I was slightly surprised when Prince William attended the BAFTAs without Duchess Kate. While it wasn’t for-sure confirmed that Kate would attend, it was widely expected, especially after the week of bad news that William and Kate had, including the PR disaster of William’s boar-hunting trip with an ex-girlfriend (and without Kate). It seemed like the BAFTAs were just the opportunity Will and Kate needed for a big, public show of togetherness. But William went stag and people were wondering just what Kate had to do that was so important that she missed it. As it turns out, she had a great reason for missing the BAFTAs. She was at church. Becoming godmother to a friend’s baby!
The Duchess of Cambridge has been made godmother at the christening of a close friend’s baby. Kate, 32, who became mum to Prince George last July, promised to guide her friend’s son in his spiritual life at an intimate service in Essex on Sunday. More than 50 people packed into the tiny picturesque St Barnabas Church in Mayland, Chelmsford, for the service, where ordinary parishioners were stunned to see Prince William, Kate and baby George take their seats.
Reverend Ken Dunstan told the Mirror: “I think my usual congregation were surprised at who was joining us. My main concern was that I got the tone right for the family and for the baptism. I don’t normally pay a huge amount of attention to godparents as long as the godparents are there and willing to make the appropriate promises.”
He added: “She was there as a godparent not as a princess.”
Kate was one of four godparents who stepped forward during the service and promised to support her godson throughout his life. And her own seven-month-old son was very well-behaved throughout the service.
Reverend Dunstan said: “There were several babies present and all were very well-behaved.”
He added: “The couple said they wanted four godparents but weren’t quite sure whether one would be available. Then later the father rang me to say the other godmother is available, it’s a friend from uni. Then he told me who it was. I got the impression that a number of the congregation had been to the same university.”
Kate and William made many close friends during their four years at St Andrews University where, away from the spotlight, their romance blossomed. They chose one of their best university friends, Oliver Baker, to be godfather at Prince George’s christening last October. The prince was christened by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a private service at the Chapel Royal in St James’ Palace attended only by his immediate family and seven godparents.
However, Sunday’s service was open to the usual St Barnabas congregation who joined in with hymns including Morning Has Broken, O Let the Sun of God Enfold You and In Water We Grow. The reverend changed the readings of the day, set by the Church of England, to make them more appropriate for a christening.
He said: “They were about cutting out your arm to cause you to sin and gauging out your eye to cause you to sin…I decided that wasn’t quite what we wanted.”
Instead he read from the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus describes his followers as the salt of the earth. Before the royals arrived, protection officers were spotted checking out the nearby graveyard. The family were back in London by dinner time as Prince William was the guest of honour at the BAFTAs on Sunday night.
The Reverend also told People Mag that Kate was looking “smart” at the service. Why wasn’t he able to give us a designer ID?! Anyway, I thought that this outing would have ended up with a lengthy baptismal reception or something, but I guess Kate really was back in London quickly, so she could have possibly gone to the BAFTAs after all. Still, she had a good excuse. She was in church all day becoming a godmother!
Also: “She was there as a godparent not as a princess.” Nice of the reverend to drop that in! It’s only one of the most hotly contested issues facing the royal family today: just what is Kate’s rank and title? According to William, Kate’s a princess. According to the Queen’s staff, Kate is a duchess. We’ll see.
Photos courtesy of WENN.
Kaiser, I don’t think Kate was ever scheduled to go. Plus, William has not gone to the BAFTAs with Kate before. My guess is this might always be a solo job for him.
This is one great example of the British press spinning something out of nothing. But it sells papers.
ETA: I forgot to mention how adorable I think it is that Kate will be a godparent. I’m glad she’s not as isolated as it can appear at times. 🙂 And being a godparent is so cool!!!
Guide the. child spiritually? I just don’t get that, nor why she’s getting so much attention lately…spoiler…this is gross…girl gets more coverage than my maxipads.
That generally is the role of the godparents, to guide the child spirituality. I’m in the process of going through adult confirmation to be my niece’s godmother (Catholic church). There use to be legal notions attached to being a godparent, that if something were to happen to the parents then the godparents would take the kid.
But good for her.
Oh, she’s a princess alright.
Fanty, I can SO hear the sarcasm in your voice.
Lmao.
😀
+1
This may sound weird, but my husband and I have very different views of what exactly a godparent is supposed to do. For me, my godmother was my grandma’s best friend and she babysat me, baked me bulla cakes when I was sad, and in general be an ear when my grandma seemed tone deaf due to our age gap. My husband says that godparents are supposed to take care of the baby in the event of the parent’s death and guide them spiritually hence he turned down being a godfather to our mutual friend because he is no longer Catholic and is Diest.
So which is it? Is it just a cultural difference (I’m black, he’s white) or is it a religion thing (I was raised baptist, him catholic) or what?
Ahh, I just said as much up top. My mother was talking to me about it, the legal attachment to being a godparent. I think in the end it is up to the parents to decide the role.
It just depends on your culture/religion and preferences. For some people godparents are just an extra set of parents and for others it has religious or even legal implications.
Technically, your husband is right, but only about the spiritual guidance.
However, as society has developed, the idea of godparents has evolved to include an element of caretaking in the event that parents are not able to.
Further, over time, the degree of caretaking has also been interpreted differently such that you have your family going as far as babysitting and being present in all aspects of your upbringing whilst his family would only step in if the parents are no longer available. Both aren’t wrong. it depends on families and cultures.
I think I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating. Kate is a princess because she is married to a prince. Her married title is “Princess William of Wales” (like Princess Michael of Kent, in the third generation where no other title is given, the wife takes her husband’s name as a title). But in the British system, they have a tradition of bestowing “courtesy” titles on senior members of the royal family, like Duke of York, Earl of Wessex and so on. Kate’s courtesy title is Duchess of Cambridge, and that supersedes her married title.
What William was lobbying for before they got married was for Kate to be created as a princess **in her own right** so that she could be called Princess Catherine (presumably, “of Wales”). But that would have screwed up the precedence the Queen laid down when Charles remarried, which basically amounts to born princesses (ie, daughters/granddaughters of monarchs and crown princes), outrank married princesses (wives of sons/grandsons) no matter what the courtesy rank may be. For instance, the Earl and Countess of Wessex elected to use the traditional courtesy title of “Lady” for their daughter, The Lady Louise. But, technically, Lady Louise is a princess, so she will always outrank, say, Harry’s wife. And the York girls will outrank Kate, until she’s the Queen.
Before the Queen re-ordered the precedence, the Princess of Wales was the second-highest ranking female in the country, taking precedence over everyone except the Queen, regardless of married/not-married, titled/not-titled. But Princess Anne didn’t want to curtsey to Camilla, so the Queen changed it to be “born over married”, which means Kate is further down on the precedence than she would have been before. William was trying to change that, but the Queen didn’t go for it, so now you get this passive-aggressive, duchess/princess fight in the press. Though Kate is technically a princess, the proper way to address her is as a duchess.
TL;DR: She’s a princess because she married a prince but we call her a duchess because the Queen said so.
The York sisters outrank Catherine but at formal gatherings she enjoys her husband’s rank. This means if he is in attendance she does not curtsey to Beatrice, Eugenie or Sophie.
Kate’s rank depends on William and only if he is present. In any situation where he isn’t present, B&E outrank her.
Cambridge, Wessex, York aren’t courtesy titles for William, Edward, and Andrew (note by peer I mean male title holder). The person that holds the title is actually called a peer of the realm in the UK which is very different from what you’re suggesting. However, the wife and children of a peer hold their titles as a courtesy. So Kate is a princess (as well as duchess, countess, and baroness) by courtesy of her marriage to William. None of her titles are hers alone.
Anne didn’t curtsey to Diana either but no one made a big stink about it. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Charles doesn’t revert the Order of Precedence to go back to a wife holding the same rank as her husband. This is a very long established practice in more than just Royal circles.
For those wishing to learn more about peerages:
http://www.debretts.com/people/essential-guide-peerage
In Britain, the princ[ess] title is only given to child/grandchild of the monarch. this is set out in very clear terms in the letters patent by George V. There is no provision for ‘princess by marriage’ and consequently it is not recognised.
What you call ‘courtesy’ titles are actually peerage titles. A ‘courtesy’ title is held by wives, widows and children. Anyone without a peerage title is a commoner. This includes people with princ[ess] infron of their names eg Harry, Anne, Michael, Alexandra, Beatrice, Eugenie etc.
Until he was given the duke of Cambridge peerage title, William was a commoner too.
Until he is monarch, William can’t bestow ‘princesshood’ on anyone, and even then he would need parliament to sign off on it.
Edward’s kids are currently styled with courtesy title according to their father’s highest rank which is that of Earl. As they are grandchildren of a monarch, they are legally princ[ess].
LAK, am I getting too tinfoil-hatty because of all the crap whirling about these two because my first thought was why the heck didn’t they name the friend? If the friend wants privacy, why the article?
“Until he is monarch, William can’t bestow ‘princesshood’ on anyone, and even then he would need parliament to sign off on it.”
I’m assuming that’s why his bid to have her made a princess never went anywhere. And I stand corrected–“Duke of Cambridge” isn’t a courtesy title, I just meant it was in addition to the fact that Andrew, Edward, William, etc are all princes who have additional titles which were bestowed by the Queen.
I’m obsessed with their precedence issue. How does this play out at family get togethers like Christmas?!
But Princess Michael of Kent has the courtesy princess title. The current Duchess of Gloucester did as well before Richard became Duke of Gloucester, she was known as Princess Richard of Gloucester.
Bluhare: I need a tinfoil hat too. Why run a story and leave out the most pertinent information.
It’s no secret who they all godparent, so why keep this one a secret? Wierd.
Algernon: the christmas morning scenario makes me laugh too.
They all HRH and curtsey to each other in private…..can you imagine the scene where Kate is having to curtsey to everyone because William isn’t with her??!!!
LAK
Not true about William. He was born a prince due to a provision in George V’s letters patent that covered the Prince of Wales, his oldest son and oldest grandson. harry is technically a commoner.
@Tara: Nope LAK is correct. Only the Soveriegn and Peers (plus Peeresses suo jure) are not considered commoners. Everyone else is because they are not the Soveriegn or Peer.
The Letters Patent you are referring to (I’m assuming it is the 1917 one?) states who is allowed the title and style of HRH and Prince/Princess (reserved for children and male line grandchildren of the Soveriegn). It also addressed the style and title of male line great-grandchildren who were originally entitled to be addressed as HH Prince/Princess but that was replaced in those Letters Patent with the style and courtesy of the children of a Duke. However, it did not address who’s considered a commoner.
Lady,
The letters patent issued in 1917 were amended in 1957 when QE was expecting, but they were not replaced. The alteration allowing QE’s (then princess) children the HRH style was a new feature and had nothing to do with the original letters which afforded the prince title to the “eldest son of the eldest son” of the POW. This neatly covered both William and George from birth. Marilyn’s royal blog supports me on this.
Maybe she declined because she heard that Angelina was going to be there, and knew there was no way she was going to get much press attention with her there! 🙂
No one was “wondering” why she missed the BAFTAs. Not even the media. She was never scheduled to go, William has been by himself before.
Yes, exactly. She was never expected to go, William was expected to attend alone, as he has in the past.
The godparenting duty happened during the day, not the evening so there was plenty of time to do both, as William did. But that was not the plan.
I said the same thing…
Actually, William and George were there with her at the church service as well. So this is not an excuse for her to miss out on the BAFTA’s. If William could do both events, she could have done both events.
She always seems truly happy in pictures. i’ll never understand women – including actresses – who choose men for status rather than compatibility, but I think being from a close knit family gives her an emotional safety net.
Trying to make someone an HRH without being a Princess (“Princess William” in this case) is just absurd. The same thing was done to Prince Philip for years – he was HRH Philip, DoE (which is even more absurd as Prince Philip is very royal-blooded himself… a poor royal relation but definitely a royal relation), and none of it makes sense. People associate HRH with Prince/Princess, and quite correctly so. Who in the history of Europe besides the ONE precedent of George VI denying Prince to HRH Philip (absurdly so) has ever tried to separate HSH/HH/HRH and Prince(ss)??
It makes even less sense as Diana, Fergie et al were allowed to retain the Princess, Duchess, etc parts of their titles but were stripped of HRH, which seems to imply that HRH is more important. You can’t have it both ways.
To be fair to Fergie, she didn’t lose her HRH in her divorce.
However after the games Diana played which led to losing her HRH and then used media manipulation to try and get it back, HM changed that rule such that divorce means automatic loss of the HRH.
Fergie’s HRH was the collateral damage of the new changed rule.
Technically, Philip already was a Prince entitled to HRH from birth. He voluntarily gave that up to appear less foreign to the British public. (You missed a great debate about that a few weeks ago)
“Who in the history of Europe besides the ONE precedent of George VI denying Prince to HRH Philip (absurdly so) has ever tried to separate HSH/HH/HRH and Prince(ss)??”
Tried to separate all the titles, styles, and addresses? I have. Lol. But I’m a geek. 😀
Also it’s quite often something that was addressed and re-addressed throughout history — look at the various imperial, royal, grand duchies, and principalities throughout Europe. There’s a clear hierarchy and families were often trying to upscale their style and addresses.
And while morganatic marriages are not observed in the UK — it did happened on the continent. Philip was not the first to be denied a title or style & address (although technically he already had one). Please note in patriarchal societies that men usually don’t automatically assume their wives rank and status whereas women usually do.
I think it’s really nice that she hasn’t ‘forgotten’ her university friends now that she is a Duchess
This can’t be true, I’ve got it on good authority (everybody on this site) that she doesn’t have any friends.
LOL
The general consensus is that she has no close ‘female friends’, Interesting to note that the ‘friend’ is not identified, was it a male friend , one of her old boyfriends perhaps?
Why does that matter at all?!
So William was at the Christening too but he still managed to make it to the BAFTAS , I suspect William wanted to be the Star of the evening and knew he would be overshadowed by Kate and her jewels if she turned up in full evening dress wearing some of his Grandmothers bling.
Why is the good reverand blither blathering to the media? Why is he dropping the Prince and Duchess’ names while protecting the parent’s names? The duchess looked very “smart”? Good grief, man.
This is a very odd article.