To think today's Royal Christening is deliberate mind-fuckery timewarpery?

[Foxypaws70]

It's all so ... 1948? ... mummy pushing the heirloom pram, George's historical fancy dress outfit, the Norland Nanny in her starched uniform, the crown jewels font shipped in from the Tower, the fawning sycophantic voice-over on the BBC helpfully sharing with the little people the details of George's internal monologue ... It still is 2015 is it? Haaaaaalp!!!!! I thought these were the new wave modern Royals?

Duke and duchess are funded by the Duchy of Cornwall

The Duchy of Cornwall belongs to the 'Crown' not the Windsor family. Essentially it's money which the government gifts to the royals to fund their lifestyle.

I don't think 16th too bad Ego.

The royal family is a link with history. It would be a shame to be the generation that broke that link.

That Christmas card was odd. Apparently they were supposed to have a formal photo taken, but at the last monent Diana decided to wear casual riding clothes and told the nannies to put the boys in the same thing but deliberately didn't tell Charles so he turned up in a suit. She did it on purpose so he would look like a stuffed shirt, remote and formal father while she looked relaxed and the 'fun' parent.

I saw an interview with Lord Snowdon a few years back who said it was his idea. I particularly remember him saying that Diana was bemused as she did not ride horses but that "she was very sweet and went and bought riding clothes" to go with what Snowdon had asked. He admitted the whole thing looked far too staged and hadn't really worked and it was his fault.

Maybe some French people did.

I'm happy for the RF to stay. I like the history.

The royal family is a link with history

So? That doesn't mean it should be preserved (and I say that as a historian).

I think it would be AWESOME to be the generation to break the link with an outmoded, retrograde, elitist, sectarian and anti-democratic system like the hereditary monarchy in the UK.

Aux armes, citoyens!

Well luckily we are free to disagree

The pram was aweseome - I saw a pic of the Queen standing by looking down on it nostalgically. Wouldn't be surprised at all if they did it to please her. I doubt it. She's probably ridden a horse more times than she pushed a pram. This is the woman who shook a young prince Charles's hand after being away from him for six weeks. Not a maternal bone in her body.

but at the last monent Diana decided to wear casual riding clothes and told the nannies to put the boys in the same thing but deliberately didn't tell Charles so he turned up in a suit. She did it on purpose so he would look like a stuffed shirt, remote and formal father while she looked relaxed and the 'fun' parent.

Were you very close to Diana when she told you this?

Can you imagine the comments if they had dared to appear with George in Thomas the tank engine shorts and Kate in a George at adds maxi dress?

Nobody watches it surely.

Maybe they could dial it down a notch and be more like the Scandinavian royal families. I think they let their nannies wear actual clothes when showing up for the various christenings and whatnot.

Totally with George. What I find funny is the royalists who want to skip Charles and go straight to William. Err no if you sign up to the hereditary principle you get whoevers next that's the whole point.

Also I and am sure most other of a republican bent have nothing against the individuals it's the system that offends.

I liked all the individual elements, liked the pram, liked George's outfit, Kate looked fab as usual, but there was something about the combined effect that was just a bit much.

It was as if they've overbranded the royal brand to make it strangely unfamiliar.

The nanny outfit was just the final straw I think!

I'd like to know if William has actually started work yet after all his expensive training. he can't have done otherwise it would be all over the news with Kate looking sad at the dangers he was facing and Charlotte and George crying at the thought of losing their daddy

Bourdic William has been working for ages. He's taken a months paternity leave.

Norland encourage the Nannies to wear their uniform in the workplace the same way a nurse would wear a uniform but its up to the Nana and the family she works for if she does or not.

I wouldn't say this is encouragement: From the Norland website: "Norland graduates are no longer expected, however, to wear their uniform when working in a family, unless the family specifically wants them to."

i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/03/04/article-1255555-08782B9A000005DC-966_634x523.jpg

That's the picture. The story comes from the book written by Highgrove ex-housekeeper Wendy Berry's book. I want to look up exactly what she said but I can't quite get my hands on it at the moment.

It's banned in the UK but second hand ones can be bought online. It's generally considered to be an accurate account and friends of both Charles and Diana have said it has the 'ring of truth' to those who knew them, and that it's reliable.

Neither of them come out very well in it, they appear to have both been very selfish people.

I think what she said was that Charles didn't know until they all turned up, and he didn't want to make a scene in front of his children and uncle so he had to go through with it anyway. It was also taken during the period she was having 'riding lessons' with James Hewitt and some have suggested it was kind of a coded signal to him.

I suspect Snowden might have simply been trying to hide the Wales' blushes.

Fine, so some families might want the uniform.

Presumably if a family have always used Norland there's some tradition there of wearing the uniform.

A coded signal to Hewitt? In a family photograph? saying what? "I like riding horses"? Or maybe it meant "can i have my lesson on friday instead of thursday next week?" Fgs people do like to let their imaginations run away with them dont they?

Why was the book banned in the UK?