it came to his pr. On the other hand, Carole financed her teenaged daughter stalking William to Chile and St.Andrews.

    • canadaorbroke says:

      Not so sure about this. I just finished reading a book about the Windors, and I’ve walked away more convinced that Diana played a huge role in constructing a negative (and largely unfair) image of Charles in the press. Is he a 100% hands-on, awesome father? Absolutely not. But I don’t think he’s nearly as bad as some people seem to believe. The boys spent a lot of time with their father in the country when they were younger — and he did spend time with them, and did go out of his way to try his best to be there for all important school things for the boys (which is something even non-royal parents don’t often do).

      As far as this birthday? I really don’t think missing a 2-year-old’s party is a big deal — especially if they’re coming to spend time over the weekend. George is 2. He won’t remember who was there a week from now. And, again, he won’t care if Charles isn’t there. He’ll see him on the weekend. This is just another false outrage bone we’re being thrown, to chew on, by the “commercial media’s” kennel master.

    • FLORC says:

      Ugh
      Ugh. History does not support the claims you claim history supports. But if you keep repeating a lie long enough it becomes the truth in it’s own world. It’s part of the War of Wales fallout. History rewritten. It only demonstrates propaganda growing legs and people accepting it as fact without having researched things outside of revisions.

      • jaygee says:

        I just don’t see Charles as being the type of person who wants to hang out at a party with a bunch of screaming 2 year olds. Supposedly he does not enjoy children and prefers not to see Camilla’s grandkids or have them over. So he might prefer a quiet afternoon after the party with his grandson.

      • FLORC says:

        Jaygee
        This is a rumor spun from old rag stories from random pictures.
        Charles has been caught in numerous candid shots over the course of years consistently enjoying the company of his step grandkids and other children.
        And I truly doubt George would be as comfortable as he is with Charles if they didn’t get along very well. As with Harry they don’t make a big show of their affection and the photos don’t always get picked up. Still get uploaded though just not printed.

        Because it isn’t headline news and we aren’t peppered with photos of it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening. Photos are chosen for a specific narative for what sells.

    • Jib says:

      If you watch any of the videos of Charles with his sons when they were babies, it’s pretty obvious he and the kids were quite comfortable with each other. And sheesh, let’s not kid ourselves – Kate and William have two nannies, so they aren’t 100% hands-on parents either.

  6. Amanda says:

    “he’s also going to face a lifetime of being upstaged by his sister” I don’t agree. He’s already upstaging her sister even at the Christening

  7. Talie says:

    I’m sorry, but I love the way they dress him like he’s in the 1950s — it’s too much!

  8. Kiddo says:

    “A love for tradition has never weakened a nation, indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril.” __Mini WInston Churchill quoting Winston Churchill.

  9. TheSageM says:

    Kid looks like Pippa!

  10. Jane says:

    I see so much of Diana in his smile.

  11. G says:

    Im not shocked theres no charles. He messed up frm the begining. He should have been honest a marrie who he wanted. He messed up his family which led william to look for that stability somewhere else. The middleton buried themselves in that way the buck stops at charles.

  12. Maya Memsaab says:

    Whee! It’s my boithday too!

  13. Karen says:

    Its a childs birthday party for 6 adults and 2 children. How much planning could there be?

    • Betti says:

      Not a lot – especially if its at home. But as we know Katie is a delicate little snowflake and everything is soooo much harder for her to do coz she’s such a busy mother doing everything by herself with no support from anyone. *sarcasm*

  14. kri says:

    The faces on G!!! LOL! The one where he’s holding Charlotte-he’s like “The hell, you guys! I am not the nanny-give her to the nanny!”. For real, though. They are lovely babies. It’s sweet to see them now, before they know who they are and all of the crap that entails.

  15. Jackson says:

    So, Kate or her parents somehow have to be criticized for Charles being out of the country on George’s birthday? It sounds like a party with other two year olds and some family, versus the big deal formal party of last year. I don’t see the problem.

    • anne_000 says:

      Charles isn’t going to be out of the country. He’s still in the UK.

      He’ll be in town with them this weekend for a nearly week-long visit.

      Wiliam’s off days are this weekend too.

      So this weekend would probably have been more convenient for both dad, granddad Charles, step-grandma, and probably for the other parents and children attending the b-day party, instead of holding it today in the middle of the week.

      • hmmm says:

        So even Daddy won’t be there? Imagine that!

      • anne_000 says:

        @ hmmm

        I’m thinking ‘someone’ is going to release today’s b-day photos to a certain someone in the pap force *cough *tanna* cough*

      • FLORC says:

        I posted the same above.
        Why this isn’t held on the weekend makes little sense. So, you have it on his actual day of birth. People are working and can’t make the party. Even to just assist the Father. Is there really a need to have this party on a wednesday excluding immediate family members?

      • wolfie says:

        So much silliness…

  16. Fallon says:

    I still can’t get past her painted-on jeggings.

    • Deedee says:

      I’m sure she thinks they look great, but I imagine there will be a day when she says, “What was I thinking?”

      • Deedee says:

        I am just clarifying that my comment has nothing to do with her weight, but everything to do with the style of jeggings/skinny jeans she wears and how she wears them. IMHO, they look sloppy and unflattering (and look that way for most everyone over 18, but esp. for a future Queen Consort who knows she’ll be photographed).

    • jjones says:

      I think she looks great in her skinny jeans. At least she has the figure to wear them, which is more than I can say about many women who I see who like to wear this style of pants.

      • Firebomber says:

        Agree! I wear them all of the time. She’s got a great figure for them.

      • FLORC says:

        Skinny Jeans and Jeggins are not the same. Those look a lot more like Jeggins than Skinny Jeans. If they are the jeans they’re too small a size. Her figure is fine and not just certain figures can wear tight fitting clothes.

      • cynth says:

        You’re kidding, right? She used to have a great figure, but since she crash dieted down to a skeletal weight for the wedding, she looks frail and unhealthy – except for pregnancy. Looking back, pretty much anything looked flattering on her.

      • Here4Gossip says:

        I don’t think she looks frail or unhealthy. And maybe she is not crash dieting/ exercising excessively.

        I have 2 kids and breastfeeding changed my metabolism- I lost 40 pounds of pregnancy weight within a few weeks, and now at 5’9″ my body just wants to stay between 125-128 pounds.no restricting calories or crazy exercise routine.

        Every body is different. According to my doctor I am very healthy even if I am slightly underweight. I don’t think that I look sickly or frail.

      • FLORC says:

        Here4Gossip
        She doesn’t look frail here. Engagement-Wedding she did. Her frame was skeletal.
        And BFing has that bonus, but not for all. It’s not a guarantee you’ll lose weight and some new moms are very upset at that little fact. So comparing isn’t balanced.

        Even with the diet and trainer info coming out she appears to have found a healthy weight. This is what she carried naturally her life while being active in sports. I hope it doesn’t vanish.

      • Vava says:

        She looked the most frail during her honeymoon and right after she returned from it. OMG, that was downright scary! I hope she maintains this weight she is currently at.

  17. JLo says:

    I don’t plan my kids’ birthday parties around other people’s complex schedules and we often have separate family dinners with in-laws for birthdays. What’s the big deal?

    That being said, I do make sure my husband is available during parties. I find it strange that William would be working that day.

    • anne_000 says:

      In my experience, whether or not a kid’s b-day falls on a weekend, their ‘big’ b-day parties are usually held on the weekends if you’re inviting other kids, their parents, godparents, and relatives, because that’s when the adults usually aren’t working and it’s not a school day today and tomorrow.

      According to the article, both Charles and William are off from work this weekend and both will be in Norfolk with Charles planning to spend a week visiting, starting this weekend.

      Instead, Kate and Carole are holding this party today, on a weekday, when both dad and granddad are at work, the godparents and the other kids’ parents probably have to work too, and the other kids might have to skip school today just to attend or be puckered out at school tomorrow.

      So how complex would it have been to hold off the ‘big’ b-day party to this weekend when it would have been more convenient for everybody?

      I can understand holding an informal b-day party with just immediate family members on the actual b-day, but the ‘real’ or ‘big’ party could have been held off to this weekend. That way both sets of grandparents could have attended, same with dad, and it wouldn’t have inconvenienced the other parents and their kids.

      Simple.

    • FLORC says:

      William working on that day does make sense in his schedule. Not a normal 9 to 5. So, why not have it when he can be there?

      • JLo says:

        After rereading the article, I’m really not sure what to think. A “low key” and “private family celebration” to me means a handful of people who are family/like family and not a big or major birthday party that should be held on the weekend.

        Either way, I would want my husband there and think its weird that Kate would plan the party on a day William couldn’t attend. Unless he’s an ass and doesn’t care…which is a definite possibility!

      • FLORC says:

        Small getherings can be done on weekends too.
        If it’s a small family affair I would think it would need all members. From the sounds of it it’s a party for the Midd side. Not having William there makes little sense.
        I do wonder if this is passive aggressive. Wouldn’t be the 1st time.

        Finding it a bit odd people are more focused on Charles being absent than William.

    • Olenna says:

      Apparently, William was on leave Wednesday and attended George’s party. At least that’s what the DM claims in an article about an app that tracks his air ambulance flights. “The Prince was on leave on Wednesday when he and wife Kate held a second birthday party for Prince George at their family home, Anmer Hall on the Sandringham estate.”

  18. Kkhou says:

    Grandparents are always invited to my kids parties, but they can’t always attend. We simply celebrate separately sometimes not on the same day. All the grandparents love my children very much, and my children love them. It’s not a big deal- it’s just a party.

  19. canadiangirl says:

    He is so adorable! He looks like a fun little kid :-) I can’t wait to see charlotte again too.. I think she is quite a pretty little baby.

  20. Matador says:

    It’s not often obvious but in the lede shot, George is the spitting image of his grandmother Diana.

  21. Maum says:

    Rather unfortunate picture of Wills though…

    • cynth says:

      He’s getting progressively worse with age. Can’t believe he used to be considered good looking. If he was a regular Joe with a regular job, Kate wouldn’t have looked twice.

  22. Liberty says:

    imaginaryMrsM: …and so, Cammie, so Kitty’s doing some of it, well, she’s ordered the napkins from our warehouse, wot, as me and Pips are somehow stuck down here in South America just now giving a party for some landslide victims, we thought of an exciting wall-climbing theme, eh? Healthy and all that though Pips says the spoiled refugees are positively balking and crying at the ropes and stone! South Americans, weak as water, unless they play polo and have Argentinian money, eh, wot? Look, I can’t seem to track me son down. Must talk fast, on a phone line in a Red Cross orphanage or something, surgery going on right behind me on some infant, such a mess, these people, eh! Not like ONE, eh? Not like US, eh? Anyway, and so me new Anmerfawlty Hall ‘ousekeeper, I mean, me Kitty’s new ‘housekeeper, ‘as it all in ‘and, an’ I got me Mike hosing down the patio and puttin’ in a lovely great pony run, oi! And the color theme is lurvely! I call it Middleshanks Marine Bleu! Bleu, French-like, wot? and the games! all little Gary George’s favorites, wot he played with me and Pips and Jimmy all the time, like swing the weasel, with a real weasel, wot, little tyke loves the animals since going down under, oi! And a great big papier mache of his other granny, Diana, filled with candy the tots can whack with a great big stick. eh? My idea, that! Enough comparisons with my girl, eh, eh, you’re a mum too you understand, eh, Cammie? Oi, and NO pushy GIngers, eh, you know wot I mean, see him lufkin’ about in the hedges, you send him right away, eh? eh? right away! No photos with the tots! None! You’re a mum — you know ‘ow it is, when you ‘ave a wot they call a “special” child now today I guess. and the gifted one hogs all the light and the Sunday papers’ boys and girls all love –

    imaginaryCammie DofC: — Well, well, I must say, sounds jolly fun, jolly hockey sticks and all that! Tots and ponies! Yes! Wel! But I must tell you –

    iMrsM: Oi, and di’ I mention it, we’ve a great big spread, all the best foods, Waitrose of course, discount, lovely tea things! an’ my dear brother Gar’ has sent a crew to film it all – for memories only, of course! Tell that deliciously salted beef husband of yours to keep ‘is arms down, wot? keep Queen Gran’s arms pinned right down, too, eh! Mike’ll wheel ol’ Phil around the back to the tennis courts, or the trout pond, out of ‘arm’s way, eh. just in the event a few boys from the Sunday papers are about but only because one invited them, must be nice to the Sunday paper boys, eh, ducks? Keep them retouchin’ my little princesses right nice,, eh, luv?

    iCDofC: Well, really, old thing, quite shocking I must say, we certainly can’t —

    iMrsM: – and Pips is screaming that for a real birthday fete, she feels there should be a cake, and also, candles. So creative, that little walnut-hued strumpet of mine, eh? eh? So can you see to that, Cammie. old dear, cake and candles, and tell the Sunday paper boys is was Pips’ idea? And presents can be made out in my name, of course, large showy furniture is always very nice I think, or land, or you know, we was thinking a few butlers and maids and such from his nibs, your Chuck, eh? Mention it to him? And a fall wardrobe for the little sod’s mum, my Kitty, eh? and naturally there’s just the minor scrump of an entrance fee, say twenty thousands pounds? each? eh, luv? Keep out th’ riff-raff, wot, since the ‘ouse is out by public lands, poor Kitty. Oi, ‘ave you ‘ward? She and Willy and the tykes are takin’ a month’s ‘oliday in the Tower after the party! Mike told me, he seemed jolly chuffed by the idea! must be quite the thing for the toffs to do, is that it, ducks?

    iCDofC: — well, it sounds simply ravishing, dear, simply astounding! but the most dreadful thing, really, Chuck and I are quite glued down to an appearance in Cornwall, most damned thing, on the very day, but there it is! Some damned thing up in Cornwall, just a must you see, scheduled in, crowds, tots with flowers, all that you know how it is, of course, my dear —

    iMM: Oi! Oi! that’s a shame, ‘in it? A right shame! Who will be there now but me Kitty and Willy and the kiddies and Queenie and staff? We’ve had to ban Kitty’s friends years ago for not turning over their pictures of – well, never you mind, luv, it ‘appens, I c’n only imagine the dreadful number of appearances I will ‘ave to do once I’m made a Duchess like you, takin’ on me poor Kitty’s jobs of course, delicate thing, only fit for shoppin’ says her doc, and then, only in the good part of the high streets, her lungs you know and that scar on her head, well, I tell you —

    iCDofC: yes yes yes, well, dreadfully sorry, must ring off, Queen of Spain here and I’m sure the old Red Cross may need the phone line down there, what? Ta, dear, see you south of never, ho! All love to your kiddies, best of luck down there! Ciao! We’ll have the tots to our place nexties!

    iMM: ciao, ducks, and if you see that son of mine, oi, tell him we needed him for cake, oi don’t forget the cake — oi I say some doctor is positively bashing me for this phone – must go — damn you, lad, I am on Party Poopsies official business here, this party can be the makin’ of 2015 for us, eh? we’re not just a bunch of muddy peasants, eh, look at this ring, eh?

    iCDofC: — Handled, dear pulsing red rampant man-pole royal love of mine!

    iPofW, DofC: Marvelous, old podge, you’re still the welcoming warm soothing crown to my head, oi! eh? eh? Wink? nudge? I say, you scrumptious old silk bag of melons, come on back. let’s keep watching’ these fantastically hilarious old movies the history staff gave you! eh, eh, har! I can watch them over and over. Look at this bit with old Adolf and Mrs Simpson rolling Eddie down a hill wrapped in the flag! Har! Easier times them, easier times! Fine clear pictures, what, jolly good, just the thing! Must have the Sunshine tab fellow around for brunch tomorrow, eh? eh? Time for Mumsie to be off to the garden cottage, eh, eh? Oh — And if my awful do-gooding ginger sprog calls again, have the staff say we’re on some tomb walk, eh? eh? No more disappointing cheer-the-bloody-stodgey-masses “Diana magic” is ruining our new life, eh, when we’re finally this close to the big chairs, har! Jolly good! I say, turn the sound up and bring me some biscuit. eh, har! har! Nudge, wink!

    • FLORC says:

      *snickers*
      I do enjoy these stories Liberty! And glad to read another! And at times I don’t think you’re too far off!

    • bluhare says:

      Pulsing red rampant man-pole? AHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      Excellent continuity, by the way! :)

    • Jib says:

      Oh, Lawd! A papier mâché of Diana to whack! I died!

      • Olenna says:

        Me, too! Poor thing has been relegated to a theme print on a pinata! Still don’t know how the transition from banning Kate’s friends to Ma Carole doing duchess duties was conceived, but I LMAO!

    • wolfie says:

      Hilarious – I had to bury my head in my hands with laughter – several times – you are a dear, Liberty!

    • Becks says:

      My favourite part was the delicate thing’s doc says she’s only fit for shopping, and then only in the better parts of High Street, what with the head scar…..Oi!

  23. zappy says:

    happy birthday PGTips :)
    anyway, I dont see any reason behind kate workshy except LAZYNESS.
    do you really think human being only can focus on one thing at time? I dont think so. we can do many things. being GOOD MOM and WORKING. My friend has 3 sons (7, 4, 2 yo). she works 9 to 5, five days a week. she has a part timed babysitter (only when she’s at work). all of her sons still really close to her and her husband..
    Please, kids aren’t burden. raising kid is hard, i get that, but you shouldn’t make it as an excuse to everything. you can be an excellent mom, working and take an active part on society. many women do that, all around the world.

  24. Kate says:

    Um … can the undeserved defamation of William’s co-worker please stop already? I know this is a shocker, but attractive women are allowed to work outside the home these days without being accused of luring their male colleagues into debauchery. And I’m sure such insinuations annoy her husband, too.

    • FLORC says:

      That was a terrible angle that story took and I think we’re collectively trying to avoid it until it goes away.

  25. Becca says:

    It’s the summer holidays in the UK. None of the children will have to miss school & presumably their parents would have either been looking after them or have childcare arranged for them anyway so I don’t see why a weekday party would inconvenience them.

    • notasugarhere says:

      If they are two-year-olds with working parents, they are probably in daycare. The working parents would have to take vacation time from work in order to take their kids to this party on a weekday. Many daycares don’t give you a refund if you take your kid out for a day, you are charged for the full week. The parents are getting financially dinged twice, unnecessarily paying for a day of daycare that day and having to use vacation time to attend.

      One of the things that has been discussed about William is that he doesn’t understand that people around him work for a living. That he thinks country life is seven days a week of hunting parties, instead of recognizing that his friends go back to work Monday am and can’t flit off at a moment’s notice. Having a child’s party in the middle of the week would be an example of W&K just not “getting it”.

      • wolfie says:

        Aren’t they lucky? I recall Liberty mentioning “the gifted one who hogs all the light, that all the boys and girls love”…

      • anne_000 says:

        @ notasugarhere

        Very good points.

      • DameEdna says:

        Doubt that members of the social circles in which W&K move would be overly fussed at forfeiting a few hours of day care.

        I also doubt that too many of their friends have to adhere to a rigid, clock on/clock off workplace. In this world, the rich have more flexibility than the drones. They also tend to rely on nannies rather that childcare facilities.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        I would agree that this birthday party certainly shows that William isn’t an ordinary member of the middle class who can’t just take off a day just like that. If you boss doesn’t agree you don’t get time off. If the bosses of your friends don’t agree then they can’t attend your child’s birthday party.

        I just wished people would see that William isn’t “like one of us” and that he has less work ethics than a 20-years-old rich kid party socialite with no ambitions of her own. Those do charity at least and don’t get subsidised by the taxpayer.

      • FLORC says:

        DameEdna
        Because you’re wealthy, doesn’t mean you don’t have to or want to work. And maybe “work” means office hours. Maybe it means golf trips. It’s still an act you prioritize of leisure.
        And some people like to keep busy. Some like to keep a family business running or at least look like they care.

  26. Firebomber says:

    He is adorable! Its sad to think Diana won’t get to enjoy these children.

    • msthang says:

      He is a cutie,that said I’m telling you if Diana had lived the wedding would not have happened! She would have nipped the Midds in the bud in the first 6 months!

      • FLORC says:

        We can only speculate, but with information we’ve known.
        Diana had a history of knowing her status and letting it be known. To have the upper hand. And to be incredibly savvy in social skills. The woman was a self taught marvel!
        We can’t say for certain the Midd’s PR campaign would have played out the same if Diana had been around, but it’s more than likely Carole and Kate’s approach to William would not have sat well with Diana. And possibly another family or another avenue of girls would be in William’s life. I think it’s certainly likely he might not have known Kate.

        And Diana would have shut down any pr tactics at the gate! Tanna would be a red flag and Diana would make short work of them.

      • Vava says:

        not so sure of that, imo.

        Diana coddled William, and that is part of his problem. I don’t know if she would have axed the Middletons, either. She might have embraced the whole idea if they “played their cards” right.

      • Jib says:

        I agree. And William wouldn’t have be so thirsty for a Mommy substitute, which I think Carol understood and provides, assuring her place in his life. I often think that William may like Carol and Mike more than Kate – so Carol is continually smoothing things over. She is a schemer, that woman! I think that’s why I don’t like her. She set her sights on William for her daughter, and then manipulated her daughter to make it happen.

        And really – can we imagine Diana giving her blessing to a girl who neither worked nor did any charitable work throughout her entire 20s? Diana had two children and had done thousands of hours of good works by the age Kate was when she got married. Kate had…..worked for her parents for a while? Hung around the phone, waiting for Willie to call? Anything else? Really?

        This marriage would never have happened if Diana was alive. That Kate has her ring is sad to me. I wish Harry had kept it for his eventual bride. I am sure she, whoever she may end up being, will embarrass Kate with her work ethic.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Diana wanted them to go to school in the USA, ivy league. He wouldn’t have ended up at St. Andrews.

      • Pondering thoughts says:

        Diana would have made sure both her boys went to university. She would have made sure that Harry would have gotten all the help he needed.
        She would have made sure that both of them would have gotten experiences in other countries more like the swedish royals or the spanish former crown prince now king phillipe. she would have sent them to universities out of GB.

  27. Betsy says:

    Nevermind the “Terrible Twos.” Buckle the eff up for the threes. Lovely, lovely little people who will turn into burning fire monsters the next minute.

    • msthang says:

      Florc, Ditto, I remember at the wedding those cheesy newscasters saying how much in love and they just loved each other so much, and how Diana was up in heaven and looking down so proud and happy for her son, and how this marriage had to work. I told a co-worker, ” I give it 10 years,”he said it will be over in 5, with an additional 5 for the ink to dry!

      • FLORC says:

        msthang
        I was a Kate fan at that point. I thought William was horrible having strung her along. And felt some pity for Kate leting him do that and treat her like an on call mattress. That she formed herself into someone for him leaving her friends behind… It’s sad.
        Now the heir and spare are born. William is nearing an age where his avoidance of Royal duties won’t be humored. They will either have to start working together or living quietly in the country together. That is when they will either thive or fall. And I hope for the kids they thrive.

        And Betsy
        Lol! How true!

  28. Pondering thoughts says:

    The only one who could teach George a few things about being a king is Prince Charles. The Queen will most likely not be alive any more when George becomes old enough to talk about these things. William is ridiculously uninterested in ruling and I seriously doubt he and the Queen have talked much about it. And that leaves Prince Charles who has ample experience working as a royal and who has had lots of opportunity to talk to the Queen. So cutting him out now is a particularly stupid move which depicts a lack of foresight.

    William might have a good opportunity to bond with Prince Charles now that both of them are fathers. But no, leave it to William to blow up and away such an opportunity …