Duchess Kate will allegedly insist that Prince Louis’s christening be ‘private’?

Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge attend Trooping the Colour for the official birthday of Queen Elizabeth II

The next time we see the Duchess of Cambridge at any kind of formal event, it will either be at Wimbledon or at Prince Louis’s christening. I’m kind of thinking that those two events might happen at the same time, actually. Maybe Louis will be christened during the same fortnight as the Wimbledon Championships. Kate is now the royal patron to the All-England Club, so she’s probably planning on attending a few matches, probably only Roger Federer’s matches since the Middleton family is so tight with Federer. The only thing funny about that is this: before she became a patron, Kate attended a lot of matches at Wimbledon, but once she became a patron, it was “work” for her and suddenly she wasn’t all that interested. Such is the life of Kate.

So, the next time we really see Kate will be at the christening. Except maybe they’ll insist that Louis’s christening is “private”? I don’t know. A “leading expert” spoke to the Daily Express about all of this:

Kate Middleton and Prince William will impose their relaxed style on Prince Louis’ christening, meaning it will be a more private affair with members of the public only being able to see members of the Royal Family as they arrive, a leading expert has claimed. Richard Fitzwilliams told Express.co.uk there is “no doubt” the Duchess of Cambridge and her husband want the christening of the baby boy to be private.

He said: “There is no doubt that William and Kate want the christening of their children to be private but there will also be the opportunity for watching the Royal Family as they arrive, there are the traditional staged photographs and the symbolism will be most important. George was christened in the Chapel Royal where Diana’s body lay before her funeral. Charlotte was christened at the church of St Mary Magdalene on the Sandringham Estate where Diana was christened.”

Mr Fitzwilliams insisted Prince Louis will wear a replica of the 1841 gown world by Queen Victoria’s eldest daughter during the ceremony. He added the Archbishop of Canterbury will lead the event, although an exact date for the christening has not been confirmed.

Mr Fitzwilliams stated it is currently uncertain who will be the godparents of Prince Louis with Prince Harry and Princess Eugenie as two possibilities. However he declared the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge typically choose friends over family in this regard. He continued: “There will be speculation as to whether Harry, Beatrice or Eugenie will be among Louis’s godparents, the trend so far has been for almost all William and Kate’s choices to be friends and not family.”

[From The Daily Express]

It would be fascinating to see if William and Kate chose Beatrice, Eugenie, Meghan or Harry for the godparents, but I agree with this old fart, they’ll probably go outside of the family. I’m absolutely positive that if and when the godparents are named and Meghan is not on the list, the stories will be about how Kate “snubbed” Meghan – regardless of the fact that W&K rarely choose close family members as godparents. As for this idea that Louis’s christening would be “private”… I mean, in the sense that it won’t be televised or in London, yes, it will be “private.” But considering how we’re seeing a whole new Keen Kate, I suspect that this christening will be a big “don’t forget about meeeee” extravaganza.

Royal Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle

Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Prince George of Cambridge at the Maserati Royal Charity Polo Trophy 2018 at Beaufort Polo Club

Photos courtesy of WENN, Pacific Coast News.

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

86 Responses to “Duchess Kate will allegedly insist that Prince Louis’s christening be ‘private’?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. harla says:

    All of the BRF christenings have been private, unlike the Swedish Royal families, so I don’t see what the big deal is or why they needed to make an announcement about it.

    • whatever1 says:

      Nobody has made an announcement about it. I doubt “leading expert” Richard Fitzwilliams knows any details about the Christening….

    • Addie says:

      Actually, what would drive the Cambridge’s and Middleton’s crazy is if no-one gave a rat’s a*s to the christening of the third sprog. They can survive for a while without press attention but then fall off the wagon and need their fix of attention-seeking again.

  2. JAGirl says:

    Still can’t believe she wore white to the wedding!

    • Red says:

      Well it was yellow, so you don’t have to believe it.

      • JAGirl says:

        @Red I’m believing my eyes. The hat looks yellow but the outfit is white or close to.

      • Moonpie says:

        I kind of find it disgusting to try to compete with the bride on her wedding day. Any colour close to the bride’s dress’ colour is off limits.

    • Seraphina says:

      Jagirl, the color is a light lemon color. But let’s be real, how close to white can we get without totally pissing everyone off and being blatant about it?!?! I agree with you.

      • whatever1 says:

        Maybe just maybe the coat dress was approved by Meghan? Kate did have a role on the wedding day in getting the bridesmaids and pageboys up the church steps so I could see Meghan taking an interest in what Kate was going to wear. Meghan may have approved the dresses of the other mothers doing the kid-wrangling as well.

      • Lizabeth says:

        Seems if the outfits of the three mothers who were “kid wrangling” were approved by Meghan in advance they would have blended better with each other @whatever1. Plus, wasn’t the need for “extreme kid wrangling” not even decided until the day before? When a second rehearsal was needed for the kids because they just weren’t understanding what to do? Be kind of late to approve the mothers’ planned clothing choices then.

        Regardless of kid wrangling, I’ve seen other people say Kate must have asked Meghan in advance if she approved of her dress. I kind of doubt that. I think if you have to ask the bride if an outfit is acceptable, it’s not! But if Kate had asked, could Meghan have really said no to her future SIL? I thought the dress was an odd choice. So light and so similar to a white dress Kate had worn multiple times.

      • Nic919 says:

        Kate was only in charge of her own kids up from the car up until Maria took over once they passed the entrance of the church. There was no kid wrangling like what she did at Pippa’s wedding. (Maria was there as well).

      • L84Tea says:

        @whatever1, I’m with you on this. When I was getting married, my stepmother asked me ahead of time if she would have an issue with her dress/suit. She had either a mint colored one or an ivory one that had gold threading all over it. I honestly didn’t care, it just didn’t matter to me. Since I gave my approval, she wore the ivory one. Now, I will admit it was closer to white in person than I realized, but I honestly still didn’t care because you could clearly see gold threading all over it. Several people said to me after the wedding, “I can’t believe your stepmom wore that…”, but I was like, I was the bride and I didn’t give a crap, so I didn’t understand why anyone else would.

        My point? Meghan could very easily have approved her outfit and not cared in the least.

    • MsTurtle says:

      I still can’t believe people are beating that horse.

      • JAGirl says:

        @MsTurtle The picture is in the article. I didn’t know there was an expiry date on when to stop commenting on a wedding that took place less than a month ago.

        Wearing white to a wedding (or a color close to white), especially knowing you will be photographed, is the height of rudeness.

        It says a lot about Kate and all her recent actions!

      • notasugarhere says:

        Oprah took more care over her outfit than KM did, regarding it photographing “too white” and having an entirely new outfit made overnight. KM has seven years worth of outfits to the tune of a million pounds. Easy to pick an outfit she already has that would 1) fit and 2) not photograph white.

      • whatever says:

        “Wearing white to a wedding (or a color close to white), especially knowing you will be photographed, is the height of rudeness.”

        Wearing white to a wedding is only a problem if the bride has a problem with it and believe it or not, not all brides do. We have no idea if Meghan was against any of her guests wearing white or close to white, maybe she was really chill about it?

        Also, Mischa Noonoo (a close friend of Meghan’s and the alleged matchmaker) wore a white dress (that could be mistaken for a wedding dress ) to the wedding yet she hasn’t received the hate Kate has hmmm, interesting.

      • bonobochick says:

        @whatever Misha Nonoo’s dress was light blue.


      • whatever says:


        It doesn’t matter what color it may be, she could have just said light blue to save face. But it was a very, very light colored dress that photographed white in every picture I’ve seen of it. Apparently, according to another user, these two things are the “height of rudeness” if you are a wedding guest but maybe it only counts when referring to Kate? lol :).

      • lobbit says:

        @whatever – LOL because no one GAF what Misha Nonoo was wearing. Misha wasn’t a prominent figure at the wedding. She wasn’t looming in the background in footage of Meghan and Harry as they said their vows and she wasn’t in the wedding photos either – Kate was.

        Now, I didn’t think anything of Kate’s outfit and I think people are making a bigger deal out of it than necessary, but tbh I would never wear plain cream or off white or anything in that color range to a wedding. That’s just me, though.

        ETA: Misha’s dress was def blue.

      • whatever says:


        You’ve got some nice mental gymnastics going on there lol . The coat dress looked yellow in all the pictures I saw and I think even KP confirmed it was a shade of yellow. If people are *still* criticising Kate for wearing a dress so light that it photographed white then the same should be leveled at any other guest including Mischa Noonoo who’s dress was also so light it photographed white.

      • Maria says:

        @whatever, isn’t that the dress that she wore at Charlotte’s christening? And at a trooping of the colour? It’s off white but it did look yellowish in the church.

      • Aurelia says:

        Just googled misha nonoo’s dress. It’s clearly light blue and photographed light blue. And to compare her to kate – Misha is not high profile like kate. Kate should have known better. Like Nota said she has 1 million pounds worth of other dresses to choose from. Plus the whole rest of the clothing world to pick from is he wanted something new.

      • Lobbit says:

        @whatever – mental gymnastics? I thought my point was pretty straightforward, easy to understand, intellectually honest, logical, etc.

      • Nic919 says:

        Lobbit your point made complete sense. Using the term “mental gymnastics “ instead of saying that they disagree with you is the easy way out.

        The dress was not the same as the christening dress because it had buttons on the sleeve and other differences. (Someone on twitter found the differences) But the colour was close to it and it is just another time where Kate gets a dress that is close to but not exactly the same. As stated by others, she had plenty of other dresses to wear that wouldn’t have been close to white but chose not to do that. Whether or not one believes that she checked with Meghan first before wearing it is where people differ. Based on Kate’s past history of passive aggressive behaviour I don’t think she did. But in the end it’s not like she took away any significant attention from Meghan on her wedding day.

      • AMA1977 says:

        I don’t and never will get the ridiculous pearl-clutching about wearing white at weddings. It is patently obvious who the bride is, and unless someone shows up in a full-on gown with veil and flowers and stands at the altar, nobody is confused. When I got married, I didn’t care what anyone wore, and I couldn’t tell you if anyone wore white or not.

        Nobody would ever confuse Kate’s coatdress for a wedding gown, even if it was white, which it was not.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Plenty of others do find it offensive AMA1977. At least Kate didn’t wear stretch red lace to this wedding as she has done to other day-time weddings.

    • Milla says:

      It is not white.

      As for christening, they have to have some photos for the peasants. I wanna see little charming Charlotte.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I was really taken aback by that. Anything that close to white should not have been worn. Period. This far into her role she should know better.

      • Suze says:

        Lol wearing white to a wedding is not a thing in the UK.

      • Lizabeth says:

        I’ve seen lots of people say there isn’t a prohibition against female guests wearing white or cream to weddings in the UK @Suze. But lots of UK media and bridal sites in the UK warn against it. Here’s just one
        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/fashion/style/wedding-guest-outfit- dos -and- donts -can-you-wear-white/

        I’ve also seen people say since Pippa was in white as the maid of honor at Kate’s wedding that makes it ok for all women who aren’t the bride to wear white. But 1. A member of the bridal party is different from a guest, even an important guest who will be in the pictures of the bridal party. In the UK it seems the adult bridal attendant (when there is one) often matches the children and the children are often in white. But Kate wasn’t an attendant even if she walked her children up the steps. 2. Kate probably chose the color Pippa wore— not Pippa. And 3. Kate didn’t wear anything near white to Pippa’s wedding!

      • magnoliarose says:

        Yes, there is. It is considered poor taste. https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/5465178/can-you-wear-white-wedding-not-bride-etiquette-rules-off-white-allowed/
        I have been to enough British weddings to know what I am talking about. She wasn’t an attendant and she purposely wore something so close to white to be either stupid or rude. How old is she at this point?
        Which is it?

  3. minx says:

    Aren’t they all pretty private?
    The christenings I mean.

    • lobbit says:

      I’m pretty sure they are, so I am extra confused by the headline and the Express excerpt lol.

    • Megan says:

      Does anyone want to watch a televised christening? Such a weird story.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Yes and no. For their first son, he was hidden away at SJP. No public walk, no where for public to stand outside, absolutely no press allowed.

      Their daughter? Christening at Sandringham a few days from Diana’s birthday. Selected members of the public allowed on the grounds to stand around and cheer. Hand-selected members of the press who agreed to their games were allowed to be outside taking pictures. They strolled across the grounds in full sail, happily getting photographed, letting the public be there to witness them strolling in, complete with old-fashioned carriage. George in a new outfit made to look like an outfit William had worn years ago.

      As Kaiser describes it, “But considering how we’re seeing a whole new Keen Kate, I suspect that this christening will be a big “don’t forget about meeeee” extravaganza. “

      • Nic919 says:

        I just hope that Maria isn’t forced to wear that Victorian nanny outfit. It screams classicism like nothing else.

      • lobbit says:

        But…the press was actually there for that first christening and they got photos AND video footage of Prince George and everyone else as they arrived at the ceremony. And members of the public stood outside behind barricades and even camped overnight to get a glimpse of the whole thing. It’s all on the internet.

        And IDK which is more offensive here: doing a public walk for Charlotte’s shindig or NOT doing one for George’s, but FWIW, I think Sandringham provided the right setting for their little stroll – they walked the same path to the church as they do at Christmas. Saint James Palace? Not so much. Would have been a bit strange to push the pram around the block.

      • PrincessK says:

        Norland nannies are proud to wear their uniform.

      • notasugarhere says:

        lobbit the press coverage and access were completely different. First baby drove up, hurried out of car, into private chapel. Second baby, public stroll through park past crowd, to handful of pre-selected photographers. Waiting to see what they do with third child.

  4. ElleBee75 says:


    I forgot they had a 3rd child tbh. All of the christenings have been private haven’t they?

    They story seems a tad attention grab-ish to me

  5. homeslice says:

    How is it we are seeing a whole new Kate? She is on maternity leave, we have seen her once for the wedding and then papped at a polo event she usually attends.

    Since the christenings are usually private, do you mean that we won’t get pics in and out of the church? Cause I’m confused? And if we don’t get pics in and out of the church, how does that fit the narrative of her wanting to be not to be forgotten???

    • minx says:

      Yeah, how is a christening a “don’t forget about me” deal? He’s not supposed to be celebrated?

      • notasugarhere says:

        See the difference between the christening of their first son vs. the christening of Diana’s Granddaughter (TM). While both were technically private events, the second one was clearly a Look At Us event.

      • homeslice says:

        Ok nota, so if MM and Harry choose to have a photo op at their child’s christening then it’s a “look at us” event, right? LOL.
        I hope we see pics, I love seeing what everyoene wears, it’s fun!

      • notasugarhere says:

        If they want kids, are fortunate-enough to have them, and show such a marked public difference in how they treat one child over the other? Then yes, we’ll have something to discuss.

        It isn’t having the event private that is the problem, it isn’t having a space for the public to stand that is the problem, those are fine. It is the clear way that W&K distinguished how they treated their son’s christening over their daughter’s that I find “interesting”.

      • MsTurtle says:

        @nota, isn’t it possible that they saw the way they handled George’s christening as an error and corrected it with Charlotte’s? The royals need to show themselves to the public during their special family moments. Their approval numbers somewhat depend on being seen with their families by the public. So maybe they changed it for those reasons? Who knows? But why do we need to fault them for showing themselves to the public when that’s exactly what they should be doing.

      • Maria says:

        @homeslice, I was just going to post the same thing. When Harry and Meghan have a christening for their first child, if they have children, everyone will be gushing about how wonderful that they are willing to share this blessed event with the peasants. So modern!

      • notasugarhere says:

        W&K constantly use their kids, daughter especially, for PR. Easy to see and track if you care to see it. They also treat them and news about them differently, again easy to see if you pay attention.

        This is why we wait and see.

        First child, hidden away, one name on christening coin.

        Second child, Diana’s Granddaughter, public spectacle, all three names on christening coin.

        What will they do with the third?

      • minx says:

        And so what? I’m not getting the problem here.
        Maybe there is no problem.

      • homeslice says:

        All the royal houses use the kids…lol. Big deal. Everyone loves seeing the kids! Jeesh.

      • minx says:

        Yeah, don’t all royals “use” the kids for PR to some extent? I guess you could look at any outing as “using” them.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If you track when we see them, especially in public? It is when W&K are in need of PR boost or are facing criticism. Obvious if you’re willing to see it.

        We’ll see if they treat their second son like they did their first son, or if he gets more public treatment and event like their daughter.

      • lobbit says:

        @nota – if there are differences between how Harry and Meghan conduct the christening of one child versus another, I will understand that sometimes that’s just the way shit goes! As a parent, you do something with one kid and then the next one comes around and you might decide to try things another way. It’s very common. And it’s not a problem – unless one is determined to see it as such…

        And the thing about royals that is obvious to anyone willing to acknowledge it, is that everything they do is a public relations exercise. PR is their chief function!

      • magnoliarose says:

        Again since this story is about Kate I don’t understand grumbling about MM or Harry since she isn’t even pregnant yet. When it happens then compare all you want but at this point it is really silly and says a lot about your motives when you respond to royal articles. YOU are caught up with the contest when clearly many others are not.

        I don’t have much of an opinion about christenings but if this gets to be a show then I may have one. Using children for attention all the time tells me the parents must not be that interesting on their own. We will see I guess.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The first two were very different from each other in my mind. So we wait and see, regarding location, public access, which if any photographers are allowed, christening coin, all of it.

      • Aurelia says:

        I think willie and kate didn’t choose harry as a godparent for their first 2 kids as they were waiting for harry to be married. They have 3 kids so it WOULD be a clear sbub if harry missed out this final time. Think about it. Royals always have a fmaily member mixed in a godparents. But we know what willie and waity think about protocol.

        But then again I still believe they will be going for a 4th kid with an oppies baby.

    • PrincessK says:

      I am sure we will see Kate at Ascot next week, won’t we?

  6. lobbit says:

    Open royal post, I guess?

  7. Jan says:

    Sounds like some old man trying to be self important to me.

  8. Antimon says:

    It’s the Daily Express. You can simply disregard everything printed there.

    • minx says:

      Seems like good advice. Thanks.

      • Mynameispearl says:

        yes its a total rag, you couldn’t even trust the date thats printed on it. Its also kind of brexity, veiled racist etc. One of those papers with more information on horse racing, a few sensational headlines than actual news.

  9. OriginalLala says:

    If it’s a private event does that mean the taxpayers won’t have to pay for it? or will they find a way to stick the people with the bill (they always seem to….)

  10. Citresse says:

    Christening at the church of Middleton family in Kate’s hometown? That would be private. But I think it’ll be at St. James’ Palace.

  11. Maria says:

    Well they are all private so there’s nothing new there. In Sweden and Denmark they are televised. In Sweden, Leonor provides the entertainment part of the service so it’s never boring.

    • notasugarhere says:

      There was a marked difference between how the christenings of their first two were held. Both were technically private, but the second one had a large public access and PR component.

      • Lizabeth says:

        While christenings are the topic here it seems to me it’s not only those that have differed. George and Charlotte have been treated differently since their births. George was said to cry alot as an infant (colic maybe?) Some babies do cry more, unfortunately, and if it’s a first baby, of course that’s hard for the parents. But even when introducing an hours-old sleeping George on the hospital steps, Will said something about how loud George’s crying was. At sleeping Charlotte’s introduction Will drew attention to the fact she was NOT crying. Over the next 6 months Charlotte was described as “easy” and “ladylike” by Will. Even though it seems unlikely to be true, he said Charlotte was “running around the house” at 6 months of age. For 2-3 years, George was perpetually described as “naughty” and “spoilt” while more positive adjectives were used for Charlotte by both Will and Kate. We’ve seen the “mom finger” pointed in George’s direction more often in public while with one exception (tarmac in Germany) Charlotte’s antics seem to be viewed indulgently. And these days Charlotte is said by both parents to “run the house” but she’s not described as spoiled the way George was. I don’t doubt the children are equally loved by both their parents. And treating the children as the individuals they are makes good parenting sense. But the ways they’ve been presented differently to the public IS a bit odd to me. It will be interesting to see how Louis fits into the pattern.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I noticed it too. I watched a documentary once about the Windsors and how they aren’t very nice to their heirs. It is a pattern with them for some reason. The heir is never the favorite and they tend to love and indulge the spares.
        George the 3rd was mean to George the 4th. George the 2nd was mean to his son who died before inheriting so 3 was the grandson. Queen Victoria was mean to Edward though she wasn’t all that nice to her children in general despite the image. King George V was nasty to his children. QE wasn’t very nurturing to Charles and chilly. There are stories about how his parents treated him unkindly. Charles and William don’t seem all that tight but he delights in Harry. I don’t believe William had it nearly as hard as those before him though. He’s kind of spoiled and gets away with far more than he should. Now William is always frowning at George but adores Charlotte. William seems intent on Charlotte being his little princess sweetheart and indulging her.

        The commentator said The Windsors eat their children especially the heirs!

      • notasugarhere says:

        They also protest pap photos of Charlotte more than ones of George. The treatment and language around the first two has been very different as you two said. Waiting to see how second son is treated and spoken of. William has already publicly said Louis was “behaving himself” whatever that means.

      • Liberty says:

        It’s been bothering me when I see images of the little fellow hanging back or looking worried or rather pensive. It bothered me to see the photos of him being toppled down a hill at the polo by Savannah. Little Charlotte is a natural star, but ugh if they are subjecting George to the heir-targeting you mention.

        Because it seems that Middleton men are also quiet (Mr M) and a bit lost (James), I am probably reading a little extra into what we seem albeit while knowing nothing at all.

      • Aurelia says:

        I have noticed Kate delights in having a daughter and all that but Chsrl is clearly the favourite. Kate is glued to her. When she gets older it will be interesting to see if kate is still glued to her as it could just be her age. George doesn’t seem to get much of her attention. I wish they would change it up a bit. Willie is always with george and charl is always with kate. I bet she is a hover mother liker Ma Midds was described by kate and pippas fellow school pupils.

  12. Cerys says:

    G&C were both christened “privately”. The family were seen arriving and leaving but the actual ceremony was out of bounds to the media. It stands to reason this will be the same. It will be well-publicised anyway, regardless.
    The main talking point of the summer is likely to be how many times Katie Keen turns up for “work” at Wimbledon. I imagine not as much as she would have done if she hadn’t been given it as a patronage.

  13. Elisa says:

    What’s that thing on William’s jacket? Did he collect and braid his hair??
    Charlotte is an absolute darling, she is too cute.
    Meh about making privacy for the christening an issue. I’m pretty sure there will be photo ops and they will use it for good PR, why not?

  14. Guest says:

    “Private” yeah ok….🤣🤣

  15. Meggles says:

    It’s traditional in the UK not to have family members as godparents. The idea is to provide the baby with a group of people to support them as they grow, and family members will already be part of that group anyway.

    • Lizabeth says:

      That’s what I thought too @Meggles. But Andrew is one of Harry’s godparents and several of Will’s are cousins of the Queen or Philip. And Zara is one of George’s isn’t she? Still, I expect W&K will make choices the same way they have before. Are godparents ever repeated across siblings? Seems they may have used up their super-close friends already. (George had 7 godparents but Charlotte only 5)

    • Aurelia says:

      Where are you getting your info Meggles?

      Queen Elizabeth II is godmother to Princess Theodora of Greece and Denmark. Willie is godparent to her grandson. Prince Philip became godfather to Prince Philippos of Greece and Denmark

      Prince Williams godparents are Former King Constantine II of Greece and Denmark
      Princess Alexandra,

      Harrys godfather is Prince Andrew and Margarets daughter Lady Armstrong -Jones

      Zara Tindall is godmother to george.

      Prince Andrew is zaras godfather

      Prince Charles is Peter Phillips godfather

      Princess Eugenies godparent is the guy olgivy who is Andies cousin

      Priness Beatrices godparent is Viscount Linely Margarets son.

      I could go on all day …

    • Carolind says:

      I don’t think that’s right. My daughter’s godparents are her aunt and uncle.

      I think William and Kate left out Harry, Pippa and James as godparents, as the kids ” have” them anyway as aunt and uncles.

      Prince Philip wanted Anne to be one of Harry’s godparents but Diana refused.

      I believe Charles could even have his grandfather, George VI, as a godfather.

      • CairinaCat says:

        My son’s christened in CoE have relatives as good parents. So that is not true meggles.
        My X and my husband both have relatives as well, as do my in-laws and my kids cousins.
        So no..

      • Moonpie says:

        I think that W&K see godparents as strategic choices. Family will always be there (mostly) but godparents are a way of making sure that these godparents will be around in the future. And support their godchildren as well as the family.
        I guess neither William nor Kate are good at making friends and so they make godparents …

  16. Moonpie says:

    Are there ever any pics of her being happy? Not just smiling politely for the crowds but just happy? Like the look of the Queen when her horse wins?

    • Darling says:

      Google her pics with Ben Ainslie, male tennis players, and male actors; you’ll see her glow with happiness.

      Apparently, being with her children doesn’t give her the same glow.

  17. The Original G says:

    Private? Ok, I’ll have to turn my new dress….