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.
"Anchor Baby" takes on a whole new meaning with the birth of this royal. Meghan has secured her place in "the firm", for better or worse, and given the reports of her high maintenance antics with "the help", and apparent friction within the family, I'll go with worse. Harry's officially a beat down man.
Wow.
If you ever want to change your user name, do consider "Sour Puss".
Don't be too certain of the baby's birthplace quite yet- the source you cited got their info. from "The Daily Mail", who in turn cited an "unnamed source".
The DM is noted for sensationalism and rumor-mongering, though they do publish great photos, often well ahead of the rest. Their articles often include considerable inaccuracy and incorrect surmise. In this case, they were fairly cautious and qualified their claim, using a lot of "It is believed", and "It is said.."s in their article, one of around ten about the new baby.
I'd bet 50-50 as to whether the birthplace was Frogmore Cottage or a hospital. The first is what the new parents wanted, but the latter would make sense, considering Meghan's age and that this was her first child and about a week overdue. There are also rumors that she had a Caesarian, which obviously would require a hospital, as would inducing labor.
None of which makes any significant difference - the baby is here, safe and sound and healthy, and his parents are over the moon, in Harry's words. How and where he arrived is insignificant, compared to that good outcome.
The Royals stick with the same names used throughout history.
As in Charles, Edward, Andrew, Henry (Harry), William.
Right, though I think we can safely eliminate "Percival" and "Egbert" this time. Maybe "Edgar" as well.
I think "Alexander" is a safe bet to appear somewhere in the baby's string of three or more given names. It would honor the queen, whose full name is "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary". "Philip" is a good bet, too, though it is highly unlikely to be the first of the given names.
As for the third name...who knows?? Some have suggested "James" as a strong contender, but there is already a grandson named James - Prince Edward's young son, so it won't be the first given name, more than likely. The family given names on Meghan's side don't sound very regal, unfortunately - if she and her father were not estranged, "Thomas" would be a perfectly good choice, but under the circumstances - it's out.
Right, though I think we can safely eliminate "Percival" and "Egbert" this time. Maybe "Edgar" as well.
I think "Alexander" is a safe bet to appear somewhere in the baby's string of three or more given names. It would honor the queen, whose full name is "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary". "Philip" is a good bet, too, though it is highly unlikely to be the first of the given names.
As for the third name...who knows?? Some have suggested "James" as a strong contender, but there is already a grandson named James - Prince Edward's young son, so it won't be the first given name, more than likely. The family given names on Meghan's side don't sound very regal, unfortunately - if she and her father were not estranged, "Thomas" would be a perfectly good choice, but under the circumstances - it's out.
It's interesting the names the Royal's dig up from history. How about Eugenie for Prince Andrew's girl? There is no doubt the child's name will have historical connections.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,678,989 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by English Dave
It's interesting the names the Royal's dig up from history. How about Eugenie for Prince Andrew's girl? There is no doubt the child's name will have historical connections.
So, sadly, Nipsie is out.......
Dave, Nipsey Russell came first, so would fit the history theme better. If they come up with a Julius in the mix, they'll be calling him Nipsey.
My sister is hoping for Arthur. She keeps hoping that will hit the jackpot with a royal. Her daughter-in-law dug that up for my sister's first grandchild. Prince Arthur was Henry VIII's older brother, after all.
Dave, Nipsey Russell came first, so would fit the history theme better. If they come up with a Julius in the mix, they'll be calling him Nipsey.
My sister is hoping for Arthur. She keeps hoping that will hit the jackpot with a royal. Her daughter-in-law dug that up for my sister's first grandchild. Prince Arthur was Henry VIII's older brother, after all.
"Anchor Baby" takes on a whole new meaning with the birth of this royal. Meghan has secured her place in "the firm", for better or worse, and given the reports of her high maintenance antics with "the help", and apparent friction within the family, I'll go with worse. Harry's officially a beat down man.
If beat down is what that man looked like when announcing the birth of his child and how proud he was of his wife, I can’t imagine what true happiness and confidence looks like. He absolutely adores that woman, and now their child.
Anyway, congrats to them. I’ve seen the name Spencer Alexander or Alexander Dorian (the second name being a tribute to her mother) being thrown around. These would certainly be better than the typical names used for the royal children ie Edward, James, Henry etc.,
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.
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.
