Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 80   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Christening of Prince George : October 23, 2013  (Read 76567 times)
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
freethespoon

Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 2100

Offline Offline

Posts: 8439





Ignore
« Reply #210 on: October 10, 2013, 05:02:32 am »

Well since everyone was hunky dory with Willliam not attending Peter's wedding, I'm guessing there is nothing wrong with Anne not attending George's christening.  It's all good.
Logged

wisdomheaven

Small Member
****

Reputation: 135

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 567





Ignore
« Reply #211 on: October 10, 2013, 05:04:01 am »

I would find it amusing in Charles Spencer is invited. He has how many children with how many wives and cheated on a couple of them as well. I wonder if Peter and Zara are invited? Beatrice and Eugenie?
I'm quite sure that Lady Sarah Mccorquodale is invited and probably also Earl Spencer.
After all little George takes most of his names from that side of Williams family.

@Miss Hataway: Yes it is well known that the Windsors are dysfunctionel family and that the heirs have set up rival courts for 300 years. Yet back in 1985 Anne was only passed over as godmother this time she is not even invited. It might be because she is engaged in Canada on that day, but still she should have been invited.
Simply good manners and all that.

Anne was invited to her nephew Harry's christening in 1985 and spurned the invite.  That was not good manners.  Perhaps William didn't think -- knowing this bit of family history -- that she would care to go to a christening of a great-nephew.   

I honestly don't think that crossed William's mind as it was 30 years ago. But I will say that of the people supposedly not invited, Anne doesn't surprise me. She has shown little interest in Will's life (her comment about the engagement and the other about PG comes to mind) so as I said, she wouldn't cancel a trip for this. Still good manners to invite her though IMO. It was known during the early 80s that Diana did not get along with Anne so for Will and Kate this is weird given the PR about how much in love the WHOLE family is with Kate and their happy bunch.

But Sophie does surprise me and so would his uncles because it was known that Wills was close to Andrew and it always seemed like they were close to the Wessex family.

To me, there have been a lot of signs that Wills prefers the Midds to his own family and given how weird they are, fair play. But he owes them EVERYTHING and more so one should be more grateful IMO

Also, if people are really buying the "normal, happy family" bit from the Midds, I have an island to sell you...
Logged
RoyalDish.com
« Reply #211 on: October 10, 2013, 05:04:01 am »


 Logged
shastadaisy

Small Member
****

Reputation: 93

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 522





Ignore
« Reply #212 on: October 10, 2013, 05:04:24 am »

I take this report - that none of William's royal aunts and uncles are invited - with a grain of salt.  I think this is the press stirring up trouble.  

It's more likely that Sophia and Anne do have previously scheduled engagements and don't feel interested enough or compelled to change their plans and disappoint a lot of people that are looking forward to their visit.  

The royal family are not overly sentimental about babies.
Logged
freethespoon

Ginormous Member
***********

Reputation: 2100

Offline Offline

Posts: 8439





Ignore
« Reply #213 on: October 10, 2013, 05:07:59 am »

Perhaps it's kind of telling that the seniors may not attend. I don't think they see Willie as being as special as he thinks he is.  Hence his love of the Midds who hold him upon a pedestal.  He'd much rather hang with sycophants who assuage his mummy issues and tell him he is ever so good every five minutes versus the Windsors who, if Anne is any indication, will tell him to suck it up princes.
Logged

Diogenes
Board Helper
Huge Member
************

Reputation: 526

Offline Offline

Namibia Namibia

Posts: 2215





Ignore
« Reply #214 on: October 10, 2013, 05:17:11 am »

I'm beginning to think that the media is missing an opportunity here.  Willnot and Kannot don't want to follow tradition?  Aren't interested in caring for the hands that feed them?  Well great.  The press should tell them "don't call us, we'll call you" and stop covering them.  Stop covering Party Pieces, Kate's fashion, Pippa's butt, Carole's grandmothering, Willnot's charities (I would have said Kannot's charities except that there aren't any), and their Kensington Palace bash.  I'm betting that it wouldn't take very long for Willnot and Kannot to get very, very lonely indeed.  Manage without all that interest?  That adulation?  The stimulus of the chase?  Hey, this would make for some very great dishing ...  Whistle
Logged
a commoner
Banned
Large Member
******

Reputation: 212

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1170





Ignore
« Reply #215 on: October 10, 2013, 05:24:44 am »

There isn't much real news in the DM story.  Royal christenings are almost always private celebrations with family and close friends.  They don't all show up at every christening and it's inevitable that some royals will have other long-standing engagements when christenings are arranged at fairly short notice.  The 60 guests at William's christening doesn't seem very many considering many of them would have been Spencers and other non-royals.  I doubt if Prince Charles or Princess Anne attended the christenings of all their nieces and nephews.  

There's no break with tradition that I can see in the choice of St James'.  The DM refers to 'recent royal tradition' but tradition by definition means  passed down from generation to generation and usually involving a sense of value or significance.  Looking at the history of royal christening locations they seem to be chosen for reasons of convenience more than anything else.  Of the Queen's eight grandchildren only two were christened at BP and so far none of her great-grandchildren have been christened there.



 
Logged
PruNordstrom

Small Member
****

Reputation: 161

Offline Offline

Posts: 603


Life is funny. Laugh.




Ignore
« Reply #216 on: October 10, 2013, 06:48:20 am »

This is a tad out of the ordinary of the usual commentary for me.

IMO the invitation to a child's christening/naming event is directed by the parents and their families' culture. In some cultures, the ceremony is small and intimate with those involved invited to tea/lunch. In others, both the ceremony and party are large and inclusive. And then there are the in-betweeners with a small cermony but a larger number invited to lunch in celebration.

In my experience the majority of christening/naming ceremonies are attended by very close friends and immediate family (mom, dad, brothers, sisters) and the godparents. Often, the godparents are the close friends. There is a light lunch afterwards and symbolic gifts are given to the child. I have attended christening parties that rival weddings because the parents were so delighted with the offspring. The party did not include attendance at the ceremony.

This was different in the case of royal families before WWII and the EU and other alliances. Making a foreign king/queen  or foreign duke/duchess the godparents was supposed to cement alliances and prevent wars. Having aristos as godparents also insured support where needed as well as a voice in government. Its time has passed.

I can't find fault that "senior members" of the royal family were not invited to the ceremony. Charles siblings don't need to be there. Willnot's sibling should be there. The M&C Mid's siblings don't need to be there either. Kannnot's siblings should be there. The best friends also attend.

Just because previous christenings had lots of attendees at the ceremony and the 'after party' doesn't mean that it should be so for this one. Photos should be taken of the ceremony and the attendees  because it is a royal family and the country ought to see evidence of the ceremony. Willnot and Kannot should make provision to record and publish this important event in the life of a future king. It is one aspect of gaining consent to remain as monarch from the people.  Thinking

« Last Edit: October 10, 2013, 07:03:51 am by PruNordstrom » Logged
eagle

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 37

Offline Offline

Posts: 258





Ignore
« Reply #217 on: October 10, 2013, 06:55:37 am »

Here's the list of godparents: Guy Pelly, Branson and Waity's friend Emily (?) who organises adult parties, Unca Gary.
Logged
elib

Mini Member
***

Reputation: 33

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 207





Ignore
« Reply #218 on: October 10, 2013, 07:08:33 am »

Since George would be the future King, I feel that senior members should be there for the christening. William has made himself less and less "royal". William has an underlying urge to "break tradition". I sense that when King Charles is gone, England will go Republic.
Logged
wisdomheaven

Small Member
****

Reputation: 135

Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 567





Ignore
« Reply #219 on: October 10, 2013, 07:42:03 am »

This is a tad out of the ordinary of the usual commentary for me.

IMO the invitation to a child's christening/naming event is directed by the parents and their families' culture. In some cultures, the ceremony is small and intimate with those involved invited to tea/lunch. In others, both the ceremony and party are large and inclusive. And then there are the in-betweeners with a small cermony but a larger number invited to lunch in celebration.

In my experience the majority of christening/naming ceremonies are attended by very close friends and immediate family (mom, dad, brothers, sisters) and the godparents. Often, the godparents are the close friends. There is a light lunch afterwards and symbolic gifts are given to the child. I have attended christening parties that rival weddings because the parents were so delighted with the offspring. The party did not include attendance at the ceremony.

This was different in the case of royal families before WWII and the EU and other alliances. Making a foreign king/queen  or foreign duke/duchess the godparents was supposed to cement alliances and prevent wars. Having aristos as godparents also insured support where needed as well as a voice in government. Its time has passed.

I can't find fault that "senior members" of the royal family were not invited to the ceremony. Charles siblings don't need to be there. Willnot's sibling should be there. The M&C Mid's siblings don't need to be there either. Kannnot's siblings should be there. The best friends also attend.

Just because previous christenings had lots of attendees at the ceremony and the 'after party' doesn't mean that it should be so for this one. Photos should be taken of the ceremony and the attendees  because it is a royal family and the country ought to see evidence of the ceremony. Willnot and Kannot should make provision to record and publish this important event in the life of a future king. It is one aspect of gaining consent to remain as monarch from the people.  Thinking



Interesting perspective. My family falls into the "Christening? I love Christenings, drinks all around" category (which to be honest, my family has massive get togethers for everything so there is that) But I guess I feel like this is out of the ordinary for the family. For the most part, Christenings are big events for the BRF. Harry's had the Anne issue and Wills had Margo gone, but they still had a large showing for the family.

PG is a possible future king (I personally don't think the BRF will be around that long but whatever) and it is weird to not have other senior members there. I am taking this DM article with a grain of salt, but if the Midds have a big showing , but the Windsors don't that is pretty unorthodox.
Logged
Future Crayon

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 763

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3935


Will knit for wine




Ignore
« Reply #220 on: October 10, 2013, 10:40:18 am »

If Uncle Gary is there but not PG's royal uncles,  Dead  Mind you, many people have speculated that no matter how much Gary blabs, the Midds are in rather deep with him and he will never be excluded. From all reports, Kate is relatively close to him

According to some slightly dodgy reports, he bankrolls the entire Middleton enterprise...  Whistle

Anyway, no Sophie or Anne at the Christening? Boooooo! And I guess "intimate / close family" means no foreign royals either? Double boo.

Well, I guess that means even more focus on Kate and Pips! Seriously, if we keep the monarchy under William, it'll be the most boring and least relevant monarchy in Europe.
Logged

Makin' Goulash, listenin' to Ladytron, sippin' green tea, trippin' over my cat, like what what, my kitchen can't even handle me right now
fairy

Most Exalted Member
*

Reputation: 1932

Offline Offline

Posts: 14006





Ignore
« Reply #221 on: October 10, 2013, 10:45:38 am »

Pru you are very correct in stating that christenings (as are weddings) are cultural events that are celebrated differently around the globe, in one country or even in one family. Depending what the main actors store by it.
With the exception of a royal family.
As the paying public I think we are entitled to some sort of participation in certain milestone events such as weddings, baptisms and anniversaries.
I don't care if they invited Andrew or Anne or Mr. Bean, I start to resent the fact that more or less official events such as the baptism are made small and by-the-fly, while they splurge on really private events such as their house-warming party for which they have engaged Jon Bon Jovi.

I know that the discussion about privacy is huge. But seriously, what do the royals give us?
Do they lead the nation? Lead us in battle? Do they deal with international threats? Or national? Do they protect their subjects from any harm? Do they act as role models? Do they work in charity? Feed and clothes the poor? What do they do?
IMO they are mainly for public image and basically for some entertaining factors. As such they are paid handsomely, they should deliver or let Justin Bieber take over. Wink
Logged

Mary's life motto:
"if I had the choice between world peace and a Prada handbag, I'd choose the latter one" Marian Keyes.
Rescue

Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 194

Offline Offline

Denmark Denmark

Posts: 940





Ignore
« Reply #222 on: October 10, 2013, 10:55:06 am »

Brilliant post fairy. Star
Here in Denmark royal christnings are some of the most important royal celebrations and they are always broadcast live on tv. It is also very easy and pleasent PR for the RF.
I think that it is an expression of extreme arrogance on the part of the BRF that they insist on keeping christnings private, and incredible stupid of them to miss out on such an obvious PR opportunity.
Logged
Future Crayon

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 763

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3935


Will knit for wine




Ignore
« Reply #223 on: October 10, 2013, 11:02:03 am »

Does anyone think it sad that none of William's aunts and uncles count as 'family' for this 'intimate, family affair'?
Logged

Makin' Goulash, listenin' to Ladytron, sippin' green tea, trippin' over my cat, like what what, my kitchen can't even handle me right now
a commoner
Banned
Large Member
******

Reputation: 212

Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1170





Ignore
« Reply #224 on: October 10, 2013, 11:12:24 am »

This is a tad out of the ordinary of the usual commentary for me.

IMO the invitation to a child's christening/naming event is directed by the parents and their families' culture. In some cultures, the ceremony is small and intimate with those involved invited to tea/lunch. In others, both the ceremony and party are large and inclusive. And then there are the in-betweeners with a small cermony but a larger number invited to lunch in celebration.

In my experience the majority of christening/naming ceremonies are attended by very close friends and immediate family (mom, dad, brothers, sisters) and the godparents. Often, the godparents are the close friends. There is a light lunch afterwards and symbolic gifts are given to the child. I have attended christening parties that rival weddings because the parents were so delighted with the offspring. The party did not include attendance at the ceremony.

This was different in the case of royal families before WWII and the EU and other alliances. Making a foreign king/queen  or foreign duke/duchess the godparents was supposed to cement alliances and prevent wars. Having aristos as godparents also insured support where needed as well as a voice in government. Its time has passed.

I can't find fault that "senior members" of the royal family were not invited to the ceremony. Charles siblings don't need to be there. Willnot's sibling should be there. The M&C Mid's siblings don't need to be there either. Kannnot's siblings should be there. The best friends also attend.

Just because previous christenings had lots of attendees at the ceremony and the 'after party' doesn't mean that it should be so for this one. Photos should be taken of the ceremony and the attendees  because it is a royal family and the country ought to see evidence of the ceremony. Willnot and Kannot should make provision to record and publish this important event in the life of a future king. It is one aspect of gaining consent to remain as monarch from the people.  Thinking



"The M&C Mid's siblings don't need to be there either."

This is a very good point.  Royal christenings are usually private family affairs and the non-royal family will be just as important as the royal one.    I doubt if all Michael's brothers will be attending and I seriously doubt if Carole's brother has been invited.  

As for publicity there is usually the minimum.  Just a short photo session afterwards and no filming during the ceremony.  
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 80   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: