Page 14 of 51 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 280 of 1012
  1. #261
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    fall, glorious fall
    Posts
    1,652
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'm the opposite. I like Georgie, but dislike George. ...although I have a cat named George...

  2. #262
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Phila., PA
    Posts
    3,713
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    My dad's name was George, but when he was a kid, the other kids would call him "Georgie" based on the rhyme 'Georgie Porgie, pudding & pie." I sense that it didn't bother him. As an adult people called him George.

    Re: royal baby George, I'm willing to bet that the chosen name is in remembrance of Queen Elizabeth's father.

  3. #263
    Official FSU Alte Kacher
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Looking through my D7100 viewfinder
    Posts
    12,071
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20374
    Quote Originally Posted by Yehudi View Post
    If this is having a good time, what does ennui look like?
    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity”– MLK

  4. #264
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,398
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by rfisher View Post
    ...
    I have no patience for the Camilla haters. It's not her fault, nor Charles', that he was forced into a marriage of convenience to produce an heir. Diana knew what she was getting. I'm glad both Camilla and Charles were able to finally be together and be happy. I doubt they give a damn what the haters think or say.
    ITA re Camilla is completely accepted as a member of The Royal Family. As far as Diana “knowing what she was getting,” IMO that’s debatable. Diana and Charles got married at a very different time and what subsequently happened to both Charles and Diana during their relationship ultimately changed the monarchy, seemingly for the better in some ways, although a huge price was paid. Diana rebelled against protocol, and stuffy royal attitudes and she desired love above all. She had an indication prior to the wedding but after the engagement re Charles’ extreme closeness with Camilla. IMO, Diana was still a immature and school-girlish in the ways of love. She was a romantic who apparently was in love with being in love with Prince Charles. It was perhaps a bit like one of her stepmother’s romance fantasies come true, which recalls the fairy tale nature of Diana’s wedding right down to her fantastical dress. Neither Charles nor Diana actually got to know each other very well prior to their engagement. Charles also was immature in some ways and emotionally needy. Moreover, Charles was definitely still in love with Camilla but likely he felt (again having grown up during a different time with more traditional expectations) that he was bound to do his duty and marry a young virgin who would ultimately be acquiescent and accepting of his love for Camilla.

    Diana was expected to produce an heir and a spare and to accept her position and to be okay with Charles’ philandering and to not make a fuss as someone in line to be Queen to his King. From what I’ve read and recall, Camilla played a role in approving Charles’ ultimate decision to pick Diana for his bride. Everyone thought Diana was shy and malleable. NOT! She was young, romantic, needy, with a strong rebellious spirit. She was also still growing as a person and still struggling with the psychological effects of her own parents’ scandalous 1960s divorce, not to mention her bulimia. Diana was also unused to the inner workings of royal life (despite her own grandmother’s close relationship with the Queen Mother). There has been acknowledgement in royal circles that Diana as a very young bride new to the ins and outs of royal protocol should have been better prepared by The Royal Family for the role she was taking on. Kate has absolutely been prepared (and of course Kate’s a different person altogether, grew up in a different time, comes from a happy family, and got to intimately know Prince William mostly out of the public eye in the early years of their relationship). As a result of what happened to Charles and Diana (and no less to the marriages of other members of the Royal Family), the Queen in recent years advised the younger generation of royals to take the time to get to know the person they were in love with and to be absolutely certain they were suited for each other before getting married in order to guard against any more royal divorce scandals.

    William in a sense benefited from experiencing what happened to the marriage of his parents, despite it having been obviously a traumatic experience for him, as his mother leaned upon him very heavily (from what I’ve read) in an emotional sense. Queen Elizabeth began to devote more time to William during his adolescence when his parents were going through their difficulties. I think William and Harry seem to have got for the most part the best from both their parents in an emotional sense. They both seem very well-adjusted, and eager for their father’s happiness and in equal measure loving and respectful regarding their mother’s life and memory. They seem to maintain a deep sense of positive perspective as well as privacy regarding their mother, and they both seem to be able (especially William) to balance being real people in today’s world with being heirs to the British throne.

  5. #265
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,082
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Eh, I can't feel much sympathy for Charles or Camilla in the situation. He had the opportunity to marry her in his early 20s, but he expected her to wait around for eight years, and she refused. For her part, she got married to Andrew Parker Bowles and had two kids, but continued to sneak around with Charles. They were a couple of self-absorbed flakes, and it's weird to see their relationship portrayed as an awesome love story.

  6. #266
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    4,398
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    ^^ Well together, albeit flakey, they seem to share something quite awesome (maybe something to do with fate and fulfilling each other's basic emotional/ physical needs perhaps)? Who knows? That old tacky private telephone conversation meant only for each other's ears was quite

    Nothing like living life in a fishbowl apparently. All one's faults, missteps and character flaws exposed. Charles and Camilla both seem to have weathered the storm, although it remains to be seen when they will attain the throne together. Going by Queen Elizabeth's mother's longevity, it may be quite some time. Will Charles be older than King Edward VII when his Mom, Queen Victoria finally relinquished the throne to rejoin her true love?

    Actually young Prince Charles did not really "have the opportunity to marry" the young Camilla, as she apparently was known to have had a "past" before she met Charles. Uncle Louie (Mountbatten) had a very strong influence upon Charles. Both Uncle Louie and The Royal Family were against Charles actually marrying Camilla. Charles was never known for bucking tradition (and very old-fashioned notions still held sway back then). Neither did Charles seem to possess a rebellious spirit or strong backbone in his youth.

    Re the discussion about Princess Margaret, she was definitely considered to be very attractive and charming in her youth. Sadness, cigarettes, alcohol and excess led to poor health in Margaret's later years. In their youth, both Margaret and Elizabeth were known for their English rose complexions. Also, Margaret was quite the irrepressible mimic and I've read that some people feel she could have had a great career as an actress had she not been born a Royal. In addition, Margaret was the apple of her father's eye and completely spoiled by him. George VI's death had a devastating personal effect in different ways upon each of the three women he left behind.

    It also goes without saying that Princess Margaret's traumatic loss of true love early in her life in some part likely led to her wild ways. The decision against Margaret's desire to marry her father's former equerry was so unnecessary in retrospect-- but her true love (despite being a war hero) was also a divorced older man and the memory of her Uncle David's abdication to marry a divorced woman was still a royal sore point. I think Queen Elizabeth wanted her sister to be happy but Churchill and others advised the young QE against granting Margaret's wish to marry Group Captain Peter Townsend. Since the thwarted lovers are both dead for awhile now, where's the miniseries? Maybe it might have to wait for some time out of respect for Her Majesty, QE. Just as the movie about King George VI's struggle with stuttering had to wait until QE the Queen Mother's passing.
    Last edited by aftershocks; 08-02-2013 at 01:15 AM.

  7. #267
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    3,082
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by aftershocks View Post
    Actually young Prince Charles did not really "have the opportunity to marry" the young Camilla, as she apparently was known to have had a "past" before she met Charles.
    Then it was that much suckier that Charles thought that he could never marry her, and instead tried to convince her to wait for eight years. When that failed, they continued shagging each other despite being married to other people and having kids involved.

    I suspect that a large amount of the perceived appeal of the Charles and Camila story is that Americans are confusing it with the stories about former high school sweethearts who didn't see each other for decades, then suddenly meet up again when both are widowed, and pick up where they left off. The latter type type of story is awww-worthy. Charles and Camila, not so much.

  8. #268

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    2,222
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    5970
    Quote Originally Posted by heckles View Post
    Eh, I can't feel much sympathy for Charles or Camilla in the situation. He had the opportunity to marry her in his early 20s, but he expected her to wait around for eight years, and she refused. For her part, she got married to Andrew Parker Bowles and had two kids, but continued to sneak around with Charles. They were a couple of self-absorbed flakes, and it's weird to see their relationship portrayed as an awesome love story.
    Thank you.

    O-

  9. #269
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,358
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11617
    This is fun - the British Monarchy FB page has posted Prince George's birth certificate.

    Interesting to see the official names/titles, as well as the "occupations" of the parents

  10. #270

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Age
    38
    Posts
    17,618
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I was half expecting it to be done in Ye Fancy Olde-Fashioned Calligraphy.
    Charter member of the "We Always Believed in Ashley" Club and the "We Believe in Ricky" Club
    Old, lonely, pathos-hungry, and extremely gullible

  11. #271
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,846
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Interesting to see the official names/titles, as well as the "occupations" of the parents
    I thought it was interesting to see Kate's occupation listed as Princess of the United Kingdom.

  12. #272

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Home in England!!
    Posts
    2,466
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    874
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    This is fun - the British Monarchy FB page has posted Prince George's birth certificate.

    Interesting to see the official names/titles, as well as the "occupations" of the parents
    From the blurb attached it sounds as if Willaim avoided having to make an appointment at the local registry office like the rest of us plebs - they came to him And love the occupations - especially as William could conceivably have put his RAF job! I wonder if by law those occupations had to be placed on the birth certificate of an HRH who is in line for the throne
    Last edited by Lorac; 08-02-2013 at 03:26 PM. Reason: typo

  13. #273
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,358
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11617
    The RAF is a temporary job for William - once does like to go with one's most impressive credentials on important documents like this

  14. #274
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    11,013
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by screech View Post
    I thought it was interesting to see Kate's occupation listed as Princess of the United Kingdom.
    Not sure if this is your point, but I've seen a lot of people argue she isn't a Princess. If they hadn't been granted the Duke/Duchess titles, wouldn't she be called Princess William? (Well, except the fact that the media is never going to get off the "Kate Middleton" thing.)

  15. #275
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,804
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Is there a reason William has HRH listed first before his name, and Kate is listed as "Catherine Elizabeth, HRH"? Or maybe the person was just writing in a rush and forgot the order?

    Thanks Jenny for posting, that was cool to see

  16. #276
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    2,804
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Is there a reason William has HRH listed first before his name, and Kate is listed as "Catherine Elizabeth, HRH"? Or maybe the person was just writing in a rush and forgot the order?

    Thanks Jenny for posting, that was cool to see

  17. #277
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,358
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    11617
    Quote Originally Posted by mkats View Post
    Is there a reason William has HRH listed first before his name, and Kate is listed as "Catherine Elizabeth, HRH"? Or maybe the person was just writing in a rush and forgot the order?

    Thanks Jenny for posting, that was cool to see
    Others might have further insights, but I think it's because she wasn't born to the title, and William was.

  18. #278
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    3,846
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    Not sure if this is your point, but I've seen a lot of people argue she isn't a Princess. If they hadn't been granted the Duke/Duchess titles, wouldn't she be called Princess William? (Well, except the fact that the media is never going to get off the "Kate Middleton" thing.)
    IIRC, Kate won't be styled Princess until William becomes the heir apparent. Once Charles is King, I think William and Kate will then be referred to as Prince and Princess instead of Duke and Duchess.

    But yeah, that's what I thought was odd - she was listed as Princess for her occupation, when she hasn't yet been officially styled as princess.

  19. #279

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,883
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    89820
    Kate is a princess. She is Princess William of Wales just like Princess Michael of Kent. Kate is also the Duchess of Cambridge and a couple of other titles I can't remember. They choose to be known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. When / if William is made the Prince of Wales, Kate will be become the Princess of Wales.
    A good rant is cathartic. Ranting is what keeps me sane. They always come from a different place. Take the prime minister, for example. Sometimes when I rant about him, I am angry; other times, I am just severely annoyed - it's an important distinction. - Rick Mercer

  20. #280

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,758
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Skittl1321 View Post
    Not sure if this is your point, but I've seen a lot of people argue she isn't a Princess. If they hadn't been granted the Duke/Duchess titles, wouldn't she be called Princess William? (Well, except the fact that the media is never going to get off the "Kate Middleton" thing.)
    Yes, she would, like Prince and Princess Michael of Kent. As with other royal wives, she is not a princess in her own right, and takes her husband's style. Technically Diana was HRH the Princess of Wales, not Princess Diana (after the divorce it was "Diana, Princess of Wales"). When William becomes the Prince of Wales, Kate will be HRH the Princess of Wales, and I imagine George will be Prince George of Wales.

    I am not sure if Kate is styled Princess William even technically at the moment, there's no mention of it on her bio in the the British monarchy website.

Page 14 of 51 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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