Princess Kate is in labor with baby 3!!!

[Imzadi]

Some events have weakened the public resolve to maintain the monarchy, but Elizabeth's continued steadiness has allowed the monarchy to survive thus far. IMO Charles is cut from a different cloth and things might change if he takes the throne.

Yes, this is why Elizabeth will not turn over the crown to Charles until she dies. And why she is so quickly and eagerly welcoming Meghan into the family & allowing her to do public Royal events even before their marriage. On the news yesterday, they showed a celebration event for the Queen's birthday at 92. She could barely raise her hand to wave to everyone. And in the past, she barely moved that hand even when she could wave. Yesterday was less than that.

But she knows they need to make the monarchy "relevant" in some way, to earn their keep and the taxpayers dollars. It won't be with Charles & Camilla. That leaky ship has long sailed & sunk. So, even when Charles ascends to the crown, it will be Will & Kate and now Harry & Meghan and all their children will be the ones who can & will make being Royal fresh & exciting and bring in money for the economy, and attention on social media to social causes that people wouldn't hear about otherwise - earning their keep.

Every time Meghan wears a new outfit, it sells out in a matter of hours. (As what happened when Diana did the same thing.) Meghan's brought new focus on British, Canadian & Australian fashion designers. Meanwhile, Kate is holding the line that RE-wearing the same outfits and showing being more frugal is also a good thing. And they are always attending some charity event that gets posted to social media.

 

[cabanafrau]

Yes, this is why Elizabeth will not turn over the crown to Charles until she dies. And why she is so quickly and eagerly welcoming Meghan into the family & allowing her to do public Royal events even before their marriage. On the news yesterday, they showed a celebration event for the Queen's birthday at 92. She could barely raise her hand to wave to everyone. And in the past, she barely moved that hand even when she could wave. Yesterday was less than that.

But she knows they need to make the monarchy "relevant" in some way, to earn their keep and the taxpayers dollars. It won't be with Charles & Camilla. That leaky ship has long sailed & sunk. So, even when Charles ascends to the crown, it will be Will & Kate and now Harry & Meghan and all their children will be the ones who can & will make being Royal fresh & exciting and bring in money for the economy, and attention on social media to social causes that people wouldn't hear about otherwise - earning their keep.

Every time Meghan wears a new outfit, it sells out in a matter of hours. (As what happened when Diana did the same thing.) Meghan's brought new focus on British, Canadian & Australian fashion designers. Meanwhile, Kate is holding the line that RE-wearing the same outfits and showing being more frugal is also a good thing. And they are always attending some charity event that gets posted to social media.

It seems to me that in the sense of being determined to have his way in certain matters Charles is quite similar to his great uncle. I think that when it comes to certain areas Charles will be unable to set aside what he thinks and what he wants to happen and accept that the country, its people and elected leaders are pursuing a different course. It seems Charles may be very knowledgeable of matters which he deems of importance, while at the same time very out of touch with those who don't lead wealthy and aristocratic lives and therefore have a different baseline for priorities. I personally don't expect for it to take very long before a couple of skirmishes take place and the public sentiment to turn very much against Charles and the monarchy. It will not help matters if his views cut against members of the Commonwealth who don't really support the idea of leadership being a matter of heredity in the first place. That would be particularly detrimental to post Brexit England.

 

[Mermaid02]

Why all the hate for the name Albert? I don't think it's any worse than George... and it's a nod to both the Queen's father and Prince Albert.... I think it would be a lovely moniker for the monarchy.

 

[Mermaid02]

It seems to me that in the sense of being determined to have his way in certain matters Charles is quite similar to his great uncle. I think that when it comes to certain areas Charles will be unable to set aside what he thinks and what he wants to happen and accept that the country, its people and elected leaders are pursuing a different course. It seems Charles may be very knowledgeable of matters which he deems of importance, while at the same time very out of touch with those who don't lead wealthy and aristocratic lives and therefore have a different baseline for priorities. I personally don't expect for it to take very long before a couple of skirmishes take place and the public sentiment to turn very much against Charles and the monarchy. It will not help matters if his views cut against members of the Commonwealth who don't really support the idea of leadership being a matter of heredity in the first place. That would be particularly detrimental to post Brexit England.

I agree and I think some have made the comparison of Charles and Camilla with the Duke and Wallis.

 

[cabanafrau]

Why all the hate for the name Albert? I don't think it's any worse than George... and it's a nod to both the Queen's father and Prince Albert.... I think it would be a lovely moniker for the monarchy.

For the monarchy, wonderful. For a child today, I'm not so sure. The likelihood of this child being a monarch seems beyond small.

 

[Imzadi]

These two pics were posted together. It's of Kate honoring Diana again, at presenting the new baby to the public. She had done it with George, wearing a similar polka-dot dress Diana wore when she presented Will, and yesterday, she wore an outfit very clearly like the one Diana wore with Harry.

 

[Mermaid02]

For the monarchy, wonderful. For a child today, I'm not so sure. The likelihood of this child being a monarch seems beyond small.

I don't think it's any worse than George or Harry. Let's face it, being a member of the Royal family is a little different than living in small town America and going to your local elementary school.

 

[EMom]

His name was Edward. However, I looked it up, and within the family he went by David (one of his 6 other names!) Didn’t know that. But so what?

Without knowing a lot of the details, I think it’s quite chivalrous that he gave up the throne to be with the woman he loved. Ironically, an American divorcee, which is exactly what Prince Harry is doing (though he’s not the direct heir of course). Anyway, I was just thinking that St. David is the patron saint of Wales, to which they have a connection and I happen to like the name. But we shall see.

Glad to hear mother and baby are doing well. I bet George and Charlotte were excited to meet their little brother.

There was nothing chivalrous about David/Edward. He was a selfish man, extremely susceptible to flattery, and wanted all of the perks of being king with none of the responsibilities. He had the emotional maturity of a 12 year old, at best. He was ultimately an embarrassment and a terrible disappointment to the royal family.

Since they knew him as David, I cannot imagine saddling the new baby with the name of a man who failed his family, duty, and country in every way. The “he gave up the throne for the woman he would love forever” is a myth. It wasn’t a happy marriage, in part because they soon both realized their fantasies about what would happen and the reality of what actually did happen were two very different things. Since he was never very good at dealing with reality like an adult and she failed to get the title and status she had aimed for, both were deflated. Except for being handsome and charming, he had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

His abdication at first seemed to threaten the monarchy, but in the end, may have saved it. He would’ve been a complete failure as a king. The impact of him reigning during WWII, considering how easily he was played by Hitler, could have had disastrous consequences. He had no sense of duty, merely wanting what he wanted when he wanted it. The country was better off without him.

 

[Mizzoufan]

someone suggested the name Spencer out of respect of Diana's family. I could go for that.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I love the names Albert, George, Harry, Arthur, etc.

Makes me wonder what the naysayers favorite names are.

 

[MaryLovesPoohBear]

A while back, someone on the DIS said she always calls her DD Amy even though her real name is Amelia and that she never calls her Amelia except when she's scolding her. I had asked why didn't she just name her Amy, if they already knew they'd always call her that. She got really upset with me. Apparently, "Amy" is just a nickname like "Liz" or "Beth" is for Elizabeth? I didn't know. I always thought Amy was a full name like Anne is.


(And if YOU are the poster who got mad at me before, I STILL think Amy is a lovely name and can be a full name. But, what do I know. )

I LOVE Amy for a girls name.

 

[Mermaid02]

There was nothing chivalrous about David/Edward. He was a selfish man, extremely susceptible to flattery, and wanted all of the perks of being king with none of the responsibilities. He had the emotional maturity of a 12 year old, at best. He was ultimately an embarrassment and a terrible disappointment to the royal family.

Since they knew him as David, I cannot imagine saddling the new baby with the name of a man who failed his family, duty, and country in every way. The “he gave up the throne for the woman he would love forever” is a myth. It wasn’t a happy marriage, in part because they soon both realized their fantasies about what would happen and the reality of what actually did happen were two very different things. Since he was never very good at dealing with reality like an adult and she failed to get the title and status she had aimed for, both were deflated. Except for being handsome and charming, he had no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

His abdication at first seemed to threaten the monarchy, but in the end, may have saved it. He would’ve been a complete failure as a king. The impact of him reigning during WWII, considering how easily he was played by Hitler, could have had disastrous consequences. He had no sense of duty, merely wanting what he wanted when he wanted it. The country was better off without him.

Agreed x1000

 

[Mermaid02]

someone suggested the name Spencer out of respect of Diana's family. I could for that.

I like this- but I think it is too trendy for the royal family as a first name. William and Kate have given the other 2 children very traditional names, I expect this little boy will also have a very traditional name.

 

[EMom]

A while back, someone on the DIS said she always calls her DD Amy even though her real name is Amelia and that she never calls her Amelia except when she's scolding her. I had asked why didn't she just name her Amy, if they already knew they'd always call her that. She got really upset with me. Apparently, "Amy" is just a nickname like "Liz" or "Beth" is for Elizabeth? I didn't know. I always thought Amy was a full name like Anne is.


(And if YOU are the poster who got mad at me before, I STILL think Amy is a lovely name and can be a full name. But, what do I know. )

I've known many females named Amy who were just AMY. It wasn't a nickname for anything, but was their actual name. It is not always short for Amelia or Amanda. All the Amelias I have known were Amelia, not Amy.

 

[TheIncredibles!]

"Prince Albert" just makes me giggle when I read it. I would hope all things considered that they'd avoid that for this child... lol

 

[cabanafrau]

I love the names Albert, George, Harry, Arthur, etc.

Makes me wonder what the naysayers favorite names are.

What do you call those who like the names? People who disagree with you get a label?

For the record, I said I don't care for Albert or Arthur and prefer John.

 

[RedAngie]

I no longer think of tobacco in a can when I hear "Prince Albert," but rather a male body piercing.

 

[Liberty Belle]

What do you call those who like the names? People who disagree with you get a label?

For the record, I said I don't care for Albert or Arthur and prefer John.

What? I was just curious what their favorites are.

Are you talking about "naysayers?" I simply meant people who were saying no to Albert and Arthur, etc. I wasn't placing a label on anyone. I guess I would call the people who like them, "fans?"

 

[Jennasis]

I've known many females named Amy who were just AMY. It wasn't a nickname for anything, but was their actual name. It is not always short for Amelia or Amanda. All the Amelias I have known were Amelia, not Amy.

Agreed. I know several. Including one in my family.

 

[JaneBanks]

I have a cousin named Amelia but she only goes by Amy.

The top 100 baby names in England aren't has "trendy" as the ones here in the States. If the baby is named Arthur, he really wouldn't be out of place since Arthur was the #28 name in 2017.