Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Royal Baby

  1. #1
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    7,679

    Default Royal Baby

    Don't know about anyone else, but I'm bored of this already:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23413653

  2. #2
    rebbonk
    Guest

    Default

    Not my interest at all, but the event has spawned some very funny (and extremely rude) jokes around the internet.

    The real thing to watch for is that there will be attempts to bury "bad" news whilst this little charade is going on.

  3. #3
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    7,679

    Default

    Apparently it's all getting a bit much for William - his heir's fallen out.
    Last edited by Lex; 23-07-2013 at 03:42 PM.

  4. #4
    rebbonk
    Guest

    Default

    Just for you Lex, the very first picture...


  5. #5
    Pillar of the Community
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Love it Rebbonk- had that discussion tonight with friends. I still think they'll cave in and have a Nanny on standby before long. Especially as William is back to work in 2 weeks.Whilst bored of it all- does anyone have any ideas they'd care to post about his name(s)? I think Henry but also think Will's will want his Father's name and Kate will want her father's name but also in respect to the Queen they'' add her father's name. So will it be Prince Henry(aka Harry) Charles, Michael, George and then Louis (after Lord Louis Mountbatten) or Philip Windsor? let's do our own guess the name.

  6. #6
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    7,679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rebbonk View Post
    Just for you Lex, the very first picture...
    LOL, like it!!

  7. #7
    cathidaw
    Guest

    Default

    i'M A ROYALIST- ALWAYS HAVE BEEN, SO DON'T USUALLY ENTER ARGUMENTS. I am, and thats it. Got all the books and photos-no tee shirts etc.but right back to Victoria.My mother was too and my sister-well she's worse.Got answers to letters on special
    occasions-piles of them.
    ok they cost us money but who doesn't, those up there in the clouds.Think of those polititians--no , dont , that really gets me going.
    Royalty is part of our history however rubbish they are. I was pleased yesterday to see the new family . I like to make the Yanks ENVIOUS -what have they got? answers on line please.
    I'd like James as part of the name. Biased of course, I have lovely granson named James. (I also have a new nephew called
    Holland, which has grown on me. WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK WEIRD
    Whoever would call a baby George--sorry if you have one--or ALFRED -ALTHO' i HAVE A
    GRANDSON NAMED ALFIE.
    A friend of mine called her baby Percy--Perce for shortl ! ! ! hOW COULD THEY, BUT LOOK AT SOME RIDICULOUS NAMES THE CELEBS CHOOSE.
    BLANKET ,hee-hee.
    sORRY ABOUT THE FONT--gremlins again.
    Last edited by cathidaw; 24-07-2013 at 04:39 PM.

  8. #8
    cathidaw
    Guest

    Default

    I love Alexander Louis, and George -I'll get used to it.

  9. #9
    Pillar of the Community
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Yes, they are all good to go names as far as I can see. Except I wonder where the Alexander has come from; the Tsar??? Baby Cambridge's initials are GALW- The Gauls were our French combatants weren't they? Sorry if I have it wrong as I am a bit cloudy with that part of our frech Anglo connections in history. Can anyone recall?

  10. #10
    Pillar of the Community
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Well if you're not fed up with it already, brace yourselves because there's much more to come. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iams-baby.html
    The official pictures will be centre stage of course. He is a lovely cherubic baby and to my mind he does look like his father and like his Great great Grandfather; King George Vth but that's just my thought. I know families do what they do and choosing to ' omit ' certain people to me seems quite sad. His immediate Uncles and Aunts ( other than Harry) and his Grandmother's other children who are also his Aunts and Uncles were not involved.( Bitter feud there may be but.. a new Royal Baby- 3rd in line etc etc. ) How sad as one day he looks back and asks why, who etc etc.History is History and families are families. You can't choose them but then perhaps that is the point?

  11. #11
    Pillar of the Community
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    Lex started this thread stating he was bored with all the Royal Baby news at its outset. Now we are over 1 year on and Kate is expecting the 2nd child and this article says it all. I do see them as coming across as rather dull these days. (For me anyway) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ve-become.html

    I don't see that Mrs Windsor has much of the glamour that her Mother-in-Law; Diana had in ample natural form. I am a Royalist too, as Cathidaw says she is except I don't have the books, etc. I like the Monarchy and I believe in it. These two have somehow dulled it down or for me Kate has. Let's hope the new baby will bring about a bit of much needed style and personality in The Firm.( Of course Prince George is yet to show his own but in time...)

  12. #12
    Margaret
    Guest

    Default

    I wan't to know the meaning of Royal these days. That era has gone and is not coming back.

  13. #13
    Administrator Lex's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Stratford
    Posts
    7,679

    Default

    Apart from bring tourist money in, and charity work (nice bit of PR for the charities the Royals work for), they are largely irrelevant nowadays. HM the Queen does a lot of in the background providing valuable advice to governments - 60 years experience is not to be sniffed at, but Charles just seems to be too much of a meddler in public affairs to do the same when he takes over.

  14. #14
    Margaret
    Guest

    Default

    I don't understand why the Queen as a mother who raised children who were wonderfully privileged, privately educated and never wanted for anything would pass a Bill for abortion and gay marriage. So I'm sorry, but I don't see what she has done that is positive for this country, apart from some charity funding. I have been underwhelmed by the royal family.

    Not in her back yard. The Royal family have a dispensation so that any Royal successor can't marry a same sex partner. So if they can get away with it, why can't businesses object , such as if Bed & Breakfast or Bakeries, for refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake or marry in a church. Same sex couples can destroy companies and churches by suing if they can't get their own way. Is it right that businesses should go out of business and people lose their lively hood because a gay couple takes them to court? Yet, the Royal family will never lose their livelyhood.
    Last edited by Margaret; 13-12-2014 at 12:51 PM.

  15. #15
    Pillar of the Community
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    2,388

    Default

    The Queen as Head of State has to sit in the House of Lords to pass Bills whether she agrees to them or not. She has no political say so and is a Figurehead not the Boss or the Person in Charge.The pros and cons of whatever it is she is made to sign because she is the Figurehead are out of her hands. Of course if there is something completely bazaar, I am sure she would find a way of saying 'No.' From my very vague memory, I think this all came to pass in the days post Charles 2nd and then on through to James 2nd of England and William of Orange after him. Never mind, It meant that the Monarch is unable to lead the country by personal opinion as for example Henry V111 did by contrast.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •