Royal controversy over Prince George’s car child seat but it’s not the first time as William caused a stir in 1983


The car seat incident regarding Prince George is not the first controversy (see article below from NZ HERALD) as his father caused a huge stir prior to the arrival of his Parents, the Prince and Princess of Wales in 1983.   According to the Sydney Morning Herald of 20 March 1983 Prince William’s photo holding a kangaroo skin Koala Bear raised a big stir with the RSPCA and the Kangaroo coalition in Australia at the time.

Plunket is in the hotseat after breaching its own infant safety guidelines by installing Prince George’s child restraint back-to-front in the royal limo.

The baby-care agency issued photos of preparations for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s visit, showing Plunket car seat services technician Aethalia O’Connor installing a seat in the car to be used by the royals.

“If it can’t be installed correctly we need to work out a way we can make it correct,” she said. “We need to make sure the baby is safe.”

The problem was, the car seat was installed facing forward, at odds with Plunket’s official guidelines.

To limit the risk of whiplash, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends children remain rear-facing until age 2 or until they reach the seat’s height limit.

Response to the photo was immediate, with dozens of parents going online to point out Plunket’s double standard.

Plunket has previously criticised photos of babies in forward-facing restraints, but last night it was unapologetic.

Chief executive Jenny Prince said Plunket’s role was “to provide advice and work in partnership with parents” to make informed decisions that worked best for them. “Plunket’s priority is to ensure car seats are installed by qualified car seat technicians to ensure they perform correctly. While Plunket recommend that children stay in rear-facing seats until age 2, it is not a legal requirement.”

Plunket spokesman Zac Prendergast said he had spoken to O’Connor, and the seat was installed in line with the parents’ preferences.


Jewels worn by Princess Diana on her first & second trip to Australia and New Zealand



The late Diana, Princess of Wales had many occasions to wear dazzling jewels, including on her own tours of Australia and New Zealand in the 1980s. The Cambridge Lover’s Knot tiara (left) was made for Queen Mary by Garrard in 1914 and left to Queen Elizabeth in Queen Mary’s will. Elizabeth passed it on to Diana as a wedding present and she wore it on many occasions at home and abroad — including to her farewell State Banquet in Auckland in 1983, with a truly voluminous ivory dress.

The Queen also received several necklaces from Saudi Kings which she loaned to Princess Diana — one of which Diana wore to Australia in 1983. The King Faisal of Saudi Arabia fringe necklace of drop diamonds, made by Harry Winston was given to the Queen on a state visit to the UK in 1967. Nearly 20 years later, Diana teamed it with pearl drops and a ruffled pale blue dress.

Diana also refashioned some jewelry so she could wear it in a more modern way. The Queen gave Diana her famous diamond-and-emerald Delhi Durbar necklace for a wedding present. When she gave it to Diana as a wedding gift, Diana had some Velcro added to the 14-in. long necklace and it became a bejeweled headband that she wore for a charity dance with Prince Charles in Australia in 1985.

“When Diana and Charles made their first visit to Australia in 1983, it was a more formal time. There were galas, and state banquets and big dances,” Field says. “Diana took her diamond and emerald necklace that belonged to Queen Mary and wore it as a headband. Everybody raved about her originality. She may have been showing the modern way of wearing grand jewelry.”



A women’s group has vowed to track down the origin of a diamond silver fern brooch gifted to the Queen in 1953 and worn by the Duchess  of Cambridge as she arrived in New Zealand this week.

Reports from the time of the Queen’s visit six decades ago say the intricate pin was a Christmas gift from “the women of Auckland” – but who those women were is a mystery.