Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

Kate Middleton's Baby


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 18-07-2013, 14:06
Venetian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 4,891
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 they prefer Saint Diana. I guess you have to pick from the two ... I know which one I prefer
Venetian is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 18-07-2013, 14:19
John Dough
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 77,220
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.
John Dough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 15:56
Dream_catcher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Scotland
Posts: 345
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 na´ve 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.
Dream_catcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 20:56
rattie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,810
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.
rattie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 21:40
RedRoseRebel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,085
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.
RedRoseRebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 21:42
RadioKnower
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,984
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?
RadioKnower is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 21:43
dd68
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: London
Posts: 8,675
She hasn't been called Kate Middleton for over two years now.
dd68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 21:49
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,781
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'...?
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 21:53
Admiral Star
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,869
Frances is such a dowdy name.
Admiral Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 21:58
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,781
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.
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 22:15
Like A Star
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 557
She hasn't been called Kate Middleton for over two years now.
It's what the public will always think of her as though.
Like A Star is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:07
21stCenturyBoy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford-Upon-Avon
Posts: 31,840
I think Alexandra, Mary, Alice or Matilda (all former names of queens or queen consorts)

George, Arthur or Albert if its a boy
21stCenturyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:09
21stCenturyBoy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Stratford-Upon-Avon
Posts: 31,840
Will the child's birth name be the name it reigns under?

Isn't Charles going to be King Henry VIIII?
21stCenturyBoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:13
PrincessTT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South London
Posts: 2,168
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.
PrincessTT is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:15
Demizdeeroolz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Derby
Posts: 2,640
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.
Demizdeeroolz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:19
doom&gloom
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 8,803
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
doom&gloom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:20
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16,315
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.
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:28
PrincessTT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South London
Posts: 2,168
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.
PrincessTT is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:33
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16,315
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' ). 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.
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:34
Vodka_Drinka
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Munchkin Land
Posts: 22,887
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,
Vodka_Drinka is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:49
Phoenix Lazarus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 10,781
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' ).
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.
Phoenix Lazarus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 18-07-2013, 23:50
Willow33
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,157
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,

Who did she sleep with? I didn't know she slept with countless men, I only know of James Hewitt and Dodi Al Fayed!!
Willow33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2013, 00:04
shmisk
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,977
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.
St Marys doesnt have a helipad
shmisk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2013, 00:05
woot_whoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 16,315
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.
woot_whoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-07-2013, 00:34
PrincessTT
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: South London
Posts: 2,168
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"...
PrincessTT is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:31.