Kate Middleton releases two new photos of Princess Charlotte

Kate Middleton releases two new photos of Princess Charlotte

This morning, as I was working on a Harry post (which will now post tomorrow), Kensington Palace tweeted out two new photos of Princess Charlotte, taken by her mother, Kate Middleton, in early November.

Princess Charlotte six months old 2

The photos were taken to mark Charlotte turning six months old and were taken by Kate with her Canon EOS 52 Mark II camera at Anmer Hall in Norfolk. Charlotte wore a floral dress and a pink cardigan, was situated on a plaid chair, and played with a stuffed dog in one photo and her sock in the other.

KP said in a statement: “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are delighted to be able to share two new photographs of Princess Charlotte. The Duke and Duchess continue to receive warm messages about Princess Charlotte from all around the world and they hope that everyone enjoys these lovely photos as much as they do.”

An aide told the Daily Mail: “The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are very grateful for the support they have received when it comes to their children and wanted to share these very charming pictures taken by the Duchess. It is something they intend to continue to do.”

Princess Charlotte six months old 1

Have Kate’s photography skills have gotten better? I know a lot of people will disagree with me, but I think these are better than Kate’s last attempt at photography. At least these aren’t blaring white. There is actual color in these photos, and I don’t think there are too many patterns – I quite like the chair pattern and it’s nice to see that not everything in Kate’s houses are white/beige. I like the photo with the toy dog the best.

I honestly didn’t think we would get photos, with my reasoning being that Kate and William wanted to spite the press and public since that is their MO, but it’s cool that they released some photos. Way to prove me wrong, Kate.

Charlotte seems to have blue eyes and brown hair. Unlike Prince George who has brown eyes and blonde hair. For comparison, here is Charlotte at six months and George at eight months. Charlotte’s head/face is much more square than George’s, right?

Princess Charlotte v Prince George face

PS. Isn’t it interesting that Kate/KP released these photos during Harry’s South Africa trip and just after the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting? Because they can’t let Harry have the spotlight during his tour, and they have to try to upstage the Queen right after what might be her last CHOGM. I guess they succeeded since I bumped that post in order to post these photos.

Photos: The Duchess of Cambridge/Kensington Palace @KensingtonRoyal / Getty

267 thoughts on “Kate Middleton releases two new photos of Princess Charlotte

    1. Honestly,she’s an ordinary looking baby to me.I think George was at that stage considerably cuter.I think he’s going to turn out to be the looker.

      1. I feel kind of bad saying it, but I really have never found Charlotte cute. George is adorable. Estelle is adorable. Charlotte just looks like another baby to me.

          1. I think her eyebrows are fine. A bit darker than George’s since she has brown hair, but they seem fine to me.

      2. Ordinary and for some reason looks a bit ‘grannie-like’ (taking after mom expensive frumpy look) in her dress.

        Don’t see the precious princess look of Princess Maddie Sweden, dressing baby Leonore.

      3. To each her/his own. Funny how differently people see Charlotte and George.
        To me, she has turned into a darling baby, while it took me a while to warm up to PG. I hate criticizing infants, but I think little Charlotte is quite adorable and I also think Kate did a lovely job with the pix. Better than the professionals who took other shots of G and C.

        I almost didn’t recognize Charlotte in these pix, because the last photo I saw of her was the one with her tiny fist in her mouth as Nanny Maria took Charlotte and George out to see a helicopter off from their estate. I hope we get more photos of the children as people really are interested in seeing them. Kids change so much in just a few short months, so it is good to see the wee ones on a more steady basis.

        BTW, I thought the chair Charlotte was sitting on was really pretty. Loved her smile as she looked at the stuffed dog. Think her eyes are quite lovely in the other photo. I also don’t agree that her personality is not showing. Everyone has a different personality and I see plenty of personality in her face. Maybe, it’s not the personality others want to see, but truly, the child seems very adorable to me. Good job, Kate.

        1. Re people being interested in the kids: KP really should take a look at their Twitter analytics. They usually get about 50-200 retweets per tweet, depending on what it is. Combined the three tweets with the pics of Charlotte got about 22,000 retweet as of right now. And about 42,000 likes. People are much more interested in the kids then what the other three are doing.

  1. Thank you for the post KMR. I really like the photo of Princess Charlotte, with the dog and pulling an a laughing smiley face. The second photo, Charlotte looks serious and thoughtful. Beautiful colour eyes though and lovely dark hair. Genes are really interesting topic that a friend’s sister has helped write on. It is strange why the photographer isn’t smiling so Charlotte can copy the expression. I like the outfit but it doesn’t quite go with the furnishings. They are better photos though.

    1. I thought about that too. I have a 6 month old and it’s so easy to take beautiful smiling photos of him because whenever I smile he smiles back. It’s my 2 year old who won’t smile in photos anymore :). I wonder why they didn’t give us a big gummy grin. Perhaps they felt a stoic look showed off her features better?

      1. I am not sure Jeanne. However when I talk to and play with my nieces I try and make eye contact and mirror them as much as I can. I have not really taken photos when I want just going with the flow as to what they want to do.

    2. I understand what you guys are saying about kids mirroring expressions, and I’ve had that happen, but I’ve also had my cousin’s kid look at me like, “I don’t think so” when I’ve tried to get him to smile. So smiling so the baby will smile doesn’t always work.

      1. From the little I have observed Children are funny and have their own personalities. I have learnt not to take anything personal when my eldest niece has hit on something she didn’t mean too or wouldn’t co-operate. I think time helps kids and babies get to know people. A friend’s husband was saying how his niece came up to him and cried. I get the feeling William and Kate are not open to sharing and these photos are to placate us.

  2. Always with the games. Sigh.

    I’m afraid all I see is a regular cute baby. I don’t feel anything. Perhaps its just me?

    Charlotte has the square face of Carole & the eyes of William. I wish her well, I just don’t have any connection to her.

      1. JL and KMR I agree. She’s a baby. An ordinary looking baby and I wouldn’t be gushing over her, I’ve seen much cuter babies. Mine for starters. Rather a ho hum deal but aren’t we ever so honored to view her. See that Kate has copyrighted those pictures. Go figure. I hope I didn’t put words into your mouths by saying ordinary looking. And for sure the timing is so obvious, God forbid people should wake up and smell the coffee-these yahoos are useless and irrelevant. I see nothing special whatsoever about Charlotte or George and that’s because there isn’t anything special about them. I sat behind the most adorable baby I’ve seen in a long time at Church this Sunday. He had masses of jet black hair, deep brown eyes, and he was wearing a lumberjack shirt. Utterly adorable.

    1. Totally agree!

      The insincerity, end of year PR games is ridiculous compare to the genuine and sincere interaction of the SRF DRF (to name a few royal houses) who share their children is inclusive with the ‘regular’ people throughout the year.

    2. It’s like looking through Facebook. Nothing notable here.

      I don’t find the photography has improved. Not true candids, either. She propped Charlotte up for attempted portraiture instead. Every image has to be controlled. Nothing new to see here. Boy, looks like a lot of beige int he background.

      1. I do think Kate’s photography has improved. She didn’t do any stupid lighting things to make the colors completely wash out this time.

    3. Really cute little girl. But, due to the behavior of the parents and their ‘protective parenting’ I have no real interest or connection to her or her brother.

    1. Kate is supposed to be a photographer in the family, so why not? Besides, they don’t want photograpers near their kids.

    2. I think it is a good idea that they photos are taken by someone that the child is comfortable with. They do the same in the DRF where the CP couple regularly release photos of the children taken by Mary (they are quite good – they are available on their website. The Swedes do it as well – and are praised here. So why another standard for Kate? These photos are not bad. They don’t need to be art, they just have to capture the personality of the child, which I think they do .

      Sometimes the parent gets the best expressions from the child. My dad is a very good photographer and he took some amazing pictures of me and my sister when we where children. I think a prof would get less interesting photos.

      I have advocated for them releasing photos of the children taken by Kate and I am glad that they’re starting doing this because I think it is an excellent compromise. Photos are released and the Cambridges don’t have to have a stranger in their home – since William seems to strongly opposed to that. Furthermore, previous family photos take by professionals have been stiff and posed.

      1. Say what you will about the quality of Kate’s photos but I honestly think hers are better than most of the professional ones they’ve had done. George’s first birthday photos were nice, but the rest have been overly photoshopped, stiff, dark messes. I don’t think hers are the best photographs in the world but I went back and looked at all the official photos of the Cambridge kids after the release of the Christening photos and Kate’s are certainly not the worst.

        And if we are comparing, Madeleine releases photos of Leonore on her Facebook page that are probably the same quality as Kate’s. Just a mom taking a photo of her kid and sharing it. One could argue that officially released photos like these should be taken by a professional but the past professional photos they’ve released haven’t been good at all.

          1. I actually didn’t think those were great either, though, because they were devote of life aside from the kid. They were quite sterile. The photos of George at the butterfly exhibit were the only ones with life in them. That’s why I like them best.

          2. I liked these photos due to the cute faces he made. The one with PG’s head on Kate’s shoulder was a cutie when they brought him on tour.

          3. I thought the photo of George’s head on Kate’s shoulder was really nice. One of the best photos of him and his parents.

        1. Love these photos. Charlotte is adorable and Kate did a lovely job. Just as you said, KMR, the photos are far better than the professional ones.
          Little Charlotte has beautiful eyes. She just looks really cute in the pix. So glad we finally have a glimpse of her. Sad, though, if they were issued to take away Harry’s thunder. Interesting, though. One cannot take away his thunder or his lightning. Harry rocks!

          Thanks for this post, KMR.

          1. We may be distracted for a moment. Then, we turn back to Harry. At the end of the day, the distraction won’t work at KMR. it only makes William and Kate look jealous and petty.

      2. Except that they are Royal children and need to be prepared early for the presence of cameras in their lives. If they continue to isolate them, they will become incredibly spoiled and completely out of touch with normal people. Princess Diana, despite her flaws, made a huge effort to have her sons be around regular people and situations. If they aren’t exposed to the reality of their roles, they are going to develop massive social and anxiety issues. They also won’t be able to relate to the average child, who isn’t growing up with trust funds in ultimate luxury. It’s a recipe for disaster.

    3. Exactly, for a member of the BRF.

      If Willnot*cannot can waste millions on kitchens and renovations; and all the royal perks, luxury benefits – then a respectable dignified RF photo release is more than required from hiding.

      They are not like the practice of Prince Charles & Di regular professional media photo op. And the weeks of other royal children – Princess Estelle, Leonore Sweden; Isabella Prince Christian and siblings, Denmark at holiday events interacting with the people; Prince Harry and his lovely Africa Charity Center all pressure whiny Willnot*cannot fake PR.

      When will insincere PGeorge be shown – at Christmas church…

      1. Doubt it b/c he won’t be old enough for church. The Queen refuses to let toddlers into the Christmas service. He has to be able to behave himself and since he’s such a little scamp, the Cambs won’t let him. Of course that assumes that Willnot and Waitnot don’t snub the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh for a “normal” family Christmas with the Midds.

        1. Yeah, I think it’s clear that Kate and William don’t want to be at Sandringham’s Christmas celebrations, either, except for the cachet it gives Kate (and her family).

          1. That is disappointing news. How is George meant to learn how to behave in public if he doesn’t go out in public. The Chatto boys go and I think Margaretta Armstrong- Jones went for a hop, skip and a jump after church with Peter Phillips and William. I can’t remember when I think it was December 2006. William looked happy then. Just before the split.

          2. Well, QEII does not like babies/children in church. But W&K could take him out in public themselves, just to to church with the Queen. I do think W&K should take the kids out to engagements or something so they can get used to the press and public so the kids won’t be so scared of them the way George was at the hospital and walking to and from the church at Charlotte’s christening.

  3. I think Charlotte is a pretty baby. But the first thing I thought of was Bill and Katie were tossing a bone to the masses. Then I wondered if they had enough of Harry getting all the attention. I do think these are better shots than she did with George but I do wish a professional photographer would be allowed to come in.

  4. Very cute little girl!! And such big, blue eyes! I agree KMR these photos are much better than the first set, Kate is improving as a photographer. Maybe if Will decides to abdicate, Kate could find work as a children’s photographer? And I do like the color combinations, the green plaid with the pink sweater and floral dress works really well together.

    My only complaint, and it’s not really a complaint just an observation, is because we haven’t see Charlotte since July the difference between now and then is rather jarring. I would have liked to have seen a picture in say September and then one now to really be able to see how she’s growing and changing. But I guess we should consider ourselves lucky that we are getting any pictures at all.

    1. I mentioned to bookworm below that I honestly had no idea whose kid it was when I first saw the photo pop up in my Twitter feed. Charlotte looks completely different than she did at the Christening.

      1. In the Christening photos they were so fuzzy & Photoshopped she had dark eyes – really dark. Umm, nope – she has light blue eyes. No wonder we don’t recognise this baby!

        1. Ugh, the Testino Christening photos were bad. And yeah, the lighting for those must have been terrible seeing as Charlotte had brown eyes in those photos and clearly had blue eyes in these.

          1. Art Historian I completely agree.

            And what is it these days having pix with kids – you know beings with the joy of life in them – and have them devoid of colour, brightness and life…

            To me her eyes looked dark blue, so I’m not surprised. Her hair on the other hand, I expected to be darker than George but not as dark as it is.

            I love the combo blue eyes and brown hair; and blonde hair with brown eyes. I always liked the contrast in people and love seen it in the Cambs kids.

  5. I liked the pics, she seems so different to me but then we never got to really see her before and babies tend to change a lot.

    I think she looks like William at this age, like I thought George looked like Kate – in overall face/expression.

    At least we seen her smile! We get very few smiles with George, but then again we don’t see them much.

    When I first saw them on tumblr I thought they look a lot like Leonore’s!

    I did not like that they release the pics now, there is no reason (nor should have been one) but why not release them one or two weeks back when they had fewer engagements and none of ‘the royal trio’ was on tour? Or in end of October or in early Dezember? It does not make sense to me.

    Things like this are the ones who make me laugh everytime someone says Will, Kate and Harry are a team. They clearly are not.

      1. To be honest Leonores’ face shows more personality. I do wonder why not release them after Harry’s tour. It seems a game. I would still like to see a photo of Harry with Charlotte and George.

        1. what I mean its nothing to do with hair or eye color. It is just more about posture, body language etc. I hope that Wandk are taking the kids with them on holiday.

        2. I would love a photo of Harry with George and Charlotte. I would also like a photo of William with Charlotte, just the two of them, since we haven’t seen that yet.

        1. Umm. . . . Charlotte looks pretty happy with her toy. She’s also a 6 month old baby. Tough to get them to smile and look perky on cue. Lenore is 6 months older. Big difference in development.

        2. I really like Charlotte’s interaction with her stuffed toy and think these photos are well done. I did a double take when I saw them online and didn’t realize who she was since we haven’t seen any of Charlotte’s development from the christening. What little we saw from that. She’s an adorable child, but I feel she looks like her maternal grandmother only in a softer infant way. And she’s got some well marked eyebrows. And while I hope her blue eyes remain, they can still change color up to a year, I believe.

          And like others, I also question the timing of the photo release.

          1. So true Feeshalori. I’ve went and review Estelle’s official pix and her eyes at one year old seemed blue know, at the last released pix, they seem goldish brown.

    1. Just what I was going to say! Carole exactly. I also think George looks like Charles – much more round faced than Wills. Like the colors in the picture as well – at least there are colors, although very subtle. Named for Diana, but really a tiny Carole.

      1. Overall, Mike Middleton resemblance is quite strong, but as he grows older, i’m seeing Charles more and more in George. I recently saw some baby/toddler/very young childhood pictures of Charles on tumblr, and the resemblance is quite unmistakable.

      2. George definitely has a more rounded face than William at that age. William then and now has a more elongated face.

    2. A lot of the comments on DM are pointing out that she looks like Carole. Carole must be glowing right now thinking it’s all complimentary.

  6. Charlotte has grown so much. It’s hard to believe she is six months old already. It’s a nice family photo. Although, if someone didn’t tell me it was Charlotte, I would never know it was her. We’ve seen so little of her.

    With Will and Kate, the timing of the release of photos is always interesting. Do you think there is a chance that they are on vacation and this is a distraction for the people and media so they won’t find out?

    1. These photos showed up in my Twitter feed and I saw the photo first and didn’t read the caption and honestly thought, “Whose kid is this?” Then I saw more people tweeting the photos and read the caption and realized it was Charlotte. I had no idea at first. She doesn’t look anything like she did at the Christening and we haven’t seen proper photos since then.

      And yeah, W&K are totally on vacation right now. I mentioned in the last Kate-related post that this is the longest stretch of time they’ve had off in November/October and thought they would most likely take a vacation now. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if these were to distract everyone.

    2. Bookworm, I was thinking the same thing. I bet they posted these photos so the public would be consumed with them, while they slipped off on vacation. I hope though that we get confirmation that they are on vacation, so that their slip away doesn’t work. Sadly, Will and Kate always have an ulterior motive for everything they do. Immediately I wondered if the release of these photos were to cover up their vacation.

      And KMR, I thought these photos were fake at first since Charlotte looks so different. She is cute, but a baby like all others.

  7. She’s cute. I agree with KMR in the fact that I had no idea who the baby was when I first saw this picture. I will say that I like the colors in the picture: her dress, cardi, and chair. It’s good to know that Kate likes another color other than beige.

    I feel no attachment or affinity for her because she is ensconced at Anmer or Bucklebury or wherever the heck she is. We know that she’s ladylike and that’s it. She looks like Scarole. I would have liked to see a huge Party Pieces hairbow on her. Just because.

      1. I am with you Rhiannon. The timing of these Photos to me is just trying to take the focus off Harry and the Queen. They could have waited for a few days to release the photos. I know that I am being very cynical but where Kate and Bill are concerned it is hard not too be.

        1. Far better Tanya, to be in the Cynics’ Corner than with the sugars at HELLO! and the D.M. You’ll have plenty of company. πŸ™‚

        2. I agree with you Rhiannon and Tanya S. They’ve waited to release these photos for a reason, does any “normal” parent want to share photos of their children practically the second they are released? Or have they only released these 2 photos because Jason (or one of his team) has been reading this blog and seen all the comments about…
          *Where’s Wally?*
          I mean *Where’s Charlotte?*

          1. My friend who had a baby in October has posted about 5 pics of the kid on Facebook every day since he was born. It’s very annoying. I get why she does it, but to me it’s overkill.

            I, personally, think there is a happy medium between my friend’s baby photo overkill and Kate’s baby photo drought.

          2. I think “normal” parent can mean anything really. I have some friends who post a pic of their kid every 5 seconds. I also have some friends who don’t post anything at all. You only get to see the kid in person. That being said, as a private citizen, you can do whatever you want with the pics of your kids. While I understand why Kate & William might not want to share pics of their kids, in their position, it simply doesn’t work.

  8. What a sweetheart she looks. But yes, as has been said above, I had no idea who’s baby this was, there needed to be pictures before this.

    But my God, how typical of KP. Harry is out in Africa right now, doing fantastic things with and for Sentebale. As soon as he starts to get more of a shine in the press for his work- boom. In they come and drop this bombshell. They said these pictures were taken early November- could they not have posted them before Harry went to Africa? Little discrepancies, I know, but it still narks me so much when Harry is really the one who’s shining right now.

    1. Yes but Harry’s not the heir to the heir. William is. Harry is also single. William is the straitlaced responsible one with a family, while Harry is the drunken Nazi-wearing mess flashing himself to prostitutes in Las Vegas.

          1. I guess God loves you Englishrose b/c I wasn’t *just* being sarcastic but demonstrating how the press has always dealt with the two. Being the spare is brutal. The late Princess Margaret explained it thus: “”It was inevitable: when there are two sisters and one is the Queen, who must be the source of honour and all that is good, while the other must be the focus of the most creative malice, the evil sister.” Substitute “two brothers,” “future King” and “bad Prince” for “two sisters” “the Queen” and “evil sister,” and you’ve got the press relationship between Willy and Harry.
            Also you should know Englishrose, that I call “William” “Willy” b/c in Britain (as you might know), “willy” is a slang term for dick, which I think fits him quite to a T.
            I think Prince Harry is the only hope the Royal Family has, b/c Willy is so completely self-deluded he thinks he can be a full-time helicopter pilot while presiding over the Privy Council as King. He has carried out 10 overseas tours since first officially representing the Queen in 2010 at the age of 28 (by which time she was on the throne for three years and had two children under 10). Prince Harry has carried out 30 overseas tours since 2005, when he was only 21. He’s been “doing” engagements for five years longer than his brother, despite being two years younger and being beneath him in the line of succession.
            If William becomes King, I will no longer sing “God Save the King,” but “God Save Us All” (and I’m an American).

          2. I really don’t understand the need to put one sibling down to raise another up. It is such a nasty tactic – and I’m a puzzled why the British press thinks that this is necessary. Especially since it seems that it is a tactic that has been in place for a couple of generations. It is a sad state of affairs.

          3. I know ArtHistorian, I don’t like it either. But I guess b/c one of them is going to be King, they feel the need to put the royal “magic” on them at the expense of the other.

          4. The press has definitely had a hand in the good brother/bad brother scenario, but I think William’s office is also partly to blame. They throw Harry under the bus lots of times in order to make William seem better.

    2. You are not the only one thinking that…

      Below Tanna’s tweet

      “Kensington Palace release new pictures of Charlotte as Prince Harry is on an official trip to Africa”

        1. I knew writing that would get a rise out of a few people. After I commented, I thought I’d better add an explanation so Rhiannon didn’t serve my head on a platter for Sunday dinner. πŸ™‚ But that is the press relationship b/w the two of them, though at least Harry is DOING something to justify some press. Willy doesn’t DO anything, so how can they write about him?

    3. I find it odd that they tend to release photos like this weeks after they were taken. George’s first b-day pics were taken on July 2 and weren’t released until the 20th or so. The Christmas pics from last year were also taken weeks before release.

      1. Could it be passive aggressive William at it again, “we don’t really want you to see our kids so we’ll give you out of date photos where the kid has developed and changed and doesn’t exactly look like this anymore.” Only the Middletons and inner circle are privy.

        That or a way for the Cambridges to remain media present since it won’t be for work. The press will mark significant events, like they George’s 1st birthday, with or without new photos. When new photos are eventually released the Cambridges get a new wave press for something that’s already been covered weeks before. The PR has to keep reminding us that they don’t lack duty and aren’t lazy, they are caring for their young. William is shielding his young family from… I forget but I’m sure some article in DM will resurface soon praising William for not “repeating the mistakes of the past” and Kate bringing family to the monarchy.

        1. “William is shielding his young family from… I forget”

          HAHAHAHAHAHAHA That was great.

          As for William’s passive aggressive moves re holding the photos until the kids change, I think you may be on to something. I remember thinking that it was annoying that they took George’s 1st b-day pics 3 weeks before his b-day since he would have changed by then and I wanted current photos. And I remember thinking the same thing or those Christmas photos and the 2nd b-day pics. Now that you mention it, I think that may have something to do with it.

        1. I think the “vertical cushion” is the other arm of the chair. That’s what made me think it was a chair she was sitting on.

    1. I guess what is old is new again, since this looks like a chair I had 20+years ago after shabby chic had been around for a few years.

  9. Two things from the DM story (that bastion of credulity!): the pics were taken in early November, which satisfies the release-timing theories listed herein. And then this comment, which made me throw up a little: “It is understood that neither William or Kate want to start releasing details of their children’s outfits.” Huh? For one thing, they have already with George. And two, how arrogantly bizarre or bizarrely arrogant.

    1. As far as I am aware, the only time they talked about what George was wearing was when he was wearing the blue outfit William and Charles wore as babies. They don’t release designer info for George the way they do for Kate.

      1. George, on his off time anyway in the paparazzi pictures I’ve seen, wears some baby gap. I know because my son wore some of the same things (he’s about a year older than George). XD Or from Trotters, the UK baby line. They do have cuter boy clothes in Britain than they do in the US, I went a bit wild in London buying my son shirts and dress shirts.

        1. Fans and the press try to identify his (and Charlotte’s) clothes, and they do often, but my point was that the KP office does not release the names of the designers he is wearing. They do release the names of the designers Kate is wearing to each engagement.

    2. William does love control over the press. Remember when they didn’t want to release information on their dog’s name. The public had a fit and finally they let it slip his name is Lupo. Not releasing information on Charlotte’s outfit sounds like the same thing.

      1. Ugh, I thought that was so stupid. Who cares if people know the name of their dog? The names of the Queen’s dogs are out for public knowledge. Why would W&K be so damn private about the name of their dog? So stupid.

  10. She’s cute, but I’m a sucker for babies. I would have preferred a picture of her smiling into the camera instead of looking off and at the stuffed animal. Love her little sweater.

    What I don’t care for in a major way is the timing of this photo. Just like the release of the information that W&K would be doing more engagements in December. It’s like these two realized that HM and the DoE and Harry were grabbing all the headlines and they wanted people to remember they are here too. Which is terribly contradictory to their leave us alone in our privacy while we raise our children stance. It also makes me wonder what’s coming up in the near future that they want to build of their reserves of good will for. I hate how cynical these two make me feel.

    Maybe we’ll get photos of both kids at Christmas. I’m strangely not as happy when I see these pics as I am when I see pictures of the Estelle, Leonore or the Monaco twins. Maybe it’s because we get to see more of their personalities in the photos. I just feel more engaged/involved in their pictures.

    Either way, it’s good to see that she actually does exist and as Kate said, she’s growing. Noting the pink (because you know all girls have to wear pink) sweater, I do hope that we don’t have future appearances of George in his daddy’s favorite shade of blue and Charlotte in something pink whenever we see them.

    1. Don’t worry Lisa. I’m such a cynic I can smell conspiracy at a five-year-old’s lemonade stand. Everyone always says “Oh you’re too young to think like that!” My response is: Ha! I’ve seen enough to know how the world actually works. Don’t give me crap and call it crΓ¨me brulee. B/c George is a boy and Charlotte is a girl, of course he will be in royal blue and she in rose pink. Otherwise how could the peasants tell them apart? πŸ™‚

      1. I know Seth, but I really would have rather my reaction to Charlotte’s picture be something along the lines of look at how she’s grown rather than what are these two up to now. And sadly that attitude seems to be spreading.

        1. I know. She’s kind of cute but no more so than any other child at that age. I have a six-month-old great-niece that I’m going to meet in about a week. From her pictures, she looks much more adorable than Charlotte, sad to say. It is always what is the angle of Willy and Katie rather than look at the kid.

      2. Seth, you have put a crΓ¨me brulee blocker in my brain and I will never look at it the same way again!! Used to be one of my favorites, but the other day when out for dinner with friends, I couldn’t even pick up the spoon to share with my friend. I had to plead too full, but all I could think of was crap when I looked at it. Do you have anything that will put me off the cheese and crackers, I’d be forever grateful πŸ˜‰

    2. Poor Charlotte will be stuck wearing pink for the rest of her life – so long as Kate picks out her wardrobe. I kind of hope Charlotte grows up to be goth or something just to spite William and Kate’s gender imprinting.

      1. I hope that both Charlotte and George will have some inner sense that tells them to think for themselves and work hard. Hopefully their uncle Harry will be a strong influence. Pretty dysfunctional parents and other relatives, on both sides; it will be a battle.

      2. KMR you took the words out of my mouth. I was hoping Charlotte would be punk when she grows up or maybe punk lolita. Now that last one would be a “yowza!” Japanese street fashion with a punk twist is punk lolita. Think Hello Kitty gets a mohawk. At least we wouldn’t be bored analyzing Charlotte’s fashion choices. She would leave Beatrice in the dust!

  11. I think Charlotte looks like William did at her age – finally the baby who actually resembles one of the Cambs. For me George doesn’t look like any of them and his sight (especially his brown eyes) always makes me think about all of these ridiculous conspiracy theories.
    Anyway she is very cute baby and I am glad to see her after all this time

    1. Whenever I think of George having such dark brown eyes, I think of Mendel and the biology of offspring having brown eyes when one parent has blue and the other green. Conventional science and Mendel maintain that two light-eyed people cannot produce a brown-eyed child because brown is a dominant eye color, and if you have the gene, you have brown eyes. It’s not recessive, like blue eyes. Two brown-eyed people can produce a blue or green eyed child because a brown-eyed person can carry the gene for lighter eyes. I am not a conspiracy theorist at all, as you said, they are, in my opinion, ridiculous, but I admit I am stumped by the laws of biology and how George came to have such dark eyes. Now unless there has been credible science concerning genetics and eye color, I will continue to wonder about how this came about. I know that since it became so obvious that George has brown eyes, there have been new theories all over the internet that “eye color” is not that simple, that it is a combination of genes that give us our eye color, but I still remain dubious.

        1. I always thought Kate really had brown eyes. Don’t her parents? It seems fitting with her *natural* coloring. I’ve read art icicles saying she has green eyes, I personally don’t see green in photos, maybe a hazel-brown. I have similar coloring that changes when I wear jewel tones.

          1. Alright, I went and looked at photos of every one of the Middletons and William’s family and…

            Carole has what looks like blue eyes: https://anyonebutwaity.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/carole-eye2.jpg

            Michael has light eyes, blue or green: http://www.gannett-cdn.com/experiments/usatoday/quizzes/2014/quiz-george/images/q2-a1.jpg

            Kate has green or hazel eyes: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Xcs39Jw8Sc0/UonvGcuZ3sI/AAAAAAAABrc/X1_sVBZfDdI/s1600/Kate_Middleton_Tattoo_Permanent_Eyeliner_1.jpg


            Pippa has brown eyes: http://pixel.nymag.com/imgs/fashion/daily/2014/11/14/14-pippa-middleton.w750.h560.2x.jpg

            James has blue eyes: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01881/James-Middleton_1881082a.jpg

            Prince Charles has blue eyes: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1244923/thumbs/o-PRINCE-CHARLES-570.jpg?6

            Princess Diana had blue eyes: http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/106/590x/princess-diana-sas-death-422915.jpg

            Prince William has blue eyes: http://a1.files.beautyeditor.ca/image/upload/MTE5NDg0MDYyOTMwODYzNjMx.jpg

            Prince Harry has blue eyes: http://media2.popsugar-assets.com/files/2013/02/06/1/192/1922398/aed9b5cda59910eb_Headline_SQUARE/i/Prince-Harry-Going-Africa-Video.png

            QEII appears to have blue eyes: http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2012/06/18/queen-suffers-sore-eye/jcr:content/body/inlineimage.img.800.jpg/44667178.cached.jpg

            Prince Philip has blue eyes: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01511/prince-philip_1511239c.jpg

            So it appears that the only one in that immediate family that has brown eyes is Pippa.

        2. Well in certain lights green can appear blue if you are colourblind. Hazel is a combination of brown/green and gold. I don’t know if you can have hazel eyes and have brown eyed children? You need two copies of the colour eyed gene, one from each parent. For example two blue eyed parents to have a blue eyed child. Therefore the child could not have brown eyes no matter the parents or grandparents. Hair colour is different because you could end up with different coloured shades in between the parents and can skip generations.

          1. A blue-eyed gene and a brown-eyed gene will produce a blue, b/c the blue is dominant. If both parents have blue eyes, the child can ONLY have either blue or light-green eyes. If both parents have dark brown eyes, any eye color is possible.

          2. Seth, that’s what I thought. But my boyfriend’s parents both have blue eyes. His brother has blue eyes. Boyfriend? He has green/hazel eyes. And he is most definitely his dad’s kid because other than the eyes, he looks exactly like his dad. In pictures, his eyes can be anywhere from green to hazel to brown. It all depends on how the light hits it, but in person, they’re green/hazel.

  12. Georgie Porgie looks like Willy at that age, at least to me. People said the same thing about Harry. But he looks quite a bit like Prince Philip as a young man and heavens knows, they both got their height from him, since Charles isn’t 6’0″ in heels.

  13. First, let me say that I’m a sucker for pretty much all babies and it’s hard to find a hideous one and even then it makes you feel like the pre-Christmas Grinch to criticize a baby! Anyway, I have to agree that Charlotte is a perfectly cute and average looking baby girl. She is the same cuteness level of almost every baby I’ve seen, not more or less. I’m not sure if she’s going to be pretty when she’s older, she does have a very William look about her face. It is strange that she and George look so different. They both look like William, but I don’t see much of a resemblance to Kate in either one. I need to dig up my old genetics textbooks from college to review how they could have possibly produced the eye hair color combinations that they got. The pictures themselves were cute, but not nice enough to warrant being official pictures, in my opinion. Charlotte looks like she was awkwardly propped against one side of the chair and it looks like her dress is scrunched up. Photographing babies and toddlers is really tricky if you want top notch results, so it’s best to bring in a pro who specializes in little ones. As it is, these are cute, but average photos. Pretty disappointing. The timing is weird too and I expected a nice Christmas photo of both Charlotte and George, with solo photos of each. Not release “mum snaps” right when the spotlight should be on Prince Harry and his causes.

    1. I wonder if they will release Christmas photos now. Because these are supposed to be to mark Charlotte turning 6 months old. And we haven’t seen photos of George since July.

  14. Royal correspondents are in South Africa, or Malta, and they do this. Shocking!

    Darling baby, of course. They sure make cuties! I find it curious she seems to have no connection with her mother the photographer, always looking somewhere else. There’s no bond displayed here. It’s very weird. I don’t think the photos are bad, they’re fine. But the comparisons as if she’s some great royal/aristocratic photographer a la Snowden and Lichfield is laughable! Everything Kate does is sunshine and roses..

    1. No one here is saying Kate is a great photographer, but I do think these are better than the last ones she did.

      George didn’t seem to have a great connection to the photographer, also his mother, in the last photos Kate took either.

      1. Yes, I think these are much better. No bleached out pillows and all-beige and white color schemes.

        She is a cutie pie. Looks a lot like Carole, I think, especially in the mouth.

        I find the sterile photographs seem just so strange, as if they have no connection to their parents. It seems that way with Kate and George in the paparazzi photos of them.

      2. On ABC World News last night, they called Kate an “accomplished photographer.” Kate’s no more an accomplished photographer than someone who can put together rice and chicken is an accomplished cook: capable but not superb.

        1. Kate’s never even done photography professionally – like actually get paid for being a photographer – let alone won awards or anything like that. She is in no way an “accomplished photographer”. And saying that is not shade or an insult, it’s just a fact.

          1. To tell you the truth – I don’t know what that fuzz is all about. I’ve got Canon EOS Rebel T1i and most of my babies pictures look as well as Kate’s and I really don’t think I am accomplished photographer nor have any particular skills in that kind of art. I think good camera does the whole job and that is all.

        2. Ahhh, but PolishGirl you haven’t been anointed by the Heir to the Heir and blessed with the sacred Big Blue so your photos couldn’t possibly qualify you as an accomplished photographer. Only those special snowflakes who claim to have studied with Mario Testino can claim that. (Her photos are just average, I’m sure yours look a lot better)

  15. She is cute and finnaly the blue eyes the britons wanted so bad!!
    Is weird look at her now and in chistining she was different with brown eyes i have the sesation she is other child!!

        1. Babies grow and change rapidly. That’s what they do. My cousin’s babies all looked so much different in every photo because babies change so much at that age. It’s perfectly normal.

  16. I think the Cambridges released these pictures as a “reward” to the press for being good little girls and boys, which I find patronising and pompous. Also, I think C & W were feeling a bit left out since over the past few weeks we have seen Princess Estelle and the little prince and princess from Monaco and people were paying far too much attention to them and not to the Cambridges.

    1. Well Kate did seem to copy Princess Leonore’s first b-day photos for these photos of Charlotte. I never thought Kate would have paid attention to the other royals but she very well may have considering the similarities between these Char pics and the Leonore pics.

  17. I am interested in who she looks like – has anyone seen a baby photo of Scarole? Seems resemblance there. But sadly does not seem there is much resemblance to her paternal grandmother Diana, or even some Spencer genes.
    PS two things are clear – their PR team def read this blog and they are def on holiday somewhere and are aware their public image isn’t good hence the attempts to keep it on the quiet.

    1. I”m guessing they are on vacation now, or were last week. They have appearances this coming week but last week was free.

        1. Actually I was wrong. Their appearances are not until next week. So they had most of last week and all of this week for their vacation. They have almost two weeks off. I’m sure they are in Mustique right now. Absolutely.

  18. At first I found it hard to believe this was Charlotte! She has changed so much. With photos of Prince George you could tell it was him, but Charlotte is unrecognizable from the last time we saw her. My guess is these photos were released now because W&K are on vacation.

  19. I am a dedicated reader here, although I don’t often post. KMR, I’m so grateful for all the work you put into this blog.

    I hope I don’t get bashed here, but I feel the need to give my opinion…I’m frankly saddened that this baby is being criticized by some about her LOOKS. “Ordinary”, “eyebrows too big”, “grannie-like”, “like Scarole”. Comparisons to her brother are made – which child is more attractive. I feel that kind of criticism of adults, who have mature bodies and are able to choose clothing, makeup, etc., to enhance what they naturally have, is one thing. I cringe to know that the superficial looks of babies are being made. Not all babies are beautiful. But as a parent, I imagine what I would feel like if comments like this were made about my child, or comparing the looks of my two children. Because in the end, looks really are the last thing that matter (hygiene is a different story). Who they become AS PEOPLE are what matters, and they are years away from becoming those people. If a child looks like a grandparent, or had their hair combed or cut a certain way, how can we fault them for that?

    I love this blog because in general, the comments are thoughtful. There’s just so much negativity in this world, I hope we can wait until babies are adults to shower criticism on them for the things they actually CAN control.

    Just my two cents πŸ™‚

      1. I think all of us (unless, I missed a comment somewhere) made it pretty clear that we think she’s cute/adorable, and ware pointing out possible family resemblances, not criticizing Charlotte. Personally, I doubt that the English monarchy will be around by the time Charlotte comes of age, but she will be famous by birth and have to deal with a lot as she grows up. I also think that what bothers a lot of people is the Cambridge’s attitude about their children is that they are superior to all other children, including the idea that superior genetics are a given if you’re Royal, which I find offensive on many levels. In actuality, the Cambridge children are mostly descended from the German Royal families, Kate’s English coal miner ancestors and a splash of Spencer heritage, which is as close to genuinely English Royalty as they can claim. Other than Kate’s English ancestry and the Spencer heritage from their grandmother, they are actually German. Interesting the way they have that snobby English attitude when they’re not even English. Based on their own diverse background, they should be more democratic and less entitled. I absolutely love England and am very proud of being a first generation Brit-American. I love the monarchy too, when it’s done properly. This is why the Cambridge’s are so disappointing to me and so many other people.

        1. I guess I think that if the Cambridges are personally disappointing to us, that’s one thing. I think most of us posting have some level of disappointment in them or else we wouldn’t post here. Not sure that should filter down to the children though. They can’t help their DNA; it’s what they do with their lives that will count and they’re much too young to even think about that yet.

          1. Kind of like how the York girls got a ton of crap because of what their parents did. The York girls shouldn’t have to suffer the sins of their parents and neither should the Cambridge kids. Until they are old enough to make their own sins, you know.

          2. As someone who doesn’t think much of the York women, I want to go on record it’s not because of their parents. I think they can be criticized strictly on their own merits. πŸ™‚

          3. Well now they can certainly be criticized for their own actions, because they are old enough to have their own actions to criticize. But they got crap when they were still kids and teenagers for no apparent reason other than their parents did stupid things.

        2. You know, I get rather annoyed when people claim the royals are “really” German. Prince George was born at St. Mary’s Hospital. In Britain. William was born at St. Mary’s Hospital. In Britain. Charles was born at Buckingham Palace. In Britain. The Queen was born at 17 Bruton Street. In Britain. Charles’ father was born in Greece. He’s Danish and Greek. The Queen’s mother was born in Britain. The Queen’s father was born at Sandringham. In Britain. The Queen’s grandfather was born at Marlborough House. In Britain. The Queen’s grandmother was born at Kensington Palace. In Britain. The Queen’s great-grandfather was born at Buckingham Palace. In Britain. The Queen’s great-grandmother was born in Copenhagen. She lived for 62 years in Britain and identified herself as Danish. The Queen’s great-great-grandmother was born at Kensington Palace. In Britain. The Queen’s great-great-great grandfather was born at then-Buckingham House. In Britain. The Queen’s great-great-great-great grandfather was born at Norfolk House. In London. Which unless I’m somehow mistaken, was still located. In. Britain. My maternal grandfather was born in Canada. So I guess that makes me Canadian. Um… not bloody likely. The Queen and her family are British. Not German. Some of their ancestors are German. But they are still British. My grandfather being born in Canada and my maternal great-grandfather being born in Fakenham, Norfolk (which is only about 30 miles from the Queen’s winter residence at Sandringham) does not make me British, any more than my paternal grandmother’s grandmother being born in Sweden makes me Swedish. The British royals are British. Period. You have no idea whether they are “snobby” or not, unless you’ve met them. And they ARE actually English, going back eight generations. If we are basing ethnicity and nationality on generational ties, I’m English/Irish/Swedish. Except I’m not. I’m an American. It’s not up to you to judge them by their ancestors.

          1. Well if we want to say the current British royals are German then we must say that the BRF was *never* British since they start counting the BRF from when William of Normandy – a Frenchman who never spoke English – took the throne from Harald. So the BRF has always been foreign. But after so many generations of marrying British people, they are British enough as anyone else.

      2. Since we agree that they are just babies, maybe you could reconsider the name-calling Georgie Porgie? After all,the policy of the blog reads not “be rude, attack, demean, belittle” and, whatever my opinion about his parents, I find name-calling a toddler rather disturbing …

        1. I didn’t think that was name calling. It’s from the nursery rhyme, “Georgie Porgie pudding and pie, kissed the girls and made them cry”. A lot different IMO.

        2. Penelope, I find having to refer to a toddler as “His Royal Highness” even more disturbing. If K.M.R. directs me to cease and desist using that nickname, I will gladly do so. But since I have called him that since joining this site almost two years ago, she has never done so. If you wish to make a complaint, her e-mail address is near the upper right corner of the blog so you may e-mail her directly. Like I wrote above, I will gladly cease-and-desist with that nickname. When she directs me to do so. Not before. Cheers,
          Seth πŸ™‚

          1. I agree with Seth and bluhare. George is a big name for a tiny boy. Georgie is a term of endearment. That’s what I call him.

            When William was that age, he was called Wimbat, a terror and far worse names.

        3. I never thought the “Georgie Porgie” name was an insult since even the super pro-Kate crowd has called him that since they found out the name. And even the royal reporters have called him that. I may be reading it wrong, but to me it seems more like a nickname than an insult. Like if people started calling Charlotte “Char bear” or something (which I’ve heard people call people named Charlotte before – just not this Charlotte).

          1. I never wrote that he should be called HRH actually, but the Georgie Porgie “nickname” really does not sound endearing …
            However, what is clear is that whatever Seth says, in whatever terms, not always very graciously, is not to be messed with.

          2. KMR, I do not wish Penelope318 to think me rude. Nor do I really understand what she means when she writes “What is clear is that whatever Seth says, (“writes” would be the more appropriate term) in whatever terms, not always very graciously, is not to be messed with.”
            I would appreciate your guidance on this matter. I do not wish to raise a ruckus but I also have no intention of censoring myself more than I already do (which is considerable I can assure you) to make one commenter or another happy. If we all censored ourselves based on one or other commenter’s views, we’d never write anything except “Sup”. I don’t what I did to cause penelope318’s anger with her “Whatever Seth says… is not to be messed with.”
            Thanks KMR.

          3. @ Penelope and Seth:

            If you guys want my honest opinion, here it is (this is going to get long):

            I don’t think there is anything wrong with “Georgie Porgie”. I think it’s a cute nickname – in fact, it’s *too* cutesy for me. Like I said above, it’s like “Cher bear” or “honey bunny” or “rollie pollie” or any of those cutesy nicknames people give other people. Personally, I find them a bit too cutesy, to the point of annoying. But people like putting an E sound on the ends of words, and rhyming.

            There are negative nicknames that people use to describe the Cambridges and Middletons, like “Waity Katie”, “The Wisteria Sisters”, “Scarole” or “The Viper”. Those nicknames are not intended to be cute; those nicknames are intended to put down the person they are about.

            But I do not classify “Georgie Porgie” in that same category. Even the super pro-Kate crowd and royal reporters have called George “Georgie Porgie”, and “PG Tips”. If the pro-Kate crowd are calling him that, then it can’t be an insult. They would never insult George.

            The issue of these negative nicknames is a tricky subject because they blur the line of not being rude and being rude. They are not nice by any means but they are also not overly offensive. They are not something I will immediately remove like some names (that I will not mention) that have been leveled at Princess Sofia of Sweden.

            Personally, I don’t use those sort of nicknames, though I have called William “The Petulant” in the past. I have also called Kate a “moron” in the past which is something I refrain from doing now.

            To me, it’s a case by case basis with these negative nicknames. To me, they are not offensive, they are not nice or endearing, but they are not offensive. I let these slide unless the rest of the comment is somehow offensive. I know that not everyone agrees with that opinion. There are people who really dislike the name “Waity” the way you, Penelope, really dislike the name “Georgie Porgie”.

            I can understand people thinking the use of these nicknames undercuts a person’s argument and makes them seem juvenile as I have seen many examples (not here but on other blogs and comments) where the use of these nicknames and/or more offensive terms completely undercuts and negates a person’s argument when they actually had a good argument if not for the use of offensive language. But for the most part here, they are silly nicknames that aren’t truly offensive and it doesn’t matter if people use them or not. Mainly because for the most part there is not that vitriol behind the words like on some other blogs and forums (some people write the most horrible things about Kate).

            For the record, Penelope, I completely understand where you are coming from in not wanting to criticize or make fun of a baby. They didn’t get to choose who their parents are or what they look like and haven’t done anything to warrant such name-calling. But, personally, I don’t think “Georgie Porgie” is an insult; I think it’s an overly cutesy nickname. So I’m going to allow “Georgie Porgie” to be used here. And “PG Tips”. And “Cher bear” if people want to start calling Charlotte that. Those cutesy nicknames, to me, are fine. But I can understand why you would disagree with that.

            In terms of Seth, there have been many times – and you know this, Seth – where Seth has gone overboard and has needed reminding to be civil. As have other people here.

            Seth, if I’m being completely honest, there are times when you come across as a bit too harsh and could probably tone it down a bit more. Mainly when it comes to responding to people’s jokes that didn’t land. But that happens in text. Sometimes words in text do not come across as we have intended them and jokes don’t land, or we offend people we never meant to offend, or we extrapolate things from what people said and put words in their mouths and that causes offense (which, Seth, I believe is why Penelope got upset the second time; the first was about the nickname only). It has happened to me before.

            Seth, be honest with me, is “Georgie Porgie” meant to be an insult? Because if it is, then let’s refrain from insulting kids. But unless you tell me it is supposed to be an insult, then I’m going to assume it is not because I don’t think it is.

            I doubt this will have cleared everything up – in fact I may have insulted both of you more – so if you two have questions or comments, please feel free to make them. But those are my thoughts.

            PS. You both are completely welcome to post here. All opinions are welcome here and I think this has been an interesting discussion about the use of nicknames and which nicknames classify in which category.

          4. KMR, I’m not going to call a toddler “His Royal Highness Prince George of Cambridge” b/c to me that sounds like an incredibly pompous thing to call someone who likely doesn’t even realize what it means. To me, a person has to be old enough to understand who they are to be called something. Does the Queen make him bow to her? I don’t think so. If she doesn’t make him bow, then I doubt he is called “H.R.H.” and won’t be until he is older. At that point (when the Palace has released such) I will revert to calling him Prince George. And while we’re on the subject, I also call the Prince of Wales, Bonnie Prince Charlie b/c I would find him a loathsome individual if not for being the heir to the Crown.

          5. I never said you needed to call him anything, Seth. I just call him George like I just call Kate, Kate.

          6. Penelope318, Just a friendly tip: If you want a site where nicknames are censored by a heavy-handed moderator named “Warren,” check out the Royal Forums. I made the mistake of calling a one-year-old Georgie Porgie and got my head handed to me by “Warren.” I’m sure they will be happy to have an ardent monarchist like you over there. πŸ™‚

          7. I understand KMR. I didn’t mean you personally… sorry. I meant that while his formal style is H.R.H., I will not refer to him as such until he comes of age and shows he is worthy of said style, unless you direct me to do so. πŸ™‚

    1. No shade from me, BarbB! I agree with you. I don’t even like criticising adults for things they can’t control either — but game on if it’s something they can.

        1. There is a tea brand called PG Tips. Because of the shortening of Prince George to PG, people started calling him PG Tips as a reference to the tea brand.

    2. Hi BarbB! I think it’s natural to question a child’s looks in terms of which parent or grandparent the child looks like – even normal people do it to their own kids – but I totally understand what you mean about criticizing kids for looking like one parent/grandparent or the other. It’s not bad if they take after one parent or the other, but I do think it’s interesting to see which parent they take after. I hope you weren’t upset that I posted a side-by-side comparison photo of George and Charlotte. I did not do it to compare them in terms of which is the better looking baby, but rather just to have a frame of reference for what Cambridge babies look like at 6/8 months.

      1. Not at all, KMR! I do think it’s interesting to compare their looks against family members…to see who got Charlie’s ears or Diana’s nose. Saying the look like a parent (or not) is not criticism. I just think negative criticism of them as individuals isn’t fair – yet!

    3. Well, I think it’s okay to say that someone doesn’t find [x] appealing or [x] cute, because saying that you aren’t drawn to it puts the responsibility on you; it’s expressing your tastes. Saying that [x] *is* ugly or that [x] has a funny-looking face puts it on them and makes it into a claim that supposedly expresses an objective reality, and I agree that it’s unwarranted. You can’t help your genetics.

  20. Charlotte looks contented, happy and well-cared for; that’s enough for me! If only all children were treated so well…

    I agree with other posters that regular updates of the children would achieve tremendous goodwill. Kate’s pictures capture a sweet serenity of Charlotte which is charming. Perhaps professional photos are best used for formal events; however, family photos can have a lovely informality which I prefer. There’s room for both. I do hope Kate and William release an informal photo of the children enjoying each other’s company at Christmas; these have far more character and warmth than staged pictures.

    1. I think a mix between professional and casual photos would be best. Maddie does that and I really like the way she handles that.

  21. Just a theory… the letter regarding pap shots only concerned George, so probably no Christmas shots of him this year but no one will complain because these were released. If I had kids I would take pictures for birthdays and Christmas but this year we got the bonus of Christening photos so whatever if no holiday pics. Also, The Queen and Prince of Wales have returned from Malta and Harry has no engagements in SA today so don’t really think they’re stealing anyone’s thunder. About Mustique, the tour was announced for “spring” so probably still time for a vacation in late Jan/early Feb.

  22. I think she is an adorable baby and I do love those eyes! I hope we get more pictures of George and Charlotte as Christmas nears, and in the new year.

  23. I think both kids are cute, but for what it is worth I think Charlotte looks like Carole and George looks like Henry VIII. And re the timing of the release of these photos – I agree that it’s an attempt to bring the focus back to Will & Kate’s family and away from Harry.

    1. But the thing that irks me is that they constantly harp on their privacy and wanting to be “normal” but can’t stand having any other member of the immediate family get too much good press. Harry is a given, but now they are stomping on HM and DoE as well.

  24. If the Duke and Duchess gave some sort of access to the children the press would not be so starved of a photo opportunity.
    Just look at the European Royalty take Crown Princess Mary they are more relaxed about photos with there children and it all goes off with threats and constant complaining about photographers wanting to take a picture. Charlotte has hardly been seen since she was born not the smartest way to go about things.

  25. Awww, what a little peach, so sweet. That picture of her with the stuffie…just precious. She’s not traditionally “cute”(I think the same of Leonore), but has an interesting (and I’ll bet mobile face) that I think she’ll really grow into.

    I love how George and Charlotte don’t resemble each other, no dominant physical trait that sometimes marks all siblings in a family as being related. They are each their own little person!

    1. Leonore may not be traditionally “cute” but I think she is adorable. I think mainly it’s her little personality that does it though.

      1. Charlotte might be a busy little scamp, like Leonore, but will we ever get to know? I really do not understand why they behave this way with their children. The longer they dole out each two dimensional, personality sterile “sighting” of them like a gift from above, the worse it’s going to be in the long run. Seriously, thank goodness for the Swedish royal family up and comers, they are handling things beautifully.

        1. Unless we see her acting out, I doubt W&K will let people know that she’s anything less than “ladylike”. Got to keep those traditional gender roles alive. It would be great to see Charlotte interact with the public to see what her personality is.

  26. It is the wording which bugs me. W&K are “delighted to be able to share” and “very grateful for the support they have received when it comes to their children”. Oh, come on! Who is buying these lines of cr*p after they way these two behave.

    I think it is better to release the photos and keep the piles of BS to themselves.

    1. Yeah that “delighted to be able to share” line is crap considering they specifically do not want to share pics of their kids unless they can use it for personal gain.

  27. It’s horrible, but the first thing I thought when I saw them this morning was they are in Mustique now and throwing everyone a bit of a bone.

    She’s adorable! I think she looks like Carole and Pippa also, but as a baby.

    I always thought Prince George has dark green eyes, but I guess I’m wrong. It’s like Kate gave birth to her father and her mother/sister.

    I hope Harry marries a sweet and beautiful girl. Oh, it will make Kate go mad. Not sure why William resents him, but it’s very apparent. Or maybe more since Kate came onto the scene. It’s a strange dynamic.

    1. It could very well be that the Middleton genes are very strong and William’s sort of got lost. We won’t really know for sure until they get older.

      1. Very true. The brief photos as a newborn, I thought she looked like Pippa. I do think the Middleton genes are strong. Will be cute to see how they look as they get older.

        And I do think Kate is a good photographer. Compared to Testino, hers are much better. The one with the George, Kate and Wills in the window resembled an Instagram photo with all of the filters.

        Thank you for all of your posts!!

        1. Thanks ccoop!

          I agree about Kate’s photos being better than Testino’s. Kate gets a lot of crap for her photography from a lot of people but looking back over all of the official photos of the Cambridge kids, Kate’s are some of the best. The two christening shoots were awful, the pics Mike Middleton took of George were awful, that mother’s day pre-tour window shot was awful, and I didn’t think the Christmas photos from last year were all that great though some people really liked them. Kate’s photos are definitely in the top 4 out of all the official photo shoots.

      2. It seems that with Will and Harry the Windsor genes didn’t really show up until they were a lot older. They turned on like a light switch! All of a sudden, both of them looked strikingly like their Windsor side and less like the Spencer side.

          1. You’re right, babies looks can change drastically, but for now it appears to be one Middleton and one Goldsmith! We’ll see what family comes out tops in the physical genetic traits…I bet the lion beats the unicorn all around the town πŸ˜‰

        1. Harry never looked like a Windsor until recently. But wow did those Windsor genes kick in. He looks so much like Charles and Philip now.

  28. I honestly thought the photos were of Leonore. It looks suspiciously similar to those.

    The release of photos I think is intended to coincide with Harry’s trip. He’s getting good press for that so the Cambridges PR needs to do something to bring it back to them.

    1. I’s almost like Kate copied Leonore’s 1st b-day pics for these. They are so similar down to the patterned fabric on the chair and the dog toy.

  29. I would love to see photos of the 4 of them together taken by a professional in a studio or something. Then we can see the interaction amongst them.

  30. I think that Charlotte is such a cute baby…and she looks as though she has a very sweet character. Charlotte looks so much like her “nanny”, Queen Elizabeth; look at the photo in Hello Magazine where a picture of the Queen is directly below the one of Charlotte. They look like two peas in a pod! I like the informal country like pose, decor and dress. What I don’t understand are Charlotte’s dark almost black eyes at her christening and her very lovely extremely blue eyes now. Babies eyes don’t go from dark to light, but from light to darker? More mysteries!

    1. Re the eye color change from dark to light: I think it was just the terrible, terrible lighting in the Christening photo that made her eyes look so dark.

  31. I’m not one to criticize babies as that would be unfair. I think Charlotte looks cute. At first blush I saw some resemblance to Queen Elizabeth. With a second look she definitely started to look like Scarole — yikes! The Middleton genes are strong because there are some pics of George where I could definitely see Michael Middleton through and through.

  32. So I first saw the pictures of Charlotte when quickly scrolling fb and my first thought, “who’s kid is that?” Absolutely no idea it was Charlotte. My second thought was, “ugh! my worst fear has become a reality… she looks just like Carole!” :/ I hope my dislike for Carole doesn’t transfer to Charlotte, and if she turns out to be a wonderful little girl I hope seeing Carole in her doesn’t make it hard for me to like her…

    I went to check if they have upcoming events because then wondered if they are out in Mustique and released the photos to lessen the blow of another vacation. Time will tell.

    You are right KMR, there is quite an improvement in Kate’s photography skills. My only pet peeve is that she cut off part of her foot and her fingers. No biggie, just a little annoying for me (because in the most basic tips of photography they list not “chopping extremities”).

    Charlotte is cute, as is her outfit and it was nice to see her. It’s nice to have the little reminder that she exists since all we had seen (birth, christening and photos released with George?) was a tiny baby that looked exactly the same as all other tiny babies.

    I am paranoid in terms of timing of this release… to all the sugars who *claim* Kate’s dresses so poorly as to “not steal the attention from the charity/cause” or whatever, I CALL BULL! This was the worst timing possible. The Queen hardly travels overseas and isn’t she in Malta? Isn’t Harry busy in Africa? They couldn’t just WAIT for Harry to be done and back to release? Way to “not steal the attention” W&K.

    I can’t wait for Harry to marry someone awesome, beautiful and passionate about something.

    1. I, too, really hope that Harry chooses a woman of character who knocks her royal duties out of the park and does some real good with her charities.

    2. They do not have engagements until next Monday. And the last one was last Tuesday. So they have about two weeks off. I’m sure they are in Mustique right now. This is the best time for a vacation.

      It is nice to have a reminder that she exists. I kept forgetting.

  33. Poor kid! The Windsor horse gene will kick in at 25 and the Middleton Benjamin Button gene at 30ish. She will proably look 10-15 year older than her actual age from 28. Luckily she will be relatively youngish from 60 onwards.
    But the big question is, will Charlotte take her make up habits from Windsors or Middletons.Will she be au natural or a thick black eyeliner girl?

    1. Ooooh, Zara’s been known to get heavy handed with the eyeliner too! Only difference is, she has no qualms about leaving the house without it, either

  34. That baby looks like Carole Middleton. I hope her features change a little as she grows up because Carole Middleton has masculine features and is one ugly woman. Poor baby!

  35. As the mother of two little girls, I find it interesting that so many people on this site have consistently mentioned that they are not so keen about Kate dressing Charlotte in pink. I have to say that I’ve been pretty traditional at times when dressing both my daughters. Pretty trendy at other times. Now, that both are at the age where they like to choose what to wear each day — as well as often choose what is purchased for them — I find that both girls are partial to various shades of pink. Nobody pushes it on them. They like it. Many of their freinds and cousins are the same way. I think people should dress their babies in clothes they like. If Kate dresses Charlotte in shades of pink and floral print dresses, I am not going to quibble. I guess what I was upset by in the past, were so many photos of PG being dressed exactly like PW was as a child. I often commented negatively on that, but in retrospect, if that is what W&K want, he’s their child. I think I am becoming a bit mellow as time goes on. At any rate, all kids are different. Some little girls adore pink and want to play dress up all the time. Others, are tomboys, or prefer less frilly garb. To each kid her own.

    1. I don’t think there is anything wrong with dressing a little girl in pink the way I don’t think there is anything wrong with dressing a boy in blue. But when you *only* dress a boy in blue or a girl in pink, then I think that’s a problem. Kids can wear any color of the rainbow and it’s fine. If kids want to dress a certain way, then they can. But I don’t think parents should imprint so much on them. Like, what if George grew up and wanted to dress in pink tutus? That should be fine. If Charlotte grows up and wants to dress in punk, tomboy clothes, then she should be able to.

      To put it another way, I have a friend who recently had a kid and she’s going all out with the nerdy imprinting because she’s really into nerdy stuff. But, like, what if the kid wants to play sports? He should be exposed to sports, too, so he can choose if he likes sports or nerdy stuff, or both. But then again, I don’t think a parents should imprint only sports at the expense of nerdy stuff. I think a balance is best until the kid can choose what they are in to.

      But then again, I’ve never had a kid, so what do I know.

      Also, we don’t see all of W&K&G&C lives and what kind of imprinting is going on all the time, so who knows what’s happening behind closed doors. We’ve only seen three photo sets of Charlotte.

  36. You don’t have to be a parent to have an opinion, KMR. I was not referring to you in my comment. Just the fact that so many times people seem to post that Charlotte will be treated like a stereotype of what is feminine. That rubs me the wrong way. I’ve been out with my kids as babes far too often to witness first hand how a friend walking with me with her son has had him respond favorably to bulldozers, fire trucks, etc, while my girls looked away. I think there are some innate differences in the sexes. Even from a very young age. By saying that, I am often accused of being old-fashioned or wrong. To me Charlotte looked lovely in the photo. She is a cute baby. SHe would have been equally cute in jeans and a t-shirt, but I doubt The Duke and Duchess would want her presented that way in such a special photo. It’s their call. Just needed to vent.

    1. Let me amend my post. I think there are innate differences between the sexes. I also know that some little boys are quieter than others. Just as some little girls are fascinated by taking things apart and putting them together again. And some little girls are not quieter than their male counterparts. I’ve just been friendly with many different moms since having my first almost six years ago. The boys, for the most part, were louder and much more active as toddlers. The girls, for the most part, were more articulate and played more quietly. At any rate, I am also sick of the fact that W&K are always saying how noisy Prince George is, while Charlotte seems to be such a more easy going baby. I’d like to hear praise for both little ones from the parents. Both children deserve to receive loving comments from their parents. These just are not my observations, I have read similar things and have heard similar comments from many moms I know.

    2. The only thing I really have to go on is my own experience. And as a girl, I loved playing with dolls, but also loved playing with toy cars and trucks (My Hotwheels and Chevron cars were some of my favorite toys). I loved dressing up as a princess but also loved climbing on a firetruck in the playground. I took ballet, and karate. As an adult, I hate romantic movies and love action and sci-fi. I love looking at tiaras and following the royals, but also love programming. I liked as a child and like as an adult both things that are considered “feminine” and things that are considered “masculine”. I get a bit prickly when people or society says girls/women have to like certain things, or act or dress a certain way (I saw an interview with JJ Abrams, the director of the new Star Wars movie, yesterday and he said that the original Star Wars movies were “a boys thing” and that he wanted the new movies to be more inclusive, which is a great sentiment but there are *loads* of women and girls who *love* the original movies – they are not just “a boys thing”). Because of the way I am, I think it’s best if people are exposed to different things and can chose what they like. If they like the traditional roles then that’s fine. To me it’s about the choice. As long as they are choosing the role they want then they are free to. But it shouldn’t be forced on them. That’s all. I guess we both get defensive about certain things.

      1. And, I get your point, KMR, but mine is still different. Everyone is different. My fave movies have always been romantic ones. When I was a kid and now. And, I am perhaps the only person in the States who has Never seen any of the Star War films. No kidding! Just never appealed to me . I have seen a few Star Trek films, which I hated. Today, I also love many thrillers. Anything Liam Neeson is in is fine with me!

        As for my fave childhood toys. Dolls, tea sets and paper dolls. As well as coloring books. I never snuck a turn on my brothers’ trucks and cars. Even if I wanted to, which I did not Today, I am still not tech savvy and when it comes to what could be wrong with my car, I will research things on line and talk to my mechanic, but I always get the feeling he may be pulling something over one me, until (gasp), he tells similar things to my husband. I’m as happy in jeans as I am in a dress. However, I love this upcoming season because there are so many parties to actually dress up in glam clothes for.

        So, in a nutshell that is me.

        My girls have never showed much interest in their half brother’s toys. My oldest thought the train around the Christmas tree was “nice,” but she only was intrigued for so long.

        When we go to a toy store, they rush to their fave sections . I don’t think I have ever asked, “Oh, do you want to see the trucks? ” I just follow them on their path to adventure. I’m one of those women who believes all females and males have a right to do and think the way they want. I just think there is a bit too much attention being focused on making sure girls are exposed to more traditionally male toys or interests. WHen my daughters are asked if they want to go see their brother play Little League, the answer is always, “yes.” Then, they are bored to death at the game. When my husband asked our oldest daughter if she wanted to play in a girls’ league, her reply was, “No!”

        So, as many kids who are being exposed to alternative toys and ideas, good for them. Just from my own experience, I see my kids liking the more traditionally female things and I am fine with that. I also know they will probably always be good students and the world will be open for them to pursue anything they want, which is good. I just hope they won’t be negatively attacked if they choose the more traditional female jobs. Their mother did and I am not throwback to the 50s, trust me!

        Wow, I have gone on way too long. Obviously, I’m keen on this subject. End of rant. I promise.

        1. To each their own. Not everyone has to like the same things.

          Which Star Trek movies have you seen? Because not all of them are good. Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars are also not good. But the original trilogy, Episodes 4-6, are good (I think). I enjoy Liam Neeson in movies. He’s a great actor.

          LOL, when it comes to real cars, I have no idea what’s going on. I just like playing with toy ones. I’ve never been a train person; they just aren’t interesting to me.

          And in terms of baseball, oh my god it that boring. I went to my cousin’s son’s game once and it was the worst. I don’t like sports at all, except for the equestrian sports and dance. I don’t find baseball, basketball, football, or any of those interesting at all. I totally get why your girls would be bored a their brother’s game and wouldn’t want to play themselves.

          I think it’s interesting that you feel like you get attacked for liking “traditional” things, when I have always felt like I get attacked for *not* liking “traditional” things. There have been so many times when people have thought I was a lesbian because I wear pants and don’t like “traditionally feminine” things and it bothers me because I’m not a lesbian. I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a lesbian but I do take issue with the fact that if you don’t fit in a specific mold of “what is female” then you are “less than” or something.

          I think it’s important for kids to be able to decide what they are interested in and not be judged negatively for it. I don’t think girls should be judged negatively for liking romantic movies and dolls and makeup, but I also don’t think girls should be judged negatively for liking action/sci-fi movies and cars and pants. And on the flip side I don’t think boys should be judged negatively for wanting to play with dolls or cars or wanting to take dance or play baseball. I also don’t think men or women should be judged negatively for wanting to have a career or be a stay at home spouse or parent. I’m okay with all choices as long as people are making the choice for themselves. I don’t think people should be forced into anything.

          I hope I didn’t upset you, Mary Elizabeth. I think we are two different people who have a common interest in the royals and I like that we are able to have debates like this. Having to think through my opinions in order to defend them is a good thing. It makes me rethink those opinions and come to a definite conclusion on them. It also helps to reinforce the idea that people are allowed to have differing opinions and that it’s okay and no one is wrong for liking different things.

          1. Oh, no. YOu did not upset me at all. It’s just in many other comments in other posts, there are many people who seem so down on the idea that Kate will dress Charlotte in girly clothes and so on.

            It is interesting that we are so different and love the Royals. That is what makes the world go round. I actually love to watch baseball and football – in person and on TV. Loved Derek Jeter and miss him tremendously. This year, I was a Mets fan from Day One. As for the Star Wars films, I don’t even remember the names. SOOOO BORING and went because we went with another couple each time who were major trekkies and thought it would be fun. UGH!

            As for people thinking any woman is a lesbian because of her interests or the fact that she wears pants, get real, people.

            I’ve been told that I am too old-fashioned at times. Mainly because after my first child was born I stayed home and didn’t work for the first two years. Many of my working friends were “livid.” How can you do this? I can’t tell you how many times I was asked that. It was my choice. Nobody insisted, except me. I did not work the first year of my second daughter’s life. Except work at home, which is WORK. Then, I picked up freelance work which I still do when it comes in. For me, raising my kids and helping with my stepson are what matters most. I just don’t see getting any of the years back and I want to be there as much as possible for them. My mom stayed home until I was 8 and I was very grateful for that. Then, she went back into PR and opned her own company when I was 13. She was always around when her kids needed her and I think her biz sometimes suffered because of that, but it was her choice.

            I love the fact that people on this blog come from all walks of life and have many different interests and yet all share a common love of the Royals.

            Thanks for sharing, KMR, and for letting me do so, too.

            Onward to the mechanic for another nerve provoking discussion as to the strange sound emanating from near the glove compartment, which my husband swears I am imagining, but which the kids hear, too.

          2. I’m sorry to jump in on your discussion with mary elizabeth, KMR but I’ve been a HUGE Trekkie a lot longer than a royal fan. When I was 8, I used to run around on the playground with a plastic phaser battling Romulans (or were they Cardassians? Actually they might have Klingons now that I think of it. Or maybe the Borg). I don’t understand how someone could think you were a lesbian b/c you wore pants. What year is this, 1950? From someone who’s not a “traditional” male, I emphasize with your frustrations versus gender roles. For sitting with the girls at lunch in elementary school (b/c they were kinder to me than the boys) to the inevitable “you’re gay” for not having had a girlfriend (in an irony, even by some of the girls that I *had* a crush on, *b/c* I had a crush on them) to reading books instead of playing baseball, I have spent the last 25 years of my 29 years challenging stereotypical gender norms (and I’m not all that atypical). My attitude is live and let live. No one bothers me about my obsession with Great Britain and the royals and I don’t care what team puts a ball through a series of goal posts more times than another. But if we are to discuss gender roles, that is a slightly different matter that I will save for another posting, since I don’t want you to think I’m a thread hijacker and have to call in the Flying Squad. πŸ™‚

          3. @Mary Elizabeth:

            I find it interesting how people can be so completely different and yet find that one thing that links them. I think it’s cool and am glad this blog has allowed us to come together and share our different viewpoints. If nothing else William and Kate are good for bringing people like us together!


            I’ve never been a huge Trekker, but I enjoy some of the movies (the good ones, lol) and there are several episodes of the original series that I like. I love Star Wars and Indiana Jones (Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of my favorite movies).

            I feel like kids will pick on other kids for just about anything but not falling in line with gender norms was probably the second biggest thing I got made fun of for. Kids are mean.

          4. Hey KMR, I love “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” I hate snakes… why’d it have to be snakes? πŸ™‚ The later movies are a bit below “Ark’s” level but Sean Connery in “The Last Crusade” is still hysterical 26 years later.

          5. Just to quickly jump in on Star Trek. I *love* the original show and really like the off shoots as well. I actually have a photo of Ricardo Montalban and William Shatner in character as Khan and Kirk that is autographed by both. I also once temped at Paramount Studios during the years that Star Trek: The Next Generation was on the air and got to see most of the cast (in costume) and worked on a data base of Paramount merchandise for their various shows/films and came away with quite a bit of memorabilia as a gift for my hard work.

    1. C’mon Adam, she’s an infant. I’m sure you weren’t first prize at that age either. πŸ™‚ You could give her a chance to grow up a bit.

      1. I feel like some people put their dislike of William and Kate onto their kids. The kids haven’t done anything to warrant that kind of negativity.

        1. Yes, I agree KMR. If you don’t care for W&K, Adam, why take those feelings out on their kids? You are entitled to your opinions, but when I look at the photo of baby Charlotte, I really think she is a cute one. Why be mean about a baby or children? People have made nasty comments about Leonore, too. These kind of statements are uncalled for. I hope the little Princes and Princesses will not be criticized about their appearances throughout their childhood and teen years. That is just terrible. Every little one needs to feel special. Such negative remarks are harmful.

          1. That’s the terrible thing about growing up in the spotlight, kids aren’t allowed to go through their awkward phases (which everyone has) without people insulting the way they look. Non-famous kids get criticized for their appearance enough as it is without without being on the world stage. It really must be difficult for kids growing up in the spotlight. I’ve always felt badly for Eugenie dealing with weight issues as a teenager/young adult and having to be in the spotlight and having so many people criticize her for having more weight. Or for Beatrice and her eyes which is something she literally has no control over.

    2. Not everyone has to think every baby is cute, but I think “very unattractive” is a bit harsh. She’s six months old. Babies change a lot in the first year; I’m sure all babies go through an awkward period. Also, just because one person finds a baby unattractive doesn’t mean everyone does.

      1. I do apologise if anyone was offended, but charlotte is an average looking kid to me, and thats my opinion, we have to disagree to agree!!

        1. “Average looking” and “very unattractive” are two different things. It’s fine to have an opinion that differs from the group but calling a baby “very unattractive” is a bit mean.

  37. I think Charlotte is a sweet little angel and the pink cardigan suits her very well.
    The pictures of her are a pleasure to look at for so many people. I do not understand why her parents are not prepared to bring a bit of happyness into the world by letting us see their lovely children growing up. What are Royals for then ?

  38. I’m perhaps a tad bit paranoid after being clobbered and now silenced big time on another site but is there a reason that I don’t see reply after some names? Am I blocked, have the posters requested that I not be able to respond to their post? Or am I just feeling unwanted and rejected for no reason?

    1. I have the comments set as nesting up to five comments, so there is only a reply button attached to the first four comments. The fifth comment does not have a reply button attached to it. That is how the comments are set up and everyone sees them the same way. You have not been blocked from commenting.

  39. I find it very hard to comment on pictures of babies since they are just babies. I don’t see Charlotte as super pretty or even all that special…**but** every single baby on the face of this earth needs someone to view them as the most special, beautiful, important baby ever created. Royal babies aren’t any different, they need that too. Charlotte will be analyzed, criticized, picked apart but hopefully not until she’s much older, if at all. I do think that she is already being used as PR and a means of dangling a carrot in front of the press and peasants. She’s just an ordinary looking little baby and there’s nothing at all wrong with that. I think her parents are just using her pictures for their own power trip but she looks pretty happy and healthy so Maria can be proud of her efforts on behalf of two little kids born into a family that puts the **dys** in dysfunctional.

Comments are closed.

Back To Top