Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 1012
  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    3,209
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    A really British name for the baby like...

    Benedict Cumberbatch Sherlock Rumpole Grantham!

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Age
    51
    Posts
    7,515
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    59298
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    I doubt Michael - I can see that as a middle name, but when your father, grandfather and myriad ancestors have been or will be heads of state and hold hundreds of royal titles, you do not name him after a commoner. MAYBE a second child, more likely a third.
    Michael was an Archangel, hardly a commoner.

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    3,209
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skipaway View Post
    Michael was an Archangel, hardly a commoner.
    And Michael is the name of Kate's dad.

    Her brother is James.

  4. #24
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,324
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10728
    Quote Originally Posted by skipaway View Post
    Michael was an Archangel, hardly a commoner.
    But not a king, or other prominent European royal who it makes sense to name him after.

    Quote Originally Posted by dardar1126 View Post
    And Michael is the name of Kate's dad.
    Exactly - a commoner. I think it's a great name for a second or more likely third son, or a middle name for either, but for the first child and future king? No.

    The fun part of all this of course is that soon we all might be proven very, very wrong

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,717
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skipaway View Post
    Michael was an Archangel, hardly a commoner.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    But not a king, or other prominent European royal who it makes sense to name him after.
    Wasn't Michael a primarily Catholic name in the UK in past? I can see how historically that would have been an unpopular choice among Britain's royal family, and of course they are so into tradition that now there is no precedent for a Michael.

    I vote for Henry or Alexander

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,176
    vCash
    400
    Rep Power
    32148
    Kanye KCambridge?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Victoria BC
    Age
    70
    Posts
    3,009
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3722
    As of yesterday I thought Richard would be the name. There is a Richard in the family, the Queen's cousin, Richard of Gloucester, so it has been used recently. Also, Richard III of York has had a bit of a revival recently since his bones were discovered in the parking lot.
    Richard Francis Charles Philip. They will save Henry/Harry for the spare

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,717
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    Kanye KCambridge?
    Along those lines, a friend suggested Prince South of Cambridge, who will one day become South of Wales.

    Probably not

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,176
    vCash
    400
    Rep Power
    32148
    Quote Originally Posted by Zemgirl View Post
    Along those lines, a friend suggested Prince South of Cambridge, who will one day become South of Wales.

    Probably not


    I think that's a great suggestion.

    The funniest entertainment yesterday was watching the news channels trying to string "it's a boy!" out into hours and hours of endless coverage. My favourite was news reports speculating on what might be in Kate's hospital room, and then wondering if there might be air conditioning

  10. #30
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,324
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10728
    Quote Originally Posted by JasperBoy View Post
    As of yesterday I thought Richard would be the name. There is a Richard in the family, the Queen's cousin, Richard of Gloucester, so it has been used recently. Also, Richard III of York has had a bit of a revival recently since his bones were discovered in the parking lot.
    Richard Francis Charles Philip. They will save Henry/Harry for the spare
    I don't know - Richard III is still controversial from the point of view of whether or not he was a good king, whether or not he murdered the princes in the tower, and the whole mess that was succession at that time. Not to mention that he allegedly died on the battlefield at the hands of Henry VII, so maybe they don't want to put those two names close together?

    I definitely see Charles there though, and have said for years now that Frances/Francis is a great way to honour both Diana and Kate's father.

  11. #31
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,324
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10728
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    The funniest entertainment yesterday was watching the news channels trying to string "it's a boy!" out into hours and hours of endless coverage. My favourite was news reports speculating on what might be in Kate's hospital room, and then wondering if there might be air conditioning


    I do love that they managed to do it exactly their way, and even keep it all a secret for a full 4 hours, which nowadays is near impossible. Love that there were no leaks and their families heard it the way they should - with a phone call directly from William. I don't even bother watching the "coverage" of what this so-called expert and that says will happen next (or the matter of AC!), but this is not a bad source of ongoing actual facts - What Kate Wore that many of us already follow for the fashions is doing a live blog right now.

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Havering-atte-Bower
    Posts
    3,481
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by taf2002 View Post
    From the last thread:

    Quote Originally Posted by heckles
    Eh, what the Americans have branded as frigid is what most of the British consider serenity. Hopefully her big break-out number will be handing over the baton to William.
    The queen will hand over to Charles when they pry the baton out of her cold dead hands.
    She's a queen, not a frigging bandleader! If they have to pry anything out of her cold, dead hands, it will be a scepter, not a baton!


  13. #33

    Join Date
    May 2002
    Age
    51
    Posts
    7,515
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    59298
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post



    The funniest entertainment yesterday was watching the news channels trying to string "it's a boy!" out into hours and hours of endless coverage. My favourite was news reports speculating on what might be in Kate's hospital room, and then wondering if there might be air conditioning
    The most eye rolling to me was a British twit (one of the "experts" on Royalty, no less) on CNN saying that Kate must be relieved it's a boy. She's done her duty to the throne. What is this, the middle ages? Has she taken a Biology class or a Current events class? Hello, new succession law in place.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    4,747
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by taf2002 View Post
    From the last thread:



    The queen will hand over to Charles when they pry the baton out of her cold dead hands. If abdicating was her plan she would have done it years ago. I think she's trying to beat the record.

    BTW I don't consider her frigid, I consider her stately & regal.
    I don't think she is trying to beat a record. She is merely living. It isn't like she is being sustained on life support by royal decree until the day she out-reigns Victoria. Abdication due to age or infirmity has never been the tradition in Britain. And the abdication of her uncle was a traumatic event for her family. She sees her vows as the monarch as a lifelong duty and is not going to walk away from that.

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,717
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by skipaway View Post
    The most eye rolling to me was a British twit (one of the "experts" on Royalty, no less) on CNN saying that Kate must be relieved it's a boy. She's done her duty to the throne. What is this, the middle ages? Has she taken a Biology class or a Current events class? Hello, new succession law in place.
    Perhaps the so-called expert confused the UK with Japan, where only males can inherit the throne?

    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post


    I think that's a great suggestion.
    We were hoping for a girl who would be named after various awesome European royals: Princess Maxima Victoria Mette-Marit Mary of Cambridge

  16. #36
    From the Bloc
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    California, I wish
    Posts
    17,324
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    10728
    Quote Originally Posted by PDilemma View Post
    She sees her vows as the monarch as a lifelong duty and is not going to walk away from that.
    Exactly - it is her duty to her country and her people. As she gets older we are seeing her not only prepare for the future of the monarchy with Charles and William, but also for her own increasing age and inability to do as much as she once did. Look at the way she sent the family out on a worldwide tour for her Jubilee, and the way she is so clearly putting Camilla, Kate and Harry forward, ahead of Andrew, Edward and Anne. I think she will never abdicate, but rather as she can no longer perform all her duties, give Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry increasing responsibilities. Same thing a smart corporation would do as its founder ages - put the next generation of leaders in place now, give them the experience, make sure they are well established within the company and with key stakeholders (in this case, the people of Britain) well in advance.

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Close to Normal, IL
    Posts
    1,715
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    And just as a thought in response to a post above, I think people are fascinated about Kate and Will and their marriage and children not just because they're royals, but because it's history. Some day William will be King and later on, so will his son. These things go down in the history books and people like to be able to say, "I remember when that happened".

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Ravenclaw Common Room
    Posts
    2,002
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I vote for HRH Prince Albus Percival Wulfric Brian Dumbledore of Cambridge.

  19. #39

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Driving the Han Yan Fan Van
    Posts
    9,167
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    32946
    QE II rocks. So, how close is she to Victoria's record? Victoria was 1837-1901, correct, for 65 years if my math is right? Elizabeth became queen in 1952, so it's been 61 years, roughly, so far. I admire her sense of humor and the fact that she stubbornly just keeps on going.

    (BTW: Can anyone PM me an answer: Why did Vicky go to the throne and not her uncles when their dad died? With all the over the newest Windsor possibly being a girl and the change in law, well??? Confused.)
    Last edited by LilJen; 07-23-2013 at 05:51 PM.
    BARK LESS. WAG MORE.

  20. #40
    Corgi Wrangler
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Not Wearing Enough Sparkles
    Posts
    6,454
    vCash
    510
    Rep Power
    5546
    Quote Originally Posted by Lanie View Post
    I can't see them using James because of Edward's son James, or else I'd be rooting for that. I'm thinking they might think outside the box a little and go with something not used often like Alexander (name of a few kings of Scotland, for example)... George is just so blah.
    I can see very specifically NOT using the names of the pre-Hanoverian kings of Scotland, unless they're deliberately trying to pander to the Scottish separatists. James VIII/II was the "King Across the Water" opposed to George I and that got ugly. Remember the Scottish kings are only related through a daughter of James VI/I and the current monarchs are technically German imports. OTOH, George was the reigning name of HMQ's father and I doubt they'd want to use his family name as "Albert" isn't very popular these days...

    I can see unless they scream the Diana/Middleton connections up street and down alley using "Francis" being called pandering to Catholics what with the sitting Pope being Francis, though it might be a nice nod given the changes in the laws about that....

Page 2 of 51 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •