Kate Middleton's Baby

13

Comments

  • John DoughJohn Dough Posts: 146,117
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Apparently the Queen has been rushed away from the cricket so it looks like they have word something is happening

    Probably hosting a garden party for some 'commoners' this afternoon.;):rolleyes:
  • Dream_catcherDream_catcher Posts: 362
    Forum Member
    Bergy87 wrote: »
    If the baby is a girl, i think it's only fitting to have Diana somewhere in the name. The baby will come when he/she is ready, hopefully a few days longer just so the paps melt in the heat lol!! :)

    It would be nice if the royal baby is a little girl and they give her Diana somewhere in her name.
    Why do some people still have such a problem with Camilla? She makes Charles happy and I have it on very good authority that she's a really nice person as well. Diana was no saint, and was known to have shagged other people's husbands herself, so I find this this victim hood that surrounds her slightly nauseating.

    Charles didn't have the balls to propose to Camilla when he knew her when they were young so don't have a go at Diana. Diana was far too young and naïve to get married especially to someone twelve or thirteen years older than herself and they had little in common. No wonder their marriage didn't work out.
  • rattierattie Posts: 7,050
    Forum Member
    Why do some people still have such a problem with Camilla? She makes Charles happy and I have it on very good authority that she's a really nice person as well. Diana was no saint, and was known to have shagged other people's husbands herself, so I find this this victim hood that surrounds her slightly nauseating.

    Because she calculatingly messed with the life of an innocent teenager. Wrap it up whatever way you like, she was guilty of colluding with Charles from the off. Of course Diana wasn't a saint, who is?!
    And her affairs were following the rejection and isolation she experienced in her marriage. Had Charles loved her and worked at their relationshipo I very much doubt Diana would have been anything but delighted.

    Sorry, but Diana was the victim, an innocent sheltered teenager led up the garden path by two 30 somethings who knew very well what game they were playing. No victim is whiter than white, it doesn't mean they can't be wronged. And she was. In my view that is a fact not an opinion.
  • RedRoseRebelRedRoseRebel Posts: 1,234
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I love the name Frances. Queen Frances sounds beautiful imho.

    All this said, Everyone is hoping its a girl and it will be a boy lool

    The only downside to that is that a shortened version of Frances is Fanny. Not that keen on Princess/Queen Fanny, lol.
  • RadioKnowerRadioKnower Posts: 2,272
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The only downside to that is that a shortened version of Frances is Fanny. Not that keen on Princess/Queen Fanny, lol.
    50 years ago maybe. Fran now surely?
  • dd68dd68 Posts: 17,828
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    She hasn't been called Kate Middleton for over two years now.
  • Phoenix LazarusPhoenix Lazarus Posts: 17,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The only downside to that is that a shortened version of Frances is Fanny. Not that keen on Princess/Queen Fanny, lol.
    50 years ago maybe. Fran now surely?

    Oh come on, do you think the tabloids could resist a bit of 'Fanny'...?;)
  • Admiral StarAdmiral Star Posts: 2,114
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Frances is such a dowdy name.
  • Phoenix LazarusPhoenix Lazarus Posts: 17,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Anna might be a good name. It would be unlikely to be converted into a two-syllable over-familiar version, ending in '-ie/y'-a dimunitive, to use the proper term-as it would already be bisyllabic.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 572
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    dd68 wrote: »
    She hasn't been called Kate Middleton for over two years now.

    It's what the public will always think of her as though.
  • 21stCenturyBoy21stCenturyBoy Posts: 44,490
    Forum Member
    I think Alexandra, Mary, Alice or Matilda (all former names of queens or queen consorts)

    George, Arthur or Albert if its a boy
  • 21stCenturyBoy21stCenturyBoy Posts: 44,490
    Forum Member
    Will the child's birth name be the name it reigns under?

    Isn't Charles going to be King Henry VIIII?
  • PrincessTTPrincessTT Posts: 4,300
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Will the child's birth name be the name it reigns under?

    Isn't Charles going to be King Henry VIIII?

    There were rumours that he would choose to reign as George VII but I don't think anything has been formally announced.
  • DemizdeeroolzDemizdeeroolz Posts: 3,821
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Will the child's birth name be the name it reigns under?

    Isn't Charles going to be King Henry VIIII?

    I thought he was going to be George VII. He was Christened Charles Phillip Arthur George. It's an interesting subject, I always wonder if the Queen would still have been an Elizabeth had her father been 1st in line at her birth.
  • doom&gloomdoom&gloom Posts: 9,051
    Forum Member
    Will the child's birth name be the name it reigns under?

    Isn't Charles going to be King Henry VIIII?

    I think you mean IX

    Someone's not learned their Roman numerals :p
  • woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PrincessTT wrote: »
    There were rumours that he would choose to reign as George VII but I don't think anything has been formally announced.

    Which would be a stupid idea. People still call La Windsor 'Kate Middleton' - I doubt they're going to start calling Charlie 'George VII' after 60+ years in the limelight. The days of reigning under an arbitrary name chosen from a vast array of second, third and fourth names only really sprang up in the Victorian period and into the early 20th century. It worked because people weren't all that familiar with the royals before they reigned; they were just family members of the elite, aristocratic class (e.g. George VI was known as 'Bertie', but only to people of his class). In the modern world, they are media luvvies, so changing from one well known name to another is redundant and anachronistic.
  • PrincessTTPrincessTT Posts: 4,300
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    woot_whoo wrote: »
    Which would be a stupid idea. People still call La Windsor 'Kate Middleton' - I doubt they're going to start calling Charlie 'George VII' after 60+ years in the limelight. The days of reigning under an arbitrary name chosen from a vast array of second, third and fourth names only really sprang up in the Victorian period and into the early 20th century. It worked because people weren't all that familiar with the royals before they reigned; they were just family members of the elite, aristocratic class (e.g. George VI was known as 'Bertie', but only to people of his class). In the modern world, they are media luvvies, so changing from one well known name to another is redundant and anachronistic.

    I totally agree.

    From what I've read Charles may be planning it because of the negative connotations from the name King Charles given the two previous monarchs to have that name, and also because to some people Bonnie Prince Charlie was known as Charles III (which would be Charles' name if he kept it) however he has denied that he's considering it, so who knows.
  • woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    PrincessTT wrote: »
    From what I've read Charles may be planning it because of the negative connotations from the name King Charles given the two previous monarchs to have that name, and also because to some people Bonnie Prince Charlie was known as Charles III (which would be Charles' name if he kept it) however he has denied that he's considering it, so who knows.

    It strikes me as a mis-step (if he styles himself 'George VII', I mean). It's funny that 'Charles' is apparently a toxic name for a British monarch (a tyrant and a womaniser) yet he's allegedly OK with George (a madman and, to quote Blackadder, a 'fat flatulent git' :D). At any rate, it will be a short reign, and I know many royalists who are putting their hopes in the golden boy William's gilded basket.
  • Vodka_DrinkaVodka_Drinka Posts: 28,739
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    rattie wrote: »
    Because she calculatingly messed with the life of an innocent teenager. Wrap it up whatever way you like, she was guilty of colluding with Charles from the off. Of course Diana wasn't a saint, who is?!
    And her affairs were following the rejection and isolation she experienced in her marriage. Had Charles loved her and worked at their relationshipo I very much doubt Diana would have been anything but delighted.

    Sorry, but Diana was the victim, an innocent sheltered teenager led up the garden path by two 30 somethings who knew very well what game they were playing. No victim is whiter than white, it doesn't mean they can't be wronged. And she was. In my view that is a fact not an opinion.

    No one is saying that Charles and Camilla are innocent, wrongs were committed on all side, but Diana went off and slept with countless married men, men who had families. You'd think that a women who knew how it felt to have a cheating husband would think twice about putting another women though that? I don't think there can ever be an excuse for that,
  • Phoenix LazarusPhoenix Lazarus Posts: 17,305
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    woot_whoo wrote: »
    It strikes me as a mis-step (if he styles himself 'George VII', I mean). It's funny that 'Charles' is apparently a toxic name for a British monarch (a tyrant and a womaniser) yet he's allegedly OK with George (a madman and, to quote Blackadder, a 'fat flatulent git' :D).

    Well, there were six previous King Georges. Only George the Fourth has a generally bad reputation, I believe, and George the Third only went off in his latter years.
  • Willow33Willow33 Posts: 2,084
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    No one is saying that Charles and Camilla are innocent, wrongs were committed on all side, but Diana went off and slept with countless married men, men who had families. You'd think that a women who knew how it felt to have a cheating husband would think twice about putting another women though that? I don't think there can ever be an excuse for that,


    :eek: Who did she sleep with? I didn't know she slept with countless men, I only know of James Hewitt and Dodi Al Fayed!!
  • shmiskshmisk Posts: 7,963
    Forum Member
    LIZALYNN wrote: »
    If Kate arrives in a helicopter on the top of the hospital and then leaves with babe the same way all those photographers camped outside the entrance to the Lindo Wing will be most disappointed.
    It's so exciting. For me who delivers first my daughter-in-law or Kate. :D

    St Marys doesnt have a helipad
  • woot_whoowoot_whoo Posts: 18,030
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Well, there were six previous King Georges. Only George the Fourth has a generally bad reputation, I believe, and George the Third only went off in his latter years.

    It would seem almost superstitious to change his internationally known moniker because of a couple of dead Kings from centuries ago. I know people who barely know who Henry VIII is, so I'd imagine that many would not even know which century the father and son Charlies stemmed from. If he's going to change his name I reckon he should become King C-Widdy and Queen Camz. Pomp it up.
  • PrincessTTPrincessTT Posts: 4,300
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    woot_whoo wrote: »
    It would seem almost superstitious to change his internationally known moniker because of a couple of dead Kings from centuries ago. I know people who barely know who Henry VIII is, so I'd imagine that many would not even know which century the father and son Charlies stemmed from. If he's going to change his name I reckon he should become King C-Widdy and Queen Camz. Pomp it up.

    If he did go for George, I'd have to nickname Camilla "Wheezy"...
  • SuperAPJSuperAPJ Posts: 10,402
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The speculation over whether the baby will be a boy or a girl is daft to me. Correctly predicting that is no major achievement!
    dd68 wrote: »
    She hasn't been called Kate Middleton for over two years now.

    I know but the tabloids will continue to call her that as long as they continue to refer to her husband as 'Wills'.
Sign In or Register to comment.