U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-02-2015, 03:20 PM
 
Location: Portlandia "burbs"
10,236 posts, read 13,520,511 times
Reputation: 25856

Advertisements

I am happy for them and wish them the best.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-02-2015, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Wonderland
40,904 posts, read 32,658,014 times
Reputation: 57027
That baby is beautiful! I usually enjoy the media coverage of the royal family.

It's nice to see a happy, healthy couple with healthy kids.

Not sure about anyone else, but whenever one of my friends has a new baby or grandbaby, the social media coverage is pretty extensive among our circle of friends. And I'm even HAPPIER when one of them has a beautiful new baby, or marriage, or when I feel that my friends are in happy relationships and marriages based on love and mutual respect. So it doesn't bother me at all to see a more famous example of what I would hope for any of my kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 03:25 PM
 
10,392 posts, read 7,472,821 times
Reputation: 18311
I love that little, but growing family! Congratulations to the parents. Good job, mama. Long live the Queen!

(looking forward to the name, too!!)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 03:56 PM
 
38,084 posts, read 15,294,447 times
Reputation: 16811
I think they recently passed a new law in the UK where a girl can now be considered the "spare". So Kate has performed her royal duty.

It's come a long way since the days of the Tudors when Henry VIII chopped off Ann Boylin's head for failing to produce a male child. Ironically it was the daughter of that Union, Elizabeth I, that became the most famous of his kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles>Little Rock>Houston>Little Rock
6,488 posts, read 6,598,773 times
Reputation: 17327
She is a cutie pie! Yay, babies! Boo, mean people.

(I didn't even know she was pregnant again.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 05:10 PM
 
1,385 posts, read 1,145,048 times
Reputation: 1706
While the preferred situation was a male heir during the time of the Tudors obviously females could become the monarch. Contrary to what leftist-feminists would like us now to believe, the "problem" with female rulers was not because all of the evil patriarchal males considered women less capable of ruling (women did after all serve as regents), rather it had to do with potential husbands (possibly from foreign ruling houses) grasping for, and usurping power. I believe the recently changed laws regarding succession had more to do with preventing Catholics from getting into power, and in part had to do with the problems that arose with "Bloody" Mary, and came about under the Hanoverians. Of course now it's not PC but this still didn't prevent two long-reigning female monarchs from taking the throne, Victoria and Elizabeth II. The law might also have been changed long ago if not for the fact that Elizabeth II reigned long enough for her first-born son, Charles, to then only have two sons. Had the first child been a girl I doubt that even in the 80s they would have said "well, let's keep trying until we get a boy". The laws would have been changed to allow the girl to be next in line for the throne asap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
I think they recently passed a new law in the UK where a girl can now be considered the "spare". So Kate has performed her royal duty.

It's come a long way since the days of the Tudors when Henry VIII chopped off Ann Boylin's head for failing to produce a male child. Ironically it was the daughter of that Union, Elizabeth I, that became the most famous of his kids.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Upstate NY
30,407 posts, read 9,086,867 times
Reputation: 28951
Quote:
Originally Posted by WaldoKitty View Post
I think they recently passed a new law in the UK where a girl can now be considered the "spare". So Kate has performed her royal duty.

It's come a long way since the days of the Tudors when Henry VIII chopped off Ann Boylin's head for failing to produce a male child. Ironically it was the daughter of that Union, Elizabeth I, that became the most famous of his kids.

1. Their "royal duties" reflect an antiquated past; they're merely public leeches.

2. It's a good thing we're not in medieval times, or Diana's head would have rolled long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 05:32 PM
 
9,454 posts, read 15,015,271 times
Reputation: 15409
Quote:
Originally Posted by catdad7x View Post
In a way I feel a bit sad for this child. Because of the family she was born into, and the media obsession with the royal family, she will not have much of a normal life. Better than growing up in poverty though.

I can think of worse fates than being born a princess! At least she won't have to worry about finding a job at MCD, like my kids!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 05:44 PM
Status: "Bountiful pine needle harvest" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Near Manito
19,273 posts, read 20,151,367 times
Reputation: 13358
It's nice to read about a little girl being born instead of being artificially created a la Bruce Jenner. I mean, I've got nothing against --- uh, the Jenneroid. It can't help how it feels.

But must we be incessantly exposed to that smarmy alien countenance in every media source 24/7? Better by far to be reminded of the nobility of our species and culture with the royal birth -- even if royalty itself is little more than an amusing anachronism.

After all, anachronisms trump androgyny every time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-02-2015, 06:06 PM
 
Location: The analog world
15,572 posts, read 8,742,257 times
Reputation: 20895
Quote:
Originally Posted by apexgds View Post
George's full name contains a nod to the Queen. His second name, Alexander, is the masculine form of Queen Elizabeth's second name, Alexandra. I guess they had trouble coming up with a masculine form of Elizabeth.
As a second or third name, sure, but I don't think they'll choose it as her first name. But I could be wrong. We'll see!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top