William, Catherine and George to visit Australia and New Zealand in April


Blackleaf
#1
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are to visit Australia and New Zealand in April, Kensington Palace has confirmed.

It is not yet known for definite whether Prince George will also be going on the trip, although it is thought to be highly likely.

If the young prince and future king of both Australia and New Zealand does go, it would mean he will be going on his first official overseas tour at the age of just eight months.

His father, Prince William, was about nine months' old when he went on his first official overseas tour when his parents, Prince Charles and Princess Diana, took him to Australia in March 1983.

It will be Catherine's first official visit to either country.

It said in a statement, Kensington Palace said: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will visit New Zealand and Australia in April 2014.

"Their royal highnesses have been invited to visit by the New Zealand and Australian governments. Further details on the exact dates and itinerary will be issued in due course."

William and Kate line up New Zealand and Australia trip

BBC News
20 December 2013


The 2011 visit to Canada was the first official overseas visit for the duke and duchess

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are to visit New Zealand and Australia next April, Kensington Palace has said.

It is thought likely their baby son, Prince George, will also accompany them but a final decision will be made nearer the time.

If he attends, Prince George will be eight months old and on his first official overseas tour.

Prince William has made a number of official trips to Australia and New Zealand in the past.

While the duchess is yet to pay an official visit to either country, she and her husband were in the media spotlight when they flew to Brisbane airport to catch a flight home at the end of their South Pacific tour in September 2012.

Their visit in April will echo the Prince and Princess of Wales's visit to Australia and New Zealand in 1983 when the couple took William, then aged nine months old, with them.

Kensington Palace confirmed the visit but released no further details about the itinerary or how long it would last.

It said in a statement: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will visit New Zealand and Australia in April 2014.

"Their royal highnesses have been invited to visit by the New Zealand and Australian governments. Further details on the exact dates and itinerary will be issued in due course."

Prince William's last official trip to New Zealand and Australia took place in March 2011, when he was in the New Zealand city of Christchurch, shortly after it suffered an earthquake, and in the Australian states of Queensland and Victoria, which had been hit by floods.


Prince George will be eight months old if he accompanies his parents on the visit

In January 2010 he represented the Queen at the opening of the Supreme Court building in the New Zealand capital Wellington and also visited Auckland, and during the same trip travelled to Melbourne and Sydney.

The duke and duchess made their first overseas visit together shortly after their marriage when they were in Canada and the US in July 2011.

Their only other trip abroad was the nine-day visit in September 2012, which saw them in South East Asia and the South Pacific as part of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

BBC News - William and Kate line up New Zealand and Australia trip
Last edited by Blackleaf; Dec 20th, 2013 at 08:55 AM..
 
Cliffy
+1
#2
 
taxslave
+3
#3
What did Australia and New Zealand do to deserve this?
 
JLM
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

What did Australia and New Zealand do to deserve this?


Be nice, they are people too! Besides the folks in Australia may be descended from Will's ancestors of 300 years back. -
 
Blackleaf
#5
Disgusting. People like these need to be shown respect.
 
Cliffy
+1
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Be nice, they are people too! Besides the folks in Australia may be descended from Will's ancestors of 300 years back. -

Yup! They were all criminals.
 
taxslave
+5
#7  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Disgusting. People like these need to be shown respect.

Respect has to be earned. It is not inherited.
 
JLM
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Disgusting. People like these need to be shown respect.


And "people like these" differ from other folks?

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Respect has to be earned. It is not inherited.


I'm not sure that Blackleaf has the wherewithal to understand this little concept!
 
Blackleaf
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Respect has to be earned. It is not inherited.

Yes it is. These are two princes and a duchess.

And what are you? A lowly commoner peasant.

These people are royals and so deserve to be treated with the necessary respect and virtue.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Besides the folks in Australia may be descended from Will's ancestors of 300 years back. -

Or they may be descended from your ancestors from 300 years back. I can't remember any royals being transported to the penal colony. It was all commoners, scumbags who stole hats or committed highway robbery.

Quote: Originally Posted by CliffyView Post

Yup! They were all criminals.

Don't forget, Britain's North American colonies started off as penal colonies, too. We only switched to Australia as a penal colony only after our previous penal colony, America, gained its independence in 1776. So we could no longer send our scum of the Earth to America.

So a sizeable number of North Americans are descended from thieves, vaganbonds and murderers.

Between 1788 and 1868, Britain exported 165,000 convict scum to Australia, which back then wasn't the paradise that it is today.
 
JLM
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

So a sizeable number of North Americans are descended from thieves, vaganbonds and murderers.

Between 1788 and 1868, Britain exported 165,000 convict scum to Australia, which back then wasn't the paradise that it is today.


Perhaps they missed some of your ancestors. (What are vaganbonds?)
 
Blackleaf
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

(What are vaganbonds?)

A vagrant or a vagabond is a person, often in poverty, who wanders from place to place without a home or regular employment or income. Other synonyms include "tramp," "hobo," and "drifter". A vagrant is "a person without a settled home or regular work who wanders from place to place and lives by begging"; vagrancy is the condition of such persons.

Both "vagrant" and "vagabond" ultimately derive from Latin word vagari "wander." The term "vagabond" is derived from Latin vagabundus. In Middle English, "vagabond" originally denoted a criminal.

The first major vagrancy law was passed in 1349 to increase the workforce following the Black Death by making "idleness" (unemployment) an offense. By the 1500s the statutes were mainly used as a means of controlling criminals. In the 16th and 17th century in England, a vagrant was a person who could work, but preferred not to (or could not find employment, so took to the road in order to do so), or one who begs for a living. Vagrancy was illegal, punishable by branding, whipping, conscription into the military, or at times penal transportation to penal colonies. Vagrants were different from impotent poor, who were unable to support themselves because of advanced age or sickness. However, the English laws usually did not distinguish between the impotent poor and the criminals, so both received the same harsh punishments.

In 1824, earlier vagrancy laws were consolidated in the Vagrancy Act 1824 (UK) whose main aim was removing undesirables from public view. The act assumed that homelessness was due to idleness and thus deliberate, and made it a criminal offense to engage in behaviors associated with extreme poverty. The Poor Law was the system for the provision of social security in operation in England and Wales from the 16th century until the establishment of the Welfare State in the 20th century.


The Pass Room at Bridewell from Ackermann's Microcosm of London (1808 ). Drawing by Thomas Rowlandson and Augustus Pugin. At this time paupers from outside London apprehended by the authorities could be imprisoned for seven days before being sent back to their own parish. Ackermann refers to the room used here as being for "one class of miserable females" amongst the paupers; presumably mentioning the existence of single mothers would have been unacceptable to his readership. This engraving was published as Plate 12 of Microcosm of London (180

Vagrancy (people) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Yes it is. These are two princes and a duchess.

And what are you? A lowly commoner peasant.

These people are royals and so deserve to be treated with the necessary respect and virtue.

LOL Like Prince Chucky and the ugly horse he rode in on ... er married?
 
JLM
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Yes it is. These are two princes and a duchess.

And what are you? A lowly commoner peasant.


Does Royalty make for being a better person than a "peasant"? Seems to me ever since the Battle of Hastings a good number of royalty have been A$$holes.
 
JLM
#14
Here's a list of members of the Royalty that Blackleaf so proudly extols and Henry VIII (who beheaded two wives) wasn't even bad enough to make the list. -.
10 Worst Kings and Queens of England and the United Kingdom | RedState
 
Blackleaf
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Here's a list of members of the Royalty that Blackleaf so proudly extols and Henry VIII (who beheaded two wives) wasn't even bad enough to make the list. -.
10 Worst Kings and Queens of England and the United Kingdom | RedState

Stop imprinting 21st Century values onto the 16th Century.

Henry VIII was one of England's greatest-ever monarchs, who achieved a lot of great things for his country. Along with another great English monarch - Alfred the Great - he is considered to be a father of the Royal Navy.

Just because two of his wives were up to no good leading to them losing their heads in no fault of Henry's.

Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Does Royalty make for being a better person than a "peasant"?

A royal is a better person than a peasant.

I'd rather spend a winter's evening dining on caviar in sumptuous surroundings in Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Balmoral, Hampton Court Palace, St James's Palace or Sandringham with a group of royals than dining with a peasant family on a Salford sink estate eating a Morrisons microwave lasagne whilst watching Jeremy Kyle on a fag-ash-stained sofa.


Where real people dine


Where scummy peasant "people" dine
Last edited by Blackleaf; Dec 21st, 2013 at 08:51 AM..
 
taxslave
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Yes it is. These are two princes and a duchess.

And what are you? A lowly commoner peasant.

These people are royals and so deserve to be treated with the necessary respect and virtue.



Or they may be descended from your ancestors from 300 years back. I can't remember any royals being transported to the penal colony. It was all commoners, scumbags who stole hats or committed highway robbery.



Don't forget, Britain's North American colonies started off as penal colonies, too. We only switched to Australia as a penal colony only after our previous penal colony, America, gained its independence in 1776. So we could no longer send our scum of the Earth to America.

So a sizeable number of North Americans are descended from thieves, vaganbonds and murderers.

Between 1788 and 1868, Britain exported 165,000 convict scum to Australia, which back then wasn't the paradise that it is today.

ROFLMFAO You really need to find a real history book. I suggest one that was written in N America since the ones you got clearly were written to appease your pissant rullers.And an attitude adjustment. Foreign royalty are no better than anyone else and most of them are a lot worse.

Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post


Between 1788 and 1868, Britain exported 165,000 convict scum to Australia, which back then wasn't the paradise that it is today.

That too is wrong. The scum and thieves stayed behind in England while the good people tried to make a new life for themselves away from the restraints of a repressive ruling class.
 
Blackleaf
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

ROFLMFAO You really need to find a real history book. I suggest one that was written in N America since the ones you got clearly were written to appease your pissant rullers.And an attitude adjustment. Foreign royalty are no better than anyone else and most of them are a lot worse.

This is not the first time that I've been told by a North American, incessantly brainwashed by their history propagandists and romanticisers, to "find a real history book" when it is, in fact, THEIR "history" which is skewed as a result of rampant pro-North American historical propaganda and romanticism which is forced upon them by their "historians" and "history" teachers.

What REALLY happened is that it was Britain's thirteen American Colonies which were originally Britain's penal colony, where we sent our convicts.

However, when America became independent in 1776 we could no longer send our convicts there. It was only then that we decided to send our convicts to Australia, as we could no longer send them to North America.

In fact, it is estimated that a QUARTER of all British emigrants to colonial America in the 18th Century were, in fact, transported criminals.

It's this false "history" - a pro-North American propaganda and romanticism - which is fed on a daily basis to the people of North America which is precisely the reason why it has come as such a shock to you that America, not Australia, was Britain's original penal colony. That's because you have never been taught it by your "historians".

The British used colonial North America as a penal colony through a system of indentured servitude. Merchants would transport the convicts and auctioned them off to (for example) plantation owners upon arrival in the colonies. It is estimated that some 50,000 British convicts were sent to colonial America, representing perhaps one-quarter of all British emigrants during the 18th century.The British also would often ship Irish and Scots to the Americas whenever rebellions took place in Ireland or Scotland, and they would be treated similar to the convicts, except that this also included women and children.

When that avenue closed in the 1780s after the American Revolution, Britain began using parts of what is now known as Australia as penal settlements. Australian penal colonies included Norfolk Island, Van Dieman's Land (Tasmania), Queensland and New South Wales. Advocates of Irish Home Rule or of Trade Unionism (the Tolpuddle Martyrs) sometimes received sentences of deportation to these Australian colonies. Without the allocation of the available convict labor to farmers, to pastoral squatters, and to Government projects such as roadbuilding, colonisation of Australia would not have been possible, especially considering the considerable drain on non-convict labor caused by several goldrushes that took place in the second half of the 19th century after the flow of convicts had dwindled and (in 1868 ) ceased.

Penal colony - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Quote:

That too is wrong. The scum and thieves stayed behind in England while the good people tried to make a new life for themselves away from the restraints of a repressive ruling class.

Nope. Our scum and thieves and other criminals were originally sent to America, before we then sent them to Australia when America became independent.
Last edited by Blackleaf; Dec 21st, 2013 at 09:25 AM..
 
JLM
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Stop imprinting 21st Century values onto the 16th Century.

You definitely have a F**Ked up set of values. Certain values don't change from one century to the next. Henry VIII was a pig of a man, selfish and greedy without concern for anyone but himself. Perhaps somewhat like you!
 
taxslave
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

This is not the first time that I've been told by a North American, incessantly brainwashed by their history propagandists and romanticisers, to "find a real history book" when it is, in fact, THEIR "history" which is skewed as a result of rampant pro-North American historical propaganda and romanticism which is forced upon them by their "historians" and "history" teachers.
What REALLY happened is that it was Britain's thirteen American Colonies which were originally Britain's penal colony, where we sent our convicts.
However, when America became independent in 1776 we could no longer send our convicts there. It was only then that we decided to send our convicts to Australia, as we could no longer send them to North America.
In fact, it is estimated that a QUARTER of all British emigrants to colonial America in the 18th Century were, in fact, transported criminals.
It's this false "history" - a pro-North American propaganda and romanticism - which is fed on a daily basis to the people of North America which is precisely the reason why it has come as such a shock to you that America, not Australia, was Britain's original penal colony. That's because you have never been taught it by your "historians".

Quote has been trimmed, See full post: View Post
If you incest.
 
Blackleaf
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

You definitely have a F**Ked up set of values. Certain values don't change from one century to the next. Henry VIII was a pig of a man, selfish and greedy without concern for anyone but himself. Perhaps somewhat like you!

You are trying to imprint the values of the early 21st century, which are mainly PC ones, onto the 16th Century, a completely difefrent era with completely different set of values.

As for Henry, he remains one of England's greatest ever rulers, who founded the Royal Navy and broke England away from the evils of the catholic church, amongst other things. He was a GREAT ruler, and historians agree.
 
taxslave
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

You are trying to imprint the values of the early 21st century, which are mainly PC ones, onto the 16th Century, a completely difefrent era with completely different set of values.

As for Henry, he remains one of England's greatest ever rulers, who founded the Royal Navy and broke England away from the evils of the catholic church, amongst other things. He was a GREAT ruler, and historians agree.

British historians agree. To the rest of the world he was an inbred pig.
 
JLM
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

He was a GREAT ruler, and historians agree.


That's for damn sure.....................................all 400 lbs. of him.
 
Blackleaf
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

To the rest of the world he was an inbred pig.



Inbred? How? You don't even have any idea who is parents even were.
 
Sal
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are to visit Australia and New Zealand in April, Kensington Palace has confirmed.

It is not yet known for definite whether Prince George will also be going on the trip, although it is thought to be highly likely.

If the young prince and future king of both Australia and New Zealand does go, it would mean he will be going on his first official overseas tour at the age of just eight months.

His father, Prince William, was about nine months' old when he went on his first official overseas tour when his parents, Prince Charles and Princess Diana, took him to Australia in March 1983.

It will be Catherine's first official visit to either country.

It said in a statement, Kensington Palace said: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will visit New Zealand and Australia in April 2014.

"Their royal highnesses have been invited to visit by the New Zealand and Australian governments. Further details on the exact dates and itinerary will be issued in due course."

William and Kate line up New Zealand and Australia trip

BBC News
20 December 2013


The 2011 visit to Canada was the first official overseas visit for the duke and duchess

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are to visit New Zealand and Australia next April, Kensington Palace has said.

It is thought likely their baby son, Prince George, will also accompany them but a final decision will be made nearer the time.

If he attends, Prince George will be eight months old and on his first official overseas tour.

Prince William has made a number of official trips to Australia and New Zealand in the past.

While the duchess is yet to pay an official visit to either country, she and her husband were in the media spotlight when they flew to Brisbane airport to catch a flight home at the end of their South Pacific tour in September 2012.

Their visit in April will echo the Prince and Princess of Wales's visit to Australia and New Zealand in 1983 when the couple took William, then aged nine months old, with them.

Kensington Palace confirmed the visit but released no further details about the itinerary or how long it would last.

It said in a statement: "The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge will visit New Zealand and Australia in April 2014.

"Their royal highnesses have been invited to visit by the New Zealand and Australian governments. Further details on the exact dates and itinerary will be issued in due course."

Prince William's last official trip to New Zealand and Australia took place in March 2011, when he was in the New Zealand city of Christchurch, shortly after it suffered an earthquake, and in the Australian states of Queensland and Victoria, which had been hit by floods.


Prince George will be eight months old if he accompanies his parents on the visit

In January 2010 he represented the Queen at the opening of the Supreme Court building in the New Zealand capital Wellington and also visited Auckland, and during the same trip travelled to Melbourne and Sydney.

The duke and duchess made their first overseas visit together shortly after their marriage when they were in Canada and the US in July 2011.

Their only other trip abroad was the nine-day visit in September 2012, which saw them in South East Asia and the South Pacific as part of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

BBC News - William and Kate line up New Zealand and Australia trip

I hear it is a beautiful country to visit. It is on my bucket list... have to fly everywhere though so need to spend at least a month there.
 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by SalView Post

I hear it is a beautiful country to visit.



Unless you're an England cricketer.
 
Sal
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Unless you're an England cricketer.

lol, yeah well there is always a fly in the ointment...have to pick it out
 
JLM
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

Inbred? How? You don't even have any idea who is parents even were.


I guess OFFICIALLY it was Hank #7.
 
Blackleaf
#28
The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their son Prince George have arrived in New Zealand to start their three week tour Down Under.

Arriving in a wet and soggy Wellington, the capital, at the start of the New Zealand winter Catherine looked resplendent in a pillar-box red coat by Catherine Walker, a British designer favoured by her late mother-in-law Diana, Princess of Wales. In fact, the outfit almost exactly matches that worn by Diana during a similar royal tour 30 years ago.

She was also wearing a diamond and platinum silver fern brooch, on loan from the Queen.

The monarch was given the bejewelled version of New Zealand’s recognised national symbol on Christmas Day 1953 during her landmark six month world tour.

Prince George, the future King of New Zealand, wore a cream cardigan over a white shirt, matching shorts and soft leather shoes and socks - ideal for a baby who has just started crawling.

The little prince was also wearing a pair of ivory leather pre-walker shoes by Early Days costing £27.

William, another future New Zealand king, was wearing a suit and tie.

After disembarking in Wellington from a Royal New Zealand Air Force plane that carried them from Sydney, the Duke and Duchess were greeted by New Zealand's Prime Minister John Key and enjoyed a traditional ceremonial welcome at Government House where they were met by traditional Maori warriors as well as a local dignitary, who rubbed noses with William and Kate as they stood on the soggy lawn outside the stately home.

The traditional Maori greeting is called a Hongi, and it is done by pressing one's nose and forehead to another person in an encounter.

Meanwhile, the giggling Duchess didn't know where to look as she chatted to one heavily tattooed Maori warrior, who was bare-bottomed in his traditional clothing.

The Duchess later went for a stroll around the gardens with the Governor General of New Zealand Sir Jerry Materparae

Despite strong republican movements in both New Zealand and Australia, the tour has sparked a level of hysteria not seen since Prince Charles introduced his new bride, Princess Diana, and their baby son William, on a similar tour in 1983.

Eager members of the public are to be given no less than six glimpses of Prince George on his first royal tour, including a photo call at Government House in Wellington and a visit to the world famous Taronga Zoo in Sydney.

Gorgeous George: Regal in red Kate wears Queen’s New Zealand brooch as she arrives in Wellington… but it’s her baby prince who steals the show



The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge touched down at Wellington Airport with Prince George this morning

They briefly stopped over in Sydney where they were met by a New Zealand Air Force military jet

The family's landing was delayed as country has been hit by bad weather


They left the UK on Saturday night on a scheduled Qantas flight, taking up the entire First Class cabin

William and Kate will base their young son in Wellington, Sydney and Canberra during their three week tour

By Rebecca English Royal Correspondent In Wellington
7 April 2014
Daily Mail

He may be only eight months old.

But Prince George made an assured appearance on his debut royal tour this morning.

Arriving in New Zealand on the first day of a three-week trip Down Under, the third in line to the throne took the windswept welcome in his stride, although he looked a little chilly in a cream jumper and shorts.


Touch down: The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge arrived earlier in the day with baby Prince George to begin their tour of New Zealand and Australia. New Zealanders will be eager to catch a glimpse of the second and third in line to their throne

Royal wave: William waved as he led his family down the aeroplane stairs after their arrival in the New Zealand capital was delayed by bad weather


Reminiscent: Kate's red outfit for the New Zealand tour echoed the simple elegance of Diana on a similar royal tour in 1984

With a lifetime of royal engagements ahead of him, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are understandably protective of their young son.

Indeed, his appearance today was only the second time he has been seen in public, the first being when he left hospital at just one day old.

But there was nothing to worry about - not even the ravages of 30 hours on a plane – as the little prince behaved himself beautifully.

He wore a cream cardigan over a white shirt, matching shorts and soft leather shoes and socks - ideal for a baby who has just started crawling.

The little prince was also wearing a pair of ivory leather pre-walker shoes by Early Days costing £27.

The outfit was a modern version of the mocked top and peach bloomer style shorts that William wore when he visited the country at the same age.

His mother looked equally refreshed and particularly elegant in a pillar-box red coat by Catherine Walker, a British designer favoured by William’s late mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, and a pillbox hat by Gina Foster.

She was also wearing a diamond and platinum silver fern brooch, on loan from the Queen.

The monarch was given the bejewelled version of New Zealand’s recognised national symbol on Christmas Day 1953 during her landmark six month world tour.

A committee of women's organisations in Auckland raised money in order to gift the Queen with the standout jewel and it has been worn by the monarch for New Zealand-related functions ever since.

Earlier on Monday there had been some uncertainty as to whether the flight would even be able to land after dozens of planes were diverted from Wellington due to low cloud and heavy rain.

But concern eventually evaporated after the couple were seen happily boarding their jet for the final stage of their journey around the world in Sydney.

The family and their 11-strong entourage had left London on Saturday night, taking up the First Class section of a scheduled Qantas flight via Dubai.



Full of energy: Held securely in his mother's arms, Prince George seemed unfazed by their 30 hour flight and squirming about looking eager to be on firm ground

Traditional: The young prince wore a cream cardigan over a white shirt, matching shorts and soft leather shoes and socks - ideal for a baby who has just started crawling. His outfit was a modern version of the smocked top and peach bloomer style shorts that William wore when he visited the country at the same age



Change of outfit: Both Kate and her son took the opportunity to change during the flight from Sydney to Wellington which was delayed by 20 minutes

Disembarking 27 hours later in Australia, the Duchess looked elegant in a £310 (USD$514/ AUD$555) Max Mara wrap dress previously worn during a visit to Hope House in London in February last year.

She teamed the designer ensemble with beige suede £400 (USD$663/ AUD$714) Manolo Blahnik heels, and smiled as she walked across the tarmac with her waving son in her arms.

Smartly dressed in a freshly pressed blue suit, William walked next to her carrying a battered brown holdall and a plush kangaroo backpack, a gift to George from the Australian Koala Foundation which has already sold out.

A Royal New Zealand Air Force jet carried the family on the last three hours of their marathon journey and will also ferry them around the country for the next ten days.

Kate and her son had taken the opportunity to change during the flight, which arrived 20 minutes late and was greeted by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key.

Thanks to the services of her on-board hairdresser, Amanda Cook Tucker – who is being paid for by Prince Charles out of his private fortune – the Duchess’ famous flowing locks looked eminently salon-worthy.

Among the entourage seen disembarking was George’s full-time nanny, Spanish born Maria Teresa Turrion Borallo, a quiet, studious figure, who has not been seen in public before.

While the couple’s previous foreign tours have been dominated by chatter about Kate’s wardrobe, George will clearly be the centre of attention as his parents spend the next three weeks touring New Zealand and Australia.

After disembarking in Wellington, the Duke and Duchess enjoyed a traditional ceremonial welcome at Government House where they were met by traditional Maori warriors as well as a local dignitary, who rubbed noses with William and Kate as they stood on the soggy lawn outside the stately home.

The traditional Maori greeting is called a Hongi, and it is done by pressing one's nose and forehead to another person in an encounter.

Meanwhile, the giggling Duchess didn't know where to look as she chatted to one heavily tattooed Maori warrior, who was bare-bottomed in his traditional clothing.

During the greetings, Kate was kept dry from the teeming rain by a woman holding an umbrella, and as the rain subsided, she and the Duke were treated to a Haka, a traditional ancestral war cry dance that was performed on the lawn.

The family will spend the rest of the day privately, trying to beat their jet leg.

Royal welcome: The family was greeted by New Zealand Prime Minister John Key. Kate wore the Queen's diamond and platinum silver fern brooch, an important New Zealand emblem, that was presented to the Queen on her visit to the nation during her landmark 1953-54 world tour


Unloading: Assistants helped carry an array of luggage off the jet (L) and Prince George's Nanny Maria Teresa Turrion Borrallo, who has never been seen in public before, also disembarks (R)

Eager members of the public are to be given no less than six glimpses of Prince George on his first royal tour, including a photo call at Government House in Wellington and a visit to the world famous Taronga Zoo in Sydney.

Despite strong republican movements in both countries, the tour has sparked a level of hysteria not seen since Prince Charles introduced his new bride, Princess Diana, and their baby son William, on a similar tour in 1983.


William, aged just nine months, won the heart of his future subjects as he crawled around a blanket on the grounds of Government House in Auckland with his toy Buzzy Bee.

And he even earned the family nickname Wombat after Diana encountered one of the famous Antipodean marsupials in Australia.

Now William is bringing his own wife and son to introduce them to the countries they may one day rule, albeit many years from now.

Although the three week trip has been more than a year in the planning, it has very much been designed with baby George in mind, according to aides.

And instead of hawking themselves from city to city, as is customary on overseas royal visits, William and Kate will base their young son in three different ‘hubs’: Wellington, Sydney and Canberra.


The arrangement means his doting parents will be able to travel back to see George almost every night – bar a stop-over in Queenstown, New Zealand, and another at Ayers Rock in Australia.

Traditional welcome: The Duchess rubbed noses with a local dignitary as she and her husband were officially welcomed at Government House in Wellington later on Monday


Eyes front, Kate! She chatted to several Maori warriors as she made her way across the soggy lawn

The warmest of welcomes: Prince William also rubbed noses with the local dignitary as he arrived at Government House

Traditional: Kate was all smiles as she greeted a host of traditionally dressed men and women

‘It’s a long way to go and [would mean] a long time away from their son,’ the couple’s private secretary, Miguel Head, said earlier this month.

‘The tour has been designed with Prince George’s consideration and comfort in mind.

‘Taking a nine month old on a Royal tour is not a first, but it has not happened in this Royal Family’s context for many, many years so there has been much to think about – as any new parent travelling long distance will recognise.’

Royal aides have warned that George’s scheduled public appearances are open to change given his young age and the fact that no-one knows how he will cope with the long journey and time difference.

Sources have told Mail Online that the little prince is also teething – as well as starting to crawl - which will only add to the unpredictability.

As royal heirs tend not to travel together for reasons of security, the monarch has also given her permission for George, who is third in line to the throne, to fly with his father and mother.

‘Although there is some precedent the Queen has to give permission for this to happen [and] that is indeed what has happened,’ said Mr Head.

Unlike William’s visit with his parents, Prince Charles and Princess Diana, this latest tour has been designed to be casual and informal.



Chatty: The Duchess later went for a stroll around the gardens with the Governor General of New Zealand Sir Jerry Materparae


Traditional display: William and Kate were treated to a Haka, a traditional ancestral war cry dance that was performed on the lawn. The dance is also performed by the New Zealand All Blacks rugby union team before the start of their matches


Military honour: Prince William was welcomed by a guard of military officials













Touched: The Duchess gracefully thanked a group of young school children who presented her with a bouquet of flowers


























Last edited by Blackleaf; 1 week ago at 07:37 AM..
 
JLM
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by BlackleafView Post

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their son Prince George have arrived in New Zealand to start their three week tour Down Under.





It's nice they are taking a trip..............don't think we need every detail like when George gets his nappies changed!
 
Blackleaf
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

It's nice they are taking a trip..............don't think we need every detail like when George gets his nappies changed!


We don't need to know, but it's nice to.
 

Similar Threads

0
Prince William and Kate slope off for a hug
by Blackleaf | Mar 8th, 2007
0
William WILL get married to Kate, MPs told
by Blackleaf | Mar 6th, 2007
0
A starter palace for Prince William and Kate?
by Blackleaf | Jan 31st, 2007
13
Australia or New Zealand?
by DasFX | Dec 16th, 2005
no new posts